Since roulette can't be beaten................

[Bayes]

Look in my previous post and you will I never suggested this. I am trying to say that no roulette wheel is random. If the scatter is not in a predictable fashion, you are just best to seek another wheel.

I think one reason why there are so many arguments around this subject is that there is no agreed understanding about what "random" means. It's a tricky concept and there's a long history of disputes about the interpretation of random. To me it seems clear that "random" is not a property of the wheel (or any object) in the sense that it "has" that property in the same way that it has the property of being round or having 37 pockets, because "random" only means something in relation to knowledge. The wheel will still have 37 pockets even if I've never seen it, but it's meaningless to say it's "random" without referring to something I have in relation to the wheel, it's not simply about the wheel itself.

If I try to predict where the ball will land and I can't do any better than pure chance (in other words if my results conform to the normal distribution), then I say the wheel is random, but if I do better than chance I say it isn't random. Furthermore, someone else (who maybe has a roulette computer) might be able to make better predictions than I do so in that sense the wheel is less random to them. But if random is something objective, something which belongs to the wheel, as it were, then it should have the same degree of randomness for everyone, which it clearly doesn't. That's why it seems nonsense to me when Spike and Gizmo talk about "reading random", because it's just a contradiction in terms. To say something is random means that you're admitting you don't have any knowledge or understanding of how or why the phenomena occurs, so to say that you can "read random" means "I have knowledge and understanding of something of which I have no knowledge and understanding" - ie: gibberish. 

Similarly, you saying that if the "scatter is not predictable" and yet insisting that the wheel is, nevertheless, not random seems to me to be the same kind of meaningless statement. Why not just say, in those situations where the scatter is unpredictable, that the wheel is random?

[ReDsQuaD]

Bayes, i thnk you need to do some proper research into why roulette is not random. I am getting bored of repeating my self over and over again.

If the ball scatter does not appear to be predictable, you simply just have to do more spins. No matter what though, there is always predictable behaviour, its just going to take even longer to find it.. But again, you are just best to seek an easier wheel to beat.

I would not feel comfortable taking loads and loads of data to establish the main variable's to have an edge on that wheel, mainly because by the time I am finished and have the data I need to start betting, the conditions could of changed, ie the ball. This is not conmen but of course it can happen.

[crackers]

Bayes - " To say something is random means that you're admitting you don't have any knowledge or understanding of how or why the phenomena occurs, so to say that you can "read random" means "I have knowledge and understanding of something of which I have no knowledge and understanding" - ie: gibberish."

"Reading Randomness" is a metaphore, an acceptable form of communication.

It would work as well as reading features or reading form. Others have debated
whether or not that randomness has form or if it has features. The number one
topic of a type of form or feature of randomness is the pattern. That is a long
debated topic outside the world of gambling. It is a big task taking on the world
with accusations of it conspiring to commit gibberish. Go ahead Bayes.

[Bayes]

Bayes, I thnk you need to do some proper research into why roulette is not random. I am getting bored of repeating my self over and over again.

If the ball scatter does not appear to be predictable, you simply just have to do more spins. No matter what though, there is always predictable behaviour, its just going to take even longer to find it.. But again, you are just best to seek an easier wheel to beat.

I would not feel comfortable taking loads and loads of data to establish the main variable's to have an edge on that wheel, mainly because by the time I am finished and have the data I need to start betting, the conditions could of changed, ie the ball. This is not conmen but of course it can happen.

No, you're missing the point. It's not about doing more research, and it's a cop-out to say that you just need more data if the current data is inconclusive. The fact that the conditions might have changed means you can never be certain that the conditions won't change when you're betting, there is no guarantee that the current nonrandom state of the wheel won't change at any time, which is just to say that the wheel is in fact, random.  I'm not saying that there aren't conditions where you can be pretty certain the nonrandomness will continue, but those conditions only arise in situations where the wheel is biased. To say that bias isn't necessary in order to get an edge is just absurd. To use one of your favourite phrases, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Bayes]

"Reading Randomness" is a metaphore, an acceptable form of communication.

It would work as well as reading features or reading form.

