Ken is the only person I know who wins regularly using a progresion, because he has a huge BR and a 500 step progression. (exageration) So if everybody knows a progression can't and doesn't beat the house edge, or give you an edge, whats the point in using them? Don't they just give you the illusion of winning? Whats the point of that.
The reason I even bring it up is progressions stop people from doing any real work on finding a good bet selection. Progressions are fun and seductive and make you feel like you're really accomplishing something. They're like a drug, and just like a drug, you get addicted to them.
"progressions stop people from doing any real work on finding a good bet" >>> I'll half agree with that, I have no shame. Ken
I disagree.
I'm actually addicted to flat betting. The thrill of getting in front with no progression to bolster the bet selection is more like a drug to me. But if I need to make some serious money, then there's nothing like an aggressive progression and some guts to get the job done.
I do occasionally bet just like Mr J, and it is not like a drug at all. It is nothing but a means to an end. One attraction for me is that it is a closed game, and not open ended, meaning once a bet commences there is no deciding when to stop, or how long to play, or what plus/minus position to pull out at. There is either a win or a loss at the end of the effort. It usually pays quite handsomely as well.
It's very satisfying when you triple a bankroll and pay some bills and stuff...Ken would agree.
And progressions do come in many, many recipes, so it's a shame to throw them all into one pot.
I'm actually addicted to flat betting>>It's very satisfying when you triple a bankroll>>>nothing like an aggressive progression and some guts>>
Everything you just described is the typical emotional roller coaster all gamblers go thru. Addiction, aggression, satisfaction, all are emotional states. Is this how a normal person would describe their job? Not hardly. But is how somebody would describe an unhealthy habit. I'm just sayin... ;)
Quote from: Spike! on May 21, 2010, 02:15:01 AM
I'm actually addicted to flat betting>>It's very satisfying when you triple a bankroll>>>nothing like an aggressive progression and some guts>>
Everything you just described is the typical emotional roller coaster all gamblers go thru. Addiction, aggression, satisfaction, all are emotional states. Is this how a normal person would describe their job? Not hardly. But is how somebody would describe an unhealthy habit. I'm just sayin... ;)
Ken is the only person I know>> he has a huge>>> The reason I even bring it up>>> fun and seductive>>> just like a drug>>
Everything you just described is the typical emotional roller coaster all psychopathic stalkers go through. Is this how a normal person would describe their relationships? Not hardly. But is how somebody would describe an unhealthy fixation. I'm just sayin... ;D
Many pro gamblers drop dead in their 50's from all the stress. All that adrenaline rushing isn't good for you, it takes 20 years off your life. Doyle Brunson is 75 and still going strong. He never gets upset or excited or shows any emotion at all. In poker, he's unreadable. He says its all business to him, no emotion is needed. I love watching him play, he's very firendly and nice, and like a block of granite as far as emotions go. He's the pro's pro.
Oh boy... Ken's got competition!... :lol:
Folks and People; Friends and Neighbors
There is scarce reason to employ a progression until you have conquered dispersion. I will give my example again.
Suppose you knew--and, of course, you can't--that you would never lose more than five in a row. You might lose one or five, but never more than five. Then a Martingale would make you rich. That's because you have a dispersion of five and no more. You would never see the runs of twenty reds or evens or whatnot.
What I've always hoped to do--and this probably isn't possible--is to reduce dispersion to the occasional "run from hell" which is so rare that the normal winners overcome it and produce a profit. (Mr J's "Two's Company" may do just that.)
The reduction of dispersion is what people are seeking when they wait for X to happen four times and then bet Y.
A system which only ignores seven numbers and covers all others has very low dispersion, but when dispersion comes the cost of the Martingale is staggering.
I view the progression as a house of cards. People sit and build these darn things knowing they will crash. Others use a progression knowing it will crash. The later just costs money when it does!
I'm movin' dirt............
Sam
"progressions do come in many, many recipes, so it's a shame to throw them all into one pot" >>> I very much agree. My 'ways' of playing lumped in with a Marty......no way, IMO. Ken
Quote from: Spike! on May 21, 2010, 05:29:51 AM
Doyle Brunson is 75 and still going strong. He never gets upset or excited or shows any emotion at all. In poker, he's unreadable. He says its all business to him, no emotion is needed. I love watching him play, he's very firendly and nice, and like a block of granite as far as emotions go. He's the pro's pro.
Agreed. I love watching him play for the very same reason.
What Sam said. :)
If you do manage to control dispersion, to the extent that you don't suffer wild swings flat betting, but at the same time don't make a flat bet profit, then a progression can come in very handy.
Quote from: Bayes on May 21, 2010, 01:38:58 PM
What Sam said. :)
If you do manage to control dispersion, to the extent that you don't suffer wild swings flat betting, but at the same time don't make a flat bet profit, then a progression can come in very handy.
