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

[Steve]

Crackers, I know people doing well with vb today so I know it is more than possible. In some casinos, no. In others, yes. But as a whole, on the average wheel today, you will struggle if your vb is very simplistic. And by simplistic I mean just note the reference number when the ball has X revolutions to go, then adjust offset after some sample data. Modern vb needs you to do much more. It is in the area of "too hard for the average person", but everyone has the capacity to learn and be skilled. Like I keep saying though, I'm not a fan of vb. The biggest thing is staying covert. VB behavior is a dead giveaway. If you are going to bet after ball release, just use a computer. But unless the computer is very well made, uses proper undetectable wireless etc, you may as well just use vb.

[cheese]

Crackers, I know people doing well with vb today so I know it is more than possible.

Its more popular in EUR than the States. You can make money here, but
its constant travel and you risk getting busted for being so obvious about
what you're doing. And Huxley is getting better and better about making
wheels that are almost VB proof. The pockets are a solid piece of cast aluminum
now, each pocket barely bigger than the ball.

[Steve]

It is harder to make a wheel without any predictability than to predict a wheel with reasonable accuracy. In fact it is just about impossible to make a wheel "completely" unpredictable. It can partially be done mechanically, with some auto wheels like cammegh's slingshots, and cammegh's rrc, but casinos using such technology will have reduced confidence in the integrity of the games, and ultimately casinos lose revenue this way. A casinos best defense is detection of consistent winners and dealing with each case individually. ie for a VB player, calling no more bets earlier until they start to lose or leave. But then the casino relies on staff attention and competence, and most staff are nowhere near as attentive as they need. I know casino staff that would prefer you to win and turn a blind eye to your approach provided you are discrete to the point where their willful ignorance doesnt get them in trouble.

[Bayes]

Just because you dont know how to do something doesn't mean it isnt being done.

Couldn't agree more with that. Mr J, Minibaccarat, gizmo, spike, bombus and others, are they all liars? or perhaps they're doing something you don't know how to do?

I understand you have a business and an agenda here, Steve, but it just irritates me when members trash something they clearly know very little about (and indeed, dismiss the whole thing as nonsense), and at the same assert that THEIR way is the one true path, and use very dodgy arguments to "prove" it.

It works both ways. Physics based approaches can work, but they are not the be all and end all of success in roulette. And in fact, some of your methods seem to go way beyond conventional physics. You can show that physics based methods are plausible, but there are equally plausible approaches which don't rely on physics. In neither case can it be conclusively shown that one or another approach works. The way to refute the non-physics way is to appeal to the house edge, but you can't simply bring in the fact that "roulette depends on physics" as a way to establish that a physics based approach can overcome said house edge, any more than you can use physics to justify being able to fly by flapping your arms - you're simply ignoring too many inconvenient details.

I don't have the time or inclination to continue posting in this thread, but I repeat that a lot of this arguing is just over the meanings of words and lack of clear definitions. For example, you talk about dominant diamonds and how they're necessary for VB. Well, a dominant diamond is a kind of bias, is it not? and yet you say that bias is very rare these days. So I think a lot this heat could have been avoided by defining terms.

[Steve]

Bayes:

I understand you have a business and an agenda here, Steve, but it just irritates me when members trash something they clearly know very little about (and indeed, dismiss the whole thing as nonsense), and at the same assert that THEIR way is the one true path, and use very dodgy arguments to "prove" it.

Let's make it clear that I dont give a flying **** about any agenda or profiting from this. I will always tell the truth, as it is, popular or not. To do otherwise is to degrade who I am. Take or leave that. I am dead-set serious about basic truth and dedication to it. I am not trashing anything here.

Secondly there is no "my path" here. This is not about ego. It is about simple truth. I am of course open to being proven wrong. I would welcome it because it would then mean I progressed.

Mr J, Minibaccarat, gizmo, spike, bombus and others, are they all liars? or perhaps they're doing something you don't know how to do?

No. If they claim to beat roulette consistently with outside bets and/or progression, I believe they may have profited, but that their success is more a matter of what I explained before:

You cant beat roulette with outside bets unless you find a way to actually increase accuracy of predictions. Progression doesn't 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.

Of course I could be wrong. Of course I'm human and can make mistakes. But what is more likely... they have the holy grail, or relative short term profits have been achieved which can give illusion of a working system? It is not a disrespect to them or any system players. I believe it is likely the truth.

