Two Hookers on a Street Method (roulette)
We again WAIT 7 more spins before betting, hoping a 7 or 9 does not hit. (the 8 hitting is ok) If a 7 or 9 does hit, start over. After any win, start over. This is a two number progression, 1-57 spins, $3,310 on a loss. The NET wins are VERY nice, only a few wins needed and you could go home for the day. In the last TWO years, I have very good results (actual play) using this but some portions of the waiting (and BR) are not for everyone. Ken
Quote: SOOPOOAs a non roulette player I have a few questions so I can understand. Once your criteria have been met you will bet on 2 numbers, I believe. How much will you bet on each number? If neither number hits the next spin do you increase the bet on each number, if so, by how much? Again, if the second spin misses, what do you then do? If at any point you do hit, is your session over or do you just restart? Is there any defined way you end your session, like a certain win or loss level? As an aside, I watched a while of roulette yesterday after my pai gow playing. There were 3 players. I was trying to see if they had any 'system'. After a short while it became clear they were 'random' betters. I was going to engage them in conversation if anyone was playing a 'system', but alas....
I thought I posted the progression. I'll do so in the next post. After a win (not sure if I call that a session) you start over. The entire time of waiting/betting, continue to write down numbers for future use. In terms of 'when to quit', thats all up to the individual. Maybe 5 wins and quit. Maybe after a loss of the progression, quit. That would be up to you. When I play, I would say perhaps 5% of players use a method. Ken
1-12 $5
13-21 $10
22-27 $15
28-31 $20
32-35 $25
36-38 $30
39-40 $35
41-42 $40
43-44 $45
45-46 $50
47-48 $55
49 $60
50 $65
51-52 $70
53 $75
54 $80
55 $85
56 $90
57 $100.....$3,310 total. Ken
Best of luck to you.
Thanks, I try. Thats all I can do on the boards. KenQuote: chickendinnerMr JJJ, RESPECT to you for sharing your stuff. It is appreciated.
Best of luck to you.
Quote: mrjjjI have watched after a loss, yep, a number hits like 2 spins later. Oh well. You said 'small wins', not sure I agree with that. The average NET win is $132. The way I sometimes play....5 wins, go home. I always considered a Marty to be...double up, double up, double up etc. Ken
I agree, a pure Martingale is a doubling system.
However, any system which increases the bet after each loss shares many of the characteristics of a Martingale. In this case doubling after a loss makes no sense, as the pay out is 35 to 1. In the end you are trying to hit one winner to win a (roughly) static amount at any point on the progression. Which means for all intents it's a Martingale in nature and has all the features of that system... lots of small wins and one big loss when you hit your limit. Small/Large here is the ratio of win to loss, not in terms of absolute money. Unlike a pure Martingale, it's indeed true that the unit win is big compared to the base bet.
Quote: thecesspitI agree, a pure Martingale is a doubling system.
However, any system which increases the bet after each loss shares many of the characteristics of a Martingale. In this case doubling after a loss makes no sense, as the pay out is 35 to 1. In the end you are trying to hit one winner to win a (roughly) static amount at any point on the progression. Which means for all intents it's a Martingale in nature and has all the features of that system... lots of small wins and one big loss when you hit your limit. Small/Large here is the ratio of win to loss, not in terms of absolute money. Unlike a pure Martingale, it's indeed true that the unit win is big compared to the base bet.
Whenever ANYBODY comes up with a new betting system that is supposed to "beat" a negative expectation game, it is ALWAYS some variation of a Martingale. And the purported worth of the "system" is ALWAYS based on ignoring the fact that the inevitable huge loss will wipe out all those small wins, and then some. A Martingale is theoretically possible with an infinite bankroll and infinite house limits--but in real life, those quantities stop well short of infinity.
Roulette is simply the exercise of turning $1.00 into $0.9474, over and over, until the money is gone. This is true no matter what happens in the short term. In fact, the WINS are where the house makes its money, not the losses. Nothing--but nothing--can change the simple, immutable fact of the house edge. Even if you really really really believe otherwise.