I also agree. It's not as easy as it seems. Of course, "xy systems" are the classical attempt at controlling variance but they will never work. Virtual games are exactly that - virtual, they have no bearing on reality. I guess a lot of people don't get it because not everyone has the ability to run long simulations, from which some (perhaps a lot) knowledge of fluctuation and long-term randomness is derived. They also demonstrate that using mechanical triggers is absolutely no different to just betting random picks on every spin.
The reduction of dispersion is what people are seeking>>
And it can only be achieved one way, good bet selection. But thats too dfficult, so everybody puts the cart before the horse and works only on progresions.
>>using mechanical triggers is absolutely no different to just betting random picks on every spin.>>
LOL! This is so true, it should be an unwritten roulette law. There will be not a whit of difference in the money won or lost using either method. Yet nobody believes it. If you don't have the edge, you lose. Its really that simple. You think any bank would loan a casino a dime if they didn't offer only games where they're guaranteed winners?
QuoteThere will be not a whit of difference in the money won or lost using either method.
Spike,
Your claim that an edge is possible in a random game rests on the distinction between so-called "mechanical" and "non-mechanical" methods of bet selection, but the mathematics makes no such distinction. Is this what you mean by the maths being "flawed", or not able to account for what actually happens in terms of "standard" probability?
Educated Idiots
Quote from: Spike! on May 21, 2010, 10:50:14 PM
There will be not a whit of difference in the money won or lost using either method. Yet nobody believes it.
I have simulated dozens and dozens of bets, systems and their variants, some up to 50k bets, some up to 100k bets. Nothing has ever survived beyond that. The best I tested beat 92,000 bets, around 300,000 spins. Through all this I came to find that every mechanical trigger is subject to pretty much the exact same degree of fluctuation. The losing streak is typically close to 5 SDs, and that will completely ruin any system and progression. These drawdowns can last hundreds or thousands of spins. The worse they are the longer they take to correct. It's not a matter of "can" I lose, it's "when" can I expect it to happen. If a mechanical trigger has the same probability of winning as a random selection, how can there be any difference? People should try to understand that systems are for fun only. For 99% of players roulette is and always will be the same type of casino game: pretty good odds offered for a rare but potentially large one-off or short-term payout. It amazes me how people like Fender can't grasp why we shoot his "holy grail" systems down. Put HG in the tread title and you get slaughtered for the sake of the gullible.
Quote from: deFault on May 22, 2010, 07:14:02 AM
Educated Idiots
Do you have an argument, or are you just a prick?
A solid bet selection combined with a well managed positive progression can be a winner. :ok:
Either Up and Pull or the Guetting progression.
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINMGS!!!
If the variance of the bet is low enough any progression would work for ever. It's like Two Cat said, if you knew you'd never lose more than 5 EC bets on the trot you could double up and you'd never lose. Rather than looking for magical "movements on the carpet", an unbustable negative progression, esoteric connections between numbers, players should be looking for the low variance bet.
Regardless of the type of progression, few would disagree......you need a solid 'bet selection' strategy to help you along. The thing that bothers me, when I see a poster have BOTH views. In one post it'll say, yes, bet selection is quite important. Then a few weeks later, same guy says it makes NO difference which number(s) you choose. To those individuals: please be consistent, choose one view. Ken
Is this what you mean by the maths being "flawed", or not able to account for what actually happens in terms of "standard" probability?>>
I never said they were flawed, I said they change when you have the edge and the casino doesn't. Its based on the best you can ever do is make random choices. Even a mechanical system does no better than random. The math in roulette assumes that no accurate guess can be made about the next outcome because every spin is independent of the last spin.
every mechanical trigger is subject to pretty much the exact same degree of fluctuation.>>>
Thats because a trigger cannot take into account the fluctuation. If it did, it would no longer be mechanical. Fluaction is what kills all games in the casino. Learn to read the fluctuation in roulette and it all of a sudden becomes your friend and not your enemy. Cutting your typical losing streak to 3-5 losses is ideal for a progresion, but at that point you don't need one, flat betting will handle it.
>>It amazes me how people like Fender can't grasp why we shoot his "holy grail" systems down.>>
They lack even the most basic understanding of how random works. People sometimes send me systems and I rarely look at them because systems can't win. There is no rhyme or reason to random, the best you can do is try and stay one spin ahead of it more than 50% of the time on the EC's. But its a lot of work, can't be explained, and is a pain in the arse to learn. If it was easy, blah blah...
Quote from: Spike! on May 22, 2010, 02:20:45 PM
every mechanical trigger is subject to pretty much the exact same degree of fluctuation.>>>
Thats because every trigger cannot take into account the fluctuation. If it did, it would no longer be mechanical. Fluaction is what kills all games in the casino. Learn to read the fluctuation in roulette and it all of a sudden becomes your friend and not your enemy. Cutting your typical losing streak to 3-5 losses is ideal for a progresion, but at that point you don't need one, flat betting will handle it.
Hi Spike,
Just wish I knew how ?
Davemd.
