(based on a no zero perfectly balanced wheel)
the odds for 2 reds appearing in a row are 1/4
the progression for betting the same colour twice would cost 3 units
so to break even with the odds we would need 3 wins to 1 loss 1/4 (1-4=3)
now take the above but make it for a 10 step which is 1024/1
a progression would cost us 1023 units
we would need 1023 wins to break even with 1 loss 1024/1 (1024-1=1023)
so lets say we use a 17 step progression on black, this would be 131072/1
the progression would cost us 131071 units
so we need 131071 wins to 1 loss to break even 131072/1 (131072-1=131071)
so lets say we wait for 7 reds then bet 10 progression against them which takes us to 17
so now we are only betting 10 steps again (1024/1) seems very profitable compared with the 131072/1 odds that we will lose, BUT...
but we have to wait 128 spins on average before we get our first bet (128x1024=131072)
so overall it doesnt matter if we wait because the odds stay the same for us, you are only really prolonging the loss and wins.
and remember these are the odds on a no zero wheel and the maths tells us we will break even,
now if you add the zero, we will actually lose money everytime that zero strikes.
this maths working out can be applied to any and every system, and does actually prove why systems fail, not matter how elaborate the system is the underlying maths is still there.
i can write the same maths for dozens, columns, lines, splits etc if you need to see it.
Spot on Ryan! Great post. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
As you said, this can be applied to ALL sorts of mechanical bets.
The systems/bet selections/progressions used may infinitely vary, from the most simple to the most complex, and STILL, the math will still manifest itself in the same way on the long term.
I believe that once these simple facts are comprehended and accepted by the player, the latter can then begin his way towards professionalism.
It is important that one learns to loose and accept the facts before he learns to win.
Regards,
Marven
Hi ryan,
please make up your math for betting 1 single number!
(and if you have enough time: 12 numbers)
br
winkel
ok i shall start off with the simple, no zero roulette perfectly balanced again,
a 3 spin progression for e/c's is 1/2/4=7
there are 8 possible 3 spin combinations for the e/c's, ill use red/black for now
RRR
RRB
RBB
RBR
BBB
BBR
BRR
BRB
now if i bet against one of those combinations coming up lets say RRR, i would bet BBB, now i will win if i hit anyone of those combo's apart from RRR, so i would win 7 and lose 1 on average, because the progression is 7 units i would need 7 wins to 1 loss, 7/1 and 7/1, which means i break even, if i use 10 step progression there are 1023 winning combos and 1 losing one, the progression costs 1023 wins to 1 loss
1023/1 and 1023/1 means i will break even
the same applies to the dozens only in 2 spins we get 9 combinations,
1,1
1,2
1,3
2,2
2,1
2,3
3,3
3,1
3,2
betting 2 dozens we can only be beat by 1 combo (if i bet dozen 2 and 3 for 2 spins, 1,1 will make me lose) therefore i will win if any of the other combos hit, there are 8 more, giving me a ratio of 8/1, the progression requires i win 8 times to cover 1 loss 8/1
8/1 and 8/1 means i will break even
now for a single dozen there are 5 winning combos and 4 losing combos, but the payouts are also uneven, so for the first spin we will win 2 units, there are 3 first step wins, which means the payout will be 3x2=6 out of 9 combos 6/9 = 2/3
2 wins are on the second spin which will win us 1 unit from each of them, 2/6 = 1/3
1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 or 1 which is also break even point,
the maths does look a little different when you are betting more than half or less than half of the wheel, but they end up at exactly the same conclusions.
i shall do the single number maths for you tommorrow as i am going to bed for now. i welcome any comments and questions
also I feel this information should be appropriate,
the house average or house edge (also called the expected value) is the amount the player loses relative to any bet made, on average. if a player bets on a single number in the american game there is a probability of 1/38 that the player wins 35 times the bet, and 37/38 chance that the player loses their bet. the expected value is
-1x37/38 + 35x1/38 = -0.0526 (5.26% house edge)
for european roulette, a single number wins 1/37 and loses 36/37:
-1x36/37 + 35x1/37 = -0.0270 (2.70% house edge)
so as you can see, the house payout isnt fair. this is why all gambling systems fail.
winkel, if you have any other questions regarding roulette probability, then there is a great website that ive recently found. you should study it as it will really help you with the maths, it really helped me understand. its called the wizardofodds.com
it will help you understand why all systems are destined to fail.
