Roulette theories – New theory is need it

[RBR7]

There are many roulette theories/systems for playing the game.  All public system/theories have been proven, to lose at house edge (2,7% ER or 5,4% AR) and demonstrated that mathematical calculations by probability theory is accurate.  But is this really true and how can we be sure that probability will be correct for future systems and theories?

Well it depence    how we want to look at the theories/systems and I think we have only 2 options here:

1. All roulette t/s are the same and nothing will ever work because the past doesnt matter and roulette is really random and chaotic game of independent trials.

2. Most od the t/s are rubish and are constructed without any mathematical concepts or they use probability theory, which by default predict fail of any t/s.


If we do not want give up, the only logical choice is option 2.  The next question is, how to research and construct (open to discussion) new theory, that will have mathematical and mechanical background and it will explain the design of the wheel itself. 

Personally I think that dynamic game like roulette, also need dynamic approach to the game so I think we should be looking to several theories, like chaos theory, quantum mechanics, number theory, random field theory, etc. . . . but in the first place geometry must be involved.  If we look that wheel is only 2 dimensional system and we know that 2 dimensions can be only projections from more dimensional systems (rieman spehre, normal sphere) with another dimension of time (just another spatial dimension).  All this abstract mathematic can happen in predefined vector space, where we can defined states of the systems and add them imaginary component and so on.  I wonder why nobody never wants to find out how the numbers are placed on the wheel (eurowheel) or why is it thinking they are randomly placed or that it is impossible to find out.  There are to many indicators that say that numbers are placed by some logic/formula.

All this might sound super complicated, but in the end it will only be adding and substracting the numbers and the whole point is to create theory/model  correctly, without any mathematical or other flaws and then can be tested over â€Ã...“zillionâ€Ã, of spins (if system can overcame the basic 500 placed flat bets test and show z-score at least higher then 2,0).  To put is simply, it is just conditional probability, based on some classical/quantum mechanics principles in complex vector space.

Regards

[winkel]

All public system/theories have been proven, to lose at house edge (2,7% ER or 5,4% AR) and demonstrated that mathematical calculations by probability theory is accurate.

pls explore first before you repeat this stupid statement again and again

[chrisbis]

Not sure the OFFENSIVE word(s) are quite necessary in this forum page,
esp when it someone's opinion, but what I would say, is there are a lot of newly design bets yet to surface.

Every bet has not been exposed by a long way.

There are new bets to be designed, processed, tested and hopefully shown that they win.

Couple all of that, with the ability to play on No-Zero tables/wheels, and a winning formula
could be cooked up!

But before AL says, yes I know I have to give 10% to the casino, to offset the No ZERO and give them wages, but the real bonus, is, that the house edge was an evident possibly on EVER ONE OF UR PLAYS on a normal table/wheel, and even worse on the double Zero wheel, whereas the 10 % only applies when I check out my winnings- so I just have to make
a little more to compensate.

I have designed two new bets this week, so I know its possible.
Measured, controlled, and more importantly, BALANCED progression is the name of the new game of Roulette.

Losing the 'MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE' bet was a nuisance, but it give me the opportunity to definitely think INSIDE the box, and re-apply my self to the GAME.

cheers all.

BTW- I am of course, talking about table bets, not Wheel bets.
I have not yet studied the wheel.
I'm flat out on table design!

[RBR7]

pls explore first before you repeat this regular statement again and again

Maybe you are correct and I missed some promising system, but would it produce positive result after very long run, lets say 1 milion placed bets? Everyone see things a little different, but IMO, if system dont produce constant edge (lets say 5-10%) after 500 placed flat bets, I dont have hope that it will do any better after a milion placed bets and it is not worth of programming simulation.

Not sure the OFFENSIVE word(s) are quite necessary in this forum page,
especially when it someone's opinion, but what I would say, is there are a lot of newly design bets yet to surface.

Every bet has not been exposed by a long way.

There are new bets to be designed, processed, tested and hopefully shown that they win.

Chrisbis,

Im not sure what you mean with OFFENSIVE word(s), but that is not my intention.  It is the way I see reality of bets and systems that I read, tested, study in last couple of years.  There were flat bets that did produce 10% edge over 200-300 placed bets, but when simulation for several thousand was done, the sad reality of -2,7% came up.

But that was not the intention of this post as I said it before.  I have done much research, last couple of years and I made a conclusion that no mechanics was ever done to unified all observable things that roulette can offer.