Just wish I knew how ?>>>
Wishing won't work. If you start today studying randomness, in a year you might be halfway there. It can't be taught, it can only be learned. Somebody who knows how can give pointers, but you need to do all the heavy lifting yourself.
Quote from: Spike! on May 22, 2010, 02:33:18 PM
Just wish I knew how ?>>>
Wishing won't work. If you start today studying randomness, in a year you might be halfway there. It can't be taught, it can only be learned. Somebody who knows how can give pointers, but you need to do all the heavy lifting yourself.
Please give me the pointers spike,
Davemd.
I just did. Study random for a year and you'll start to grasp it. Study the EC's. Most people give it an hour or two and give up.
Ok spike thank you,
Davemd.
Quote from: Mr J on May 22, 2010, 11:03:09 AM
Regardless of the type of progression, few would disagree......you need a solid 'bet selection' strategy to help you along. The thing that bothers me, when I see a poster have BOTH views. In one post it'll say, yes, bet selection is quite important. Then a few weeks later, same guy says it makes NO difference which number(s) you choose. To those individuals: please be consistent, choose one view. Ken
Mr J, what is a "solid" bet selection? And how is the bet selected?
In reality a progression system is simple: the bet doesn't matter. When you apply a progression, your net comes from the number of progressions won, not the number of bets won. So, how you select the numbers to bet, if you're using some sort of rule-based procedure, is irrelevant. Just pick random numbers, cuts time.
If you're looking at some sort of subjective bet selection then it's a different ball game.
If you're looking at some sort of subjective bet selection then it's a different ball game.>>
I believe Ken is very good at narrowing down his bet selection so his progression has the best chance of success. I think he changes the process once in awhile, which is always a good idea.
"Mr J, what is a "solid" bet selection?" >>> Ok, the opposite of this....bet 22 cause thats your B-Day and bet the 16 cause you got your cherry popped when you were 16. "how you select the numbers to bet, if you're using some sort of rule-based procedure, is irrelevant" >>> I disagree. Ken
Quote from: Mr J on May 22, 2010, 07:10:50 PM
I disagree. Ken
Good. Can you explain why and use examples?
Show us how you're more likely to win a 2-number bet selected by a system than 2 numbers selected randomnly, or based on the reasons you mentioned above.
You won't draw me into an argument but nice try. If you dont like it that I NET more than you do, I dont care. Get a dog or something. Ken
I know I asked you this in the past Number 6 but I dont remember the answer. Your way of playing is what? (this is where it gets fun) Let me guess....either something that cant be TESTED (AP, cough) or a method that is a secret? I have said it 500,000 times on the boards. There should be a RULE.....You are NOT allowed to QUESTION other methods unless your method can be tested and in the positive over 3 million spins. Ken
Show us how you're more likely to win a 2-number bet selected by a system than 2 numbers selected randomnly,>>>
LOL, nice try, Six. He can't show that because its not true. Every time I make a bet on R/B, red is just as likely to hit as black. Yet I'm right more often than not. What Ken does is uses his experience with his different methods of play, and that gives him a better bet selection than random choice. The proof is in the winning, it never lies.
Quote from: Mr J on May 22, 2010, 07:37:19 PM
You won't draw me into an argument but nice try. If you dont like it that I NET more than you do, I dont care. Get a dog or something. Ken
Wow.
Quote from: Mr J on May 22, 2010, 07:44:44 PM
You are NOT allowed to QUESTION other methods unless your method can be tested and in the positive over 3 million spins. Ken
I'll question whatever I want. If you can't step up with the answers, fine. If you don't want to, fine.
True Spike. It can not be a coincidence (I dont think) that over the years, my ways of playing LAST LONGER in terms of starting BRs over "X" number of weeks/months. Meaning....we'll use a 6K BR 3.5 years ago compared to using a 6K BR starting 6 months ago. Why do my BRs last longer NOW? I still say its trial and error. Trial and error is not only for gambling. I can think of 100 non-gambling examples where you LEARN what NOT to do because of PAST mistakes. Ken
"I'll question whatever I want" >>> So your way of playing is what? I'm staying in tonight so I have lots of spare time. I'll watch the Boston game and can do some testing! Waiting..........
Quote from: Mr J on May 22, 2010, 07:55:02 PM
"I'll question whatever I want" >>> So your way of playing is what? I'm staying in tonight so I have lots of spare time. I'll watch the Boston game and can do some testing! Waiting..........
I don't live by your rules, Mr J. We're not in your tree house now, you know.
ROFL...yep, whenever ya want to shut'em down for a while, just ask for DETAILS how they play. :spiteful: Ken
Number Six, the more experience you get playing a particular method, the better you get at it. Something happens, you learn things aout how it works that can't be explained. Its not magic, its not voodoo. Its why the guy on a job for 40 years has invaluable knowledge about that job that he can't explain and is only learned by experience.
I remember talking to a pit guy in Vegas who was almost 80 in the roulette pit. I asked him why he didn't retire and he said the casino won't let him. He said he'd been in the pit for 55 years and he could spot a cheating dealer a mile away. It was his experience that did it and the casino can't replace people like that, they are literally irreplacable.
