Person "A" has to prove it but person "B" does not ????

[Mr J]

  I have said it 100 times before. There should be a board RULE (any message board mind you). If you say "it won't work" or anything similar....you must then post your method with ALL rules. That method must pass a test, being positive after 200 million RNG spins. What is not allowed >>> "I am an AP (cough) so those rules are null and void for me", educated guessing (Spike) and anything else that can NOT be tested.

Stop the 'ole "hiding" routine, slam others but you are not subject to the SAME guidelines. You prefer flat betting? No problem but it must also pass a test of 200 million RNG spins. Who would be left standing? No one, myself included, at least I can admit it.   Ken

[Davey-Jones]

If that was the case wouldn't there be no forum? Can't we share ideas and opinions in peace?

And what does (cough) mean?

[Mr J]

"If that was the case wouldn't there be no forum?" >>> I mentioned that point before and it is a good question. In peace? I agree, you would think so.  Ken

[Herb]

A visual ballistic player can prove the effectiveness of his method by explaining or demonstrating the meaningful measurements and observations being made and/or by outcome based testing.  However, it's not possible to play an RNG using visual ballistics because there is no real wheel or ball to observe.

The burden of prove is on the system player.  The reason is because it's common knowledge that the game of roulette can not be beaten, since the game has a long term negative expectation.  Making such a lofty claim requires absolute proof.

-Herb

[Mr J]

"The burden of prove is on the system player"............and NOT the AP (cough). 

[Davey-Jones]

And what proof of AP would you want? 2 million live wheel spins?

[Mr J]

Ok, valid question. You pick the number of spins BUT the SAME rule would also apply to other mech. methods. So if you choose only 500 ACTUAL spins, SAME rule for ALL methods. What casino, where, is the tough part. Not some third world country or at "Bills Basement Casino" set-up. Ken

[elmo]

Some interesting points raised here.

REGARDING AP PLAY:
Clercx in the J.S. manual said that even supposed AP players could be just experiencing short term standard deviation in their favour if they were getting favourable results. I can't find any proof over a long spin sample where AP play was successful. In fact when the J.S. team got a few "so-called" AP players together, their bankrolls vanished rather rapidly in the trials that were conducted. So where is the proof? Surely there has to be some out there.
It strikes me that some AP players spend as much time on these boards as the "professional system players" do. (read into that what you will) I think a 100,000 spin sample would be prove for me from an AP player. I am not holding my breath.  

REGARDING SYSTEM PLAY:
If someone could prove they could stay in profit flat betting over 100,000 placed bets on single straight up numbers, then that would be good enough proof for me that they had some kind of edge. I won't hold my breath for that either  

I suppose we will all argue about this for years to come. It all comes down to one thing.
Are YOU coming home with more money than you went to the casino with consistently, day after day, week after week, month after month. If you are then good luck to you and don't give it back.

[TwoCatSam]

elmo

I fully realize that I'm not perfectly adhering to your following rules, but with the latitude I seek what do you think?

"If someone could prove they could stay in profit flat betting over 100,000 placed bets on single straight up numbers, then that would be good enough proof for me that they had some kind of edge. I won't hold my breath for that either"

What if, elmo, I could show you a million RNG spins where I programmed the bot to either win 5 or lose 10 and it actually showed a profit or broke even?  (Now that is using a progression to get to the 5 or lose the 10)  Now what if I used another progression to get these "trots" as I call them to show a long-term profit without destroying the bankroll?

This is all in virtual play.

I have asked this question before:  How much actual money would I have to earn IN REAL EUROS and how many spins would be sufficient for people to say, "This can't be just a lucky streak!  There must be something behind it."  And how would the populace know I was not cheating?  Would anyone believe anyone on this forum?  Victor?  Xman?  Lucky?  Mattymattz?

What I'm doing is not a system.  It is a method of capitalizing on the natural flow of numbers produced by the RNG.  I am riding more, over twice as many right now, positive trams up to 5 than I am negative trams down to 10.  The dispersion, as Victor calls it, is minimal.  One can actually use a progression with limited safety.

Will it ever lose?  Probably.  But the fun is in the journey, not the destination!

