the roulette professor

[Ka2]

ditto! And ka2 I think we are both saying the same thing in a different way

I hope not. 

[Bayes]

I can accept the ribbing for trying to sell a method, however the pill I find hard to swallow is the fact that you haven't got all the info re my method, yet you seem to have formed a very defined opinion.   

We don't have any info on your method, that's why it's hard to believe.   Of course it's not necessary that it wins every time, but to be a long-term winner it has to make a profit more often than it makes a loss, obviously.   If you had some hard facts and figures regarding the win-rate, expected average return, average loss in a losing session, bankroll required etc then that would be a start. 

I am not afraid to spend $99, I can get that back in just six spins with my method using only $5.   00 chips,

Amazing.   So why are you selling it??? It's a simple question, no ribbing involved.   

[Bayes]

Actually the section exists because occasionally, rarely, a system for sale has merit.

Really? I'd like to hear of even ONE system that's ever been sold which makes a consistent profit.  I'm not talking about physical methods, but methods based on stats or mathematics, progressions, money-management etc.

[Bayes]

Selling systems is money for old rope.  It's a simple scam, and you've nothing to lose by doing it.  The fact that nothing can be guaranteed is the get-out clause.  Even if you do offer (and honour) a money-back guarantee, most people who have bought the system won't bother to ask for their money back when the system fails, so it's a no-lose situation for the seller.  All sellers are parasites who prey on ignorance and gullibility.

[therouletteprofessor]

ok, winning is not the problem.  when we are on this side of the fence, the method has 2 bets, thats it every time the same result.  we have sets as our counters and the best set is 2 spins.  with our minimum chip float of 100 we can get a return of 30% at 5 sets.  losing becomes the issue as it eats into our profits.  now probability is defined as the predicting of  mathematical outcomes, and we know that in roulette every spin is independent, so therefore it just becomes a guessing game.  we are not using probability.  however the law of averages states that in any given time span the quantity of even money bets 50/50 s occuring should be relatively equal.  now we all know that our little green friend tends to come around every so often, so would it be fair to say that in every 100 spins of the wheel, you would have more chance of losing than winning, 53/47, 55/45, 58/42.  breaking down to 20 spins would it be fair to say that the losing/winning ratio would be 11/9, 12/8 13/7 its not often you would see 15/5 or 16/4 not to say that it cannot happen.  So losing 2 , 3 or 4 spins on low betting is recoverable in almost all methods, however when you get to the 7, 8 & 9 loses you tend to hit a brickwall with your bankroll.  so what we have done is created a method that has 2 checkpoints at 5 and 10 loses.  with 5 loses, 4 wins back to the same profit as when you where winning,not just break even, 6 & 7 losses 5 wins needed, 8 & 9 loses, 6 wins, 10 & 11, 7 wins.  we have calculated that with a float of 100 chips -denomination is your choice,- you can take a hit at 12 straight losses before that float disappears.  should you however win in between then the numbers change in your favour.  so what we have is a betting method that requires less winning spins when you are losing to make a profit, without outlaying huge betting numbers. .  now the 2 checkpoints are there as a contingency so if you get to that 2nd  level of loss it means that the losing/winning ratio is at or above the 16/4.   no one can survive that.  the flip side of course is if you were betting the other way at 16/4 it means you would have closed  7 of our sets with a 42% return to float and you would go home.

[therouletteprofessor]

so all sellers are the same?
did it ever occur to you that maybe some people sincerely believe that what they have can be genuine? or is everybody tarred by the same brush in your book.
hey condemn me without the knowledge no prob, you are entitled to your opinion, if you can offer me a better alternative show me.  please

[superman]

hey professor I guess one of the questions here is does it work for online casinos too? RNG etc

[Bayes]

did it ever occur to you that maybe some people sincerely believe that what they have can be genuine?

I concede that not all sellers are deliberately trying to defraud, just most of them.  In the cases where they aren't, however, they are just as ignorant as their potential customers.  If you are so confident of your system, why don't you submit it to Steve's $100,000 challenge?