Physics based approaches can work, but they are not the be all and end all of success in roulette

Physics is study of the universe. There is no escaping the universe. Wouldnt you agree? Physics is everything. The maths, the variables, cause and effect. There is no escaping it. You would have to be deluded if you think you can escape basic universal laws.

And in fact, some of your methods seem to go way beyond conventional physics

Then you dont know much about my methods. There is absolutely nothing voodoo about them. Just plain physics. Although it appears I may have applied it more extensively t roulette than anyone else, at least that I know of.

there are equally plausible approaches which don't rely on physics

Maybe we have different definitions of physics. To me, it is the model of the universe to explain all things. If something is against the universe and doesn't have a clear and correct mathematical foundation, it is only as valid as 1 + 1 = 5. That is why it is called fallacy.. because it is only true in the player's mind.

In neither case can it be conclusively shown that one or another approach works

Bayes, respectfully you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also dominant diamonds are not bias as per definition. Dominant diamond can and often is caused by wheel defects, but it is also caused by the wheel being on an uneven surface. Bias is more directly relating to wheel defects and resulting uneven spread of winning numbers. Will almost every wheel have a strong easily noticed bias? No. Will almost every wheel have clearly significant dominant diamonds? Yes.

Also you do NOT need dominant diamonds to achieve an edge on a roulette wheel. It is a common misconception. Mostly what a wheel without dominant diamonds means is overall scatter is less predictable, but it is more that exploitable patterns occur in a more tightly confined set of variables. For example, rotor speed ranges. APs would know it as overlap at a sweet speed.

At the end of the day, like I said, money talks, BS walks. We can agree to disagree, and it wouldnt affect whoever is correct.

[cheese]

relative short term profits have been achieved which can give illusion of a working system? It is not a disrespect to them or any system players. I believe it is likely the truth.

Thats the public explanation I try and encourage the most now,
its readily believed and makes people the most happy. And incurious.

[Bayes]

No. If they claim to beat roulette consistently with outside bets and/or progression, I believe they may have profited, but that their success is more a matter of what I explained before:

You cant beat roulette with outside bets unless you find a way to actually increase accuracy of predictions. Progression doesn't 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.

Of course I could be wrong. Of course I'm human and can make mistakes. But what is more likely... they have the holy grail, or relative short term profits have been achieved which can give illusion of a working system? It is not a disrespect to them or any system players. I believe it is likely the truth.

Steve,

With respect, this is the same old line that all the skeptics wheel out whenever something comes up against their ingrained beliefs. What it completely ignores is the fact that you can only be lucky for so long. I can't speak for the others but I know I've made many thousands of bets, and according to the maths, I should have gone broke years ago. The fact that I haven't, and am still making consistent profits, surely says something about the simplistic mathematical model which predicts that I can't possibly win in the long term? A model which doesn't account for dynamic play, awareness, intelligence, flexibility and shrewd money management, but is always fulfilled whenever you play a simple mechanical system mindlessly. 

I know, it all sounds a little lame when compared to the almighty PHYSICS, but don't forget that physics itself is a human invention (or it might be more accurate to say "discovery", since the laws of physics aren't invented), and where there's a will there's a way.

To be honest, I'm surprised that you aren't more open-minded, given that you're interested in stuff like precognition and telepathy etc, and aren't some of your methods based on ideas by Viktor Shauberger? That may not be what you call "voodoo" physics, but it's certainly well away from the mainstream views.

And here's a thought, since some of your methods don't require that you even see the wheel (as traditional VB methods do), and rely only on "patterns" (past spins) derived from variables, who's to say that some "method" players haven't tapped into some of these patterns and are unknowingly exploiting them?

[cheese]

dynamic play, awareness... flexibility

Three powerful concepts when applied to a casino
game. I think flexibility is the strongest of them.
Our natural tendency is to be rigid and learning
to be continuously flexible is a lot of work. To look
at each new spin as seperate from the others and how
it effects the unfolding game is the challenge, it
takes a lot of practice and concentration.

[Steve]

I know, it all sounds a little lame when compared to the almighty PHYSICS

Yes the almighty universe does rule all.

