Having a long thought on System,strategies, method..it came to this conclusion..MY GRAIL CANNOT BE YOUR GRAIL..each of us have our own character,personality,discipline,patience and Bank roll :)
Very good point Seykid,
I'm "all in" for the "personal grail" concept.
Some people dismiss very successful systems for others for this very reason. They can't make it work with the personal set of actuals they face at the casino, but that doesn't mean it can't work for others and their very particular.
What to do then when looking for an universally winning system?
One possibility is to look for the most common traits across all actuals and try to exploit that, but we have to remember:
"What roulette doesn't spin you in a year, is spun twice a night for someone else"
In this random game, we have to learn and cope with that fact, and focus on adaptative strategies, based on what is currently happening in front of our eyes (situational awareness).
Regards.
Victor
By the way I also like this saying:
"A single system can't fit all situations but in all situations there's a system that fits"
;)
QuoteMY GRAIL CANNOT BE YOUR GRAIL
I disagree. What you're saying is that there can be no such thing as a system which works for everyone. If there is ANY system which works for
someone (consistently), then it must also work for others, don't you agree? to disagree is to assert that we are all at the mercy of pure luck, but then if that were the case no-one would ever win consistently - and they do.
There has to be some "invariant" (some unchanging principle) on which any winning method is based (my opinion). The AP's have one - it's called physics. What do the rest of us have?
It's
not just a combination of patience, discipline, MM etc. These, while necessary, are not sufficient.
Spot on Tangram, I concur.
Quote from: VLSroulette on December 27, 2009, 10:57:09 AM
By the way I also like this saying:
"A single system can't fit all situations but in all situations there's a system that fits"
Nice saying Victor.
If you are aware of
each different possible situation and its corresponding "system", then combine all these into your own global 'system' of situational awareness (not one that is aware of and adaptive to just one or two types of situations as systems typically are), then you'd definitely do better.
Also I agree with the immediately-above posters. However, after having paraphrased all that more than a few times myself, I am beginning to think that there may be more "degrees of freedom" remaining to be explored here... beyond the one, overall way to pursue each of the possible ends/means wrt roulette. Are we spending to much time trying to convince ourselves of something instead of also trying to turn over some different "stones"? (Lateral thought is as important as longitudinal; and when one stops, eventually so must the other.)
About the AP's, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the overwhelming impression I've got over the last year from some of these sites is that that is more about trying for some "smug sort of an unreasonable edge over the house"... "boot-strap" communities based on perpetuating each others' interpretations of the quasi, non-mainstream fields of "physics", etc. And most of whose "resident experts" turn out only to be uncouth and pecuniary site-owners (and their props), sellers, et al.
"the overwhelming impression I've got over the last year from some of these sites is that that is more about trying for some "smug sort of an unreasonable edge over the house"... "boot-strap" communities based on perpetuating each others' interpretations of the quasi, non-mainstream fields of "physics", etc. And most of whose "resident experts" turn out only to be uncouth and pecuniary site-owners (and their props), sellers, et al." >>> :clapping:
Very good point Seykid,
I'm "all in" for the "personal grail" concept.
Some people dismiss very successful systems for others for this very reason. They can't make it work with the personal set of actuals they face at the casino, but that doesn't mean it can't work for others and their very particular. >>>>>>>>>> I agree 100%, well said sir. :thumbsup: Ken
If we dont have the proper means,mentality it doesn't mean it doesn't work..I know a lot of players against outside bets,yet people are leaving casinos richer playing outside bets,so if your system works stick to it..if it fails 10000 spins test but you profit every 100 spins you play real money good for you.
I'm sure Ken (Mr. J) wouldn't dismiss one of his profitable systems just because someone in India ran it through a computer simulation and failed ;)
There is no personal grail concept. It's wishful thinking. A systems either wins or it doesn't. If it won't stand the test of time and returns results that aren't significant, then it isn't the grail. Duh
Quote from: Number SixA systems either wins or it doesn't.