The problem is so many players make the mistake of remembering the wins and forgetting the losses. This is especially true when the waitress is bringing the drinks.
To be honest, these ways of betting have no appeal to me, as I find them dull and tedious. But it if its how people want to play, then I say fortuitous fluctations in variance (or good luck as its more commonly known)
Quote: mkl654321Whenever ANYBODY comes up with a new betting system that is supposed to "beat" a negative expectation game, it is ALWAYS some variation of a Martingale. And the purported worth of the "system" is ALWAYS based on ignoring the fact that the inevitable huge loss will wipe out all those small wins, and then some. A Martingale is theoretically possible with an infinite bankroll and infinite house limits--but in real life, those quantities stop well short of infinity.
There are version I've seen which are not increasing after a loss. These are also not going to win in the long term, but aren't Martingales. This distinction may not be of use or interest to you, but there we go.
Quote:
Roulette is simply the exercise of turning $1.00 into $0.9474, over and over, until the money is gone. This is true no matter what happens in the short term. In fact, the WINS are where the house makes its money, not the losses. Nothing--but nothing--can change the simple, immutable fact of the house edge. Even if you really really really believe otherwise.
Even an infinite bank roll does not allow a Martingale to make a profit (see WoV :: https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/105) Despite the fact the infinity plus 1 is still infinity...
Quote: thecesspitEven an infinite bank roll does not allow a Martingale to make a profit (see WoV :: https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/105) Despite the fact the infinity plus 1 is still infinity...
Not to belabor the point, but the Wiz's answer is a classic example of math subverting sense. Obviously, infinity+anything is a meaningless expression, as is anything to the infinityth power, or (anything)*(infinity). It's a slightly more esoteric version of the meaningless expressions you get when you divide by zero. Therefore, twiddling around with such pseudo-calculations leads to the GIGO effect.
The chance of losing an infinite number of bets can be seen as the sum of an infinite series, and the chance of losing an infinite number of bets is zero, because the relevant infinite series sums to one, i.e., certainty. (I would write out the series for an infinite number of even-money bets as an example, but the font here doesn't allow it--or I'm too unskilled at using this font.)
Quote: mkl654321Not to belabor the point, but the Wiz's answer is a classic example of math subverting sense. Obviously, infinity+anything is a meaningless expression, as is anything to the infinityth power, or (anything)*(infinity). It's a slightly more esoteric version of the meaningless expressions you get when you divide by zero. Therefore, twiddling around with such pseudo-calculations leads to the GIGO effect.
Yes and no and it doesn't matter. Suffice to say, I prefer the answer where not EVEN an infinite bankroll means a Martingale will work to the one 'with an infinite bankroll'. It might deter just one more person.
Quote:
The chance of losing an infinite number of bets can be seen as the sum of an infinite series, and the chance of losing an infinite number of bets is zero, because the relevant infinite series sums to one, i.e., certainty. (I would write out the series for an infinite number of even-money bets as an example, but the font here doesn't allow it--or I'm too unskilled at using this font.)
But would a set of bets that had cardinality aleph-1 beat a aleph-0 set of bets when using the Martingale? :)
No, don't answer that...
...>> "Nothing--but nothing--can change the simple, immutable fact of the house edge" >>> So with that in mind. *ANY* casino game you play, these RULES also affect you, correct?Quote: mkl654321Whenever ANYBODY comes up with a new betting system that is supposed to "beat" a negative expectation game, it is ALWAYS some variation of a Martingale. And the purported worth of the "system" is ALWAYS based on ignoring the fact that the inevitable huge loss will wipe out all those small wins, and then some. A Martingale is theoretically possible with an infinite bankroll and infinite house limits--but in real life, those quantities stop well short of infinity.
Roulette is simply the exercise of turning $1.00 into $0.9474, over and over, until the money is gone. This is true no matter what happens in the short term. In fact, the WINS are where the house makes its money, not the losses. Nothing--but nothing--can change the simple, immutable fact of the house edge. Even if you really really really believe otherwise.
