My final answer is!!!

[iggiv]

"There are no roulette systems that involve a mechanical bet selection with a flat bet or a progression that you can sit down at a roulette table every day for a few hours and beat the game on a consistent basis!!!!!"

agree

[vladir]

I like your point Vladir.  How to determine the entry and exit point is the rub.

I used this technique using MrJ's even chance bet and did pretty well with it for quite a while but then I started losing and lost confidence in my ability to determine enter/exit points.

It's not such an easy thing to do.

Do you have some ideas?

GLC

Probably your entry/exit point was incomplete too (not wrong, but incomplete)

I have some ideas, but nothing that by itself can really work ... First of all, it will always depend on the system you are playing.

Then what can tell us about entry/exit points are, I think, statistical indicators of the event we are playing and statistics of correlated events. Not one , but severall good statistical indicators of when it mygth be more probable to win then loose - no guarantees of winning of course, just probability. To find this statistical indicators, we would need to find correlated events, so that if something is happening, the probability of our event to happen is greater then usual  (this is not easy to find, they may even not exist... but I believe they do, even random has some order in itself). By the way, is anyone here able to use neural networks? Neural networks allow for the examination of huge ammounts of data to find patterns...

Ideally, with this knowledge, you wouldn't even need a progression. Flat betting would make you win in the long run.

Cheers

[Jeromin]

There are no roulette systems that involve a mechanical bet selection with a flat bet or a progression that you can sit down at a roulette table every day for a few hours and beat the game on a consistent basis!!!!!


GLC

Sounds like somebody got a little too excited too many times and was then sorely disappointed 
Here's a few observations drawn from my limited study of Wiesbaden spins. Maybe they will bring hope to the disheartened:

Every EC so far in samples of 300+ spins is distributed at no less than 43/57. I am sure there is a 40/60 out there somewhere, but I haven't seen one yet. Within the session though, the deviations may be greater than that.

With a 19 spin tracker, a dozen that hits 10 times has a limited shell life. In the medium run, the dozens go up and down in wave like fashion. Tracking the number of hits in 19 spins does not look quite like tracking the spins themselves, mind. It is a lot smoother. A dominant dozen ( 10+ spins ) rarely becomes dominant next. They take turns.

Following the last dozen gives the occasional fright, but is generally consistent. A 1x7 2x7, etc slow progression, with plenty funds, has done well so far. Make a few units and go.

The bet selection ( on RB) chop after two chops, otherwise streak, is remarcably consistent. Getting 4 units is easy 1/4 of the time, slow 1/2 of the times and impossible 1/4 of the time. -10 seems to be the lower limit, the exit point. Rather than a progression, changing the unit value from from session to session may have something to it.

And here's an interesting one: on 300 spins, rarely does a number hit less than 2, very rarely 0 times.

I believe roulette wheels throw too many surreal outliers to contemplate an agressive progression, unless it is backled up by very generous table limits, plenty funds, well reserched multi million spin random limits and slow triggers. But I also believe, based on my observations, that in-session inbalances, noticeable though not necessarily extreme, tend to correct within the session and are amenable to gentle progressions.

These are just some observations, to of my head. I could think of more, but at the end of the day, people have to do their own testing. There is something to be said for manual testing, BTW. By going over individual spins, one by one, rather than have a machine do it for you ( though I wish I could code RX, not enough testing and sharing going on ) you notice things and get ideas.

Hope you all enjoy my six course meal of food for thought 

Jeromin

[Robeenhuut]

Sounds like somebody got a little too excited too many times and was then sorely disappointed 
Here's a few observations drawn from my limited study of Wiesbaden spins. Maybe they will bring hope to the disheartened:

Every EC so far in samples of 300+ spins is distributed at no less than 43/57. I am sure there is a 40/60 out there somewhere, but I haven't seen one yet. Within the session though, the deviations may be greater than that.

