How would a winning system look like?

[RouletteExplorer]

I would like to tell you my point of view on how a winning system should look like.

1)Ok first of all it must be a winner.   
This means that it must be able to win on the long run.

2)It must never need more than 100 chips BR.
This is so logical . If it needs more chips then that means that we are betting a lot of chips per spin in order to recover.

3)It must be able to recover on a bad fluxuation  in less than 100 spins.
This is also logical because if we need more than 100 spins to recover , then this system is not playable.We can t spend all day and night in the casino.

I would like to hear your opinions about my point of view and if you like post yours.

[vladir]

I agree with you, but regarding number 3, if we play online with a bot, I think the 100 spins number can be bigger... I can't sit all day at the computer, but the bot can xD

Now... what system exists that complies with the definition?

[Skakus]

I would like to tell you my point of view on how a winning system should look like.

1)Ok first of all it must be a winner. 
This means that it must be able to win on the long run.

2)It must never need more than 100 chips BR.
This is so logical . If it needs more chips then that means that we are betting a lot of chips per spin in order to recover.

3)It must be able to recover on a bad fluxuation  in less than 100 spins.
This is also logical because if we need more than 100 spins to recover , then this system is not playable.We can t spend all day and night in the casino.

I would like to hear your opinions about my point of view and if you like post yours.

Hello RouletteExplorer,

In my opinion,

1) Right.

2) Wrong.

3) Wrong.

Yes it would be beneficial if the system was a winner, but to expect perpetual victory over random with only a 100 unit buffer zone is unrealistic, and as far as random fluctuation goes, 100 spins is merely a flash in the pan. A winning system could take 100’s of spins to recover and still be a winning system. A winning system does not need to commit to recovery in one session.

[maestro]

wining system has nothing to do with bank roll, sleepers or usual staff we are used to or recovery,,wining system must have always same LW registry no matter for how many spins no matter what numbers are drawn no matter spin cicles then you have holy grail then you make money,everything else is statistics and expectations...

[MAX]

A wining system must use randomness to its advantage by following a pattern of combination or permutations.

Regards
Max

[Proofreaders2000]

A winning system imo can win with six numbers or less, flat-betting and can quickly adapt to each new dealer's spinning style.

[mr.ore]

If there were not bet limits, Martingale would be a "winning system", supposing player has infinite money. While roulette is negative expectation game, under these conditions it is "practically" beatable. Now a main question arises: If we have infinite money(cough), but there are betting limits, is the game still "practically" beatable? What I want to see is a winning graph with table limits game, beating game under these conditions. It does not matter how much time or money would it take, I just want to see such thing.

[iggiv]

If there were not bet limits, Martingale would be a "winning system", supposing player has infinite money. While roulette is negative expectation game, under these conditions it is "practically" beatable. Now a main question arises: If we have infinite money(cough), but there are betting limits, is the game still "practically" beatable? What I want to see is a winning graph with table limits game, beating game under these conditions. It does not matter how much time or money would it take, I just want to see such thing.

it wouldn't make sense then. If u have so much money it does not make sense to make a few bucks. in theory roulette would be beatable, in practice it would be wagering millions to get a few bucks. it would be devastating psycologically too.

[mr.ore]

it wouldn't make sense then. If You have so much money it does not make sense to make a few bucks. in theory roulette would be beatable, in practice it would be wagering millions to get a few bucks. it would be devastating psycologically too.

It would be fun to have such a program And look at a "logic" of a gambler - they act as if they had infinite money, so it is a correct assumption 

[iggiv]

i don't think so

[Steve]

It would collect information relevant to the events happening at the actual wheel.

[RBR7]

Hi RouletteExplore,

I would like to tell you my point of view on how a winning system should look like.

Definition of this simple. It must win better then expected in short and long terms, since long term is sum of all short terms. The good way to meassure it is Z-score, which result is rising with number of placed bets if the result is positive overall.

z= (w - np)/sqrt(np(1 - p))

w= number of wins
n=number of played bets
p=probability (x/37.....x= total numbers played for single bet)

For better explanation read this post
link:://vlsroulette.com/reference-area/how-to-know-when-you-have-a-good-strategy/

1)Ok first of all it must be a winner.   
This means that it must be able to win on the long run.

Winner system would break the law of probability if long run is infinity, because expectation is negative and so it will be the result in infinity number of trials. It would be better to define long run as life run and calculate the reasonable amount of spins that you/we could play to the rest of your life. That would give some insight, what are the chances to win, with long non agresive progression and reasonable BR. The shorter the life run is, the better the chances that you will survive, but also you could be the one that it will fail in his first attempt.

2)It must never need more than 100 chips BR.
This is so logical . If it needs more chips then that means that we are betting a lot of chips per spin in order to recover.

The number of chips that you use for the BR is defined by bet selection that you use. If you use single numbers system that can not be reduced to splits, streets. Lines, etc... the 100 chips is really small BR.

For example if we play 9 number system, then we have roughly for 11 bets in flat bet mode. You dont even need to calculate the chance, to say that this will lose quiet soon. It is even worse with progression or with more numbers in the game.

BR should be define by the % of you single bet. If each placed bets is worth 10% of your BR, the for example of 9 numbers play, you need 90 chip for flat beting. But I wouldnt bet so much of the BR for single bet. Best would be around 3-5% (average if you use progression) of total BR.


3)It must be able to recover on a bad fluxuation  in less than 100 spins.
This is also logical because if we need more than 100 spins to recover , then this system is not playable.We can t spend all day and night in the casino.

You should defined this as »in less then 100 placed bets«, because non playbale spins doesnt count in to game/session. In my opinion system should recover much faster 15-30 placed bets for playing 6-12 numbers,  to have some chance, but only in limited amount of placed bets.

@Steve

It would collect information relevant to the events happening at the actual wheel.

Im not sure what are you refering with with these statment, but from probability point of view, there is no difference if you are looking on the wheel or the table.  If you refering to VB or advantage play I apologie, because I dont know enough about it, to make any claims.

You have exactly the same number of different states/combination (events are product of different states/combination that occur in their frame of reference) as you have betwen numbers.
For these to be true, then there must some physical adavantage because the wheel shape.  Wheel/circle have 36/37 fixed points that are equaly distributed on circle and each point/pocket have equal distances related to other points/pockets. So either is there some dynamical geometrical pattern that it occur more often the other states or the above statment is false. Physical/mathematical equlibrium is for sure there, but want work any better then purely mathematical.

This theory can be tested, but it would require a complex software programm, that would calculate all posible relations/distances betwen numbers for all possible types of combinations, but first some mathematical theory (not probability) should be done, so that we can decide what to meassure.

BR
RBR7

[LuckoftheIrish]

I would like to tell you my point of view on how a winning system should look like.

1)Ok first of all it must be a winner.   
This means that it must be able to win on the long run.

2)It must never need more than 100 chips BR.
This is so logical . If it needs more chips then that means that we are betting a lot of chips per spin in order to recover.

3)It must be able to recover on a bad fluxuation  in less than 100 spins.
This is also logical because if we need more than 100 spins to recover , then this system is not playable.We can t spend all day and night in the casino.

I would like to hear your opinions about my point of view and if you like post yours.

100 chip bankroll and being able to recover any losses in 100 spins is totally unrealistic.

I have programmed baccarat systems where there is no commission on banker at all.  Now if you bet on banker where you never paid commission, you would win in the long run.  But you could possibly be in the negative for 10 000 decisions or more!  Just in the Zumma testers, there are stretches of thousands of decisions where Player is hitting more than banker.  So even though you know you would win in the long run, you would need more than 100 units and definitely more than 100 decisions to gain a profit.