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

[Bayes]

No no, I think you mean 50% of the worlds regions computer play is legal.

This is what Steve says in his FAQ -

19. What percentage of wheels can be beaten?

There is a difference between a wheel beating beatable, and being practical to beat. Virtually every wheel (95%) is beatable with one or another with the techniques I teach you. Very rarely will a wheel be "completely unbeatable". However, it is prudent to focus on wheels that are easiest to beat. Generally about 20-50% of wheels are both beatable and 'practical' to beat. An example of what may make a wheel "impractical" to beat is perhaps the wheel may only spin once every 5 minutes, which is too infrequent for practical play.

[ReDsQuaD]

Ok thanks but what you stated was this : " but even Steve doesn't claim that every wheel can be beaten. If I remember rightly it's somewhere below 50%"

This is invalid, its 95% not 50% which is why i knew that percentage was incorrect.

[ReDsQuaD]

Mission accomplished. Who says I wanted to answer you. I wanted you
to claim what you just ended up claiming. Now you have to own it.

Thanks

You could not answer even if you wanted too 

[Bayes]

Ok thanks but what you stated was this : " but even Steve doesn't claim that every wheel can be beaten. If I remember rightly it's somewhere below 50%"

This is invalid, its 95% not 50% which is why I knew that percentage was incorrect.

Well, I don't see the point in making the distinction between wheels which are 'beatable' and those which are 'practical' to beat. If it isn't practical to beat then it's as good as random, so the 95% figure is purely theoretical. You could say the same thing about dice in the game of Craps. Which side lands uppermost on dice is just as much dependent on physics as where the ball ends up in a roulette wheel, so perhaps Craps isn't a random game either?

The fact is, roulette is extremely sensitive to initial conditions, it's chaotic, so 'in practice' you can't get good predictions without there being significant bias present in the wheel, and Casinos work very hard to eliminate such bias or at least prevent the punters from taking any advantage of it.

[ReDsQuaD]

Well, I don't see the point in making the distinction between wheels which are 'beatable' and those which are 'practical' to beat. If it isn't practical to beat then it's as good as random, so the 95% figure is purely theoretical. You could say the same thing about dice in the game of Craps. Which side lands uppermost on dice is just as much dependent on physics as where the ball ends up in a roulette wheel, so perhaps Craps isn't a random game either?

The fact is, roulette is extremely sensitive to initial conditions, it's chaotic, so 'in practice' you can't get good predictions without there being significant bias present in the wheel, and Casinos work very hard to eliminate such bias or at least prevent the punters from taking any advantage of it.

If a wheel is not practical to beat, it does not mean its random. No roulette wheel in the world is random.

A non practical wheel could be a non practical wheel for many reasons. One example could be, if you are using the Lite computer. The lite computer cannot possibly deal with all wheel conditions, where as the Uber can with the advanced settings.

Also, to produce predictions on a wheel, there does not have to be any form of bias... As long as there predictable ball scatter, that's all that matters. Visual ballistics and Bias are totally different variants.

[crackers]

You could not answer even if you wanted too 

Wow, son of Snowman or son of Sam. When will VB die?

That's right. It died two years ago.
Randomness Effectiveness Versus Visual Ballistics Effectiveness in General Board - Page 1

[Bayes]

No roulette wheel in the world is random.

So let me get this right, you're saying you could walk up to ANY roulette wheel in the world and be confident you can predict better than expectation where the ball will land? 

What about the 5% of wheels that are NOT beatable, according to Steve?

[crackers]

Just look at where  ReD  was just two years ago.

" Hi. My name is james, I am from the UK. About june last year I fell into the most commonly known scam online (The famous martinfale) as I like to call it, When I realised it you would finally hit 22 reds and reaching the table max, then realised that Roulette was over. I could not give up so I moved on ..."

[ReDsQuaD]

So let me get this right, you're saying you could walk up to ANY roulette wheel in the world and be confident you can predict better than expectation where the ball will land? 

What about the 5% of wheels that are NOT beatable, according to Steve?

Look in my previous post and you will see 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.

[TwoCatSam]

Red

Thank you for your well-written explanation.  It gives me food for thought.

Sam

[ReDsQuaD]

Wow, son of Snowman or son of Sam. When will VB die?

That's right. It died two years ago.
Randomness Effectiveness Versus Visual Ballistics Effectiveness in General Board - Page 1

Your brain died two years ago.

Just look at where  ReD  was just two years ago.

" Hi. My name is james, I am from the UK. About june last year I fell into the most commonly known scam online (The famous martinfale) as I like to call it, When I realised it you would finally hit 22 reds and reaching the table max, then realised that Roulette was over. I could not give up so I moved on ..."

I stand by 100% what I said.

You are making out that it takes years and years to discover how to beat roulette. Maybe for you, trouble is you still haven't

Is it really that hard to believe that 2 years ago I was clueless, and now...  In fact it took 1 year to learn what I know and there is still a lot more to learn. Remember I was going to be one of your students but wanted to charge me for your time which is fair enough. I am glad I never gave you a penny as it would of been a total waste 

[crackers]

WOW! LUCKED OUT ON THAT ONE.
So you are an expert AP guy in just one year are you? The real experts in the heyday
of that expertise took years to acquire that level. You must really be gifted.

Is it really that hard to believe that 2 years ago I was clueless, and now...  In fact it took 1 year to learn what I know and there is still a lot more to learn. Remember I was going to be one of your students but wanted to charge me for your time which is fair enough. I am glad I never gave you a penny as it would of been a total waste 

[ReDsQuaD]

WOW! LUCKED OUT ON THAT ONE.
So you are an expert AP guy in just one year are you? The real experts in the heyday
of that expertise took years to acquire that level. You must really be gifted.

Negative. You need to be able to accept criticism and to learn from your mistakes and accept what people tell you, digg deeper to find out for your self weather its true or not. If you cannot be bothered to do this and just chuck the info back in their face, then just expect to go round in circles.

There are a lot of short sighted people in this world, just ignorant and refuse to listen. I've said it before and ill say it again, i'm glad i am not one of them.

[ReDsQuaD]

Red

Thank you for your well-written explanation.  It gives me food for thought.

Sam

You are most welcome Sam.

[crackers]

Negative. You need to be able to accept criticism and to learn from your mistakes and accept what people tell you, digg deeper to find out for your self weather its true or not. If you cannot be bothered to do this and just chuck the info back in their face, then just expect to go round in circles.

There are a lot of short sighted people in this world, just ignorant and refuse to listen. I've said it before and ill say it again, I'm glad I am not one of them.

Thanks for the laugh. Does pot kettle black ever come into it?

[crackers]

-