Winning in the short-term....for a working life?!!!

And if you are in the middle of the progression, and there is no row with eight X's in a row, then what? Stop and wait?

That's right the betting progression is only triggered if there was a row beyond 8 X's in a row.

Wease - I'm pretty sure if you were to do this for a single row as I advised it would be in essence the same - so just tracking every 10th number. Like I've been doing manually - instead of needing 100 spins for an hour for the test - it's 1000 spins to make up the 10 rows.

Quote: WizardofAus

That's right the betting progression is only triggered if there was a row beyond 8 X's in a row.

Yes, I got that. But what with a progression, that's already triggered? Say, you lose 30 bets, but when looking for a number to bet on for the 31St time, find no rows with 8 X's?

Quote:

Wease - I'm pretty sure if you were to do this for a single row as I advised it would be in essence the same - so just tracking every 10th number. Like I've been doing manually - instead of needing 100 spins for an hour for the test - it's 1000 spins to make up the 10 rows.

The number of rows (or X's for that matter :-)) doesn't matter for anything, you are right, but, if you insist on doing it at all, it's better to do as many rows as practical to minimize the number of "idle spins".

Wease - sorry you've got it worng on the first part.

Each row is independant of the next - you would never skip between sows in your progression.

Say you find row 1 with 8 x's - you keep betting that - say after 30 spins you are still betting it and then find that another row - say row 9 has 8 'x you would start the betting progresssion from betting step 1 for row 9 but would still continue with betting step 31 for row 1 - the betting progressions and 8 x's are independant of each row.

Session 4 just completed manually:

Longest losing streak - 217!!! A bit too close for comfort but still 13 short of busting. There was also another one at 201 - 29 short. This scares me though - so when I head back to the casino tonight I might not try my luck at my 80+70 progression method of $2 per spin - I'm gonna do a hit and run with that one. I've just told my friend about the 217 losing streak and it's scared him as well but he's going to persist - he's longest streak still has been only 147 after 30 odd sessions now on these machines??!!! That's a bloody good streak of luck - even I have to admit that. He's close to $13K net profit now!!!

Session (spin 6000-8000):
Betting progressions - 6
Net profit - $492
Total Hours - 2
Hourly - $246

Total (spin 1-8000)
Betting progressions - 25
Net profit - $818+$492= $1310
Total Hours - 8
Hourly - $163

This is easily the most complicated roulette system I've ever heard of. And completely meaningless. I don't think I'll reach you, but...

Imagine a new variation of roulette, called Roulette Mk.2.
Like in normal roulette, you can bet on numbers. But numbers on the wheel, rather than being permanent, are assigned by a bag of little plastic chips with numbers on them. After the ball has landed, the croupier shuffles a black box with these numbers and drops one on each wheel segment.

Does this change the game in any way? If you don't think the wheel is biased and believe the spins are independent and random, it doesn't. The shuffled numbers are just another randomizer, and if the outcome was completely random already, it can't become any more random. Do you agree? If yes, do you believe your system would still work?

Then let's improve it further for Roulette Mk.3.
Since in Roulette Mk.2 you don't know which number is which segment, the same randomization can be done on the layout. Instead of dropping plastic chips on the wheel, they are shuffled around on the table layout. The effect is exactly the same. Any disagreements here?

Quote: P90

Any disagreements here?

Nope, random is random, no matter how you
arrive at it.

Regardless, thanks for posting your method WizardofAus !! You put alot of time into it.

Ken

I understand the maths P90 - I'm never ever saying this will work in the long-run and after the last test that I just did - it's probably not going to work for even a required amount of time to make a a consistent profit for a human life but say we did a test and it blew up a few times after 200,000 spins.

I know that if you bet a random number for the next 50 spins and I chose number 1 and we both placed $1 on each of our bets for the next $50 spins - we both have equal chance of winning/losing and both will lose 2.7% after we do the same exercise a billion times. But how about a human lifetime? I know - you're going to say we both can fall into the dreaded pit during a lifetime or even the next 2 hours.

Here's the reason why I'd love to test this fully.

Say there were a couple of 250 or 260 losing streaks - i can then advise my friend to not start at 80 but start when you've hit a streak of 110 or 120.

Depends on the results - I think a test over 200,000 spins will show a good sample of what we need to do to make this work or if we can't at all - if there's a losing streak of 300 for instance during this test this is what we need to do:

We adjust it to 150 waits - so 15 X's - then the issue will be time and your hourly - you might only end up playing one progression every 2 hours - so based on an average of $40 per progression - it's only $20 an hour - but if over 200,000 spins you only happen to lose once because another losing streak happen to fall over 300 - then you lose $3432 - but you've won - $20K at an hourly of $20 before that happens. This might still not cover your travelling costs and you definitely would not give up your day job for it - but it'd be a nice retirement subsidiser if you weren't doing anything else - you could play this for 3 hours a day and then go play golf in your retirement if it was as solid as this.

Hopefully the test comes back and says something a little less - say 280 was the longest losing streak - then a wait of 130 is needed for the 150 betting progression and we might be doubling our betting frequency to one progression an hour - so $40 per hour. Probably still not good enough to give up a day job but it could be something you do on the side to allow you to bank it in an interest bearing account that compounds significantly for your retirement.

Let's see what the result show.

Wease - can you make sure that say for instance the result did break the 230 losing streak - what would it need to continue to for us to have gotten a win - so was it 260 spins, 300 spins, etc.

Cheers.

Quote: mrjjj

Regardless, thanks for posting your method WizardofAus !! You put alot of time into it.

Ken

Thanks Ken.

It's out there for all to use - I'm not here to sell it - as long as you can find one of these super speed roulette machines. I'd be wary to try it online - not sure why - never really tried an online casino - do they have similar limits to these virtual ones?

Can I offer a little advice? Most likely no one is going to test for you, thats problem number one.

