General rules for possible HG

[GogoCro]

Can we establish some general rules for best systems or even "so called" posible HG?
Then we can evaluate each and every system what comes up.
Those rules must be followed to the letter.

[Number Six]

No mechanical triggers or bet selection. No progressions. Everything contradictory will get bulldozed by the stochastic process. Have fun.

[Mr J]

Those ideas are fine except for the "opinion" parts. Ken

[Number Six]

I'm sure you mean "except". I'll put that down to a loss of composure, caused when you realised that a flat betting winning method is the only type of HG worth looking for.

[Mr J]

lol, Funny, I usually spell quite well. One I would like to add BUT its only my opinion. Betting on an EVENT that WILL happen.   Ken

[hoper35]

Can we establish some general rules for best systems or even "so called" posible HG?
Then we can evaluate each and every system what comes up.
Those rules must be followed to the letter.

I don't think there are many rules that you'll get us all to agree on.


Ron.

[shadowman]

The first thing that I would look for is "why" should it work, or what is the main premise behind the idea.  all too frequently people come up with ideas,  but no clue about the reason it should work.

eg.  "wait for 6 reds in a row and bet the opposite, using a martingale progression, and stop at a streak of ten reds"

this is not a good enough way to state the idea.   If they were to say that the notion is that you dont see many streaks longer than 10 so by betting opposite after 6 in a row and stoppin at ten, there should be a hit most of the time.  this would be better.   It makes a good starting point for discussion.  you can see where they are coming from, what their problem is , how they got to their solution,  and their solution to the problem.

Others can then weigh in with their opinions,  with the posters central hypothesis in the back of their minds,  and explain why it will or will not work.

Herb used to get knocked all of the time for ruining threads,  but if you look at his initial questions you can see that he always asked the same question - "why should it work"  and more often than not people couldnt explain the answer,  which made the whole proposal baseless, as if plucking the idea out of the air without even thinking as to what it was about or what the problem was.

A brief introduction can sometimes go a long way,  get the premise sorted and you might be on your way to a winning method. 

[Number Six]

haha, nice one Shadowman. It's obviously obvious. The one thing people always ignore: logic. A logical method can hardly be disputed, where everything else...well, can, and usually is.

[Phishalot]

When reading boards on any gambling methods, I always look for the bankroll requirement to be stated. I find that methods posted without bankroll requirements, to not be well thought out.

Since I am not a believer of the HG. I assume that all methods will slam into a wall sooner or later. When I look at methods to try, I am looking for Bankroll, Stop loss, and win goals.

As the best method of winning is to use your head and get out of the casino, when you are a head.

IE: I Baccarat on an average shoe (a shoe that is running close to the %s of the game) At some time you will be up 5 to 6 units. This is the time to get out, if you stay the game will take it back. Are there shoes that will give you 10 units or more. Yes there is, but there are also shoes that will take 10 units or more.

[hoper35]

Stating a bankroll and a stop loss is fine for me.  I wouldn't be stating a stop win, though.  That depends on several things, how easy the wins are coming, how many tables are running, how tired I am, how busy the tables get, the dealers, maybe even how hungry I get.

I don't think you should limit your wins, just your losses.

Ron.

[Tangram]

The first thing that I would look for is "why" should it work, or what is the main premise behind the idea.  all too frequently people come up with ideas,  but no clue about the reason it should work.

While I agree with you 100% on this, I'm not of the opinion that if a plausible reason isn't given, then the method should be dumped. If you want to immediately trash any and every system which is proposed, then appeal to the maths (as Herb always does) which says that no method which isn't based on physics can consistently win because of the house edge.  Surely though, the bottom line is whether a long-term profit is made, and if someone demonstrates that this can be done (and others can replicate that success), then does it really matter whether they can spell out exactly why it works? After all, there are many things in science and nature which are poorly understood, but that doesn't stop us taking advantage of them in the absence of a satisfying theory.

Take Mr Chips' Signum system for example. I don't think there would be many here who would argue that he has given a very logical explanation for why it should work (no offence intended Richard), and because it uses past spins as a guide to future spins, it's fair game to be "Herbed" (gambler's fallacy, nonsense, you are an idiot, etc..).

If  results seem to show that there is some merit in a method, then isn't it at least worth investigating, regardless of whether there's a logical explanation? Of course, the results have to pass certain tests to ensure that it isn't just luck.

[TwoCatSam]

At some time you will be up 5 to 6 units.

Phishalot

I strongly disagree with this statement.  Permit me some latitude...........

While running Super Roulette, using a certain system, I did a study to determine if this was true.  The system does not matter.  I was running Super Roulette on "virtual" which means it  places no bets, but keeps an internal score of how the system is doing.  The casino does not know which number would beat you as no bets are placed, so it cannot beat you intentionally.  My original plan is to see if the virtual and real match.  I digress.......

I have heard for years that "at some point you will be up" and I can testify and show graphs to the effect it just isn't so.  There are times when you go up one unit and then straight down to infinity.  There are times when you just lose your initial bet and go down from there.  You are never up.

I am using this robot just as you people use RX, as a tool to learn what happens over time.  As I said, the system does not matter.  As we know, all systems lose, so why should it?  Patterns, waves, trams--whatever you want to call them--can be used to your advantage.  BOT OR NO BOT.  

Hope this is received well...

Sam

[Mr Chips]

While I agree with you 100% on this, I'm not of the opinion that if a plausible reason isn't given, then the method should be dumped. If you want to immediately trash any and every system which is proposed, then appeal to the maths (as Herb always does) which says that no method which isn't based on physics can consistently win because of the house edge.  Surely though, the bottom line is whether a long-term profit is made, and if someone demonstrates that this can be done (and others can replicate that success), then does it really matter whether they can spell out exactly why it works? After all, there are many things in science and nature which are poorly understood, but that doesn't stop us taking advantage of them in the absence of a satisfying theory.

Take Mr Chips' Signum system for example. I don't think there would be many here who would argue that he has given a very logical explanation for why it should work (no offence intended Richard), and because it uses past spins as a guide to future spins, it's fair game to be "Herbed" (gambler's fallacy, nonsense, you are an idiot, etc..).

If  results seem to show that there is some merit in a method, then isn't it at least worth investigating, regardless of whether there's a logical explanation? Of course, the results have to pass certain tests to ensure that it isn't just luck.

Tangram,

I am not at all offended, but have you got a handle on this darn Signum thingy, perhaps you could
then come up with a logical explanation

Best Regards

Richard

[TwoCatSam]

"because it uses past spins as a guide to future spins"

Someone answer this without smoke and mirrors:  If you don't use past spins to make your decision, exactly what do you use?

You would need no marquee.  You would just walk up to the table and place your bet.  Other than relying on luck, what criteria do you use to make that bet?  Let's say the table is empty and you can't even see what Joe is betting. The dealer is just standing there with his hands folded behind his back.  Someone tell me precisely and exactly what their decision-making process is.

With the exception of those who say, "Oh, I can do it but you can't watch and I won't tell you how I do it." no one can answer this question in a logical, reasonable manner.

Or if they can, I'd love to hear it.

Sam

[Nathan Detroit]

NOTHING WORKS: Place your bets . You either win or lose. If you win you got nothing to worry about  and if you lose  hopefully the bet wasn`t  too high.

Nathan Detroit

[Nathan Detroit]

-