For example if you looking pure numbers extractions (without importance of wheel position), you can see that number come out as combinations ( 2 numbers) and each combinations also cause distance (effect of combinations) and distances also have probability, even if they are not produced directly from every number extraction. 

Numbers can be seen as vectors in vector space and distances as angles between and it is also important to know that can cause wave function in vector space.  In any case you have all the elements to create abstract vector space/field where you can apply different mathematical aproaches (already used in mainstream science for QM or CT, etc. . ).  And everything can be also try to unified with roulette wheel and positions of numbers.

But this kind of theory takes time to be fully and correctly researched and that was intention of the post.  To attract members who posses some â€Ã...“know-howâ€Ã, of this kind of principles and are interested to research.  Im open to all opinions that anyone have. . . . . that is the only way to get new ideas.

Measured, controlled, and more importantly, BALANCED progression is the name of the new game of Roulette.

Measure and control don’t have anything to do with the edge and it is used in philosophical sense.  There is no philosophy in roulette IMO and you either win better then expected or you don’t.  But I agree, that if you gamble then measure, control and balance and progression makes sense, but there is no way that gives you edge IMO.

Regards

[F_LAT_INO]

Not sure the OFFENSIVE word(s) are quite necessary in this forum page,
especially when it someone's opinion, but what I would say, is there are a lot of newly design bets yet to surface.

Every bet has not been exposed by a long way.

There are new bets to be designed, processed, tested and hopefully shown that they win.

Couple all of that, with the ability to play on No-Zero tables/wheels, and a winning formula
could be cooked up!

But before AL says, yes I know I have to give 10% to the casino, to offset the No ZERO and give them wages, but the real bonus, is, that the house edge was an evident possibly on EVER ONE OF your PLAYS on a normal table/wheel, and even worse on the double Zero wheel, whereas the 10 % only applies when I check out my winnings- so I just have to make
a little more to compensate.

I have designed two new bets this week, so I know its possible.
Measured, controlled, and more importantly, BALANCED progression is the name of the new game of Roulette.

Losing the 'MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE' bet was a nuisance, but it give me the opportunity to definitely think INSIDE the box, and re-apply my self to the GAME.

cheers all.

by the way- I am of course, talking about table bets, not Wheel bets.
I have not yet studied the wheel.
I'm flat out on table design!

When will you reveal your 2 bets mr.Crisby..........am only
coppying your often read sentence here.

[chrisbis]

@ RBR7

I did qualify my post by saying I was only talking about Table/felt bets design.

Not the wheel.
I have yet to study the wheel/disc.


@ F LAT INO

All in good time my dear 'Winter' friend, all in good time.
Roman was not built in a day!.............must have been at least a day and a half.

But I will tell U this.

3Dozens bet=Mutually Exclusive Bet=Banned (at certain casino's)
take this equation above - minus 1 Dozen
equals
2 Dozen bet.

I need (at this point), say no more.
U just have a think.
No Zero table BTW.

[F_LAT_INO]

@ RBR7

I did qualify my post by saying I was only talking about Table/felt bets design.

Not the wheel.
I have yet to study the wheel/disc.


@ F LAT INO

All in good time my dear 'Winter' friend, all in good time.
Roman was not built in a day!.............must have been at least a day and a half.

But I will tell you this.

3Dozens bet=Mutually Exclusive Bet=Banned (at certain casino's)
take this equation above - minus 1 Dozen
equals
2 Dozen bet.

I need (at this point), say no more.
U just have a think.
No Zero table by the way.

My dear Chrisy boy,
You can take my word/or not/there is not a 2 doz.winning bet....zero,no zero....as this last takes you 10%of your winnings and the other kills you on 2,7%.....Don't tell me after that I
didn't tell you.

[winkel]

Not sure the OFFENSIVE word(s) are quite necessary in this forum page,

DonÂÃ,´t you think it is boring new people coming up telling us "nothing works"?
ThatÂÃ,´s worse than revealing the martingale for the 3billionst time.

latest news of my G.U.T: real play about 60000+ spins; bets placed 214378 units; result +7198 units.

br
winkel

[Colbster]

FLAT,

I already demonstrated mathematically in the Eggleston Betting System posts that the house advantage, even of a 0/00 wheel, can be overcome with the proper play.  Those threads became overrun by chat about the actual method of play, but the fact remains, there is a mathematical edge that can had.  Truth be told, I'm not sure how to apply that information, but it remains factual.  

