Subscribe for more free professional tips.

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Gizmotron

  • 250+ posts Member
  • ****
  • 383
  • Rated: 0
Now for something that really works!
Jun 12, 07:23 PM 2011
I'm thinking of dumping the holy grail method right in this forum's lap. I'm doing this just to see what happens next. John Patrick found the way on his own. I found the way on my own. Only one thing. I went much further in the study of randomness than he has been willing to share with us. I'm willing to show how randomness works and how it  relates to trends. It will be easy to tell you this method. Many of you won't be in a frame of mind to accept it. It will be just like when card counting was thought to be an advantage that everyone would master easily. Only problem was that most people could not master it. But history has shown that those players that could master it got banned from playing when they used it.

So this is the perfect way to get this section started. The trick to beating Roulette is in seeing conditions and having MM solutions to react to what you are seeing. You can practice your bet selection guessing at home. In that way you can hone the skill it takes to be a winner. It's not enough just to see the different types of trends. You must know how to react to what you are seeing. I'll give you two opposing types of methods that juxtapose each other's random conditions. Now on their own they would lose in the long run. But combined with intelligent selection they become a form of an advantage. If you master this single skill you can win your sessions.

Gizmotron's Method:

Chart a Roulette wheel for 12 to 18 spins, read the Marquee. If you see a dominance of singles in the dozens or the columns then flat bet the other two other than the last spin. Keep this up until the stretch of singles dominance ends. You must win  two times for each loss just to break even so keep track of your balance standing. I recommend 5 units for each bet placed. If the balance point shifts to support repeats in the dozens or columns then use this progression betting on wherever the last spin landed. Ignore the zeros and bet the next bet as if it was just a loss but not an indicator. The single dozen or column progression is simple. It's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and then 7 & 7 on the other two. So the last bet is a shift from the selection to follow the last dozen or column to a selection that the singles will continue.  Sometimes the randomness condition is to not use the last double dozen or double column bet. So sometimes I don't use it. I just take the loss.


...and with that let the games begin.

I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.

albertojonas

  • 500+ posts Member
  • *****
  • 855
  • Rated: +2
that is quite cool.

Hermes had an approach with some similarities where he would bet two phases

A: the two last appearances

B: two that not the last one

he switched between both with an indicator of wins and losses.

i tried it and it was profitable.

will try new parameters you presented.
THX

*

hanshuckebein

  • 250+ posts Member
  • ****
  • 272
  • Rated: +8
Hi Gizmotron,

Thanks a lot for opening this section and sharing your experience with us.  :thumbsup:

I think playing your way by observing the game and then reacting to what's happening in the game is also a question of developing a "certain mental attitude". I don't know how to better call it.

Playing a fixed system seems to offer a comfort zone to our minds that in the end very often turns into a danger zone. It's kind of like "the system will know what to do" when things at the table get tough. The system will decide what to bet. And if it loses, it's just another bad system. I, as the player, am not responsible for the loses. This is much easier for our brain to accept than saying "Hey, I take responsibility for my decisions. If they fail it's little ol' me who has done something wrong."

Of course it's also much easier to sit back and let the system do the work than to do the work at the table ourselves.

Please guys, don't get me wrong. It's really not my intention to attack people who use system in any kind of way. These are just some general thoughts of mine. And I freely admit that I also behave as described.

I also admit that the above assumptions might be totally wrong.  :)
"Don't criticize what you don't understand. You never walked in that man's shoes." (Elvis Presley)

*

Gizmotron

  • 250+ posts Member
  • ****
  • 383
  • Rated: 0
hanshuckebein, I really like your take on responsibility for the outcome. In all these years I've never heard anyone put that fine of a point on the concept of using the conditions. The player stands or falls on the merits of their ability to read the conditions and to take actions that are strategically an advantage to them. It makes playing Roulette a proactive and pragmatic approach to tackling a trial & error game, a mystery, a kind of who done it. So few actually get this far and attempt to discover its mystery.