The second, *NEVER* ask anti-method people to test something for you. Why you ask? Either they will not test it (but they'll say they did) or if it did pass a long term test, there is NO WAY ON GOD'S GREEN PLANET, they will say......."oops, it did pass the test after all. Hey, I'm sorry I doubted you".

(lol) It won't happen because it would KILL the anti-method agenda.

Ken

Quote: WizardofAus

Thanks Ken.

It's out there for all to use - I'm not here to sell it - as long as you can find one of these super speed roulette machines. I'd be wary to try it online - not sure why - never really tried an online casino - do they have similar limits to these virtual ones?

On-line? As in RNG? Please dont do that. If you're NOT in the U.S., try DublinBet.

Ken

Quote: WizardofAus

can you make sure that say for instance the result did break the 230 losing streak - what would it need to continue to for us to have gotten a win - so was it 260 spins, 300 spins, etc.

Cheers.

Yep, no worries. Broke the 230 losing streak. Broke 300, then broke 400, then broke 500. Got to 522 and that was in less than 500,000 spins. I'm sure I could've got higher if I kept trying. But why bother when it's a loser. And there were heaps of 300 plus losing streaks that I didn't even care to count.

You say you understand the maths, but clearly you don't fully grasp it. If I had a casino I would be chauffering you from your home to my casino every day until I collected every dollar you have. There are welcome mats for players like you at every casino in the world.

Though I think/know I'm wasting my time, I'll try to save your money.

Here's the bit you're mostly failing to understand. You think there is a short term. There isn't. That losing streak of 522 doesn't have to happen until spin 400,000, as it did in my simulation. It can happen from the very first spin that you ever play, or the very first spin you play today. Thus, your short term result could be 522 losing spins (though you probably didn't last that long). Get it? I can't make it any clearer than that.

Now, save your money and go and spoil yourself with a nice dinner instead.

Quote: mickpk

Yep, no worries. Broke the 230 losing streak. Broke 300, then broke 400, then broke 500. Got to 522 and that was in less than 500,000 spins. I'm sure I could've got higher if I kept trying. But why bother when it's a loser. And there were heaps of 300 plus losing streaks that I didn't even care to count.

Thanks for sharing mickpk. Can you supply the data? Not that I don't trust you but I would love to analyse it and hope that it correspondes to exactly the method I'm talking about and not some simple method where you're betting one particular number for the entire progression - it jumps from every tenth number to the next right? I really appreciate you giving the time.

I think Wease is trying to do a test as well atm for it and would love to see if we get a similar set of results over 500,000 spins.

Can you email me your rules for the simulation or post it?

@WizardofAus >> Please read my post regarding TESTING.

Ken

Even Blackjack with a 1.5% Player Advantage isn't certain. Consider playing Blackjack with a 1.5% advantage 8 hrs a day for 300 days a year for 50 years. The Average Bet is a mere $50.
This will net about $5.5million over the 50 year life-span of 21 to 71. This presumes 60 hands/hour. You would play 60*8*300*50 original hands (7.2million).

Considering heat, I stongly doubt any one could play under these conditions, unless for a Casino Promotion (ie with the good graces of the House for Advert. purpose)

JMH2c

Quote: 98Clubs

Even Blackjack with a 1.5% Player Advantage isn't certain. Consider playing Blackjack with a 1.5% advantage 8 hrs a day for 300 days a year for 50 years. The Average Bet is a mere $50.
This will net about $5.5million over the 50 year life-span of 21 to 71. This presumes 60 hands/hour. You would play 60*8*300*50 original hands (7.2million).

Considering heat, I stongly doubt any one could play under these conditions, unless for a Casino Promotion (ie with the good graces of the House for Advert. purpose)

JMH2c

Thanks for the response 98Clubs - if someone was playing BJ for a living their average bet would be a lot higher than $50. And I think the highest edge a player can get is 0.5% right? But thank you for your response which is directly in response to the question. Cheers.

Quote: mrjjj

@WizardofAus >> Please read my post regarding TESTING.

Ken

Thanks for letting me know Ken. But I'm new to this site and I will see what response I receive from mickpk and Wease. I'd love to see the results.

Mickpk - did you program this the easy way - one row - or as Wease is trying to do - 10 rows? If it was just one row then the test is only 50,000 spins in essence which is more of a concern to me. I'd really appreciate the results sent. Thanks in advance.

Quote: WizardofAus

Thanks for sharing mickpk. Can you supply the data? Not that I don't trust you but I would love to analyse it and hope that it correspondes to exactly the method I'm talking about and not some simple method where you're betting one particular number for the entire progression - it jumps from every tenth number to the next right? I really appreciate you giving the time.

I think Wease is trying to do a test as well atm for it and would love to see if we get a similar set of results over 500,000 spins.

Can you email me your rules for the simulation or post it?

The fact that you quoted and responded to the first part of my post instead of the part about you failing to understand the maths and that your losing streak can happen from the very first spin proves (to me), sadly, that I was wasting my time.

I tried to show you that you could have a losing streak of 522 and you didn't bat an eyelid, it seems. What happens in-between is irrelevant. The progression used is inconsequential (in that, it will lose). I have spent many years on gambling forums responding to players like yourself who believe they are onto a winner. They post shortly afterwards about losing their entire bankroll.

No offence, but I have better things to do with my time thus that is all I have to say on this topic and thread. Enjoy losing your money.

Quote: WizardofAus

I understand the maths P90 - I'm never ever saying this will work in the long-run

It's not going to work in the short run either. I mean, you can still win, but your number-tracking has nothing to do with it.
Let's continue with Roulette Mk.3 exercise. You would still try using your system, right, just mapping numbers to familiar table layout?

Quote: EvenBob

Nope, random is random, no matter how you arrive at it.

Indeed.