Thanks for your article Ryan.
According to Manrique this "why systems lose" question is directly related to dispersion of hits.
He answers what kills these systems in the practical world isn't the house edge as much as it is dispersion between hits.
For instance, say the player is armed with a 10-step martingale. Player thinks: the ideal happening for an even chance is 1 in 2 spins, I can resist 5 times that! ...What happens if he actually gets his hit always within 3, 4 or 5 cycles of two spins? HE BEATS THE GAME WITH A SIMPLE MARTINGALE!
In your example of a no-zero fair game, house relies on making their money with dispersion of hits and the natural statistical deviations which occur in the game, till the point the player can't be in play anymore because his hits are too separated from each other (negative deviation) and his limited bankroll can't stand holding him up into the game, as oposed to the virtually unlimited-funded one from the house which guarantees to be there as it is constantly receiving funds from losing players.
In these "fair" no-zero games, the house is expected to win, a practical break-even point for a player experiencing more and more dispersion against him as the sample grows becomes more and more far-fetched.
When you think about it... fair no-zero game my arse, the house always has it stacked towards them! Adding zeroes only shows how greedy the casinos are, they want players money and want it faster!
Victor
yes i agree, in a single session a player doesnt play long enough for the house edge to take any sort of effect so the dispertion is what will make a player lose.
however lets say for arguements sake you play 1000 spins per session, you will win and lose some of these sessions, after 20 of so sessions, (20k spins, and we have bet every spin) playing on a single zero table, your negative expectation will be 2-3% over 100 sessions, the negative expectation should be alot more closer to the 2.7% house edge.
i did the maths to prove that roulette cannot be beat no matter how long you wait for a bet, how many numbers you bet or how long your progression is, i do understand there are people like and including you that use strategies to make a 'system' work, but my post goes to show that bet selection is not important, its rather the player that makes it win or lose, eg.
if jerek posted that system he is using 99% of the forum would lose with it because they would play differently to jerek
Hi Ryan
First of all i want to wish You and all members a Happy prosperous 2009 New year
To-night I will be at the Casino to Receive the 2009 Year with
Bankroll = 500unit
Win Target = 50u or more per session, 1 shoe target win 2 session
Target 6 shoes double my bankroll
Game play = Baccarat touch bets [1min a hand.]
System use 3 differential bets / 5B
MM pascal triangle. 3rd line. stop at 50u profit per session, 2 win session stop , lose500u stop
Bet Strategy bets without Fear [100% confident on System ]
Time play; 1st shoe of Year 2009. will keep all records.
If i lose all my 500u will come back to report
If double my Bankroll will come back to say sorry YOU are WRONG.
Cheers Happy New Year
Win1Win2 Bets without fear many winswinwins are here .
You will come back to say that Ryan is wrong?
I WON $5 YESTERDAY SORRY RYAN YOU ARE WRONG SYSTEMS WORK
Hi Ryan.
Here you have the math for 1/2 and 1/3 for even money...
1. 0,00 = 0
2. 0,25 = 0
3. 0,69 = 1
4. 1,27 = 1
-----------
1. 0,00 = 0
2. 0,13 = 0
3. 0,36 = 0
4. 0,69 = 1
5. 1,10 = 1
6. 1,59 = 2
7. 2,14 = 2
8. 2,75 = 3
Cheers LS
Ryan
Not that long ago, I agreed to provide my time and cpu resources to test a system of yours, that I knew would fail. I happily gave up my time for a number of reasons:
1. I am always happy to prevent people from losing their hard earned.
2. I am always happy to help out members of this forum
3. I am always ready to suspend my belief in maths, on the very, very remote chance that somebody has 'fallen off a log' into the pot of gold.
Ryan
I am a maths person. I will always be a maths person. I know the house edge. I know why systems lose.
I am posting this to share my view on helping people
'Preaching from the pulpit' DOESN'T WORK. Getting down amongst the 'sinners' and 'ministering' to them individually, as I did with you, does.