Bayes if what you are doing is working for you, keep doing it. I know of a few people that have been playing what I would call a definite losing system, but overall have still profited. But refer back to what I said before. And if you or these people conducted thorough testing, you may be surprised. In any event, if you really have the holy grail, see $100k RNG Roulette Challenge and consider selling it for $100k.

To be honest, I'm surprised that you aren't more open-minded, given that you're interested in stuff like precognition and telepathy etc, and aren't some of your methods based on ideas by Viktor Shauberger? That may not be what you call "voodoo" physics, but it's certainly well away from the mainstream views.

The applied concepts from Viktor are about energy interactions and how one thing affects another and another etc. It is plain physics. Far from voodoo. And I do have an open mind, but what you need to understand when someone says 1 + 1 = 5, of course I'm going to be logical about it and say "no, it doesn't.. because....". Advantage players use this kind of example often, and system players tend not to understand what we're talking about. It is not us on our high horse. It is not our way vs your way. It is plain fact that unless you increase the accuracy of predictions, progression is nothing more than separate different sized bets. And systems based on something not spinning for some time have no basis which can be verified if you test the working principle.

See How to Beat Roulette | How to Win at Roulette Facts and Fiction which explains it all in plain language.

Understand just about every professional player was once working on systems with dozens and various outside bets. It took me years to understand WHY I was beating a dead horse. I kept thinking "yeah but there's still a possibility".. I didnt understand the basic mathematics of it, and now wonder how I could have been so blind.

Anyway lets not argue about it. You have your way, I have mine. We both have profited. Good. End of story.

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

This 'popped' up on the jokes page,......................

I pulled into a town I couldn't believe still existed in 1999.

A dusty, dirt road, a little old wooden store that actually said "General Store", and that was it.

There was a little old man sitting in front of the store in a rocking chair. I said to him, "What do you folks do around here?"

He said, "We don't do nothin' but hunt n' f**k."

I said, "What do you hunt?"

He said, "Somethin' to f**k."

Brought to you by nolinks://nolinks.jokes2go.com

[bbush231]

The first thing a new Roulette player attempts to accomplish is succeeding in
finding a system that wins consistently. Most try these systems out at casinos
and they end up getting stung. The lucky ones find ways to test out these systems
outside of any chance of losing any money. This becomes a learning stage where
they learn to make use of rules that depend on triggers. This stage of learning is
continued until the person has exhausted every conceivable idea they can imagine
or find. This is a stage they must get beyond. Some give up and take on an almost
fundamentalist approach to explaining to others why they can't win, that they can't
succeed. If they continue, and that tends to be very few, then they have realised that
if they are to succeed then they are to move past the rules and triggers stage. One way
is to find a way of analyzing the current conditions. Once that is achieved they can use
playing experience to find profitable ways to take advantage of these conceivable
opportunities. Since I belong to this stage I can't say if this is a stepping stone stage
too. Discovering and making use of the  most recent conditions is a simple and basic
craft. Knowing how conditions change comes from playing experience. Knowing how
and why to attack continuing opportunities is an art form. It's a journeyman's craft. It's
nearly impossible for a beginner to master in a few weeks. You must lose real money for
years before you can master this stage. In that learning you gain the skill not to lose any
more money. Far too often many give up and declare that it is an impossible task. These
kinds of people frequent these forums year after year. They are self appointed white
knights that ride in with the goal to get others to quit just as they have. They are always
obnoxious and abusive. As long as the few of us that know differently and that never
give in to them stand our ground then these losers will always remain to be seen as losers.

Well said no one can master this game at the beginning just like no one can master any other sport or game. It takes patience and practice.

[cheese]

Well said no one can master this game at the beginning just like no one can master any other sport or game. It takes patience and practice.

Don't quote Quackers, it just encourages him
to come here and post.

[bombus]

Don't quote Quackers, it just encourages him
to come here and post.

Hahaha!

Cheese is the Devil!

[crackers]

Don't quote Quackers, it just encourages him
to come here and post.

Have you ever noticed that Sleaze never shares anything of value? Except this: he's
still all ticked off at me. When you pass him behind you will have noticed that flat-betting-only is for amateurs like him. Educated guessing and flat betting
are too basic. They don't really capitalise on obvious opportunities that exist.

[Steve]

.

and nobody takes my title of the devil, at least while I'm admin

[Steve]

-