The same thing works with random outcomes, the more you work with them, the better you get.
@Number Six >> Another goofy example.....Lets say a guy has NEVER played roulette in his life, not even on line. He read a few books and asked questions on message boards, he DOES know all the payouts etc. He has a BR of 3K. If EVERYTHING is only based on luck, that guy should do about the same (net) as me, Spike, Teo, Nate, Spiders Kiss? Are you nuts? I'm not counting, he has ONE good day. I am talking about week/month after week/month. That guy and myself are equal? No way, sorry. Ken
we'll use a 6K BR 3.5 years ago compared to using a 6K BR starting 6 months ago. Why do my BRs last longer NOW? I still say its trial and error.>>
I really believe that if you keep practicing and modifying what you do, you'll never have the edge, but you'll come close enough to the house edge that with a big enough BR and the right progression and balls of teflon, you can minimize your losses enough to eventually stay ahead of the game. But it takes constant practice and constant paying attention, if you get lazy and take it for granted you're screwed.
Experience might enable you to draw assumptions about the current state of play when it pertains to some system or betting method, in fact, it's not that difficult. I know pretty quick if I'll make a goal or if I'm in too much fluctuation for it to be guaranteed or if I'll get nowhere near it. This sort of thing DOES come from practice and doing extensive testing. Of course, your judgement isn't always going to be correct. However I doubt this would work for long progressions like Mr J does because you don't have enough information to make a sound decision on.
I am talking about week/month after week/month. That guy and myself are equal? No way, sorry.>>>
People have no clue as to how much work is involved in winning consistantly at roulette. Its amazing. If they had even an inkling of what it takes, the dedication to understanding what you do, they would run the other way as fast as they could.
Not to brag but I really have it good. Lots of experience, I know all etiquette/rules of the game, I have high BRs, I have the balls to use those BRs, patience, I dont drink while playing, I answer to no one if I start losing alot (wife, kids), a REAL casino 15 minutes away and I have the time to play. Not as much time as I use to but still enough. Add all that up....its good for Ken!!!!
Of course, your judgement isn't always going to be correct.>>>
It doesn't always have to be. On the EC's, I can be wrong a lot, just so I'm right more often than wrong. On 20 bets, the best I'm supposed to be able to do is 10 right and 10 wrong. With my celebrated hit rate, I have to get 4 more better than 10 right. Thats all, just 4 more right than wrong. And people have fits, they throw themselves on the floor and foam at the mouth over this. Over getting just 4 more.
Thats like me asking members on this board......you have to be NEW at roulette (of course I have to believe you). I would lower my BR to something that most could afford, $1,000(?) So if me and BOB went to the casino for 10 visits and sat across from each other (2 different tables), Bob and I should finish around the same in terms of NET gain or loss? Maybe 10 visits is too few but I think I made my point. Even YOU Number Six, would/should do better than Bob, the rookie roulette player. One visit? No, over quite a few visits. Ken
Quote from: Mr J on May 22, 2010, 08:29:52 PM
I think I made my point.
What is the point again? I'm serious.
So if me and BOB went to the casino for 10 visits and sat across from each other (2 different tables), Bob and I should finish around the same>>>
Better yet, imagine Bob went with you every time you've gone since you started playing the way you play now. He has the same BR, except he bets completely randomly on every visit. Where do you think Bob would be compared to you today? The math says after so many visits you should be pretty equal. What do you say, Ken?
"except he bets completely randomly on every visit. Where do you think Bob would be compared to you today?" >>> I say he would not be able to continue playing, unless his BR never runs out, constant visits to the bank. Lets say Bob and I started out with the same BR...we'll make it high, 10K. Bob, the rookie player would run out of cash long before me and most likely Number Six as well. There's no real shame, Bob is the LESS experienced player, thats how it is. Ken
What is the point again?>>>
The point is the guy playing randomly in Ken's example would fall far behind what Ken's doing. I see people in the casino all the time betting randomly on R/B and they never come out ahead. They have no idea where to bet, so they seldom are ahead and are always chasing their losses
>>Lets say Bob and I started out with the same BR...we'll make it high, 10K.>>>
Lets say he could always go to the ATM. He would be so far in debt today that his wife would have left him and his house would have 2 mortgages on it. This is a fact. Random bet selection sucks and you can't win using it.
Quote from: Mr J on May 22, 2010, 08:43:20 PM
"except he bets completely randomly on every visit. Where do you think Bob would be compared to you today?" >>> I say he would not be able to continue playing, unless his BR never runs out, constant visits to the bank. Lets say Bob and I started out with the same BR...we'll make it high, 10K. Bob, the rookie player would run out of cash long before me and most likely Number Six as well. There's no real shame, Bob is the LESS experienced player, thats how it is. Ken
So through your experience you have developed an intimate knowledge of randomness, much the same as the "randomness readers"? This is not impossible. Presumably you would win more than Bob - in fact, you would continue to win exponentially, while Bob was losing his shirt and his trousers - because your experience helps you to predict the effectivness of a progression over the next, say, 50 or 60 spins? This doesn't seem feasible, unless you're psychic. The way YOU play, I'm struggling to see how experience plays any part whatsoever.
