@ turbo

[Joe]

Joe,

Which one do you feel is the exception?

Why do you suppose it is that we never see any reports of someone winning with systems, but their are several reports of people winning using known AP methods?   

Well for starters, I count my "system" as one of the exceptions. I always keep a record of my bets and will post a chart showing the last few weeks results tomorrow. I say "system" in quotes because it's not entirely mechanical. And yes I know of at least one punter who has been banned for playing his system. It was reported in the press a few years ago.

[The General]

Well for starters, I count my "system" as one of the exceptions. I always keep a record of my bets and will post a chart showing the last few weeks results tomorrow. I say "system" in quotes because it's not entirely mechanical. And yes I know of at least one punter who has been banned for playing his system. It was reported in the press a few years ago.

A chart showing your system's success?  That's goofy.



  Just explain the fundamentals of the system.  That's all you need to do.

[Madi]

A chart showing your system's success?  That's goofy.



 

Whats wrong with one chart? You upload only one chart showing broken wheel exist even these spin could be your home made.

And why should someone handed their working fundamentals? Lots of people here is smart enough.

[Kattila]

Agree shut this forum down its useless.you have Steve and the General that could give a shit about systems but they both love a system forum .

[The General]

Agree shut this forum down its useless.you have Steve and the General that could give a shit about systems but they both love a system forum .

Instead of trying to build and design systems to beat the random game why don't you build systems to beat the wheel?

[Nimo]

Instead of trying to build and design systems to beat the random game why don't you build systems to beat the wheel?

Beating the wheel is easy, I have a nice Louisville slugger bat.  No problem.  You probably meant game though, since a wheel is useless without the ball, layout and croupier

[Turner]

Instead of trying to build and design systems to beat the random game why don't you build systems to beat the wheel

How come you always refer to the roulette game as random, then tell us how all wheels are biased?

Every wheel is biased to some degree.

How can the game be random if all the wheels arnt?

You sound confused

To quote the Big Kahuna (thats you by the way) "The Random Game" is an Oxymoron

[The General]

How come you always refer to the roulette game as random, then tell us how all wheels are biased?

How can the game be random if all the wheels arnt?

Ignoring any bias on the wheel and chasing the game on the layout while playing the electronic version.

[Turner]

Ignoring any bias on the wheel and chasing the game on the layout while playing the electronic version.

WTF?



Answer the question or Ill start talking about your book again.

[Turner]

Paper Pulp Fiction....its genius, even if I say it myself 

why cant you like your own posts?

[The General]

why cant you like your own posts?

I know right! 

[Steve]

Have you ever in history found a news story or risk consultant talking about a system that was beating the game of roulette and reporting or warning the casinos about it?

Nope. I wonder why.

However such information is out there about proven AP methods, visual ballistics and wheel bias.

Entire companies exist to combat AP.., obviously because it's not viable?

The roulette wheel was created to provide numbers randomly.  It is still a random number generator.

No. It's physical equipment with predictable physics.

If I am at a wheel and an AP player is at a wheel, he notices a bias on the section of 0, 32 so he places chips on them. I have a system that plays only those two numbers, we are still both trying to beat the game.

If you're referring to "hot numbers", that's not what bias analysis is. You might make the same bets as a bias player in some cases. But you're not understanding bias often manifests only in specific conditions, that a "hot numbers" player would not correlate in analysis. And such a bias would not appear as a hot number - without correlation with variables. it may appear as numbers with normal frequency.

There's a lot to it, but here's a very simple example: "hot numbers" don’t take into account rotor direction. A bias player segregates rotor direction and may find specific numbers are biased only for one direction.

The game not the wheel, you can have a wheel and without the other components its just a dead weight.

The main part that determines the winning number is dead weight?

Joe, below is what you said. It appears your point was casinos endorsed vague information about AP, which suggests AP is not viable:

Now a cynic would probably say that this website is owned by a casino, but even if it isn't, casinos certainly endorse it because there are affiliate links everywhere.

And my argument is the casino doesn't give a crap about vague explanations about beating roulette. They care about traffic and new players. Vetting websites is primarily to ensure a clean reputation.

Vague and simplistic? You've got to be kidding.

The material is incomplete snippets of other material. Some of it is copied from my material which is clear because I'm the only one who said things he repeats. The pages are a vague outline of what players need to know to succeed. It appears detailed to you because you don’t know better.

The issue is how much work does it involve to (a) find suitable wheels and conditions, and (b) actually make a consistent profit.

The average player needs to scout a bit for optimal conditions, but rarely do players find it difficult. It depends on factors like nearby casinos, the casino's procedures, number of wheels to choose from etc. That's with reasonably advanced AP, no computers.

