(Close Window)
Topic: Roulette Systems?
Message: Posted by: Masonogy1 (Sep 12, 2007 08:34AM)
What is the BEST roulette system YOU use to win!? Simple question... CAN YOU ANSWER IT!!!?? :D
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 12, 2007 08:51AM)
You best bet to win routette is to use a Roulette computer...they cost several thousands of dollars and are illegal. But, they do work :)

So, do not use them in a casino.
Message: Posted by: gadfly3d (Sep 12, 2007 09:21AM)
There is no Santa Claus either.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2007 11:57AM)
Einstein said that being a good Roulette player is like being a good smoker.

There is NO computer tracking system that will be able to counter the simple house advantage of the bets. EVERY bet has a negative expectation. You can NOT beat it.
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 12, 2007 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 12:57, Dannydoyle wrote:
EVERY bet has a negative expectation. You can NOT beat it.
[/quote]

Yeah but if one color comes up several times in a row, the odds start to go the other way. So, if it comes up red 10 times in a row, the odds are very good that it will be black the next time. That's when you should bet at least half your bankroll.

Also, the odds say that numbers come in threes. So if any one number comes up twice, you should always bet two thirds to half your bankroll that it will come up again the next spin.

"The past don't control you, but the future's like a roulette wheel spinning"- Bob Dylan.
Message: Posted by: h2o (Sep 12, 2007 12:56PM)
The best roulette system is to go to the Casino and to tell them that you have a winning roulette system. They will offer you the presidential suite and a private table to play....
Message: Posted by: iamslow (Sep 12, 2007 01:55PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 13:51, Vandy Grift wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 12:57, Dannydoyle wrote:
EVERY bet has a negative expectation. You can NOT beat it.
[/quote]

Yeah but if one color comes up several times in a row, the odds start to go the other way. So, if it comes up red 10 times in a row, the odds are very good that it will be black the next time. That's when you should bet at least half your bankroll.

Also, the odds say that numbers come in threes. So if any one number comes up twice, you should always bet two thirds to half your bankroll that it will come up again the next spin.

"The past don't control you, but the future's like a roulette wheel spinning"- Bob Dylan.
[/quote]
Hi Vandy, nothing is further from the truth regarding the odds... as danny wrote, 2 negatives don't make a positive... even if the wheel comes up black 25 times, the odds on the next spin hitting black again is just as good as the previous 25 times... Ive met and still meet veteran roulette dealers claiming to be able to hit 9-10 number sections on the wheel consistently... that's also a lie... if you could divide the wheel in 2 sections and hit one half of the wheel consistenly , you can own the casino...
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 12, 2007 03:03PM)
LOL! Thanks,I was just kidding.

I never play roulette, but I know about and understand odds. You'd be surprised how many people believe that kind of stuff though. Especially in games like roulette and craps. They think numbers are "due" and all that BS. And I would never really suggest betting half, or two thirds to half, of your bankroll on any single bet. I was just screwing around, sorry for the confusion.
Message: Posted by: Blair Morris (Sep 12, 2007 04:00PM)
The most effective strategy for roulette is to avoid it like the plague (although you had me reading your post twice before I figured out you were kidding Vandy)

But if you insist on throwing your money on the table, then exploiting a bias in the wheel is one effective way to do so and perhaps get an advantage. It may even be the best way.
The problem is that even with a bias in the wheel you've still got to overcome the 5+% in favor of the house.

Working on behalf of the player is most wheels have some sort of bias because as a mechanical device and regardless of how hard the house tries to minimize it, they pretty much have to have a flaw.
That flaw may or may not be exploitable.

Working on behalf of the house is that even when a wheel has a bias, the physical act of discovering what that bias is and how to exploit it can be complex, time consuming and difficult.

Working on behalf of novice gamblers everywhere are threads like this that basically tell you to never play roulette.
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 12, 2007 09:43PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 12:57, Dannydoyle wrote:
Einstein said that being a good Roulette player is like being a good smoker.

There is NO computer tracking system that will be able to counter the simple house advantage of the bets. EVERY bet has a negative expectation. You can NOT beat it.
[/quote]

Danny,

I am sorry...but, I hate to disagree with you.....the system which is being sold works similar to projecting where a missle is going to land. After all a roulette ball must follow the same laws of gravity and physics.

Don't forget, you don't have to predict the exact number. Even if you norrow the number down to 1/2 or 1/3 rd of the wheel you have a VERY large edge. And the system does better than that.

I personally worked on a similar system about 30 years ago with an engineer and computer hardware engineer who I was friends with. When we started to make some headway...the casinos started really cracking down on using electronics in a casino to beat the house....so we scrapped the project.

But, todays electronics are even better.....unfortunately, they are still illegal to use in a casino.

The systems have nothing to do with bias...just physics.

So I guess, being a rocket scientist can pay :)
Message: Posted by: Blair Morris (Sep 12, 2007 10:31PM)
Steve Forte states that even though roulette is prone to exploitation by as yet undeveloped electronics, the current crop of Rotronics based computers and all the derivatives of that technology leave a lot to be desired.
A dealer with a fast rotor speed will make you feel that your $20,000.00 Rotronic purchase might have been better spent on a nice dinner and hotel room.

Perhaps most important to this whole discussion is what will happen to you if you get caught wearing a roulette computer in a Vegas casino.
If doing time scares you off roulette computers, you may be better off exploiting wheel bias.
Chances are if you're suspected of exploiting wheel bias you're just going to get 86'd, a better option than roulette computers and the subsequent years you'll spend in the Big House.

Personally, I'd consider counting cards in BlackJack a far better way to make a few bucks than ANYTHING you could get up to at the roulette table short of collusion with a dealer......or you could just get a job.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 13, 2007 12:28AM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 16:03, Vandy Grift wrote:
LOL! Thanks,I was just kidding.

I never play roulette, but I know about and understand odds. You'd be surprised how many people believe that kind of stuff though. Especially in games like roulette and craps. They think numbers are "due" and all that BS. And I would never really suggest betting half, or two thirds to half, of your bankroll on any single bet. I was just screwing around, sorry for the confusion.
[/quote]

Vandy I KNEW you were kidding but it did make me laugh, and you know how tough that is to do. I wasn't confused buddy. I am home next week by the way.

As for anyone else who cares to disagree, feel free to do so. Facts are facts. Math is math. Take your computer and try, but like I said you have a negative expectation on each bet, you will lose in the long run.

This does not allow for a crooked dealer, past posting or any other sort of cheating. Roulette is simply a losing proposition.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Sep 13, 2007 05:39AM)
Danny,

What you are saying is true to a point. Roulette can't be beaten by any manner of juggling the arithmetic of the game. A series of negative-expectation wagers can't be arranged in any manner to come up with a positive expectation. You've got that part correct.

But a roulette computer isn't trying to do that. Allow me an analogy.

The odds of cutting to an ace from a legitimately shuffled, normal deck are 12:1 against. (There are 4 cards that win for me and 48 that lose. That reduces to 12:1 against.) You could offer me 10:1 odds on cutting an ace and make an nice little sum over time.

But if you spread the deck face up and let me look at the deck for just an instant before turning it back face down, I would have a much greater chance of hitting an ace. Say I estimate that an ace is 20 cards down, and that my visual estimation is accurate to within 1 or 2 cards each time. Let's also assume that I can accurately cut within 1 or 2 cards each time. Now I'm going to cut to an ace probably every 2 or 3 tries, and you'd be foolish to offer 10:1 odds now. I'd murder you.

We've taken a game with zero information and turned it into a game with LOTS of information. And if I can act on that information I might be able to beat the game.

A roulette computer works in a similar manner. Although the following is a gross oversimplification, it is conceptually accurate.

By measuring the rotor speed in one direction, and the direction of the ball in another direction, and by making use of an estimate of the drop-off point for the ball, a calculation can be made that will predict the theoretical spot where the ball will make contact. (The algorithms take into account the decay in rotor speed, and you constantly update the computer with the decay in ball speed. When the computer has enough info to make a calculation it spits out its result.)

We now have a theoretical impact point. We know from past modeling of this particular roulette wheel what type of "bounce" it has. Sure, you sometimes get a ball that bounces all over the place and travels quite a distance. But sometimes that same ball falls directly into a pocket and sticks there. A wheel that does this often is called a "dead drop" wheel. So, after modeling a wheel you can determine what type of average bounce you can expect and then you develop a range of numbers to bet on either side of your theoretical impact point.

If you have a wheel with an average bounce of 4-5 numbers in either direction, you can rest assured that most of the time, your ball will land withing a range of 10 - 11 numbers, centered on your theoretical target. IF you can bet these before the dealer calls no more bets then you can make money over time. Additionally, the algorithms are updated as you play (by continuing to input data even after the ball has fallen) to "educate" the program while the play is in progress. (You may find your "bounce pattern" has decreased or increased since this afternoon due to some change in conditions).

Many systems like this have been developed, but perhaps the first was conceived by Ed Thorp, the father of modern blackjack card counting. Thorp of course is a professional mathematician who understands full well the impossibility of beating the game with pure mathematics. But Thorp (and others since him) have had varying degrees of success beating the game with physics. The systems seems to work okay in the lab and in the practice sessions, but often in the literature you read of them having only marginal success in the real world.

But the point is, we're not talking about an impossible thing here (like beating the game by juggling your wagers in some "special" way). We're talking about physics that are very well understood, algorithms specifically designed for the problems, and some very, very intelligent people trying to tackle this. Thorp claimed an enormous edge of around 40% in practice sessions, but could never get the electronics to work in a casino properly (remember, this was the '60s when he was trying).

In short, it isn't a pipedream. Extremely difficult to get to work well perhaps, but certainly within the bounds of possibility on some level.

Jason
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2007 05:53AM)
I have give up talking to Roulette players, they are like drug addicts or nuts or something.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Sep 13, 2007 06:50AM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 01:28, Dannydoyle wrote: Roulette is simply a losing proposition.
[/quote]

Danny,

Again, although you're correct for 99.99% of all roulette players, in the interest of 100% accurate information, you should familiarize yourself with the ideas/concepts behind visual prediction. There is a reasonable amount of evidence that given the proper circumstances (which include but are not limited to a consistent drop-off point and a slow rotor speed), it is possible to visually predict a segment of the wheel that the ball will drop into.

