I have decided to make public the mathematically infallible roulette system

[warrior]

Sure if your lucky to hit that 1 number in 37 spins,and it might take an hour or so flat bet and break even wow your not making very good money,i have seen people lose so much on the inside its not even funny.

[beretta28]

I'm afraid warrior is right.
On the inside bets you lose much more for two reasons:
-2,7% instead of -1,35%(did you hear already about that?),but also because inside bets have a bigger variance,that in poor words means that the losing periods are longer than in ECs.


But the opposite could be also valid:even if you are lucky no hope on ECs in the long term,much more possibilities to be + on inside,only splits and straight numbers!


With no luck,small loss on ECs,very huge loss on inside.

[Robeenhuut]

Sure if your lucky to hit that 1 number in 37 spins,and it might take an hour or so flat bet and break even wow your not making very good money,i have seen people lose so much on the inside its not even funny.

Once in a while u lose 80u f u want 2 win 1u. I guarantee u that at least 80% people that make money on roulette play inside. Just ask around. But what r we discussing here? U stated that u r happy with winning 3-5u a day n im not. So obviously we should have 2 different strategies.  U happy, im happy so lets go on with that.

Regards

[Robeenhuut]

I'm afraid warrior is right.
On the inside bets you lose much more for two reasons:
-2,7% instead of -1,35%(did you hear already about that?),but also because inside bets have a bigger variance,that in poor words means that the losing periods are longer than in ECs.


But the opposite could be also valid:even if you are lucky no hope on ECs in the long term,much more possibilities to be + on inside,only splits and straight numbers!


With no luck,small loss on ECs,very huge loss on inside.

Beretta i think u r completely wrong here. Knowledge straight  out of a book never did anybody good. Why don't u go 2 casino n try 2 win some dough. N actually I'm pretty good at mathematics. But actually u don't need it in roulette. I think u spend 2 much time like MOP here trying 2 teach us stuff that already everybody knows. And im curious about yr 1.35 2 2.7% comparison here.  F we had triple 0 roulette what would be d house edge?  Maybe i could use such a info.

[Ralph]

Hello!
I am new here, and I use my third language, which I think is best for all, as I do not thinks so many of you will understand an other more perfect language. So it will be some misspelling, which I think we can live with.

An math infallible system you will never find, It can be fun to test claims, but soon or later every thread in any forum will end with somebody have failed.

Thats the devils game, and math will not work very well, so because of that I do not find any other methods worse, gamblers fallacy is quite OK, as long it brings winnings.

I use to winn, and I am playing on money I won, but for sure I have no method which is infallible.

[beretta28]

Robeenhut,
OK we have different opinions.
Honestly speaking sometimes I appreciate your posts and your comments,but here you make some mistakes,In My Humble Opinion


First I'd be sure that you have well understood my position:I agree that the sole players that wins something,play inside bets,mainly straight numbers.
But they are also the players that lose much more money of even chances players,if both categories lose.
Bayes told the same thing a few days ago in another thread,


Second,but is not so important,I would like to inform you that I've been playing roulette and other Casino games for 40 years and in the last 15 years I enter a Casino 200 times per year.
Believe me,I know roulette like few other people


Third:what I mention about outside and inside bet,apart from my own experience,is confirmed by the famous book of Edward Packel,The Mathematic of gambling.
Edward was in 1992,when he wrote this sbook,Ph.D and professor of math and statistics in Harvard.
Ok,I guess  all that is not enough for convincing you....

[TwoCatSam]

I would love to see a demonstration of how one can lose more than 2.7% in any betting situation.  I will find this book--if possible--and read it.

I would even love a mathematical explanation.....

TwoCat

[Robeenhuut]

Robeenhut,
OK we have different opinions.
Honestly speaking sometimes I appreciate your posts and your comments,but here you make some mistakes,In My Humble Opinion


First I'd be sure that you have well understood my position:I agree that the sole players that wins something,play inside bets,mainly straight numbers.
But they are also the players that lose much more money of even chances players,if both categories lose.
Bayes told the same thing a few days ago in another thread,


Second,but is not so important,I would like to inform you that I've been playing roulette and other Casino games for 40 years and in the last 15 years I enter a Casino 200 times per year.
Believe me,I know roulette like few other people


Third:what I mention about outside and inside bet,apart from my own experience,is confirmed by the famous book of Edward Packel,The Mathematic of gambling.
Edward was in 1992,when he wrote this sbook,Ph.D and professor of math and statistics in Harvard.
Ok,I guess  all that is not enough for convincing you....

