Roulette Forum
Roulette Forum => Questions and Answers => Topic started by: Trilobite on September 05, 2016, 12:46:21 PM

Researching a system based on 'independence with dependent overtones', that migrates across ANY number stream after 2 results then places 1 bet.
(need 2 results for now because part of bet selection chips up on last 2 numbers)
Main reasons for such feature is for customised downtime between bets, hopefully with performance being unaffected while playing a progressive method.
Idea is to walk around casino at leisure over viewing the tables, and choose a table to bet.
After placing one bet, retire from table, adjust bankroll and next bet size, then when ready (maybe grab a beer first) select a new table for next bet (option to stay at table if suitable).
System bet selection only requires 2 results for trigger.

Forget about physics and wheel bias for these questions.
1) Take a 10000 (uninterrupted) number stream from wheel/rng?
2) Take a blended 10000 (interrupted every 2) number steam from wheels/rngs?
Should there be any noticeable difference of randomness or probability between the 2 streams?
Could I rely upon the 2 types of numbers to delivery similarly featured results?

No there won't be any noticeable difference and especially because you have discounted any possibility of wheel bias BUT if you are using some kind of trigger system in your interrupted streams, you will definitely achieve a noticeable difference when compared to the uniterrupted stream.
Pales and Harry have proven that rare events become even more rare when forced to repeat successively; i.e. the expected equivalent max loss is substantially reduced:
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1142.msg16045#msg16045 (http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1142.msg16045#msg16045)

BUT if you are using some kind of trigger system in your interrupted streams, you will definitely achieve a noticeable difference when compared to the uniterrupted stream.
Thanks Reyth,
I’ll be constantly betting for one of the last two numbers to repeat, with some hedging bets around the sixlines, dozens, and EC’s.
Playing an uninterrupted stream, the longer the game goes on the more eventually probable one of the last two will repeat, and the progression helps recover funds when that happens. (Actually this system works the other way around as it's the combination of "hedging bets" that are designed to make the profit, and the "bet on the last two numbers" is partially or fully absorbed by the hedged bets. When a repeat does occur the bankroll gets a boost)
Placing the bet grows in complexity, ranging from as little as 7 and up to 18 layout positions, and the bankroll needs constant updating to size the next bet. Therefore to play with confidence the system needs a slow table. From my experience, sometimes a slow table can be too slow, and sometimes a slow table can spontaneously get fast, putting you under too much pressure.
The best solution would be to approach a selected table only after the next bet has been calculated and organised. Just pick your moment, walk up and place your chips. To this end I need to be confident that even though splitting the game up by two spins at a time from different tables, one of the last two numbers will repeat at much the same rate as if I were only playing one table.
My feeling is that it should be much the same, but I can’t completely shake the feeling that it won’t.
Do you think this comparison is something you could simulate over large sample sizes?
I guess you'd need an rng stream that only seeds once, and another that reseeds after every three spins. Three spins because you need each third spin for a result.

If the real wheel has no bias and the rng is really random, there should be no difference between the two sequences. This means that both sequences will be truly random.
But I can not understand what you mean by "delivery similarly featured results". Two sequences can be equally random, but the results quite different.For example in one sequence One color dominates, while on the other sequence the opposite color dominates etc.

Run a large stream of numbers in a computer simulation, and then start a few numbers a head and run the very same stream again. It can be a large differ in result. Our methods work when the stream suit the methods only.

If the real wheel has no bias and the rng is really random, there should be no difference between the two sequences. This means that both sequences will be truly random.
But I can not understand what you mean by "delivery similarly featured results". Two sequences can be equally random, but the results quite different.For example in one sequence One color dominates, while on the other sequence the opposite color dominates etc.
A colour domination of one or the other IS a similar feature.
Thanks.

Run a large stream of numbers in a computer simulation, and then start a few numbers a head and run the very same stream again. It can be a large differ in result. Our methods work when the stream suit the methods only.
I want this method to suit any and all streams.

I think this all comes back to the personal permanence of any roulette player, and learning to accept it and live with it, and thereby design methods that work with it.
I have great hope that this system will do just that, and I've made a lot of systems.
Cheers.

