I have said it 100 times before. There should be a board RULE (any message board mind you). If you say "it won't work" or anything similar....you must then post your method with ALL rules. That method must pass a test, being positive after 200 million RNG spins. What is not allowed >>> "I am an AP (cough) so those rules are null and void for me", educated guessing (Spike) and anything else that can NOT be tested.
Stop the 'ole "hiding" routine, slam others but you are not subject to the SAME guidelines. You prefer flat betting? No problem but it must also pass a test of 200 million RNG spins. Who would be left standing? No one, myself included, at least I can admit it. Ken
If that was the case wouldn't there be no forum? Can't we share ideas and opinions in peace?
And what does (cough) mean?
"If that was the case wouldn't there be no forum?" >>> I mentioned that point before and it is a good question. In peace? I agree, you would think so. Ken
A visual ballistic player can prove the effectiveness of his method by explaining or demonstrating the meaningful measurements and observations being made and/or by outcome based testing. However, it's not possible to play an RNG using visual ballistics because there is no real wheel or ball to observe.
The burden of prove is on the system player. The reason is because it's common knowledge that the game of roulette can not be beaten, since the game has a long term negative expectation. Making such a lofty claim requires absolute proof.
-Herb
"The burden of prove is on the system player"............and NOT the AP (cough). :girl_wacko:
And what proof of AP would you want? 2 million live wheel spins?
Ok, valid question. You pick the number of spins BUT the SAME rule would also apply to other mech. methods. So if you choose only 500 ACTUAL spins, SAME rule for ALL methods. What casino, where, is the tough part. Not some third world country or at "Bills Basement Casino" set-up. Ken
Some interesting points raised here.
REGARDING AP PLAY:
Clercx in the J.S. manual said that even supposed AP players could be just experiencing short term standard deviation in their favour if they were getting favourable results. I can't find any proof over a long spin sample where AP play was successful. In fact when the J.S. team got a few "so-called" AP players together, their bankrolls vanished rather rapidly in the trials that were conducted. So where is the proof? Surely there has to be some out there.
It strikes me that some AP players spend as much time on these boards as the "professional system players" do. (read into that what you will) I think a 100,000 spin sample would be prove for me from an AP player. I am not holding my breath. ;)
REGARDING SYSTEM PLAY:
If someone could prove they could stay in profit flat betting over 100,000 placed bets on single straight up numbers, then that would be good enough proof for me that they had some kind of edge. I won't hold my breath for that either :D
I suppose we will all argue about this for years to come. It all comes down to one thing.
Are YOU coming home with more money than you went to the casino with consistently, day after day, week after week, month after month. If you are then good luck to you and don't give it back.
elmo
I fully realize that I'm not perfectly adhering to your following rules, but with the latitude I seek what do you think?
"If someone could prove they could stay in profit flat betting over 100,000 placed bets on single straight up numbers, then that would be good enough proof for me that they had some kind of edge. I won't hold my breath for that either"
What if, elmo, I could show you a million RNG spins where I programmed the bot to either win 5 or lose 10 and it actually showed a profit or broke even? (Now that is using a progression to get to the 5 or lose the 10) Now what if I used another progression to get these "trots" as I call them to show a long-term profit without destroying the bankroll?
This is all in virtual play.
I have asked this question before: How much actual money would I have to earn IN REAL EUROS and how many spins would be sufficient for people to say, "This can't be just a lucky streak! There must be something behind it." And how would the populace know I was not cheating? Would anyone believe anyone on this forum? Victor? Xman? Lucky? Mattymattz?
What I'm doing is not a system. It is a method of capitalizing on the natural flow of numbers produced by the RNG. I am riding more, over twice as many right now, positive trams up to 5 than I am negative trams down to 10. The dispersion, as Victor calls it, is minimal. One can actually use a progression with limited safety.
Will it ever lose? Probably. But the fun is in the journey, not the destination!
Sam
I think that test with long spins have no real meaning.
Test with 100k trots (few 100 spins) where is set win goal/stop loss is more accurate, or two and more sets of 100k trots so we can compare within sets.
No one play long spins sessions in casino.
