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
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.
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
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.
#2 What?
#3 contradicts #4
#4 contradicts #3
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
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
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.
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.
Quote from: reddwarf on Feb 10, 11:42 AM 2012
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
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
Quote from: reddwarf on Feb 11, 06:24 AM 2012
>>goo dluck to you all, reddwarf
And to you reddwarf.
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,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.
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".
Hi iggiv,
Interesting indeed. I think I missed those post. Indeed I do use EC's (but also straights...). maybe for everyones education: can you post the links?
Gizmotron: if those were questions, than you have a strange way of asking! But still, my answer stays the same.
If you think I'm boasting, that's fine with me. The only reason why I posted this is that i want to save people a little bit of time, but believe me, time it will cost.
reddwarf
Reddwarf, if you really want to save time then get to your point. Go ahead and share what you think will save people time.
link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=18432.405 (link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=18432.405)
read this, especially what cheese says. He claims he invented some kind of "game" which he plays to place his bets. He claims that he uses past spins for some info for his game, but he does not use them directly as i understand. He somehow transforms this info into something else, then plays his game, gets some results, transforms them into his betting selection of EC, and wins most of the time.
that's how i understand it. you can read his posts. just make a search on a user "cheese" with keyword "game"
Iggiv, that was interesting reading. This is a perfectly good place to bury some more clues. If a trend is made up from a stream of independent results then it's true that it can't predict anything. But it can act like it's predicting something, like the psychologist just said at the end of that thread. Many people see the lack of a confirming trend as chaos. They can't see that it's confirming something else. As soon as you can identify what it's confirming you can use the only true thing you really need. That is confirmation that your bets are winning more than they lose. All there is to this game is bet selection and success rates. All this cryptic rhetorical evasion is about suggesting the correct direction to be looking without blaring it to the masses.
I read the thread. Really interesting indeed. Cheese is not bs'ing. Concerning the last post:it sounds ok, but it really isn't. Its like in the old days in physics where philosophers made statements about the physical world, he is still in the old paradigm. Its like listening to a person who "knows" that the world is flat explaining this "thruth" to someone who thinks it might be round(ish) and that it actually really doesn't matter.
knowing how people think is not the same as knowing how to think!
Anyways beddie time. And again good luck to you all.
Reddwarf
1. waiting for an event you need to win
2. guessing or predicting numbers
Is there guessing? Thats sucks. But if we would put question this way.What will happen next..? Events, they exist.
Timo
link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=18432.105 (link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=18432.105)
Just in case you missed it. Spike shared his game within the game. He even repeated himself in doing it. Now let's see if any of you can see it this time. I told him he could share it and nobody would get it.
Quote from: reddwarf on Feb 10, 05:53 AM 2012
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"
To be honest, none of this means much because you haven't defined your terms precisely enough. No-one ever seems to do this when they're posting 'hints', which is why they're largely useless as a guide to anything.
Anyway, all the best to you. :thumbsup:
by the way, not complaining, if you don't want to give details, that's your choice. But what is a "short" session? what is a "win event", and why should waiting for one be avoided? what is a "method"? isn't using multiple criteria also a "method"?
I tend to look at things from the perspective of a programmer, so as a specification to find a winning system, I can't get a handle on it at all. As you said yourself, the permutations of possible systems are practically infinite, and your hints don't narrow things down enough, which is why they're no help at all.
Hi bayes,
You make it difficult for me to leave: as I always found you one of the politest forum members I have to react:
1. "win event" on vague on purpose. Any event that is needed to win: a chop to end, a streak to continue, a pattern to be completed a color to appear, the birthday of my child, a repeat, a hot number, a cold number, you name it
the game where people bet on a win event to happen is a loosing proposition
2. "a method" when I started with roulette I read and followed the discusions about systems and methods and strategies and why the one was better than the other. For me it's really simple, I call everything a method, so if you have something that wins, it is a winning method, if you have something that looses it is a loosing method. I always find it laughable when someone states that this or that does not work because it is a system and not a strategy, who cares!
3. A short session? ha that's a good question. You are a maths guy so this is a hint: the number of sessions for any RNG, PRNG, roulettewheel is limited, extremely large, but limited
I think that the work has to be done by people themselves, hard work, sweat, dispair, enligthenment (perfect) or acceptance (good)
Hope this helps a bit, reddwarf
Quote from: Gizmotron on Feb 12, 12:18 PM 2012
I told him he could share it and nobody would get it.
Spike, himself, still doesn't "get it". I mean, it doesn't take much of his own "reverse engineering" slant to "reverse" yourself from him, and his so-called methods. Specifically, which mathematical knowledge, or form, has he, the most-prolific gambling-board poster, imparted to anyone over all of those years? But suddenly he knows all about "transforms", something strictly inherent to some branches of applied mathematics. And what does he do with the "golden egg"; or, more succinctly, what doesn't he do with it? He continues to revel in obscurity, playing the worst-available casino-game on which to deploy that sort of method.
All types and degrees of gambling describe one compulsion, or another. Just as there truly isn't a right amount to gamble, there isn't a right way.
But Reddwarf is certainly on the right track, with his trying to begin with a short list of pretty-much self-evident gaming axioms. Laying out the path for a lot of futher research, all hopefully, in some useful directions. After all, real engineers allocate roughly 5% of their resourses of time, etc, to the computer simulation of each such project; and then only as an overall check of all the already-proved segments. Most of the time is spent on other projects, waiting for the real work to "fall into place" on any given one, while original ideas fully mature. (Computers can't technically do anything that those aren't instructed to do, by definition... except find errors, and oversights.)
GARNabby -" He continues to revel in obscurity,"
When logic looks like stupidity it's easy for most people to not recognize it as anything useful.
I've known the value of simplicity in strategery. Because of Spike it made it possible to come up with what I thought was a game within the game. But Spike has described something even on a more simple level.
at least from my perception now that is.
Quote from: reddwarf on Feb 12, 03:43 PM 2012
Hope this helps a bit, reddwarf
Not really, but thanks anyway. ;)
I agree with you that the work has to be done by anyone aspiring to make consistent profits. There are no short cuts. For me, it's been a combination of a sound knowledge of statistics (in particular, how BAD things can get), having a plan for EVERY eventuality, and intuition (gained from study and practice).
Personally I doubt whether there exist any winning systems/methods which can be played 100% mechanically, and if there are, they would probably be too much of a strain on the nerves (at least for me). Having said that, I'll probably keep looking for them, not because I really need to, but because it's a fun challenge, and always contributes to your further knowledge.
cheers.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 13, 03:24 AM 2012
.... Having said that, I'll probably keep looking for them, not because I really need to, but because it's a fun challenge, and always contributes to your further knowledge.
I'm agree with u Mr. Bayes. It's a fun challenge to find a method/strategy to beat the roulette, even it's not a 100% winning method.
cheers ...
i don't find it fun at all. that's pretty hard. Whatever is hard is not a fun.
Quote from: iggiv on Feb 29, 05:41 PM 2012
i don't find it fun at all. that's pretty hard. Whatever is hard is not a fun.
If it was easy everybody would be doing it :thumbsup:
O0