General rules for possible HG

[hot vegas night]

HVN, I respect effort to write this, but man, why did not you open new thread in systems sections?
What have this with rules??

You maybe misunderstund.. main rules FOR any system so we can evaluate them based on that rules.
Not rules IN systems.

Thank you sir.  I thought it would fit in this thread since this system is definitely the holy grail, and the best system ever devised.

[Number Six]

To truly be able to say with confidence "I have beaten roulette", you need to overcome the house edge FLAT BETTING over a significant number of samples that will account for the ins and outs of the stochastic process. It is the bet selection that counts and the mechanics behind it. You need to know why it works. The method I'm working on now, I knew it was a rough principle which could be harnessed to beat the house egde flat betting, but until I began testing it I didn't know why it SHOULD work and wouldn't just be another slow loser.  People will say progressions are a valid tool, like Mr J, who hasn't beaten the game but apparently still wins by incremental bets.

First rule: No progressions, that is a given. If you bet anything with a progression and without a real edge, you WILL end up losing more than you win in the long run.

[iboba]

I give up!

You shouldn't Sam mate.When you solve it you are in the winning chair.

Vic.---started ok but finished wrong
.................Just returned from casinom164 spins,of which toped 66,won 42 times
flat bet only....won 60 units....when lose- 3,when win 3+..............any idea now?
.......................................................................Iboba

[GogoCro]

First rule: No progressions, that is a given. If you bet anything with a progression and without a real edge, you WILL end up losing more than you win in the long run.

Or just maybe two step progressions max?

[Mr J]

"First rule: No progressions, that is a given. If you bet anything with a progression and without a real edge, you WILL end up losing more than you win in the long run" >>> And I disagree.  Ken

[Number Six]

Mr J, yeah, I know you disagree. But the maths is on my side.
What I'm saying is, to be able to tell the world categorically that you have beaten the game, you have to have a flat betting method. It's all about recoverability and minimising the risk of ruin. You might win with progressions, but you'll never have a real edge, so you haven't got the thing cracked. I really don't want to get into a dispute about progressions, but in the first instance, the bet selection must overcome the house edge flat betting. Simple as. This is the real HG.

GogoCro, progressions are an illusion. It is the bet selection that's important. That is what makes the method a winner. Relying on progressions just means your process of deciding what to bet and when is critically flawed. If you have a flaw, nothing can iron it out.

[xman1970]

It is the bet selection that counts and the mechanics behind it. You need to know why it works. The method I'm working on now, I knew it was a rough principle which could be harnessed to beat the house egde flat betting, but until I began testing it I didn't know why it SHOULD work and wouldn't just be another slow loser.  

@No6

Now I don't expect you to reveal your way of playing or anything like that. But if you could explain the "why it should work" aspect of the above quote, I would be grateful 

BTW I agree with your flar betting comments....

[Mr J]

"But the maths is on my side" >>> But my thick wallet is on my side. Back to the definition of "EDGE" I guess. I NEVER said bet selection is not important. You talk about "math" but the TRUE math guys will say that you can not get an EDGE in ANY way, shape or form. That covers YOUR way and MY way of play. Flat or progression. I assume you are not referring to AP (cough)?  Ken

[Number Six]

Mr J, no, I'm not referring to AP.
You can get a real edge. It is possible by adapting to the random flow *splutter*

Xman, it is a principle that theoretically can overcome the house edge simply by being used to place more winning bets than losing ones on the ECs. The principle is used, basically, to forecast deviations with a very high degree of accuracy. It "should" work, meaning you should win any session, as long as the sample of numbers conforms to normal distribution. That is the beauty of it, and sounds too good to be true. Feasibly the only losses you would ever suffer would be caused by human error or some irregularity in the distribution of numbers. The principle seems solid - I have adjusted it so it's is literally impossible to make a wrong decision - though I have only just begun to test this optimum strategy and can't yet vouch for its robustness. Like Wendel, I'm making world history, hahaha. No, seriously, it's promising but it's just an idea and needs analysing thoroughly to determine whether the principle works statistically or by coincidence.

[Mr J]

"and can't yet vouch for its robustness" >>> When you CAN vouch for it (meaning, NOT today) feel free to post the rules of it so I can begin testing, thanks.  Ken

[bombus]

Ok,

so far we've got rule 1) Flat Betting...from Number Six.

And rule 2) Never Give Up... from TwoCatSam.

[Mr J]

Those aren't the only rules listed but I'm a good sport, I'll play along.  Ken

[bombus]

Seriously, this ongoing research into the roulette Holy Grail is and always has been an academic exercise.

At the end of the day, if you gave me $3000 dollars and said, "Here, take this and go to the casino and play roulette for 3 hours a day for the next 5 days", without a doubt, I would be with Mr J on this one. I'd go in there and play my favourite big fat progression system that virtually guarantees me a big fat profit over 15 hours of play. I would not go in there and try to go +1 per session, or -6 per session, or whatever.
Oh, I know the math. That's why I'd rather risk the bankroll on the progression with the big profits, rather than the up a few down a few dribble.

Of course you still need a reasonably sound working strategy.

[Mr J]

Thats what I said. I hate topics like this cause there is no 100% answer. If there was, we would all be making 700K per year. The answers are OPINIONS, nothing more.   Ken

[Number Six]

Bombus, you would only do that because it isn't your cash and probably wouldn't care if you lost it. Yeah, you'd take the risk, and you might win. If you were UNLUCKY you'd lose. That's all you've got: luck. The profit, of course, is proportionate to the size of your bet. If you played the ECs, what is wrong with aiming to win 5x$100 units in each 1 hour session? When all is said and done it doesn't matter what you decide to play, all bets equate to the same thing. Remember that Mr J is the only man in the present and in history to be a regular winner with progressions.

[Number Six]

-