What of this method?

[rjeaton1]

In fact, conversely, a reason for NOT betting is also a trigger...

When you first walk up to the table, if you look up at the marquee and then DON'T place a bet...you've already used your first trigger...you had a REASON why you didn't place a bet...again...a reason is a trigger...doesn't matter when, why or how you come up with it or how many different ones there are...it's a trigger all the same.

[Tangram]

A system is destroyed by fluctuation because it is a fixed entity with rules and is dependent on one or a few events.

Most systems are like this, but they needn't be. Ditto rj's question - you have to base your bet on something, whether it be constantly changing or not. You may have "meta-rules" (rules about when to use other rules), but it doesn't mean they aren't rules (or "guidelines", if you prefer).

How does your method give you an advantage if you haven't found out what gives you an advantage?

[rjeaton1]

My last comment before I wait for a response from Bateman...

I'll put the whole thing out in one post about how I understand you're way of playing...

I've got a blank piece of paper...that piece of paper is my "situational system, variable betting strategy, method, educated guessing system"...whatever you want to call it.

I walk up to the roulette wheel, I look at the Marquee...I choose not to bet...why?  I write down why I didn't bet.

Next spin...I choose not to bet...why?  I write down why I didn't bet.

Next spin...I place my first bet...why?  I write down why I did bet.

So on and so forth..

I walked up to the table with a blank piece of paper...("no system")...then I ended up with a piece of paper full of things written on it.  Those things are all reasons...reasons are triggers...triggers make up systems...that piece of paper you end up holding at the end is a system.  

[I have cookies]

How does your method give you an advantage if you haven't found out what gives you an advantage?

Yes i agree.

[lucky_strike]

Yes every one use static triggers i can show you how.

Cheers

[MATTJONO]

i can see why bateman says we have no exact triggers but of course there is a reason for the bet to be placed.
when playing we dont know if we are going to see

a run of 10 reds in a row,
a colum or dozen hit only 3 times in 30 spins,
a street hit 6 times in 12 spins,
a 6 sector on the wheel hit 5 times in the last 6 spins
or even half of the wheel hit 15 times in a row...
the list is endless

maybe we decide the bets when we are at the wheel and taking agvantage of these examples above that will happen. so if we see an oppatunity early we should keep an eye on it until the signal is stronger then take advantage from that flatbetting.

mattjono

[lucky_strike]

The only one who does not use a static element is a blind man who put chips on the carpet.

Cheers

[Mr Chips]

I haven't used Mr Chips' 4Selecta, but by all accounts, it makes a consistent profit. It is complex, but could certainly
be coded (as could any method, only the non-programmers deny this can be done)

Tangram, I would never cast doubt on your programming skills, but you would have to incorporate into any program the exit strategy
that is central to the system. As a session develops it provides information both positive and negative, which will lead to an informed
decision when to exit a session.
 
I will give an example of the difficulty a programmer would encounter. The session could start favourably with an early win, then after
a certain number of spins it's showing a loss. A positive sign is that the bets are still low, but most of the hits not wins are from the
M available numbers. Only two numbers are are showing in the H available numbers and three for L. The C section group in the Main
Table is in the lead, which accounts for the low bets. HC in the Main Table hits and is second leader if it had been leader it would
have won, therefore activate the 'C' Table. After a few more spins h, which is the leader in the 'C' Table wins and therefore is a valid
bet for C section group in The Main Table. The session is at spin 75 showing -7 units. The question now is should the session end now
with a just about break even -7 result or continue?
 
Experience of such decisions and the information gained throughout the session will provide an informed decision. How will a program
come to such a decision. I will be very impressed if a program can match my decisions or even improve on them
 
Mr Chips

[lucky_strike]

OK, Lucky Strike. I'm talking about betting triggers. I don't use triggers I use indicators to keep an overall picture of what is happening now, what has happened and what I think will happen. Then I decide how and what to attack. Sometimes I will attack systematically, with rules, for example for 3 or 5 spins. Other times I will pull the attack only when the trend has faded. Sometimes I will use set indicators to signify a certain condition, but they are the only static element I use and only because they are part of a technique for observing patterns and trends. Still, they don't always influence my bet selection.

Bateman that is very good to use indicators much more powerful then patterns and I name them static element for indicators that can be one singles outcome or a pattern with a static element and there is more variations.
Even as you mention 16 past trails can become an indicator and you can pick to follow the random flow or play against it and if you fail it would be the same as hitting 32 red or blacks in a row.
I don't say this to give any one ideas I am testing and explore this kind of stuff because I enjoy it.

