Just my opinion, so far no simple system here works long-term yet

[codegenic]

Thank you all for taking an interest in my reply earlier on. I will share with you the two main tactics I use in play and the philosophy behind it.
Please bear with me though, I am Danish and some typos or gramatical errors may occur.

I spent nearly 2 months trying to find  play that suited me, and as previously stated by another member on this thread I agree with him and his view on the importance of individual playingstyle. A system may work, but if it doesnt appeal to a certain individual, it no good.

The philosophy.
1. Roulette is for entertainment only. The sooner you realise this the better your game will be.
2. Acknowlegde that losses will occur with ANY system.
3. Accept those losses only to recover them over time ( same day, 10-20 spins later ).
4. If the above is acceptable you will never find the need to deviate from playing a certain system or style and you will never find your self tempted to try a crazy progression in order to recover lost bets with ONE winner that might not show up for a long run, hence kiling your BR.

Now lets look at system.
Its important for us to accept that nor the wheel or the ball has memory, which is why we experience sleepers, wakers, streaks etc.
Its also important to understand that roulette is a display of patterns, in which your play must be adapted to accordingly.

For instance, as posted earlier B/R play will consist of 3 patterns.
P1: RBRBRBRBR
- The crosspattern
P2: BBBBBBBBB
- The repetative pattern ( streaks )
P3:BBRBBRBBR
- The mixed pattern

All 3 must be adressed in a certain way in order to recover bets and still make a profit Read my post called "BR system"
By all means that is not a Holy Grail but information only and requires progression play.

I personally play a variant of the above, evading progressions.

Lets focus on the B/R play. Two types exist that will pay off in the end.

Highrollers game: ( Big BR and cojones ).
You pick a color, and you stick to it.
Start betting 1 unit if loose then you play the same bet again at 1 unit till the color appears.
When it does appear you look at the BR. If its lower than what you started out with then you bet the same color again, +2 units,
if its equal to or higher, then you restart cycle and play bet from start with 1 unit.

Graph - We bet the color Red with a BR of 20
Round    Bet    Outcome    Balance
1          1       B              19
2          1       B              18
3          1       R              19
--- We notice that our BR isnt equal to 20 or above so we commence recovery play.
4          3       R              22

If we lost our bet in round 4, we would bet 4 units in round 5, and 6 units in round 6 etc. Always adding +1 unit to the rounds.
This is a risking method but it rewarding in the end. At some point you realise that having won still wont get you up to square, meaning that the bets need to be continued untill a breakeven is achieved or you are in plus. Example

You are down 8 in round 5 even though you won
continue increasing the bet with +1 unit till it evens or surpases your iniate BR.

For those who cant take losses at that magnitude, we play the staircases.

Still have to pick a color and stick to it. i.e Red, same BR at 20

Round    Bet                             Outcome    Balance
1          1                                B              19
2          1+1 on Red and 1 on B   R              20
Etc.

So you bet like a staircase. Increasing one and ONLY one unit on the color you picked( Red ), but adding a bet to the opposite color.
If your color comes home at a break even or more, then stop and repeat.
If loss, then increase R but remove the winning color. ( Some play without removal for BR damage control ).

An alternative would be that you win on R, but you are stuck with a unit on B, so you remove R and increase B to play all bets out before continuing. This can be fun, however taking a long time.

For each system, we play, hoping to hit the streaks. Dont worry about the 0, since this is basically the same as if B came out and not R. Meaning that its a color that you didnt bet. The moneymanagement in this is easy and your profits will either rise quickly or slowly, but nevertheless, you will still get up and out at the end of the day with a profit. You decide when to stop and importantly prove that man beats the machine, not math.

If any questions please feel free to ask.

//Codegenic

[codegenic]

As I expected, I was asked to clarify .

Two types of play, dozens and Colors.

Colors.

1 on Red - Loss
1+1 on Red and 1 on Black, Black wins
( now do 1 of 2 things ).
A. Increase Red so you are betting 3 in total and remove black.
B. Increase Red and remove Black.

Another scenario.

1 on Red - Loss
2 on Red 1 on Black, Red wins.
Either remove Red and increase on Black or
Remove Red and play on Black

3rd Scenario:
1 on Red - Loss
2 on Red + 1 on Black - Black wins
3 on red and keep betting the 1 on Black - Black wins
4 on Red, still bet Black with 1 unit only - Red wins.

As you see, its up to you to chose what suits you the best.

When it comes to dozens its a bit easier.

you play the following.
d1 = dozen 1,, d2= dozen 2 and d3= dozen 3

d1= 1 unit
d2= 1 unit
if win on either, have a coke and a smile and repeat.
if lose, then play as below

d1= 2 units
d2= 2 units
d3= 1 unit

if 3 wins then you remove it and increase +1 on d1 and d2.
This will even out the bets and give you profit in the long run, staircase...

