Gamblers fallacy for every method? Hmmmm

[leroy]

Xman, just stumbled across it in a web search, "roulette systems".

ReDsQuaD, I agree, the guy's intentions turned out to be bad. This
all happened, apparently, prior to 09, a little before my interest in roulette.

But the one argument that roulette is a man-made machine and no
man-made machine is unbreakable is a good one. With that perspective
and motivating fact(?) one can embark on the quest to learn everything
about the machine with some hope of success.

When you mention the "physical" side I assume you mean Visual Ballistics/Dealers Signature.

I studied both and discounted them primarily because I play online.

I will concede that an outcome is related to physics as opposed to expectation in
the fact that the outcome is dependent on 5 physical parameters; the wheel condition,
speed of the wheel at release, speed of the ball at release, point on the wheel of release,
and the hop.

In looking at these 5 factors;
1) most casinos monitor and adjust their wheels regularly to prevent bias
2) one has no idea what the wheel speed fluctuation upon release is from spin to spin
3) one has no idea of the ball speed fluctuation upon release is from spin to spin;
4) you can determine the point of release (sometimes, if you are standing by the wheel)
5) and the hop is never predictable.

When you then factor in the endless variables of the combination of all the physical dynamics
involved I can only conclude using physics is extremely hard to do playing online.

If you then accept the hypothesis that VB/DS is unreliable online, and "expecting" an event from
past events in a random game is a Fallacy, what's left.

I think it is trying to find a drop pattern that "does/does not" happen more often than it
"does/does not". One that does not rely on the Fallacy or the physical variables.

I think if your system takes a small BR and requires a small neg/pos progression
your on your way to beat the machine. Add a reasonable session length with
a reasonable win/loss stop, all that's left is it just has to win more than it looses.

I discovered an analogy awhile back using blackjack...

Blackjack is exactly the same as roulette in the fact that the cards you get are determined
by physics. 1) how many decks are in the shoe 2) the order they end up in after the shuffle
3) where you are sitting ,etc. But the bet is mechanical. I look at my hand and I react based
on what the dealers up card is. His up card and my hand determines if I double down, split,
hit or stand. Because, with so many cards in the shoe, you have no idea what is going to be
dealt next.

Again, if you hypothetically accept the hypothesis that VB/DS is unreliable online, and "expecting"
an event from past events in a random game is a Fallacy, what's left.

[leroy]

-