Cheers

[Tangram]

All you lot are doing is arguing that certain words mean the same thing. They don't.

A betting indicator is not a trigger. With trigger betting, you may as well be purely guessing.

I can't see any difference between "betting indicator" and "trigger", but you seem to think there's all the difference in the world. 

Your description of how you choose your bets is the way I go about it too. I really think we're singing from the same hymn sheet, but I'm not offended if someone calls me a "system" player.

I believe that roulette is a game of skill, and like all skills, it must be learned. You have to put in the hours to find out what works and what doesn't. However, as a programmer I perhaps have a different insight into the decision making process. If you write code you get into the habit of translating informal descriptions into more precise form which a computer can understand. I know that I could write a program which emulates my skill, it's just that it would be a ton of work and I don't see any point in doing it. Have you never heard of expert systems? nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system

[Tangram]

Experience of such decisions and the information gained throughout the session will provide an informed decision. How will a program
come to such a decision. I will be very impressed if a program can match my decisions or even improve on them

Mr Chips,

The only challenge lies in being able to pass your experience into a form that the computer can understand.  If you know what decisions to make under any particular circumstances, then you should be able to instruct a computer to do the same thing. It may be difficult and take a lot of work, but in principle it could always be done because playing roulette only involves processing data and making decisions. There's a quote I like from the designer of modern computer architecture, Jon Von Neumann. I think it sums up the problem nicely:-

"You insist that there is something that a machine can't do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that."

If you don't know what to do, but are just guessing, then you can't expect a computer to do any better (or worse for that matter). A Computer has no initiative or innate intelligence whatsoever (so if anyone says you have a mind like a computer, don't feel flattered.  ) and without a program it's just a box of microchips - a doorstop.

[Tangram]

@ Bateman,

I understand what you're saying; an indicator "points to" the possibility of a bet together with the trend signals. I still think we're talking about the same thing really, because in the end you have to make a bet (a decision), and you make this on the basis of previous successes using similar signals. If there is currently a "history" which doesn't fit one of your indicators, then this is itself an indicator, or a trigger to not bet.

[Mr Chips]

The only challenge lies in being able to pass your experience into a form that the computer can understand

A computer program is no match to the complexity of the human brain. A human can make intelligent decisions, a computer
simply follows a set of routines.
 
Consider the following: We are in a plane, which is on autopilot and there are a number of very advanced computers on board
controlling every part of the plane. They have been programmed with every known situation relating to faults, therefore the
experience of failures in other aircraft makes this a formidable and safe aircraft.
 
The plane suddenly loses power 5 minutes from landing. The computer relays on the screen that the fault will be rectified at
the estimated time of 4 minutes. The plane is severely vibrating, there is a slight crosswind, which adds to the instability of
the aircraft.
 
The choice now is should the pilot take full control of the aircraft or keep it on autopilot and rely on the experience programmed
into the computer. No surprises what or rather who I will chose
 
Mr Chips

[mistarlupo]

Mr Chips,

Can you clarify for me the difference between your so called 'intelligent' (or 'educated' as some refer to it) decisions that do not follow a set of specific routines, and a pure random decision? Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Lupo

[Mr Chips]

Lupo,

I haven't a clue what educated guessing is about, as people who claim to use it never produce results, in fact they don't produce
anything. If they said when there is a full moon it's easier to identify Red and Black, that would at least give us something to work
on
 
With a well designed system providing a wealth of info and a minimum loss and exit strategy it's possible then to make intelligent
decisions. In the 4Selecta system, it is possible up to a point to write a program, which will take account of the positive and
negative aspects of a session. It could be that there are slightly more positive signs than negative ones after a certain number of
spins. The program would have to come to a logical decision to continue. I on the other hand will also be aware, that there is a slight
plus to continue, but it has been a difficult session ( how do you program difficult). As a human do I want to continue with such a
difficult session, maybe I can exit at -5, almost a break even result and start another session somewhere else.
 
Such considerations as "difficult", "no real advantage", "up and down", "tendency", there are probably many others as well. Humans
will always make a variety, sometimes irrational decisions, but they could well be advantageous and no program can come close
to matching a human decision.
 
Regards

Mr Chips

[Mr Chips]

-