@ turbo

[Steve]

And yes it does increase the accuracy of predictions.

Then if it does this, and you have enough data to support it, you may be onto something new.

Simplistic systems such as those posted on this forum have no chance of winning consistently, I agree, but why tar all systems with the same brush? 

I never said all systems are the same. You agree that typical systems posted on forums have no chance. Perhaps you didnt understand where I was coming from. Anyone who has been around here long enough knows I actively encourage NEW approaches. I have a problem with people trying the same old approaches, just repackaged.

It's the double standards which irritate me.

There are no double standards. It would be your misunderstanding of what I'm saying, and where I'm coming from.

Gaming experts like the Wizard of Odds say roulette is unbeatable except for perhaps the possibility of finding biased wheels.

Maybe you should see what he says about hot numbers and the other typical fallacies.

And no, I don't believe he's an AP expert. He's a math expert. I've read enough of his material to know he's not an advantage player. His knowledge of advantage play appears to be second-hand. Mine is first-hand. And I'm one few who develop new approaches, instead of only learning from others. I still learn from others, nobody knows everything, but most important is my first-hand experience (20+ years, with the last 15 years being almost every day).

There's no mention of ballistics, dealer signature, or finding patterns.

Actually there is, but his understanding is second-hand. Again he's a mathematician, not a player. Besides the APs themselves, who pioneer the approaches, the people in the gaming community who know better are casino consultants - the people who casinos hire to advise them. Many are ex-players, and they start playing for the other team. There aren't a lot of people who defect and truly understand how AP works - usually their understanding of VB for example is some basic techniques. On numerous occasions I've been asked by casinos if I'd be willing to demonstrate some techniques, and in particular computers to them. I refused to show them my hybrid (except one casino that misled me, and managed to see some parts), but anyone can test even my free computer although it has only basic algorithms.

And even casinos acknowledge the players are still one step ahead of both consultants and casinos. The players are the ones who study the game more than anyone. There are also a lot of casino consultants who claim to be experts, but get knowledge second-hand.

Joe, you appear like a reasonably intelligent guy. I've been in this industry for a long time. I've developed a lot of different methods and technologies, and used them extensively - my focus now is just the hybrid roulette computer, but again not for much longer as I'm almost retired. 

These approaches, along with systems, are not suggested as viable ways to win by mathematicians, but you and the general insist that in spite of no tangible evidence, it's the only true way

If you knew what I knew, you wouldnt say that. If you want a good general idea of advantage play, get "Casino Game Protection" by Steve Forte. But when it comes to roulette, it's only a vague explanation of what happens. Steve Forte is broadly considered an expert. He's an expert in overall game protection (from AP and cheating, which are considered by casinos as different things), but he doesn't have a lot of experience in real roulette AP. His understanding is probably less than a quarter of what Caleb and I each would have. While it may sound arrogant, it is quite clear fact considering everything each of us has published and achieved.

Someone who knows better is George Melas. He's the guy the came up with low fret roulette wheels. He consulted for wheel designers and has done a lot of research and development. His understanding is I'd say a bit better than most professional players.

Then there's Thomas Bass, a very clever guy who created the first roulette computers. But he has achieved much more. His research involved very old wheels though, and since then a lot has changed.

I could go on and on about who's who, past events in casinos involving big wins. I could even publish recordings of what my teams do in casinos.

There's a lot you dont know. It really is a whole other world.

in spite of no tangible evidence, it's the only true way

I cant speak for General, but I never said VB, bias etc is the only way. I am only saying you cant beat roulette without increasing accuracy of predictions. Why is already explained. AP just means exploiting the mechanism that determines game outcomes, to increase accuracy of predictions. By definition, that's what AP is.

As you have said you method increases accuracy of predictions, then that's a form of AP. If its involving an approach that's new, then good, but if it works then you may be unknowingly exploiting wheel physics, or something related to the cause and effect of winning numbers.

Or do you think your method of bet selection has nothing to do with cause and effect?  Does something happen for no reason at all? Or is there always cause and effect? If you agree there's always cause and effect, then your approach, assuming it worked, is AP.

Not so, most equations have multiple solutions, it's only linear equations which have one solution.

Can you please reveal the other solution to this:

Calculate the house edge for European Roulette, which contain a single zero and 36 non-zero numbers (18 red and 18 black).

How is it different to -2.7%?

[Steve]

Every system if tested in long term million spin tests will fail

I dont believe that's the case. An edge means it keeps winning.

I dont see a "system" as hot numbers, repeaters etc. A system to me is just an approach. Most people consider "systems" to be hot numbers, repeaters etc.