BUT if you are using some kind of trigger system in your interrupted streams, you will definitely achieve a noticeable difference when compared to the uniterrupted stream.
Pales and Harry have proven that rare events become even more rare when forced to repeat successively; i.e. the expected equivalent max loss is substantially reduced:
This is false. The only thing Pales and Harry have proved is that the gambler's fallacy is a alive and well!

The only thing Pales and Harry have proved is that the gambler's fallacy is a alive and well!
OK, well that's a good thing for us system designers, isn't it? :o ;D

I can't believe Mike has posted 509 times on this forum with a wealth of critical analysis, and I just gave him his first "thanks"?
What's going on there? Is this random at work?

You don't get thanks for pointing out what noone wants to hear, even if it's the truth. But thanks for your thanks. :)
I think it's mainly because 'thanks' wasn't implemented when I last posted, which was some time ago.

You don't get thanks for pointing out what noone wants to hear, even if it's the truth. But thanks for your thanks. Mike
So true. If you provide the facts then you are often called "mean spirited", and a "troll".
Pales and Harry have proven that rare events become even more rare when forced to repeat successively; i.e. the expected equivalent max loss is substantially reduced:Reyth
This isn't true. Why do you just make stuff like this up? You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. ::)
Really

Of course its true. I wouldn't have posted it if I hadn't proven it first. Just because you don't believe it can be true doesn't magically make it so:
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1071.msg15995#msg15995 (http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1071.msg15995#msg15995)
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=919.msg13507#msg13507
We already know you have preconceived ideas about roulette statistics and are not willing to examine the actual facts.

We already know you have preconceived ideas about roulette statistics and are not willing to examine the actual facts.
You haven't posted any supporting data or proof. Bayes, All mathematicians, history, and I have proven you wrong. ::)

I think it's mainly because 'thanks' wasn't implemented when I last posted, which was some time ago.
That would explain it, thanks.

We already know you have preconceived ideas about roulette statistics and are not willing to examine the actual facts.
You haven't posted any supporting data or proof. Bayes, All mathematicians, history, and I have proven you wrong. ::)
A probability is not "proof" of a " fact" as you seem to think.
Even a probability of 100% is not a fact but a " best option " or " best guess".
If Harry and Palestis really do profit then THAT is a fact and facts beat theory.

Are you saying that you're right, and all of the experts are wrong? ::)

Even a probability of 100% is not a fact but a " best option " or " best guess".
LOL! Now I've seen everything. Scepticus, it makes you look very foolish when you don't understand what you're talking about. Stop the pointing and laughing by educating yourself.
If Harry and Palestis really do profit then THAT is a fact and facts beat theory.
You're very fond of telling others that "IF" is purely hypothetical. IF Harry and palestis are winning it's certainly not because they use triggers.

Are you saying that you're right, and all of the experts are wrong? ::)
If "all the experts" claim that a probability is " certain " then Yes I am saying that they are wrong.

Even a probability of 100% is not a fact but a " best option " or " best guess".
LOL! Now I've seen everything. Scepticus, it makes you look very foolish when you don't understand what you're talking about. Stop the pointing and laughing by educating yourself.
If Harry and Palestis really do profit then THAT is a fact and facts beat theory.
You're very fond of telling others that "IF" is purely hypothetical. IF Harry and palestis are winning it's certainly not because they use triggers.
What mathematician ( a sober one anyway ) has claimed that any probability is " certain" ?
Probability Theory is a tool used to try and understand the ununderstandable. It is useful for prediction a prediction is a forecast and a forecast is a forecast is a forecast NOT a certainty.
My if is because of my "uncertainty" that palestis and Harry actually do win more than they lose though I may be doing them an injustice here .
As for educating myself , unlike you guys I don't pretend to know what I don't know.
At least I have " educated " you and Real in " Sets of Three" so don't be so patronising .
Roulette is a game of Chance and where "Chance" exists there can be no certainty so even by definition you guys clearly don't understand what you are talking about.
Have a nice day !