Please just remember that there are many that have come to this forum with ideas that are new to them, but which may be old to us. Scaring them off with 'fire and brimstone' may just see them leave and make horrendous mistakes which cost them their livelihoods.
Alternatively, they may just have 'fallen off that log' into the pot of gold, and we have dismissed it from our presumptuous positions.
As a final note. I have a portion of me which is from the dark side. I agree with Wheel Bias and VB.
However, I don't choose to play this way as I play a mechanical system which wins on both a real wheel and RNG (from well governed casinos). So - In response to another post - "take the wheel away and what have you got?" A game from 0-36 randomly generated numbers that is still beatable.
i understand what you are saying but this section is pretty much designed for a post like this, i have kept my views off the main forum so i think it only right i express them here, in the end im only trying to help people from losing there hard earned cash.
the reason i have made this post is because people like herb tell people that systems all fail to maths, but people think he is just being negative, more specifically aswell mr chips said there is no proof maths can be the reason why a system fails, so i made this post as 'proof'.
this forum is just as much for me and herb etc, as it is for anyone else, yet we are the only people who take flak off everybody for voicing our opinions, mr chips has started a topic in the general board saying that the darkside section is absurd, if thats the case then they should get rid of his section.
this section isnt about spreading malicious information or lies, its based on concrete evidence and whether people like to hear it or is a different matter, but for those who may be oblivious to this information need to read and understand it before they play roulette, and i feel it only fair they get to
"I play a mechanical system which wins on both a real wheel and RNG", said Iwonder.
Does no one realize that when Iwonder, Chips, winkel and soon enrique make such a statement and someone comes along and says it is impossible...you are calling them a liar? Am I the only one who sees this?
Iwonder says he wins. Who am I or who are any of the rest of you to tell him he doesn't? How do you know? How could you possibly know?
Chips has a winning record at Spielbank. enrique was banned from a casino. winkel wins. All liars?
When this forum reaches the point where no person wants to post a system they use simply because they will be called a liar, what have you guys accomplished? I published a thread saying you should challenge the person to put up or shut up. No one challenges anyone. You just sit back and throw stones at people who try to help.
A little girl is jumping rope. The rope always hits where her feet just were! She's not there when the rope comes. That rope is the 2.7%. Yes, it's always there. Any idiot-fool knows that. We don't need a group of parrots on perches yelling to watch out for the rope! The six-year old knows that. All we--as players--have to do is not be there when the rope is at the bottom of the swing. Just don't be there when the 2.7% comes.
Line up until your ilk reaches the sea and far into it. There a people on this forum who win consistently. Damn my eyes if I'll call them liars.
Why are none of you geniuses making real-time videos as I did and show us what you can do? At least I got the balls to hang myself out there for all to see--win or lose. I don't see a damn one of you doing anything constructive. You got no money for a video recorder? You got no money to buy into Motion Box for a year? Where's all your winnings?
You guys better be damn glad Victor doesn't take a months vacation and give me the reins to this forum.
Sam
QuoteChips has a winning record at Spielbank. enrique was banned from a casino. winkel wins. All liars?
can you point out for me where i called them liars please, i dont recall saying that
QuoteYou just sit back and throw stones at people who try to help.
im not throwing stones at anyone, im just backing up my statements with evidence, it is not my fault if people take that as being negative.
QuoteA little girl is jumping rope. The rope always hits where her feet just were! She's not there when the rope comes. That rope is the 2.7%. Yes, it's always there. Any idiot-fool knows that. We don't need a group of parrots on perches yelling to watch out for the rope! The six-year old knows that. All we--as players--have to do is not be there when the rope is at the bottom of the swing. Just don't be there when the 2.7% comes.
thats true, but you cant jump a skipping rope forever, you will trip and cut your knee, but hopefully it will heal before the next time you trip.
QuoteLine up until your ilk reaches the sea and far into it. There a people on this forum who win consistently. Damn my eyes if I'll call them liars.
read reply #6 and i quote,
'I did the maths to prove that roulette cannot be beat no matter how long you wait for a bet, how many numbers you bet or how long your progression is, I do understand there are people like and including you that use strategies to make a 'system' work, but my post goes to show that bet selection is not important, its rather the player that makes it win or lose, eg.
if jerek posted that system he is using 99% of the forum would lose with it because they would play differently to jerek'
QuoteWhere's all your winnings?
the same could be said for you.