With a 19 spin tracker, a dozen that hits 10 times has a limited shell life. In the medium run, the dozens go up and down in wave like fashion. Tracking the number of hits in 19 spins does not look quite like tracking the spins themselves, mind. It is a lot smoother. A dominant dozen ( 10+ spins ) rarely becomes dominant next. They take turns.

Following the last dozen gives the occasional fright, but is generally consistent. A 1x7 2x7, etc slow progression, with plenty funds, has done well so far. Make a few units and go.

The bet selection ( on RB) chop after two chops, otherwise streak, is remarcably consistent. Getting 4 units is easy 1/4 of the time, slow 1/2 of the times and impossible 1/4 of the time. -10 seems to be the lower limit, the exit point. Rather than a progression, changing the unit value from from session to session may have something to it.

And here's an interesting one: on 300 spins, rarely does a number hit less than 2, very rarely 0 times.

I believe roulette wheels throw too many surreal outliers to contemplate an agressive progression, unless it is backled up by very generous table limits, plenty funds, well reserched multi million spin random limits and slow triggers. But I also believe, based on my observations, that in-session inbalances, noticeable though not necessarily extreme, tend to correct within the session and are amenable to gentle progressions.

These are just some observations, to of my head. I could think of more, but at the end of the day, people have to do their own testing. There is something to be said for manual testing, by the way. By going over individual spins, one by one, rather than have a machine do it for you ( though I wish I could code RX, not enough testing and sharing going on ) you notice things and get ideas.

Hope you all enjoy my six course meal of food for thought 

Jeromin

One number can sleep  for  460 spins  (stats from 1 million live spins) 
Dont look for a system that never loses but for one that wins 3 out of 4 times when your win target and stop loss are about the same.
These systems work but require patience. The rest?  difficult for me to say. Ask the experts.

Regards

[woods101]

One number can sleep  for  460 spins  (stats from 1 million live spins) 
Regards

I've heard other results of 1 number sleeping for 600+ spins. You can test against 1m spins but that doesn't give a definitive law regarding any outcome. The next 1m results may produce completely different deviations. Any set of exact parameters can only be applicable to that particular set of numbers, sure it can give you a guide but it can never be an absolute.

Woods

[GLC]

What you have described is what I would call a Holy Grail. 

I've tested hundreds of systems and found none that win 3 out of 4 times with almost equal win target and stop-loss.

I have plenty that win 3 out of 4 times, but the win target is not large enough to stay ahead of the stop-loss.

If anyone has a system that consistently wins 3 out of 4 times with an equal win target and stop-loss, would you mind posting them for us.  They are exactly what we're looking for.

Thank you very much,

GLC

[GLC]

The following post was made by Turnerfeck.  There was some confusion because I was posting on my brother's computer and forgot that I was logged on under his account.  Vunderosa spotted the issue and pointed it out to me.  All's well that ends well.

GLC!

I do like reading your posts. I think there is an integrity in your words. This latest post is probably your best.

I do OK with roulette. I am sometimes up by £200 in a month, sometimes my initial £100 stake is gone in a weeks or so. i wait until next month. I wait financially that is. I still run tests and read etc, but at the end of the day the success of all of this is down to your expectation.

My expectation is three fold.

1. The idea that we can find a winning idea in roulette that provides a steady income is an illusion.
The whole point is to prove that you can study a subject and become quite good at it, even make a few quid!

2. have a plan and stick to it like a robot. No one plans sober to go to the cash machine and get more money out when the idea crashed and burned. (notice I said sober like compulsive gambling is similar to alchoholism....that cos it is)

3. You can feel just as big a buzz from losing as from winning if you stuck to your losing plan and executed it perfectly, coming out of the idea from a loss just as you planned when you were sober.
The plan to lose is equal in importance to the plan to win.

My 2 peneth for your digestion

Turner

[GLC]

I like your philosophy Turnerfeck.


I originally started this quest with roulette seeking the phantom Holy Grail.


