• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

Test the accuracy of your method to predict the winning number. If it works, then your system works. But tests over a few hundred spins tell you nothing.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

How to creat your own winning system...or the loosing one))

Started by praline, Jan 29, 11:25 AM 2017

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

praline

Its depends on you. If you are able to find relation between spins, and if you are able to see roulette outcomes through NoT equally likely lengths..
You can create a mechanical system with advantage.
After two years of searching, all my thoughts now, are concentrated between posts of two users. Priyanka and Rrbb/Reddwarf. Why?
Because the roulette is unbeatable only if we treat outcomes like INDEPENDENT and EQUALLY LIKELY.
But still i didn't find my way to beat this game and to play with advantage.
Quote from: reddwarf on Feb 10, 03:55 AM 2012
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

Quote from: reddwarf on Feb 10, 05:53 AM 2012
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

Quote from: reddwarf on Feb 11, 06:24 AM 2012
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, 12:15 PM 2012
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

Quote from: rrbb on May 08, 04:30 AM 2016
Hi all,

Interesting discussion!

I think it has been proven again and again that spins are independent. Also roulette is a negative expectation game.

i think that the question should be made more specific: "proof that there is no strategy that can overcome the house edge".


I will show my "proof" in words. For anyone versed in the mathematical language: just translate it.



Now lets assume i claim i have a winning strategy. This would mean that i would see a steady increase in my bankroll.

because of this i could define "sessions". A session ends when i'm in the plus. A new session starts after an ended session.

So: a strategy consists of sessions, and sessions consist of "betting decisions"

Now, lets assume that we can proof that any strategy has a finite amount of possible betting decisions. Either by rules, physical boundaries, or inherent features of that strategy.

For example: if the strategy were a simple maringale + FTL, the betting decisions are very limited.

Let's call these possible betting decisions the "template". It just a name i chose.

Let's number these betting decisions from 1 till M. M betting the total amount of possible bets. And lets make a list of this template: we fixed the order. This comes in handy later.

Each session will consist of playing at least one of bets from the template one or multiple times.


Now lets play my "winning" strategy ad infinitum that is, till the end of times,

Also, lets keep track, per session, what the result is per betting decision in the template.

If we would put the template in a row on the lefthand site of a piece of paper, and the make columns to the right of it, we could eadily keep track of what a session does.

Per session we can add the result in the appropriate row.

Now we do this for an infinite amount of sessions.

Because each sessions ends in the plus, we could sum all the results in one session (we sum over a column) and write this down in a row below the sessions (say row M+2).

On the other hand, we could also sum the results per bet in the template!

Well, i used a fixed template, so when we som over a row, i sum over a "constant" bet.

Now, due to the law of large numbers, we know that these sums must be negative.

We get a contradiction! All sums over the rows are negative, and all sums over columns are positive!

This can not be the case, hence my claim must be false!

:embarrassed:


Now, i claim, there is one HIDDEN assumption that needs to be made to reach this conclusion.
If you can negate this assumption, the "proof" is not valid any more!

Good luck!

Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 08:46 AM 2016
Hi all,

I just wanted to share a fun view of roulette. It might be difficult to grasp at first, but really it is fun!

Disclaimer: it is a view, not a strategy. It might trigger some interesting thoughts however

Most people think of roulette numbers as unrelated. Which of course they are: they are the embodiment of the definition of random. Unrelated, unpredictable.

Now lets see if we can come up with some kind of relation (which is indeed based on the pigeonhole principle...)


a. lets create a new sequence of numbers, based on numbers spun
b. in order to to this, we interpret a number spun as the position within a certain sequence of numbers. This position has a number attached to it
c. after a number is spun, we manipulate the sequence as follows:we remove the number that we pointed at
d. AND we glue it to the beginning
e. we keep on doing this

example
lets start we sequence 1,2,3,...,34,35,36
a. lets assume we get number 35.
b. 35 is the 35th position in our sequence. The value is 35 (1,2,3,...,34,35,36)
c. now we create a new sequence: remove 35 from the old sequence (1,2,3,...,34,35,36)
d. and glue it to the beginning: 35,1,2,3,...,34,36

e. etc

Now the fun part starts!
We can use this "dynamic sequence" to create a totally new set of straights, splits etc... I will illustrate this with halves:

in our example we got number 35. We interpreted it as the position in the number sequence. To create highs/lows however, we look at the position of that number within the previous sequence. In this case it is position 35. As this falls in the second half, we assign it "high"

now lets assume that the next number is 35 again! The old sequence was 35,1,2,3,...,34,36. So now we assign it the "low" (first position)

If we do this for all possible number groups we get a "number systems" that is random and similar to what we are used to. I you would only use this number set, you would not see any difference with roulette numbers spun.

