What is a trend ?

[MauiSunset]

I'll recap my reasoning for being here and asking questions that upset many of you:

History:
Roulette has not been beaten in 300 years or the casinos would rip the Roulette wheels out and replace them with something else.  I have faith in the casinos over anyone on an internet chatroom.

So when folks make the claim they beat Roulette all the time, or make huge winnings I just don't believe you - unless you offer proof.

Math and Science:
I've asked here and on other chatrooms for links to scientific journals that have studied Roulette and found it breakable - no links have been supplied.  I've asked for links to scientific journals that have investigated random numbers and found that they are loaded with information useful for predicting the next random number - no links have been supplied.

I've asked for research, by like minded gamblers, that have tested the validity of making forecasts by observing the mechanics of the spinning wheel, the ball, and the dealer - no research seems to have been done anywhere.  If this information is so valuable there should be all kinds of studies proving any of these theories correct.

My $25 Reward
I am willing to pay money, $25, to watch someone win at Roulette in either 100, 200, or 300 spins, or a max of 2, 4, or 6 hours of play, and make just $1 in winnings.  So far only 1 person has taken me up on my offer and the prize is still unclaimed.

My Impressions:
Roulette is unbeatable.  Folks have lucky streaks but in the long run Roulette is a loser using science.  Math might beat Roulette with Money Management techniques but I have great doubts - but that's the only area I have hope for.

I've allocated 2011 to investigating Roulette and will continue looking and investigating and testing for the remainder of the year.  I use Roulette as just a relief from playing Black Jack and have always played for fun with no intention of winning since I assume it is too simple of a game to find a weak spot.

Roulette Stockholm Syndrome:
The vast majority of Roulette players seem to have realized that Roulette can't be beaten with conventional math and science and thus use junk math and junk science at the foundation of their systems.  These systems don't work, of course, and therefore the casinos must be cheating in all kinds of ways.  These false ideas seem to attract many gamblers and with large numbers solace can be found since many gamblers seem to believe in the same ideas.  All bogus.

My System:
The system I have used for years is "Play Roulette as slow as possible and drink as fast as possible".  I have yet to find or observe a better Roulette system.

My Conclusions so far:
Nobody in the various chatrooms I frequent, has a winning Roulette system and is willing to claim my $25 prize and the title of "I'm a for real WINNING Roulette Player".  Many are upset with me for asking tough questions that they have no answers to.  Many, are wasting their time and losing money over systems they just have not tested and verified.

My gut feeling is that when I go back to Vegas in December I'll still be using my old system.....

[MauiSunset]

Its a free world, if you dont believe that the hits mentioned by Kaisan or the Ritz incident or Kovacs taking 200.000 off Burswood I think it was, fine by me. Kaisan took 600.000 alone in my local casino.

Their play is based on science. The ball always leaves the track at a specific wheel with the same speed because of 2 constants. Centrifugal force and gravity. When the gravity becomes more powerfull than the centrifugal force the ball leaves the track. If the wheel has a slight tilt, you now know 2 things. How fast the ball comes down and where on the wheel it will strike. The deflectors is in fact a helping hand here, because it narrows down area where the ball is being catapulted towards the rotor. Im not gonna rewrite the entire tecknik because it is being discussed all over the internet.

A scientific test was conducted on a computer which in reality does the prediction the exact same way a wheelclocker does.  Barnett made a not public video that shows how the computer predicts and its basicly a digital wheelclocker so to speak.

nolinks://cryptome.org/roulette-problem1.pdf

nolinks://cryptome.org/roulette-problem2.pdf

Except from the material from Thorp I dont think you get it much more scientific.

I've looked at these "studies" and as an engineer they make no sense to me at all!

Any test needs a datum - a point of reference.  In Roulette it would be an automated Roulette table in a sealed room running constantly for years - 365/7/24 - the ONLY modification would be a sensor that would release the ball at the same point for all the testing.

If there is anything to any of these wild speculations then studying the mechanics hundreds of thousands of spins need to be the reference point.  The landing number must be identical in 95% of the spins.  No datum was ever established to see if any further testing is worthwhile.

Other identical bots should be running with changes to common influences on the table - heat, humidity, contaminants, and of course non level platform.

I see none of this but just the idea that a non-level wheel will be biased - a conclusion in need of a flawed test.