Once that is done, all of the other things regarding bounce, the "stickiness" of the pocket, etc. from my post on computer play becomes important. The difference is that visual prediction is completely legal. Yes, we're talking about rare conditions and only a handful of people that have the skill and patience to do this, but it remains a viable option for an extremely dedicated person.

There have been complete books written on the subject and some pretty reliable accounts of decent scores attributed to the methods.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 13, 2007 08:13AM)
JasonEngland,

Great analogy and explanation !

I originally was inspired to beat roulette shortly after I got out of college...it was my 2nd extracurricular activity after I developed my card counting system in the late 1970s. (Since then some other people published similar multi-level counts ... Guess I should have published mine first :( Oh well, But, I still have my 30 year old computer runs in the attic to prove my independent research :)

Ed Thorp inspired the development of my own card counting system (thanks to the college computers :) )

Then I read a series of articles in Gambling Times about how to beat roulette and I decided to make a practical machine/computer to implement the theory with 2 friends who were VERY knowledgeable about circuit design, etc.

I handled the mathematical aspects since I am a computer guy :)

Again, not only are electronics illegal...but, the casino can protect themselves very easily if they suspect exploitation of the theories. But, I suspect that you will be arrested first :)

Stick to card counting....as long as you use your brain, casinos can't arrest you. But, they can make you uncomfortable. Side note: You can't get the same edge in card counting that you used to have in the 1970s - 1980s.....so, I don't go out of my way any more.....only team play may get some sort of an edge today.

PS: Jason, I'll be back in Vegas in Feb. and in June 2008. Hopefully, we can hook up again. Feel free to PM me.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2007 09:47AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc6wrcLYz_c
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Sep 13, 2007 10:22AM)
I've been using a system for about 15 years.

Basically, the method employs the visual prediction idea that Jason mentioned above. One simply observes a roulette table for a brief amount of time to gather some data, then you step up to the table and play. This happens within a reasonably few minutes time. And this does not use a Martingale-like system, or an even-odds bet progression system (those who know roulette systems will know what I'm talking about). The bets are on the numbers straight up. That's 35-1, which is one of the best payoffs of any table game in the casino.

About the only other thing that I can say is this: Roulette is the only game whose outcome is determined by human interaction. A dealer throws the ball (much like a pitcher in baseball) and it lands on a number. In baseball, if you study pitchers, you can predict how fast they will throw the balls and where. In roulette, you can do the same. Not with every dealer, of course. But enough to find predictable and beatable tables. This is the basis for the method that I've been using for more than a decade. It doesn't rely on biased wheels, but biased dealers, most of whom have no knowledge that they have a bias! Now, there are a few methods on the market which use this idea, but none that do it as easily as the one I use. As I said before, it takes just a few minutes of table observation. The others take an almost unmanageable amount of time to do it or the bet structure is such that it will take quite a while to turn a profit. This is the key to any successful gambling method, of course.

Unfortunately, I can't say much more specifically about it without revealing the specific method (although I think I've said WAY too much) and it is a marketed system. (Again, I don't sell it!) But I will add that it's easy to learn and easy to play (well, I found it very easy to learn and play). And it's guaranteed, which is one of the reasons I initially paid for it. I was actually able to speak to (and wound up befriending) the person who does sell it and co-created it.

As I said, though I use it and recommend it. I don't sell this method (though I wish I did!), but I don't mind pointing out some of the features and/or referring interested individuals to the source. I could care less whether you contact me out of serious curiosity or doubt what I say. I just wanted to point out that there is a method of play which wins at roulette (and it will work at both single-zero and double-zero wheels) and to mention the features of it that I am able to. I'm certainly recommending and enthusiastically reviewing the one that I've been using for quite awhile.

-- Jheff
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 13, 2007 11:24AM)
I was told I could stay and watch but not bet after 6 of the 37:1 payoffs in a row. Pure luck,and no system whatsoever, but they won't say a word when you lose 6 times in a row either because your expected to lose every time not win everytime. I would not recommend the game to anyone. It has no entertainment value, unless played with a Roll-Luck wheel or a saw blade wheel and you won't find those in a casino.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2007 11:31AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wells_(gambler)
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 13, 2007 11:38AM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 11:22, Jheff wrote:
About the only other thing that I can say is this: Roulette is the only game whose outcome is determined by human interaction. A dealer throws the ball (much like a pitcher in baseball) and it lands on a number. [/quote]

Who is throwing the dice at a craps table? A robot?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2007 11:47AM)
The edge multiplies the same as odds. This is why bookmakers like taking bets like doubles,trebles, four timers and so on. If I offered 3/1 and the thing was truly 4/1 I am stealing a point. However the true odds of hitting two winners on the trot is 5 x 5 = 24/1 but since I am giving only 3/1 it is 4 x 4 = 15/1 and I am then stealing 9 points on let it ride bets so to speak. That little edge you think your trying to beat is bigger than it seems so it seems to me but whatever it is you canít beat it.
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 13, 2007 11:54AM)
I agree with those that say stay away from roulette. I don't count cards, so I say go to the craps table and bet the pass line with odds. (The best bet in the entire joint). Put the 6 & 8 to work for you if want to, or even make a 22 or 44 inside bet. Stay away from the cornhole bets, be disciplined and try to grind out a few bucks.

If you are just playing for "fun", throw your money at any old game until it's all gone, then go home.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 13, 2007 12:03PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 12:54, Vandy Grift wrote:
be disciplined and try to grind out a few bucks.
[/quote]

Correct. Bet with the house and do not take any of the other bets. Over time you can grind out the money....unless the house start making calls.(changing the rules for that table) Don't sit on the table when it is nearly empty and milk it. make sure everyone is making some and you will be welcome public and private.
Message: Posted by: iamslow (Sep 13, 2007 12:27PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 12:38, Vandy Grift wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 11:22, Jheff wrote:
About the only other thing that I can say is this: Roulette is the only game whose outcome is determined by human interaction. A dealer throws the ball (much like a pitcher in baseball) and it lands on a number. [/quote]

Who is throwing the dice at a craps table? A robot?
[/quote]
what about manual sic bo?
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Sep 13, 2007 12:39PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 12:38, Vandy Grift wrote:
Who is throwing the dice at a craps table? A robot?
[/quote]
Thanks for those who wrote me offline. I'll just jump back in to clarify and correct. I'm not familiar with manual sic bo, so I may be incorrect on the statement that roulette is the only game with human interaction.

But, to that statement, Vandy, I meant dealer interaction. With craps, a player is controlling the dice. This is a player that usually does not play the game day in and day out and make a living from it. In truth, you're probably not far off by saying that the dice throws are by a robot (and I'm being sarcastic). This does not mean that I'm saying that it's beatable or that it is not a great game. I'm merely clarifying that I meant dealer interaction, not just merely human interaction. In that, craps is clearly not in that category.

-- Jheff
Message: Posted by: h2o (Sep 13, 2007 12:46PM)
Jheff, I think you're talking about the "dealer signature" system.

On this link:

http://www.computeroulette.com/

A guy named Mark Howe is explaining how this system is being used by a scammer to sell his roulette electronic devices:
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 13, 2007 12:49PM)
No prob Jheff. I know what you were saying, I was just being a smart alec.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 13, 2007 12:57PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 13:49, Vandy Grift wrote:
I was just being a smart alec.
[/quote]

You too huh...thought I had that angle to myself.
Message: Posted by: iamslow (Sep 13, 2007 01:05PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 16:03, Vandy Grift wrote:
LOL! Thanks,I was just kidding.

I never play roulette, but I know about and understand odds. You'd be surprised how many people believe that kind of stuff though. Especially in games like roulette and craps. They think numbers are "due" and all that BS. And I would never really suggest betting half, or two thirds to half, of your bankroll on any single bet. I was just screwing around, sorry for the confusion.
[/quote]
I was hoping you were kidding..lol I feel the same way as you, I just bet the line with full odds and grind..
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 13, 2007 01:05PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 13:57, KingStardog wrote:
You too huh...thought I had that angle to myself.
[/quote]

Heck no, this place is loaded with em, some are just better than it than others. Generally speaking though, I like smart alecs.

I thought I was better at it, but then I post something like "odds say that numbers come in threes" or "bet two thirds, to half, of your bankroll" and people think I'm serious. I thought my smartalecy rep preceeded me.
Message: Posted by: iamslow (Sep 13, 2007 01:12PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 13:39, Jheff wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 12:38, Vandy Grift wrote:
Who is throwing the dice at a craps table? A robot?
[/quote]
Thanks for those who wrote me offline. I'll just jump back in to clarify and correct. I'm not familiar with manual sic bo, so I may be incorrect on the statement that roulette is the only game with human interaction.
[/quote]
Jheff, Sic bo is the game played with 3 dice and theres many different betsdepending on what outcome the 3 dice might be....its where the dealer has a cup and saucer and the dice are shaken in the cup... I also wanted to mention the money wheel which is probably easier to scam than roulette and the dealer spins the wheel day in day out and only has to control one object?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 13, 2007 04:26PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 01:28, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 16:03, Vandy Grift wrote:

As for anyone else who cares to disagree, feel free to do so. Facts are facts. Math is math. Take your computer and try, but like I said you have a negative expectation on each bet, you will lose in the long run.

This does not allow for a crooked dealer, past posting or any other sort of cheating. Roulette is simply a losing proposition.
[/quote]

Jason the LAST 2 sentences need to be read. A guy using a computer is cheating. I am speaking of not cheating.
Message: Posted by: Jheff (Sep 13, 2007 07:02PM)
Iamslow: You're right about the money wheel. Hmm, perhaps I should look into that . . . :)

h20: It is a dealer signature method, but the one I use is not the one described on the page you linked to. Not even close. It's an interesting link, though. Thanks for it.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2007 07:28PM)
Judging the speed of the ball and wheel and guessing where the ball will drop it is not cheating unless you use a device and not even then in England. Without a device I see hundreds of professional roulette players using it every night. System going well, send more money!
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Sep 13, 2007 09:11PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 17:26, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-09-13 01:28, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 16:03, Vandy Grift wrote:

As for anyone else who cares to disagree, feel free to do so. Facts are facts. Math is math. Take your computer and try, but like I said you have a negative expectation on each bet, you will lose in the long run.