Which brings us to Roulette Mk.4.
With these plastic numbers in Roulette Mk.3 we have done the same as if we cut the felt layout apart and moved the pieces under your chip around. For Mark 3.5 let's imagine we do just that, however inconvenient it is.

But physics tells us that all motion is relative. If the felt is moving relative to your chip, then your chip is moving relative to the felt, and this motion is equivalent. So rather than mutilate the table, for Roulette Mk.4 we'll keep it intact and just move your chip in the same manner as we'd be moving these felt pieces.

Nothing has changed, but by now, it should be clear that what number you place your chip on on has no effect on the outcome, because it will be moved elsewhere anyway. And yet, nothing has changed. Whether you move the numbers on the wheel, numbers on the felt, or just the chip relative to these numbers, random is random.

Quote: WizardofAus

I know that if you bet a random number for the next 50 spins and I chose number 1 and we both placed $1 on each of our bets for the next $50 spins - we both have equal chance of winning/losing and both will lose 2.7% after we do the same exercise a billion times.

And after we do it 1, 2 or 3 times, too.
If the spin is indeed random, it doesn't make any difference if the numbers on the wheel are permanently painted or dropped around on little pieces of plastic, and if it doesn't matter on the wheel, it doesn't matter on the felt either. Or in your head, or anywhere else.

Numbers are just a decoration, the game doesn't need them other than for ambiance. The only outcome of the game is winning or losing - you could just as well have individual player wheels with 36 sections that say "lose" and 1 that says "win".

Mickpk - Apologies if I offended you in any way with my ignorance - I already stated in an earlier post how concerned I was with the system/strategy after doing a random manual test and of the knowledge that this will lose in the long-run. I'm sorry and dissapointed that I will never be able to see your data on the test.

Hopefully Wease will allow me to see his and prove that Ken is not just saying what he is saying.

Ken - I appreciate your response but I always tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until otherwise experienced.

P90 - thanks for your continued responses.

I think they should try that particular roulette wheel in a casino - with just one big square that says 36-1 - I reckon a lot of people who walk by would give it a go - just like the big wheel - haha!!!

So for everyone who is against systems for roulette - because of the mathematics - have any of you guys trialed any methods for a non-zero wheel that might work? A zero house edge wheel?

Quote: WizardofAus

I understand the maths P90 - I'm never ever saying this will work in the long-run

Unfortunately, you don't understand the math. Independent random events are just that -- independent. Every single assumption you're making about being able to beat roulette with a combination of wagers is based on some level of non-independence, the idea that somehow past events affect the future ones by making "overdue" numbers more likely than normal. That's a common misconception known as the "Gambler's Fallacy". Look it up.

In reality, past roulette spins don't impact future spins. Once you fully accept that, you'll realize that the only way you could "beat" roulette is if you could come up with some combination of bets for a single spin that could "beat" roulette. If you want to investigate, look into whether you can or cannot come up with such a combination -- and why.

Maths - I'm not sure if you've read all my responses in the two threads but all I am trying to say and ask is if there was some kind of system/strategy/process - whatever you'd like to call it that will make you money over a lifetime - not for ever, not for the test of time.

I know the next number is independent - but in a lifetime someone could do some type of system that could allow them to win all the time for their lifetime - not for ever, not for the test of time.

I'm starting to doubt it as well - but if my friend has come up with a random system that no one here has ever seen before has every possible system been ever explored that might give it a certain probability of success that might be able to surpass the 2.7% over a human's lifetime? Around 3.5 million hands?

According to mick's test of this system, - it's not even close - but we are yet to see the proof in the pudding - I'm up to manual test 8000 spins and so far the longest streak is 217.

I am hoping that Wease comes back with some results and some data.

I've read up on the Gambler's fallacy - totally understand it.

But if someone gave me the option of picking a different number each day from 1,000,000 numbers and then running a RNG a million times to see if it matches AGAINST sticking to just 1 number and seeing if it comes up in the next 1,000,000 spins I'd take the later option everyday.

"Thanks for letting me know Ken. But I'm new to this site and I will see what response I receive from mickpk and Wease. I'd love to see the results" >>> My advice is for any site, not just here. The POINT being, if 'they' had decent results, you will NOT read about it. People that are anti-methods, you usually (not always) will get bad reviews REGARDLESS of the actual results. Its like asking atheists how the world started. What kind of answer do you think you would get? Anyways, I'll butt out, it makes no difference to me. Good luck sir.

Ken

Quote: WizardofAus

I know the next number is independent - but in a lifetime someone could do some type of system that could allow them to win all the time for their lifetime - not for ever, not for the test of time.

No. You can be the casino, that will work. Nothing else.

Quote: WizardofAus

I'm starting to doubt it as well - but if my friend has come up with a random system that no one here has ever seen before has every possible system been ever explored that might give it a certain probability of success that might be able to surpass the 2.7% over a human's lifetime? Around 3.5 million hands?

Yes.

Every possible roulette system has been explored, at least as far as it applies to an unbiased perfect wheel.

Let me explain.

You want to get from Dunedin to Devonport, and your itinerary is Dunedin - Auckland - Paris - Abu Dhabi - Kuala Lumpur - Adelaide - Devonport. How do you know the minimal amount of time it will take? Do you have to find 100 people who have traveled this route and collect statistics?
No - you take the known time for each individual flight, known ground delays, and add them all together.

You can solve the function T(A,B) by expanding it into T(A,B)=T(A,H[1])+Σ[n=1,m-1]T(H[m],H[n+1])+T(H[m],B), where each of the individual components is known.
Note that the result of the function T(a,b) is not actually a number, but a function in itself, more specifically a probabilistic function incorporating both common variables and individual probability distribution.