I think you are on to something here. The idea that the system will carry you through any difficulties or the system is a failure. Hence the endless search for a working system. My guess is that people try randomness for a while, discover that it too has losses, and then toss it as another bad system. Here is the most important points of that too. Why would a math oriented person try to out think Albert Einstein? They must have a propensity to find a working system. A kind of failing as a human being. But what if they learned to easily dismiss systems that have weak points to them. They could easily jump to the conclusion that using past spins is just as problematic as other systems.

It's possible to miss the fact that a loss is useful information and not a failing of some sort. Being a great player is more about self control than it is about avoiding responsibility.
I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.

*

Drazen

  • 500+ posts Member
  • *****
  • 972
  • Rated: +28
Hi Gizmo! I regard you and your section. I think it is possible to beat this game and for that we need to "think outside of the box". But i have to speak something considering you have said in your first post. I honestly, dont see holy grail in that. At least not how you explained. Precisely, you havent explained enough. That is all too much generaly spoken. Can you give any test or example? Dont get me wrong, but any of us here can explain holy grail on that way... I understand what you are saying, that is maybe hard to explain, and same thing for every inividualy  is maybe different... But can you give a try?
Regards
                  Drazen

*

carpanta

  • 100+ posts Member
  • ***
  • 106
  • Rated: 0
I believe we've got a problem if people aren't told the sad truth.

Learning to read randomness needs to go through steps.
 
It cannot be done starting the building from the ceiling.

For a start it requieres a thorough knowledge how to relate wheel and lay out to each other.

If you dominate only one of these issues you are working with half the information to produce the best strategies which decide your bet selection.

Said that understanding randomness behavior needs putting an order to both wheel and layout by arranging number caracteristics (pocket labels or markers on the wheel and layout table) in such a way it will make sense to conect them to record and track events for our betting purposes.

First the player has to master ball movement.
 
Ball movement is bound to produce random outcomes which involves physic concepts.
 
If you wont play VB because nowadays is not an easy task, casinos are taking counter measures changing ball materials, weight, shape, increasing its speed, etc.

So, not much more left than exploiting trends, patterns watched while tracking ball movement.
Dealer signature translated to a comprehensive language using for that purpose proper translator devices/tools/matrices operating with numeric alphabet.

It could be like chasing an EC for example.
Try predicting half the wheel where the ball will drop.

I do not want to be pesismistic but there is a lot to go ahead.

I believe there aren't long term winning fixed or mechanical systems but adaptative strategies based on metodologies that let you chase the game dinamics and betting accordingly.

No prediction needed as understood as a guess or better said "lucky guess" but a scientific guess since work based on statistics is displayed to disclose short term "more probable" outcomes due to past spins.
 
We must seek chance patterns trend to continue or repeat, when and how.

All these cant be taught in one post or day. I've been behind it for three years now and still learning.

Not to say everyday practice is a must to become a pro like in whatever other profession.

Most lossers are lazy or lack right conduct to change their fate. Together, both bad habits do better for same result.

There is no short path to overcome "blessed" hard working awaiting us to do better in this game.

Cheers,
Carlos.

albertojonas

  • 500+ posts Member
  • *****
  • 855
  • Rated: +2
I believe we've got a problem if people aren't told the sad truth.

Learning to read randomness needs to go through steps.
 
It cannot be done starting the building from the ceiling.

For a start it requieres a thorough knowledge how to relate wheel and lay out to each other.

If you dominate only one of these issues you are working with half the information to produce the best strategies which decide your bet selection.

Said that understanding randomness behavior needs putting an order to both wheel and layout by arranging number characteristics ...

First the player has to master ball movement.
 
Ball movement is bound to produce random outcomes which involves physic concepts.
 
So, not much more left than exploiting trends, patterns watched while tracking ball movement.
Dealer signature translated to a comprehensive language using for that purpose proper translator devices/tools/matrices operating with numeric alphabet.
one can use any system of observation for this- kimo li system for example

No prediction needed as understood as a guess or better said "lucky guess" but a scientific guess since work based on statistics is displayed to disclose short term "more probable" outcomes due to past spins.
 
