Educated Guess

[Robeenhuut]

Hola Alberto

I dont dispute yr results.  We just dont agree on theoretical aspect. If yr approach works most of d time thats good. I would not use any progression with that.  I sometimes use ll filter while playing FTL. Usually it works but when these damn chops happen...

Regards

[GLC]

Alberto,
Here's a summary of the results.  I threw out the 2 sessions that you didn't use a filter on and analyzed the rest of them.  We must keep in mind that these numbers don't take into consideration the effects of a zero.
18 sessions to 100 spins each.
If we just played until we reached 100 spins we had 12 winning sessions (the 2 with no filter were winning sessions also but I'm not counting them),  4 sessions that broke even and 2 losing sessions.
total units won = 54
Divide 54 by 18 = 3 units on average per 100 spins
What does a zero do to us?  Not too much.  Sometimes nothing since it may be the 1st one which is just a trigger and we don't bet on that one anyway.  And, if it's in the 3rd position/ 2nd bet, it won't matter if we won our 1st bet because we won't be betting the 2nd time.

Okay, so all we have is 20 sessions, but from what I see this is a strong showing for a simple idea.

Since we're not using a progression, there's no fear of  a losing streak that will wipe out our bank roll.  Granted, a big enough deviation from the norm can wipe out any bank, but I don't see any reason to expect that except for just plain old bad luck.  It can happen because, after all we are gambling.

It fits all the criteria I've been looking for.
1.  An even chance bet so it can be played on a variety of games.
2.  Simple to play.  Easy to calculate and place the next bet.
3.  Wins flat betting.
4.  A session can be played in as little as 2 hours.  Less most of the time.
5.  If this continues to hold up,  I'm jazzed.

At RBH,  Just relax.  Reading your posts is starting be like getting water boarded.

We'll test this system and if it's as good as it seems, it'll hold up and a lot of us will be happy campers.  If it finally tanks, then we'll go on to something else.  We know it will lose sometime to chops, they're part of the game.

Alberto,  why don't you just delete his posts and save the rest of us the trouble of having to skip by any post by RBH?

Am I being hyper-sensitive or are others feeling the same way?  If I'm being hyper-sensitive, I'm sorry.  I've come to realize that if something is irritating me, it's irritating a lot of other members also.

Still irritated in Arizona,

GLC

[Still]

Am I being hyper-sensitive or are others feeling the same way?  If I'm being hyper-sensitive, I'm sorry.  I've come to realize that if something is irritating me, it's irritating a lot of other members also.

Still irritated in Arizona,

GLC

I admit i'm a little irritated as well.  The abbreviation issue is just part of it.  I understand it is a habit left over from texting girlfriends. But if these messages aren't being sent from a smart phone, then why is there not a little more courtesy?  The other part is there are some kinds of statements that i would only expect from a professional player or scientist.  If that's not actually the case, then i expect other kinds of statements (and/or questions).  I would challenge RBH to take everything he either knows or believes, and join JL on Bayes RNG and show us what's what. 

[Robeenhuut]

I admit i'm a little irritated as well.  The abbreviation issue is just part of it.  I understand it is a habit left over from texting girlfriends. But if these messages aren't being sent from a smart phone, then why is there not a little more courtesy?  The other part is there are some kinds of statements that i would only expect from a professional player or scientist.  If that's not actually the case, then i expect other kinds of statements (and/or questions).  I would challenge RBH to take everything he either knows or believes, and join JL on Bayes RNG and show us what's what.

If abbreviation part seems to be a problem for you and other members here then i have no problem not to use it anymore and apologize.    Skakus objected already few days ago.  And what kind of statements make you think that im pro player or scientist?  I engage sometimes in theoretical disputes here but not very often. If i question something i dont think i make only empty statements like roulette is unbeatable or about house edge or the need for 1M testing. As to possible challenge i would not have time and commitment for it.

@ George  I did not take you for such a sensitive guy here. I think that you should relax. I value your contributions to this forum but i am bit surprised that you want to delete my posts here. I think i was wrong assuming that only irrelevant, trolling or sort of malicious posts should be candidates for deletion. 

Regards

[Skakus]

Hi Robeenhuut.

I don't really mind your abbreviated posting style that much. I was just taking the p*ss.  It's surprising how difficult that is to do online.

The content of your posts invariably aim at getting to the bottom of this roulette caper, no BS. I like that.

Are you sure you're not Number6 deep in undercover disguise? 

[albertojonas]

Hola Alberto

I don't dispute yr results. I don't think you do. No offense taken. We just don't agree on theoretical aspect. If yr approach works most of d time that's good. I would not use any progression with that. All this tests are Flat Bet, i only discussed the theoretical use of one. I sometimes use ll filter while playing FTL. Usually it works but when these darn chops happen...

Regards

[Still]

Thanks for clearing up the abbreviations.  There are already too many abbreviations to deal with here without the extra load of deciphering your code.  I can type 'the' as fast or faster than 'd' (or any other abbreviation for that matter)...and 'yr' looks like 'year' to me and not the 'your' you are hoping we see. 

