The Steve way

[romano0327]

Helle Steve,

The link is down, I want to access it.

[Steve]

there was a typo, check now. Ipads fault

[denzie]

What would i do? I use computers, or rather my teams do.  We would assess ball scatter to see how predictably the ball bounced, if we were being super careful. But ordinarily we'd just start using the computer without evaluation. We usually at least get 20% edge regardless.

My method is not typical so that's not the answer you want.

The reason i say first learn basics because they are used to build a working system. That dictates what you do next. For most ap, you'd assess the conditions that matter. Its different for different approaches

Let's take nottos non hit bla bla. If he tested more he'd know non hits, hot numbers, cold numbers, sleepers, streaks bla bla are meaningless. You get them with rng or real spins. Its just basic probability. None of it can be used to determine the next number, or at sequence of numbers, with improved odds.

Notto gave us an example of not testing properly. So he doesn't know better.

So what I'm getting from all this is....You haven't really got a method without your technology. Which is fine. Now here's where I'm at....

Few months back I started looking in vb seriously. So seriously I starting to see the ball double from watching and practising accuracy of predictions. Pfff. Many breaks are required. But at a certain point I'm started to get it. My predictions did pretty good. ( I could mostly guess which area it would land on).

Now the area....What to bet? So as I like hotties/repeaters it wasn't hard to choose my bet. So you say repeaters are useless. I disagree!

How to attack?  Sit your ass down. Check the diamonds as at the same time write the numbers spun. After you got the data(check also rotations etc.)...start betting. Mostly it's 1-2 numbers per spin. (Unless the # are all in the same area)

Throw some small chips on the table while tracking. But stuff like that we all know.

[nottophammer]

What would i do? I use computers, or rather my teams do.  We would assess ball scatter to see how predictably the ball bounced, if we were being super careful. But ordinarily we'd just start using the computer without evaluation. We usually at least get 20% edge regardless.

My method is not typical so that's not the answer you want.

The reason i say first learn basics because they are used to build a working system. That dictates what you do next. For most ap, you'd assess the conditions that matter. Its different for different approaches

Let's take nottos non hit bla bla. If he tested more he'd know non hits, hot numbers, cold numbers, sleepers, streaks bla bla are meaningless. You get them with rng or real spins. Its just basic probability. None of it can be used to determine the next number, or at sequence of numbers, with improved odds.

Notto gave us an example of not testing properly. So he doesn't know better.

Notto just showed how to win on FOBT and does not need to cheat with shit software

[Steve]

So what I'm getting from all this is....You haven't really got a method without your technology. Which is fine. Now here's where I'm at....

Few months back I started looking in vb seriously. So seriously I starting to see the ball double from watching and practising accuracy of predictions. Pfff. Many breaks are required. But at a certain point I'm started to get it. My predictions did pretty good. ( I could mostly guess which area it would land on).

Now the area....What to bet? So as I like hotties/repeaters it wasn't hard to choose my bet. So you say repeaters are useless. I disagree!

How to attack?  Sit your ass down. Check the diamonds as at the same time write the numbers spun. After you got the data(check also rotations etc.)...start betting. Mostly it's 1-2 numbers per spin. (Unless the # are all in the same area)

Throw some small chips on the table while tracking. But stuff like that we all know.

No denzie, I have many methods that beat roulette, including ones that dont use computers. My non-computer method is called cross rererencing. It models the realtionship between variables and spin outcomes, but in a dynamic relationship.

Repeaters are fallacy because what determines the winning numbers are physical variables. Its all cause and effect. For example if the spins were 32,32,32.... its because variables like rotor speed contributed to it, NOT because they were "repeaters".

[denzie]

Another thing....Track The dealers. Many dealers spin the same gap area. Wanna bet you get a hit on your few # in your selection?

This is for those who don't wanna training the vb. Just look the dealer and count...look Your sheet and put the chip on your number.

[Steve]

Notto just showed how to win on FOBT and does not need to cheat with shit software

No you showed how even a losing system can win in short term. Any system can do this, short term.