Hola Beretta

I dont think that anybody can convince anybody here on this forum  . And prove anything. I just feel comfortable playing inside bets  flat or with a very mild short prog in a worst case. And i know lots about any gaming theories 2. But always 2 lazy 2 study a whole book. Just a few relevant chapters. If i need any info on roulette i just google deviation towards d mean 4 an example...   What do u play out of curiosity f i may ask?

Regards

[TwoCatSam]

OK, I have the book on order through inter library loan.  Won't pay for it unless it's good.

I'm truly drooling to see how one can lose more than 2.7% on inside bets if you follow the rules.  Anyone can bet $100 on 3 and lose and say, "Whoa, I lost 100%!!".  That's not a test.

Sam

[beretta28]

Roulette is not my preferred game anymore.
I decided(easy decision!) that is better to try to beat a game with a lower edge.
So I play mainly BJack(-055% edge with the rules of Montecarlo Casino,without counting cards and with basic strategy).
As far as roulette is concerned I try to well learn VB,a "science" that I had underestimated in the past.
Years ago I've tried EVERY system or/and progression on ECs(like all novices)or on inside bets(mainly lines).A disaster!
When I read the book I mention here above,I had the confirmation of my ideas about straight numbers.
It's the best bet if you play frequently in a Casino.Boring,but efficient!
If you enter a Casino three times a year,you can play your room number,your age or the telephone number of your neighbour!
The problem in Montecarlo is that you MUST give a tip when you win on a straight number and this double the edge.That's why I play BJ,also because casinos on line for me don't exist.
On straight number I used to play a soft progression on cycles of 72 spins.I won 1 times,2times,more or never...and I modified my progression accordingly.
It was long(300 spins per session minimum),2500 units bkr,starting from the minimum of the table.
I played at least three months like that and I was + if no tip to the dealer.
Now I have found a Casino where the tip is not compulsory.
Who knows?.....

[beretta28]

TwoCatSam
I'm afraid you have not understood.
In the book you will see the demonstration that the straight number is the best possible bet(or the less worse!)
I hope you understand it,otherwise read only the conclusions.


-2,7% of all money put on a roulette table is the average loss of a given player.
But on inside bets,because there is a big variance/unbalance, the player will be sooner or later out of money in a negative session, and the the loss is much bigger.
For that the book has nothing to do.
Ask the waiter of a  Casino and he knows that too

[warrior]

Roulette is not my preferred game anymore.
I decided(easy decision!) that is better to try to beat a game with a lower edge.
So I play mainly BJack(-055% edge with the rules of Montecarlo Casino,without counting cards and with basic strategy).
As far as roulette is concerned I try to well learn VB,a "science" that I had underestimated in the past.
Years ago I've tried EVERY system or/and progression on ECs(like all novices)or on inside bets(mainly lines).A disaster!
When I read the book I mention here above,I had the confirmation of my ideas about straight numbers.
It's the best bet if you play frequently in a Casino.Boring,but efficient!
If you enter a Casino three times a year,you can play your room number,your age or the telephone number of your neighbour!
The problem in Montecarlo is that you MUST give a tip when you win on a straight number and this double the edge.That's why I play BJ,also because casinos on line for me don't exist.
On straight number I used to play a soft progression on cycles of 72 spins.I won 1 times,2times,more or never...and I modified my progression accordingly.
It was long(300 spins per session minimum),2500 units bkr,starting from the minimum of the table.
I played at least three months like that and I was + if no tip to the dealer.
Now I have found a Casino where the tip is not compulsory.
Who knows?.....

YOU HAVE TO TIP THATS CRAZY AND ROBBERY, you should use your gun and shoot them :LoL:

[TwoCatSam]

I am always needing a book to read.  I will digest it.

[warrior]

One day i will share my Power 6 system its on lines ,i have won with this for the last 3 years,im not rich but ,no losses and no disaters,mr barretta.

[beretta28]

Warrior,if it woul be  on straight number OK,it's very kind of you, you'd be a very nice and constructive member.
If it on lines, be ready to read my  answer,(I hope not unpolite) that  will destroy your system,unless you teel me that you've played it for 50000 spins flat bet and still W.