And what kind of statements make you think that I'm pro player or scientist?

Here's an example:

In plain English  we can not take advantage of STD,law of d 3rd, regression toward d mean n so on in roulette....It sucks.  But it feels nice 2 know d fundamentals of d game. 

First, we only know the fundamentals of a game we can win.  Otherwise its a completely nonsensical statement, like, 'it feels nice to know the best way to lose'.   Statements like that imply you are a professional player. 

"...n so on..." This is vague, but indicates you have an enormous, if not encyclopedic comprehension about what works and what doesn't.  I would only expect this kind statement from a scientist who is talking to peers, all of whom have emphatically proofed their findings with data...and found what does not work. It assumes everyone knows what doesn't work.  Either that or you have tried everything scientifically, and found out what doesn't work by process of elimination, found out what does, and henceforth have been a professional player.     

I don't know about law of the 3rd but when it comes to STD and regression toward the mean
barretta28 might agree with you, but ego, albertjonas and speed not to mention Marigny would indicate otherwise.  So it's not as cut and dried as you imply unless you have done some enormous research and/or development to prove it.  ego and speed have not proved much (preferring some kind of secrecy), but albertjonas has, and much more than barretta28. 

"In plain English, we can not..." is an emphatic statement that i would only expect from a scientist or a professional player.   Unless this sentence finishes with "...beat roulette", then it implies that there is a way to beat roulette and you know about it, and play it professionally.  If there isn't a way to beat it, the emphatic statements like this make no sense.  If it can't be beat, then the only statements that make sense are the ones where you express a preference for the way you like to lose.  In that case, it should be more clear that it's a preference, presumably to lose less.   

I engage sometimes in theoretical disputes here but not very often. If i question something i don't think i make only empty statements like roulette is unbeatable or about house edge or the need for 1M testing.

Indeed,  questions may actually be statements.  That's  often how it is in religion.  To engage in a theoretical dispute implies that roulette can be beat.  If not, what is the point of arguing about anything?  If it can be beat, then you must either be a professional player or a scientist.  We would only argue if we knew the game could be beat, and so object to disinformation that would lead astray those who do not know how yet. 

The flip side of that coin is you would argue because you absolutely know it can't be beat based on some scientific approach...or at least you have the data or math to back an emphatic statement about one aspect of some scenario.  That would make you a scientist.  If you aren't a scientist or a professional player, it sounds like noise that we are expected to respect...after we figure out what the abbreviations mean.  I speak for myself. 

Overall, the message i'm getting sounds like cognitive dissonance.   What do you really know? 

As to possible challenge i would not have time and commitment for it.

But there is a need for it, if you really want to contribute here.  If it's your opinion that the game can't be beat so why try, then we need to know that when trying to interpret your messages.  If you took some of the time you use to post and used it instead to print results on one of Bayes pages like JL is doing, then the fewer statements you do make would carry much more weight. That would help a lot.   Otherwise, if it's  your view that the game can't be beat then a little more data to back your statements would be appreciated. 

I'm speaking as one that must sift through a load of information to get to the bottom of this game, whether or not it can be beat, and if so, how.  I get a little irritated when that job is made more difficult by noise.   I'm asking you to earn the authority you often speak with. 

[Robeenhuut]

Hi Robeenhuut.

I don't really mind your abbreviated posting style that much. I was just taking the p*ss.  It's surprising how difficult that is to do online.

The content of your posts invariably aim at getting to the bottom of this roulette caper, no BS. I like that.

Are you sure you're not Number6 deep in undercover disguise? 

Hola Skakus

I knew that you did not have beef with my posting style (see my earlier reply to your post) 

And who is Number6?  If he is a good person i might be willing to pretend to be him.

Regards

[Robeenhuut]

Thanks for clearing up the abbreviations.  There are already too many abbreviations to deal with here without the extra load of deciphering your code.  I can type 'the' as fast or faster than 'd' (or any other abbreviation for that matter)...and 'yr' looks like 'year' to me and not the 'your' you are hoping we see. 

Here's an example:

First, we only know the fundamentals of a game we can win.  Otherwise its a completely nonsensical statement, like, 'it feels nice to know the best way to lose'.   Statements like that imply you are a professional player. 

"...n so on..." This is vague, but indicates you have an enormous, if not encyclopedic comprehension about what works and what doesn't.  I would only expect this kind statement from a scientist who is talking to peers, all of whom have emphatically proofed their findings with data...and found what does not work. It assumes everyone knows what doesn't work.  Either that or you have tried everything scientifically, and found out what doesn't work by process of elimination, found out what does, and henceforth have been a professional player.     

I don't know about law of the 3rd but when it comes to STD and regression toward the mean
barretta28 might agree with you, but ego, albertjonas and speed not to mention Marigny would indicate otherwise.  So it's not as cut and dried as you imply unless you have done some enormous research and/or development to prove it.  ego and speed have not proved much (preferring some kind of secrecy), but albertjonas has, and much more than barretta28. 