As an engineer, I would not accept any conclusions from these two experiments - they don't use the Scientific Method to prove their hypotheses - they are totally flawed and mean nothing.

These two tests are based on Junk Science and any conclusion is Junk....

[Mike]

I'll recap my reasoning for being here and asking questions that upset many of you:

History:
Roulette has not been beaten in 300 years or the casinos would rip the Roulette wheels out and replace them with something else.  I have faith in the casinos over anyone on an internet chatroom.

So when folks make the claim they beat Roulette all the time, or make huge winnings I just don't believe you - unless you offer proof.

Math and Science:
I've asked here and on other chatrooms for links to scientific journals that have studied Roulette and found it breakable - no links have been supplied.  I've asked for links to scientific journals that have investigated random numbers and found that they are loaded with information useful for predicting the next random number - no links have been supplied.

If you have faith in the casinos you should know that they take "wheel watchers" very seriously. Next time you play roulette, make it conspicuous that you are watching the wheel very closely (try writing stuff down in a notebook too), and see if you get any attention from the pit boss.

As for "has not been beaten in 300 years" it depends on what you mean. In the first place, science and technology hasn't advanced at the same rate in that time. It's only in the last 20 - 30 years that computers have seen widespread use. The kinds of analysis possible now weren't even dreamed of only 50 years ago. Also it's worth mentioning that Casinos HAVE made changes to the game relatively recently. They have introduced new wheels to counteract the wheel watchers and eliminate certain kinds of bias which was more prevalent in the old style deep pocket wheels. Casinos take this stuff very seriously. Roulette may not have been beaten, but some INDIVIDUALS have beaten it.

Again, I have to ask - why would any scientific body be concerned with this stuff? it's hardly of the same status as curing cancer. Those who do research will naturally keep any positive findings to themselves, that's just common sense. Anyone who has a competitive advantage in business isn't going to spill the beans - get real.

[Mike]

Any test needs a datum - a point of reference.  In Roulette it would be an automated Roulette table in a sealed room running constantly for years - 365/724 - the ONLY modification would be a sensor that would release the ball at the same point for all the testing.

If there is anything to any of these wild speculations then studying the mechanics hundreds of thousands of spins need to be the reference point.  The landing number must be identical in 95% of the spins.  No datum was ever established to see if any further testing is worthwhile.

Other identical bots should be running with changes to common influences on the table - heat, humidity, contaminants, and of course non level platform.

And who is going to pay for all this research? it's not as if it needs to be done for safety purposes. What is the value to those doing the research to make it public? who would benefit?

The kind of rigorous testing you suggest does NOT need to be done in order to come to valid conclusions regarding the physics of roulette.

Funny how you require such stringent testing and yet you're willing to believe that roulette could be beaten on the basis of someone winning $1 in 100 spins, AND your hopes rest on money-management techniques which are trashed by scientists.  Your posts are becoming more and more contradictory. 

[MauiSunset]

If you have faith in the casinos you should know that they take "wheel watchers" very seriously. Next time you play roulette, make it conspicuous that you are watching the wheel very closely (try writing stuff down in a notebook too), and see if you get any attention from the pit boss.

As for "has not been beaten in 300 years" it depends on what you mean. In the first place, science and technology hasn't advanced at the same rate in that time. It's only in the last 20 - 30 years that computers have seen widespread use. The kinds of analysis possible now weren't even dreamed of only 50 years ago. Also it's worth mentioning that Casinos HAVE made changes to the game relatively recently. They have introduced new wheels to counteract the wheel watchers and eliminate certain kinds of bias which was more prevalent in the old style deep pocket wheels. Casinos take this stuff very seriously. Roulette may not have been beaten, but some INDIVIDUALS have beaten it.

Again, I have to ask - why would any scientific body be concerned with this stuff? it's hardly of the same status as curing cancer. Those who do research will naturally keep any positive findings to themselves, that's just common sense. Anyone who has a competitive advantage in business isn't going to spill the beans - get real.

Are you kidding me?

Our Porky Pig government, in Washington, oozes with wasteful spending - some of the insane studies they fund make me sick - studying Roulette is just as "important" as studying the toilet habits of homeless in allies - there have been many of those.