Ok, well maybe I'm nit-picking, but that's the philosopher in me. 

"reading form", I like that.

[crackers]

"reading form", I like that.

It's  not mine. Some other man's comment.

[cheese]

To use one of your favourite phrases, you don't know what you're talking about.

The first (and only) thing to keep in mind when reading
a post by RedSquash is he's a fricking kid, he's been looking at roulette for a really short
amount of time.

[cheese]

To say something is random means that you're admitting you don't have any knowledge or understanding of how or why the phenomena occurs

This is something we discussed on GG years ago. The problem lies in the interpretation of what random is. There are degrees of random. The purest form we know of comes from decaying radioactive material. That form of random is unreadable, its gibberish. The random we get from a roulette wheel is still random, but its not pure, its diluted. What a computer RNG produces is crap, I don't know what it is, but its not random.

Random is random is too broad a statement. Gold is gold is too broad a statement also. Gold in its natural state varies a lot in purity. A better statement would be, there's gold, and then there's gold. You can't lump all random together as being the same. Pure random is unreadable, watered down random like a coin flip or a roulette wheel is readable, and psuedo random from a computer is just that, psuedo, fake. I don't think we can produce a device that would provide pure random results. They would be useless in gaming anyway.

[ReDsQuaD]

No, you're missing the point. It's not about doing more research, and it's a cop-out to say that you just need more data if the current data is inconclusive. The fact that the conditions might have changed means you can never be certain that the conditions won't change when you're betting, there is no guarantee that the current nonrandom state of the wheel won't change at any time, which is just to say that the wheel is in fact, random.  I'm not saying that there aren't conditions where you can be pretty certain the nonrandomness will continue, but those conditions only arise in situations where the wheel is biased. To say that bias isn't necessary in order to get an edge is just absurd. To use one of your favourite phrases, you don't know what you're talking about.

With respect, this is true. Again you just confirmed it.

Do you not understand that Bias and VB are two different variants? You do not need a biased wheel to produce predictions. How hard is to understand this? f**k. Its quite rare you will even find biased wheels any more.

Bayes awsner me this. Simply, why do you need a biased wheel to use VB?. There totally different things  If you don't believe me, ask Steve. Because I cant be bothered to keep arguing with you.

A vls member just messaged me and advised me to give up as people will never change there ways of thinking. I think I agree with him.

"your flogging a dead horse lol

some people will never ever change there way of thinking" Indeed this is correct.

[ReDsQuaD]

The first (and only) thing to keep in mind when reading
a post by RedSquash is he's a fricking kid, he's been looking at roulette for a really short
amount of time

Hey bro, I thought I was on your ignore list? I smell anger as I destroyed you in front of of everyone here

And that's true, I have been looking at roulette for a short time (2 years), does that not ring alarm bells ? I know what I am talking about where as you are as clueless a born baby and spent your entire life on this random nonsense.

I think most people who view this topic, can make up their own mind to who is correct. My statements are valid and factual. The evidence is out there if you do some digging. Unlike me, cheese is talking about beating roulette with randomness.. How could you possibly beat something that has random outcomes?

Ahh yeh, and this is the guy who thinks a biased wheel is random 

Haha 

[Bayes]

Do you not understand that Bias and VB are two different variants? You do not need a biased wheel to produce predictions. How hard is to understand this? f**k. Its quite rare you will even find biased wheels any more.

Bayes awsner me this. Simply, why do you need a biased wheel to use VB?. There totally different things  If you don't believe me, ask Steve. Because I cant be bothered to keep arguing with you.

Are you sure you're not a shill for Steve? c'mon, gimme a break. Any VB player with any credibility (Kelly, Snowman, Laurance Scott) will confirm what I've said. I'm not interested in a pissing contest, and I've said my piece, so like you say, let readers make up their own minds.

You tried the martingale and lost, then decided to go down the so-called 'Advantage Play' route. Great, I'm happy for you, but the fact that you lost using the martingale doesn't give you much credibility for pronouncing on other forms of play. Remember, even your hero Steve hasn't dismissed the possibility which YOU are so willing to write off as nonsense.