Regarding the 10%: My method had a 3.1+ unit return every 37 spins, as I explained in great detail in my threads.  With a No-Zero table, that return becomes better than 5.1 units.  If I pay them 10 of my 5.1 unit winnings, I now have a net gain of 4.59 units, comfortably better than the 3.1 I would expect on a European table.

I am growing concerned that you are becoming so set in your ways, that you are not even considering the fine ideas others are posting on this board.  While I bow to the great deal of experience you have gained over the years, that does not mean that your methods are necessarily greater than those that are being posted by others here.  I see your replies in other peoples threads, showing how you already thought of that and your method already is doing this or that and stating why their ideas will necessarily fail.  This despite great amounts of feedback to the contrary, such as John Legend's Vertical Matrix thread.  Your screenshots of your live-wheel tracking sheets did not contribute anything to that discussion, as you were only worried about how your system acted, with no consideration of what John, Twister, and others were working on.

I agree that new theories are needed - they are being developed every single day on this forum and others.  The 2.7% house advantage discussions are obsolete.  They only refer to placing a bet and leaving it in place for a given duration.  Today's roulette players are much more dynamic than that.

[F_LAT_INO]

FLAT,

I already demonstrated mathematically in the Eggleston Betting System posts that the house advantage, even of a 0/00 wheel, can be overcome with the proper play.  Those threads became overrun by chat about the actual method of play, but the fact remains, there is a mathematical edge that can had.  Truth be told, I'm not sure how to apply that information, but it remains factual.  

Regarding the 10%: My method had a 3.1+ unit return every 37 spins, as I explained in great detail in my threads.  With a No-Zero table, that return becomes better than 5.1 units.  If I pay them 10 of my 5.1 unit winnings, I now have a net gain of 4.59 units, comfortably better than the 3.1 I would expect on a European table.

I am growing concerned that you are becoming so set in your ways, that you are not even considering the fine ideas others are posting on this board.  While I bow to the great deal of experience you have gained over the years, that does not mean that your methods are necessarily greater than those that are being posted by others here.  I see your replies in other peoples threads, showing how you already thought of that and your method already is doing this or that and stating why their ideas will necessarily fail.  This despite great amounts of feedback to the contrary, such as John Legend's Vertical Matrix thread.  Your screenshots of your live-wheel tracking sheets did not contribute anything to that discussion, as you were only worried about how your system acted, with no consideration of what John, Twister, and others were working on.

I agree that new theories are needed - they are being developed every single day on this forum and others.  The 2.7% house advantage discussions are obsolete.  They only refer to placing a bet and leaving it in place for a given duration.  Today's roulette players are much more dynamic than that.

Dear Colbster,
Was talking to Chrisby about his 2 doz.bet/and he knows the reason why/am not,never,underestimating other ppl.work,and you are wrong saying I haven't contributed to JTL matrix nor discussion,as I suggested matrix 7 to John,and didn't further discuss it with them cause have past it several years ago.Remind me where did I have said to anybody that theirs idea will not work,please.If I think so then I don't get involved in discussion,thats all.And btw-----AM WAITING THAT SOMEBODY SHOWS ME 2 DOZ.WINNING BET....as am still
learning with my 71

[RBR7]

DonÂÃ,´t you think it is boring new people coming up telling us "nothing works"?
ThatÂÃ,´s worse than revealing the martingale for the 3billionst time. 

Intention of the post was not to tell everyone that nothing works, but that new theory is need it in my opinion.   And what that's got to do with beeing new to the forum.   Are you getting smarter if you are member longer time?

And if/or something work must be proven and validate and repeated by any amount of placed bets, otherwise it is just a fluke in your data.   No such demonstration was never represent on any forum and in any form. 

I do not have a problem with winning systems or claims that people have, but they are just not valid, until they proved by scientific method (software simulation). 

Regards

[winkel]

And if/or something work must be proven and validate and repeated by any amount of placed bets, otherwise it is just a fluke in your data.   No such demonstration was never represent on any forum and in any form. 

I do not have a problem with winning systems or claims that people have, but they are just not valid, until they proved by scientific method (software simulation). 

