Check out this guy who was suppossedly banned playing his "mathmatical" system.
nolinks://nolinks.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2009/10/04/birmingham-gambler-in-casino-ban-after-28-000-roulette-win-66331-24844925/ (nolinks://nolinks.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2009/10/04/birmingham-gambler-in-casino-ban-after-28-000-roulette-win-66331-24844925/)
and here: nolinks://nolinks.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218061/In-money-Gambler-banned-UK-casinos-winning-28-000-using-secret-system.html (nolinks://nolinks.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218061/In-money-Gambler-banned-UK-casinos-winning-28-000-using-secret-system.html)
if you "search" there are already threads about this, some big, large progression apparently........ ??? ??? ???
Agree, Nathan. Now look at the price of the book. something like 100 dollars, and then realize that this should be just a scammer, promoting his book this way...If he really was winning, he would not put himself in media lights, instead, being banned from some casinos, would go to others. there are hundreds in Europe, and not all UK casinos banned him.
I think he just payed some reporters to make up the story then published his book. As for those casinos -- they don't care too much, he could be just lucky or a troublemaker, so they just kicked him out.
Since the date on the article is 2009, unless anyone has heard of him in the mean time, it probably doesn't amount to much.
VKM
I do not believe you can learn roulette gambling by reading only a book.On many sites you can find good advice.
Knowing the features of the random row is on the first place the basic for roulette.You become a good skill by practice.Use the free RNG roulette.PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT.
You can watch a demonstration how I practice.
schoepoetzer,
I don`t want to disappoint you. But do you think that anyone would pay attention to your
demonstration ? They look at it and still do it THEIR way.
I personally know of a gambling guru who has written about 16 books on various casino games and who has also produced a variety of DVDs to back up those books.
On his very active forum where he takes part in the discussion I can always hear him say" WILL YOU GUYS LISTEN ?NO, YOU WON`T !
Nuff said. :ok:
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Quote from: Nathan Detroit on April 18, 2011, 08:45:13 AM
WILL YOU GUYS LISTEN ?NO, YOU WON`T !
Its very hard to wise people up, its just not worth it. Never wise up a chump, he resents it and will hate you in the end..
cheese,
I concur with what you have stated above.( reply # 9 )
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Nathan, you know that i am listening to u don't U :)
i would also listen to Cheese, but he won't tell much except some mysterious remarks. And i am always appreciated for a good advice.
Quote from: iggiv on April 18, 2011, 12:56:32 PM
Nathan, you know that I am listening to u don't U :)
I would also listen to Cheese, but he won't tell much except some mysterious remarks. And I am always appreciated for a good advice.
cheese likes to likes to appear as the wise old guru of roulette. It's easy to appear this way; just throw in a few cryptic and mysterious remarks which make no sense yet appear to be profound. No-one will have a clue what you're talking about but since your readers probably won't understand enough about the game to know that your nonsense ISN'T profound, you're assured of a dedicated following over time, in fact, members may even be in awe of you. :sarcastic:
Quote from: Mike on April 18, 2011, 01:29:52 PM
cheese likes to likes to appear as the wise old guru of roulette. It's easy to appear this way; just throw in a few cryptic and mysterious remarks which make no sense yet appear to be profound. No-one will have a clue what you're talking about but since your readers probably won't understand enough about the game to know that your nonsense ISN'T profound, you're assured of a dedicated following over time, in fact, members may even be in awe of you. :sarcastic:
Nice. This is a great defensive reaction. It's a "muddy the waters" technique used by debaters that know they are losing the argument. Mike can't pretend to be clueless and to play the other "wise old guru of roulette" at the same time. He just hopes you won't notice this too. Also he's using this lame argument to establish a predicate in "remarks which make no sense." This is a straw man argument. He just spent last week attempting to identify connection or disconnection with regards to dependence vs independence.
You have a kind of love-hate relationship with cheese, don't you gizmo? :)
Actually, I'm not sure who is more guilty of pseudo-profundity, I think you're about neck and neck. ;D
guys, those remarks are not all about roulette. why u like to dwell on each other personalities and behaviour? Who cares what motives are behind this or that remark? Important is the clue how to defeat roulette. So why not concentrate on this?
I don't care what Cheese or Mike or Gizmo want me to think about them, for me is important if they can help me (and others) to defeat the roulette. As long as nobody breaks the rules and conducts some personal insults let anyone brag about winning roulette if he likes it. No harm is done. Just help me to get a clue :)
Quote from: iggiv on April 18, 2011, 01:59:09 PM
Just help me to get a clue :)
What have you tried?
lots of stuff :)
matrix for example...did not work out for me...
Quote from: iggiv link=topic=18600. msg134774#msg134774 date=1303149906
lots of stuff :)
matrix for example. . . did not work out for me. . .
Matrix?
What is that. Isn't it a film?
make a search on this forum, u will find out
Quote from: Mike on April 18, 2011, 01:29:52 PM
cheese likes to likes to appear as the wise old guru of roulette.
Have I 'appeared' to you? What form did I take this time, was I human at least? Please don't tell me I was the Buddha sitting on a lotus leaf again, thats just plain embarrassing. :P
Quote from: cheese on April 18, 2011, 09:50:51 PM
Have I 'appeared' to you? What form did I take this time, was I human at least?