This does not allow for a crooked dealer, past posting or any other sort of cheating. Roulette is simply a losing proposition.
[/quote]

Jason the LAST 2 sentences need to be read. A guy using a computer is cheating. I am speaking of not cheating.
[/quote]

I understand. I also understand that Thorp created his computer system in the 1960s. The Nevada device law wasn't passed until 1985. That's a 20-year period when beating roulette with a computer was perfectly legal. And visual prediction remains perfectly legal, if very hard to implement and make money with.

The point is, there are exceptions to every rule, and a way to beat almost any game for those with the proper dedication and know-how.

You made a blanket statement, I just pointed out the (highly unlikely but never-the-less possible) exceptions to that statement.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 14, 2007 12:58AM)
I find it highly amusing actually.

The fact of the matter Jason is this. My BLANKET statement that every bet has a negative expectation, and barring cheating it is not possible to beat the game. It is as it works out 100% accurate. No matter WHAT little things you want to claim my statement that if you don't cheat, you can't as it is now beat roulette.

Save your goofy arguements for another thread. In this case a blanket statement is right.

By the way the tense of the verb is presant, not past. (is not was)
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Sep 14, 2007 03:44PM)
Danny,

I was just trying to be helpful. If you wanted to be added to the "don't waste your time with this guy" list, all you had to do was ask.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 14, 2007 06:02PM)
Helpfull?

By trying to show how smart you are by simply creating a situation that does not exist, and then smashing your view into that straw man arguement is helpfull how exactly?

Yep don't waste your time with me. You are not helpfull, just trying to show that you can make up a fake situation in which you think that this may apply. MY contention is 100% accurate. Roulette is a series of negative expectation bets. NO SYSTEM can beat it. Now you want to show how smart you want everyone to think you are and make up some silly situation. Go ahead, ON EARTH (where most of us live) roulette can not be beaten by a system. Now you say a computer. That is not a system now is it Jason? SYSTEM was asked about.

So yea put me on your list of pay no attention because it really makes no difference, no matter what you think.
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 20, 2007 01:32PM)
Hey Rt you jagbag!

I'm posting your PM so everyone can see what an idiot you are. Next time read the entire thread before you send me your dumbass comments. I'd have to be almost as dumb as you to believe that the odds change depending on the previous outcome.

"I just read your post on this subject about the odds going up when one color comes up several time in a row. Where in the world do you get your information? From some magician that has never played... each spin is completely independent from any other spin.... Geeeez...."

Then when I asked the ****head if he had bothered to read the rest of the thread he says; "Still another stupid statement from another wannabe. Many show up here... I won't show up here again... This is it..."

To which I say "Good". If your too stupid to read an entire thread before you start shooting off PM's to people you don't know, you shouldn't be reading any forums.
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 20, 2007 05:23PM)
Sigh....be nice...let's all be friends :)
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 20, 2007 05:39PM)
Re-read Vandy's post.
Being nice in this case isn't really an option.
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 20, 2007 07:28PM)
Guess it just takes some people time to understand a "concept". Thinking "outside of the box" to beat a game is difficult for some people.

But, it is a shame that PM was sent.

Some poeple probably thought Ed Thorp was crazy and wrong.....bet they said that "each card was shuffled randomly, so how can you get an edge?"

But, don't worry, I still insist the world is flat. It does not look round to me so, it must be flat :) Guess I have trouble with concepts too :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 20, 2007 09:31PM)
Computers can beat it so all you need to be is as smart as a Computer.
Message: Posted by: rawdawg (Sep 20, 2007 10:27PM)
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Sep 21, 2007 02:37AM)
[quote]
Some poeple probably thought Ed Thorp was crazy and wrong.....[/quote]

One such person was John Scarne. He insisted for years that card-counting was a scam, and that it didn't work. Towards the end he flip-flopped in the face of overwhelming evidence and actually claimed to have created some early counting strategies.

Jason
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 21, 2007 03:38AM)
Can you test if any of these systems work without risking your money in the process? With Roulette I think you can but it costs you time. If you have to buy the system before you test it then you risk the outlay.
Message: Posted by: iamslow (Sep 21, 2007 03:56AM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 09:34, Masonogy1 wrote:
What is the BEST roulette system YOU use to win!? Simple question... CAN YOU ANSWER IT!!!?? :D
[/quote]

Past Posting


j :snail:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 23, 2007 06:59PM)
ROULETTE STAKING PLANS
AND HOW TO BREAK THE BANK


http://home2.btconnect.com/jmandjp/Trading/roulette.htm

:)
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 23, 2007 07:16PM)
Here is another way to win at Roulette.....

ONLY make even money bets and play with a partner. But, don't let anyone know that you are partners. (ie. mixed race partnerships when one is well dressed and the other dresses poorly is good).

For example, one person bets red and the other bets black for the same dollar amount.

In this way, your bets will cancel each other out EXCEPT when 0 or 00 hit. (Try to find a single 0 game for better odds.)

Then one or both of you should hit the casino up for comps. Free hotel, food, shows, etc. So even though you will loose 2/38 spins of the wheel. You will get more than get your money's worth in comps.

You may even want to hit the casino up for airfare :)
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 23, 2007 07:42PM)
Somebody with poor math skills and a low IQ might take you seriously. :hypnodisk: :onehundred: :hypnodisk:
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 23, 2007 09:12PM)
I never said that I would do it....I just threw the idea on the wall to see if it would stick :)

But mathematically, it's better than the Martingale system.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 23, 2007 09:57PM)
Oh come on the Martingale with a unlimited bankroll and unlimited time may just get you even eventually LOL.

Yea go ahead think outside the box, but math is math guys. Sorry to break it to you but really now, think all you want outside the box, it catches up with you.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 24, 2007 01:30PM)
[quote]
But mathematically, it's better than the Martingale system.
[/quote]
One guy bets red, one guy bets black, $50.00 on each number equals $100.00 invested in each spin by the two partners.
No matter what color comes up, you never make back more than the $50.00 your partner just lost.
AND you risked it all with the 0/00 in play on EVERY spin.

It almost makes the Martingale look tempting :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 24, 2007 02:10PM)
True Silver but I think the point is to get comps, ya know free stuff , not win.
You might lose some but make a profit in comps. Have you seen the film Hard Eight I think it was called?
Message: Posted by: iamslow (Sep 24, 2007 04:26PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-23 20:16, Expertmagician wrote:
Here is another way to win at Roulette.....

ONLY make even money bets and play with a partner. But, don't let anyone know that you are partners. (ie. mixed race partnerships when one is well dressed and the other dresses poorly is good).

For example, one person bets red and the other bets black for the same dollar amount.

In this way, your bets will cancel each other out EXCEPT when 0 or 00 hit. (Try to find a single 0 game for better odds.)

Then one or both of you should hit the casino up for comps. Free hotel, food, shows, etc. So even though you will loose 2/38 spins of the wheel. You will get more than get your money's worth in comps.

You may even want to hit the casino up for airfare :)
[/quote]
This also won't work as the action probably wouldnt be substantial enough to warrant the risk... remember, when green hits, you lose 100 bucks, but since theres 2 people, the comp system will recognize 2 50 dollar players...I think a better way would be to look for the busiest table, hand in your players card and buy in for a big amount, but not too big that it will attract attention, then bet around 100 bucks on the outside so that your avg bet will be marked at 100 a spin by the supervisor, then when the dealer spins, you can remove your bet and walk away and hope the supervisor doesn't notice, because your time will be running at 100 dollar avg. and depending on how heavy the action on the table stays, you could be collecting comps for up to 1 hour until the relief sup shows up... sometime even longer if you have the clueless incompetent supervisors, that is becoming more abundant in casinos..
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 24, 2007 05:53PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-23 20:16, Expertmagician wrote:
Here is another way to win at Roulette.....

ONLY make even money bets and play with a partner. But, don't let anyone know that you are partners. (ie. mixed race partnerships when one is well dressed and the other dresses poorly is good).

For example, one person bets red and the other bets black for the same dollar amount.

In this way, your bets will cancel each other out EXCEPT when 0 or 00 hit. (Try to find a single 0 game for better odds.)

Then one or both of you should hit the casino up for comps. Free hotel, food, shows, etc. So even though you will loose 2/38 spins of the wheel. You will get more than get your money's worth in comps.

You may even want to hit the casino up for airfare :)
[/quote]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to find good airfare to Las Vegas in the first place?

I love the "systems" people have. You and Jason make me laugh really. The 00 and the 0 really make your plan a guaranteed LOSER actually. Not a winner.

I direct this at nobody, but I have to wonder what is the percentage of those who post who have actually been in a casino. It seems pretty small to me when such obvious things are missed.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 24, 2007 06:08PM)
Over here we only have one zero. I find it amazing that anyone would play the game with two. I find it amazing anyone plays it with one!
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 24, 2007 07:00PM)
What is worse is that vegas now has some casinos paying Blackjack off with 6 to 5 odds vs. 3 to 2 odds.

Guess they want to suck the blood out of people who don't understand math :-(
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 24, 2007 07:27PM)
Get yourself a house, that's the move.

I mentioned this before but I know a lawyer who was a real intelligent fella and he lost millions at roulette and ended up in jail. When I said to him, he of all people must know that you can't win at that game, he said; "Every one has a weakness and mine is roulette." :)
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 24, 2007 08:35PM)
I don't know if it is true....but, supposedly, Roulette was invented by a monk to raise money for his church.

Then he spent the rest of his life trying to beat the game and died trying.

I don't know if the story is true, but it sounds good :)

I heard this story years ago.

Guess they did not have eltromagnets then :)
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 24, 2007 08:39PM)
Tommy, it sounds like Canada Bill when George Devol asked him if he knew the game he was playing in was crooked, and Canada Bill replied 'yeah I knew it was crooked, but it was the only game in town'.

