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

[elmo]

Ken, I just like to waffle a lot. 

[GogoCro]

Marven, nice post.
So you are saying that AP must kept their secrets to themselves for obivius reasons..
So mehanical system players can do that also without AP players always ask prove of them!

Gogo

[elmo]

Marven, you said "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."
Do you mean the ones you tested?

[elmo]

 Marven, you said "(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"

I respect your opinion but I would consider it due dilligence on my part to garner as much information as possible like you rightly said before deciding to invest my time in any roulette research and seeking physical proof would not be considered unprofessional in my opinion.

As an example, A friend of mine was interested in purchasing an  AP system which costs several thousand dollars. When my friend asked for proof, he was told there was no proof and the seller decided he did not want to deal with my friends questions and so ignored him. If I was thinking about making any kind of business investment, I would certainly be asking about the financial rewards and such like. Now granted no one is selling anything on here but time is as much (if not more) a precious commodity as money and that is why I would not regard it offensive to ask for proof if someone is outright claiming that they have a long term edge at the game of roulette.

[TwoCatSam]

"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," Marven said.

I suppose I just don't get what this forum is all about.  Ken once opened a thread called "My Best Day Ever" or something like that.  He told us of his biggest win, real money, real casino.  I found it inspiring. 

I just don't get it!

Sam

[elmo]

Maybe Marven needs to take a look at the see_jerek challenge thread and have a look at some of his comments there. Very strange!

[Herb]

So you fee that APs should just spill all and tell you about their wins too?

[elmo]

Of course Carol Jarecki can tell you how to fly the plane and she has the qualifications as well! 

[Marven]

Marven, nice post.
So you are saying that AP must kept their secrets to themselves for obivius reasons..
So mehanical system players can do that also without AP players always ask prove of them!

Hi Gogo,

When you post a method and claim it could be relied on professionally, I.e. it's a consistent winner, you are indeed making a HUGE claim. Most here don't know this because they don't hang around serious scientific circles, trading and business circles, etc. It is a universal fact that you can't beat a random casino game with a negative expectancy.

The ones of us (not necessarily AP's but it's often them since they tend to have more scientific leanings) who understand the "hugeness" of such claim respectfully request whether or not the author can back up his method with relevant verifiable tests. Many are sensitive to such request as they associate it with being called a liar. That is not true since this has nothing to do with emotions or accusations. You post a method that supposedly beats a casino game with random independent trials, thus challenging all rules of math as we know it today. It is your duty to back up such a claim.

It is therefore not an AP vs. system player issue. When an AP provides a method however, it is based on pure physics. He is required to explain the mechanics involved and WHY it should work. As for testing, as far as AP is concerned, it is hard to provide universal/verifiable tests due to the nature of the methods and their requirements. The person studying the method however is encouraged to test it for himself under real casino-like conditions before attempting real play.

Marven, you said "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."
Do you mean the ones you tested?

No. I mean every mechanical roulette system that has been created since the game was invented to this day. You can't beat randomness with a set of static rules (no matter how sophisticated they are) on a fair game, let alone a game with a negative expectancy. Remember that it's not only in roulette that people have attempted to beat randomness, but also in other fields like stock market trading. These guys tried much, much more sophisticated methods and still, no mechanical trading system can beat a random market in the long run.

It is rather sad to see that a person who states such facts (Herb) is hated most here. It goes only to show how irrational and emotional gamblers can generally be.

I respect your opinion but I would consider it due dilligence on my part to garner as much information as possible like you rightly said before deciding to invest my time in any roulette research and seeking physical proof would not be considered unprofessional in my opinion.

As an example, A friend of mine was interested in purchasing an  AP system which costs several thousand dollars. When my friend asked for proof, he was told there was no proof and the seller decided he did not want to deal with my friends questions and so ignored him. If I was thinking about making any kind of business investment, I would certainly be asking about the financial rewards and such like. Now granted no one is selling anything on here but time is as much (if not more) a precious commodity as money and that is why I would not regard it offensive to ask for proof if someone is outright claiming that they have a long term edge at the game of roulette.

Good point Elmo.

As far as buying such systems is concerned, I personally believe no one should pay more than a few hundred dollars for an AP method. I also believe the method should come in the form of a book(s) where the author, not only explains the method, its mechanics and application, etc. but also shares his experience, offers advice and makes it possible for you to contact him with any questions you might have.