That's OK, Mike appears as Einstein, U Thant, Pythagoras, and Isaac Newton where he slums with the enemies of the status quo.
Cheese, try to explain this to me. I discovered that I was comfortable with losing at the downturn speed that I had grown accustomed to with 24/38 type double dozens bets that I had cut my teeth on. I was applying that same loss rate to when I tried the EC's for a full year. So I went back and tried again. This time I left that fall speed/rate behind. I set the plying floor to -5. I would take a chance to go no deeper than -7. So far I'm doing great. I plan to do 100 sessions and posting the results. But that test I did last week came out so good that it surprised me. You said that staying very close to even was very important. I used to let my self dig holes while playing the EC's. I'm doing better now that I won't let those holes dig so deep.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 18, 2011, 11:19:50 PM
Cheese, try to explain this to me.
What did you change? If you changed nothing, than its just part of the fluxuation in way you play. It doesn't mean anything.
Quote from: cheese on April 18, 2011, 11:53:19 PM
What did you change? If you changed nothing, than its just part of the fluxuation in way you play. It doesn't mean anything.
I changed how far I was willing to get behind the breaking even point. I selected -5, I broke that rule a few times and went as deep as -7. Before that I would descend into -15 and keep going. -15 with the double dozens is not that deep. However it takes forever to dig your way out of that. More importantly is that instead of sessions that last 100 spins or more I'm now reaching my goal in 12 to 40 spins after 12 are taken from the marquee and charted for the start point.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 19, 2011, 12:01:03 AM
I changed how far I was willing to get behind the breaking even point.
My personal feeling is always to never bet where you get back less than what you wagered. Betting two dozens looks good on paper and even works sometimes, but too much can happen to screw you over. If you keep working on it, you'll come to the same conclusion, its inevitable. You can say a hundred times that every bet can be reduced to an EC bet, but nobody really believes it until they do the work and see it staring them in the face. Thats what happened to me.
ND I agree the results of the discussions on the forum have a very low efficiency.Though my theory to play the roulette has a few partisans I shall explain the features of the roulette.In the casino I have seen too many young people loosing their money ,because they have no knowledge of the game.The rules are very simple ,but the game is very very difficult.
The forum is filled with the most beautiful systems.Every time again one try to prove the system is profitable.
Long run test should give the evidence.
All experts on the forum know the EV of the roulette can not be beaten with a system.In my opinion playing a system gives more pleasure.
As an old professor I know visual lessons have more success than scriptural lessons.This is one reason to offer demonstrations for interested STUDENTS
Quote from: iggiv on April 18, 2011, 03:05:06 PM
lots of stuff :)
matrix for example...did not work out for me...
It will never work out until you start looking at the physical aspects of the game, everything else is a waste of time. The game yields nothing - how can it?
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 06:53:02 AM
The game yields nothing
Then why talk about it? Isn't posting here and telling people nothing will work, isn't that the same as posting on the Genie in a Lamp forum and constantly telling the guy he can rub it forever and he'll get nada? After a while, whats the point..
Quote from: iggiv on April 17, 2011, 02:49:25 PM
Agree, Nathan. Now look at the price of the book. something like 100 dollars, and then realize that this should be just a scammer, promoting his book this way...If he really was winning, he would not put himself in media lights, instead, being banned from some casinos, would go to others. there are hundreds in Europe, and not all UK casinos banned him.
I think he just payed some reporters to make up the story then published his book. As for those casinos -- they don't care too much, he could be just lucky or a troublemaker, so they just kicked him out.
@ cheese,
I'm making a distinction between the game and the wheel. You can't beat the game but you can beat the wheel (+dealer/ball/environment).
The game is just an abstraction; there is actually no such thing as the game played purely abstractly; there is always a real wheel and dealer - a physical environment in which you play the game (not talking about online RNG). But hardly anyone looks at this, they just look at past outcomes or patterns or statistics APART from the actual physical mechanisms which produce the outcomes. If you don't look at correlations between the physical aspects of the game and the data, then you're simply guessing, and that can only lead to what the casino has calculated - you're playing the GAME, and it's what the casino wants you to do.
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 07:21:05 AM
If you don't look at correlations between the physical aspects of the game and the data
Do the 'stooge stare' into the wheel for hours, thats the ticket. Too bad this isn't 1988 any longer, where the pockets almost jumped up and grabbed the ball. Now they have single cast low profile wheels with pockets so small, they barely hold the ball. I love it, a guaranteed excellent random outcome on every spin.
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 07:26:36 AM
Do the 'stooge stare' into the wheel for hours, thats the ticket. Too bad this isn't 1988 any longer,
Spotting an opportunity improves with practice, and you have to know what you're looking for. A few minutes is enough. And I'm glad it isn't 1988 any longer, there are actually more opportunities these days. I don't expect you to believe me, in fact I'd be worried if you did.
By the way, there's no such thing as a random outcome. "random" just means you don't have any idea of the causes, or the interaction of them is too complex to be exploited. There is no such thing as an "intrinsically" random event. Pretty funny that you believe that knowing nothing whatsoever about the cause of an outcome is actually an advantage.