This progression has nothing to do with a Marty, sorry you dont see that. If you want to say the method sucks, thats fine, no problem but similar to a Marty? Nope.
Its a method, not a system.
I am WAY AHEAD playing this so far and I love it. Very nice winning days. Sometimes I'll hit 5 wins, then go home. Other times (if I have free time) I'll stay for 10 hours and play! Do I have losses so far? Well sure, I would be lying if I said no. Like I said, if/when it starts to tank, not an issue. I'll kick it to the side but WITH a DECENT NET PROFIT still in tact. Stop trying to make roulette tougher than it really is. Whats all the fuss? The big bad house edge? lol It doesn't mean s**t to me. Ken
Quote: mkl654321Whenever ANYBODY comes up with a new betting system that is supposed to "beat" a negative expectation game, it is ALWAYS some variation of a Martingale. And the purported worth of the "system" is ALWAYS based on ignoring the fact that the inevitable huge loss will wipe out all those small wins, and then some.
That's what I always thought too until I realized how inexperienced I was by just talking about it rather than learning more about it....you know, like YOU'RE doing!
I've seen John Patrick's casino beating ideas and a few of them do not involve any sort of progression. Just a little research will get you there. I'm not saying I espouse anything he preaches, just that you typically speak with little knowledge of the facts.
Interestingly, you've also chosen to display more of that flowing inefficiency by your statement "And the purported worth of the "system" is ALWAYS based on ignoring the fact that the inevitable huge loss will wipe out all those small wins, and then some." I believe that you're referring to your tormentor, Rob Singer on this one. Again, facts win out over your wishes or theoretical conclusions that always seem to be based on just a little less knowledge than it takes. Singer regularly takes down your statement, and has explained it in detail in a video. He says the critics, in blasting his play strategy, always come to the same block-headed solution by assuming he wins many small winners that are always wiped out (and then some, as you put it) by the eventual large loser. He then points out how the critics conveniently ignore that there are also far more "large winners" than "large losers" and yet they have a problem even identifying that there will be even ONE large winner along the way. I can see that, because it seems to make sense. You do not see that because you do not WANT to see that.
I would just love to watch him take you apart piece by piece in a live debate.
Quote: mrjjjThe big bad house edge? lol It doesn't mean s**t to me. Ken
I'm glad that being a consistent loser doesn't bother you. You may have won a few times, but your losses exceed your wins. That's all that matters. I don't believe you for a second when you imply that you've managed to be an overall winner, and beat that "big bad house edge". No one in the entire history of the world has managed to do that, so why on earth should anyone believe that YOU have?
And the fact that the house edge doesn't mean anything to you simply means that you're a sucker and an idiot. Don't wear your stupidity proudly, like a badge of honor.
Quote: mrjjj...>> "Nothing--but nothing--can change the simple, immutable fact of the house edge" >>> So with that in mind. *ANY* casino game you play, these RULES also affect you, correct?
This progression has nothing to do with a Marty, sorry you dont see that. If you want to say the method sucks, thats fine, no problem but similar to a Marty? Nope.
Its a method, not a system.
I am WAY AHEAD playing this so far and I love it. Very nice winning days. Sometimes I'll hit 5 wins, then go home. Other times (if I have free time) I'll stay for 10 hours and play! Do I have losses so far? Well sure, I would be lying if I said no. Like I said, if/when it starts to tank, not an issue. I'll kick it to the side but WITH a DECENT NET PROFIT still in tact. Stop trying to make roulette tougher than it really is. Whats all the fuss? The big bad house edge? lol It doesn't mean s**t to me. Ken
Progressive betting systems ARE Martingales.
There is no distinction, other than a meaningless semantic one, between a "method" and a "system".
Quote: JerryLoganThat's what I always thought too until I realized how inexperienced I was by just talking about it rather than learning more about it....you know, like YOU'RE doing!
I've seen John Patrick's casino beating ideas and a few of them do not involve any sort of progression. Just a little research will get you there. I'm not saying I espouse anything he preaches, just that you typically speak with little knowledge of the facts.