Exactly. Surely this is obvious?
Wishful thinking is right. Systems are shared, some report good profits, others disaster. On the strength of that some then infer that "the holy grail is the player", choosing to ignore the rather obvious fact that it's a cr*p system. This point of view is quite handy, because it then gives you a convenient excuse to not work harder at developing a successful method.
If a system wins or loses on the strength of
who is playing it, what does that say about such a system? As Herb is always pointing out, personal qualities such as discipline and patience should be assumed of any player, but they don't in themselves confer any advantage.
So there are no good or bad systems? only good or bad players?
You can't separate a system from a player like that. It's not as though roulette is a skill like juggling, where complex hand to eye coordination and control is needed. It comes down to how you select your bets, that's all.
Quote from: VLSrouletteI'm sure Ken (Mr. J) wouldn't dismiss one of his profitable systems just because someone in India ran it through a computer simulation and failed
Victor,
This is more a statement about Ken rather than any of his systems (
not to be taken as a criticism btw). We all have different tolerances for risk, and Ken's may be higher than most.
If all systems are personal, what would be the point of sharing it, or doing any testing at all?
Quote from: Tangram link=topic=13766. msg90554#msg90554 date=1261927106
There has to be some "invariant" (some unchanging principle) on which any winning method is based (my opinion). The AP's have one - it's called physics. What do the rest of us have?
We lesser mortals have Mathematics. .
Physics is merely a footnote on page 42 of the Book of Mathematics.
No More Bets,
I like your reply. Welcome to the forum. :)
Quote from: Tangram on December 28, 2009, 11:22:15 AM
Victor,
This is more a statement about Ken rather than any of his systems (not to be taken as a criticism btw). We all have difference tolerances for risk, and Ken's may be higher than most.
If all systems are personal, what would be the point of sharing it, or doing any testing at all?
I rephrase,
"[...]systems profitable TO HIM" :)
Quote from: Tangram on December 28, 2009, 11:22:15 AM
If all systems are personal, what would be the point of sharing it, or doing any testing at all?
What I exposed above:
Quote from: VLSroulette on December 27, 2009, 10:56:27 AM
One possibility is to look for the most common traits across all actuals and try to exploit that
For instance, I can tell you the "Jump" from last column/dozen spun is a pretty consistent event across all roulette wheels, given there are two out of three possibilities for it to "jump" versus only one out of three for it to "stay" at the same dozen/column, this means more w's in a timeline, this an universal trait I'm sure.
But yet I'm open for an specific roulette wheel to have a deviation on the "Dozen repeat" event, at that particular wheel.
I'm also open to a person playing across different wheels and casinos having a deviation on HIS own set of personally experienced actuals that only him is able to exploit.
Both of those events that are only exploitable by the few do not discard the overall events that can still be used by the many.
The point of sharing is helping each other find "our way" for playing the game, since two or more people can share similarities at their experienced numerical streams which can be dealt in a likewise manner across the sets of actuals.
For instance, I'm Venezuela-based and Lanky is in Australia and we both do see and have exploited the very same Lw patterns.
"One man's meat another man's poison" that's the title of the thread, and in my opinion it is okay to expose and explore methods/systems and it is the duty of each person to test accordingly in their own actuals for only sticking to what works for him or her personally, which may be one of the system exposed/shared by a fellow member (meat) or be just another "poison", but testing on their actuals is what will tell.
I like to see testing systems like looking at the "buffet" prior having a meal, you only have what you really like to eat and are free to dismiss everything else :)
Victor
Quote from: VLSroulette
I rephrase,
"[...]systems profitable TO HIM" :)
How can a system be profitable to one person only? If a system is a true winner it should apply on a universal scale, ie it should work for everyone. The problem is, only very few people actually know what they're up against. They try to brute force their way through negative fluctuation by using progressions. It's medieval and demonstrates a critical lack of mathematical knowledge. Systems are designed for and suited to only one random state, be it depending on repeating numbers, chops of dozens, whatever. If the sought-after state appears and remains suspended in time, then the system will win. If the state changes, the system loses. Randomness has a myriad states and a system will only hold its own against one of them. Ultimately that's why they all fail. Bet selection needs to be flexible and reactive to the current state. Absolutely nothing else works.
