To the "coders" and "testers" that contribute nothing but come to rain on parade

[RouletteGhost]

Everyone knows the odds do not change

It is a waste of your time to code a strategy and test a million spins. we know the outcome is a loss due to the house edge

that is why system players take advantage of "playing for a statistically irrelevant number of spins"

this is why hit and runners using larger units do so good for so long....can not tell them it does not work, if it works for them

maybe devote your time to something else rather than test for a million spins wasting your time with the outcome we already know.....

You can't have it both ways....you cant say that "the only reason people are being successful is that they haven't played enough spins" and then in the same breath tell them "it does not matter how many spins you play because the house edge exists every spin"

ya cant have your cake and eat it to

[Steve]

Its not all doom and gloom. There are ways to beat roulette that we already know about. And I'm sure there are ways we don't yet know about.

I only have a problem when players:

* Constantly repeat approaches that are guaranteed to lose
* Don't bother to test and try to understand why approaches wont work
* Don't try something NEW
* Think there's some grand conspiracy when someone tells them their system will lose.
* Ignore very clear proof that's right in front of their noses

Do players here really want to be the casino's fool? Or do they actually want to progress and maybe get something out of roulette?

I really dont care if you dont like my methods. They dont suit everyone anyway. Just please understand what works, what fails and why. Then focus your time and effort on something that hasn't already been tried a billion times before.

[celescliff]

I think it's quite insulting to the coders that take their free time to code a system to test more spins than the author may not be able to do.

You said at GF that you test and play your systems, but if every system/method/bet are equally exposed to the HE, shouln't they all equally suck?

If so, why test it?

[denzie]

Very insuilting indeed. Dont hate the Messenger. Hate the game. They only tell whats gonna happen in the long run. And the time.....they spend 1 or few hours to code. How many days/months you test on paper ?

Ive got systems that win strong for few 100k spins and then tank. So this means some people can be Lucky all there life and some will lose right from the start.

If it wins keep going. If it starts to lose....abandon ship

[psimoes]

You can't have it both ways....you cant say that "the only reason people are being successful is that they haven't played enough spins" and then in the same breath tell them "it does not matter how many spins you play because the house edge exists every spin"

This would be an excellent point if wasn´t based on false assumptions. The only reason is LUCK.

[RouletteGhost]

It’s not insulting

It’s true. All systems fail in the long term to house edge

It’s a waste of time in my opinion

[RouletteGhost]

I think it's quite insulting to the coders that take their free time to code a system to test more spins than the author may not be able to do.

You said at GF that you test and play your systems, but if every system/method/bet are equally exposed to the HE, shouln't they all equally suck?

If so, why test it?

Hit and run. That’s why I test.

Long term will always go down

[RouletteGhost]

I’ve come to learn: to win everyday you must play for a statistically insignificant number of spins if you are not exploiting the game in some way

[RouletteGhost]

I believe in testing actual real world sessions.

For example a baccarat shoe or 40 roulette spins. Not a million.

[maestro]

100X40 spins is same stats as 4000 spins

[psimoes]

So someone won money before a system tanked. You cant conclude that therefore you will be as successful if you only play for the short term. That person got lucky in the first place. What about those who won nothing? Thats the problem with only listening to the good news.

Think about how many systems are in all the web. The authors got lucky with the tests and published them. Now what about the millions of systems that never made it to the forums because the authors got unlucky and scrapped them. Same thing. Its all a matter of luck.

[Joe]

Everyone knows the odds do not change

But they don't. If people really believed that they wouldn't bother to test systems at all, in fact they wouldn't even  use them.

John Legend seems to believe his pattern breaker system will go on and on winning indefinitely. TurboGenius is convinced his hot number system is a long term winner. Everyone is looking for the holy grail, in other words a system which keeps winning.

I can't understand your logic at all. How much testing is enough? If you're going to test at all when is the optimum time to stop? As soon as you start to lose? LOL. It's clear you don't understand probability at all.

And yes it is insulting to those who put in the effort and time to write simulations, and programming isn't easy.

[Joe]

this is why hit and runners using larger units do so good for so long....can not tell them it does not work, if it works for them

It makes no sense to say that a system "works for me" if it doesn't work for everyone. If it doesn't work for everyone then it doesn't "work" at all does it? That just tells you you've been lucky.

You can't have it both ways....you cant say that "the only reason people are being successful is that they haven't played enough spins" and then in the same breath tell them "it does not matter how many spins you play because the house edge exists every spin

You've misunderstood. There's no contradiction here because even if you have a real edge or winning system you still have to overcome the house edge, and the point of testing a large sample is to find out whether your results are due to variance. If you use progressions you need to test a lot because they increase the variance. You might not find the losing sequences even over many thousands of spins if just playing manually and this fools you into thinking you have found a winner.

[maestro]

How much testing is enough?

if in same spin frames does the same thing and you are able to make profit then that is good enough

[Joe]

Hi Maestro, but how many spins should be in the spin frame?

rouletteghost says it's a waste of time to test a million spins but you don't have to test that many. If you've already written a simulation you can test as many spins as you like including only as many as you would normally test if doing it manually. And using a simulation saves a lot of time, boredom and probably mistakes. But testing a large sample can give you a lot more information such as where the weak points are. You can then use this information to maybe improve the system. Just because the system fails over a million spins doesn't mean it's "a waste of time".

I always test my systems by computer and it gives me a lot of useful information including how much bankroll is needed, maximum drawdowns etc. If you're going to test at all, using a computer can only improve it. Otherwise just be a gambler and don't test at all.