I am pretty sure you haven't written a computer simulation of the system, so you don't know how it will perform long-term.  If you do, you will find that the number of losing sessions outnumbers the winning sessions.  Not being negative, just stating a fact. 

How long have you been using your system (how many spins approximately)?

@ Steve,

How can you say that some systems for sale "have merit".  What exactly do you mean by this? if you know this for a fact then why are you still offering the challenge?  Do you mean that a system may have some merit, just not enough to win long-term? if that's the case it's hardly a ringing endorsement is it? ALL systems will win some of the time, but not often enough to make steady profit.

Surely it's obvious that a system can only have "merit" if it's a consistent winner, which is mathematically impossible.

[Number Six]

I've never seen a system seller offer comprehensive proof (or any verifiable proof) that they have the real deal. At the end of the day, most of them are as ignorant as the next average roulette player, in fact you could say the majority of them are mentally deficient. I'd buy nothing from a person who is obviously less intelligent than myself. Most systems for sale are not unique. They are all recycled bilge. This person here claims to be selling "information"...I doubt there's anything he can tell anyone on any subject that isn't already in the public domain and has been exercised a million times before.

[therouletteprofessor]

 sorry superman i personally would not gamble online because as i see it, online gaming is just the same as going to play poker/slot machines and i wont do that either.  the house edge is enough competition.

[Steve]

How can you say that some systems for sale "have merit".  What exactly do you mean by this? if you know this for a fact then why are you still offering the challenge?  Do you mean that a system may have some merit, just not enough to win long-term? if that's the case it's hardly a ringing endorsement is it? ALL systems will win some of the time, but not often enough to make steady profit.

Surely it's obvious that a system can only have "merit" if it's a consistent winner, which is mathematically impossible.

1. The only methods that actually do work are "advantage play". That is why they are called "advantage play" - because they work. It's why many casinos apply countermeasures. You dont see them caring about outside bets - only physics based methods, albeit casinos arent exactly up-to-speed which is a good thing. They include but are certainly not limited to things like bias analysis. Biased wheels are far more common than you think, but not if all you do is just see what number span most - proper bias analysis is far more involved than that. I am NOT the only person that teaches these methods. Another one is Laurence Scott. Jafco also does. They are legitimate - they teach advantage play, same as me. Although with due respect to such competitors, what I teach is considerably more advanced. When there's a seller that says you can make a fortune with red/black or dozen bets, it's just not possible as per nolinks.genuinewinner.com/truth.html

Some have said I have a strong bias towards advantage play and "scoff" at RNG methods. In truth I would love to beat RNG, and still once in a while try new principles to beat it. Such methods focus on increasing accuracy of predictions, because once you understand what roulette is, you know it's the only way to beat it. You just cant beat it with things like progression - all progression does is change the rate at which you lose. Sure with positive progression, you can get lucky when you are betting high, but there is NOTHING that determines whether you win when betting low or high. It is not genuine prediction - most "systems" are just fancy ways of doing the same thing.

2. The challenge I offer is for beating RNG, not real wheels. I already know very well real wheels are beatable. RNG is nothing more than a slot machine with roulette animations - it's not roulette.

[Bayes]

When you said some systems have merit I assumed you were talking about non-physics based methods, my mistake.

[Bayes]

 

I personally would not gamble online because as I see it, online gaming is just the same as going to play poker/slot machines and I wont do that either.   the house edge is enough competition.

Since your system is based on averages there's no reason why it shouldn't work on an RNG (assuming it's not rigged).
This applies to any system which isn't based on the physics of the wheel/dealer combination.

[therouletteprofessor]

hi steve,
someone made a mention of a challenge that you have, could you please send me what you need, how , what etc etc .
thanx

[bombus]

hi Steve,
someone made a mention of a challenge that you have, could you please send me what you need, how , what etc etc .
thanx

Look here...

nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/100k.html

good luck!

[bombus]

-