Reality check

[lucky_strike]

Where was the 48.648% and the house edge when I won 800 000 trails?
Any one in this forum can develop a strategy that pass a life time and play and have some fun...

The only thing that will not happen is that you wont get rich because you need a slow fibo to do so and it can fail the very first day or after a life time...

Cheers

[rjeaton1]

Everybody who has a winning system that beats a casino game can show you the math that makes it a winner.

The only reason I even got involved in this thread posting the stuff that I have isn't because I don't believe you can consistently win.  The only reason I started posting is because of the comment made by Spike that I quoted above.

It's frustrating when you see comments like that, because in that sentence he is implying that there is a winning system.  Then, he says that those that have a winning system can show you the math that proves it is a winning system.  However, the math will ALWAYS say ANY system or method of bet selection is a loser.

So, my postings were only here to negate what Spike said.  Not to negate any hope of a winning system (or winning bet selection) and not to negate the fact that there are those that are winning with systems (or winning with certain bet selection methods).

[elmo]

Even a professional Blackjack player who can say that his method is mathematically sound can still lose his entire bankroll. It has happened to many players. So showing something to be a winner and actually doing it are two seperate things. The same goes for saying that a game with negative expectation can have no long term winners. The reality is different because there have been winners and always will be as long as the game is played.

[pins]

the reason i keep playing is i am trying to win a large amount in one sitting. i know i will have winning days. so i bet big hoping today is the day

[lucky_strike]

Well I don't claim to have a winning system but I can say that I enjoy the game and spend more money on roulette material then I spend in an casino.
My last buy was 800 Eur for some books and software and some other stuff.
Still trying to find Nylon balls to my wheel...

Cheers

[Spike]

Even a professional Blackjack player who can say that his method is mathematically sound can still lose his entire bankroll.>>>

Absolutely not true. A pro with a proper BR and betting the amounts proscribed by the math for the amount of the BR, will NEVER lose the entire BR. He will have ups and downs like a roller coaster ride, but the entire BR is never in danger. Only a fool with a small BR and bets too big for it, will lose the BR.

[Spike]

I'm not saying there isn't a winning system.  I'm just saying that you can't prove it using math.>>>>Excactly right>>

Exactly WRONG! Of course if you have a winning system you can prove it with math. Do you think winning systems are freaks of nature and outside the boundries of simple math?

Go back to BJ. You can prove how you win, how much you'll win, how long it will take, on and on. ALL winning systems can be proven with math, thats why they are winning systems! You can also prove a system a loser with math.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation..

[Spike]

because in that sentence he is implying that there is a winning system.>>>

Before card counting, BJ couldn't be beaten. What makes you think roulette is immune just because you haven't done it?

[mane]

   Hi, interesting discussion.

   In fact, i´m pretty sure, having studied a lot of maths for many years, that there may be a system that wins at roullette and still you can´t use today´s mathmatics or physics to prove it.

  I´ll explain. If roulette was a true random number generator, or even a pseudo random number generator, as are rng electronic (or online) roulettes you could use math to prove that you had a winning system. In fact Math has been use to prove beyond all doubt that those roulettes cant be beaten. There is no way to gain an edge against a rng roulette..period.

  Now, physical roulette is another story...and that´s because of something called chaos. The matmathics of Chaos as been develop only in the last 2 decades or so. Among other things it has been discovered that chaothic systems tend to form patterns known as attractors. (If we think a little we can consider that the appearing of live in the universe was a prove of an attractor that formed some order out of chaos).
   If a physical roulette is a chaotic system complex enough to form attractors in the form of some order in its results is something modern maths and physics would have a very hard time to discover or prove.

  So, what i´m saying is that there is hope for a Holy Grail for roulette, even if today´s mathmatics and physics can´t prove...or deny it.

Mane

[rjeaton1]

because in that sentence he is implying that there is a winning system.>>>

Before card counting, BJ couldn't be beaten. What makes you think roulette is immune just because you haven't done it?

I never said there wasn't a winning roulette system...I just said that if there is a winning roulette system there is no way it could be proven with math as you said in the following quote

Everybody who has a winning system that beats a casino game can show you the math that makes it a winner.

[rjeaton1]

Go back to BJ. You can prove how you win, how much you'll win, how long it will take, on and on. ALL winning systems can be proven with math, thats why they are winning systems! You can also prove a system a loser with math.

I don't know why you're talking about a winning blackjack system on a roulette forum, but if you must, I'll explain why math CAN say you'll win with blackjack.

It's because blackjacks events are dependent...meaning the odds of what cards will come out in the future changes with each and every card that is turned over.  This, provided you're skilled at card counting, can be used to your advantage in calculating the optimum time to place a bet, because the calcuations to figure out what you're ROI (return on investment) will be is constantly changing because the odds of what cards will come out are constantly changing.

Roulette will never have this advantage as the odds NEVER CHANGE.  There is and always will be a 48.648% chance for a red or black on each and every spin.   Therefore, math will NEVER allow for a roulette system to be proven effective (mathematically speaking).

[Spike]

 Therefore, math will NEVER allow for a roulette system to be proven effective>>

You have to beat the edge, just like card counting beats it in BJ. With your negative atttude I wouldn't worry about ever finding out how to do it, though..

[rjeaton1]

Therefore, math will NEVER allow for a roulette system to be proven effective>>

You have to beat the edge, just like card counting beats it in BJ. With your negative atttude I wouldn't worry about ever finding out how to do it, though..

And here we are back to where we started.  I never said that a winning roulette system didn't exist.  I said that if it did, it wouldn't be able to be proven using math as you said in the following quote:

Everybody who has a winning system that beats a casino game can show you the math that makes it a winner.

[pins]

you can show me any system. and i will show you a run of numbers that will beat it.

[Spike]

 I said that if it did, it wouldn't be able to be proven using math>>>

You're not sure there is a winning system, yet you're sure it couldn't be proven with math if there was one.

Thats so incedibly wacky I don't even want to know any details.

[Spike]

-