The same expansion and simplification method applies to roulette, because the result of your total play is, similarly, the sum total of every bet.
To be specific, ΔB(R[1]...R[m])=Σ[n=1,m]R[n], where R[n] is the probability function for each round. Ordinarily, in a game like blackjack or live poker, it would be insanely complex.
In roulette, however, it is very simple at just R={p:W*(35/37)/p; 1-p:-W}, or R={1/37:W*35; 36/37:-W} with average of (W*35/37-W*36/37).
If your bets are all straight numbers, it comes to ΔB=Σ[n=1,m](35/37*W[n])+Σ[n=1,m](-36/37*W[n]) with average of Σ[n=1,m]W[n]*-1/37.

Simply put, the outcome of any roulette system is total amount wagered times -1/37. And that "-" just concludes it, because there is no way to change it, unless you can bet a negative amount.
If you only want to get small wins as often as possible, you don't need to invent any systems, just put single-unit bets on 35 numbers.

Quote: WizardofAus

Wease - can you make sure that say for instance the result did break the 230 losing streak - what would it need to continue to for us to have gotten a win - so was it 260 spins, 300 spins, etc.

I still don't understand what is the "230" number you are talking about. Aside from the fact, that you are ignoring everything that has been explained to you earlier about how it is irrelevant what has happened in the past, before you start betting, I don't understand where the "230" comes from even under your misguided notion of lumping up non-event numbers into the count.
I guess, I still don't understand something about your system.
So, suppose, the first row in your table looks like
"1X 2X 3X 4X 5X 6X 7X 8X"
If I understand correctly what you have been saying before, this means that you should bet on 8 now, and keep betting on it until you either win or lose 150 times. Now, 8 was the last number to hit. If it does not hit for 150 spins now, it is going to be a 150 spin streak, not 230.

Quote: WizardOfAus

all I am trying to say and ask is if there was some kind of system/strategy/process - whatever you'd like to call it that will make you money over a lifetime - not for ever, not for the test of time.

You're not listening. I addressed this specifically before, about your using such sloppy language. You're asking if there is some kind of "system that will make you money over a lifetime", but what you actually MEAN, according to your other posts, is whether there's a system that has a *probability* of winning over a lifetime (e.g., 50%+). There is no such animal as a system that WILL win money over some period of time, because the probability of winning is never 100%. You keep insisting that you understand the "maths" [sic], but you keep talking like you haven't the faintest clue. You'll get a better response if you stop being so sloppy with your language.

Everyone else, WizardOfAus wrote to me a day a few days ago asking to do my live betting system challenge. While we all know his system is a long-term loser, before accepting I'd like to understand the system better to verify that it doesn't happen to have a decent chance of winning over 10,000 spins. So can anyone explain his system to me in plain English?

Quote: WizardofAus

Maths - I'm not sure if you've read all my responses in the two threads but all I am trying to say and ask is if there was some kind of system/strategy/process - whatever you'd like to call it that will make you money over a lifetime - not for ever, not for the test of time.

I know the next number is independent - but in a lifetime someone could do some type of system that could allow them to win all the time for their lifetime - not for ever, not for the test of time.

Yes. Put $1 on Red every spin. That could allow you to win all the time for your lifetime. It probably won't, but it could.

If you really mean to ask whether there is a system or betting combination that *will* win for an entire lifetime, no there isn't.

Quote:

I'm starting to doubt it as well - but if my friend has come up with a random system that no one here has ever seen before has every possible system been ever explored that might give it a certain probability of success that might be able to surpass the 2.7% over a human's lifetime? Around 3.5 million hands?

There is nothing you can do with a particular roulette wager to change the 2.7% house edge in either direction. Your expected financial results are the product of the house edge and your wager amount. Wager amount and house edge are independent. If you want a guaranteed win, you need to change the house edge, not the wager amount. You *can* change the house edge, but not by betting more or less.

Quote:

I've read up on the Gambler's fallacy - totally understand it.

But if someone gave me the option of picking a different number each day from 1,000,000 numbers and then running a RNG a million times to see if it matches AGAINST sticking to just 1 number and seeing if it comes up in the next 1,000,000 spins I'd take the later option everyday.

Then you don't truly understand the Gambler's Fallacy. On a roulette wheel, all of the following number sequences are equally likely:
18,21,6,4,0,19
0,1,2,3,4,5
8,8,8,8,8,8
Based on your previous posts, I'd guess you won't believe this. But try to work it out for yourself.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

While we all know his system is a long-term loser, before accepting I'd like to understand the system better to verify that it doesn't happen to have a decent chance of winning over 10,000 spins. So can anyone explain his system to me in plain English?

Beyond the complicated process of deciding which number to bet on (which does not matter at all, so you can ignore it at this point), it's a pretty simple progression.
Just look at the long sequence in the first post of this thread, that starts like this:

Quote:

1/1/36/35
1/2/36/34
1/3/36/33
1/4/36/32
1/5/36/31
1/6/36/30
1/7/36/29
1/8/36/28
1/9/36/27
1/10/36/26.............10
1/11/36/25
1/12/36/24
1/13/36/23
1/14/36/22
1/15/36/21..............15
1/16/36/20
1/17/36/19
1/18/36/18
2/20/72/52
2/22/72/50...............20

Ignore everything, but the first number in each line. That's the amount to bet. If win, start over, if lost bet the amount, specified by the first number on next line.

Why are you talking about 10,000 spins anyway? The rules on the page you linked to say 200,000.

The chance of showing profit after one sequence is 0.9835. The average length of a (winning) sequence is 37 bets, so one would need to play about 270 times to hit the 10,000 limit. Rounding it up to 300, an estimate for not having lost a single sequence after 10,000 spins is about 6.8%. Note, that losing one (or, even several) progression might still show overall profit, so the actual probability of winning the challenge is higher than this.

I would not bet 10-1 on it if I were you.