Before considering buying such material I think one has to first try to speak to other AP's and spend sometime understanding the mechanics involved and perhaps get his hand on some basic method and start practicing, see if the whole thing is suited for him and gain some knowledge on how to determine what's good and what's not before investing any penny.

PS. I think I know what seller/system you are referring to and I do not recommend it.

"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," Marven said.

I suppose I just don't get what this forum is all about.  Ken once opened a thread called "My Best Day Ever" or something like that.  He told us of his biggest win, real money, real casino.  I found it inspiring.  

I just don't get it!

Sam

Sam,

I was merely referring to the fact that real professional AP's in my opinion don't and shouldn't post such info, or have people request that they do. That's it.

Maybe Marven needs to take a look at the see_jerek challenge thread and have a look at some of his comments there. Very strange!

Haha, are you referring to my posts?

If so then keep in mind that:

- I've been here for a year now and my views have evolved relatively quickly, so I wouldn't recommend checking out my old posts and thinking that's what I still believe in the present day.

- Jerek's system was winning still winning for him, I was hand-testing it as well and it was winning for me for a while. Later on it totally tanked for him (in real play) and me (in tests). Yet it seems no one cared to post a conclusion in that thread that the system (actually it's just a huge positive progression called "Tera-TNT") fails and should be avoided. People rush to post their winnings but rarely do so when they lose. I do remember though that he repeatedly said that it is no Holy Grail, which is very true.

[GogoCro]

 

[Herb]

The general principles apply to almost all gambling games, and when they apply, they guarantee that systems cannot give the player an advantage.

To help you filter and reject systems, here are conditions which guarantee that a system is worthless.

1. Each individual bet in the game has a negative expectation.  This makes any series of bets have a negative expectation.
2. There is a maximum limit to the size of any possible game. (This rules out systems like the Martingale and up as you lose.)
3. The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game.
(Note that we are talking about the "game of roulette", not the "gaming device."
4. There is a minimum allowed size for any bet. (This is necessary for the technical steps in the mathematical proof.)

Under these conditions, it is a mathematical fact that every possible gambling system is worthless in the following ways:

1. Any series of bets has a negative expectation
2. This expectation is the (negative) sum of the expectations of the individual bets.
3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
4. If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
   a. be a loser
   b. eventually stay a loser forever, and so never again break even;
   c. eventually lose his entire bankroll, no matter how large it was.

 -Please note the source "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.



----------------------------------

Prove that you can win using VB or bias

1. The gaming device is subject to wear.
2. This causes an uneven distribution of the numbers to occur in the long run.
3. Bets are allowed after the ball is spun, consequently the player can observe the position of the decaying ball in relation to the rotor in order to accurately predict where the ball is most likely to strike the spinning rotor.  These predictions are enough to overcome the house edge.
4. Since the house edge can be overcome and the player can gain the edge, it remains possible for the player to win over the long run.
5. There are several documented cases of such plays and players that have won using AP methods.

   a. Joseph Jaggars
   b. Dr. Jareki
   c. Billy Walters
   d. Garcia Pelayo
   e. Christian Kaisan
   f. several others not mentioned.

I should cite one more source:  rouletteresearch.com  "Evolution of the Roulette Wheel".

George Melas is the cheif  design engineer for T.C.S. Huxley and specifically mentions the reasons for improvements on certain wheels designs.   Number one reason was that the wheels were at risk from visual ballistic and other AP players.  The articles on this website documnets the various attacks from visual ballistic, and  AP players over the years.



-Herb

[elmo]

Thank you for your answers Marven. I know what you are saying, everyone's game evolves (hopefully) through time.
I myself play a kind of hybrid system. (dealers signature + a dynamic approach to betting numbers) I should call it elmo's "mongrel" system    It works for me.

[kav]

Visual ballistics is totally different than bias. Do not confuse them. Visual ballistics requests an almost impossible skill of determining where the ball will fall by observation alone. Bias requires no such observation skills. It just calculates possible inaccuracies/defects of the wheel simply by analyzing past results of the wheel. Totally different approaches. If someone tells you they are expert in both, they are probably full of BS.

[kav]

-