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 07:52:06 AM
Spotting an opportunity improves with practice, and you have to know what you're looking for. A few minutes is enough. And I'm glad it isn't 1988 any longer, there are actually more opportunities these days. I don't expect you to believe me, in fact I'd be worried if you did.
.
LOL! All you guys LOVE to say 'times have never been better', the harder they make the wheel to beat, the easier it gets. Whatever. I saw a movie made in 1962 the other day that had a long shot of a wheel. I almost jumped out of my chair. The slope to the numbers was so steep you could ski on it, and the frets were so high, the ball didn't have a chance of not being grabbed almost instantly. Those were the days for VB players. Sniff..
< there's no such thing as a random outcome. "random" just means you don't have any idea of the causes, or the interaction of them is too complex to be exploited.>
Speak for yourself, cause you sure ain't speaking for me. Don't project your obvious confusion onto everybody else.
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 08:01:38 AM
LOL! All you guys LOVE to say 'times have never been better', the harder they make the wheel to beat, the easier it gets. Whatever. I saw a movie made in 1962 the other day that had a long shot of a wheel. I almost jumped out of my chair. The slope to the numbers was so steep you could ski on it, and the frets were so high, the ball didn't have a chance of not being grabbed almost instantly. Those were the days for VB players. Sniff..
Wising up a chump is waste of time and just annoys him anyway. :)
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 08:01:38 AM
Speak for yourself, cause you sure ain't speaking for me. Don't project your obvious confusion onto everybody else.
MY obvious confusion? ;D
coming from someone who claims to be able to "read" random (which by definition is unreadable), that's pretty rich.
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 08:22:23 AM
Wising up a chump is waste of time and just annoys him anyway. :)
There's no 'wising up' to be done on the new wheels. I look at them in wonder, as the ball slowly meanders down towards the pockets, and when it eventually gets there, the pockets are so shallow, the ball barely finds a place to rest. You think Huxley and the rest don't have pro VB players on the payroll, advising on wheels that are harder and harder to beat? Get real.
>>coming from someone who claims to be able to "read" random (which by definition is unreadable)>>
And at one time, BJ was unbeatable. Until somebody figured out it wasn't. And don't give me 'its two different kinds of games', unbeatable is unbeatable.
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 08:35:01 AM
There's no 'wising up' to be done on the new wheels. I look at them in wonder, as the ball slowly meanders down towards the pockets, and when it eventually get there, the pockets are so shallow, the ball barely finds a place to rest. You think Huxley and the rest don't have pro VB players on the payroll, advising on wheels that are harder and harder to beat? Get real.
So on the basis of just looking at the wheel (without knowing what to look FOR) you conclude that they are unbeatable. How arrogant is that? You just assume that because "everyone" knows that wheels are no longer exploitable, then it must be true.
"Everyone" also knows that you can't "read" random outcomes, and yet you dispute that.
The difference is that my claim is in principle achievable, whereas yours doesn't even make sense.
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 08:57:44 AM
So on the basis of just looking at the wheel (without knowing what to look FOR) you conclude that they are unbeatable.
Not at all. Its very very difficult to beat, not impossible. My point is, with every new improvement, you VB guys laugh and laugh and say its easier than ever. No, its not. You're not fooling anybody, Huxley, the casinos, the public. Nobody.
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 08:37:41 AM
>>coming from someone who claims to be able to "read" random (which by definition is unreadable)>>
And at one time, BJ was unbeatable. Until somebody figured out it wasn't. And don't give me 'its two different kinds of games', unbeatable is unbeatable.
The old wheels were considered unbeatable too, until someone beat them.
Just as you claim that "you have to put the hours in" to read random (cough), so also you have to put the hours in to learn how to beat the modern wheels.
Not having been around in the era of the old wheels, I don't know whether it's easier today or not. All I can say is that it can be done, and it isn't that hard.
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 09:04:01 AM
Not at all. Its very very difficult to beat, not impossible. My point is, with every new improvement, you VB guys laugh and laugh and say its easier than ever. No, its not. You're not fooling anybody, Huxley, the casinos, the public. Nobody.
Again, how do you KNOW this? have you actually ever tried?
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 09:04:01 AM
Not at all. Its very very difficult to beat, not impossible. My point is, with every new improvement, you VB guys laugh and laugh and say its easier than ever. No, its not. You're not fooling anybody, Huxley, the casinos, the public. Nobody.
I don't know of any VB guys who claim that, please show me any posts on this forum where members claim this.
I'm not a "VB guy". I concentrate on finding biased wheels.
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 09:05:54 AM
Not having been around in the era of the old wheels, I don't know whether it's easier today or not. All I can say is that it can be done, and it isn't that hard.
Yes, I hear from you guys that its a cake walk. You all must get the talking points and read from them. The truth is, if it really WAS easy, nobody would be saying a word. You would all be trying to convince Huxley by your silence that they had gone far enough, no more improvements.
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 09:10:21 AM
Again, how do you KNOW this? have you actually ever tried?