Regards

And you are wrong again!
my G.U.t (just one example) is proved in 3 Forums around the world and is played and tested by many users.

and another wrong statement: Software-simulation is not a proof as long as "gamblerÂÃ,´s inteligence" canÂÃ,´t be coded.

br
winkel

[Colbster]

Failing to prove that something is not wrong (scientific method, which as you claim means software simulation) is very different than proving that something is right.  You will find, as you spend more time in this forum, that nearly no one agrees how much testing is necessary.  Some people like to jump in and out of a session, hoping to escape before the dreaded "monster session" catches them.  Others are more theory based, and want to see millions of spins before a theory is worth there time.  The argument against that is that no person will ever play consecutive millions of spins.  

Members who have been here for any amount of time are hesitant to listen to people talking hypothetical "number theory" or other concepts without putting their ideas down in a concrete form that we can consider.  Quantum mechanics is a fascinating field, but you need to explain how it will tell us which dozen to put our chips on before it means anything to anyone here (with the possible exclusion of Gizmotron).

Regarding your question about getting smarter if you are member for a long time, the truth is that being an active member for a long time will make you smarter, just as doing anything worth doing will improve with practice.  I am certain you are a bright guy to even consider applying advanced theory to the modest game of roulette.  There are a lot of bright guys on here, many of whom have lost a great deal of money over the years by chasing some of the very same theories you may be considering.  You will absolutely become smarter if you find, and have open discussions, with some of the men who have traveled these roads before you, maybe saving yourself a fortune along the way.

Good luck in your endeavors, and welcome to the forum!

[RBR7]

And you are wrong again!
my G. U. t (just one example) is proved in 3 Forums around the world and is played and tested by many users.

and another wrong statement: Software-simulation is not a proof as long as "gamblerÂÃ,´s inteligence" canÂÃ,´t be coded.

br
winkel

As I remember on old VLS, your GUT has been proven as a failure right out of the box.  Then some changes and gamblers inteligence has been added, to make it work. . . . . . . and I dont remember that any real proof later was made it later, except some hand making test.  Gambler inteligence is something that really doesnt exist, except in mind of gamblers.

And to be fair and stop this arguing, I will apologies if you were offended by my post and I will say again that this wasnt my intention.  Now can we please stop the debate about something that we will never agree.

Regards

[RBR7]

Failing to prove that something is not wrong (scientific method, which as you claim means software simulation) is very different than proving that something is right.  You will find, as you spend more time in this forum, that nearly no one agrees how much testing is necessary.  Some people like to jump in and out of a session, hoping to escape before the dreaded "monster session" catches them.  Others are more theory based, and want to see millions of spins before a theory is worth there time.  The argument against that is that no person will ever play consecutive millions of spins.  

No, no one will play 1 milion spins, but you never know against which spins you will be playing, so the bigger the data you test, the better the chance that you system survive and if it demonstrated edge after ÂÃ,»zilionÂÃ,« of tested spins, it will also in short terms. The bigger the testing data the more accurate is validation of your system or simple just do the z-score for example 1000 placed bets and if higher then 3,0 I'm almost sure that your system will survive ÂÃ,»zilionÂÃ,« too. And it is not about how many spins you tested, but how many bets you placed/tested.


Members who have been here for any amount of time are hesitant to listen to people talking hypothetical "number theory" or other concepts without putting their ideas down in a concrete form that we can consider.  Quantum mechanics is a fascinating field, but you need to explain how it will tell us which dozen to put our chips on before it means anything to anyone here (with the possible exclusion of Gizmotron).

Yes I agree, but if there is no interest to discuss things, then there is no point of continue. QM could be use only as principle of reading states in complex vector space. States and mechanisem must first defined and also complete idea is not made on QM.

Regarding your question about getting smarter if you are member for a long time, the truth is that being an active member for a long time will make you smarter, just as doing anything worth doing will improve with practice.  I am certain you are a bright guy to even consider applying advanced theory to the modest game of roulette.  There are a lot of bright guys on here, many of whom have lost a great deal of money over the years by chasing some of the very same theories you may be considering.  You will absolutely become smarter if you find, and have open discussions, with some of the men who have traveled these roads before you, maybe saving yourself a fortune along the way.

I don't think I will get any smarter on the forum except maybe with some great mathematical explanations in math section. Roulette is really not the field in which you can get much smarter, since the result of profesional player (VB and other methods excluded because I don't know enough about it) and average Joe is exactly the same on average and the only difference is factor of luck.