Can the game of Roulette be beat by attacking it with a system?

[zippyplayer]

First, a few explanations of terms used:

1.  Brute Force = To attack a computer encrypted file, the final positive result of success will be acquired by testing every permutation of an access code until the file becomes readable.  A Brute Force attack is a continuous attack until success.

2.  Interval or Interruption = Here interval or interruption is to illustrate the use of a deliberate pause or the use of a virtual bet.

3.  Trigger = any rule that tells the better to place a bet or to interrupt.

4.  Mechanical = Any rule based system is functional by a set of instructions that appear to be mechanical in nature.  If the exact same set of numbers were to appear at the beginning of any mechanical based system then the exact same result would be the result to both.

5.  Over Time = Several thousands of spins from hundreds of visits to the casino.

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

Now the questions.

Do all mechanical, rule based systems, over time end up losing to such a degree over time that the system used only yields results that are close to the casino's (House Advantage) percentage?

Do mechanical systems, while using rules that include intervals or interruptions, end up losing to such a degree over time that the system used only yields results that are close to the casino's (House advantage) percentage?

Do charting based systems that include instructions that trigger when to bet over time end up losing to such a degree that the system used only yields results that are close to the casino's (House Advantage) percentage?

Can Roulette be beaten by Brute Force?

Please suggest any questions using these terms that also have the ability to show the nature of the game of Roulette.

[MauiSunset]

First, a few explanations of terms used:

1.  Brute Force = To attack a computer encrypted file, the final positive result of success will be acquired by testing every permutation of an access code until the file becomes readable.  A Brute Force attack is a continuous attack until success.

2.  Interval or Interruption = Here interval or interruption is to illustrate the use of a deliberate pause or the use of a virtual bet.

3.  Trigger = any rule that tells the better to place a bet or to interrupt.

4.  Mechanical = Any rule based system is functional by a set of instructions that appear to be mechanical in nature.  If the exact same set of numbers were to appear at the beginning of any mechanical based system then the exact same result would be the result to both.

5.  Over Time = Several thousands of spins from hundreds of visits to the casino.

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

Now the questions.

Do all mechanical, rule based systems, over time end up losing to such a degree over time that the system used only yields results that are close to the casino's (House Advantage) percentage?

Do mechanical systems, while using rules that include intervals or interruptions, end up losing to such a degree over time that the system used only yields results that are close to the casino's (House advantage) percentage?

Do charting based systems that include instructions that trigger when to bet over time end up losing to such a degree that the system used only yields results that are close to the casino's (House Advantage) percentage?

Can Roulette be beaten by Brute Force?

Please suggest any questions using these terms that also have the ability to show the nature of the game of Roulette.

No!

Roulette can't be beaten by statistics, physics, or science - no proof exists that it can be.

I'm hoping that money management can in some way but I've not see any evidence yet.

However, many folks believe in UFOs so there will be folks who believe that Roulette can be beaten; many folks here believe this.

Sadly, all kinds of voodoo science/math must be used to "prove" that Roulette can be beaten.

Funny this is that when asked to demo this new science/math they can't - there are all kinds of excuses given.

Wonder why?

[schoenpoetser]

I have challenged forummembers to test my HG .Nobody has taken the challenge.

The principle is as follows.
High is positive 1 ,Low is negative 1and  zero is 0 .Is the deviation + 15 or -15 bet one unit contrary till the deviation is zero. Test more than 1M spin .Finish the  sample with a deviation 0.
The result oscillate always around 0 for infinite sequences.The betting and no betting series can be very large.
More variations of this principle are possible.

[Mike]

The principle is as follows.
High is positive 1 ,Low is negative 1and  zero is 0 .Is the deviation + 15 or -15 bet one unit contrary till the deviation is zero. Test more than 1M spin .Finish the  sample with a deviation 0.
The result oscillate always around 0 for infinite sequences.The betting and no betting series can be very large.

You have got to be kidding.  

Are you seriously trying to tell me you have made money playing this way? if you have you clearly haven't been playing long.
A deviation can run for thousands of spins without ever going back to zero. This is classic gambler's fallacy.  

[Mike]

Roulette can't be beaten by statistics, physics, or science - no proof exists that it can be.

I'm hoping that money management can in some way but I've not see any evidence yet.

You think that roulette can't be beaten using physics or science and yet hope that money management will succeed?

Sorry, but that's absurd. Roulette CAN be beaten using physics, the only "proof" you need is the laws of mechanics. Money management alone is a complete waste of time. Frankly, I thought you would have known better. You're starting to sound like the very people you're heaping scorn on. 

[schoenpoetser]

Mike where can you read this HG can make money.I wrote the betting and no betting sessions can be very large.This is the same you write.I suppose you can program that principle after your test on my conditions we can discus this topic further.I don`t discus about imaginary facts as "It could be".Take the challenge!

[birdhands]

You have got to be kidding.  