I played yesterday and today. Today, there was a lady on my left, her buy in was $600, $5 chips. Each spin she bet around 10 numbers, ANY 10 numbers. A few numbers had a couple chips and a few numbers had like 7 chips. Spin after spin after spin. Once that $600 was GONE, into the purse, she had some black. From what, I dont know? Cashed in the black, around $500...lost that in around 20 minutes.
Into the purse multiple times for cash. After 3 hours she was down around 4K, no lie. All her betting based on NOTHING! Coincidence? I say no. I am not saying you will win everyday just because you have a plan, it does not work like that. I think we ALL would agree. Ken
"Presumably you would win more than Bob" >>> I dont follow? You are agreeing with me or not so sure? Ken
This doesn't seem feasible, unless you're psychic. >>>
I'm telling you, its experience. You're anticipation and guessing skills really do improve the more you use them. You get a feel for the game that can't be expressed or taught. If I were to tell you exactly what went into a decision for the next bet, every one of my reasons would violate some form of Gamblers Fallacy.
Yep Spike, you explain it better than me. I won't argue with the guy. He doesn't agree, no biggie. Ken
Quote from: Spike! on May 22, 2010, 09:10:42 PM
This doesn't seem feasible, unless you're psychic. >>>
I'm telling you, its experience. You're anticipation and guessing skills really do improve the more you use them. You get a feel for the game that can't be expressed or taught. If I were to tell you exactly what went into a decision for the next bet, every one of my reasons would violate some form of Gamblers Fallacy.
It's not that I don't agree. It depends entirely on what you're doing. If you're making back to back decisions on every spin, that is different from just applying a large progression system. Mr J says he will win more than Bob because he has more experience. Does that mean he'll simply be able to design a better system, or be able to make "better" decisions while actually playing? Saying you can predict better than the expectancy from spin to spin is one thing, but saying experience will help you to estimate the outcome of a long progression is nonsense.
Quote from: Mr J on May 22, 2010, 09:15:41 PM
Yep Spike, you explain it better than me. I won't argue with the guy. He doesn't agree, no biggie. Ken
Mr J, you can read randomness too?
Does that mean he'll simply be able to design a better system>>
Yes, thats what it means. Once the progression starts, you're locked in till it ends.
>>but saying experience will help you to estimate the outcome of a long progression is nonsense.>>
Not at all. If it were nonsense, he would have been in Bob's shoes long ago. He's been doing this week in and week out for years now, at last 4-5 years.
"Mr J, you can read randomness too?" >>> You are TERRIBLE at dragging me in. lol I can tell you lose alot. How? You looking for an arguement is your substitute for winning. Granted, it puts nothing in your wallet but *THIS*, is your WAY of winning. Sad but have fun with it bro. BTW, your method again is what? Ken
Dear Friends,
the Roulette ball is producing "natural chaotic" random numbers.
You can find such numbers in the whole oeco system, everywhere in the universe...
So only ONE known Progression number line can cope with the Roulette phenomenon:
The FIBONACCI Line ( The Golden Cut )
Why this?
Because it is a natural based proportioned mathematical number line
You find that gogiven proportions EVERYWHERE in the plant and animal kingdom... and:
Mother Nature is always right!!!
or, in other words: GOD is the greatest and the perfect mathemathician...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF we use the Fibonacci in a right and wise way, not greedy,
know when to stop gaming and not perverting it too much, then...
It can serve us a a wonderful tool to beat Roulette in the long run
(not in every sesion of course).
Have a nice and happy sunday all !!!
Sincerely,
ROLF :thumbsup:
Mother Nature is always right!!>>>
I don't think so. Mother Nature is a fictional charactor, she doesn't really exist. In nature, the fit survive and the weak perish. Progressions are crutches for poor bet selections, sugar coat them all you like. Your take on it is fairly unique, but sorry, no cigar..
QuoteBecause it is a natural based proportioned mathematical number line
You find that gogiven proportions EVERYWHERE in the plant and animal kingdom... and:
Rolf,
It's true - there are many examples in nature which seem to "fit" the Fibonacci pattern. But just a note of caution: don't bet the farm on it! :D
The Fibonacci/Golden ratio is appealing, and is used by traders too. I'm more sceptical that it has any "magical" properties though.
QuoteIt's not difficult to find examples of most any pattern or mathematical relation you want. Then some people make the mistake of supposing this reveals some mystical governing principle in nature. This is reinforced by ignoring equally important cases that don't fit the pattern. If the fit isn't very good, approximate or fudge the numbers. If some things remain that ought to fit but don't, just rationalize a reason why they are "special cases".
nolinks://nolinks.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm (nolinks://nolinks.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm)
This in no way implies a criticism of your system or the fib progression in particular. Just that... it pays to be sceptical too. We all want to know the truth, don't we?
