A NEW WAY TO BEAT THE WHEEL--FLAT BET--thk.to Frank Jonson

[Bettor 27]

First test + 171 units on 20/01/2013 playing on 4 tables - switching after each cycle...

[ilukan]

---YOU SEE ONLY 4 ZEROS SWITCHING TABLES/unswer to Ralf;how it would help to switch the tables/
   and unswer to BET....About guestion yesterday...sometimes there is 1h from first playing to sec.playing table at the start/....tab.4 started 15h---table 3 16h....then you can repeat the table twice
in the row ..hope you got me,Test some more and the results wil be similar.....1+1+ in cycles of 9
this will show as the best at the end,as far as LVF is concerned.

[Bettor 27]

Second test +36 units on 21/01/2013 playing on 4 tables - switching after each cycle...

F_LAT_INO, what would you recommend to be take profit here as it reached 72 units at one stage?

I assume 1000 units bank should be sufficient?

[Kingspin]

Switching tables to try and gain advantage is one of the biggest fallacy 's at roulette, it changes absolutely nothing.
The maths of the wheel are set in concrete so to speak.  I would like to hear what others say about this fallacy..
Wait for a dozen to miss 12 times on "wheel 1", then bet on this dozen on another wheel  , who would do this , well probably no one as you might
guess because the gambler thinks the dozen must be due on wheel 1.  Wheels remember absolutely nothing.

[Steve]

Most people develop roulette systems with a "hit and miss" approach. ie they try something and do lots of testing, without consideration to WHY the method would apparently work. Then the next time, they will try the same thing in a different way, without realizing it is the same nonsense just repackaged.

When a player understands the reasoning and logic, they understand they cannot possibly beat roulette unless they first have a method that increases the accuracy of prediction. Progression is no exception, because progression is just different size bets on different spins with the same odds of winning as any other spin. There is this common delusion that changing bet size somehow makes up for losses.

When the player understands it all comes down to predicting the winning number with increased accuracy, they start to look at why the ball lands where it does. Physics? Yes. It is explained at :.genuinewinner.com/truth.html but most people don't understand it despite the simplicity.

In any event, testing systrems must be about testing the apparent working principle that is supposed to increase the accuracy of predictions. Most players create a system and test the whole thing, which takes a very long time and almost always results in a completely ineffective system and lots of wasted time.

Consider the cause and effect, and you are in the right direction.

Cause is many different things/variables. And they all contribute. They all affect each other too. The relationship between each variable, and the outcomes, must be modeled. Roulette is very dynamic so you need a robust model. For modern conditions it is very difficult to do without software.

[iggiv]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[Steve]

Iggiv, if that is directed at me, I know there is a lot more going on than any of us will know. And we will never stop learning.

But I am talking about the mathematical certainty of 1 + 1 = 2. This example is used constantly, and it applies to roulette because it is a mathematical certainty that you cannot beat roulette unless you first increase the accuracy of predictions. It is as factual as 1 + 1 = 2 and explained in detail on my site.

But lets say you could beat roulette with "progression" . . . the fact of the matter is to do this you would still need to have increased accuracy of predictions. The exception is if the wheel had memory, or more precisely the future spins were dependent on previous spins. They are connected, but not dependent. For example, where the ball is picked up from the previous winning number has an influence on where the ball will land next. That is connection, not dependence.

To apply such a connection, you cannot use a typical system because the variables will be different in different conditions. You need to consider the legitimate cause and effect.

Anyway most experienced players now understand this even if only on a basic level. But the majority of players will never understand it, despite it being explained many times. Again it is not a matter of opinion. Mathematical facts are not mere opinions. It just that most people dont understand it.

[Bettor 27]

Third test reached +72 units (during session) on 22/01/2013 playing on 4 tables - switching after each cycle...(ended at -54 units)

[stringbeanpc]

When a player understands the reasoning and logic, they understand they cannot possibly beat roulette unless they first have a method that increases the accuracy of prediction.

This statement makes sense to me.

[iggiv]

"To apply such a connection, you cannot use a typical system because the variables will be different in different conditions."

Kudos to you, Steve. That was very well said. That's what i said all the time.
but that does not mean You can't beat roulette...

[Steve]

I believe there is only one way to beat roulette. Sure there are the usual visual ballistics, bias analysis, dealer signature methods, but they are all looking at CAUSE AND EFFECT. The looking at "cause and effect" is the "one way" I'm referring to. Its like saying there is only one way to study the universe, and that's "physics". You could say there is chemistry, philosophy etc but really they are all the same thing, just different perspectives.

what's more likely... a lot of laws of physics that can be used to beat roulette expressed as dozens and split bets..... or one central way with one set of rules that govern where the ball will land, with merely different variables/conditions on different wheels, and predictions based on wheel sectors.

I'm not saying there isnt a method to beat roulette that I have no idea about yet. But I am saying any method that does legitimately beat roulette will calculate predictions based on the variables/conditions of the wheel being played. There are many ways to model a wheel, in the sense of relating the variables to the outcome. Most advantage play methods look at just the variables and spin outcomes. But they don't look at how the variables affect each other, so the traditional methods don't account for the dynamic nature of roulette.

For example with normal advantage play, everything can be great.. until one variable changes. Then that screws up everything and suddenly instead of hitting the right sectors, you are avoiding them. If you avoid them, then you lose more than if you randomly bet. So you go from strong win to strong lose.

I'm basically saying undoubtedly you need to increase accuracy of predictions (unless there is an unforeseen connection between previous spins that nobody has found besides what is mentioned). So you are trying to predict where the ball will bounce. How do we do this?.. Plain answer is physics, which is understanding cause and effect. So it all leads back to this one central theme: understanding cause and effect, then modelling it to predict roulette spins. It is not overly difficult or complex now when I look at it, but it took me about 20 years to figure out, and for a long time I was a 'system' player too.

[iggiv]

in my point of view ALMOST EVERYTHING u say is 100% correct, and u know lots of things. Still there are some things u say sometimes i don't agree with.

But i won't go into this

[speed]

in my point of view ALMOST EVERYTHING u say is 100% correct, and You know lots of things. Still there are some things u say sometimes i don't agree with.

But i won't go into this

these things u don 't understand, because of that u did not agree.  by the way is MOP returned to the forum ?

[iggiv]

U understand, Speed, everything. Believing in deviation of certain level coming back with crazy progressions.
Without anything at all reading on the subject.

[Steve]

Iggiv not everyone agrees with everyone, and I'm ok with that. But I'm not giving mere opinions. If it were opinions, the opinions are shared by professional players who earn a living with roulette, and casino staff who apply countermeasures. You never get countermeasures against red/black systems etc because they are a casino's dream come true.

You could argue that me saying "I am not giving mere opinions" is just my opinion. In the end, the results define who is most likely "correct". Anyway I'm sure many people here wouldnt agree with some of what I say. And again I'm ok with that.

Speed, I vaguely recall MOP. Either way trolls eventually show true colors and have same result.