Sam

[GogoCro]

I think that test with long spins have no real meaning.
Test with 100k trots (few 100 spins) where is set win goal/stop loss is more accurate, or two and more sets of 100k trots so we can compare within sets.
No one play long spins sessions in casino.

Gogo

[Mr J]

@elmo >>> I like your post but its not my point "which style is better". As I stated at RF, my beef is when ONE person insults anothers method but he thinks he is not subject to the SAME overall rules. Why does that guy get a free pass and does not have to show that HIS method will pass many, many, many spins?  Ken

[GogoCro]

Yes, good point Ken. I do not know answer.
Maybe that person "C" did not look at person "B" system, but have many comments on persons "A"system because read thread where is runing discuss about it.

Gogo

Sorry Ken, you ask Elmo.

ELMO !!

[elmo]

I agree with what you are saying Ken. If ANYONE claims to have a winning system, then where is the evidence. It is easy to hide behind AP play and then ask mechanical system players where is their proof. There are plenty of LIVE online casinos where AP players could show their stuff. I suppose the best excuse would be that the live wheels are meticulously maintained and would never be allowed to have a bias or you can't place bets after the wheel is spun (actually you can place bets for a good few seconds after the wheel is spinning at dublinbet) and that as soon as an AP player started playing, the casino would be alerted and they would change the wheel or something.  

In fact it seems to me that any type of advantage player would not get much playing time in at all because of having to find the right conditions and then be subject to all the countermeasures. So to make it worth the time and effort, the stakes would need to be high and this would no doubt alert the croupier and pit. I personally think a lot of it makes a good yarn the same as blackjack. I could tell you how to fly a plane but I am not a qualified pilot.

[Marven]

Same old topic eh Ken?

Back in my newbie days I was told that systems don't work. While I did not want to dismiss that possibility I wanted to believe that they do and I still had to prove it to myself. I had to spend months testing all kinds of systems, all ending with the same result.

Experience is the best teacher, and I owned that right to try and see for myself without being told what and what not to do straight from the beginning. That's why I'm not against people trying, making, testing, and playing systems. In the process of doing so you may learn a lot. Money management, discipline, randomness, probability, mathematical "laws", etc. are examples. In the end however, you find out that none of these hundreds and hundreds of so called gambling systems are capable of producing consistent long-term profits. Like a trading expert once said however: "The Holy Grail is the knowledge that a Holy Grail does not exist.", you may also learn that the closure of one door can open up another.

Most of the real AP experts that you may find, while they won't post their methods in public forums for understandable reasons, are pretty approachable and helpful in person. Someone like Herb would spend hours chatting with you and telling you what you need to know regarding the methods involved. I think that's more than generous. This is not to mention that there is good purchasable material out there explaining the methods involved. As for testing at home, there are spin video tapes and DVD's available, along with the more expensive but rewarding option of buying a real wheel for practice and testing. Although with some networking with the right people you can still get your hands on all you need to get started for free. All you need is to be serious about it and willing to put some effort into studying the right methods and testing them for yourself, not just wait for all of this to be posted in a forum. There are counter-measures being fought and there are efforts to keep certain techniques away from public access due to their ability to counter the house-edge.

In my opinion, in the real world of grown up professionals, it's not about having people prove things to you or having to prove things to people. Instead, it's about having all available options presented to you (methods, approaches, advices, etc.) and being free to make your choice, develop on your own, and prove to yourself what works and suits you and what doesn't, dismiss the latter and decide whether you're willing to invest time and effort into the former. (as a side-note, I personally find it inappropriate and very non-professional for people to try to prove that they are winning and making money, post their winnings and such, or request such information or a demonstration of it. A real professional would never do that in person let alone in a public space.)

The rest is mere sharing of opinions under various topics of discussion, and saying "a system won't work" or "progressions are useless" (while stating why one believes so) is an opinion that has the same right to exist as the one it opposes.

Let all opinions exist, and leave it to the readers to pick and explore.

/end of mod rant

[Mr J]

"It is easy to hide behind AP play and then ask mechanical system players where is their proof." >>> BINGO! You got it sir.  Ken

[Mr J]

-