What mathematician ( a sober one anyway ) has claimed that any probability is " certain" ?
You have a habit of making statements and then moving the goalposts. You said "even a probability of 100% is not a fact" . What is it then?
A probability of 100% = certainty
A probability of 0% = impossibility
Anything in between has other degrees of certainty.
You have a nice day too!

What mathematician ( a sober one anyway ) has claimed that any probability is " certain" ?
You have a habit of making statements and then moving the goalposts. You said "even a probability of 100% is not a fact" . What is it then?
A probability of 100% = certainty
A probability of 0% = impossibility
Anything in between has other degrees of certainty.
You have a nice day too!
Since I have always maintained that a probability is not a certainty I don't agree that I have moved the goalposts.
A probability of 100% always remains a probability until AFTER the event in question. It is only CERTAIN in THEORY and not necessarily in it's application. That is why Probability Theory is called Probability THEORY.
You have still to tell me how you translate CHANCE as CERTAIN. These are contradictory statements.
And if roulette is not a game of chance what is it ?

That is why Probability Theory is called Probability THEORY.
As I've said more than once, "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means in this case. Try looking it up in a dictionary, there are several meanings:
theory ~ noun
1. a wellsubstantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses; true in fact and theory
2. a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory; he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices
3. a belief that can guide behavior
the architect has a theory that more is less; they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales
Probability Theory is a case of 1. You're interpreting it as either 2. or 3. because that suits your agenda.

Theory 1
"theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses ,true in fact and theory "
It IS a fact that roulette is a game of chance and so cannot also be certain. THAT is the "FACT" that you have failed to answer., Mike
What " Law" do you Incorporate into your " theory " ?
What hypothesis can be considered "tested " until it has been tested ?
Twist and turn how you may, Mike, a Probability remains a Probability until it has been tested.
“The Probability of an event is a measure of the likelihood that the event willl occur.”
Teach Yourself Mathematics.
Likelihood , Mike, not the certainty you claim.
“Perhaps the most important idea in making rational decisions in the face of uncertainty is the concept of mathematical “expectation”.
Edward Packel
The Mathematics of Games and Gambling.
“ Expectation” Mike not the certainty you claim
“A probabiityis a quantitive measure of the likliehood of a given event.If we are sure that an event will occur, we assign it a probability of one hundred per cent”
Chance by
Amir D. Aczel
“Likliehood “ Mike , not your certainty. And who dares claim that they can predict with a probability of one hundred per cent the winning numbers in roulette?
“ Merely being an expert on probability is no guarantee that you will make the right decision”
“ Taking Chances”
John Haigh
And YOU think that 100 % probability Guarantees the right decision !
These sources, Mike, share the view that roulette cannot be beaten but NONE of them accept your contention that probabilities determine the outcome of an event with certainty

Even a probability of 100% is not a fact but a " best option " or " best guess".
LOL! Now I've seen everything. Scepticus, it makes you look very foolish when you don't understand what you're talking about. Stop the pointing and laughing by educating yourself.
If Harry and Palestis really do profit then THAT is a fact and facts beat theory.
You're very fond of telling others that "IF" is purely hypothetical. IF Harry and palestis are winning it's certainly not because they use triggers.
If I had tested thousands of situations (not millions of plain numbers), and found that the guessing /betting of any random EC (not necessarily the same in every random guess), is successfully predicted within 7 spins by 98% of the time, what conclusions can you draw from this statistic?
If my first 3 guesses failed, (whether betting on them virtually or actually), does that mean that the goalposts of that well established prediction range will be forced to move upwards to extend the observed statistical range to 10 guesses? (As if the first 3 didn't count)? So that they will comply with the probability laws and not with statistical observations?
And if I decide to bet only after 3 failures (virtual if you will), would I expect to still get the upper range limit of 7 spins by 98%? or is it time for the goalposts to move up?
If I decided to accept that this could be true y I don't see it?
Within that range of 7 spins, many failures happen in the first 2 or 3 or 4 spins. Yet the range managed to remain limited to 7 spins by 98% of the time.
Playing those 7 spins from start non stop will have more winning opportunities, but when the 2% failure kicks in, the end result will be a loss (with progression of course).
Should I test thousands of situations of what the range will be/given that the first 3 spins failed?
Well I tested that too. And the found range seems to stick to its initial statistical observation.
What you are saying is that after the first 3 failures, betting after that, I will be at greater risk to encounter the 2% failure more often.
But that simply doesn't happen. Don't underestimate the power of long term statistical observations.
They are the prevalent factor in the game of roulette.