We spin the wheel and it lands on system 12.  For simplicity sake let's say its a simple martingale red black three spin system.  We play it, it loses, so we spin our system wheel again , it lands on system 26 a repeater method.  We play that system and it wins.  It goes on like this until you hit your target profit.  You are now playing random systems on random numbers.  No long term expectations on your systems.  Wins on some systems cancel out losses in others.  It keeps the win percentages higher than the negative expectations.

This doesn't make sense. What you've described basically ends up with the same accuracy as random. You've changed nothing, except made random bets more complicated than it needs to be.

How does random systems on random numbers make there be no long term expectations? Just because you change your system, does that make it a new system so you can avoid saying no particular system lost, so your system worked, although it was basically random betting that somehow overcame negative expectation? What am I missing here?

Nice reply. No doubt Steve & General will come back with "all bets have the same negative expectation so it makes no difference".

Nice reply how? It was muddled nonsense. And yes if all bets have negative expectation, then they have negative expectation. Strange how you quote the wizard of odds as an expert, but choose to ignore what he says.

My "system" makes use of multiple systems. Not played randomly in quite the same way as you describe because there is a certain structure to the randomness.

Using multiple systems is still collectively a system. You can claim to be able to fly, but nobody here can easily disprove it. But we all know it's rather unlikely. We can just leave it at "If you have something that works, use it. Good on you." But if you start claiming to have the HG and drop clues that lead nowhere, that's baiting and not what the forum is for. And if you make claims and provide logic that is incorrect, expect more experienced members will point it out.

[Joe]

Nice reply how? It was muddled nonsense. And yes if all bets have negative expectation, then they have negative expectation.

I didn't say it was the holy grail, but it's really common sense. Don't put all your eggs in one basket; allocate capital in a way which reduces the exposure to any one asset or risk. Although it doesn't cancel the negative expectation completely, the principle is a sound one. The chance of hitting a long run of negative variance is reduced because in order for that to happen the negative runs would have to occur at the precise moments you switch systems, as opposed to what happens when you stick with one system, where it's guaranteed that you will hit a long losing run. It works better if the systems are negatively correlated in some way with each other.

The negative expectation is your answer to everything but it applies just as much to AP as systems, the difference between them lies in the different ways of overcoming it.

Strange how you quote the wizard of odds as an expert, but choose to ignore what he says.

Can you please reveal the other solution to this:

Nice bait and switch ;-). Gimme a break Steve, your statement was about equations in general, not about the house edge. And my point about mentioning the Wizard of Odds was that you (or the General) are always saying the mathematicians have the answers. Here is a mathematician and gaming expert who is hired by casinos and yet he never mentions AP as being a way to win at roulette. In fact I saw a TV program recently in which he stated that the only casino game it's possible to win at is blackjack. You dismiss this by saying that he's not an AP, but that's the point; I could just as easily say "he's not a system player" when he says that systems can't win. This is what I mean by double standards.

[Joe]

Your chi-square .... All is super simple - if something you not understand, or not able to learn - much easier to name that as stupidity, that all that not works, than to recognize, that problem are in you...

This is a typical example of the arrogance of the APer.  Your assumption is that I have no idea what chi-square is, whereas the truth is I probably know more about statistical theory than you do.

[Bebediktus3]

Your assumption is that I have no idea what chi-square is, whereas the truth is I probably know more about statistical theory than you do.

Not take that so deep personally. I did not know maybe you are the professor of statistic and come here only for kidding. All can be. But usually are other.

Peoples, who know much about statistic usually are in another side of barricades, or they are in the casino side... Promotion play accordingly systems are good for casinos....

[The General]

I didn't say it was the holy grail, but it's really common sense. Don't put all your eggs in one basket; allocate capital in a way which reduces the exposure to any one asset or risk. Although it doesn't cancel the negative expectation completely, the principle is a sound one. The chance of hitting a long run of negative variance is reduced because in order for that to happen the negative runs would have to occur at the precise moments you switch systems, as opposed to what happens when you stick with one system, where it's guaranteed that you will hit a long losing run. It works better if the systems are negatively correlated in some way with each other.

Money management in no way affects the house edge. Neither does setting on the side lines waiting for just the right trigger for your bets to become due. 

The negative expectation is your answer to everything but it applies just as much to AP as systems, the difference between them lies in the different ways of overcoming it.

APs have the edge over the casino, therefore the expectation is a positive one.  This means the longer the AP plays, the more he will win.  If you don't have a positive expectation then you simply can't win in the long run.  If you have a negative expectation then overtime you will inevitably lose and reach a point that you can never break even again.

[Nimo]

Thanks, I was trying to estimate the drawdown in your chart.