How could you possibly beat something that has random outcomes?

So now the outcomes are random? Thanks, I knew you'd come around. 

[ReDsQuaD]

Are you sure you're not a shill for Steve? c'mon, gimme a break. Any VB player with any credibility (Kelly, Snowman, Laurance Scott) will confirm what I've said. I'm not interested in a pissing contest, and I've said my piece, so like you say, let readers make up their own minds.

No, I don't think they would mate. Its about dominant diamond combinations which affect the scatter. Do you actually think to beat a wheel with VB we must locate a wheel bias? Good luck with that. To locate a wheel bias, it can take thousands of spins... To apply VB we do not need thousand of spins.

You tried the martingale and lost, then decided to go down the so-called 'Advantage Play' route. Great, I'm happy for you, but the fact that you lost using the martingale doesn't give you much credibility for pronouncing on other forms of play. Remember, even your hero Steve hasn't dismissed the possibility which YOU are so willing to write off as nonsense.

Oh so your theory is, we are not aloud to learn from our mistakes? Sorry but if we cant learn from mistakes, then how can we move up in life?

So now the outcomes are random? Thanks, I knew you'd come around. 

[Steve]

wtf is going on here? the thread is full of incorrect statements and misconceptions.

To clarify:

* Roulette is only a negative expectation game.... if your predictions are not more accurate than random. Advantage play specifically increases accuracy of prediction. It is called advantage play by the casinos because it gives an advantage. I keep saying it: you can only beat roulette by increasing the accuracy of predictions.

* It is rubbish that roulette cant be beaten. It is a friggen little wheel and ball, subject to physics. Are some saying where the ball will land cant be predicted with any accuracy better than random? Just because you dont know how to do something doesnt mean it isnt being done. Roulette was first beaten a long time ago, and is still being beaten today although it is getting harder - but still not too hard.

* Of course there are still biased wheels around. Every wheel has some bias, but it is usually:

i. not strong enough by itself to overcome the house edge
ii. only present under specific conditions

You will never, never find a perfectly "random" wheel. Download nolinks.genuinewinner.com/bias.exe

I give free bias methods and software away because almost none of my players use bias analysis. It works but is time consuming and impractical, and there are much better ways to beat roulette.

As for snowman, he is more a poser than the professional he wants people to believe. At best, has-been. I know literally hundreds of professional players, and almost none focus on bias analysis. It is just a comparatively poor way to play roulette these days.

* You cant beat roulette with outside bets unless you find a way to actually increase accuracy of predictions. Progression doesnt do it. Progression is nothing more than seperate and different size bets. It is all explained at How to Beat Roulette | How to Win at Roulette Facts and Fiction - a player may think he has an outside betting strategy to beat roulette, but really has just been lucky. Try testing bets on red/black for 10,000 spins. Sometimes you will have profited. Not many people play over 10,000 spins in their life. So a player may have profited in their roulette "career", yet still have a worthless system. If 100 other people applied the same system, 55 would have made an overall loss, and 45 would have made an overall profit. Thats how the house edge works. Does it mean the 45 people had a working system? No, not at all.


* Very rarely do wheels have no significant diamonds dominant. Almost every wheel has a dominant diamond. Most have two clear dominant diamonds. If you have a wheel of your own, even near new, you may know how difficult it is to have no dominant diamonds. Anyone that says otherwise has not checked for themselves. Nothing is ever random. Dominant diamonds are an effect of variables and conditions. They are not random and inevitably lead to "not random" spin results.

* Outside bets generally do not correlate to wheel bias, unless the situation is the biased numbers are mostly black and you bet on black.

* Most people know about the ritz team, the pelayo family etc etc. There is much, much more that goes on that isnt in the media. Roulette is being beaten every day. It is really not that difficult.... unless you bet outside. It is more a matter of finding suitable conditions, and applying appropriate methods to exploit what is predictable.... with at least enough accuracy to overcome the house edge.