So what is the fun part?
Every set of random numbers can be used to create another set of random numbers BUT the sets themselves are related!

How? For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.

try it yourself, play with it!

Fun isn't it?

rrbb


AND OF COURSE


link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=4813



Good Luck To Everybody. 

I don't have TheHolyGrail.

falkor2k15

QuoteHi all,

Interesting discussion!

I think it has been proven again and again that spins are independent. Also roulette is a negative expectation game.

i think that the question should be made more specific: "proof that there is no strategy that can overcome the house edge".


I will show my "proof" in words. For anyone versed in the mathematical language: just translate it.



Now lets assume i claim i have a winning strategy. This would mean that i would see a steady increase in my bankroll.

because of this i could define "sessions". A session ends when i'm in the plus. A new session starts after an ended session.

So: a strategy consists of sessions, and sessions consist of "betting decisions"

Now, lets assume that we can proof that any strategy has a finite amount of possible betting decisions. Either by rules, physical boundaries, or inherent features of that strategy.

For example: if the strategy were a simple maringale + FTL, the betting decisions are very limited.

Let's call these possible betting decisions the "template". It just a name i chose.

Let's number these betting decisions from 1 till M. M betting the total amount of possible bets. And lets make a list of this template: we fixed the order. This comes in handy later.

Each session will consist of playing at least one of bets from the template one or multiple times.


Now lets play my "winning" strategy ad infinitum that is, till the end of times,

Also, lets keep track, per session, what the result is per betting decision in the template.

If we would put the template in a row on the lefthand site of a piece of paper, and the make columns to the right of it, we could eadily keep track of what a session does.

Per session we can add the result in the appropriate row.

Now we do this for an infinite amount of sessions.

Because each sessions ends in the plus, we could sum all the results in one session (we sum over a column) and write this down in a row below the sessions (say row M+2).

On the other hand, we could also sum the results per bet in the template!

Well, i used a fixed template, so when we som over a row, i sum over a "constant" bet.

Now, due to the law of large numbers, we know that these sums must be negative.

We get a contradiction! All sums over the rows are negative, and all sums over columns are positive!

This can not be the case, hence my claim must be false!

:embarrassed:


Now, i claim, there is one HIDDEN assumption that needs to be made to reach this conclusion.
If you can negate this assumption, the "proof" is not valid any more!

Good luck!
This sounded interesting, but was far too vague without any examples, to make any sense of... my best understanding was that rrbb was comparing rows and columns of bet results to note some contradiction, like some kind of unequal matrix.

Let's take some VdW sets and add up the win/loss totals in all directions - do we find any such contradiction?

W1
W1
LW0
W1
W1
LLW-1
LL-2
W1
W1
LW0
W1
LW0
W1
W1
W1
W1
LW0
LW0
W1
L-1
LLW-1
W1
W1
LW0
LLL-3
LLW-1
L-1
L-1
LW0
W1
W1
LLLW-2
W1
LL-2
LLW-1
W1
LLLL-4
-1-210-2
"Trotity trot, trotity trot, the noughts became overtly hot! Merily, merily, merily, merily, the 2s went gently down the stream..."¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪:

falkor2k15

Why no mention of parachuting and stitching bets? I thought they were essential?
"Trotity trot, trotity trot, the noughts became overtly hot! Merily, merily, merily, merily, the 2s went gently down the stream..."¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪:

praline

This is the beginning of Priyanka's journey.


Cycles and birthday problem are essential, in my mind.
I don't have TheHolyGrail.

falkor2k15

Quote from: praline on Feb 01, 07:38 AM 2017
This is the beginning of Priyanka's journey.


Cycles and birthday problem are essential, in my mind.
It's still not clear how the birthday problem translates to roulette... is it only applicable through parallel streams?
"Trotity trot, trotity trot, the noughts became overtly hot! Merily, merily, merily, merily, the 2s went gently down the stream..."¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪:

praline

The probability to see 3 unique lines in three spins is ~55% (thats what priyanka said, but actualy it more then 57%
I don't have TheHolyGrail.

praline

In my underdtanding, birthday problem gives us different statistics from normal roulette probability  :question: something like this...
I don't have TheHolyGrail.

falkor2k15

Here's my tips for creating you own HG based on my own personal symbol/abstract art creation:

Flat Earth - nobody believes it's possible to overcome the house (same with the flat earth!)
Clock - Timing is a big factor
?Boxes? - dependency between events of different kinds
Volleyball - guiding/pushing an event along it's most likely path without betting directly = stitching
Inner and Outer Cycle - the constrained animal inside the cage
Tape measure - the Cycle Length is the most important constant
Arrows - the limits of Non-Random

"Trotity trot, trotity trot, the noughts became overtly hot! Merily, merily, merily, merily, the 2s went gently down the stream..."¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪:

-