Here's one of millions of examples: nolinks://nolinks.thefreemanonline.org/featured/most-outrageous-government-waste/

[MauiSunset]

And who is going to pay for all this research? it's not as if it needs to be done for safety purposes. What is the value to those doing the research to make it public? who would benefit?

The kind of rigorous testing you suggest does NOT need to be done in order to come to valid conclusions regarding the physics of roulette.

Funny how you require such stringent testing and yet you're willing to believe that roulette could be beaten on the basis of someone winning $1 in 100 spins, AND your hopes rest on money-management techniques which are trashed by scientists.  Your posts are becoming more and more contradictory. 

The Egyptians built the Pyramids with 3 datums 1) Horizontal base of the Pyramids were verified with wooden channels filled with water, 2) Plumb bobs were used for vertical datum, and 3) the North star was used to align the structure - a constant reference point in the night sky.  They did all this 6,000 years ago and had not invented the wheel yet.

In order to arrive at any scientific conclusion you must have datums, starting points that everyone can agree upon.  An automated Roulette wheel must have 95% of all numbers spun be identical before you can proceed.  If folks don't have the money to do this they are just wasting their time and money.  The whole idea of the Scientific Method is to allow other folks to repeat the experiments that backup a hypotheses.

Conducting your own Roulette tests, without any valid methodology behind it, is like do-it-yourself dentistry - just a dumb idea....

[bombus]

What isn't a trend?

[bombus]

Here's one of millions of examples: nolinks://nolinks.thefreemanonline.org/featured/most-outrageous-government-waste/

Proove it! 

[bombus]

[Kelly]

Maui if you took the time to read the links and maybe stepped into a casino or asked for example Survtech who services the casinos, NOT the players,  about some names and what they have done you might be a little wiser. Barnett is in the business and has both feet on the front floor of a line of casinos.  But maybe he is lying too....Probably.

[gizmotron]

All this introspect about real research is just more windless hype.

Ever heard of Clustering Analysis?
Ever heard of Decision Theory?
Do you know anything about making an "optimal decision?"
What about Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Bayesian Probability?

All you want is another narrowly confined experiment that only supports your frequentist view. You are blinded by your own conclusions. You have no workable perspective to base it on. There is no consideration for current occurring data. That you have made crystal clear.

[MauiSunset]

Maui if you took the time to read the links and maybe stepped into a casino or asked for example Survtech who services the casinos, NOT the players,  about some names and what they have done you might be a little wiser. Barnett is in the business and has both feet on the front floor of a line of casinos.  But maybe he is lying too....Probably.

If you want to believe that observing Roulette wheels has predictive value you must first establish that consistency is the foundation of Roulette.

I can't believe any of the folk stories and rumors when there is no foundation to build from.  The test I'd be looking for is the simple one of isolating an automated Roulette wheel for a long period of time and making the modification to stop the flow of air that makes the ball spin when the ball and a point on the wheel line up.

If there is any validity to the wheel and ball being predictable you must first establish that very fact - a mechanical way of getting 95% of the spins to land exactly on the same number.  I highly doubt that this test can come up with that figure.  Just the vibrations of trucks, cars, trains, and people through the floor will cause a normal distribution around some number, the standard deviation could be huge too.

My suggestion to you folks who believe in this stuff is to verify you have ANY statistical grounds to stand on.  I'm guessing this has not been done by anyone and thus the entire study of this topic is one huge waste of time.

Like I said - way too much voodoo science and math in Roulette with the result being systems that don't work and the only logical conclusion then is that the casinos must cheat; totally flawed logic along the whole way.

This is the pattern that I see when I observe Roulette players.....

[Psolaras]

So RedQuad from what you replied it seems to me that you have found a winning bet.
That s because you posted that you don t use Maths.

[MauiSunset]

All this introspect about real research is just more windless hype.

Ever heard of Clustering Analysis?
Ever heard of Decision Theory?
Do you know anything about making an "optimal decision?"
What about Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Bayesian Probability?

All you want is another narrowly confined experiment that only supports your frequentist view. You are blinded by your own conclusions. You have no workable perspective to base it on. There is no consideration for current occurring data. That you have made crystal clear.

Psychobabble about psychobabble is still psychobabble....

[Kelly]

It doesn`t really matter what i say. The tests you talk about has been carried through on real wheels since the eighties up till today. Like i said, ask someone who is in business, obviously you don`t really believe anyone or any links.

[Kelly]

-