Interestingly, you've also chosen to display more of that flowing inefficiency by your statement "And the purported worth of the "system" is ALWAYS based on ignoring the fact that the inevitable huge loss will wipe out all those small wins, and then some." I believe that you're referring to your tormentor, Rob Singer on this one. Again, facts win out over your wishes or theoretical conclusions that always seem to be based on just a little less knowledge than it takes. Singer regularly takes down your statement, and has explained it in detail in a video. He says the critics, in blasting his play strategy, always come to the same block-headed solution by assuming he wins many small winners that are always wiped out (and then some, as you put it) by the eventual large loser. He then points out how the critics conveniently ignore that there are also far more "large winners" than "large losers" and yet they have a problem even identifying that there will be even ONE large winner along the way. I can see that, because it seems to make sense. You do not see that because you do not WANT to see that.
I would just love to watch him take you apart piece by piece in a live debate.
What can you say about a person like JerryLogan, who is a disciple of BOTH John Patrick AND Rob Singer? Talk about the sucker of all time! I'll bet that JerryLogan gave all his money to the Church of Scientology a few years back (and maybe that's why he spent his last few bucks on John Patrick books).
I guess enough people like JerryLogan exist to keep people like Patrick and Singer in the black. In these days of modern education and science, that boggles the mind.
Quote: mkl654321I'm glad that being a consistent loser doesn't bother you. You may have won a few times, but your losses exceed your wins. That's all that matters. I don't believe you for a second when you imply that you've managed to be an overall winner, and beat that "big bad house edge". No one in the entire history of the world has managed to do that, so why on earth should anyone believe that YOU have?
Your statement is incorrect. People can beat the house edge over there gambling careers and end up in profit. It doesn't mean that the overall trend isn't to the house, but only the average result is turning $1 into 97c.
This doesn't mean you can put in a system to give you a better chance of being on the positive side. You can't.
Quote: thecesspitYour statement is incorrect. People can beat the house edge over there gambling careers and end up in profit. It doesn't mean that the overall trend isn't to the house, but only the average result is turning $1 into 97c.
This doesn't mean you can put in a system to give you a better chance of being on the positive side. You can't.
It's a matter of semantics. Can you say that a person who plays keno, and one day hits a ten-spot for $50,000, has "beaten" the game of Keno? Of course not.
The only way you "beat" the house edge is by demonstrating a way to overcome it. AND THAT IS TRUE EVEN IF YOU DON'T WAGER A SINGLE DOLLAR. "Results" do not, in and of themselves, prove diddly squat. I have no doubt that there are SOME people who are lifetime winners at slots, roulette, etc. But that doesn't mean that the WAY THEY PLAY had anything to do with that--it was just a random fluctuation.
I'm sorry, but my statement is indeed correct, but I do realize that a person unable to grasp the concept of randomness may disagree with it.
.... I make more than you hotshot, stuff that in your stockin. Listen, if you want to CONTINUE being AFRAID of roulette, go ahead bro, knock yourself out.Quote: mkl654321I'm glad that being a consistent loser doesn't bother you. You may have won a few times, but your losses exceed your wins. That's all that matters. I don't believe you for a second when you imply that you've managed to be an overall winner, and beat that "big bad house edge". No one in the entire history of the world has managed to do that, so why on earth should anyone believe that YOU have?
And the fact that the house edge doesn't mean anything to you simply means that you're a sucker and an idiot. Don't wear your stupidity proudly, like a badge of honor.
"but your losses exceed your wins" >>> Says who, you? lol
"I don't believe you for a second when you imply that you've managed to be an overall winner" >>> You need to be a bit more careful with your wording please.