I know somebody who used to do it 10 years ago. He says the new wheels are almost unbeatable and not worth his time. But he's probably a low grade doofus compared to youse 'mod-ERN' dudes..
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 09:15:17 AM
The truth is, if it really WAS easy, nobody would be saying a word.
Easy is a relative term. It wasn't easy when I started. Practice makes it easier. And as far as I'm aware, very few people say it can be done, but that suits me fine.
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 09:17:29 AM
But he's probably a low grade doofus compared to youse 'mod-ERN' dudes..
Yes, I expect so. :)
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 09:14:47 AM
I'm not a "VB guy". I concentrate on finding biased wheels.
So you're finding biased wheels among the new modern wheels? Is that the story you're going with? Where do you play, Outer Slobovia, where the last new wheel they got was in 1986? Are you sure this is the path you want to go down here? This is, well, unexpected, for about 100 reasons. LOL!
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 09:19:26 AM
Easy is a relative term. It wasn't easy when I started. Practice makes it easier. And as far as I'm aware, very few people say it can be done,
Finding biased wheels? Yeah, a safe bet is, very few people are finding biased wheels these days. You must must be joking, right? I don't know if you heard, but biased wheels died a painful death just a few years ago. Yet you easily find lots of them. Have you seen Bigfoot too?
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 09:22:19 AM
So you're finding biased wheels among the new modern wheels? Is that the story you're going with?
What can I say? It works for me. :blush2:
You just carry on with your reading random (cough) and dismiss me as a deluded eccentric.
But don't worry cheese, my claim isn't as ridiculous as yours, so you're still the "special" guy around here. :sarcastic:
It is a well known fact that biased wheels are extremely hard to find. One has to travel extensively and one of those wheels might still be found in Lower Slobbovania. :diablo:
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
these days every casino can have a computer to find biased wheels faster than any player and prevent any problems. Not sure they all use it, but they can for sure.
They would even use a computer in Lower Slobbovania IF, OH YES IF they don`t run out of electrical power.
N.D.
I don't use the "standard" way of finding bias which was given in the old books; that was never an efficient way of detection, even when the old styles wheels were around. And yes, many casinos now have data collection systems which monitor wheels, but they are not infallible for quite a few reasons which I won't go into. Even if they were, it wouldn't matter, because these systems can't detect a bias until after thousands of spins, and some kinds of bias are temporary and dependent on certain conditions. This means that the bias gets "washed out" in the data and the casino will never know when a bias is present.
It's worth keeping in mind that the main reason why casinos replaced their wheels with the modern low-profile style was to thwart the VB and computer players. Increased scatter will help to achieve that, but it doesn't eliminate bias, in fact, quite the contrary.
You speak like Snowman :) well i heard some amazing storeys ...
I assume it has to pretty hard or if not impossible to work alone.
Even if defect spotting can be done so does some one need one extra hand to collect data - don't you agree.
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 11:56:37 AM
I don't use the "standard" way of finding bias which was given in the old books; that was never an efficient way of detection, even when the old styles wheels were around. And yes, many casinos now have data collection systems which monitor wheels, but they are not infallible for quite a few reasons which I won't go into. Even if they were, it wouldn't matter, because these systems can't detect a bias until after thousands of spins, and some kinds of bias are temporary and dependent on certain conditions. This means that the bias gets "washed out" in the data and the casino will never know when a bias is present.
So how many spins on average do you need to find a temporary bias? All I need is 100 to 150.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 20, 2011, 12:21:41 PM
So how many spins on average do you need to find a temporary bias? All I need is 100 to 150.
then why did u use some complicated methods to bet? if u say it's so simple
Quote from: iggiv on April 20, 2011, 02:31:20 PM
then why did u use some complicated methods to bet? if u say it's so simple
Who said it was so simple? I never said that. I find your comment argumentative. I went out on a limb and stated my position first. I took a risk of possible ridicule or more incredulous skepticism. It's you that perceives this as so simple. Not me. Perhaps you should explain to us what you are really asking.
Looking for biased wheels is a good hobby for some people, I'm all for it. The more the merrier. Its right up here with spending all your spare time with a metal detector, looking for 'treasure'. You might get lucky.
Probably not, though..
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 20, 2011, 03:00:22 PM
Who said it was so simple? I never said that. I find your comment argumentative. I went out on a limb and stated my position first. I took a risk of possible ridicule or more incredulous skepticism. It's you that perceives this as so simple. Not me. Perhaps you should explain to us what you are really asking.
well, then i misunderstood u. No reason to get angry though :)
i thought u were saying 150 spins is enough to get a temp bias wheel, so that's all U need to win, i thought. just get 150 spins. not very hard.
Quote from: iggiv on April 20, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
well, then I misunderstood u. No reason to get angry though :)
I thought u were saying 150 spins is enough to get a temp bias wheel, so that's all U need to win, I thought. just get 150 spins. not very hard.
There is no such thing as temporary bias. It's randomness. That's exactly what normal random distribution does. It looks like bias. It ranges from 150 to 450 spins to it's natural cycles. You can track it with the normal averages for a so called "law of thirds." So please try to not be so upset, please.