QuoteYou guys better be damn glad Victor doesn't take a months vacation and give me the reins to this forum.
do you have a personal vendetta against we who just state the facts?
Sam I hope you have not taken offence to this topic. Ryan was just trying to prove why systems do not work.
If this section is going to cause nothing but arguments we should just take it down, because that is all that it seems to be doing.
I personally apologize for any offensive posts that you have experienced from this section of the forum, I hope you don't hold it against us.
:)
true shorty, but i think the topic has just as much right to stay up as any other, it displays correct information and nowhere have i tried to mislead anyone, some members wont like this information but to others this information will be useful, even if the information is useful to just 1 person then the post has served its purpose, so i would say keep this topic up unless you can find a genuine reason why it should be taken down rather than simply because you dont like it
the problem with you VB-players is that you are so vain and you believe to have all wisdom about roulette.
You just use a certain kind of "players intelligence" to beat the house edge.
And you denie that there might be another kind of "players inteliigence".
All around the world in every forum you are present to destroy any kind of disussing roulette-strategies and you are behaving like a dictator who is afraid of being proven to be wrong or the same as every other person.
Back to my question with betting a single number.
Bet one single number until it has hit once more than needed to: spins/37 >1 this is the most simple way to beat the roulette by math.
But you are so stupid to ignore that fact.
no regards
winkel
Then there is the word "tantamount"..........
When any person says they have a winning system and someone says there are no winning systems, that is tantamount to calling someone a liar.
This section should come down! Chips is right. This is nothing but "The Pit Lite" as I predicted.
Sam
QuoteThen there is the word "tantamount"..........
When any person says they have a winning system and someone says there are no winning systems, that is tantamount to calling someone a liar.
read reply #6 properly, and you will see why i havent called anyone a liar.
QuoteThis section should come down! Chips is right. This is nothing but "The Pit Lite" as I predicted.
it is you guys that have turned it into the pit, go back to your own sections if you dont like whats here.
QuoteYou just use a certain kind of "players intelligence" to beat the house edge.
And you denie that there might be another kind of "players inteliigence".
read reply #6 and I quote, AGAIN!
'I did the maths to prove that roulette cannot be beat no matter how long you wait for a bet, how many numbers you bet or how long your progression is, I do understand there are people like and including you that use strategies to make a 'system' work, but my post goes to show that bet selection is not important, its rather the player that makes it win or lose, eg.
if jerek posted that system he is using 99% of the forum would lose with it because they would play differently to jerek'
read my posts properly before you post again on here please guys,
Winkel,
You can't call people stupid. It's ok to call systems stupid, but not the people. Please attack the message, not the messenger.
Twocat,
Don't be so fragile and grow up. Ryan isn't the only person that is saying systems don't work. So does just about every encyclopedia out there. They aren't calling you a liar. They are just stating the facts. This doesn't mean that systems aren't fun to play. On the contrary, some are a blast to use. They just don't hold up in the long run.
The only reason this area may appear to be turning into the pit is because of your actions, not ours.
-Herb
-Herb
Whether you will admit it or not, you are calling people a liar. You and the rest are a disruption to this forum just like Bago was. How long Victor will tolerate it is yet to be seen. Your pm message about my blood pressure tells the kind of person you are. You are a sadist who takes delight in hurting other people. What has happened to you in your life to turn you into such a misogynist?
You stated in your avatar you were the "Moderator of Mr Chips". You can't even moderate your own life, much less that of another.
Sam
Twocat,
Quit acting like a woman. Nobody is calling you a liar. You post this malarchy about your blood pressure and then raise a s h i t storm with your posts. Then you run around crying about your health and stress levels. If you can't take it then don't dish it out.
I've tried being nice. I'm very patient. But if you want me to act as nasty as you are right now, then I will give it right back to you.
-Herb.
QuoteYou and the rest are a disruption to this forum just like Bago was.
assuming i am part of 'the rest' who apparently according to you disrupt this forum, i would very much like to know how i disrupt it please
Quote from: VLSroulette on December 31, 2008, 06:35:59 AM
Thanks for your article Ryan.