Quote from: Mr J on May 23, 2010, 12:04:21 AM
"Mr J, you can read randomness too?" >>> You are TERRIBLE at dragging me in. lol I can tell you lose alot. How? You looking for an arguement is your substitute for winning. Granted, it puts nothing in your wallet but *THIS*, is your WAY of winning. Sad but have fun with it bro. BTW, your method again is what? Ken
Mr J, this is not an argument. It's called dialogue. If you're too sensitive to take the pressure of a discussion why do you even bother putting yourself in the way of it?
The question is this: you think because you have "experience" you can win at a rate better than the expectancy - in fact, you have been claiming this, in a roundabout way, for a while. Spike thinks you can estimate the outcome of a 60-spin progression before you even start playing. You're willing to risk thousands of dollars on the numbers your "experience" tells you will hit. So, has this "experience" enabled you to read randomness or develop psychic abilities? Or, actually, are your progressions simply based on luck alone? The maths has repeatedly been proved to be absolute - why do you think it cares about your "experience"?
Number 6,
I agree. It`s all in one neat package : gamblers fallacy and dumb luck. :diablo: Nothing more , nothing less and not genius at work either.
Nathan Detroit
>>The maths has repeatedly been proved to be absolute - why do you think it cares about your "experience>>
The math is based on a random bet selection and the premise that you can never do any better than that. Ken has proved to himself over and over again that when he uses a random bet selection, as opposed to the way he does it now, he loses. He's been proving this to himself for years now. You want to call it blind luck. I don't think Ken cares, a long as he can keep practicing his bet selecion and keep winning.
For myself, the 'absolute' math goes right out the window if you get even the tiniest advantage in making your bet selection. The math is based on faulty parameters, it doesn't take into account that you can change the math in your favor by understanding the nature of the random outcomes in the game you're playing.
He won't keep winning, it's that simple. Not playing long progressions, anyway - there are too many real-world restrictions. You can't even do it by using a subjective bet or switching bets or using any procedure because the drawdown follows you everywhere and applies itself to whatever you're doing. I know this, it happens for everything that considers past outcomes. The fluctuation sticks to everything, then lies dormant and bites you in the ass just when you think it's safe to play again. When players begin to understand this, they then resort to skipping spins or waiting for a virtual sequence thinking that the variance will diminish. But the fluctuation skips when you skip and becomes active when you start betting again. This really leaves only two or three practical ways you can play through a drawdown and still come out ahead.
The thing about "experience" is, it's becoming an increasingly used reason for people to justify their apparent winnings. People win for a while with a system, then suddenly they think they're something special, as if the random game has forgotten about them. A lot of people are easily fooled by the random process of the game and the maths that goes with it. When you become complacent it's easy to think you have the game nailed. In reality the game has you nailed.
@Number Six >> What was your method of play? If its cool with you, I would like to do some testing on it. Dont be too sensitve regarding this subject. Is your method private? Ken
He won't keep winning, it's that simple. Not playing long progressions, anyway >>
LOL! I'm laughng because thats exactly what I said to Ken over 4 years ago and we didn't get along for a couple of years. But he's proven his bet selection has legs, I'm very confident now that if he stays on top of it, he can keep winning. Bet selection is everything.
>> lot of people are easily fooled by the random process of the game and the maths that goes with it.>>
I agree. Thats why I use a
method
that changes as the random changes, to keep up with it.
"The thing about "experience" is, it's becoming an increasingly used reason for people to justify their apparent winnings" >>> Usually I can meet a person half way, compromise a bit. In this case, I can go as far as 35% agreeing with Number Six on ONE aspect. I dont care HOW/WHY I'm doing well, whatever reason(s). I have my BELIEFS as to why and I ASSUME they are correct. Luck, at this STAGE I think is out of the question. Its too late in the game (pardon the punn) for luck, so IMO, it has to be something else.
Like my example I posted yesterday about the lady. Around 4K I would estimate......chips placed all over, no real reason, GONE. Another example >>> You ever see someone UP pretty good, around 1K. Everyone is cheering for the guy and real impressed with himself etc. Me, I just watch, hoping the guy STAYS at the table cause I know what will happen. Yep, slowly, slowly......first the $5 chips, GONE. Then cash in the greens and blacks, GONE! lol Ken
"Ken has proved to himself over and over again that when he uses a random bet selection, as opposed to the way he does it now, he loses" >>> I'll tell you something I have done quite a few times, research I call it. You will have to believe me, or dont, thats your right and I'm cool with that. How many people do you know that are willing to give up $500 like its nothing? Me! lol I have gone to the casino to play BUT only based on a couple things....a small BR ($500) and picking ANY numbers.