It doesn't exist.  At least not in the sense I was looking for.


I do think this game can be beaten, but I don't know if it's worth the time and effort.


In the final analysis, you can always go into a really bad losing streak and wipe out a lot if not all wins.  There's just no way to guard against it.


Even if you are flat betting, you can have such a bad downturn that you may never get back to even.


I know that there are members who profess to win on a regular basis and I'm not saying that they don't.  The ones who do have demonstrated a solid grasp of the game, exercise herculean self control, unfathomable patience, a solid understanding of the systems they play, unbelievable love for the game and etc...


The idea of starting with a small bankroll and building it in size so that you can eventually afford to bet large enough units to justify your time is almost a myth.  The game progresses too slowly in a brick and mortar casino to hold my attention long enough to chink away with $1 bets trying to win enough money to play for $10 bets which is about where I think I need to be to keep my interest.


I don't have enough confidence in the systems I know to think I can win enough to risk $10 base bet.  I don't mind playing for peanuts, testing different systems for about and hour or maybe two at the most.  But when you're winning at best 4 or 5 units ($) an hour a couple of times a week, how many months or years will it take to build your bankroll so you can play for real stakes?


Can anyone give an encouraging word?


GLC

[Nickmsi]

 
Remember those words from Jim Valvano, the former North Carolina basketball coach?

All the roads to roulette success have not been explored as yet.  Why it's only in the last 5-10 years that we have trackers and bots to assist in testing of new and old theories and systems.  Thinking inside and outside of the box will lead to new roulette avenues to follow.

Currently I am working on a system called Randomatic, which utilizes independent random events to generate bet selections.  I think this field of randomness has much more to offer.

There is always something on the horizon to peak our interest.  Look for it, find it and enjoy it.

Don't give up .  . . Don't ever give up. . . . Cheers

Nick

[6th-sense]

don,t give up glc...to encourage you i,ll post you a flat bet system which may fit your needs should have done it the other week but was waiting for vls for something.

[Proofreaders2000]

Perhaps a small break from the game would renew your perspective GLC.

[maestro]

well well said, never ever give up GLC i always read your post...

[Turner]

Perhaps a small break from the game would renew your perspective GLC.

Absolutly.....

I am a chess player and get into bad rutts. You think roulette study is infinate? Chess is far worse.

I take a break now and again of 1 month and come back with renewed vigor.

Actual, this  interest in roulette was a product of a chess break

Turner

[Turner]

Can anyone give an encouraging word?


GLC

Yes..............

When I do badly in something, lets use roulette as an example, I try to see where It went wrong.

So, lets say, I am betting on repeating this or that, over a period of something or other spins and lost £60. I personally would feel a bit sick.

On reflection, I would look for reasons.

1. I said I would cut and run if I lost more than I could replenish my bankroll with a win, so lets say I was betting 1U and a win is 36U, so I must stop at -40U

2. I said I would only do this twice a night and come away with anything I won or lost.

3. I would stick to the bet rigidly, not thinking on my feet if I saw something from another idea that was materialising.

So.....
no.1 was broken, I went past -35U.
no. 2 was broken because this was my 3rd session after being "-2U" and "even" on 2 sessions
No.3 wasnt broken. I performed this system perfectly as planned.

It wasnt roulette. It was me.

regroup!!  return replenished!

Turner

[VLS]

There is something to be said for manual testing, by the way. By going over individual spins, one by one, rather than have a machine do it for you ( though I wish I could code RX, not enough testing and sharing going on ) you notice things and get ideas.

Hello dear Jeromin, there are also manual TRACKERS which automate the generation of notes, you can just hit "Step" and let the software track for you, one spin at a time, and get to see the same patterns as when manual tracking, without the paperwork.


I agree that when using your own brain over some results you will notice things and get ideas... but the manually printing and using sheets of paper can be automated too


Thanks for your insights, you made quite an interesting read
Vic