I'm with Danny. You could pay for your own airfare, hotel, great eats, tons of shows out of your OWN wallet, and still come out ahead of playing roulette, system or no system.

I stand and watch the wheel spinning and wonder to myself if these people even have a clue what 5% is, and that they're bucking it every time they push their chips out.
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 24, 2007 09:54PM)
Hey, anyone want to PayPal me $100. I'll PayPal them back $95 :)

Honestly, I will really PayPal you back $95...guaranteed !

If I do that all day long, I can be like a casino :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 25, 2007 06:20AM)
Where can I learn this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gca-bD4gOec
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Sep 25, 2007 06:25AM)
Can you beat Roulette? Absolutely. I've done it. No lie.

Jeff
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Sep 25, 2007 06:29AM)
OK. I lied. I'm sorry.

But what's with that Blaine video, anyway? How did he do that?

Of course, with a TV production budget behind you, I suppose you could dump several thousand trying to come up with five in a row. What are the odds on hitting black or red five times in a row, anyway?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 25, 2007 08:08AM)
Obviously casino paid $3200 for hitting black or red five times in a row for a $100 stake. The odds they pay are 31 to 1.

I could tell you the true odds if I knew the rules in the USA. Here there is one Zero and if you back Red or Black or any of the Even money shots and it goes Zero then you lose half your bet. What are the rules in the USA?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 25, 2007 08:29AM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-24 20:00, Expertmagician wrote:
What is worse is that vegas now has some casinos paying Blackjack off with 6 to 5 odds vs. 3 to 2 odds.

Guess they want to suck the blood out of people who don't understand math :-(
[/quote]
As for not understanding math, are you not the one who told us one could bet black and another red and end up even? I thought that was you.

As for 6 to 5 it is a horrid game no doubt. BUT they entice people by offering "bonous circles" and other such nonsense. It "looks" (to those with no math skills) as if it is a better game. Casnio wins again LOL.

Are you telling us you no longer agree with Jason? I am just curious as you were mentioning "outside the box thinking" and such and now you seem resigned to the absolute fact (YES JASON 100% FACT) that the game can not be beaten short of a computer. (Computer plus getting caught= pretty hard time)

Can anyone name and introduce me to a person who makes their living playing roulette? Just curious.

For the record it is a "series of indepent trials". Not like cards and blackjack. Not like Poker where you can read people for the long term. Not like horse racing where you can make bets and sports betting where your betting against and with other people not the casino. It can not be beaten short of a computer.

Now it is time for Jason to make up a fantasy world explination how it theoretically can be beaten, to show how smart he is.
Message: Posted by: h2o (Sep 25, 2007 01:35PM)
In the 2007 World Game Protection Conference, there was a talk on "Defining advantage play - The great debate". And in the short topic review, we can read "the panel discusses their views on subjects such as digital game tracking systems, preferential shuffling and wheel prediction techniques."
The talk was private, so unless you did participate to the conference, there's no way to know their concerns about "wheel prediction techniques", if the "prediction techniques" are just limited to the use of electronic devices, but anyway that would have been an interesting conference to attend.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 25, 2007 01:36PM)
Some people claim to be able to judge or measure ball and wheel velocity in their head and roughly know where the ball will land, as a computer device might, and do it with enough accuracy to overcome the house edge. The claim canít be proved one way or the other as the evidence can only be based on statistical results. David Blain walks into a casino and gets five out five even money bets right on the trot but it proves nothing as he might have been into 30 odd other casinos and failed. Even those who truly believe they can achieve this task without a computer might easily have fooled themselves with a serious of lucky results and become convinced that it works. It is theoretically possible if we are smart enough but we are not that smart in reality. The smartest guy in the world can not judge or measure ball and wheel velocity in their head and roughly know where the ball will land, as a computer device might, and do it with enough accuracy to overcome the house edge in reality. Although it is possible that such guys exists some place, I donít think we have such guys on planet earth but that is just my opinion. It is easy to think there might be or even that you are. Statistics are a great and well known tool that con men take advantage of. Also these theoretically possibility things are used to scam people and even things that some people actually do are used to scam them that canít. These sort of things are good if you happen to be a con man as they the suckers canít prove anything. If for example a guy claimed he could do it and teach the technique to others for a fee, then who in a court of law could prove the guy was lying.
Message: Posted by: rjs (Sep 25, 2007 02:04PM)
How is this compatible with chaos theory?
I thought replaying the tape (spinning the wheel and ball) could lead to different outcomes even if the starting points /velocities appear the same?
Can any mathematicians out there enlighten us?
before the raptor chicken bites my arm off!
Message: Posted by: h2o (Sep 25, 2007 02:05PM)
I agree that all "winning systems" without the use of any kind of electronic device are just plain BS, but following the math discussion maybe the only way to "break" the roulette would be to prove that the "hasard" doesn't exist and could be just "predictable"... but that's an other story...
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 26, 2007 08:46AM)
I know one thing for certain. I will put any computer or system up against a saw blade wheel or Roluck, and stand there and hand them tissues to dry their eyes. No one cheats the saw blade wheel at roulette. Not many of these roluck wheels still around. Saw blade wheels are even rarer. Robert's pill is twice as big as the one you use. Middle of the page. stands about 6" on nice art deco legs. My wheel is 18" but 14" is common. Hustler toys sweet.....

http://www.antiquegamblingchips.com/putandtake.htm

Casino perfect wheels and worn out robot employees? may be something to it...
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Sep 26, 2007 10:43AM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-25 09:29, Dannydoyle wrote:

...the absolute fact (YES JASON 100% FACT) that the game can not be beaten short of a computer. (Computer plus getting caught= pretty hard time)

For the record it is a "series of indepent trials". Not like cards and blackjack. Not like Poker where you can read people for the long term. Not like horse racing where you can make bets and sports betting where your betting against and with other people not the casino. It can not be beaten short of a computer.

Now it is time for Jason to make up a fantasy world explination how it theoretically can be beaten, to show how smart he is.
[/quote]

Danny,

I've made up nothing. I've only tried to demonstrate the problems with absolute statements in an endeavor as varied as gambling and casino games.

An analogy: I don't know anyone (personally) that can run a 9.8 second 100 meters. And 99.99% of the planet can't run one that fast. Should we therefore conclude that it can't be done by ANYONE? I imagine you would agree that concluding that would be silly.

So, while I agree with you that for 99.99% of the world, roulette is a dead-end game with roughly a 5% disadvantage for the player that cannot be overcome by any mathematical manipulation, I stand by my assertion that visual prediction is a very real (although admittedly rare) skill that can be utilized under the proper conditions to beat the game.

I can do no better than to quote this article by Michael Konik (of Cigar Afficiando magazine). He's interviewing Steve Forte about the casino games that can be beaten and those that cannot.

You might find it enlightening. Begin quote.

ROULETTE

"But I'll show you one old game that's still vulnerable to advantage play," Forte says, stopping at a roulette wheel. "Albert Einstein once said you wouldn't win at roulette unless you were stealing chips." Forte shrugs. "I guess even geniuses make mistakes."

Forte instructs his visitor to watch where the ball "falls off" the track and into the dish of spinning numbers. It loses its momentum and dives down at the "10 o'clock" position. On the next spin it does it again. And again. And again. Thirteen times in a row. "There's no such thing as a perfect wheel," Forte says. "They're basically a piece of furniture. They take abuse, they get dirty, they get worn down. They produce biased results." Using a technique called visual prediction, advantage players exploit the wheel's imperfections.

Outlined in How to Beat Roulette, a book by Laurence Scott, the visual-prediction method is built on an immutable law of physics: regardless of how fast the ball is spun by the croupier, it must necessarily end at the same speed. Advantage players beat the wheel from the "back" of the spin, not the front. They play the last four or five revolutions of the ball. After finding a wheel with a clear bias--Forte says there's probably at least one in every major casino in the United States--they clock the speed of the rotor (the spinning dish of numbers), looking for one that takes between two and three seconds per revolution. (This is surprisingly easy to time in your head, without a stopwatch.)

By correlating the speed of the rotor with the ball's predictable "drop point," the advantage player can gauge which number will be sitting directly under the ball when it dives into the dish. Even taking into account the volatility of the ball's bounce, when betting late enough in the spin, advantage players can essentially narrow the list of probable numbers from 38 to 19, obliterating the House's normal 5 percent edge.

In the course of Forte's explanation of visual prediction, the ball has fallen off the same spot on the wheel 25 out of 27 times."

End quote.

What's just been described is the gambling equivalent to a 9.8 second 100 meters. Can anyone do it any old time they want? No. But given the proper circumstances, which may or may not be all that common, it can be done.

You can find the full article here:
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/CA_Show_Article_Print/0,2812,731,00.html

Knock yourself out Danny. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a guy that spent 30+ years in the casino industry, is largely regarded as the world's foremost authority on advantage playing and casino scams, and is the author of two very successful books on the subject of gaming protection. Far be it from me to argue from authority, but I'm siding with the acknowledged expert on this one.

What were your qualifications again?

Jason
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 26, 2007 11:32AM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-26 11:43, JasonEngland wrote:
After finding a wheel with a [b]clear bias[/b]--Forte says there's probably at least one in every major casino in the United States--they clock the speed of the rotor (the spinning dish of numbers), looking for one that takes between two and three seconds per revolution. (This is surprisingly easy to time in your head, without a stopwatch.)

What's just been described is the gambling equivalent to a 9.8 second 100 meters. Can anyone do it any old time they want? No. But given the proper circumstances, which may or may not be all that common, it can be done.

[/quote]

Yes a biased wheel can be beat. That's why they are supposed to clean, oil, and balance the wheel head every day. But I wouldn't call that the gambling equivelent of running a 9.8 100. It's more like running a 9.8, 99 meters. It's not a level playing field. If you are talking about running a "system" on a unbiased wheel, that's one thing, if we are talking about a biased wheelhead, that's quite another.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 26, 2007 01:20PM)
Took the words out of my fingers Vandy.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2007 02:51PM)
IF you found a wheel with a clear bias, why would you bother clocking anyway. I mean why not simply bet on the numbers that the clear bias would cause to win more often they should?