To keep it fair, I only would choose 2 numbers per spin cause thats usually how I would play anyways. Its kind of nice, I dont bring my little notebook, not really that focused etc. It should not matter? I would bet ANY 2 numbers per spin. I think ALL times were a loss except once, I went home with a profit. Again, a coincidence? I know, I know, whats the definition of profit? If I'm up $20, do I leave and say, "gee, I guess I was wrong". Ken
Quote from: Mr J on May 23, 2010, 01:01:11 PM
To keep it fair, I only would choose 2 numbers per spin cause thats usually how I would play anyways. Its kind of nice, I dont bring my little notebook, not really that focused etc. It should not matter? I would bet ANY 2 numbers per spin. I think ALL times were a loss except once, I went home with a profit. Again, a coincidence? I know, I know, whats the definition of profit? If I'm up $20, do I leave and say, "gee, I guess I was wrong". Ken
I have a friend who bets the same two numbers every time, all the time. I have stood next to him at the tables and watched him lose massively, pretty much like the woman you described. First the initial buy in goes, then the "hidden reserve", then it's credit cards. At first I tried to stop him when things were getting out of hand. Later I didn't bother, he didn't want to know. He doesn't always lose. A few years ago he was up 30k from that year. Another year he was up 10 or 15k. I'd say now he's about even.
I know regulars here at the casino, when they sit down, I ALREADY know the numbers they will bet! Thats fu***n sad I know ahead of time. They stick to the same numbers, based on NOTHING. I can NOT bet like that. Ken
Ooh . . .
You are all soou wonderful in all your wisdom . . .
Ooh my oh my . . .
Sou many premature verbal ejaculations. . .
And almost all leads to new and unknown orgiastic hights !!!
This takes my breath away . . .
-----------------------------------------------
I think, You Roulette Masters of the Universe need to relax a bit...
Soo many ALPHA Cocks at one small place !! ---> Who can stand that ?
Take a Bud (or two) and listen to a nice song, which is older then the wheel of fortune:
>> nolinks://nolinks.youtube.com/watch?v=lSwljC8EQeE&feature=related
Have a nice and roulette free sunday !!!
:sarcastic: ROLF :haha:
"roulette free sunday" >>> Not me, I have a week off. Off to the casino and back in time for the Suns game! Ken
QuoteIf Progressions Don't Beat the House Edge, What Good Are They?
They're good for giving you the illusion that you're a winner, for a while.
There is no such thing as "bet selection" in a true-random game, it's all in your head.
As a result, variance cannot be reduced in a true-random game. Which brings us back to the uselessness of progressions.
Quote from: Bayes on May 23, 2010, 07:58:22 AM
It's true - there are many examples in nature which seem to "fit" the Fibonacci pattern. But just a note of caution: don't bet the farm on it! :D
The Fibonacci/Golden ratio is appealing, and is used by traders too. I'm more sceptical that it has any "magical" properties though.
Agreed, there's nothing "magical" about fibs.
In roulette, Fibonacci is just another nonsense negative progression.
In trading, the
only reason the price might occasionally respect Fib ratios is because many traders base their entries/stops on them.
QuoteIn trading, the only reason the price might occasionally respect Fib ratios is because many traders base their entries/stops on them.
Yep, an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Wise Proverb said:
"When the disciple is ready, the Master appears"
In Roulette Forums the proverb sounds :
"When the disciple is ready, a hundred masters are appearing"
I would like This One more:
"When the disciple is ready, the masters should disappear"
Btw, there is a life beside roulette:
Donovan - There is an ocean (nolinks://nolinks.youtube.com/watch?v=jdHw7aaU9bg#)
Listen carefully
ROLF :good:
Wise Proverb said:
"When the disciple is ready, the Master appears" >>> ??? Nooo, it couldn't be? Again?
I'll tell ya the thing that bothers me a LITTLE (I dont lose sleep over it). Because Bob Smith can NOT win, has no balls and has a small BR......somehow that means no one else is allowed to win (or be happy). If Bob can't win, God dangit, no one else can either. lol Its a bit funny but more of a COMPLIMENT to me, I'll take it. Ken
There is no such thing as "bet selection" in a true-random game, it's all in your head.>>>
You know why I just LOVE it when people who think they know what they're doing say this? Because its what the casino believes also, hook, line, and sinker.
Never wise up a chump. He loves clinging to his opinions like a life raft, why take that away from him.. :lol:
Quote from: Noble Savage on May 23, 2010, 01:31:51 PM
There is no such thing as "bet selection" in a true-random game, it's all in your head.
If what is in your head is organized to recognize figure formations, clusters, bunches, or significant stretches of anything consistent then you can use that to bet on it to continue or for it to end. In essence you are attaching a meaningless reason for a bet selection in order to create a basis of selection. There is nothing important about it. It doesn't have to be real. It's possible to recognize a made up state. It's just one way to make up a bet selection. The only way it can exist is if it exists in your head. Now for the funny part. For some unknown reason it can't exist in the head of the normal math oriented player. Why is that? That sounds like it's all in the head too.