According to Manrique this "why systems lose" question is directly related to dispersion of hits.
He answers what kills these systems in the practical world isn't the house edge as much as it is dispersion between hits.
For instance, say the player is armed with a 10-step martingale. Player thinks: the ideal happening for an even chance is 1 in 2 spins, I can resist 5 times that! ...What happens if he actually gets his hit always within 3, 4 or 5 cycles of two spins? HE BEATS THE GAME WITH A SIMPLE MARTINGALE!
In your example of a no-zero fair game, house relies on making their money with dispersion of hits and the natural statistical deviations which occur in the game, till the point the player can't be in play anymore because his hits are too separated from each other (negative deviation) and his limited bankroll can't stand holding him up into the game, as oposed to the virtually unlimited-funded one from the house which guarantees to be there as it is constantly receiving funds from losing players.
In these "fair" no-zero games, the house is expected to win, a practical break-even point for a player experiencing more and more dispersion against him as the sample grows becomes more and more far-fetched.
When you think about it... fair no-zero game my arse, the house always has it stacked towards them! Adding zeroes only shows how greedy the casinos are, they want players money and want it faster!
Victor
Well said Victor. I agree with pretty much everything. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
Regards,
Marven
Blimey!!!
I thought i had gone to my daughters Bebo page rather than to the VLS roulette forum ;D.
Come on guys cant we at least be civilised in here? We are sposed to be adults after all.
TSK
It's no big deal Spider. It's obivious that some people are very passionate about the game. Which is fine. Every now and again people have to vent a little. :)
Now, back on topic.
Not only do bettings systems fail to beat casino games with a house advantage, they can't even dent it. Roulette balls and dice simply have no memory. Every spin in roulette and every toss in craps is independent of all past events. In the short run you can fool yourself into thinking a betting system works, by risking a lot to win a little. However, in the long run no betting system can withstand the test of time. Furthermore, the longer you play, the ratio of money lost to money bet will get closer to the expecation for that game.
From the Wizardofodds website.
Herb.
A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men"- Willy Wonka.
-Herb
While you're at it, why not explain to us about gravity and how we should not walk off ten story buildings? Ever heard the word "condescending"? Your posts are just that. You act as if everyone was so stupid they didn't realize everything you said is true.
It's true! Virtually everyone has said it.
There was a time when there were no steel ships because "everyone" knew steel would not float. Anything heavier than air would not fly. Yet some dared to defy the "common knowledge". I am sure you were there then in a different form. You probably coined the phrase "Fulton's Folly" because no one could build a fire on a boat and produce steam for the paddle wheel. You are the naysayer who has been around since time began telling everyone it would not work.
Have a good new year!
Sam
Well then, there you are. You can't please everyone. :)
Best of Luck and Happy New Year!
-Herb
can you answer my question two cat please about how we 'disrupt the forum' as you put it
ryan08
I don't know you; have nothing against you.
Negativity is like a disease in that it spreads throughout a population---whatever population that may be. Get a job selling and start spreading negativity and see how long you last. Be a stock broker and spread negativity to your clients and see how long you last. Who wants a negative quarterback on their team?
We all know you can't add two and two and get five. We all know there is a 2.7% vig on a roulette wheel. On the 0 1 2 3 bet, it is much higher, something like 8% or so. We don't need to be constantly reminded like children being told to wear their galoshes in the rain. Those of us who seriously study the game know the enemy we're up against.
Now see_jerek has said today that enrique will have no trouble making a thousand in January. What if that's true? What if enrique could do that every month of 2009? If he can I want to learn from him. More than one person has been harassed off this forum. Gamlet was branded a liar who photo shopped his results. I don't know enrique or his temperament. He may be impervious to the insults and slurs coming his way. But he may not. He may join the crowd who say--This just isn't worth it! And he may leave before I learn from him. And therein lies my complaint.
So you come along and give a demonstration of why systems lose. What I hear you saying is this: "All who say they have a system which wins, read this. Know that your system does not win and give up. You are Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a hill and you'll never get to the top."