Largest drawdown is $3363.  Bankroll is $10000 for this method with $10 units.  Since The General couldn't figure it out, I'll tell you its a repeater method, which he will say can't work because of the 37 pockets, however in this case its a full coverage system so all 37 numbers are covered.  Which ones will repeat? It doesn't matter. 

Nice reply. No doubt Steve & General will come back with "all bets have the same negative expectation so it makes no difference". 
Not saying it's the solution, but it's certainly part of it. My "system" makes use of multiple systems. Not played randomly in quite the same way as you describe because there is a certain structure to the randomness.

I actually play 6 systems in parallel at the same time.  The one I posted is one of 6.  That one reached its target at spin 70, the other 5 systems went to spin 124.  My team works in conjunction.  The casino is on the main screen, I place all the bets, they keep track of each system and tell me where to bet and how much.  Each actual bet the entire layout looks like a cityscape with all the piles of chips.  Once each system hits its target, its removed.

Do worry too much about Steve and Caleb, while I have no doubt about their successes with roulette, they think they are helping and for the most part they are, they just need attitude adjustments.  Caleb can come off as immature and Steve as an arrogant twat, but if we were all in a bar having a drink arguing about roulette and someone came in looking to fight us, I'm sure they would have our backs.

[The General]

I actually play 6 systems in parallel at the same time.  The one I posted is one of 6.  That one reached its target at spin 70, the other 5 systems went to spin 124.  My team works in conjunction.  The casino is on the main screen, I place all the bets, they keep track of each system and tell me where to bet and how much.  Each actual bet the entire layout looks like a cityscape with all the piles of chips.  Once each system hits its target, its removed.

Do worry too much about Steve and Caleb, while I have no doubt about their successes with roulette, they think they are helping and for the most part they are, they just need attitude adjustments.  Caleb can come off as immature and Steve as an arrogant twat, but if we were all in a bar having a drink arguing about roulette and someone came in looking to fight us, I'm sure they would have our backs.

If you have seven systems, and each system has a negative expectation, then it doesn't matter if you change back and forth between systems because you will still eventually lose your entire bankroll overtime.

[Nimo]

If you have seven systems, and each system has a negative expectation, then it doesn't matter if you change back and forth between systems because you will still eventually lose your entire bankroll overtime.

Each system doesnt have a negative expectation.  I know exactly how much each system will win.  I know their breakeven points, I know their hit rates, drawdowns, every minute detail of everything down to a fraction of a cent. 

You worry about your playing.  I'll take care of mine.

[Joe]

Money management in no way affects the house edge. Neither does setting on the side lines waiting for just the right trigger for your bets to become due.

Neither of which has anything to do with my post. I've noticed that your responses are so standard and predictable that I'm beginning to wonder whether you're some kind of chat bot. 

[Turner]

I'm beginning to wonder whether you're some kind of chat bot

LOL
I have said exactly the same......

[The General]

For those of us that grasp basic probability and statistics I feel that it's our responsibility to help out the new and green players.
Pointing out logic flaws is a good start.   

A chat bot that periodically lists facts about the game and systems is a good idea! 

[Nimo]

For those of us that grasp basic probability and statistics I feel that it's our responsibility to help out the new and green players.
Pointing out logic flaws is a good start.   

A chat bot that periodically lists facts about the game and systems is a good idea! 

For those of us that live in the modern world, its our duty to point out those posters that have become obsolete.  Then again most newbies can just read the posts and see for themselves who has anything to offer.

[The General]

For those of us that live in the modern world, its our duty to point out those posters that have become obsolete.  Then again most newbies can just read the posts and see for themselves who has anything to offer.

Hey, what are you talking about?  I live in the modern world!  I even got one of them cell phones!

[Kairomancer]

APs have the edge over the casino, therefore the expectation is a positive one.  This means the longer the AP plays, the more he will win.  If you don't have a positive expectation then you simply can't win in the long run.  If you have a negative expectation then overtime you will inevitably lose and reach a point that you can never break even again.

Spot on!

What you are missing is that Nimo also have an Advantage when he plays, therefore he wins.

It is called short term positive expectation.
It works in his favour and can easily bend reality and provide favourable variance for him just like placebo effect.
When he plays his systems, he expects that each of his short term play sessions eventually reach a profit point with his progressions. Based on his statistics it is true for him most of the time to rely on it.
This is all that takes to have a positive expectaion in a short term session.

Best of all he links and combines multiple profitable systems to even further maximize profit in a set of time frame. That is just a smart way of playing.
Also hard to detect his betting patterns by the casino managment.

He consistently wins with real mones, this is all what matters.