We must seek chance patterns trend to continue or repeat, when and how.

the opportunity to place a bet based on "scientific guess" can be supported by observing windows of statistical Ecart.
Bets must try to capture the following correction periods following indications and tendencies.

One can also try to take advantage of the "almost constant imbalance" of the present distribution.

Everything comes down to developing triggers and a specific dynamic march to try to capture these events.

**Money management, staking and compounding plans are, in my opinion, the tail of the whole process of playing.

and you are more than write. -No pain no gain! Success is paid in sweat.



Nice to have you here, Carlos.

Cheers,
Al

*

Gizmotron

  • 250+ posts Member
  • ****
  • 383
  • Rated: 0
Hi Gizmo! I regard you and your section. I think it is possible to beat this game and for that we need to "think outside of the box". But I have to speak something considering you have said in your first post. I honestly, don't see holy grail in that. At least not how you explained. Precisely, you haven't explained enough. That is all too much generaly spoken. Can you give any test or example? don't get me wrong, but any of us here can explain holy grail on that way... I understand what you are saying, that is maybe hard to explain, and same thing for every inividualy  is maybe different... But can you give a try?

It's not my section. I'm just going to try to keep the arguing down to a civil level. As Moderator I will do something about personal attacks and deliberate thread hijacking.

I understand that you don't see the HG in my starting post. In my definition of reading randomness I attempt to make a distinction that it is an ability. Reading text is an ability. I created practice software that helps you to learn this. I know. It's the same software that I used to teach students last year with. Here is an example of it's charting arrangement:


| L M H | 1 2 3 |  | B _R | L  H | O  E | -- ## -- Line
|     X | X     |  | X    |    X | X    | -- 31 --  1
|     X |   X   |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 32 --  2
|   X   |     X |  | X    | X    | X    | -- 15 --  3
|   X   | X     |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 22 --  4
|   X   |   X   |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 20 --  5
|     X |   X   |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 32 --  6
| X     |     X |  | X    | X    |    X | --  6 --  7
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    |    X | --  8 --  8
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    |    X | --  2 --  9
|   X   |     X |  |    X | X    |    X | -- 18 -- 10
| X     | X     |  |    X | X    | X    | --  7 -- 11
|     X |   X   |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 26 -- 12
|   X   | X     |  |    X | X    |    X | -- 16 -- 13
|   X   |   X   |  |    X | X    |    X | -- 14 -- 14
|   X   | X     |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 22 -- 15
|     X |   X   |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 32 -- 16
|   X   |     X |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 24 -- 17
|     X | X     |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 28 -- 18
|     X |     X |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 36 -- 19
|   X   |     X |  |    X |    X | X    | -- 21 -- 20



Your question's answer begins with one thing. Can you see the series of singles or the absence of them as a trend? If you can't do that then of course you can't see any HG.
I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.

*

Gizmotron

  • 250+ posts Member
  • ****
  • 383
  • Rated: 0
I believe we've got a problem if people aren't told the sad truth.

Learning to read randomness needs to go through steps.
 
It cannot be done starting the building from the ceiling.

It can if I chose to start it "from the ceiling." It's my introductory thread. It's not my fault if I got the big secret out of the way in the first thread and people don't get it. They don't get it because they aren't ready to accept it. Most people don't even know that they will reject things they consider now as worthwhile. I didn't want anyone to think this was just another long drawn out thread that ended up not telling a secret. I know you will not accept this but your prerequisite knowledge of physics has nothing to do with randomness or reading randomness. If you think it does than please start a thread where you show, instruct, and relate how watching the wheel, the ball, and your combination of wheel & layout applies to randomness. At this point all I see is another AP interruption. If you want to instruct people about AP randomness then please do so. Just please try to keep it on topic. It belongs in its own thread.
I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.

*

Drazen

  • 500+ posts Member
  • *****
  • 972
  • Rated: +28
It's not my section. I'm just going to try to keep the arguing down to a civil level. As Moderator I will do something about personal attacks and deliberate thread hijacking.