Tommy shrugs. "I guess even geniuses make mistakes." :)
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 26, 2007 03:00PM)
I believe the bias on the wheel in Jasons example is the drop point. You would need to know which numbers are under and around the drop point at the time the ball falls to be able to increase your chances. So in that case the favored numbers could concievebly change on each spin I guess. It's not like a wheel that is biases by extra lively or really dead tiles in the pockets or something like that.

I suppose it's like the opposite of the way they sometimes ran the scam from the inside. Where the dealer would use the wire to knock the ball into a prefered area of the wheel. Roulette is such a stupid game, I hate it. lol.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2007 03:52PM)
Thanks so:

IF you happened to have a computer device that is calibrated to beat a perfect roulette wheel and tried to use it to beat a biased imperfect wheel, it would not work would it? It would have to calibrated to that particular wheel taking the bias into account. Are the computers devices that are being sold made to work on bias drop point wheels of perfect wheels? Or can you get either one.
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 26, 2007 04:09PM)
I really don't know. I don't know anything about those computers.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 26, 2007 04:12PM)
Everyone is forgetting the layout was designed to keep the chips spread and not pay those split and quad bets. Add to that 36 numbers plus 0 and 00 and a pay of what 31for1? Man that's bad....

Saw blade pay is even 36for1 on a 00.

Vandys right casino roulette is a stupid game.:)
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 26, 2007 04:23PM)
I suppose there is some folks that never figured out 'to' and 'for'

'To' is a legit term. It means your winnings is in addition to the bet.

'For' means you are giving away each bet in order to play.

We always play 'for' games when folks drag the stuff out and things are warm. The man with the equipment always gets paid for the use.
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 26, 2007 04:26PM)
When and where did they use those saw tooth wheels King?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2007 04:26PM)
http://www.roulettecomputers.com/

I watched the video that is all and know that a crew definitely used something similar in London to win a few million.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Sep 26, 2007 04:29PM)
Danny,

I believe you'll notice that I've made it perfectly clear that I was discussing playing the game under less-than-common circumstances (read: biased wheels) the entire time.

You've fought me on this for 3 pages of the thread.

Today I post a quote by SF (that says exactly what I've been saying), and within hours you're admitting (by agreeing with Vandy) that a biased wheel can be beaten without a computer.

Interesting.

I remember a Danny that used to post things like, "There is NO computer tracking system that will be able to counter the simple house advantage of the bets."

He quickly changed that stance to: "It can not be beaten [i]short[/i] of a computer." (Emphasis mine.)

For those of you not paying close attention, that's essentially a 180-degree reversal. First it couldn't be done, now he concedes it can be done.

A bit later Danny writes: "...barring cheating it is not possible to beat the game" and "...if you don't cheat, you can't as it is now beat roulette."

He now writes that he basically agrees with Vandy, who stated (as have I), that a biased wheel CAN be beaten.

Again, a complete reversal.

Where did we end up? Right back where *I* started.

Roulette can't be beaten by manipulating your bets via common arithmetic systems like the Martingale, the Grand Martingale, the D'Alembert, Oscar's Grind, or any of a million pyramid or cancellation schemes.

(Danny got this part right.)

What Danny got wrong is that by attacking the game with physics instead of pure mathematics the game can be beaten. A computer certainly helps, but as he points out, using one is almost always illegal. I say almost because situations like this crop up from time to time:

http://www.thegoodgamblingguide.co.uk/news/2006/casino/roulette-computer.htm

For those of you good with dates, that happened LAST YEAR. Not 30 years ago. Although I've not seen a follow-up report, it appears playing with a hidden computer wasn't considered cheating at the time the play went down.

Finally, visual prediction appears to be a viable, if rarely mastered technique that can show an edge under the proper circumstances. Although Lawrence Scott claims the technique works on wheels without a bias, I strongly suspect he's wrong. But, biased wheels do crop up from time to time, and there do exist windows of opportunity for players to have a short-term edge.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 26, 2007 04:45PM)
Just for the record, I didn't read the Danny/Jason posts closely enough to know if Jason was at one time arguing that a fair wheel could be beaten. I assumed he was based on the back and forth, but it didn't really matter to me, I have no dog in this fight.

Biased wheels certainly do come up. I know that people have taken great advantage of biased wheels. The casinos know it too. And they learn from it. That's why they maintain the wheels, move wheelheads around on the floor and even ship them to different properties. But yeah, if a guy is Johnny on the Spot and sees something, he might take a bite out of a casino. I have to base the original question about systems on the premise that we are talking about a fair wheel, without any electronic aides.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 26, 2007 04:48PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-26 17:26, Vandy Grift wrote:
When and where did they use those saw tooth wheels King?
[/quote]

The first ones showed up as he indicated in Texas in the 1920s and they played back rooms through about 48-50 after the war. Folks that still have good ones I'm sure use them even now. The roluck like the ine in the pic seem to be player preferred. I think the design and look of that model vs just roulette make a player feel like they have half a chance. At least till the first time they see it spun stop on a number and pop out and go down a few numbers. On a saw blade as it drops it bangs around back and forth about 6-10 times like a pinball machine and the ball develops a unique english from those hits so it can either bouce a couple forward or back just depends.

And depends are what most folks need the first time they play on a wheel like that.


So we heard about so or so different angles to cheat the wheel so far and I'm getting bored with the whole thing.

Chew on this for a while and see if you can wrap your head around it:

From our past 10 years of psychoenergetic science
research, the items relevant to this lecture are the following:

1. Most importantly, we have discovered that there are two
unique levels of physical reality, not just the electric atom/molecule level
that we see around us and that our traditional instruments can detect and
measure. This new level is comprised of magnetic substance, which functions
in the physical vacuum, and is malleable to human intentions. These two
uniquely different kinds of substance seem to interpenetrate each other but,
under normal conditions, do not interact with each other. We label this the
uncoupled state. In this state, the magnetic, vacuum level substance is
invisible to us and to our traditional measuring instruments.
Via the use of a special, intention-host device (see
below) to "condition" the experimental space, these two kinds of substance
can be caused to interact. We label this interactive state the coupled state
of physical reality. In this coupled state, our traditional measurements can
partially detect this vacuum level of physical reality. In equation form,
for the coupled state, a property measurement whose total magnitude is QM is
expressed as

QM(t) = Qe + ?eff(t)Qm.

Here, t is time, Qe is the value from the electric atom/molecule
level of physical reality, Qm is the value from the magnetic, vacuum level
of physical reality and ?eff is the coupling coefficient (0= ?eff =1) due to
the intention-host device that conditions the space. Thus, QM can be greater
than, equal to or less than Qe depending upon both the magnitude and sign of
?eff.

2. We have discovered a process for imprinting a specific
intention into a simple electronic device host. We do this from a deep
meditative state utilizing the attributes of our minds and emotions to
program the electronic circuitry. Turning such a device on in a specific
space (a) lifts the electromagnetic symmetry state of the space to a
significantly higher level so that coupling occurs between the two unique
kinds of substance and (2) tunes that space to produce a particular property
measurement change in the above equation.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Sep 26, 2007 04:54PM)
Vandy,

I don't believe a non-biased wheel could be beaten without electronic assistance, though Lawrence Scott claims they can be.

IF they can be, the edge is probably fleeting and could be countered by the casino by altering any element of the game, even unknowingly. (Higher rotor speed, a ball with different bounce characteristics, waving off bets earlier, etc.)

Jason
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 26, 2007 04:55PM)
King, that's heavy.

Jason, I agree 100 percent and I think Danny would too. Not sure where you guys got your signals crossed and I'm not about to go back and try to find out. I definately believe we are all in agreement with your last statement.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 26, 2007 05:04PM)
It seems a modern day hustler needs to have a handle on quantum mechanics at the negative nanometer node.

What happened to the days of check cop and skinners cream? sheesh.
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 26, 2007 05:07PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-26 18:04, KingStardog wrote:
What happened to the days of check cop and skinners cream? sheesh.
[/quote]

Check cop brings us back to Einsteins theory.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 26, 2007 05:41PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-12 12:57, Dannydoyle wrote:
Einstein said that being a good Roulette player is like being a good smoker.

There is NO computer tracking system that will be able to counter the simple house advantage of the bets. EVERY bet has a negative expectation. You can NOT beat it.
[/quote]

I guess that every bet has a negative expectation was confusing for our local expert. I did leave out short of cheating and computers and fantasty land ideas I admit and that was a shortfall on my part.

A biased wheel, can happen although the money that must be invested to find a wheel of this nature as opposed to a short term fluxuation in chance, is questionable.

Like I said Jason and I stand by it. You can NOT beat a negative expectation on every bet. To this I must add barring things such as cheating. Even the "biased wheel" is a tough sell, though possible and not technically cheating. I don't know but I don't think there is a criminal offence with exploiting dealer weakness or biased equipment. IF you had nothing to do with either. I am again not sure.

The problem came in when the implication from another (Expertmagician I believe) that if you "think outside the box" mathmatically it will help. Or Jason saying that Thorpe was thought of as wrong for years. This "implies" that you think it can be exploited through simple systems.

The original question is about a "Roulette SYSTEM" is it not?

Then we get Jason who tries to cover the .001% of what can happen in fantasy land.

To clarify further my original statement the computer "tracking" system I refered to and was not clear (my bad) was simple tracking of which numbers show up and how often. An unbiased wheel has no memory and each trial is an indepent trial and the odds are the same on EVERY SPIN. Again perhaps my fault for not being clear.

I have changed NO position, except to clarify for obviously some of us play roulette in fantasy land.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 26, 2007 06:11PM)
You guys know I'm just yanking your chain right?

I know years the suppliers used to take the wheels in for a fee and check them for warping,clean and remove wax and grease buildup, do a spin balance test for a fee, then crate and ship them back, certified to the owner at least.The tool steel spindles and seats are very hard and seldom if ever wear out, but little nicks and gouges in the wood can throw a good one off.