"In plain English, we can not..." is an emphatic statement that i would only expect from a scientist or a professional player.   Unless this sentence finishes with "...beat roulette", then it implies that there is a way to beat roulette and you know about it, and play it professionally.  If there isn't a way to beat it, the emphatic statements like this make no sense.  If it can't be beat, then the only statements that make sense are the ones where you express a preference for the way you like to lose.  In that case, it should be more clear that it's a preference, presumably to lose less.   


Indeed,  questions may actually be statements.  That's  often how it is in religion.  To engage in a theoretical dispute implies that roulette can be beat.  If not, what is the point of arguing about anything?  If it can be beat, then you must either be a professional player or a scientist.  We would only argue if we knew the game could be beat, and so object to disinformation that would lead astray those who do not know how yet. 

The flip side of that coin is you would argue because you absolutely know it can't be beat based on some scientific approach...or at least you have the data or math to back an emphatic statement about one aspect of some scenario.  That would make you a scientist.  If you aren't a scientist or a professional player, it sounds like noise that we are expected to respect...after we figure out what the abbreviations mean.  I speak for myself. 

Overall, the message i'm getting sounds like cognitive dissonance.   What do you really know? 

But there is a need for it, if you really want to contribute here.  If it's your opinion that the game can't be beat so why try, then we need to know that when trying to interpret your messages.  If you took some of the time you use to post and used it instead to print results on one of Bayes pages like JL is doing, then the fewer statements you do make would carry much more weight. That would help a lot.   Otherwise, if it's  your view that the game can't be beat then a little more data to back your statements would be appreciated. 

I'm speaking as one that must sift through a load of information to get to the bottom of this game, whether or not it can be beat, and if so, how.  I get a little irritated when that job is made more difficult by noise.   I'm asking you to earn the authority you often speak with.

Hello Still

Lets finish this. I dont want to start another debate. Im not trying to convince anybody here or to pretend that im a pro or scientist. I mostly just comment on systems posted here and most of them do not work. I posted myself before few ones and unfortunately they did not work either. I dont claim that roulette is unbeatable but im trying to provide an objective criticism. Thats it and you have every right to agree or disagree with my points. 

Anyway thanks for taking your time to dissect my posts. 

Regards

[albertojonas]

2 Months, Flat Bet...


[attachimg=1]


[attachimg=2]


[attach=3]


[attach=4]


[attach=5]

[monaco]

b0 = without filter?
b1 = with filter?

[albertojonas]

b0 = without filter?
b1 = with filter?

Yes, that is correct.


[attachimg=1]

[albertojonas]

Thanks for everything,


[attachimg=1]

[GLC]

One of the calculations I made last night but didn't post was based on a statement AJ made re: -5 being a critical number.

If we play until we reach -5, +5 or 100 spins we would have had +51 instead of +54.  Even though that's less, it's safer.  Looking at AJ's analysis above, if he had used these parameters it might change his outcome quite a bit.  It would also make it a controlled game.

To know that I can take 5, 10, or 15 units and have enough for 3 attacks is, if I want to risk that much, appealing to me.

I'm ready to start testing this on roulette to get a feel for how it plays. 

[GLC]

@ George  I did not take you for such a sensitive guy here. I think that you should relax. I value your contributions to this forum but i am bit surprised that you want to delete my posts here. I think i was wrong assuming that only irrelevant, trolling or sort of malicious posts should be candidates for deletion. 

Regards

RBH,  I'm not such a sensitive guy.  If I get frustrated about something, it's because that something is frustrating.  And don't think that because only a couple of people took the time to comment means that others aren't noticing similar issues.

Many of your posts are appropriate and welcome but many others do have the tone of "The Professor" of the forum.  As if you have to correct every comment that disagrees with your perspective.  Or you have to point out that someone's idea has been tried and won't work so we might as well close out that topic and quit wasting time on it.

For everyone who reads and contributes to this forum, here's how it works.  People post ideas for systems.  They include variations on how to select betting opportunities and bet progressions.  People read them, do a few tests, either like them or not.  Someone else posts an idea and ditto.

If you could only post systems that meet the math guys parameters, there would be almost no posts and most of the members would quit the forum because there would be nothing going on.

Every now and then, amidst all the back and forth an idea percolates to the top like AJ's and gets us excited.  We'll see how it progresses.

Don't be so quick to shut every topic down, we're not children at pre-school.  We know that most of them fail.  We're looking for one that can be played a certain way and a few chips can be won by someone with the discipline to follow a playing style.  It's not just "can a system win forever" it's also, "can I take a really good system and learn how to win chips with it."

I have a feeling about this one.  Two pretty good minds in Ego and AJ have come up with a good looking system.  Let us test it for a while before we decide it won't work because it's based on some idea that you disagree with.