First off for WoA...
1. You the same guy that tries to pass off a Roulette method by Ion Saliu as his own? Some jokers in Austrailia have pirated Ion Saliu's work recently and claimed it as their own. I hope you are not. So continue reading.
You also use the term "DC" (degree of certainty) a lot as does Ion Saliu in his "FFG tables". Interesting.
We all agree that there are lots of scum in this world.

2. I made my table matrix width from 5 to 50 in different worksheets and can easily come up with simple math formulas to explain the results.
I find it very interesting that your "friend" only uses the next 10 spins in his group size or set size.
Why? Because he has 10 fingers?

The median starts out at 25 spins for a group size that dramatically reduces the risk of ruin for any session bankroll.
I guess you want to see all of my work in Excel!?
Not today...

3. Now WoA, when there are more than one row (my data would be in columns) to start wagering a progression on and another row goes 8 groups of 10 spins without a repeat do you now have 2 progressions going at the same time? Or do you wait until the first progression ends?
One can see this happens in my photo and actually can over run a $3500 bankroll if 3 or more progressions are bet at the same time.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

So can anyone explain his system to me in plain English?

Sounds like 98steps challenge all over again.
Can WoA explain with simple English and examples how the so-called "friends" Roulette system works?

I do not think he can.

Looks like he is struggling to give simple explanations with examples.

I will begin with a snapshot of my Excel, I used the Wizard of Odds single zero RNG spins. (not from the first spin)

Quote: WizardofAus

As you can see the 10 numbers after 26 does not have 26 shown up again so you put a X next to the 11th number to indicate that it's been 10 numbers in that row that there's been no repeat of the first base number of 26.

It now changes base number to the 11th number which is number 19. As you can see the next ten spins after 19 does not show 19 again so the 21st number gets an X.
The new base number for that row is now 27. And so on and so on. There are now 2 X's in that first row in succession - you fon't start using the 150 betting progression until the trigger happens - which is 8 X's -which means 8 base numbers did not hit within their corresponding following 10 spins.

You do the above for each row - hence you are tracking every number that shows up and putting an X if that number doesn't show up again within the next 10 numbers.

Yuck. This needs to be explained much simpler.
I Do not know if I can succeed in doing it.
Here is my take. I am watching the many US football bowl games today, so I have some time to waste on this.
(I was successful in understanding and programming 98 steps system so I give it my 2 cents worth try.)

First, I am not interested in programming this in Roulette Xtreme as my time is very valuable to me, it still looks very easy to accomplish once you learn the programming language - I understand that many "gamblers" just want or demand answers, without any effort on their part, from the "experts" so they can "look over the data themselves. Nice try.

I have taken MY time to set this up in Excel 2007, AS I UNDERSTAND "WoA" freind's method (now it is someone's friend, a "poker player"... great).
My matrix of spins is different from WoA, each row contains 10 spins, this takes advantage of using over 1.4 million rows in Excel 2007 or newer.

The way I understand it is take the very first spin. From the pic above it was a "0"
Now look (track) the next 10 spins looking for another "0" to repeat.

The very next 10 spins (1,1 to 1,10 and 2,1 in the "set/roll table") does not show another "0" so an "x" goes next to the 5, the 11th spin.
(I used a separate table for this instead of 0x5x as WoA method.)
The 2nd table - the one with all xs and 1s - shows 1,1 = x ( x= no repeat for 1 st # of group, 1 = at least 1 repeat)
Now the 11th spin #5 is the NEW first spin in the next group of 10 spins. We look for #5 to repeat at least 1 time in the next 10 spins...NOT "0".
And the next 10 spins do not show a #5. So "table 2" 2,1 = x (WoA places an x next to #11, the 21st spin)

The FIRST betting "trigger" looks to start at spin #86. One would bet for #3 (in column 6) to repeat in the next 10 spins.
It does on spin #90, requiring 4 wagers of the progression to be made.

Very easy to write a few IF statements in Excel and let Excel do all the counting.
No reason for me to continue showing or explaining until WoA verifies that I do understand his method.
Then I can show more data and my results.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IMO...
WoA confuses everyone by saying to wait for 80 losing spins then start betting. This is not how to explain the method.

It is waiting for 8 consecutive groups of 10 spins each where the first number that starts the group does not repeat in the next 10 spins.

The math is quite simple after this is understood.
It is all about groups of 10 spins taken at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FY!:
Probability that the very 1st number of the group of 10 does not repeat in the next 10 spins is (36/37)^10 = ~0.760339875
Now WoA says to WAIT for 8 consecutive groups of 10 spins, each group starting with a new number, spin#1,#11,#21,#31 etc to repeat.
So,
.760339875^8 = 0.111702305 for the very next 8 groups of 10 Spins or 80 spins total not to show a repeat of the starting group number.

Now we start getting into the math of streaks when N is greater than 8.
I am not here for any advanced teaching on this so everyone is on their own for this.
The fact is... As N (number of spins) increases so does the probability of a streak of 8 groups being an "x" (that is not having a repeat of the very first number that starts the group of 10 spins.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe someone else can do a better job than me on explaining.
Let us see if WoA says I have the method correct.

Now WoA has to understand my table of data. I think it is easier to work with.
I outlined the groups of 8 or more in the photo and highlighted in yellow the groups of 10 spins that were wagered on. (other columns were used for this)

Quote: WizardofAus

I know of a lot of people who supposedly gamble for a living but a poker mate of mine who's very well off due to his poker and gambling 'career' invited me to study some of his systems for a roulette table available at a local casino in Australia. I'm assuming it would be available at many casinos around the world as well.

It's a computerized roulette set-up that supports about 50 seated players. It's built by a company called Vegas Star.

ShuffleMaster owns Vegas Star. I think they were bought out a few years ago. They are here in some CA Indian casinos.