As with all the systems/toys/gadgets/electronics the real money is in selling them to wishful thinkers. By the time they become collectible and guys like me get them, the resale margin is not so good, and you would do better trading with other collectors and dealers.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2007 06:17PM)
See the odds table here:

http://www.gambling-systems.com/roulette/


The true odds according to that are 20 to 18 that is 10 to 9. Or in bookmakers % 52.63% to 47.37% On Even money shots in a double Zero game

Which must mean, in the USA one does not get half your back if it goes Zero when betting on even money shots as you would in Europe who only have one Zero.

If that is so, then why would there be any pros trying to beat it the USA. Perhaps they cant afford the airfare to Europe.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Sep 26, 2007 07:57PM)
[quote]
I guess that every bet has a negative expectation was confusing for our local expert. [/quote]

No, it wasn't confusing. But it was incomplete. It's based on the idea that roulette spins are all completely random. And they are, if you're a math teacher coming up with word problems for a chapter on probability. In the real world there are infrequent (read: very rare) exceptions to these "rules" that I think should be mentioned for completeness sake.

[quote]
A biased wheel, can happen although the money that must be invested to find a wheel of this nature as opposed to a short term fluxuation in chance, is questionable.[/quote]

I don't disagree with this. I certainly wouldn't scour the world for one. But if you're already playing roulette for fun (like millions of people do), why not keep your eyes open?

[quote]
You can NOT beat a negative expectation on every bet. To this I must add barring things such as cheating. Even the "biased wheel" is a tough sell, though [i]possible[/i] and not technically cheating. [/quote]

This sounds familiar. (Italics in quote is mine.)

[quote]
The problem came in when the implication from another (Expertmagician I believe) that if you "think outside the box" mathmatically it will help. Or Jason saying that Thorpe was thought of as wrong for years. This "implies" that you think it can be exploited through simple systems.[/quote]

Setting aside for a moment the differences between implying something and inferring something, I tried in EVERY SINGLE post I made to be crystal clear that I didn't disagree with you about the impossibility of beating the game with arithmetical "bet juggling". It can't be done. If you missed that, or inferred something that wasn't there, that's on you.

[quote]
The original question is about a "Roulette SYSTEM" is it not? [/quote]

This is the part where you're going to tell me that if the guy had asked about a good "system" for beating blackjack you wouldn't have mentioned shuffle-tracking or card counting? Because they aren't "systems" in the same sense that the term is usually used to describe the "bet juggling" that roulette and craps players have relied on for years. Yes, he asked about a system. And if he'd been refering to the sort of common double-up, pyramid, cancellation, or similar system I'd have said nothing. You seemed willing to bet the farm that's what he meant. I'm simply open to the possibility that he could have meant ANY method of beating the game. I don't presume to know what he meant. You did.

[quote]
Then we get Jason who tries to cover the .001% of what can happen in fantasy land. [/quote]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the goal here was to give the stock answer that anyone can look up in a Stats 101 textbook. I thought that a more complete answer exploring (and evaluating) several options might have been appreciated. Sorry for the confusion.

[quote]
To clarify further my original statement the computer "tracking" system I refered to and was not clear (my bad) was simple tracking of which numbers show up and how often. An unbiased wheel has no memory and each trial is an indepent trial and the odds are the same on EVERY SPIN. Again perhaps my fault for not being clear. [/quote]

I agree with this. Especially the part about you not being clear.

[quote]
I have changed NO position, except to clarify for obviously some of us play roulette in fantasy land.
[/quote]

Really? You want to put it to a vote and see which one of us has remained consistent in the eyes of the readers and which one of us has been back-peddling and stumbling all over himself for the past few pages? I'm game.

I never once claimed to be able to locate a biased wheel, identify one, or accurately exploit one if I did find one. I simply stated that it is theoretically possible. You were the one that was living in the fantasy world of thinking that the mathematical model of roulette is always a perfect description of real-world events and possibilities.

Jason
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2007 08:57PM)
If the true odds are 20 to 18 that is 10 to 9. Or in bookmakers % 52.63% 47.37% to 52.63%
On Even money shots in a double Zero game then that: $100 Blain let it ride five timer bet would see a return of $4186.59 Total

I think the bet would go:.

$211.11

$445.67

$940.36

$1984.16

$4186.59 Total

Note he was paid in total only $3200 = 31 to 1 but if he had been paid at true odds it is about 41 to 1


That is what I mean by how the edge accumulates against you in accumulative betting.
Basically the casino would rob you of a grand with that bet. It might be about 5% in the casinoís favour but how it works is the killer. I think in that accumulative bet it is about an 8% edge. I forgot how we work it out. It tells you here but I need a coffee. http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56665.html

In any event: The nature of the game is beautiful as people win they bet more and so do the looses. The edge is like a money monster that never stops eating money. These millions of roulette players are the nuts that just keep feeding it.

However given a similar circumstance a similar result will occur. Nothing wrong with applying maths to that simple concept to gauge circumstance in any form of gambling. Phill Bull did it and won millions and card counting and these computer devices and so on are based on that concept.
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 26, 2007 09:05PM)
You have to give this guy an eMail address...but, take a look at his video...you may find it interesting.

I have no association with him ... as a matter of fact, I don't even like Roulette, I'll stick to Blackjack, etc. :)

http://www.genuinewinner.com/

The only reason I was intrigued was that I worked on a similar system with an engineer friend of mine about 15-20 years ago (I did the computer logic and he did the computer circuit design)....this looks more sophisticated than what I was working on, but, the same principal.

I stopped development because electronics were declared illegal in casinos.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2007 10:09PM)
I know a guy who beats Roulette. He smashes windows runs in and breaks open Roulette machines and any other machine. He is also a junkie and apparently itís the latest craze with his firm.
Message: Posted by: SwampDonkey (Sep 26, 2007 10:33PM)
After reading this entire thread I realized all of this could have been avoided if Danny did not say the following:

[quote]
On 2007-09-12 12:57, Dannydoyle wrote:

There is NO computer tracking system that will be able to counter the simple house advantage of the bets. EVERY bet has a negative expectation. You can NOT beat it.
[/quote]


The above statement is inaccurate and Jason simply pointed that out (In detail).

SD
Message: Posted by: The Great Marok (Sep 26, 2007 11:03PM)
Danny, you're wrong. I don't know why you find it so impossible to believe that people can use visual prediction to get a slight edge in roulette. Nobody's saying that someone can come and with 100% accuracy predict the number on which the ball can land. But with a lot of practice (let's say years of practice), you can give yourself a slight edge in let's say cutting it down to half the numbers. If you manage to get the correct half of the roulette wheel 60% of the time (you can get it to 50% just by random guessing) and, let's say with the help of an assistant or two you're able to place all the correct bets a portion of that time, you can give yourself an edge of let's say 1%, to be conservative. With years of practice in how to play the game, it's naive to think that this is not possible for anyone to do. Even if the wheels are perfectly balanced, it is impossible to train a human to spin the wheel in a truly random fashion on every single spin. And with a biased wheel it would be even easier to use it to your advantage. In fact I think that a decent number of people would in fact be able to do it, if they put in the huge amount of effort. So why aren't there billionaires who made money just playing roulette?
Well, even if you're able to do this, that is create a 1% advantage in your favor, it still wouldn't be easy to make money doing it. Let's say you're making $100 dollar bets (with larger bets you'd need a much larger staring bankroll). Your expectation value is $1, and to keep it simple let's say that the standard deviation is around 1 bet, or $100. That means after 1 bet your expectation value is, with a 68% confidence level, between $1 +/- $100. So as you can see the error is much greater than the $1. For a large number of events, the expectation value rises approximately as square root of the number of events. So for 10000 spins of the wheel, there's a 68% chance that you would have $10000 +/- $10000. Now you see that the standard deviation is becoming comparable to the money you're making. But even after 10000 spins of the wheel, with your advantage, there's still a roughly 16% chance that you would actually be losing money! Now let's increase the number of trials to 1 million. After one million trials, you have a 68% chance of earning $1000000 +/- $100000! So you see luck has now been pretty much eliminated. But to do this and earn around one million dollars, you would need 1000000 spins of the wheel, with your perfect play on every spin! It is easy to see that this would take years and years, in the process of which you might actually lose all your money before you even are able to eliminate luck, and all the while you need to play perfectly and you need beforehand years of practice.
So what's the point? Is it theoretically possible to beat roulette? The answer is yes. I've sketched the math which you so love. Is it practical though? I have to say no, and that I think is why the richest man in the world is not a roulette player.
But it is theoretically possible, and in real life, not in some 'fantasy land'. Actually you're living in a fantasy land if you believe that every spin of the roulette wheel brings a truly random outcome.
This is a system of beating roulette that doesn't include any cheating, and is a system in the same way that card counting, shuffle tracking and other things they do in blackjack is a system. And blackjack is considered a 'beatable' game precisely because you can do these things.
So, IMO, Jason was right in what he was saying the whole time, and looking at the posts I don't see that he changed his position at any point.
On the other hand, the article from Cigar Aficionado is I think greatly exaggerated and naive, especially when it comes to how shuffle tracking works (although the basics are true, I don't think that the writer actually witnessed some things exactly as he says they happened).
My two cents.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2007 11:38PM)
I donít think you get any advantage getting the right half right 51% of the time do you?

There are 38 numbers and if you back half of them it costs $19 at $1 each and your return is $36 at 35 to 1 a profit of $17 a win.

After 100 spins you have won 51 x $17 = $867 and lost 49 x $19 = $931

A loss of $64.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 27, 2007 10:02AM)
With every post on computers and prediction, Past Posting is looking better all the time :)

Of course the poker room is looking the best of all, but somebody has to re-fill the 'annual crop of suckers' barrel and it may as well be roulette players.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 27, 2007 10:02AM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-27 00:38, tommy wrote:
I donít think you get any advantage getting the right half right 51% of the time do you?

There are 38 numbers and if you back half of them it costs $19 at $1 each and your return is $36 at 35 to 1 a profit of $17 a win.