What do you want? For all of us to throw up our hands and say systems don't work. Let's all do something else. Let's shut down this forum as we are all chasing that which cannot be caught. Would you be happy if you logged on and the forum was gone? Would that make your day?
To ever make it in this game, one must maintain a positive, upbeat attitude. If you think you're a loser, you are. If you even allow the thought of losing to enter into the equation, it will affect your thought process and how you bet. Why do you want to do that to people? Why does anyone?
Had you posted WHY THE MARTINGALE LOOSES I would have no problem. But you have painted all systems with the same brush. I played roulette for over a year at XYZ CASINO and I never lost. Never lost! Did I have losing sessions? Sure. Did I lose in the true sense of the word? No! I played several systems and they averaged out. When one was losing another was winning. I had built $300 into $3200 when they discovered I was from America and blocked me from playing. It hurt to see that kind of money go. Even my $300 bankroll.
My wife and I sat in a casino in Vegas and played two systems. When we walked off with a couple of hundred, the dealer informed us that systems never work. What would the casino have him say? "Hey, Sam, that's a great system. You'll win tons with it." I don't think so. What he was doing was planting the seeds of doubt in our minds so we would be a tad more cautious when we next played. It was a mind game. Just like the one you are playing.
When a man posts a system, you have no right to criticize until you have thoroughly tested his system as he directs. If you can show proof it does not work, so be it. But to hide behind the old 2.7% wall and throw stones is a chicken-heel way to be.
I am tempted to lay my position on the line and begin deleting posts that are negative, insulting or hurtful. I lived a hell of a long time without being a second administrator of anything and I can make it to the grave not being one. I accomplished two things on December 31st. Big D. is only Big D. He can forget the rest. -Herb will not be the moderator of Mr Chips in his avatar. And if bjb007 comes back and calls winkel one more name, I'll delete every post he does it in. Every program that man every wrote wouldn't amount to Track4 if you added them together.
You guys ought to look at the new sign-ups every day. How many of those people to you suppose took a look at the bashing productive members get and decided not to ever post? We'll never know the systems we didn't get to try because they just decided not to subject themselves to insults and name calling.
I would rather be relieved of my 2nd administrator status than to sit back and do nothing while watching this forum deteriorate. I'd rather go out saying I did my best than to do nothing and have to live with my conscience.
And whether you believe it or not, ryan08, when you make the statement that all systems fail you are calling some very good people liars. One member posted about how he turned his bankroll over four times using small bets. Either ones or fives. He played the Lw system and a few things of his own. What you are saying, in effect, is that since no systems work his system did not work and he did not do what he said and therefore he is a liar.
For all you people who do nothing but hurl rocks, I'll leave you with a tiny bit of philosophy: He who tries and fails is infinitely better than he who never tries.
Sam
Twocat,
Attack the message. Explain why your system works, and I will explain why it will not. We can debate in a civil manner.
When someone posts a system, other members should have the right to demonstrate mathematically why it will not work. This enables the viewers to gain gambler's intelligence and to save money. This part of the forum is supposed to be where that takes place.
QuoteWe all know you can't add two and two and get five. We all know there is a 2.7% vig on a roulette wheel. On the 0 1 2 3 bet, it is much higher, something like 8% or so. We don't need to be constantly reminded like children being told to wear their galoshes in the rain. Those of us who seriously study the game know the enemy we're up against.
Unfortunately, Many people still fall prey to the Gambler's Fallacy. Sometimes to help a system player understand the weakness of a system you have to assume that they may not yet understand some of the basics. It's easy for people to make mistakes when they play roulette for the first time after having played other games. For example, many blackjack players change to roulette and completely overlook the fact that roulette is a game of independent trials. They're use to playing a game that is not based on independent trials, where the last cards dealt can affect the next games played. So sometimes you have to point out what may be obvious to other players.
(By the way, you would be amazed as to how many highly intelligent people make this mistake. It's very common).
If you don't want to debate this, then leave the Darkside. Quit trying to turn this into a personal fight.
Nobody is disputing your results or your testing. I for one feel that you are just lucky and that you have yet to get into a large enough volume of spins to prove a positive result for any of the systems.
I am however, not calling you a liar. Nobody here is. Your testing has been a heroic effort.