Should d1 win and you are stille not even or above, then remove it, since it won, and increase on the ones that lost.
The idea is to play out all bets till you either break even or gain profit.

Very simple, VERY powerfull and it works. I would be glad to show you on video if needed. In case you doubt your own efforts and skills, then make an xls ark with the appropiate calculations. Its easy to visualise playing "virtual" bets and see that the method actually works.

The plays can be applied to all plays. Inside bets and outside bets. The key is to cover the bets that lost by increasing only with 1 unit and play them out till you break even or gain profit. Its fun, you get to play all the time, no waiting and you win.

//Codegenic

[See_Jerek]

Well, finding the 'flawless' system is why we're here.  Truth be told, the only way not to risk losing is to not play.  At the same time, there are potential millionaire opportunities that await the individual that has a system that truly wins more than it loses.  I believe, (and so do many of you, that we're inching closer and closer to the 'Holy Grail'.  Any day now.

Thats is really a very positive sign!

[Mr J]

 "I believe, (and so do many of you,) that we're inching closer and closer to the 'Holy Grail'.  Any day now." --- This subject has been brought up MANY times before. EVEN IF a GREAT roulette method/system has been "created", with FEW losing sessions, it will slowly be forgotten and we will all be right back at square one AGAIN. Peoples idea of a good method kills me. Unless it makes $700 an hour....then its crap. WTF? Most players dont want to sit there for 7 hours etc. Three hours MAX. and walk out with a few hundred profit is most likely (I could be wrong) not going to happen. Ken

[Spike]

 I believe, (and so do many of you, that we're inching closer and closer to the 'Holy Grail'.  Any day now.>>>

Dangerous thinking, based on nothing. You are better off just plodding along and investigating, it stops you from putting too much emotion into something that is probably a dead end. Always rememer that people far smarter than you have been trying to beat roulette for 200 years. Math genius college professors dedicated years of their spare time to the project and came up with zippo. Think about it..

[See_Jerek]

"I believe, (and so do many of you,) that we're inching closer and closer to the 'Holy Grail'.  Any day now." --- This subject has been brought up MANY times before. EVEN IF a GREAT roulette method/system has been "created", with FEW losing sessions, it will slowly be forgotten and we will all be right back at square one AGAIN. Peoples idea of a good method kills me. Unless it makes $700 an hour....then its crap. WTF? Most players dont want to sit there for 7 hours etc. Three hours MAX. and walk out with a few hundred profit is most likely (I could be wrong) not going to happen. Ken

I will be happy to grind 3 hours for 300 units 

[codegenic]

I am content with the way things are running now. Making 50-70 euros in roughly 30 minutes a day.

//Codegenic

[JHM]

"I believe, (and so do many of you,) that we're inching closer and closer to the 'Holy Grail'.  Any day now." --- This subject has been brought up MANY times before. EVEN IF a GREAT roulette method/system has been "created", with FEW losing sessions, it will slowly be forgotten and we will all be right back at square one AGAIN. Peoples idea of a good method kills me. Unless it makes $700 an hour....then its crap. WTF? Most players dont want to sit there for 7 hours etc. Three hours MAX. and walk out with a few hundred profit is most likely (I could be wrong) not going to happen. Ken

The system only need to make 10 units a day. When played with 25 (online max. @ dublinbet) per unit, that's $ 250 a day. That's my personal goal.

[Mr J]

I would feel more comfortable playing for 7 hours and net $500 compared to playing for 3 hours and netting $250.  Ken

[Boo_Ray]

I believe, (and so do many of you, that we're inching closer and closer to the 'Holy Grail'.  Any day now.>>>

Dangerous thinking, based on nothing. You are better off just plodding along and investigating, it stops you from putting too much emotion into something that is probably a dead end. Always rememer that people far smarter than you have been trying to beat roulette for 200 years. Math genius college professors dedicated years of their spare time to the project and came up with zippo. Think about it..

There were smart people and there were math genius college professors... BUT meaning of being smart doesn't mean that you have control over yourself.. And wait, who knows how smart are we? We just didn't studied math to became professors because we have diferent interests.. We all study roulette, we are here to beat roulette not to invent some mathematical fact..

[bliss]

Herb,
 
You keep saying no system works because of the house edge, ok lets nail this down. How does a system have to perform, in order for you to agree that it has overcome the house edge. Does it have to be in profit for x number of spins, be profitable in the casino for x number of years. What?

It's no good regurgitating endless maths theory, sometime you have to face reality and when a system makes a profit in a casino year after year and the losses are minimul, you have to come up with an explanation, as to how it is overcoming the house edge and for your maths theory to have any credibility, explain how theory conflicts with the reality of long term profits.
 