After 100 spins you have won 51 x $17 = $867 and lost 49 x $19 = $931

A loss of $64.
[/quote]

Once again Tommy has the straight dope. The cheat is the house in giving a lousy layout and payout. Roulette is a Grind Game designed by the French to emulate early carnival games of the time which were played off of wheel of fortune type wheels mounted at a 45 degree angle with upright pins around the entire edge, and used a raquet ball sized wooden ball that fell to the bottom resting between two pins to show the prize. I believe this type of wheel was used in france and germany at the time roulette was birthed. Both types of games migrated to the US around the end of the civil war.

The only roulette 'systems' beside the very early electronics and button counters that have any collectible value at all are hardbound copies of "Scientific Betting" and "How to win at Roulette". Both need to be crisp and clean, and in near perfect condition with only minor corner bumps and no dog ears/writing. They still only value at around $25-$35 in mint new condition.

Then the other facts are its the most expensive table game to field, and if folks started beating it, they would replace them with PI GOW or some other less risky item.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 27, 2007 10:13AM)
KingStardog, your knowledge of early gaming (and gaming/hustles in general) is most impressive.

I enjoy reading your posts.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 27, 2007 10:38AM)
It would be really nice to be able to post small pictures here.

Its hard for me to put words to ideas without sounding very abrasive or hostile which is in no way my intention. After all these years I still have poor internet skills? yep.

Used to have a lot more text, and pics but generaly those have gone to new collectors or other dealers along the way.
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 27, 2007 10:42AM)
You can post pics here. I can't remember how, but I have posted a few. If you email me a pic you want to post, I can try to figure it out and let you know how it's done.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 27, 2007 10:49AM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-27 11:42, Vandy Grift wrote:
You can post pics here. I can't remember how, but I have posted a few. If you email me a pic you want to post, I can try to figure it out and let you know how it's done.
[/quote]

Cool, I usually find and link, because I know it will stick here. That other place allows it and that's nice.

Speaking of crooked roulette, I have that one Evans pocket crooked roulette wheel available still and its twice as good as the one from the radner collection, with no added paint, just the way they came.
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Sep 27, 2007 11:09AM)
Is that the little 3-1/2" alum number? The one that can "pay the rent" behind a live bar?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 27, 2007 12:57PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-26 23:33, SwampDonkey wrote:
After reading this entire thread I realized all of this could have been avoided if Danny did not say the following:

[quote]
On 2007-09-12 12:57, Dannydoyle wrote:

There is NO computer tracking system that will be able to counter the simple house advantage of the bets. EVERY bet has a negative expectation. You can NOT beat it.
[/quote]


The above statement is inaccurate and Jason simply pointed that out (In detail).

SD
[/quote]

Inaccurate? Well if .001% is considered inaccurate then yep it is horridly so.

Actually if I had posted the clarification with barring cheating then yes the whole thing can be avoided.

I did not allow for past posting, which is the BEST way to win at the game.

I will say for completness sake one more thing. I hope Jason agrees with this, I actually believe he will.

In general, it is a great game to past post. Easier in many ways than Blackjack for one reason. To get 36 chips you need to make 1 move. In Blackjack it requires you to make far more moves to realise the same amount of return. If I was going to risk the time of getting caught, I would choose roulette to cheat.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 27, 2007 01:44PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-27 12:09, Vandy Grift wrote:
Is that the little 3-1/2" alum number? The one that can "pay the rent" behind a live bar?
[/quote]

I didn't measure but it doesn't fit in a pocket very well. May be a big coat pocket if you had to run or something.

The gaff runs high or low numbers on an 18 number wheel with no 0 or 00. It essentialy allows you to take half the board gaurenteed, or when needed increase the chances of a win by half.

Yes, you could, pay the rent due to the very strong gaff. I have a tin horse race set sort of like it, but the tin one uses two mags of increasing sizes to slow and stop the spinner, on the winning horse. It is an english game with english horses names.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 28, 2007 08:49AM)
For them who are interested in Laurance Scottís work as mentioned by Steve Forte an up dated version is here at a price:

http://www.advantageplayer.com/roulette/index.html?navigation=/roulette/frame_navigation.html

I believe in testing things to see if they work. Theoretical possibilities are not worth a cent if you canít apply them no matter how true in theory they are.
The problem is it costs time and money to put these things to the test. The bottom line is it is a gamble. I have to say I am a little tempted to test it to see if it can be applied although I am very sceptical and wonder why Steve has not used it to make legal millions.
If I bought the Scott thing I would test it without betting over 10,000 spins to see if it worked.



The guy at wizard of odds sums up Roulette systems etc nicely and I agree with what he says.

http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

The only thing with some relevance to the thing that Scott is talking about I see there is:

Question: ďWhile Roulette clearly cannot be beaten by chance, I have heard that it can be beaten by physics 2 ways (in theory). Way one: a high tech device, which measures the velocity of the ball against the velocity of the wheel and predicts the outcome sector of the wheel with like a 40% accuracy. Way two: Wheel bias. Obviously a wheel would have to have a bias of at least 5.26% to get the player to an even keel. The question is, how many spins would you say, wizard does it take to determine wheel bias, if there is any? - JF from Providence, USAĒ

Asnswer: ďAny device to measure ball and wheel velocity would not be very welcome around a roulette table. However some people claim to be able to judge in their head roughly where the ball will land, with enough accuracy to overcome the house edge. I have yet to be convinced that anybody is winning long term with this method. Roulette wheels today are very high quality and the bias should be negligible. Iím even more skeptical anyone is winning tracking wheel bias. Some casinos track all the numbers to check for bias themselves.Ē
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2007 04:17PM)
Tommy the statement about theoretical possibilities not being worth a cent unless you can apply them is dead on accurate.

We have LOTS of theories. Even the idea of covering the minute percentage "in the interest of being 100% accurate" and so forth. This place is littered with theories and little practice if you ask me.

Your last post is pretty much been my point from the start, which Jason had a problem with, and SwampDonkey seemed to think I was inaccurate. Guess I am not the only one.

Oh and by the way Marok, I am not even going to raise your statement to the level of a serious arguement by countering it. Use your system have fun LOL.

Sorry guys but math is math. "Think outside the box" all you want, try to be "100% accurate" and not make blanket statements. Einstein was still right. Has NOT been proven wrong as of yet.

As long as we are using odds as they are beating the game....... well you decide.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 28, 2007 06:15PM)
Maybe you have more of a chance if two people work it together: One guesses the Ball speed and the other the Wheel speed.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 28, 2007 07:20PM)
This must be the third of these long roulette threads. It kind of separates the dozen or so that know the drill, from the rest.

A simple test if you will. Nice work.

To be completely honest and with way too much exposure to these sorts of things, I know of no system or way to beat the wheel, or I would have beaten it by now. And then taken the secret to the grave.

You can buy the Chinese wheel gaff set for close to 10 grand and pay off the dealer, or sub a gaffed table for a good one, and ship it from the manufacturer, or get overpaid which is found when the next cash count is in, and that is about it. The little $500 set with the remote and brake arm that drops down does not work right and will tend to break in a day or two.

There you have it. If I opened a casino, even though they are so d*** expensive I would get two wheels and tables one a light burl maple and the other a black walnut in case anyone decided one color was better than the other.Just because they GTFM.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 28, 2007 07:53PM)
See Hoffmans Later Magic, how to make your wand go bang. Sprinkle some that in some of the slots. :)
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 28, 2007 08:01PM)
[quote]
Just because they GTFM.
[/quote]
......and the HOUSE says "AMEN!........free room and board to anybody with a roulette system that works.....only those with systems that work though...line starts by the door over there........Martingale you say sir?....can we get you any show tickets or fly the rest of your family in to spend a week with us here in Vegas, all on the house of course?"
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2007 08:54PM)
I know a casino host who will send a limo and private jet for anyone with enough money they are willing to guarantee risking on a roulette system.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 29, 2007 06:59AM)
Anyone with enough money would only have more than enough if they won, and not enough if they lost.

I once said to a conman from a poor African village, who was in a cell with me in England, "When you got to £6Million why didn't you stop and go back to Africa and live like a king?" He said. "King! I don't want a kingdon! I want an EMPIRE!" and he wasn't joking neither.
Message: Posted by: The Great Marok (Sep 30, 2007 01:14PM)
[quote]

Oh and by the way Marok, I am not even going to raise your statement to the level of a serious arguement by countering it. Use your system have fun LOL.

[/quote]

Please, oh great mind, tell me what was not serious about my statement. I thought that it was completely serious.

I know that you do not actually have any math knowledge beyond some high school algebra, if that, and so that you can't make a serious argument, and all you can do is say things like "math is math", "you can't beat math" and similar meaningless statements. But that's ok, nothing wrong with that, this is the magic Cafť, not the math Cafť. What you shouldn't do though is make all this references to math, when it's clear that you actually don't know any, and then when someone who knows some points things out to you, you ridicule them. It's better to just try and learn something.

Looking back at your posts in this thread, your strategy is to make a statement, and then if someone says something you don't agree with, you try to insult them. Meanwhile you don't provide any facts to support your statements. For example, you haven't said anything about why is it so impossible to use visual prediction.

This whole long thread could be avoided, if you are just able to admit to not knowing everything. Instead of admitting to that, what you do is try to insult the person who says something you didn't know, and that just makes you look ridiculous.
Message: Posted by: KingStardog (Sep 30, 2007 02:39PM)
Ok some of our denser folk need a little edumacations.Math may be math, but all of the roulette wheels around the globe have been spinning for over a century now. Lets take a close look at the take from a spin or two without any split bets just single numbers and say four players on a low table and no red black bets.

Spin1
P1-1 on #20 and 4 on #23
P2-1 on #10 and 2 on #16
P3-10 on#3
P4- 5 on #5 and 1 on #15 and 4 on #12

Weeel-#21
Take- 28

Spin 2
P1-12 on #16 and 2 on #28
P2-1 on #10 and 2 on #16
P3-10 on#4 and 8 on #00
P4- 1 on #5 and 6 on #15

Weeel-#6
Take-42


Spin 3
P1-1 on #14 and 5 on #28
P2-1 on #10 and 10 on #19
P3-15 on#9 and 8 on #0
P4- 5 on #22 and 5 on #17

Weeel-#14 pay 35
Take-50>>>15 after pays


Three average spins take on a pay of 42+28+15= 85 lets say some fool drops a couple notes in addition to the four. 285.

