Sequential Roulette

[graham44]

lots of stuff

matrix for example. . . did not work out for me. . .

Matrix?

What is that. Isn't it a film?

[iggiv]

make a search on this forum, u will find out

[cheese]

cheese likes to likes to appear as the wise old guru of roulette.

Have I 'appeared' to you? What form did I take this time, was I human at least? Please don't tell me I was the Buddha sitting on a lotus leaf again, thats just plain embarrassing. 

[gizmotron]

Have I 'appeared' to you? What form did I take this time, was I human at least?

That's OK, Mike appears as Einstein, U Thant, Pythagoras,  and Isaac Newton where he slums with the enemies of the status quo.

[gizmotron]

Cheese, try to explain this to me. I discovered that I was comfortable with losing at the downturn speed that I had grown accustomed to with 24/38 type double dozens bets that I had cut my teeth on. I was applying that same loss rate to when I tried the EC's for a full year. So I went back and tried again. This time I left that fall speed/rate behind. I set the plying floor to -5. I would take a chance to go no deeper than -7. So far I'm doing great. I plan to do 100 sessions and posting the results. But that test I did last week came out so good that it surprised me. You said that staying very close to even was very important. I used to let my self dig holes while playing the EC's. I'm doing better now that I won't let those holes dig so deep.

[cheese]

Cheese, try to explain this to me.

What did you change? If you changed nothing, than its just part of the fluxuation in way you play. It doesn't mean anything.

[gizmotron]

What did you change? If you changed nothing, than its just part of the fluxuation in way you play. It doesn't mean anything.

I changed how far I was willing to get behind the  breaking even point. I selected -5, I broke that rule a few times and went as deep as -7. Before that I would descend into -15 and keep going. -15 with the double dozens is not that deep. However it takes forever to dig your way out of that. More importantly is that instead of sessions that last 100 spins or more I'm now reaching my goal in 12 to 40 spins after 12 are taken from the marquee and charted for the start point.

[cheese]

I changed how far I was willing to get behind the  breaking even point.

My personal feeling is always to never bet where you get back less than what you wagered. Betting two dozens looks good on paper and even works sometimes, but too much can happen to screw you over. If you keep working on it, you'll come to the same conclusion, its inevitable. You can say a hundred times that every bet can be reduced to an EC bet, but nobody really believes it until they do the work and see it staring them in the face. Thats what happened to me.

[schoenpoetser]

ND I agree the results of the discussions on the forum have a very low efficiency.Though my theory to play the roulette has a few partisans I shall explain the features of the roulette.In the casino I have seen too many young people loosing their money ,because they have no knowledge of the game.The rules are very simple ,but the game is very very difficult.

The forum is filled with the most beautiful systems.Every time again one try to prove the system is profitable. 
Long run test should give the evidence.

All experts on the forum know the EV of the roulette can not be beaten with a system.In my opinion playing  a system gives more pleasure.

As an old professor I know  visual lessons have more success than scriptural lessons.This is one reason to offer demonstrations for interested STUDENTS

[Mike]

lots of stuff

matrix for example...did not work out for me...

It will never work out until you start looking at the physical aspects of the game, everything else is a waste of time. The game yields nothing - how can it?

[cheese]

The game yields nothing

Then why talk about it? Isn't posting here and telling people nothing will work, isn't that the same as posting on the Genie in a Lamp forum and constantly telling the guy he can rub it forever and he'll get nada? After a while, whats the point..

[ReDsQuaD]

Agree, Nathan. Now look at the price of the book. something like 100 dollars, and then realize that this should be just a scammer, promoting his book this way...If he really was winning, he would not put himself in media lights, instead, being banned from some casinos, would go to others. there are hundreds in Europe, and not all UK casinos banned him.

I think he just payed some reporters to make up the story then published his book. As for those casinos -- they don't care too much, he could be just lucky or a troublemaker, so they just kicked him out.

[Mike]

@ cheese,

I'm making a distinction between the game and the wheel. You can't beat the game but you can beat the wheel (+dealer/ball/environment).

The game is just an abstraction; there is actually no such thing as the game played purely abstractly; there is always a real wheel and dealer - a physical environment in which you play the game (not talking about online RNG). But hardly anyone looks at this, they just look at past outcomes or patterns or statistics APART from the actual physical mechanisms which produce the outcomes. If you don't look at correlations between the physical aspects of the game and the data, then you're simply guessing, and that can only lead to what the casino has calculated - you're playing the GAME, and it's what the casino wants you to do.

[cheese]

If you don't look at correlations between the physical aspects of the game and the data

Do the 'stooge stare' into the wheel for hours, thats the ticket. Too bad this isn't 1988 any longer, where the pockets almost jumped up and grabbed the ball. Now they have single cast low profile wheels with pockets so small, they barely hold the ball. I love it, a guaranteed excellent random outcome on every spin.

[Mike]

Do the 'stooge stare' into the wheel for hours, thats the ticket. Too bad this isn't 1988 any longer,

Spotting an opportunity improves with practice, and you have to know what you're looking for. A few minutes is enough. And I'm glad it isn't 1988 any longer, there are actually more opportunities these days. I don't expect you to believe me, in fact I'd be worried if you did.

By the way, there's no such thing as a random outcome. "random" just means you don't have any idea of the causes, or the interaction of them is too complex to be exploited. There is no such thing as an "intrinsically" random event. Pretty funny that you believe that knowing nothing whatsoever about the cause of an outcome is actually an advantage.

[Mike]

-