Quote from: cheese on April 18, 2011, 09:03:23 AM
Its very hard to wise people up, its just not worth it. Never wise up a chump, he resents it and will hate you in the end..
True saying.
James.
Quote from: graham44 on April 18, 2011, 05:12:26 PM
Matrix?
What is that. Isn't it a film?
Lmao, sorry but i laughed when i saw this reply :D
Quote from: Mike on April 20, 2011, 09:10:21 AM
Again, how do you KNOW this? have you actually ever tried?
Mike, Look around you, roulette is not impossible to beat. Why can't most people (9/10) do some proper research, rather than debating all the time.
James.
Quote from: iggiv on April 20, 2011, 11:25:48 AM
these days every casino can have a computer to find biased wheels faster than any player and prevent any problems. Not sure they all use it, but they can for sure.
Not every casino, but yeh most do.
James.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on April 20, 2011, 10:14:27 PM
Mike, Look around you, roulette is not impossible to beat. Why can't most people (9/10) do some proper research, rather than debating all the time.
James.
Nothing is impossible for the one who shows determination. :ok:
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
QuoteSo how many spins on average do you need to find a temporary bias? All I need is 100 to 150.
How can that be true as you need at least the chance of randomness being 1 in 100 as minimum.
800 to 1000 will tell if you having penitential to continue collecting data.
Later when you have a sample of data with a high std you still don't know if it is due to bias or a false positive, random fluctuation - but there is ways to tell witch one is - but that i wont write about.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 20, 2011, 12:08:44 PM
I assume it has to pretty hard or if not impossible to work alone.
Even if defect spotting can be done so does some one need one extra hand to collect data - don't you agree.
It's always nice to have a reliable partner, but it's not necessary.
Quote from: cheese on April 20, 2011, 05:11:41 PM
Looking for biased wheels is a good hobby for some people, I'm all for it. The more the merrier. Its right up here with spending all your spare time with a metal detector, looking for 'treasure'. You might get lucky.
Probably not, though..
In my experience, about 1 in 7 or 8 wheels are exploitable, so luck isn't necessary. Snowman will have more reliable data, but then it depends where you are. I don't live in Slobenia, and never intend to go there. :)
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on April 20, 2011, 10:14:27 PM
Mike, Look around you, roulette is not impossible to beat. Why can't most people (9/10) do some proper research, rather than debating all the time.
James.
What are you talking about? I never said roulette was impossible to beat.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 20, 2011, 07:55:04 PM
There is no such thing as temporary bias. It's randomness. That's exactly what normal random distribution does. It looks like bias.
Wrong. It COULD be random, but if you don't take into account other "data" apart from spins, then how would you know?
It makes no sense to talk about something being random if you don't even look at possible causes as to why the ball is landing where it is and not somewhere else. Obviously something is "random" if you are completely ignorant of any cause and effect. From this position of ignorance, only then is it possible to talk about the "properties" of randomness, as though some events are inherently random, which is a meaningless concept.
Quote from: Mike on April 21, 2011, 04:44:49 AM
It makes no sense to talk about something being random if you don't even look at possible causes as to why the ball is landing where it is and not somewhere else.
But that doesn't matter, its random enough for our purposes. Roulette isn't true random anyway, even though we call it that. Its kinda random, sorta random, random enough for gambling. True random, like that found in decaying radioactive material, is nothing like roulette random. A sequence of outcomes is a mess, its gobblygook. But with a wheel, it can be out of whack and still be random enough for the house to have its edge. Its sloppy random. They say a coin flip can never be true random because all coins are a little heavier on one side than the other. Yet they're fine for gambling purposes because we can't detect the subtle difference.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 21, 2011, 02:55:22 AM
How can that be true as you need at least the chance of randomness being 1 in 100 as minimum.
800 to 1000 will tell if you having penitential to continue collecting data.
Later when you have a sample of data with a high std you still don't know if it is due to bias or a false positive, random fluctuation - but there is ways to tell witch one is - but that I wont write about.
My answer again:
QuoteThere is no such thing as temporary bias. It's randomness. That's exactly what normal random distribution does. It looks like bias. It ranges from 150 to 450 spins to it's natural cycles. You can track it with the normal averages for a so called "law of thirds."
Quote from: Mike on April 21, 2011, 04:44:49 AM
Wrong. It COULD be random, but if you don't take into account other "data" apart from spins, then how would you know?
It makes no sense to talk about something being random if you don't even look at possible causes as to why the ball is landing where it is and not somewhere else. Obviously something is "random" if you are completely ignorant of any cause and effect. From this position of ignorance, only then is it possible to talk about the "properties" of randomness, as though some events are inherently random, which is a meaningless concept.
I'll ask you again. How many spins does it take for you to discover this so called "temporary bias" as you call it? I can detect a random hot set of numbers in 100 to 150 spins. They often keep going while cycling out of being hot at a rate on average that is the equivalence of a so called "law of thirds." So it takes another 300 spins to drop them from your so called "temporary bias." There never was a one day bias. It was always just normal randomness. I know a lot more than you would like for me to have known. I see right through your magical belief system. So does everyone now.