Mr Chips

Mr Chips, surely the onus is on the one who makes the claims that the maths theory is invalid to show how it is invalid?

This is not possible though, because the proof that all systems fail involves an assumption that roulette is a game of independent trials. If you remove that assumption, the proof fails and a winning gambling system is possible. There is no way to prove mathematically that spins are independent, but it has been shown empirically that they are, and if the probability formulas (binomial distribution), which also assume independence, do in fact accurately "predict" the results (which they do), then this appears to be fairly weighty evidence that spins are independent.

Roulette is a fair game only if (1) it is unbiased, and (2) outcomes are independent of each other. If one of these is not true then it may be possible to find an advantage. Someone who commits the gambler's fallacy is being inconsistent in that he assumes the game is fair and yet expects past outcomes to affect (or at least, indicate) future outcomes. "10 blacks in a row have come up, and since the wheel is fair, black and red have to come up equally often, therefore, red has to come up soon, so I'll start betting red". But red would only be more likely to come up if the spins were not independent, which is inconsistent with the gambler's premise that the wheel is fair, hence the fallacy.

Since there are 2 ways to be unfair (biased, not independent outcomes), there are 4 possibilities for roulette:

(1) Fair: unbiased wheel, independent outcomes
(2) Unfair: unbiased wheel, not independent outcomes
(3) Unfair: biased wheel, independent outcomes
(4) Unfair: biased wheel, not independent outcomes

The game (in an abstract sense) falls under (1), and is accurately described by the maths theory. (2) may be possible when the dealer makes an appearance, (I don't know, maybe some bias is necessary for dealer signature to work) (3) and (4) are Herb's domain, with (4) involving the dealer influence too.

I'm pretty sure that Herb thinks along the same lines as the above, so it's not surprising that he rejects any claims that a winning system is possible, given scenario (1). It's up to you to demonstrate that the theory does not apply (not that it has no credibility) by virtue of the fact that outcomes are not independent; ie, that there is some regularity in the outcomes that you have detected and are able to exploit. The theory is sound and the proof is complete, the only margin for error lies in the fact math can only model the behaviour of the real world, not describe it completely.

There is an argument which says it's hard to conceive of any reason why spins should not be independent, in the absence of dealer, (or any other influence) and this is put forward to give weight to the notion that no winning system is possible. But I believe that the data should stand on its own, after all, there are plenty of phenomena that we exploit without knowing the causes of it. In this respect, I can understand your irritation with Herb in that if a system tested here appears to be doing well, he demands more testing, but in his own testing of bias wheels, would he need the amount of evidence that the wheel is biased that he requires from those testing non-physical methods here? I think not. The point being that biased wheels do exist and do confer an advantage, whereas there is no obvious reason how independence of outcomes arise, and because of this "ignorance", more data is demanded. This appears to me as somewhat disingenuous (no offense intended Herb ).

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Bliss,

A very good post.
[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

/KFS

[mystidark]

Hey Codegenic,

Nice post about your system, am testing it on colors (even bets) and it seems to make sense..the only problem I see with it is if you start hitting very long streaks, then you'd need an appropriate BR to carry you through (until you either break even or atleast come close and then re-start)..how long have you been testing the method for? And you said you don't use progressions, would be interested to know how that works..but nevertheless, thanks again and best o'luck!

MD 

[bliss]

Bliss,

A very good post.

Thanks KFS, I doubt whether Mr Chips will agree with you though. 

[codegenic]

Hey Codegenic,

Nice post about your system, am testing it on colors (even bets) and it seems to make sense..the only problem I see with it is if you start hitting very long streaks, then you'd need an appropriate BR to carry you through (until you either break even or atleast come close and then re-start)..how long have you been testing the method for? And you said you don't use progressions, would be interested to know how that works..but nevertheless, thanks again and best o'luck!

MD 

I personally flatbet.
A different system that derrives from this.

bet R - loose
bet R +1 and 1 on B
if R wins then remove B and increase R +1 ( if you wish to gain more profit or just restart cycle )
if B wins - remove R and increase B +1

If I play with large BR
I bet aggresive.

bet R till it looses.
Then continue betting R till first win and increase R +2
keep betting it till R looses twice again and so forth, increasing R +1 each round... This will generate huge amount of profit.

As below

R
R
R
B
B - lost twice so you either shift to B or continue R with 1 unit still till it hits...
B
B
R - R won so increase bet
R +2
R +2
B
B
still bet R +2
R - now increase again
R +2 +1
R +2 +1
R +2 +1
B
B

And you catch my drift.

[codegenic]

-