Online casinos don't allow betting after the ball is spun

Some do, but most don't because the VB & computer players would eventually exploit them. For example, blackorchidcasino.com previously allowed late bets, then a few of my teams won large sums. Now bets are closed much earlier. There are still a few online casinos that allow late betting, but generally we don't bother with online casinos since too many of them refused payouts.

Land-based casinos don't so readily close bets early. This is because they feel safer by being able to physically see players. They will still close bets earlier if they suspect an AP, but normal procedures resume when they leave.

B & M casinos they can take all kinds of counter-measures such as changing ball types and speed

Is it because they're worried about the trot? Sure, casinos take countermeasures, and most of them are ineffective or not effective enough.

Add to that the fact that VB doesn't work unless there is some bias in the first place.

Actually dominant diamonds are not needed for an edge. Scatter is much more important, but I don't normally explain the details because most people wouldn't understand the details anyway.

If VB is applied on a wheel with no dominant diamond, an edge might only be possible if the player isolated play to spins only with a suitable rotor speed range. This is because of overlaps. It would also depend on the wheel and ball.

Assuming the wheel was everything the manufacturer advertised, the biggest issue is that the edge would be lower than a wheel with strong dominant diamonds, perhaps to a point where it's impractical to play for VB (4% edge). This is still an edge, but the player would need to make single number bets to avoid detection. And the diversionary bets would around halve their edge. Also you'd need to skip unsuitable rotor speeds. 2% is still profitable. But compared to 15% edge on the wheel a few tables over, why bother.

Another problem with lower edges is you need a lot more data to confirm you actually have an edge. You waste time just to know. It's just easier to find more suitable wheels.

You can get an edge on almost every wheel, one way or another. But few roulette player will waste time on a 2% edge unless they have ample time, no better options, higher stakes, and can covertly execute play over longer periods of time. One example is exploiting touch bet roulette because they are poorly monitored. But still there are much better options so most roulette APs wouldn't bother with difficult wheels.

Sure it can be done, but how much skill and experience does it take?

Actually not a lot. The average intelligent person can learn basic VB in minutes. More advanced methods take a few days to become competent with. Also understand some conditions are easy to win in, and some require advanced methods and understanding. There are many variables, but generally it does not take super-human skill or effort. Most of all, it can take time.

But still most players don't have what it takes. As a generalization, if you're accustomed to systems like the martingale, you'll probably find AP complicated and difficult, and you probably wont ever be interested in AP. Alternately, if you have realistic expectations of time and effort, and a good work ethic, you'll probably find nothing too difficult about it. Again it also depends on the conditions you play in.

and all the time casinos are wising-up and opportunities are shrinking.

Generally true. But change is slow. I expect AP will still be viable for roulette for at least 5+ years. In the past 20 years it has barely changed. There are some new technologies to combat AP but they are still very rare. That's probably because out of 5,000 players, maybe 1 player is an AP and threat to the casino. Who knows what the actual ratio would be, but clearly most players are typical losing system players.

Casinos know about AP. It's just an accepted risk and threat for casinos. But most people are too lazy for AP. Casinos follow procedures to react to AP if detected, although most are lazy about it. Why would they freak out about APs when losing players may earn a casino $500,000 in a night, and an APs may win $5000? Because if an AP slips through the cracks, and pushes hard with large bets, they can do a lot of damage.

Team play is definitely best. Ultimately because it reduces the amount of time any individual player needs to dedicate. Even with VB or computer play..... a single player can just bet on single numbers. It's fine, but more tedious. They'll have a high edge, but to guarantee profit they'll need to play much longer than a team that can cover 15 numbers in a spin, and win on almost every spin (this means less time playing).

In general I agree, but not all systems can be dismissed.

Again, I'm not dismissing all systems. When someone says "I bet hot numbers, because they're on a roll. Everyone follow my HG.", am I supposed to shut my mouth? Watch carefully. I don't criticize methods unless I know enough about them to know why they may fail. And then I'll explain it, and explain how everyone can verify it for themselves.

Joe, this is what I said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here, except why particular approaches don't work

Why do you respond, Joe? What are you selling?

I'm not at all considering my products when I explain why an approach fails. It's the same reason I argued Earth is round - I don't like ignorance. I couldn’t give a rats ass if you or anyone doesn't like the idea of AP. Likewise, I don’t care if a few nutjobs think Earth is flat, but I may still respond to them of they keep insisting their proof is irrefutable.

APs and reasonable people consider my technology. They are quite a different to typical system players. They are not the type of people who even consider my technology, nor am i interested in trying to convert anyone - only to explain plain truth to whoever wants to learn.

If my focus was "selling", I'd be selling typical systems because AP is far less popular. People buy what they want, not what they need.