Gogo
@elmo >>> I like your post but its not my point "which style is better". As I stated at RF, my beef is when ONE person insults anothers method but he thinks he is not subject to the SAME overall rules. Why does that guy get a free pass and does not have to show that HIS method will pass many, many, many spins? Ken
Yes, good point Ken. I do not know answer.
Maybe that person "C" did not look at person "B" system, but have many comments on persons "A"system because read thread where is runing discuss about it.
Gogo
Sorry Ken, you ask Elmo.
ELMO !!
I agree with what you are saying Ken. If ANYONE claims to have a winning system, then where is the evidence. It is easy to hide behind AP play and then ask mechanical system players where is their proof. There are plenty of LIVE online casinos where AP players could show their stuff. I suppose the best excuse would be that the live wheels are meticulously maintained and would never be allowed to have a bias or you can't place bets after the wheel is spun (actually you can place bets for a good few seconds after the wheel is spinning at dublinbet) and that as soon as an AP player started playing, the casino would be alerted and they would change the wheel or something. ;D
In fact it seems to me that any type of advantage player would not get much playing time in at all because of having to find the right conditions and then be subject to all the countermeasures. So to make it worth the time and effort, the stakes would need to be high and this would no doubt alert the croupier and pit. I personally think a lot of it makes a good yarn the same as blackjack. I could tell you how to fly a plane but I am not a qualified pilot.
Same old topic eh Ken? :)
Back in my newbie days I was told that systems don't work. While I did not want to dismiss that possibility I wanted to believe that they do and I still had to prove it to myself. I had to spend months testing all kinds of systems, all ending with the same result.
Experience is the best teacher, and I owned that right to try and see for myself without being told what and what not to do straight from the beginning. That's why I'm not against people trying, making, testing, and playing systems. In the process of doing so you may learn a lot. Money management, discipline, randomness, probability, mathematical "laws", etc. are examples. In the end however, you find out that none of these hundreds and hundreds of so called gambling systems are capable of producing consistent long-term profits. Like a trading expert once said however: "The Holy Grail is the knowledge that a Holy Grail does not exist.", you may also learn that the closure of one door can open up another.
Most of the real AP experts that you may find, while they won't post their methods in public forums for understandable reasons, are pretty approachable and helpful in person. Someone like Herb would spend hours chatting with you and telling you what you need to know regarding the methods involved. I think that's more than generous. This is not to mention that there is good purchasable material out there explaining the methods involved. As for testing at home, there are spin video tapes and DVD's available, along with the more expensive but rewarding option of buying a real wheel for practice and testing. Although with some networking with the right people you can still get your hands on all you need to get started for free. All you need is to be serious about it and willing to put some effort into studying the right methods and testing them for yourself, not just wait for all of this to be posted in a forum. There are counter-measures being fought and there are efforts to keep certain techniques away from public access due to their ability to counter the house-edge.
In my opinion, in the real world of grown up professionals, it's not about having people prove things to you or having to prove things to people. Instead, it's about having all available options presented to you (methods, approaches, advices, etc.) and being free to make your choice, develop on your own, and prove to yourself what works and suits you and what doesn't, dismiss the latter and decide whether you're willing to invest time and effort into the former. (as a side-note, I personally find it inappropriate and very non-professional for people to try to prove that they are winning and making money, post their winnings and such, or request such information or a demonstration of it. A real professional would never do that in person let alone in a public space.)
The rest is mere sharing of opinions under various topics of discussion, and saying "a system won't work" or "progressions are useless" (while stating why one believes so) is an opinion that has the same right to exist as the one it opposes.
Let all opinions exist, and leave it to the readers to pick and explore.
/end of mod rant
"It is easy to hide behind AP play and then ask mechanical system players where is their proof." >>> BINGO! You got it sir. Ken
Ken, I just like to waffle a lot. :)
Marven, nice post.
So you are saying that AP must kept their secrets to themselves for obivius reasons..
So mehanical system players can do that also without AP players always ask prove of them!
Gogo
Marven, you said "In the end however, you find out that none of these hundreds and hundreds of so called gambling systems are capable of producing consistent long-term profits."
Do you mean the ones you tested?
Marven, you said "(as a side-note, I personally find it inappropriate and very non-professional for people to try to prove that they are winning and making money, post their winnings and such, or request such information or a demonstration of it. A real professional would never do that in person let alone in a public space"
I respect your opinion but I would consider it due dilligence on my part to garner as much information as possible like you rightly said before deciding to invest my time in any roulette research and seeking physical proof would not be considered unprofessional in my opinion.