Are you seriously trying to tell me you have made money playing this way? if you have you clearly haven't been playing long.
A deviation can run for thousands of spins without ever going back to zero. This is classic gambler's fallacy.  

I've been trying to figure out just how long deviations can run by autospinning on the BV no-zero practice wheel.  I've seen huge deviations in red/black that are still worsening after 5000 spins.  Very disheartening.

Sam

[MauiSunset]

You think that roulette can't be beaten using physics or science and yet hope that money management will succeed?

Sorry, but that's absurd. Roulette CAN be beaten using physics, the only "proof" you need is the laws of mechanics. Money management alone is a complete waste of time. Frankly, I thought you would have known better. You're starting to sound like the very people you're heaping scorn on. 

So the only proof is no proof?

Give me a break.

Money management uses mathematics and not voodoo science.

I don't have a MM system that works - just that if there is any way to improve my usage of Roulette from just a break from BlackJack following the laws of math is how it will be done.

Just making a claim " the only "proof" you need is the laws of mechanics" is just gibberish; it means nothing.

[Mike]

So the only proof is no proof?

Give me a break.

Apart from anything else, a lack of proof does not make your opposite claim true.

Money management uses mathematics and not voodoo science.

So does astrology, does that make it valid? and physics is not voodoo science

I don't have a MM system that works - just that if there is any way to improve my usage of Roulette from just a break from BlackJack following the laws of math is how it will be done.

The laws of math don't govern how the world works, math only "works" to the degree that your model of the world is accurate. You''re putting the cart before the horse; first you discover how the world works and then try to use math to describe it, not the other way around, that's junk science. How can MM help to predict where the ball will land? it's absurd.


just making a claim " the only "proof" you need is the laws of mechanics" is just gibberish; it means nothing.

I thought you were an engineer? If you take into account the initial conditions (state of the wheel, speed and position of ball release, and other factors) then in principle you know where the ball will land. The outcome is deterministic and not random to the degree that you can specify the initial conditions, that's just basic science.

Give me one reason why money management can help you win.

[Mike]

I've been trying to figure out just how long deviations can run by autospinning on the BV no-zero practice wheel.  I've seen huge deviations in red/black that are still worsening after 5000 spins.  Very disheartening.
Sam

When people say that things "even out" they are talking about the PROPORTIONS, but the gap between red and black actually gets bigger as you get more spins. This seems like a paradox but it's just the way the math works. If you take 1000 spins and have 490 blacks and 510 reds, the proportion of reds is 510/1000 = 0.51.  There are 20 more reds than blacks. Now spin 5000 times and you could get 2,480 blacks and 2,520 reds. This time the proportion is 2,520/5000 = 0.504, which is CLOSER to the "true" proportion of 0.50, but now there are 40 more reds than blacks! There is a difference between the PROPORTION of reds and NUMBER of reds versus blacks. The gap between the NUMBER of blacks versus red gets BIGGER as you take more spins, but the PROPORTION of reds gets closer to 0.5.

[schoenpoetser]

Birdhands nobody play  5000 spins.Program 250 spins  for example High/Low  .Let the program draw a diagram of the balance.Do this  10 times and study the performances of the diagrams.The line oscillate around the zero axe.The amplitude is seldom larger than 15.These features are useful for a successful strategy.I wrote before long run test are senseless.

[Mike]

Mike where can you read this HG can make money.I wrote the betting and no betting sessions can be very large.This is the same you write.I suppose you can program that principle after your test on my conditions we can discus this topic further.I don`t discus about imaginary facts as "It could be".Take the challenge!

What is your challenge?

[MauiSunset]

Give me one reason why money management can help you win.

Sure, the very definition of "Win" and "Loss" can re redefined; I've found one MM system that does just that.

I like the concept; there might be something here but I've only tested it for 1,000 spins and it holds up.

When I get 10,000 spins and it hold up then I'll get excited.

It uses plain old math and doesn't need UFO technology to work.

Has 8.5 many wins as losses but losses are larger than wins.

in 10 sessions of 100 spins 9 were large winners (doubled bank roll) and 1 lost equal to just 1 win.


Sounds good doesn't it - will it hold up?

Don't know but I plan to invest a lot of time and money to find out.

So yes, MM can turn a 50/50 bet (ok 47%/47%) profitable - I've found one that might actually work.

There will be more out there too.....

[schoenpoetser]

Mike that is very simply.If you doubt my prediction, program my idea and test it for a sample over 1M.I did it long ago on the commodor 64.It is pure a theoretical research.

[Mike]

Mike that is very simply.If you doubt my prediction, program my idea and test it for a sample over 1M.I did it long ago on the commodor 64.It is pure a theoretical research.

I'm going to program this to prove to you that it can't work. This is my understanding of how you would play it:-

Take 250 spins at a time, if there is a deviation of +/- 15 then bet the non-deviating side until it goes back to zero OR until you run out of spins. Is this correct?

[Mike]

-