You say that insults your intelligence. Sorry,it is how it is.

You still can't say combining two systems is not the same as combining two AP methods without knowing all the details.

Watch carefully. I do not criticize a system without knowing enough to explain why it wont work. You dont understand my point so i'll elaborate....

If two systems achieve no edge by themselves, you cannot combine them to achieve an edge.

Combining AP is different. One example is combining VB and bias analysis.

VB by itself may give 10% edge, and Bias gives 3%. We could just use both methods together, but that just gives a 3% edge and 10% edge separately.

Combining them in the way I explained (correlation) would involve betting only the biased numbers when VB indicated the ball will at least land near the biased number. This would exclude the spins where the ball didn't even touch the biased pockets, and therefore maximize the edge. This would make the separate edges cumulative, and perhaps 12% or so. It's just a simplistic example. There's a lot more to it.

Let's say we played RNG using 2 systems, involving the "law of a third" and "hot numbers". Both systems have no impact at all. Any winnings are just chance, like you can win with random bets too. Now if you combine crap with crap, you're left with crap.

The logic explained by whoever it was didnt even make sense. It has no foundation. Just empty theory.

Maybe you're combining systems that actually work. That would be fine. But if you are combining crap with crap, you'll get crap.

Get the correct facts(2013).
link:s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GHjwGveB1-A

What a lovely but misleading sales piece from Abbiati. Automatic leveling systems are quite over-rated. But first, I especially liked the part they said about delaying winning number display, to increase bettor enthusiasm. In other words they deliberately manipulate you. Kind of like the "hot number" displays.

Dominant diamonds are caused by ball track deformations as much as tilt. If a dominant diamond occurs due to ball track deformations, you could observe every spin and carefully adjust the wheel to even out the spread of diamond hits (like an auto leveling system). This attempts to compensate for ball track deformations, which actually puts the wheel on an artificial tilt rather than leveling it.

The effect is that when the ball falls in certain regions, the bounce is more predictable. This has virtually the same effect as a dominant diamond, except the casino is lured into believing their level wheel is unbeatable.

This shows what I mean for two drop-points, but the effect occurs for all drop points. Basically level or not, if the ball track has imperfections (which they almost always do), the ball will fall in a slightly different way, and affect the predictability of the bounce (F = where the ball falls, and B = where the ball bounces/ Blue is one fall point, and yellow is the other). Notice how the scatter is tighter and more predictable for blue. See below:



Some of the differences in ball fall may be the part of the diamond hit, the speed at which the ball falls, and the trajectory of the ball when it hits the rotor.

Another effect of trying to correct a wheel with deformed ball track is, in particularly on slow rotors, you can estimate rotor orientation at the end of the spin and exploit bias. The attempted correction for ball fall points makes the rotor unlevel. And if you know rotor orientation at a critical time in the spin, you've got a good chance of an edge because the ball will favor certain regions. This is because the ball will naturally more likely come to rest in the lower part of the rotor. See below:

This is the future, casinos are going to invest more and more in such advanced tech. It just makes economic sense. Such tables might currently be expensive, but prices will come down quickly, and how much money will casinos save by not having to pay their staff to do all this monitoring and maintenance manually?

Roulette has barely changed in the past 20 years. Casino equipment is made primarily to sell, not do everything it can to protect casinos.

Sure casinos are getting smarter, and their technology is getting better. Hasn't been a problem yet.

I'm not suggesting that none of your advice represents a genuine desire to inform people of what you sincerely believe to be true. Your motives may indeed be "pure" in that sense, and not driven by sales

Regardless, like I keep saying, attack the message, not the messenger.

It would have been more honest to say "I'm biased, but at the same time here are my reasons X, Y, and Z for believing that AP is the way to go".

My focus on the truth is bias? I am not biased. I simply don’t believe in fairies, unless you show me something tangible to prove they exist. I especially don't believe something to be true, when we have clear evidence to the contrary. Am i supposed to ignore evidence like the law of a third changing nothing, and is just normal statistics because the more numbers that spin, the more likely they'll repeat?

Is understanding bias? Or is it just understanding?

And I don't really know what to make of your claim that you haven't ruled out the possibility of a winning system being possible.

Do we know everything in this universe?

Is it reasonable to believe something when the proof clearly demonstrates it is untrue?

How can I make it clearer? When a system player comes here claiming to have the HG, I begin skeptical, but with an open mind. I ask them about the working principle. And if they explain it, and if it's a principle I already know fails, I'll explain why.

That doesn't mean nobody will come up with something new. Haven't you noticed me encouraging new approaches?

You say it but then immediately dismiss any claims that people are winning with them, and that it must be luck, not enough testing, ignorance etc. In other words, you're patronizing and insulting.