Also computers are legal and not cheating in most casinos. But youll still be banned if caught using them. Why? Because casinos hate players who are virtually guaranteed to win. If you dont like that, who cares. Dont use them.

[denzie]

No denzie, I have many methods that beat roulette, including ones that dont use computers. My non-conputer method is called cross rererencing. It models the realtionship between variables and soin outcomes, but in a dynamic relationship.

Alright cool. Let's hear it 

[denzie]

Repeaters are fallacy because what determines the winning numbers are physical variables. Its all cause and effect. For example if the spins were 32,32,32.... its because variables like rotor speed contributed to it, NOT because they were "repeaters".

Of course it coz of those variables. And we call them repeaters coz they repeat coz of the variables 

[cht]

So what I'm getting from all this is....You haven't really got a method without your technology. Which is fine. Now here's where I'm at....

Few months back I started looking in vb seriously. So seriously I starting to see the ball double from watching and practising accuracy of predictions. Pfff. Many breaks are required. But at a certain point I'm started to get it. My predictions did pretty good. ( I could mostly guess which area it would land on).

Now the area....What to bet? So as I like hotties/repeaters it wasn't hard to choose my bet. So you say repeaters are useless. I disagree!

How to attack?  Sit your ass down. Check the diamonds as at the same time write the numbers spun. After you got the data(check also rotations etc.)...start betting. Mostly it's 1-2 numbers per spin. (Unless the # are all in the same area)

Throw some small chips on the table while tracking. But stuff like that we all know.

I may expand into VBer repeaters hybrid later.

[Steve]

i already explained it many times. but basically every winning number comes from cause and effect. Its never for no reason. Its because of various variables.

For example, rotor and ball speed. These are obvious ones. But these are changing variables. And there are other changing variables. A complete system needs to accurately model the variables (cause) and the relationships to the winning numbers (effects). But more is needed. You also need to model the dynamic relationship between all variables and effects. Because the variables constantly change. This is partly done with permutations, in a similar way to how hackers decrypt an encrypted file. To do it properly needs automated software. Its about 4 billion calculations for 300 spins. But there ar shortcuts that can be taken without needing computer software.

So my cross referencing system is not so much a system. Its more a method for statistical analysis. It does whats explained above, and is optionally capable of finding statistical anomalies. A better known one is wheel bias, but there are other anomalies in specific conditions. No it doesnt need or rely on bias. Simply if there is an anomaly, it can be found. Its as close to the HG ive ever found.... take all variables and data points possible, and create a computer model to explain it all, then use this model to predict future spins. Not so far fetched, is it?

[Steve]

Of course it coz of those variables. And we call them repeaters coz they repeat coz of the variables 

Not in the way players use repeaters. Most system players never even consider the variables. As soon as you start making predictions based on real variables, congrats youre looking at advantage play. Thats all AP is... logic and reason, not hocus pocus.

[cht]

So long as methods based on statistical analysis returns consistent results, hocus pocus or not is not the issue, how large the edge that rake in the chips in real money play is.

[Steve]

So long as methods based on statistical analysis returns consistent results, hocus pocus or not is not the issue, how large the edge that rake in the chips in real money play is.

The method isnt exactly statistics. Its physics (cause and effect). But statistics is still critical. Its diffetent expressions of the same thing. Like you dont have physics without math. They are the same thing, although physics is more the theory, and the math is the validation.

Dont confuse this with bs claims like "beat a math game with math" because people who say this think it means something like "repeaters in X amount of spins are more likely to repeat in X amount of spins". Thats the kind of math that exists only in imagination.

And really roulette is not hard to beat. You can beat most wheels one way or another. Its more a question of practicality, with the main part being how much you can win without being detected. If you are detected, one way or another the casino wont tolerate it forever.

Winning $1000 -$5000 per session without being detected is fine, but you still cant do it day after day at the same casino. Avoiding detection for $30k is not too hard either but it needs very careful planning.

[cht]

My understanding is if the computer usage is not based on process physics but based on theoretical probability distribution meaning grounded in pure math and stats, there should be no problem as they are currently still deemed to be constraint by existing math frontier limitations. Or at least the pitboss made me understand the allowable line for now.