"so why on earth should anyone believe that YOU have?" >>> 'Believe'? ROFL....Dont, I said it before, I lose nothing on THAT bet. I gain nothing, I lose nothing. Besides, whatever casino game you happen to play, you will *ALSO* lose in the long run. Wait, let me guess. The HA only applies to others but not you. Too funny. The only guy in this conversation who is in denial is you mkl. Most here already know what a lowlife piece of gutter trash you are and sure as heck, you keep talking smack like you dont mind being embarrassed. Continue to be a loser bro, cry us all a river. Ken
Ken
Quote: Mr.Jjj.... I make more than you hotshot, stuff that in your stockin. Listen, if you want to CONTINUE being AFRAID of roulette, go ahead bro, knock yourself out.
Mkl654321,
Your insight is spot on.
I think combining a Martingale like progression + alcohol creates the illusion of a winning system. The player then tends to forget most of the losses and finds it easier to find the glory in the wins.
Ken's bragging about his wins while using his Martingale like progression is a good example.
....That wasn't the topic. The topic was, is a Marty also ANY form of a progression? Go ahead Herb, give your BIAS response. KenQuote: KeyserI think combining a Martingale like progression + alcohol creates the illusion of a winning system. The player then tends to forget most of the losses and finds it easier to find the glory in the wins.
Quote: mkl654321It's a matter of semantics. Can you say that a person who plays keno, and one day hits a ten-spot for $50,000, has "beaten" the game of Keno? Of course not.
The only way you "beat" the house edge is by demonstrating a way to overcome it. AND THAT IS TRUE EVEN IF YOU DON'T WAGER A SINGLE DOLLAR. "Results" do not, in and of themselves, prove diddly squat. I have no doubt that there are SOME people who are lifetime winners at slots, roulette, etc. But that doesn't mean that the WAY THEY PLAY had anything to do with that--it was just a random fluctuation.
I'm sorry, but my statement is indeed correct, but I do realize that a person unable to grasp the concept of randomness may disagree with it.
I guess we are arguing semantics then, as I would say someone who wins a single Keno game and ends up in the positive has beaten the odds.
And I completely agree with your statement :
"But that doesn't mean that the WAY THEY PLAY had anything to do with that--it was just a random fluctuation.
I believe I tried to state that as well, and is the key idea here. It doesn't matter how MrJJJ plays, he's fooling himself that his big bank roll and attitude and character and time spent testing systems makes a difference.
Quote: mrjjj"Progressive betting systems ARE Martingales" >>> Nope, wrong.
Ken
What a great, insightful reply where you really took hold of the issues and helped your argument.
Quote:I believe I tried to state that as well, and is the key idea here. It doesn't matter how MrJJJ plays, he's fooling himself that his big bank roll and attitude and character and time spent testing systems makes a difference.
Mr J has also convinced himself that his betting levels equate him to some kind of high roller status. What he considers to be large bets is not even the table min. on some roulette tables. All the while he brags that he makes more than everyone playing roulette.
Quote: KeyserMkl654321,
I think combining a Martingale like progression + alcohol creates the illusion of a winning system.
Alcohol also improves your golf game!
I'm not going to bother to read jjj's most recent ravings in response to my posts, but isn't it amazing how people can delude themselves to such an extent, and for so long? If there's one thing that's true, it's that he honestly BELIEVES that roulette can be beaten. It's kind of sad, really.
Quote: KeyserWhy is it that the less someone knows about math (people like Mr. J.), the more certain they are that Einstein, mathematicians, and every encyclopedia out there are wrong?
There's a clinical psychological phenomenon behind that, where we tend to fervently defend our beliefs for no more than the simple reason that they ARE our beliefs. That phenomenon/bias is called "belief perseverence". There is another bias at work at well, called "confirmation bias". That is where we embrace data that confirm our preconceived notions/beliefs, and disregard data that contradict those beliefs.