Listen to what is being said, check the information for yourself, and you'll understand the relevance of what I say. Yes, some people consider fair criticism and clear explanations to be insulting. That's not my fault. They need to grow up and understand explaining the truth is not personal.

Maybe you're hedging your bets, but in that case why don't your posts reflect this uncertainty?

No, it's simpler. Just like I explained.

When pushed, you come down hard on the side of AP, which tends to make people think you're really thinking about sales.

I come down on the side of "if you don't win more than 1 in 35, you will just eventually lose". Are you really going to argue this point?

AP is just the term casinos gave to play that exploits the mechanism that determines game outcomes. In roulette, it's the wheel. Forgive me for understanding the problem players must overcome, thinking logically, then sharing the understanding.

Agree shut this forum down its useless.you have Steve and the General that could give a shit about systems but they both love a system forum .

Perhaps toughen up and understand some people call bullshit when they see it. Or if you prefer, go to the "system player's only" forum, where no AP is allowed to tell you about the reality of the gaming industry. We wouldn't want to upset you. Here: link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=108.0

But if you don't mind being challenged when you've made a mistake, the main boards will be more beneficial for you.

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out why. They take us for idiots.

Earth is flat. Hot numbers lose casinos billions. The key to winning is don't play too long. Lots of HGs at RS. Anyone who says otherwise is in on the conspiracy.

Flat Earthers don't know how clueless they are. The same level of cluelessness exists on gambling forums.

I suppose you can also beat random rotor speed wheels

If you mean RRS, take the slingshot wheel for example which is one adaptation of the technology. In theory there could be 360 degrees of deviation. The reality is the slingshots I've seen have 180 degrees of deviation when bets close with around 22 seconds before the ball falls. That's super-early. The overall effect in this case is about halving possible edge for some approaches, like roulette computers. But when your edge is initially 50%, taking a 25% edge isn't a problem. Regardless, you're talking about 2% of wheels.

Theoretically they could change settings to make it 360 degrees, but that comes with other problems. I wont explain them here because I don't want to help wheel designers.

Caleb highlighted some problems. One reason is the technology isnt widespread is rotor speed changes are noticed by players, who then don't trust the casino isn't manipulating results. So by the casino's attempting to prevent the minority from winning (APs), they've created the bigger problem of losing player trust. And considering most players lose, and casinos depend on player trust, it is unwise because it's ultimately unprofitable for a casino to use RRS. It's the same reason most high stakes players wouldn't touch an auto wheel - no trust.

Still the best defense for a casino against AP is early detection of APs. Then once the player's approach is understood, the correct countermeasures can be applied until the AP leaves. That's why the limit to winnings is what you can get away with (avoiding detection).

How come you always refer to the roulette game as random, then tell us how all wheels are biased?

Roulette wheels are always biased to some degree. It's more a question of whether or not it's enough to exploit, and under what conditions/variables the bias appears.

How can the game be random if all the wheels arnt?

Say a system is based on betting on "hot numbers". The hot numbers are just normal variance, and have no correlation to what numbers will spin soon. So the system based on hot numbers still has 1 in 37 accuracy.

Now on the same wheel, say we applied VB. Such an approach exploits physics, and increases the accuracy of predictions so they dont have 1 in 37 accuracy anymore. They may have 1 in 25 accuracy, which is a vast improvement over "random accuracy" (1 in 37).

Anyway.. Unfortunately people make incorrect assumptions, or misunderstand things when they don't have enough information. There's much more I could have added, but I've wasted enough time. Everyone just has to learn for themselves.

[Turner]

Well..Steve...no one can acuse you of not replying, thats for sure.
My point...for what its worth...is that wheels cant produce true random if they are all biased to some degree.
The numbers dont simply become unrandom just because you spotted the wheel is biased. They are unrandom to everyone.

[Steve]

Yes sometimes I get carried away. Nothing is ever random, including RNG. It's more a question of predictability, and in what conditions it's predictable.

When it comes to wheels, it's nearly impossible to produce truly unpredictable spins. I mean sure it can be done, but there's always downside. For example, some changes would ultimately lose trust of players, and that would hurt the casino far more than the occasional AP.

Nobody is debating there might be systems to exploit bias, even if the player doesn't fully understand why the system works. Such a system might be a kind of hot numbers system. But the most direct approach to exploit bias is likely what APs already use.

Speaking for myself, all I'm basically saying is some approaches have no chance of working. They have also been tried and tested countless times before. Try something NEW. That's the whole point of the "outside the box" board: link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=104.0 and my suggestions at link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19212.0

There are lots of other suggestions I could have added but it's not hard to identify when something is old or potentially new.

[Turner]

And that was a discussion
Cheers