Real bias is discovered by tracking the wheel. The first people to do it used a home computer to find real bias. They tracked wheels for thousands of continuous spins. They worked in shifts until they had enough real data. They entered all that spin history into there computer at home. Back then the casinos where sitting ducks. You need to explain your concept of "temporary bias" and how you use data other than spins to detect it. Take the tin foil cone off your head this time, please.
Im not quite sure which bias trackers you refer to. The ones that I know of dont do it that way. If all your info is a long string of numbers, im pretty sure you will be waisting your time.
A temporary bias can dissapear because of change in air pressure or cleaning, polishing and hoovering the wheel. It will then slowly gain strength again after a few days. If one runs a so called number strength scheme along with the number tracking and also notes air pressure and turning and cleaning of the wheels, it can be easy to see when the bias is going to weaken and the number strenght curve is going to drop. The team I followed some years back tracked strike diamonds because their play was VB with a bias touch, but they also tracked the bounce lenght from each individual number. That is, how far will the ball bounce after hitting X number on the rotor. (Not to be confused with a scattergram a VB player might produce)
Some numbers didn`t give much energy back to the ball so the ball didn`t bounce long. Obviously ball material needs to be noted too because different material produces different scatter. When compared with fret tests and pocket sound tests, it could easyli verify pocket biases. When these things is entered into a computer and when you add them to the data you get out of Scotts software or other VB schemes, you get some amazing data that none of the data tracking schemes the casinos use, is able to detect. Some pocket biases simply dont exist with a specific ball type, so if suddenly a bias seems to be gone, you will have to check the ball type as well because the bias might be gone, along with the ball type.
Quote from: Kelly on April 21, 2011, 10:15:57 AM
Im not quite sure which bias trackers you refer to. The ones that I know of dont do it that way. If all your info is a long string of numbers, im pretty sure you will be waisting your time.
That's good to know. With all that you have factored into your gathering of information, that can find a useful bias, you admittedly decided to overlook basic randomness. Here is a known fact. Sectors of the wheel have hot and cold streaks just like everything random dealing with the wheel. I'm sure that these streaks can act like short termed bias. So if I understand this correctly, you explain that a short termed bias can be a bias that goes away because of humidity or some other factor. But randomness is never considered a factor. My only conclusion is that you are finding wheels with bias that the casinos aren't aware of. You would know this because that long string of numbers is a waste of time. Sounds to me like an argument forming for conditional awareness. Or at least an argument for situational awareness.
QuoteSectors of the wheel have hot and cold streaks just like everything random dealing with the wheel. I'm sure that these streaks can act like short termed bias.
QuoteSounds to me like an argument forming for conditional awareness. Or at least an argument for situational awareness.
For me it sound like you try to compare hot and could numbers with cause and effect - is not the same thing.
Is a difference to know where the high probability area is and are not the same as guess where it is using 37 degree of freedom.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 21, 2011, 11:38:26 AM
For me it sound like you try to compare hot and could numbers with cause and effect - is not the same thing.
Is a difference to know where the high probability area is and are not the same as guess where it is using 37 degree of freedom.
No, I disagree. I'm not comparing them with cause and effect. I'm intentionally saying that they occur naturally outside any perceived cause and effect. I'm also saying that they represent a blind spot to most if not all wheel trackers. You all here are clearly stating the unimportance of them. If there are six sectors on the wheel, then it's only the randomness of six. If eight sectors on the wheel then only the randomness of eight. It's not about guessing at 37. But then again, randomness is a blind spot for you.
Quoterandomness is a blind spot for you.
No that is not true - as I can show Mike, Snowman or Kelly that I know what I speak of regarding bias - we can not say the same about you as they would laugh if they compare what you show them towards what I show them - easy to see what is what and valid.
You just let me know if you dear to compete regarding knowledge regarding bias - it is obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.
You do best to stick to your poor roulette systems that has no edge what so ever.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 21, 2011, 11:48:16 AM
No, I disagree. I'm not comparing them with cause and effect. I'm intentionally saying that they occur naturally outside any perceived cause and effect. I'm also saying that they represent a blind spot to most if not all wheel trackers. You all here are clearly stating the unimportance of them.
The bizarre thing is that you and cheese accuse the AP guys of being somehow blinkered and closed-minded when it's the APs who actually take into account ALL of the available data, not just the string of numbers and stats. If anyone is closed-minded, it's you and all others who play non-physics based methods. You intentionally exclude all relevant data which actually contributes to where the ball lands, instead preferring to assume randomness (ie; that each outcome is equally likely), then on that basis, you choose your bets! :girl_wacko:
If you actually thought about what you were doing, you would realise how silly this is and how you never use this logic in other situations.