When systems are fun to play, where's the harm in trying your luck. Everyone has there own timeline. Some people have better luck with the systems than other people do. Some people have luck that seems to last a lifetime.
Now regarding the attitude:
I don't understand why you and Mr. Chips decided to come here and pick a fight. I don't know why you are so fired up, but when we hit you back half as hard as you are trying to hit us, you act as though you are shocked and in tears, telling everyone how mean and evil I am. Please, for the last time, lighten up. If you want me to give it back to you in kind, then I will. For now, I'm going to hold back. If you want to bicker in the pit about how evil I am, then have at it. I'm sure everyone will play the violin for you.
I however, would rather make the attempt to just try and get along for now. Doesn't this sound like the better option?
Sincerely,
Herb. :)
Dear Sam,
NO ONE IS CALLING YOU OR ANYONE A LIER!
It is absolutely possible to say that a system is a losing system without saying that anyone who claim winnings are liers.
Those persons may of course be winners.
(For the time being or for ever will eventually show.)
The SYSTEM (not the inventor/user) may be a losing one nonetheless.
Think like this:
You come up with a math based system.
You win big time with it when you test it for 1000 bets.
Great.
Now, suppose that you post the system because you want to share.
(You would, I know that)
And also suppose ALL members of this board tries your method for 1000 bets each - all of them using different spin-sequences, of course.
And all of them following the method to the letter, of course.
Then you'll end up having a 1,927,000-bets test.
And most probably the total net will be -2.7%
But a lot of people will be winning. One of them were you, doing the very first 1000-bets test.
And just because I say that the SYSTEM is a loser, doesn't mean I say that you or anyone is lying. You just were the lucky ones.
A lot of not-so lucky ones will have lost - and most probably in total lost more than the winners won.
I hope this will bring some good feelings to the start of what I hope will be your best year ever, Sam!
KFS
@two cat,
you seem to think that showing the maths is a bad idea and I totally disagree with you and I shall explain why.
(herb can vouch for me on this)
not so long ago I used to make, test and play systems, I never understood the maths properly and filled myself with false hope that my system would work long term, I lost alot of money and when I lost I felt shit, no other word for it.
herb explained to me the maths etc, it took me a while to understand, but when I did I was a hell of alot of a better player for it, this was by the way when I turned my efforts to visual ballistics and hot number strategies.
now if I had this information from the start then I couldve saved myself from losing money and by posting the knowledge and information from my experiences I am trying to help people bypass the mistakes I made, that is not being negative at all, in fact you are being negative by wanting this information to come down and if you delete it I will be furious as you will be abusing your position of administrator, that post has as much right to be on this forum as any of your posts, im simply sharing my knowledge.
people have a right to this information and you have no right to stop people from seeing it, and yes I proved the martingale doesn't work and applied it to any other system because maths doesn't change, whatever system you use or whatever progression that underlaying maths is exactly the same.
like you and a few other guys have told us if you have nothing constructive to say then dont say anything at all, so maybe you should think about not posting in this section if you arent going to be constructive. we can either post in here or post on your systems, which would you rather?
PS. I also have nothing against you but your views are somewhat twisted.
Hi Ryan :
Happy newYear
I has a good start of the year 2009 i had my target reach,
So iam sorry to say You are Wrong,
I will not post my winning shoes
i will post how i play using a shoe posted by arty in gg message board
B x
B W
P W
P W
B W
P L
P L
P L
P X
P W
B W
P L
B W
P W
P L
P L
P X
P W
B W 88+ one session won
P X
P W
B W
P W
B W
P W
B W 56+ target win144 100u reach 44units bonus
P X cont, to play 44u lost stop
P L
B W
B W
B L
P X
P W
P L
P X
B L
P W
P L
B W
P L
B W
B L
P W
B L
P W
B W
P W 68+ bonus 200units won shoe will be ending soon.
B X
B W
B L
P X
B L
B L
Cheers
Win1Win2 bets without fear many winswinswins are here
how can you say am im wrong when i have proved with maths that i am right, barraccat is also not an independant trial game so my maths cannot be applied to that.
also that is not an extensive test, i can win 200 in a session, when you win 1000 shoes and show me the results i may be more tempted to have a look but until then you havent really shown anything to prove me wrong.