As an example, A friend of mine was interested in purchasing an AP system which costs several thousand dollars. When my friend asked for proof, he was told there was no proof and the seller decided he did not want to deal with my friends questions and so ignored him. If I was thinking about making any kind of business investment, I would certainly be asking about the financial rewards and such like. Now granted no one is selling anything on here but time is as much (if not more) a precious commodity as money and that is why I would not regard it offensive to ask for proof if someone is outright claiming that they have a long term edge at the game of roulette.
"I personally find it inappropriate and very non-professional for people to try to prove that they are winning and making money, post their winnings and such," Marven said.
I suppose I just don't get what this forum is all about. Ken once opened a thread called "My Best Day Ever" or something like that. He told us of his biggest win, real money, real casino. I found it inspiring.
I just don't get it!
Sam
Maybe Marven needs to take a look at the see_jerek challenge thread and have a look at some of his comments there. Very strange!
So you fee that APs should just spill all and tell you about their wins too?
Of course Carol Jarecki can tell you how to fly the plane and she has the qualifications as well! :biggrin:
Quote from: GogoCro on December 07, 2009, 02:44:15 PM
Marven, nice post.
So you are saying that AP must kept their secrets to themselves for obivius reasons..
So mehanical system players can do that also without AP players always ask prove of them!
Hi Gogo,
When you post a method and claim it could be relied on professionally, I.e. it's a consistent winner, you are indeed making a HUGE claim. Most here don't know this because they don't hang around serious scientific circles, trading and business circles, etc. It is a universal fact that you can't beat a random casino game with a negative expectancy.
The ones of us (not necessarily AP's but it's often them since they tend to have more scientific leanings) who understand the "hugeness" of such claim respectfully request whether or not the author can back up his method with relevant verifiable tests. Many are sensitive to such request as they associate it with being called a liar. That is not true since this has nothing to do with emotions or accusations. You post a method that supposedly beats a casino game with random independent trials, thus challenging all rules of math as we know it today. It is your duty to back up such a claim.
It is therefore not an AP vs. system player issue. When an AP provides a method however, it is based on pure physics. He is required to explain the mechanics involved and WHY it should work. As for testing, as far as AP is concerned, it is hard to provide universal/verifiable tests due to the nature of the methods and their requirements. The person studying the method however is encouraged to test it for himself under real casino-like conditions before attempting real play.
Quote from: elmo on December 07, 2009, 02:51:58 PM
Marven, you said "In the end however, you find out that none of these hundreds and hundreds of so called gambling systems are capable of producing consistent long-term profits."
Do you mean the ones you tested?
No. I mean every mechanical roulette system that has been created since the game was invented to this day. You can't beat randomness with a set of static rules (no matter how sophisticated they are) on a fair game, let alone a game with a negative expectancy. Remember that it's not only in roulette that people have attempted to beat randomness, but also in other fields like stock market trading. These guys tried much, much more sophisticated methods and still, no mechanical trading system can beat a random market in the long run.
It is rather sad to see that a person who states such facts (Herb) is hated most here. It goes only to show how irrational and emotional gamblers can generally be.
Quote from: elmo on December 07, 2009, 03:02:39 PM
I respect your opinion but I would consider it due dilligence on my part to garner as much information as possible like you rightly said before deciding to invest my time in any roulette research and seeking physical proof would not be considered unprofessional in my opinion.
As an example, A friend of mine was interested in purchasing an AP system which costs several thousand dollars. When my friend asked for proof, he was told there was no proof and the seller decided he did not want to deal with my friends questions and so ignored him. If I was thinking about making any kind of business investment, I would certainly be asking about the financial rewards and such like. Now granted no one is selling anything on here but time is as much (if not more) a precious commodity as money and that is why I would not regard it offensive to ask for proof if someone is outright claiming that they have a long term edge at the game of roulette.
Good point Elmo.
As far as buying such systems is concerned, I personally believe no one should pay more than a few hundred dollars for an AP method. I also believe the method should come in the form of a book(s) where the author, not only explains the method, its mechanics and application, etc. but also shares his experience, offers advice and makes it possible for you to contact him with any questions you might have.