Vegas Star Roulette

Quote: WizardofAus

The interesting features make it different to the B & M and online roulette tables:

- virtual dealer that produces a spin every 40 seconds , it gives you 15 secs to make a bet but with the spinning process, the total time from one spin to the next is about 40 secs. So about 100 spins an hour. (So instead of 20 hours a week Can find the same online but at least 3 times as fast as B&M tables. 
- Minimum table bet is only $2.50, max is $1,000,000!!! The only thing is the maximum on straight bets is $100 and $500 on everything else. One interesting thing is you can bet a minimum bet of 50cents on a straight up and put the remaining required on black and red, i.e. 50c on a number and then $1 on red & $1 on black to cover the table minimum.
- the thing that makes it different to online is that there are up to 50 real people playing at your table at once and it feels real that a computer is not shafting you with their supposed RNG that's not supposed to be "influenced by a players bets". You all know what I mean. And of course the limits as mentioned above. 
 

If you and your mate can beat this game in the short run, keep going. I am sure ShuffleMaster will not put up with your method of play and will just lower the max bet on straight up bets.

Case closed.

Good Luck!

Quote: 7craps

First off for WoA...
1. You the same guy that tries to pass off a Roulette method by Ion Saliu as his own? Some jokers in Austrailia have pirated Ion Saliu's work recently and claimed it as their own. I hope you are not. So continue reading.
You also use the term "DC" (degree of certainty) a lot as does Ion Saliu in his "FFG tables". Interesting.
We all agree that there are lots of scum in this world.

No I'm not - I'm trully new to any online forum sites - it's a whole new world to me.

Quote: 7craps

2. I made my table matrix width from 5 to 50 in different worksheets and can easily come up with simple math formulas to explain the results.
I find it very interesting that your "friend" only uses the next 10 spins in his group size or set size.
Why? Because he has 10 fingers?

The median starts out at 25 spins for a group size that dramatically reduces the risk of ruin for any session bankroll.
I guess you want to see all of my work in Excel!?
Not today...

Not sure why 10.

That's great to know - might advise my friend of that. Would love to see your work...one day.

Quote: 7craps

3. Now WoA, when there are more than one row (my data would be in columns) to start wagering a progression on and another row goes 8 groups of 10 spins without a repeat do you now have 2 progressions going at the same time? Or do you wait until the first progression ends?
One can see this happens in my photo and actually can over run a $3500 bankroll if 3 or more progressions are bet at the same time.

You would play only two maximum at a time. it's physically not possible to keep track of the amounts you should be betting, what number you are betting it and then actually placing those bets within the 15 second window that they give you. It's interesting to see so many cross-overs - the most I've seen in my 10 hours of play has been 3 numbers going at once.

Quote: 7craps

Can WoA explain with simple English and examples how the so-called "friends" Roulette system works?

I do not think he can.

Looks like he is struggling to give simple explanations with examples.

Sorry :)

Quote: 7craps

IMO...
WoA confuses everyone by saying to wait for 80 losing spins then start betting. This is not how to explain the method.

It is waiting for 8 consecutive groups of 10 spins each where the first number that starts the group does not repeat in the next 10 spins.

The math is quite simple after this is understood.
It is all about groups of 10 spins taken at a time.

YES!!! This is exactly what it is!

Thanks 7C. Wow looks scary to already show a 250 odd streak there.

I would love to see the full results.

I'm extremely appreciative of your time and effort in doing this.

ALL - from this point in time - I will not make statements about the maths or about how an RNG works again on this forum - I will just ask questions if I don't understand. I may or may not ever believe in the Gambler's Fallacy (because I'm a gambler) but I know that you guys WILL ALWAYS believe in it.

The results mick and 7C has shown - purely proves that in the long-run or even within a few thousand spins - any system will break down. As a gambler who uses a lot of systems - I'll just create a deck of cards - each card with a system that gives me a higher probability of not breaking down - and then pulling one out and using it for one progression only and then doing the same thing 10 times a day with ten different cards, every day. I now understand that this does not give me any different advantage at all - but it only allows me to play a smaller proportion the infinity pool for each progression. Hopefully I don't lose on the very first go.

7C - like I said - I really appreciate everything you've done and explained above - the Excel skills required for the above is well above what mine can do - I have no programming skills so Xtreme is a no go - unless I start reading it from scratch.

Quote: 7craps

It is waiting for 8 consecutive groups of 10 spins each where the first number that starts the group does not repeat in the next 10 spins.

I'm sorry, but this is a completely useless and
meaningless thing to do. All spins are independent
of the last spin, so why would doing this make a
difference? Please don't say 'I don't know why,
it just does.' Because it doesn't, you just think
it does.

Quote: guido111

If you and your mate can beat this game in the short run, keep going. I am sure ShuffleMaster will not put up with your method of play and will just lower the max bet on straight up bets.

I don't think it would be Shuffle Master's decision to do that - it would be the casino operators.

But the maths is starting to show that even though winning sessions is a high probability - even at a $100+ hourly - the losses do actually happen. Even though I've played about 10 hours and not experienced one to even go past 150 sequence loss (extremely lucky!) - my mate has now gone past about 130 hours - his full progression that I presented - the most he has seen was like 170 or so. He's seen well over 13,000 spins with no loss yet, with a net profit of $13K - assuming $40 on average - that's 325 betting progressions without a loss - he's doing well compared to the 60 to 1 odds he is getting to go bust.

Quote: WizardofAus

Is anyone able to program the above - it's seems quite complicated. I'm struggling to even do a basic program - I have little programming skills.

If not -

Anyone with any Roulette Xtreme programming skills that can help me with the following simple request:

Place 1 unit for every 10th number recorded for the ten spins after each of those recorded 10th numbers.

Thanks in advance.