* The examples redsquad provided indicate there is reasonablke proof that the wheels involved did produce predictable spins. But the same techniques may not work on another wheels, true. But a good roulette computer may have no problem to beat this other wheel. Why would it be possible?... because the spin is not random. Whatever the technology or technique used, beating roulette is only possible when spins are not random. And they never are.

* Nobody but the ritz team know what they used. Based on what I know, it could have easily been roulette computers or vb. Clearly some form of ballistics. It is not the wheels that makes life harder for vb players now. It is the security and awareness of staff. vb dfor modern conditions requires a lot of skill and intense wheel glaring. But most of all, some transparent behavior. It is more about being covert than beating a wheel in casino conditions, that is assuming you have the skill and knowledge for a given wheel. VB is usually a very basic thing. Start with the free tutorial below:


        Free Professional Roulette System That Works | The Real Thing
      - YouTube
 

But dealing with modern wheels and conditions involves more.

What I did at the public demo nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv was using a relatively basic ballistic approach with something extra. A very skilled vb player could replicate the results, but team play would be required to have a hope of staying covert. A good computer has many advantages to stay covert. I mean a computer beyond basic nonsense. A new or basic vb player would struggle to get any accuracy unless they got predictions very late.

When the ball lands in pocket 36, there is a reason?

The ball lands where it does because of variables and physical factors like ball speed, ball track, ball material, gravity etc etc. To say an event is "random" is saying the ball lands where it does for no reason at all. It is a simpleton comment to merely say "oh roulette is just random". NOTHING is ever random.

With the modern wheels its virtually impossible now to
make a milliseconds guess that makes an accurate difference.

Roulette doesnt work that way. Roulette deals with FULL REVOLUTIONS. For example, the ball can be released at two different speeds: 700ms and 720ms. Thats a 20ms difference. But the ball will still complete say 15 revolutions before it hits a dominant diamond, has the momentum knocked out of it, then the ball falls and bounces with reasonable consistency. So with a ballistic method like vb, do you need to be very accurate with timings? Hell no. You only need to know how many revolutions to go. There is much more to it, but vb is much simpler than most people think. It is not difficult to get an edge. Especially if the wheel has the classic signs of predictable behavior that is familiar to experienced players, you can almost beat the wheel blindfolded. I mean if you said NOW based on ball sound, and someone just told you what number was under a specific diamond at that time, really you could do it blindfolded.

The ball has an equal chance of landing in each slot on a fair wheel.

This is incorrect. The ball will land where it does because of the variables. If you can predict the variables and relate it to outcomes, you can predict future outcomes. You cant know or predict all variables, but you dont need to just to overcome a small house edge.

In any case it's confusing to say that something is random, because random depends on what you know. Something which seems random to the average punter may not be to an expert wheel clocker.

What one player may perceive as random is not random at all. We see the variance in knowledge affect opinions on every forum. But many people refuse to accept that they dont know everything, and may be wrong. But when people openly admit mistakes and accept the truth, it gains respect because most people dont have the balls to admit they arent gods.

I have more to say but it would probably be going in circles. Money talks, BS walks. I know many people who earn a living from roulette, including myself. We only use methods that are ultimately ballistic / physics in nature. I know many others who have tried to beat roulette other ways, but none that have succeeded except for people who clearly have been lucky, as proper testing of their system reveals. This is not to say beating roulette with outside bets is not possible, just that it is unlikely that anyone has achieved it yet. Certainly nobody has won the challenge at $100k RNG Roulette Challenge but there have been numerous takers, but they never get past the first proper testing part.

ps - everyone can disagree but please keep it civil. for now this is a runaway thread with a few breaches. mods please if you see further breaches from anyone from this point on, please apply temporary bans. the involved members are mostly long term so everyone should know better.

[Mr J]

Wow Steve, very nice post. I wasn't sure what to do with this mess, I even thought about locking it. Lots of arguing but......not too bad for now.

Ken

[crackers]

Anyway There are no successful VB players without the use of a very well built computer device to assist them.

I was hoping Steve would have seen this. I don't think that anyone can be an effective VB
player these days. It's too difficult. Please elaborate if you think it is a widespread skill.

[crackers]

-