Yes, the problem with detecting bias by merely collecting spins and doing an analysis on them is that you don't know whether the bias is real or whether it's just randomness mimicking bias, that's why (as kelly pointed out) it's an unreliable method and one that no serious bias player would ever use, even though it's touted as the "standard" way of determining bias. Not only is this method unreliable, it's massively inefficient and time-consuming. Snowman gives a nice analogy in his book:
"Traveling from casino wheel to casino wheel, recording thousands of spins to find wheel bias is like recording the gas mileage on your car for thousands of miles to determine if your tires are worn out. Doesn't it make more sense just to look at the tires directly to see if they are defective, worn out and in need replacing?"You need to make OTHER observations and only then check spins to see whether there is any correlation. The purpose of collecting spins should be to confirm bias, not discover it in the first place. If bias is confirmed, probability tells you that it's unlikely that the spin data is merely mimicking bias, so you are justified in making predictions - you are not being tricked by coincidence.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 21, 2011, 11:58:07 AM
No that is not true - as I can show Mike, Snowman or Kelly that I know what I speak of regarding bias - we can not say the same about you as they would laugh if they compare what you show them toward what I show them - easy to see what is what and valid.
You just let me know if you dear to compete regarding knowledge regarding bias - it is obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.
You do best to stick to your poor roulette systems that has no edge what so ever.
I know that randomness is a blind spot for you. Your data has no consideration for it. All you have is this pathetic defense mechanism as a reaction. The topic of the moment is temporary bias. I just wanted to see any of you differentiate between the evidence that temporary bias exists or not and ruling out common randomness. But you didn't do that. You can tell yourself that you are superior all you want. I think you are curve fitting your data because you don't consider randomness. What's more, you dismiss it. Yeah, you are really cool.
Show me the thread where you guys discussed ruling out randomness from your data gathering data. I would bet that you used any previous discussion on this as a way to dismiss randomness then too. I've waited all these years until I heard that new one, temporary bias. So far you guys have been safe in your ignorance. Bias wheels, what a joke.
That's very interesting Mike. How do you check the tires for temporary bias?
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 21, 2011, 01:30:07 PM
I know that randomness is a blind spot for you. Your data has no consideration for it.
And to you it's everything. That's a bigger blind spot.
Gizmo, by ignoring all other data and observations, and looking exclusively at past spins, you are making yourself impotent for no reason at all. Is it because you're afraid of physics or what? is it just too messy and complicated for you?
If randomness is mimicking bias, is it possible to win that roulette session by basing your bets on that information?
VKM
Quote from: Mike on April 21, 2011, 01:51:55 PM
Gizmo, by ignoring all other data and observations, and looking exclusively at past spins, you are making yourself impotent for no reason at all. Is it because you're afraid of physics or what? is it just too messy and complicated for you?
So it is true after all. You guys don't consider randomness. Great. There's never ever been anything to it. Yes, go ahead and forget about it. You are right.
Quote from: VKM on April 21, 2011, 02:02:21 PM
If randomness is mimicking bias, is it possible to win that roulette session by basing your bets on that information?
VKM
Of course, but session after session consistently - no.
Actually, the question is meaningless. You keep thinking that randomness is "something". But actually it's a LACK of information, or rather, it's the information that no outcome is more likely than any other outcome. By sheer coincidence (luck), you will win occasionally using that "method".
Quote from: VKM on April 21, 2011, 02:02:21 PM
If randomness is mimicking bias, is it possible to win that roulette session by basing your bets on that information?
VKM
Yes, the original plan used 6 extra hits per 100 spins to win 1.5 million dollars. That's using some six numbers and having them hit one more time each than they should have. Now they should hit three times for each one of the six in 100 spins. So six more hits means four times each in a hundred.
Let's do this the money way. If you bet on six numbers that need to hit three times each then you get 18 wins. 18 wins = 630. Six times 100 spins = 600. But if you have a working bias then four hits each = 840. It costs you 600 to win 840. That's just a rough example. It's not accurate. But it was all they needed to win 1.5 million dollars.
Does that help? So you flat bet the six hottest numbers in a 100 spin cycle. You will lose one third of them in that 100 spins so you need to find their replacements if you can find them. Randomness simulated bias is a moving target.
Quote from: Mike on April 21, 2011, 02:24:04 PM
Of course, but session after session consistently - no.
Actually, the question is meaningless. You keep thinking that randomness is "something". But actually it's a LACK of information, or rather, it's the information that no outcome is more likely than any other outcome. By sheer coincidence (luck), you will win occasionally using that "method".
Here is some meaningless randomness. 100 spins to be exact. You can track this on a single 5X7 index card.
1 XXX
2 X
3 XXX
4 X
5 XX
6 XX
7 XXXXX
8 XXXXXX
9 XXXX
10 X
11 X
12 X
13 XXX
14 XX
15 XXX
16 XXXX
17 XXX
18 XX
19 X
20 XXX
21 X
22 XXXXX
23 XXX
24 X
25 XXXXX
26 X
27 XXXX
28 XXXX
29 X
30 XXX
31 XXX
32 XXXXXX
33 XX
34 XX
35 XXXXXXX
36
0 X
00 Here is the same sequence in wheel order for the American Wheel.
00
27 XXXX
10 X
25 XXXXX
29 X
12 X
8 XXXXXX
19 X
31 XXX
18 XX
6 XX
21 X
33 XX
16 XXXX
4 X
23 XXX
35 XXXXXXX
14 XX
2 X
0 X
28 XXXX
9 XXXX
26 X
30 XXX
11 X
7 XXXXX
20 XXX
32 XXXXXX
17 XXX
5 XX
22 XXXXX
34 XX
15 XXX
3 XXX
24 X
36
13 XXX
1 XXX
If there is a bias, is it possible to lose that session by basing your bets on that information?