They GTFM day in and day out.

We have a lot of people failing this simple little test.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Sep 30, 2007 02:55PM)
Maybe we should re-visit Steve Fortes thoughts on the subject of Visual Prediction:

"Visual prediction is only a practical, viable strategy in games with the very best playing conditions. These games are not widespread, and few modern wheels exhibit the perfect ball track bias that's needed.
A complete understanding of the strategy's mathematics is a must for determining which wheels can be played with an edge, and which wheels only offer a guessing game."

One could take from Forte's thoughts that you could walk up to different roulette wheels for the rest of your life and never find one that could be exploited by visual prediction.
If you DID happen to find one, you would only know you'd found it if you were in possession of advanced knowledge of mathematics and a complimentary skill set far more advanced than card counting and shuffle tracking.
To say it would take years, perhaps decades, to get this skill set and math knowledge might not be much of an overstatement.........but THEN you'd have to find the wheel.

It DOES seem highly unlikely that we'll see documented evidence of ongoing successes enjoyed by folks using visual prediction as a system to win at roulette.

Forte goes on to imply that, as important as considering visual tracking a possible winning roulette system in very specific circumstances might be to use knowledge of visual prediction to simply understand what IS possible, and to use that understanding to get a clearer understanding of the physical and mechanical realities present in the game of Roulette.

As I always do when the subject is the intricacies of house games, I'll take Forte's information as accurate enough to walk away from this thread with the thought that I have got a grasp on all the arguments everybody was making, and have taken from those arguments enough information to know enough to continue to avoid the roulette table like the plague.

(Forte's thoughts paraphrased by me from his indispensable book, Casino Game Protection, 1994)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 30, 2007 07:41PM)
Maybe we should re-visit my thoughts on the subject:

It is possible it exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjwOFt7_Vf4
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (Sep 30, 2007 07:42PM)
:)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 1, 2007 10:15AM)
Maybe my point that if each bet has a negative expectation, no matter how small, you will lose the game in the long run. That is what I mean by math is math.

That is what I mean by statements like this. NO SYSTEM, (Now remember I am using the word SYSTEM to mean betting strategy ok?) is going to get past it. If each bet (not cheating manuver) has a negative expectation, (what you can "expect from the action of placing a bet essentially.) you will lose as time goes on. No doubt.

**DISCLAIMER** I fully understand this is NOT the right definition of "expectation" or "expected value" but it is close enough for this thread.

As for cheating computers, I don't think they are practical right now.

As for past postiing, I think it is a great idea. IF I HAD THE GUTS to cheat a casino, I would learn to cheat Roulette.

Oh and Marok, math is math, and you can't beat the math are not meaningless statements. The casino you can be certain, KNOWS the math! When math tells you that you are going to lose money, well in general you lose money.

Math is how Blackjack Basic Strategy came about, card counting, sports betting and so forth. It is the foundation of ALL gambling. If you don't have an understanding of it that is fine, but don't play it off as if it does not matter. That is a sure recipe for losing in the long run.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Apr 24, 2008 10:10AM)
Man, I really hate to dig up an old thread, but:

A couple of days ago I was talking to a couple of my students about roulette, and one of them started in with the old "there are maybe 10 or 12 guys in the entire world who can do it..." bit about visual prediction.

What's interesting is that one of the students came back to me the next day with a name:

Christian Kaisan

The guy claims to have won millions over the years. I suspect that he is just conning everybody. Anyway, I wanted to ask if any of you have heard of him. Google just turns up bunch of articles in German--nearly all of which seem to just assume he is an accomplished visual predictor.

Here's something in English (obviously a poor translation):

http://vlsroulette.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1204376795

So, anybody ever hear of this guy?
Message: Posted by: silverking (Apr 24, 2008 11:18AM)
If the casino's really thought there was a chance of visual prediction being effective to the point of a player actually being able to seriously take them off with it, they'd simply call "no more bets" sooner than they do now.

They COULD call it as soon after the dealer releases the ball as they'd like to, but calling it later results in more action, more bets, and a larger take for the casino.

The casino's would appear to believe that visual prediction on a "perfectly" aligned wheel (yes, I know "perfect" doesn't exist) isn't a threat to their bottom line.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Apr 24, 2008 01:49PM)
Yes, but....

If I ran a casino, and there was one guy in a billion who had a slight advantage which we noticed, but we also know that he has a book or even ten books for sale, well....

Does he do us more good than harm?

At any rate, I think this guy is probably a fraud--meaning: he hasn't really won the millions he says he had, and no one calls him on it, and then intelligent students of mine think that visual prediction is viable for diligent players.
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Apr 24, 2008 02:19PM)
He looks like Ben Kingsley with those glasses.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Apr 24, 2008 02:25PM)
LOL! Ghandi at the roulette table!
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Apr 24, 2008 02:46PM)
One must be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must be defended against the heaviest odds - Mahatma Gandhi

Tell that to those *** kids. lol!
Message: Posted by: iamslow (Apr 24, 2008 04:42PM)
[quote]
On 2007-09-27 00:38, tommy wrote:
I donít think you get any advantage getting the right half right 51% of the time do you?

There are 38 numbers and if you back half of them it costs $19 at $1 each and your return is $36 at 35 to 1 a profit of $17 a win.

After 100 spins you have won 51 x $17 = $867 and lost 49 x $19 = $931

A loss of $64.
[/quote]
I think I would be pretty rich if I could guess which half of the wheel the ball will fall 51% of the time...
Message: Posted by: Bret Maverick (Apr 29, 2008 04:11PM)
Stoney,

I have trouble believing that Christian Kaisan made millions with a visual prediction method unless he played in very large houses with lots of poorly maintained roulette wheels operated many years ago by the blind, or he had inside help in biasing the wheels, which is still questionable for the scores he claims he made.

Michael Konik, in his 1995 article "One Step Ahead" asked Steve Forte to explain Visual Prediction at Roulette:

[quote]Forte instructs his visitor to watch where the ball "falls off" the track and into the dish of spinning numbers. It loses its momentum and dives down at the "10 o'clock" position. On the next spin it does it again. And again. And again. Thirteen times in a row. "There's no such thing as a perfect wheel," Forte says. "They're basically a piece of furniture. They take abuse, they get dirty, they get worn down. They produce biased results." Using a technique called visual prediction, advantage players exploit the wheel's imperfections.

Outlined in How to Beat Roulette, a book by Laurence Scott, the visual-prediction method is built on an immutable law of physics: regardless of how fast the ball is spun by the croupier, it must necessarily end at the same speed. Advantage players beat the wheel from the "back" of the spin, not the front. They play the last four or five revolutions of the ball. After finding a wheel with a clear bias--Forte says there's probably at least one in every major casino in the United States--they clock the speed of the rotor (the spinning dish of numbers), looking for one that takes between two and three seconds per revolution. (This is surprisingly easy to time in your head, without a stopwatch.)

By correlating the speed of the rotor with the ball's predictable "drop point," the advantage player can gauge which number will be sitting directly under the ball when it dives into the dish. Even taking into account the volatility of the ball's bounce, when betting late enough in the spin, advantage players can essentially narrow the list of probable numbers from 38 to 19, obliterating the House's normal 5 percent edge.

In the course of Forte's explanation of visual prediction, the ball has fallen off the same spot on the wheel 25 out of 27 times. At a nearby high-limit blackjack table, he detects the dealer's hole card in four of the last five hands. And at the craps table behind us, they're looking for a new shooter. [/quote]

Prior to the start of one of Steve's game protection lectures I was spinning the ball on the roulette wheel set-up back of house for his use and, after only a few spins, noticed that the ball dropped in the same area of the wheel each time. Puzzled that one of our casino's well maintained wheels could be so out of whack by simply moving it from the casino floor to a table in the back-room used for dealer training, I mentioned it to Steve who "shushed" me to be quiet until his lecture was over.

Well, after he successfully demonstrated "section shooting" a few times for the gawking attendees who claimed it couldn't be done he revealed why the wheel was so biased: he had slipped a single wheel cheque under the back of the wheel while straightening out the stacks of cheques when no one was looking, and just that thin disk was enough to totally skew the results. His ability to estimate which section of the wheel would be under the edge of the wheel where the ball would drop was the hard part, but his uncanny ability to count in his head as he conversed with others was quite a percentage play.

Obviously, it's possible that, with some inside help and a thinner shim to avoid such strong work, a small crew can make a decent buck. But a single person traveling to scores of casinos around the world making millions as Kaisan claims, without getting caught?

Sounds far-fetched to me. I'm fairly observant and haven't seen a wheel that biased, despite looking for one whenever the opportunity presents itself but, I'll admit, I don't frequent many of the older properties where proper wheel maintenance is not a priority.

Bret
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 30, 2008 07:12PM)
Also the casino's themselvs have a serious stake in spotting the bias wheels. Heck they are on the look out more than players.

The guy seems to be a fraud. May not be but I have seen nothing he has ever presented to sway me otherwise.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 1, 2008 06:06AM)
I spent about a half an hour reading everything Google popped up about the guy, and NOTHING confirms that he's for real. Web sites just keep repeating the story that this guy is a professional roulette player who has won millions.

There are also a lot of accusations (but from individuals on forums rather than journalists) that he is in fact a mentally unstable con man.

This story is exceptionally interesting for this reason: someone can go around saying, "Hey, I can do X", and his claim gets reported and repeated and he can write a book and make money claiming he can do "X", but NO SERIOUS JOURNALIST OR INVESTIGATOR EVER EXPOSES HIM! Very, very strange.

Apparently the world of gambling is so...well...on the perimeter (at least in Europe) that no one cares. It's like investigating the bearded lady at the carnival.

Yet the guy sells books!

Strange world.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 1, 2008 01:29PM)
He sells books because years ago science grossly underestimated the birthrate of the average sucker.