>Now for the funny part. For some unknown reason it can't exist in the head of the normal math oriented player>>
I think Newton covered that in one of his laws of thermodynamics. Something about he math guys head exploding, very messy.. ;D
>>There is no such thing as "bet selection" in a true-random game, it's all in your head. As a result, variance cannot be reduced in a true-random game.>>
Please don't post your opinion like its an accepted law or something. Learn to read and anticipate the random and you most certainly can reduce the effects of variance.
I havent read this thread but will comment based on the title. Progression DOES have a place, but it does NOT change your edge. Progression is best used if you are certain you are beating the house edge, legitimately. Then you can leave the casino in less time with your goal profit.
Here is a great hypothetical I thought of. Lets say I have played MANY times, always learning. I notice the 'bell curve' quite often (I did not say it happens everytime). I get up (net) around $400-$600, then slowly lose that all back and leave the casino minus $700 from my own pocket. Now, take that experienced guy compared to Bob Smith, the rookie roulette player, fresh on the scene.
Yes, maybe he has 'READ' all about this but questions it a little, perhaps Bob does not believe it. He ignores the lessons from more veteran players etc. Would someone say this is NOT a good example of veteran vs. a rookie? True, it has nothing to do with where the ball will land but none the less, EXPERIENCE is a huge factor in this game. Ken
EXPERIENCE is a huge factor in this game. Ken>>
Experience in the casino AND experience practicing at home. If you practice correctly, you'll play just like you do in the casino, without all the distractions. You'll see what it takes t win and how to avoid losses. Or you won't. But at least you're treating it like a business and not like an excited kid who just discovered the Martingale.
@Spike >> I agree but some others here will say......what you and I just posted COMPARED to Bob the rookie, "very little difference and it does not mean much". I'm not picking on Number Six but a 15 year roulette player and a guy playing for only a month.....no difference in profit outcome? lol Whatever. Ken
a 15 year roulette player and a guy playing for only a month..>>>
Technically, there should be no difference in the outcome of their play whatsoever. The MathBoyz constantly drill it into our heads that there can NEVER be an effective bet selection in roulette better than random choice. Independent outcomes, don't ya know. But there isn't a math guy on this forum who doesn't know the 15 year roulette veteren will almost always do better than the rookie. They will just never admit it.
QuoteBut there isn't a math guy on this forum who doesn't know the 15 year roulette veteren will almost always do better than the rookie. They will just never admit it.
Of course experience will make you a better player, as long as you're paying attention and don't have a gambling problem.
Sticking strictly with non-AP players, what does it mean to be a "better" player? It means knowing the foolishness of suicidal staking plans (which can be very seductive when you first learn about them), knowing that nothing is "due" and playing as though it is isn't a good idea. It means knowing the odds of what you're playing and the likelihood and length of losing and winning runs. In other words, anything gained by "experience" could be learned from a good book on statistics and probability, in less time and with less stress. As Herb points out, why reinvent the wheel when you can learn from others who have travelled the same path?
Of course experience will make you a better player>>>
But according to the math, thats impossible. The math says the game is set in stone, no way to improve it. Bet selection is impossible, there's no better bet than random choice, thats what the math says. Right?
The maths says a lot of things. It says that ultimately, after many thousands of plays, you are more likely to lose than win, but that doesn't there aren't choices you can make which will minimize the chance of that happening. Take a simple example: Someone setting foot in a casino for the first time with $100 in his pocket decides to try his luck at roulette. Is it a good plan to put the entire $100 on a single number? or to divide the $100 into $1 chips and play the number 100 times? maths can give you answers, taking into account your personal preferences.
It says that ultimately, after many thousands of plays, you are more likely to lose than win>>>
C'mon, it says a heck of a lot more than that. It says bet selection is impossible, and without good bet selection, you're going to lose a heck of a lot quicker than 'after thousands of plays'.
Mr J, sorry, but your point about experience is not very solid. It isn't useless, but nor do you have to play for 15 years in order to become a "better" player. As long as Bob has the disciplined ability to execute his long term gameplan (considering that he doesn't lose his BR), he may do just as well, or in fact, at some stages better than you.
Let's put it like this instead. Bob has never played any casino games in his life. He's seen a few movies about cards, that's the limit of his experience. His is quite intelligent and has an average understanding of maths. So, you give him three or four months to study roulette, systems and all the rest of it. Then you have a one year play-off, in which you both have to play at least 1000 spins a week. Who does better? From what I can gather you are saying you because no novice has the ability to stick to a plan. In truth, after a week, Bob would probably start to feel fairly comfortable with what he's doing.
Those are estimates (examples per say). I am not saying 300 new players (Bob) compared to 300 players that have been playing for 15 years, both groups will always have different results? No, with YOUR example, you could be correct regarding Bob. If I listed the stupid s**t I did when I was new, you would laugh for days and YES, it did cost me money. I no longer make those mistakes and I now NET more. Coincidence? Again, no. Ken