I understand that you don't see the method in my starting post. In my definition of reading randomness I attempt to make a distinction that it is an ability. Reading text is an ability. I created practice software that helps you to learn this. I know. It's the same software that I used to teach students last year with. Here is an example of it's charting arrangement:


| L M H | 1 2 3 |  | B _R | L  H | O  E | -- ## -- Line
|     X | X     |  | X    |    X | X    | -- 31 --  1
|     X |   X   |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 32 --  2
|   X   |     X |  | X    | X    | X    | -- 15 --  3
|   X   | X     |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 22 --  4
|   X   |   X   |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 20 --  5
|     X |   X   |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 32 --  6
| X     |     X |  | X    | X    |    X | --  6 --  7
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    |    X | --  8 --  8
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    |    X | --  2 --  9
|   X   |     X |  |    X | X    |    X | -- 18 -- 10
| X     | X     |  |    X | X    | X    | --  7 -- 11
|     X |   X   |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 26 -- 12
|   X   | X     |  |    X | X    |    X | -- 16 -- 13
|   X   |   X   |  |    X | X    |    X | -- 14 -- 14
|   X   | X     |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 22 -- 15
|     X |   X   |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 32 -- 16
|   X   |     X |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 24 -- 17
|     X | X     |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 28 -- 18
|     X |     X |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 36 -- 19
|   X   |     X |  |    X |    X | X    | -- 21 -- 20



Your question's answer begins with one thing. Can you see the series of singles or the absence of them as a trend? If you can't do that then of course you can't see any method.

Yes i can (at least i think :) ) looks interesting. what is next?
Regards

*

Gizmotron

  • 250+ posts Member
  • ****
  • 383
  • Rated: 0
Yes I can (at least I think :) ) looks interesting. what is next?

You might want to learn how to use this free software. It does not come with instructions. But most people try out software before the instructions anyway. I instructed using chat. I walked each student through this one at a time.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gizmotron/rminstaller.exe

This software allows for sequence sharing. It has a copy text / paste text glitch. It won't paste text copied from this forum. You have to paste it into notepad and then recopy it to your clipboard. It then works. Notepad strips out the rich text. Normally I write a fix for this. But I expected only ten students and maybe 20 or 30 copy/paste transfers. It was good enough back then. It still saves having to enter hundreds of spins one at a time.

I can post sequences here and teach reading randomness. BTW, what do you think you can see? It's good practice to describe what you think you can see. Each line is numbered. So you can say spin 3 to 14 in the  LMH section" and things like that for referring to parts of the chart.
I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.

*

Gizmotron

  • 250+ posts Member
  • ****
  • 383
  • Rated: 0
I was just PM'd asking if this involved purchasing anything. It does not. I learned from John Patrick that you can tell people how to win but most people will not be able to learn how. Once they give up they will attack the messenger. They will become self appointed "white knights" attempting to act as protectors. But a few of you will be able to do it. The very best thing you can do for yourself is to keep it to yourself. If you don't know why then you need to get a clue. The price is your own common sense.
I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.

*

carpanta

  • 100+ posts Member
  • ***
  • 106
  • Rated: 0
It can if I chose to start it "from the ceiling." It's my introductory thread. It's not my fault if I got the big secret out of the way in the first thread and people don't get it. They don't get it because they aren't ready to accept it. Most people don't even know that they will reject things they consider now as worthwhile. I didn't want anyone to think this was just another long drawn out thread that ended up not telling a secret. I know you will not accept this but your prerequisite knowledge of physics has nothing to do with randomness or reading randomness. If you think it does than please start a thread where you show, instruct, and relate how watching the wheel, the ball, and your combination of wheel & layout applies to randomness. At this point all I see is another Advantage-play interruption. If you want to instruct people about Advantage-play randomness then please do so. Just please try to keep it on topic. It belongs in its own thread.

Understood. You are right. My fault to interrupt your post with chit chat out of place. It wont occur in future. I'll keep away.
Please, ereased my post since it has nothing to do with your topic.
Have my sincere excuses.