Before considering buying such material I think one has to first try to speak to other AP's and spend sometime understanding the mechanics involved and perhaps get his hand on some basic method and start practicing, see if the whole thing is suited for him and gain some knowledge on how to determine what's good and what's not before investing any penny.
PS. I think I know what seller/system you are referring to and I do not recommend it.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on December 07, 2009, 03:43:15 PM
"I personally find it inappropriate and very non-professional for people to try to prove that they are winning and making money, post their winnings and such," Marven said.
I suppose I just don't get what this forum is all about. Ken once opened a thread called "My Best Day Ever" or something like that. He told us of his biggest win, real money, real casino. I found it inspiring.
I just don't get it!
Sam
Sam,
I was merely referring to the fact that real professional AP's in my opinion don't and shouldn't post such info, or have people request that they do. That's it. :)
Quote from: elmo on December 07, 2009, 03:48:54 PM
Maybe Marven needs to take a look at the see_jerek challenge thread and have a look at some of his comments there. Very strange!
Haha, are you referring to my posts?
If so then keep in mind that:
- I've been here for a year now and my views have evolved relatively quickly, so I wouldn't recommend checking out my old posts and thinking that's what I still believe in the present day. :)
- Jerek's system was winning still winning for him, I was hand-testing it as well and it was winning for me for a while. Later on it totally tanked for him (in real play) and me (in tests). Yet it seems no one cared to post a conclusion in that thread that the system (actually it's just a huge positive progression called "Tera-TNT") fails and should be avoided. People rush to post their winnings but rarely do so when they lose. I do remember though that he repeatedly said that it is no Holy Grail, which is very true.
:thumbsup:
The general principles apply to almost all gambling games, and when they apply, they guarantee that systems cannot give the player an advantage.
To help you filter and reject systems, here are conditions which guarantee that a system is worthless.
1. Each individual bet in the game has a negative expectation. This makes any series of bets have a negative expectation.
2. There is a maximum limit to the size of any possible game. (This rules out systems like the Martingale and up as you lose.)
3. The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game.
(Note that we are talking about the "game of roulette", not the "gaming device."
4. There is a minimum allowed size for any bet. (This is necessary for the technical steps in the mathematical proof.)
Under these conditions, it is a mathematical fact that every possible gambling system is worthless in the following ways:
1. Any series of bets has a negative expectation
2. This expectation is the (negative) sum of the expectations of the individual bets.
3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
4. If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
a. be a loser
b. eventually stay a loser forever, and so never again break even;
c. eventually lose his entire bankroll, no matter how large it was.
-Please note the source "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.
----------------------------------
Prove that you can win using VB or bias
1. The gaming device is subject to wear.
2. This causes an uneven distribution of the numbers to occur in the long run.
3. Bets are allowed after the ball is spun, consequently the player can observe the position of the decaying ball in relation to the rotor in order to accurately predict where the ball is most likely to strike the spinning rotor. These predictions are enough to overcome the house edge.
4. Since the house edge can be overcome and the player can gain the edge, it remains possible for the player to win over the long run.
5. There are several documented cases of such plays and players that have won using AP methods.
a. Joseph Jaggars
b. Dr. Jareki
c. Billy Walters
d. Garcia Pelayo
e. Christian Kaisan
f. several others not mentioned.
I should cite one more source: rouletteresearch.com "Evolution of the Roulette Wheel".
George Melas is the cheif design engineer for T.C.S. Huxley and specifically mentions the reasons for improvements on certain wheels designs. Number one reason was that the wheels were at risk from visual ballistic and other AP players. The articles on this website documnets the various attacks from visual ballistic, and AP players over the years.
-Herb
Thank you for your answers Marven. I know what you are saying, everyone's game evolves (hopefully) through time.
I myself play a kind of hybrid system. (dealers signature + a dynamic approach to betting numbers) I should call it elmo's "mongrel" system :) It works for me.
Visual ballistics is totally different than bias. Do not confuse them. Visual ballistics requests an almost impossible skill of determining where the ball will fall by observation alone. Bias requires no such observation skills. It just calculates possible inaccuracies/defects of the wheel simply by analyzing past results of the wheel. Totally different approaches. If someone tells you they are expert in both, they are probably full of BS.