"How can a system be profitable to one person only? "
Hello dear Six, may I ask you another question:
"How can a person have an unique set of experienced actuals" ;)
Since we all experience different casinos, different wheels and different playing timeframes, each gambler is a world my friend, each gambler is a world...
By the way, please re-read my former post mate :).
I'm not discarding the "universal winning system" (I talked about common traits for all samples), but I'm not discarding either some person silently milking a system regardless of it being tagged as a loser by the world.
Quote from: Tangram on December 28, 2009, 12:49:42 PM
No More Bets,
I like your reply. Welcome to the forum. :)
Yes, nice reply...
Out of curiosity, didn't our old friend dyksexlic sometimes sign off with, "no more bets"?
I seem to remember someone like her did...
Oh well, back on topic please.
-----------------------------------------------
In a nutshell,
All systems win, until they lose.
-----------------------------------------------
So it's how you deal with the losses that might save your "meat" from spoiling - I keep mine in the freezer... :spiteful:
Personally, I'm not interested in playing with another man's meat.
Quote from: Number Six on December 28, 2009, 01:31:46 PM
How can a system be profitable to one person only? If a system is a true winner it should apply on a universal scale, ie it should work for everyone. The problem is, only very few people actually know what they're up against. They try to brute force their way through negative fluctuation by using progressions. It's medieval and demonstrates a critical lack of mathematical knowledge. Systems are designed for and suited to only one random state, be it depending on repeating numbers, chops of dozens, whatever. If the sought-after state appears and remains suspended in time, then the system will win. If the state changes, the system loses. Randomness has a myriad states and a system will only hold its own against one of them. Ultimately that's why they all fail. Bet selection needs to be flexible and reactive to the current state. Absolutely nothing else works.
Very astute point... losing big isn't very different from eventually losing all bit by bit. Ie, if the outcomes over the long-run are fairly-even, better bet each of the possible oucomes rather than the same one, over and over. The latter shall (certainly) "even out" to the vig (for the house), over the long-run; whereas the former will at least allow for the possibility ((only)) of matching a lot, or a few, of the outcomes... to win big, or lose big. ((There are some truly-reactive logical strategies, but which i will not further strive to outline in this forum.))
In my previous reply in this thread, i neglected to mention another AP-type problem i came across at some of the bj-only sites. The symbolically-cryptic/excessive (pure) math, which just has no practicality for anyone "out in the field".
Quote from: Number Six link=topic=13766. msg90642#msg90642 date=1262017906
The problem is, only very few people actually know what they're up against. They try to brute force their way through negative fluctuation by using progressions. It's medieval and demonstrates a critical lack of mathematical knowledge.
Amen to that brother.
It's just like my Math Professor used to say -
"Aerodynamically, the foolish bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the dumble bee doesn't know any better, so she just goes on flying anyway. "
Quote from: No More Bets on December 28, 2009, 09:39:13 PM
Amen to that brother.
It's just like my Math Professor used to say -
"Aerodynamically, the foolish bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the dumble bee doesn't know any better, so she just goes on flying anyway. "
That's not entirely true...
The bumble bee (bombus) achieves flight by beating its wings faster than any other insect, and beats them over a wider aperture than any other insect. These two conditions allow the humble bumble bee to compensate for his disadvantage... similar to the way I play roulette, actually... hence my nick.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi499.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr351%2Fskakus%2Favatar_2016.gif&hash=ffe2829eff5bf50e91a4c8b5bcc71ad8e1ce9322)
Here,Here to Number Six post..Hamlet could not have spoken better on the subject..I was so moved i reread the post 666 times..
Indeed finding our own way to lead the way is the way to go.
