Of interest for roulette??

[reddwarf]

Of course: roulette is not tic-tac-toe but:

if we play tic-tac-toe at random and if the casino starts, they will win in the long run. However, if the casino plays random, and we play smart, we will win in the long run.

In other words: playing a different game might nullify the house edge (in the case of tic-tac-toe, there is also a house edge if the we win 1 unit when we win a game).

So the last time I will ask this on this forum: "what other games" could we play on the roulette table (or for that matter with sequences of numbers)

reddwarf

[amk]

Nice approach/riddle to contemplate on my birthday.

I hope you know more reddwarf I will study it for a while and hope I can see something.

[reddwarf]

Hi amk,

Happy birthday! I know a little bit more, but not much. If roulette (that is BOTH PRNG and wheel) can be beaten:

1. a session must be short as not to be pulled in by statistics so to speak
2. a strict definition of what a number cycle is must be found
3. the "waiting for a win event" game must be avoided at all costs
4. progressions can only be used once a winning method has been found
5. playing just 1 method is not going to cut it
6. Einsteins definition of insanity must be remembered and revered at all times ("Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

I found it a really tough journey to free myself from the black hole of "waiting for an event to happen" for example: you can try to bet on repeats, but this is nothing more than a guessing game (hence a loosing proposition); not that repeats can not be used...

Anyway, I'm there now. Suddenly I'm not afraid anymore of missing out on a "winning" method: just by the description it is clear to me if it is a loosing proposition or not. But phew, what to do that's difficult...

That's why I started this post: what more games can we play???

reddwarf

[atlantis]

Hi,
An interesting game to me is BetVoyager "Wheel of Fortune". (without house edge)
Betting the EVEN MONEY selection with a progression I formulated.
A.

[Gizmotron]

#2 What?

#3 contradicts #4
#4 contradicts  #3

[reddwarf]

Hi Gizmotron,

That is a matter of how you look at things 

Why do you think that a progression is needed for a winning method? And why do you think that "the waiting game" is the only game there is?

reddwarf

[reddwarf]

Oops I forgot: the graph is real data (yep RNG), and yes: there is a very logigal definition of a number cycle. And by the way, this is my last post on this forum.

reddwarf

[Gizmotron]

It sounded to me like you had something to share, that you had a point to make. But really you just want to control the process of communication on a public forum. Communication is difficult enough without people threatening to take their toys and going home. #2 is still confusing. You stink when it comes to dealing with a legitimate question. But you need a "pretty please" just to understand a non- threatening question.

[Gizmotron]

SUPERNOVA -" there is a very logigal[sp] definition of a number cycle."

Does anyone know what this is about. I'm  60. Perhaps this is common knowledge in some kind of new math?

The only thing I can come up with forces me to make assumptions of terms. That leaves me with conclusions that at least must suspiciously be leading.

[vile]

Oops I forgot: the graph is real data (yep RNG), and yes: there is a very logigal definition of a number cycle. And by the way, this is my last post on this forum.

reddwarf

--You will only swap the forums...btw,ppl.get tired of repeating things every day like parrots
  with no results whatsoever...it frustruates..no wonder you parting.I did long ago,this is only
  my spook...lol

[reddwarf]

Hi Gizmotron,

because i was taught to respect the elderly  : the term "number cycle" is a normal term, albeit an infrequent one. It is indeed mostly used with respect to a very specific branch of mathematics: google and thou shall find.

it is not my purpose to be blunt. the only thing is, after years of research, reading books (not the kind that you read for fun), nights of sharpening my excel skills, testing zillions of "winning" systems, I do not see why i should share or communicate with others about what I've found. During the last few years i  worked with several forum members. Almost every one jumped ship. Why? without wanting to hurt people, my analysis is that they were stuck in their own believes, once confronted with the fact that their views did not work, they were not able and or willing to use their dispair to adopt a radical different view of the world. yes indeed, sometimes small changes may seem radical (afterwards it never is)

What did I learn?
1. avoid systems based on believes: believes of others and believes of myself. Believes are actual roadblocks to knowledge. The process of knowledge gathering is slow. Now and then the forum helps, but most of the time not: systems based on believes are like black holes, nothing can escape from it...

2. avoid systems based on hope: how strange this may seem. So many systems and strategies are based on "I hope this will work". Hope is good in life, but bad when gathering knowledge. There are certain really easy tests to see if a system can work or not... You can try a method for the umptiest time, the result is not going to change. There is another reason why hope is bad: there are so many permutations possible in roulette that the probability that you stumble on a winning one is extremely low; actually it can be calculated: you will need billions of people trying every second during the lifetime of more than a billion universes before 1 of them would stumble on it...

3. use dispair: dispair is a powerful tool, once heartfelt, it can force you to make the intellectual jump, or change the point of view that might lead to a totally different perception of the world, and in our case roulette. Sometimes a small change is sufficient.

4. where needed i try to share my knowledge, but not all of it: it came to me through years of hard work, so i see and recognize the (personal) value of it. Why devalue it by sharing it?

So here i am, believe me or not: i've found a way to beat RNG (and therefor the wheel). No it is not 100% of the cycles yet, but I keep on working on that too. Most of you will say i'm nuts, that's ok with me. for those who believe me (and others for that matter):

I think that there are at least 4 ways to beat roulette:

1. the one Steve and his pitbull redsquad are talking about (only for life wheels, mind you!). But this is not new, Claude Shannon and others have proven this back in the 60's.

2. hoping to find a biased wheel (I never opted for this because it involves another kind of luck, I do not like that because i want to be in control)

3. finding a different game to play other than: "guess who's coming to dinner"

4. maybe some of the other methods that you (Gizmotron, but also others) claim there is

I can and will not speak for the others, but i can tell you what way3 is NOT:
1. waiting for an event you need to win
2. guessing or predicting numbers
3. progression
4. waiting for a trigger

so there you have it.

Gizmotron, your remarks about #2 and #4 and #3: these are really based on one perception of the reality, again, their might be others...

goo dluck to you all, reddwarf

[Skakus]

>>goo dluck to you all, reddwarf

And to you reddwarf.

[Gizmotron]

ASSUMPTIONS ... these are easy. I'm so glad I'm not limited to Excel script. That big secret of yours ... I've been all over it for many years. Spike discovered the concept of a game within the game. I've figured out several. For one thing a progression can be highly useful if you have a winning game within the game. Here's a nice secret:  a positive  progression with a one time win goal per session is a great strategy.

Nobody asked me why I was answering questions about randomness all of a sudden. It's the best bet selection process when its working. Without playing experience it's just another worthless method. It can't be reduced to a set of playing rules. There must be a consideration for when it is working. The only way to beat randomness is to beat it when it lets you.

[Gizmotron]

" Gizmotron,your remarks about#2and #4and #3:"

They were questions. But you had to go nova. You are here to brag about an unproven achievement  and to then play hold hostage with your great findings. I'll  bet you haven't found anything that really works. You could describe far much more without giving away your big secret. BTW this happens all the time on these forums. The big brain always picks up thier toys and goes home.

[iggiv]

Reddwarf, that's very interesting. I know that one person on old VLS has the same approach and wins on a long run. he plays red/black or other EC. He plays "another game". But what kind of a game is mystery, nobody else found the key. Or at least nobody will tell. He says "u must know randomness very well to find out that game".