VKM
Quote from: VKM on April 21, 2011, 02:58:31 PM
If there is a bias, is it possible to lose that session by basing your bets on that information?
Yes. The thing about randomness and hot numbers is that like all randomness things can change rapidly. It's very seldom that all your hottest numbers all shift to cold but it does happen on rare occasions. But if half of them shift you might not break even at best. You need consistency. That's the common state for hot number tracking too. You will find that three hot numbers will hit from 14 to +20 times in 300 spins. That's enough to win well. Six numbers opens the door to at least two of them cooling off. However if you only bet on three hot numbers you only lose one on average. A hot number will hit every 12 to 20 spins on average. But that same number might get a 40 or 50 spin gap while still remaining the hottest number. So it takes guts to stay with a hot number when it does that.
@ VKM,
I assume you're betting with the bias and not against it! In which case, I suppose it's possible, although it hasn't happened to me yet.
What's important is long term results, and obviously, if you're betting on the right side of the bias you won't lose long term.
Thanks Mike and Gizmo for the answers.
Can you look at a stream of numbers from a biased wheel and recognize that it is biased?
VKM
A bias player would from the number stream only be able to make some suggestions about where to look for a visual bias, but usually its the other way around. First visual, then number stream.
If randomness is mimicking a bias and it doesn`t match visually, there are every reason to be carefull and watch some more spins. Gizmo, you asume that the bias player only uses the numbers as a guide. The numbers should confirm what you see, nothing else. If a wheel looks absoloutely perfect but has some hot numbers, you just keep observing. In such a case its not enough with a high standard deviation, you also need an extreme Chi Square which won`t happen within normal randomness.
If you determine that the wheel is biased, then the number stream should confirm what you see.
Can you give an example of a biased wheel and what you would expect to see in the number stream of that wheel?
VKM
Quote from: Mike on April 21, 2011, 03:19:23 PM
What's important is long term results, and obviously, if you're betting on the right side of the bias you won't lose long term.
Hm? The hot 18. I've never tried to shift to the hottest 18 every cycle of 38 spins. Betting the hot half against the cold half. There are times that the consistency has to be in a kind of El Niño & La Niña extreme advantage state. This should be fun to figure out a detection method for. I never went after the hot 18 before. It's an EC bet.
Quote from: Mike on April 21, 2011, 01:29:11 PM
If anyone is closed-minded, it's you and all others who play non-physics based methods.
You'll never find in 18K + posts where I ever said bias or VP doesn't work. I always say its great if you have a lot of time on your hands and like getting skunked a lot. Go for it. I already have other hobbies, I don't need another one..
Quote from: Mike on April 21, 2011, 01:51:55 PM
by ignoring all other data and observations, and looking exclusively at past spins, you are making yourself impotent for no reason at all.
If you have something that works on all random data, why would you care how fast the wheel is spinning and how dry the air is? The wheel is irrelevant, its just another RNG, one of many. Flipping a coin is an RNG.
VKM, all you can expect to see is certain areas having lesser hit frequens and other has higher frequens of hits. When you find something visually not being perfect, you note down the areas. In the following number stream you would expect some deviations in those areas or the areas next to these. You might have a bias that makes the ball bounce away from the bias which will make the neighbour numbers, which is actually unbiased, receive hits and make them stand out as being biased. You don`t know that yet, but you know that if something is going on, it will be in some specific areas that you know where is located. Before you see the number stream, you might not be able to tell which sectors will be receivers and which will be donators.
Looking at the number stream without having looked at the wheel won`t tell you anything, but could give you a hint. But that hint could easyli be false. I know you guys would love to compare a biased number stream with an unbiased one, but all you see is extra hits. Some bias is direction dependend which means that you only get the true picture if you track the numbers in clock and anticlockwise directions. Which means that you really need to see the spins in person, because the dealers sometimes spins in the same directions twice by mistake. Which will mess up everything if you happens to just seperate them automaticly when looking at the number stream.
Thanks Kelly,
I appreciate you answering my question.
VKM
Quote from: Kelly on April 22, 2011, 02:00:02 AM
Some bias is direction dependend which means that you only get the true picture if you track the numbers in clock and anticlockwise directions. Which means that you really need to see the spins in person, because the dealers sometimes spins in the same directions twice by mistake. Which will mess up everything if you happens to just seperate them automaticly when looking at the number stream.
Ah, the dead art of bias play. Can't get enough of it..
Well its not exactly dead, but it gets a lot more attention on these boards than what its supposed to. Pure bias play is not very common here in europe, but the visual tecknicks used is very valuable tp perfect VB play on diffycult wheels.
Mind you, its not the bias players that brings up the topic on a constant basis. Its just about everyone else.
Quote from: cheese on April 21, 2011, 07:13:09 PM
If you have something that works on all random data, why would you care how fast the wheel is spinning and how dry the air is? The wheel is irrelevant, its just another RNG, one of many. Flipping a coin is an RNG.
cheese and crackers?