Winning at Roulette by Brute Force

[gizmotron]

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

First, a few explanations of terms used:

1. Brute Force = To attack a computer encrypted file, the final positive result of success will be aquired by testing every permiatation of an access code until the file becomes readable. A Brute Force attack is a continious attac until sucess.

2. Interval or Interuption = Here interval or interuption is to illistrate the use of a deliberate pause or the use of a vertual bet.

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

4. Mechanical = Any rule based system is functional by a set of instructions that appear to be machanical in nature. If the exact same set of numbers were to appaer at the beginning of any machanical 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 yeilds results that are close to the casino's (House Advantage) percentage?

Do mechanical systems, while using rules that include intervals or interuptions,  end  up losing to such a degree over time that the system used only yeilds 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 yeilds 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.

[admin]

Ok, dear friend, I'll try to give it a shot:

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

"all mechanical, rule based systems".

No, there are systems which yield a positive edge, namely, the Holy Grails.

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

Mechanical systems are in two cathegories.
a) Having the positive edge.
b) Not having any edge.

If you have the positive edge, you can be certain to do the very same thing over and over and end up in profits.

If you don't have any edge, then your only way to have a shot at winning is by the use of money management.

Please notice, if you have the positive edge, you have 100% certainty to end up a winner, even if you have huge drawdowns, there is only a need to make the sample bigger to end up eventually ahead in the plus (i.e. as per what casino's math say).

If you don't have any edge and rely purely on Money Management, then your degree of certainty is always less than 100%, i.e. A "martingale" can have 99.999% of certainty to hit and you can manage to win long long time with it, or sink at the very first session.

Therefore a concatenated stream of losing strings resulting from coming back from an "interval" or "pause" can nail the system down if no positive edge is present.

This is why the math guys say it is no use making pauses, because with a negative edge, you are not winning what you are winning, because you are scheduled to go down.

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 yeilds results that are close to the casino's (House Advantage) percentage?

It depends.

For instance, the "cut point" methodology (flat bets), says to wait for a remarkable imbalance and then bet for the correction (in some cases as little as aiming +1 unit for the attack, therefore not expecting a full correction, only a partial one).

With a reasonable bankroll to withstand "most" of the attacks, and accepting losses -as in not persevering at infinitum against a negative ecart-, then in the averages it can be possible to make a profit.

Can Roulette be beaten by Brute Force?

A bruteforce attack on a set of rules named system ad infinitum can prove if the system "works" or "doesn't work" in the hardcore log run.

Now, for instance, you can have positive results for as much as 600 million spins and that is only considered a "fluke". (i.e. a la manucher's system).

Roulette can be beaten by many approaches:
- Using flat bets with a positive edge.
- Bet more when you are winning, bet less when you are losing (as the parachuters make to come ahead in the averages).
- Use progressions in such a win/loss ratio that you accont for more units won than progressions lost.

All of them are valid for a punter which end up in profits, but those which involve Money Management are labeled as not valid, because of the fixation with flat bets and positive edge as the only "real" way to beat the game, and of course, the notion of never having a sample large enough to get definite conclusions for the bruteforce attach against the set of rules, particularly the MM ones.



By the way a softcore long run is like for instance fellow posted toby said: 1 billion spins, which represent more than enough of a positive long run to him. Enough to be in profits for a lifetime.



P.S.

If your set of rules yields a positive edge, then you can be $1.000.000 down and still dig harder in the hole since you have the math boy's insurance you only have to throw in more money and make the numerical sample larger to be ahead.

Now, if you were down $1.000.000 with a "positive edge" scheme, and only needed to play maybe a "couple millions spins more" to come up ahead, then you can start thinking to tell the math boys to shove it up their /////// Transmission interrupted at [timestamp=1194986246]

[admin]

By the way, one of RD ellison's systems claims to have +7% positive edge, but I don't see a serious study backing that claim, only comments on users that it works.

[gizmotron]

Thanks for sharing Victor,

Mark

[admin]

...resuming the study...

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

Let's focus on this:

[highlight]result of success will be aquired by testing every permutation[/highlight]

Particularly: Every permutation.

When betting the short term, we can easily say for instance a 1-2-4 martingale on red fails because there is a combination of 3 consecutive blacks and from the tiny universe of possibilities needed to see every permutation we affirm there is one: BBB which makes it fail.

But, what if the rules are more elastic, as in situational play, where the losing combination is not a single one? Adding the human factor into the complexity of the ecuation.

Then we can say it doesn't work. Why? Because in infinity no matter how good the triggers, how good the entry/exit point, there is a losing combination for everything.

No matter if the losing combination is 1.000 reds in a row. In an infinite numerical universe as a sample, there is that and more.

So, what is the aim of a "holy grail"?

To beat infinity? Or to make money during a person's lifetime?

If the only accepted thing is to beat infinity, then there is simply no holy grail in a mechanical system.

Even if one person wins his whole lifetime, if his scheme isn't 100% certain to have the positive edge in the infinite then he still didn't beat roulette. No holy grail. Just a fluke which can last the equivalent to several lives, and here is where it gets the math boys vs reality players.

For I would love to have a system to win my whole lifetime even if the math gurus say I didn't beat roulette, since  the span of spins experienced at a human lifetime -when compared to infinity-  is "a very tiny short term".

(But at the same my lifetime is all the time that matters to me).

...H'mm... I think topic belongs to the framework section...

[gizmotron]

Interesting answer to "Every Permutation."

I like the common sense of an educated guess as being the human component.


...yeah, this thread should be in Framework section.

[admin]

Mark, my mate, let's have some dinkum [smiley=beer.gif] if you feel I'm hijacking the thread... but since you asked [smiley=wink.gif]...

I haven't mentioned dispersion of hits into the ecuation as a "reality check" between what is expected and what actually is happening.

Also when talking about bruteforcing the wheel in a mechanical fashion, I think we need to consider explosive positive progressions with a stiff criterion as in the anti-martingale with a reset point, working with the math-approved figures.

( i.e. anti-martingale betting the oposite color, making a reset on the slightest win, and throwing in more and more money trusting the mathematically expected series to show according to numerical sample size ).



Oh mark, by the way. Since it wouldn't be fair to have myself only as a one-man-show in your thread, please feel free to share your own viewpoints on this bruteforce topic whenever you wish.

I'll come later on, very late in the caribbean shores.

[admin]

-