I've done this manually for 2000 spins by manually placing a unit bet and then doing an auto spin for 10 spins (2000 spins on using Xtreme and the above simple process only represents a 2 hour session of what my friend and I are actually doing atm, since we actually keep track of the 10 spins after every number not every 10th number) and the longest streak of losses has been 133 for the 2000 spins. In total 8 betting progressions that would've netted my friend a profit of $342 under his betting progression. Pretty good - an hourly rate of $170 aint bad.

As advised previously - even with my $500 bankroll and having a 70 betting progression after 80 waiting - I have 150 - so I would've won double the above in the 2 hours.

What I might do is add to this session each day 2000 manual spins and record the result of the session on this thread. I can send the file of the betting to anyone if they wish to see it.

So it starts - the largest losing streak so far has been 133 - it needs to get to 230 before my friends method fails. Remember - he waits 80 then does a 150 betting progression - bankroll $3431.

I got to agree that the OP needs to slowly and precisely explain every step, with clear examples, at what he is trying to get across.

Roulette Xtreme, IMO, still has a learning curve in its programming language that most non-programmers will find as a major stumbling block.

I go with 7Craps method using Excel or another spreadsheet program for your simulations.
This way you can see the formulas and know they are correct for your method at hand.
I think I have figured it out.

Much confusion by OP saying he bets 150 spins but does not really show that the number he bets on always changes every 10 spins.
This does not change the math of the distribution in any way (waiting for 8 groups of 10 spins each).

My Q for the OP is do you only bet one progression at a time? To me, to lower the risk of busting a bankroll you should only wager on one at a time.

Now, By the photo 7Craps supplied in his thread, one can see 4 different progressions being bet on at the same time and one of them went quite long... starting at set 16, column 6. Looks like 175 wagers in the progression while 3 more came on its heels.

Looks like this sequence of Roulette spins broke the bank just betting for 1 progression.

Good Luck and Enjoy the ride!

Quote: WizardofAus

my mate has now gone past about 130 hours -

Not untypical. Some systems win on paper
for years, then they stop winning and never
do again. You haven't tested long enough
yet. You're thinking, heck, I'll just win for
years, then stop playing when I stop
winning. It never works out that way.

Quote: EvenBob

Not untypical. Some systems win on paper
for years, then they stop winning and never
do again. You haven't tested long enough
yet. You're thinking, heck, I'll just win for
years, then stop playing when I stop
winning. It never works out that way.

My experiences 10 years ago! I lived off some roulette methods whilst at uni until I went broke numerous times - picked up poker and never looked at another roulette method/system again until this one.

I've told people you can't beat roulette in the long-run - but when my mate told me about his system and these new machines with quick spins - It's re-energised my taste buds - mathematically not a good thing. But maybe my deck of cards will allow me to skip a lot of unwanted progressions in my lifetime - mathematically it's unlikely.

Quote: WizardofAus

and these new machines with quick spins

I fail to see how they could make a difference. They
just let you win faster or lose faster, they don't change
the game. If you want your system to play faster, cut
down the number of spins required. Instead of using
sets of 10, use sets of 5. There's nothing magical about
10 spins.

Quote: EvenBob

I fail to see how they could make a difference. They
just let you win faster or lose faster, they don't change
the game. If you want your system to play faster, cut
down the number of spins required. Instead of using
sets of 10, use sets of 5. There's nothing magical about
10 spins.

But for us system players who "rely" on previous results - it allows us to wait for a shorter period of time.

Just like this system - say we were to adjust the wait to 150 waits instead of 80 waits then start a progression betting system of 150 spins - the 150 spins that your waiting could take you 5 hours on a traditional wheel and may only take you 2 hours on these wheels. But that's using the Gambler's Fallacy for us non-believers.
It's kinda like waiting for a 20 streak of blacks/reds and using a martingale - bad example :)

There might be nothing magical about 10 or even 5 but 7craps brings up the mean at 24 - interesting...

Quote: WizardofAus

There might be nothing magical about 10 or even 5 but 7craps brings up the mean at 24 - interesting...

Apples and oranges. Wait times in systems are just
whistles and bells. Wait times imply something about
random outcomes repeats itself at predictible intervals.
It doesn't.

Quote: EvenBob

Not untypical. Some systems win on paper
for years, then they stop winning and never
do again. You haven't tested long enough
yet. You're thinking, heck, I'll just win for
years, then stop playing when I stop
winning. It never works out that way.

EB is right.
So many gamblers test a system of play for a short while and think that is how it is until they start losing.

The short run NEVER says what the long run is really all about, but the long run will always show us what we can expect from the short run.

FYI:
I had 1 million players play your system in Excel, I gave them their starting bankrolls, it took a while, but the results are really pathetic compared to the results you have shown.

I have not finished adding everything up (no need too) but...
over 150K players busted their bankroll before 1750 spins. Yep. Almost 1 out of 6.
They do not like you very much. But that is gambling.
Matter of fact the other 850,000 that survived the first 1.75k spins, half were busted by the 6,600th spin. Ouch.

Of course there were winners as ev/sd will tell us up to and past 10,000 spins.
But with more spins, more ended up as losers than winners. That is why casinos build in a house edge on all wagers, so the more wagers the more money they make and the less chances an individual player has in coming out ahead the longer they try to.

And I never had them betting more than 2 progressions as the more progressions would be a logistical nightmare to pull off and would just bust everyone with a $3.5k bank anyways.


In the end it still comes down to "action TIMES edge".
And the end could be only a few thousand roulette spins away.

Rose Bowl Time...got the over

Quote: 7craps

In the end it still comes down to "action TIMES edge".

And because the casino has the edge, the
more action they get, the more money they
make. As Steve Wynn said a few years ago,
the math is in place, his job is to bring as
many warm bodies into his casino as possible.
The edge does all the heavy lifting.

Quote: 7craps

EB is right.
So many gamblers test a system of play for a short while and think that is how it is until they start losing.

The short run NEVER says what the long run is really all about, but the long run will always show us what we can expect from the short run.

