What do you think? Is roulette beatable?

[Boo_Ray]

And by beatable, I mean that when u walk out with profit every time..
I started a pool because I am not sure what other people think about roullete..

If any1 thinks that this thread is about spam..moderators just delete the post..

[admin]

To me it is a beatable, but leaving out every session positive is a bit unrealistic (some sessions just never turn to be in the plus, not even +1). Even the best players having the long-term possitive edge can have a session from hell.

The gist is to overcome the losses with enough wins; and yes, with those boring grinding systems, there's a chance in my humble opinion. But they aren't appealing, as the invested time vs unit ratio plain sucks.

For instance, this is a grind:

(Flat-betting for short-term balance at the even chances, waker methodology + ideal-value play).



It is tempting to "go wild" and use explosive systems to have the big win, and cheers and so... but then I'm strongly convinced it is exactly how casino wants us to play. "Go all in" "All or nothing", "become a big winner today" (but the inherent fine print is: become a loser as fast a possible too, so I have explosive methods totally discarded).

Best regards
Victor

I think this is a very valid poll..

[Boo_Ray]

I agree, but even if you know that it is hard to be disciplined at the table

[straight-talker]

Victor is someone who has very good insight and knows what it takes to beat the game of roulette long term. He made more sense  in the above sentences than some people will manage in a lifetime. I don't say that lighthearted or to gain brownie points.
As a perfectionist I had to find a way to win at roulette and keep winning. Grinding it out is the way to go. It is so true that the casino would love you to play with a cavalier approach and bet every spin. Playing this way sucks you in. To stay detatched and cool requires strength and discipline. Show me any true professional at the top of his game that does not have these two personaity traits. You may have gathered that I treat all this with a serious nature. Well I can tell you, if you want to beat roulette in the long term, you need a serious approach.

[admin]

I've had my share of talk with compulsive gamblers mate.

I have a relative who is one, I have a close friend whose mentality reflects one:
"I'd rather go out a loser than a small-time winner. I come to the casino to win."

No, you come to the casino for the probability to win, there is no certainty. For instance, a hardcoded ruled I have: if I lost 50% of my bank without having been ever in the plus, then I leave. Why? Because I know this: Even the largest winning tram starts with a concentration of hits; even the largest losing tram starts with a dispersion of hits. What I don't know? The extension of neither the positive nor the negative tram's length. Hence the two ways to act: on a clearly positive tram I would take little risks, knowing you can't win forever, but a positive fluctuation is in front of me and I can risk a little more; on the other hand at a clearly negative situation in which I already lost half of the bankroll and was never up, why in the world would I want to continue? I better keep those units for using them at a positive tram rather than waiting for the miracle or going "all or nothing".

I'm not a slots player; I do not have the mentality of "a couple more hands, the big win is coming". I evaluate according to what is happening right now at the table, not according to personal faith... Those who lost it all to the casino with only half moderation would still have half the house and half the bank account left.

Best regards,
Victor

[Krash]

I've had my share of talk with compulsive gamblers mate.

I have a relative who is one, I have a close friend whose mentality reflects one:
"I'd rather go out a loser than a small-time winner. I come to the casino to win."

No, you come to the casino for the probability to win, there is no certainty. For instance, a hardcoded ruled I have: if I lost 50% of my bank without having been ever in the plus, then I leave. Why? Because I know this: Even the largest winning tram starts with a concentration of hits; even the largest losing tram starts with a dispersion of hits. What I don't know? The extension of neither the positive nor the negative tram's length. Hence the two ways to act: on a clearly positive tram I would take little risks, knowing you can't win forever, but a positive fluctuation is in front of me and I can risk a little more; on the other hand at a clearly negative situation in which I already lost half of the bankroll and was never up, why in the world would I want to continue? I better keep those units for using them at a positive tram rather than waiting for the miracle or going "all or nothing".

I'm not a slots player; I do not have the mentality of "a couple more hands, the big win is coming". I evaluate according to what is happening right now at the table, not according to personal faith... Those who lost it all to the casino with only half moderation would still have half the house and half the bank account left.

Best regards,
Victor

Thank you for those words of wisdom.  I needed that.  

[bloomone2002]

Thanks Victor for your insight, It is greatly appreciated.

[Spike]

Its beatable. Its not easy, but it can be done.

[bjb007]

Can be done and is easy.

Just need the numbers.

If dozen 1 has 45 hits, dozen 2 has 19 hits
and dozen three has 21 hits why be suprised
if dozen 1 "goes to sleep" for 20 spins?

If red has 50 hits and black has 30 why be
suprised if there are 10 blacks in succession?

If the average of the last ten numbers is 13
why be surprised if there are 4 or five high
hits in succession?

Just needs the use of mathematics and common
sense.

Unfortunately common sense seems to be in short
supply on roulette forums and bizarre theories get
all the attention and space.  Why be concerned
about which numbers have hit?  That's the past.
What we are concerned with is the future and
that's clearly shown by mathematical methods
not abstract theories.

Hey Victor...Can we have a section for people who
are willing to tackle roulette in a common-sense
way so we don't have to read all these dotty posts
by people who think they can get rich if only they
could find the "Holy Grail" -- whatever that might be?

[admin]

Bjb007's common-sense way  :
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/forum/YaBB.pl?board=commonsense

Congrats on your section mate.
Awesome idea to have a place devoted to the common-sense approach!

I'm looking forward to read your messages.

Best regards,
Victor

[Carlitos]

Yah.... nice section!! I like to use common sense  





Carlitos  8-)

[Spike]

Roulette is beatable because its truly random. Thats the only reason. RNG's are crap, they aren't true random and it makes a huge difference.

[Talesman]

How can anyone here even discuss this w/o defining "BEAT"?

Ask 5 lawyers the definition of 'beat' and you'll get 7 answers.

Do it mean win a session?

Several sessions? 

Do the sessions have to be consecutive?

Win more than you lose?

Never lose a session in your life?

What the hell does "beat" mean?

Once you establish the definition, for heaven's sakes put it in a sticky so those of us from all over the world will always be on the same page at all times.  And those who are not...link them to the page.

That word is as bad as folks who intermingle House Edge with House Advantage.  You never know which of the two they refer to.  Perhaps both?  Who knows?

[TwoCatSam]

My beatable............

Can you win more money than you lose week in and week out?  Can you do this month after month; year after year?

If it were a business, would it turn a profit in spite of the hot checks?

Sam

[AnandMajumdar]

how about a voting option,

yes, by first beating yourself


anand

[AnandMajumdar]

-