Quote from: Davey-JonesPersonally, I'm not interested in playing with another man's meat.
:lol:
Quote from: spining7 on December 29, 2009, 07:05:17 AM
"unique actuals"? Could you elaborate.
Hello dear Spining7,
There's not much to elaborate regarding the unique set of actuals each gambler experiences on his/her own.
We all play on different casinos, different tables, different times, hence our very own stream of experienced real-money bets is different (I am only taking in consideration real-money bets, just not to get in problems ;)).
It would be very very VERY weird to see two gamblers experience the exact same set of numbers.
This concept of personals actuals has been exploited from ages ago, reminds of the players who "do the homework" at home by analyzing their data considering only a big joined session.
Some do have the thinking of: "no matter where the spins are from; as long as the source is random, the distribution will be the same" (I.e. series of 1 outnumbering series of 2 at the even chances, more "Dozen jumps" than staying, deviations hovering at 3 SD, etc. etc. etc.) so if you are of that thought, then you would have no problem in applying the same strategies you would apply in a session to that multi-session stream that fits the same.
By the way, the closer person I know who does like this is my ex-dealer friend -he lives one block ahead from my house-. He analyzes the most delay in events like "How many times dozen X shows and doesn't repeat" and so on (pure gamblers' fallacy) and he has been winning by adding more steps (or waiting) the longer the skips.
He has been betting considering all his spins for some years now. For one of his approaches he uses a 10-step single-dozen progression and waits for his signal -I.e. dozen 1 has the most shows without repeating (to form a series of 2+) at 14 at his samples, he would then wait 5 times for this event not to happen and then enters each time the dozen shows, betting on it to appear again, covering zero. I've seen him go to the bold extremes of his progression plenty of times. When something goes beyond his progression, he adds more wait, if he waited for 5 times without the event showing, he would wait for 6 times now and so on.
Three days ago we went to the local casino and he won as usual with his logically flawed methodologies.
We go regularly to the casino on the weekends together and it's been a long time since he lost a progression. Last week we went to another state and played and it took him 7 hours straight to achieve his win goal.
He DOES extrapolate actuals from one wheel to another successfully(!) and he does win his goal plenty of times; when not, it is usually because of time. So much waiting makes him look like "The thinker" ;D
[attachimg=#]
By now, he only bets the automated wheels as at regular dealer roulette the pitboss complains about him skipping so many spins, and is always embarrased with the "Are you going to color-up sir?" question. :biggrin:
well i have it past problems with actuals becouse i didnt see before what i see it now but in a fact we deal with pure randomnes what can be your advantage orr disadvantage i was take advantage i think i was tryit on diferent wheels difernt numbers and everywhere it is the same becouse it is random which is easy understandable if we know what to lookingfore i just experienced with this couple days im quiet omg having something under nose and dont see it well i do nno :smile:
Quote from: VLSroulette on December 29, 2009, 12:02:28 PMHe analyzes the most delay in events like "How many times dozen X shows and doesn't repeat" and so on (pure gamblers' fallacy) and he has been winning by adding more steps (or waiting) the longer the skips.
He has been betting considering all his spins for some years now. For one of his approaches he uses a 10-step single-dozen progression and waits for his signal -I.e. dozen 1 has the most shows without repeating (to form a series of 2+) at 14 at his samples, he would then wait 5 times for this event not to happen and then enters each time the dozen shows, betting on it to appear again, covering zero. I've seen him go to the bold extremes of his progression plenty of times. When something goes beyond his progression, he adds more wait, if he waited for 5 times without the event showing, he would wait for 6 times now and so on.
Perhaps the "gambler's fallacy" is no more an absolute concept than any other?
Also i have claimed for some time that there are small yields of utility and theory over the longer-run random "streams"... but only sofaras the variance of the "reasonably-expected" mean (graph of the outcomes); not of the higher-order variances occurring before that.
And there's no harm in tightening the betting-requirements at the higher levels... where that is possible over the short-run.