FYI:
I had 1 million players play your system in Excel, I gave them their starting bankrolls, it took a while, but the results are really pathetic compared to the results you have shown.

I have not finished adding everything up (no need too) but...
over 150K players busted their bankroll before 1750 spins. Yep. Almost 1 out of 6.
They do not like you very much. But that is gambling.
Matter of fact the other 850,000 that survived the first 1.75k spins, half were busted by the 6,600th spin. Ouch.

Of course there were winners as ev/sd will tell us up to and past 10,000 spins.
But with more spins, more ended up as losers than winners. That is why casinos build in a house edge on all wagers, so the more wagers the more money they make and the less chances an individual player has in coming out ahead the longer they try to.

Frightening results.

Just a couple of questions - did many bust because they were playing 2 progressions at the same time - would the average of 6,600th spin increase by much if we restrict it to one progression maximum bet at a time?

Another question - you said 150K busted at 1.75K spins and the have the others busted by the 6,600th spin - may I ask what there net to that point on average was? If my simple maths is correct (which I doubt) - You take half that were bust by 1.75k and the half you mentioned that bust by 6,600th? Average (weighted) out their net - So for the 75K (half that busted at 1.75K) - their net would've been $1,750 (assuming 2.5 progressions per 100 spins and $40 net per progression) AND 425k at 6,600th is $6,600 - the weighted average would be equal to 75/500*(1750) + 425/500*(6600) = 262.5+5,610 = $5,872.5 on average before bust. So for the 66 hours - that's $37 an hour - not bad.

That can't be right can it?

Even if the average progression per 100 spins was only 2 and not 2.5 and say the the average hourly was only $30 not $40 = the net before the average player bust would be = $3555 (189 + 3366) - that's still above the BR. So for this reduced figure - you net a measley $123 for the 66 hours of play - which comes to under $2 an hour. Not something you'd do. But if it's not this low and around the first scenario that we've witnessed in our live bets - so 2.5 an hour and $40 per progression - that's a decent hourly.

Last question 7C - what was the longest period before it crashed?

As per one of my previous posts - the purpose of the above is - say we were to increase the waits from 80 to say 130/150 and then start betting and stick to one betting progression only - what would the above figures be.

Comments please?

Quote: WizardofAus

Frightening results.

Just a couple of questions - did many bust because they were playing 2 progressions at the same time - would the average of 6,600th spin increase by much if we restrict it to one progression maximum bet at a time?

Another question - you said 150K busted at 1.75K spins and the have the others busted by the 6,600th spin - may I ask what there net to that point on average was? If my simple maths is correct (which I doubt) - You take half that were bust by 1.75k and the half you mentioned that bust by 6,600th? Average (weighted) out their net - So for the 75K (half that busted at 1.75K) - their net would've been $1,750 (assuming 2.5 progressions per 100 spins and $40 net per progression) AND 425k at 6,600th is $6,600 - the weighted average would be equal to 75/500*(1750) + 425/500*(6600) = 262.5+5,610 = $5,872.5 on average before bust. So for the 66 hours - that's $37 an hour - not bad.

That can't be right can it??

I just had a think about the maths above and it doesn't really matter working that out at all right?

I think the real way to test this would be to get all nets before bust and then less the one bust for each of the million players right?

Quote: WizardofAus

I think the real way to test this would be to get all nets before bust and then less the one bust for each of the million players right?

The key is to always cash out just before the cold streak.

Just spoke to my friend about this - he says the simple question to ask was - Did more than half the million people double their money before they lost it? So assuming $100 an hour, 100 spins per hour - after 3,432 spins - how many survived?

Quote: WizardofAus

Just spoke to my friend about this - he says the simple question to ask was - Did more than half the million people double their money before they lost it? So assuming $100 an hour, 100 spins per hour - after 3,432 spins - how many survived?

You ask good questions and bring up fun subjects....I like it alot sir!

Ken

Just downloaded BODOG as per the Wizards recommendation.

They offer Roulette Pro with a minimum of $1 and maximum of $300!!!

So 40 spins can be added to the progression here - BR increases significantly though - it - $10,800 required for a 190 spin betting progression.

I guess it's about getting the right balance of BR to risk - the bigger the BR the lower the chances of going bust but the longer you need to survive!

Quote: WizardofAus

Just downloaded BODOG as per the Wizards recommendation.

They offer Roulette Pro with a minimum of $1 and maximum of $300!!!

So 40 spins can be added to the progression here - BR increases significantly though - it - $10,800 required for a 190 spin betting progression.

I guess it's about getting the right balance of BR to risk - the bigger the BR the lower the chances of going bust but the longer you need to survive!

Just told my friend about the above but he rightly said he wouldn't want to be another $7K to extend the progression by 40 spins or risk a large $10K BR in one progression.

He said he'd rather reduce the BR and increase his wait if there was a point where it still earned him say $30/$40 an hour and had more chance of surviving.

He was very interested about the 1750 spin mark (where 150K or 15% of the players busted) - take it as a short-term period - bit over a weeks worth of play - 17.5hrs.

He was interested to see if instead of using his full $3432 BR - whether he could use the $1,750 BR instead - which would give him about 130 betting spins instead of the full 150. And instead of waiting 80 spins (8 X's) he'd wait 10 X's instead - hence still having the 230 spins in total.

He is wondering whether there were enough progression per hour that would still allow him to make at least $100/hr - so is there still enough for 2.5 betting progression per hour (since currently we're only betting 2 betting progressions max at once, and hence maybe missing out on other ones) or is it much less and hence the number of spins needs to increase?

If it's only one progression per hour for the 100 spin wait period then that's only $40 an hour and hence the 1750 spins to make the BR would increase by 2.5 times - so 4325 spins - which increases the likelihood of failure.

If it remains the same - then we have a situation where 85% of the time a player would actually double their BR before going bust!!!