I think that we can see both of these cognitive biases dominating jjj's thinking. He's far from unique, and not even unusual, in making these cognitive errors--it's a predisposition of the primate brain. Gambling games based on random outcomes are one of the many artifacts of civilization which the primate brain is poorly equipped to handle. We overcome our faulty thinking only by a slow and tortuous process of learning, and perhaps more importantly, self-awareness and self-understanding. We read horoscopes and Racing Forms and John Patrick books because we desperately want to find PATTERNS. We post Rob Singer quotes on internet chat boards because it helps us engage in belief perseverance, which is comforting. In the final analysis, rational thinking comes about because we recognize and learn to overcome these primate-brain cognitive biases. Sadly, even now, most people fail to achieve that--as shown by polls that report 96% of Americans believe in God. (And lest you think that was a segue into an entirely different topic, I should point out that belief in supernatural deities and belief in gambling systems are results of the exact same faulty brain wiring.)
...."he's fooling himself that his big bank roll and attitude and character and time spent testing systems makes a difference >>> First off, I dont care about attitude. I have done threads on this subject before. Second, am I fooling myself with the GREEN in my wallet? Perhaps its lettuce from the salad I just had at lunch time? lol I have a good time playing this EASY game that most are so afraid of. KenQuote: thecesspitI guess we are arguing semantics then, as I would say someone who wins a single Keno game and ends up in the positive has beaten the odds.
And I completely agree with your statement :
"But that doesn't mean that the WAY THEY PLAY had anything to do with that--it was just a random fluctuation.
I believe I tried to state that as well, and is the key idea here. It doesn't matter how MrJJJ plays, he's fooling himself that his big bank roll and attitude and character and time spent testing systems makes a difference.
....Why is it that the less experience a guy has playing (people like Snowman/Herb), the more they BLAME others for failures in their gambling life? lol Keyser cant win so he takes it out on others, what a shame. This is why on other boards, people cant stand the guy, he is a trouble maker. KenQuote: KeyserWhy is it that the less someone knows about math (people like Mr. J.), the more certain they are that Einstein, mathematicians, and every encyclopedia out there are wrong?
...Not sure what you mean with 'can be beaten'? I'm on my 60th (est) method. Slowly, slowly narrowing it down. Improving with EVERY new idea, I love it. Trial & error kiddies. KenQuote: mkl654321Alcohol also improves your golf game!
I'm not going to bother to read jjj's most recent ravings in response to my posts, but isn't it amazing how people can delude themselves to such an extent, and for so long? If there's one thing that's true, it's that he honestly BELIEVES that roulette can be beaten. It's kind of sad, really.
....Where did I say that *MY* bets are large (high roller) bets? I will NEVER get an answer for that one. lol Ken (for the record Herb.....because you continue to say things like 'everyone', I will match it. Dont forget, you forced me to. I'll come up with something good. If you dont like me now, hang on tight cupcake)Quote: KeyserMr J has also convinced himself that his betting levels equate him to some kind of high roller status. What he considers to be large bets is not even the table min. on some roulette tables. All the while he brags that he makes more than everyone playing roulette.
Quote: mrjjj...."he's fooling himself that his big bank roll and attitude and character and time spent testing systems makes a difference >>> First off, I dont care about attitude. I have done threads on this subject before. Second, am I fooling myself with the GREEN in my wallet? Perhaps its lettuce from the salad I just had at lunch time? lol I have a good time playing this EASY game that most are so afraid of. Ken
Course the game is EASY. You choose a number or set and plonk yer cash down and sometimes the number comes in. Sometimes it doesn't. There is no genius to Roulette.
No, you are probably not fooling yourself with the money. If you make a profit as you say (and while I think it's unlikely, it is indeed possible, so there's no point arguing it... it makes no difference). I am saying that your 60 methods make no difference to your results. It just appears that they do.
As for attitude, you have in the past mentioned good discipline and large bank roll. Thats what I meant about attitude... if it's not important, I'm misunderstanding your signature file. Again doesn't matter really, in the end, you have your methods, I'd suggest some of them have far more risk than you think (progression after a loss, which has all the inherent risks that a simple Martingale has, even if it has a different variation) while others are as good (by which I mean least worst) as any other method you can choose (flat bet based on some previous pattern).
I am still trying to understand your semantic difference between a method and system. I guess you might answer that one at some point to your convenience.
But in the end, I'm probably wasting your time by making you reply to incessant threads....
