another way to understand why systems fail

[precogmiles]

The way I see it if you know what you are looking for then you lay a trap just like catching a bear. How do you catch your prey? You could use a trap, dig a hole or use a gun. Any of these methods requires skill in understanding how a bear thinks or actually finding the bear to be able to use the gun. A trap can be camoflagued as not to be detected and placed in a know walking trail used by the bear in the past. So knowledge of your enemy will give you an advantage in catching your prey as oppoased to just lay a trap in any location and hoping to get lucky.

Same knowledge can be used when designing a roulette system to catch those inevitable patterns. With a 35-1 payout and betting 1 number you have 35 attempts to catch your prey before it becomes a losing proposition. Place 2 traps out and bet 2 numbers you still have 17 atempts to get it right.

Cheers,
Ricky

I like the bear analogy, but let’s change it slightly. Imagine you are looking for water in an arid desert instead of the bear. In this case let us examine how humans have attempted to solve this life or death situation. Some look for signals like birds, plants or insects. These are all based on empirical knowledge and deductive logic. However some have used dowsing rods, which gives us access to non local knowledge.

I would claim that in the absence of an empirical set of axioms to base a theory or system all we are let with is the equivalent of dowsing for water.

And again I don’t understand how knowing general outcomes can give us specific outcomes. It is equivalent to guessing someone’s name, and answering that their name probably doesn’t have the letters x or z. As most names do not have x or z in them, you might be right but you are still no closer the getting their name correct.

[Steve]

How can I know I have random accuracy or not?

Test a statistically significant amount of spins. See :.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ all the basics are there.

[Ricky]

I like the bear analogy, but let’s change it slightly. Imagine you are looking for water in an arid desert instead of the bear. In this case let us examine how humans have attempted to solve this life or death situation. Some look for signals like birds, plants or insects. These are all based on empirical knowledge and deductive logic. However some have used dowsing rods, which gives us access to non local knowledge.

I would claim that in the absence of an empirical set of axioms to base a theory or system all we are let with is the equivalent of dowsing for water.

And again I don’t understand how knowing general outcomes can give us specific outcomes. It is equivalent to guessing someone’s name, and answering that their name probably doesn’t have the letters x or z. As most names do not have x or z in them, you might be right but you are still no closer the getting their name correct.

Good alternate analogy. I guess when it comes to designing systems over using emperical methods its a matter of how eager are you to know the answer. If it is a matter of  life and death then use the empirical method over the less effective method. But if you play the game as a challenge to your skills then the less empirical method is far more exciting. Its like a chess game,. It is a game of skill. There is no emperical way to beat your opponent just tactics that have proven to be effective in the past so you try them against your current opponent. How he responds and how you react accordingly defines your success or failure.

[precogmiles]

Its like a chess game,. It is a game of skill.

I think this is where we disagree. There is no skill involved in roulette if you are using maths or statistics. The odds do not change and even ideas like Regression to the mean do not help you perdict the next outcome. Progression is just a crutch and you always have the table limits to stop you from winning.

[precogmiles]

You cant reason with someone who isnt interested in the truth. Dumb people allow themselves to be misled.

And still people continue to use systems.

[MILLWARD007]

Whatever people think
Dealer change is a big risk to bets.

There is no holy grail

But there are systems that make profits in the long run.


So to summarise roulette can make you profit .

[Bigbroben]

But there are systems that make profits in the long run.

Prove it!