Cheers,
Carlos.
 

*

Gizmotron

  • 250+ posts Member
  • ****
  • 383
  • Rated: 0
Understood. You are right. My fault to interrupt your post with chit chat out of place. It won't occur in future. I'll keep away.
Please, ereased my post since it has nothing to do with your topic.
Have my sincere excuses.

It's not off topic. It's more a surprise. Nobody has ever suggested that AP has anything to do with randomness. AP is about detection, estimation, and a degree of accuracy. It just seems a stretch to include randomness. If you think it remotely fits then please start a thread in Randomness Studies that goes along with what you are suggesting. Who knows, it might be a very interesting thread.
I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.

*

Gizmotron

  • 250+ posts Member
  • ****
  • 383
  • Rated: 0
For anyone that has my charting program here is the string of spins:
12,18,4,18,24,26,1,00,11,32,14,8,2,11,20,19,4,29,21,0,13,7,12,18,6,00,27,12,35,17,5,8,25,9,16,31,18,3,9,8,8,26,32,14,27,30,0,25,16,25,21,24,19,0,2,32,11,29,5,24,22,4,24,12,29,35,8,6,24,23,11,25,27,33,20,19,30,13,31,36,14,17,18,24,21,12,18,25,22,8,22,22,24,10,23,14,17,00,16,1,

Here is the same spins for those that don't.  This 100 spins never loses a 5 steps progression for betting on a single column bet. It uses Follow the Last. It wins every sequence before hitting 6 singles in a row. If you look at it from a randomness point of view you want to see if you can see an absence of singles.


| 1 2 3 |  Spin #
|     X | -- 1
|     X | -- 2
| X     | -- 3
|     X | -- 4
|     X | -- 5
|   X   | -- 6
| X     | -- 7
--------- -- 8
|   X   | -- 9
|   X   | -- 10
|   X   | -- 11
|   X   | -- 12
|   X   | -- 13
|   X   | -- 14
|   X   | -- 15
| X     | -- 16
| X     | -- 17
|   X   | -- 18
|     X | -- 19
--------- -- 20
| X     | -- 21
| X     | -- 22
|     X | -- 23
|     X | -- 24
|     X | -- 25
--------- -- 26
|     X | -- 27
|     X | -- 28
|   X   | -- 29
|   X   | -- 30
|   X   | -- 31
|   X   | -- 32
| X     | -- 33
|     X | -- 34
| X     | -- 35
| X     | -- 36
|     X | -- 37
|     X | -- 38
|     X | -- 39
|   X   | -- 40
|   X   | -- 41
|   X   | -- 42
|   X   | -- 43
|   X   | -- 44
|     X | -- 45
|     X | -- 46
--------- -- 47
| X     | -- 48
| X     | -- 49
| X     | -- 50
|     X | -- 51
|     X | -- 52
| X     | -- 53
--------- -- 54
|   X   | -- 55
|   X   | -- 56
|   X   | -- 57
|   X   | -- 58
|   X   | -- 59
|     X | -- 60
| X     | -- 61
| X     | -- 62
|     X | -- 63
|     X | -- 64
|   X   | -- 65
|   X   | -- 66
|   X   | -- 67
|     X | -- 68
|     X | -- 69
|   X   | -- 70
|   X   | -- 71
| X     | -- 72
|     X | -- 73
|     X | -- 74
|   X   | -- 75
| X     | -- 76
|     X | -- 77
| X     | -- 78
| X     | -- 79
|     X | -- 80
|   X   | -- 81
|   X   | -- 82
|     X | -- 83
|     X | -- 84
|     X | -- 85
|     X | -- 86
|     X | -- 87
| X     | -- 88
| X     | -- 89
|   X   | -- 90
| X     | -- 91
| X     | -- 92
|     X | -- 93
| X     | -- 94
|   X   | -- 95
|   X   | -- 96
|   X   | -- 97
--------- -- 98
| X     | -- 99
| X     | -- 100
I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it.