“A probabiityis a quantitive measure of the likliehood of a given event.If we are sure that an event will occur, we assign it a probability of one hundred per cent”
Chance by
Amir D. Aczel
“Likliehood “ Mike , not your certainty. And who dares claim that they can predict with a probability of one hundred per cent the winning numbers in roulette?
Probability is synonymous with likelihood, so if the probability is 100% then the likelihood is also 100%. And no one is saying that anyone can predict with a probability of 100% the winning number. Once again you're misrepresenting me, where did I say that?
At least you admit that the experts say roulette cannot be beaten. And this means that the probability of losing over time is 100%, in other words, certain. Find me a reputable source which says otherwise. There is no "chance" involved over the long term  the casinos count on it! Strange that you think it's all about "chance" when the casinos are still around. They exist because the probability is 100% that outcomes tend without fail to converge to their probabilities, and if the payout doesn't reflect the true odds they will always make a profit. It's the same principle with sports betting and insurance. If you own a shop you put a markup on your goods to ensure a profit. There is no "chance" about that. Similarly, the house edge is the casino's markup.
And it's not about variance. System players like to think it's variance which makes them lose. Strange that variance always seems to work AGAINST the player though, according to you guys. If the house edge is insignificant, as you say, then variance would work just as much for you as against you, and yet strangely, the casinos don't go broke.

If my first 3 guesses failed, (whether betting on them virtually or actually), does that mean that the goalposts of that well established prediction range will be forced to move upwards to extend the observed statistical range to 10 guesses? (As if the first 3 didn't count)? So that they will comply with the probability laws and not with statistical observations?
And if I decide to bet only after 3 failures (virtual if you will), would I expect to still get the upper range limit of 7 spins by 98%? or is it time for the goalposts to move up?
If I decided to accept that this could be true y I don't see it?
palestis,
We've been through this before. Yes the goalposts always move up because no matter where you start betting from, whether it's after 1, 3, 5 or 10 spins, the probability will always be 98% that you get a hit within 7 spins. The reason you don't see it is because you're not looking.

The only reason your world of theory seems so true and proven to you is because variance is so difficult to beat. That's the reason casinos don't go broke and not (necessarily) because of the HE.
That I am right here is proven by your habitual falling back to your argument, "But you can't use that to make a profit in roulette" defense, which shows your true bias and agenda.
Harry & Pales have discovered a true and proven method of making a significant dent in the effects of variance. Their method has been objectively proven to lessen the maximum expected successive loss when compared to straight betting.
Nothing in your world of theory can change that fact.

Where did you say that you did not say that you could predict with certainty the winning numbers ? Where did I say that you did?
What I said was that you claim that we are certain to lose! And you still reiterate that . You admit that a probability is a likliehood but also say that no one can claim certainty ! So which is it Mike ? Are we certain to lose or is it just likely that we will lose.
“ I admit that mathematicians say we must lose “ so that means that we must lose . “
Mike, tell me ONE mathematician that doesn’t hold that view ? You meekly accept their view .
THINKING IS OUT  ACCEPTANCE IS IN.
As for variance .Yes variance is the main problem. All mathematicians fix on the unfair odds but none that I am aware have mentioned variance as the main factor . Their fixation was destroyed by the introduction of a No Zero table. Like you they failed to factor in the Rare Event.
You still believe that a Probability is a Certainty and cannot bring yourself to admit that a probability is just that  a probability until proven.

That's the reason casinos don't go broke and not (necessarily) because of the HE.Reyth
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The reason the casinos make money, and keep the lights on is because of the house edge. I've repeatedly proved this point by showing the math.

As for variance .Yes variance is the main problem. All mathematicians fix on the unfair odds but none that I am aware have mentioned variance as the main factor .
There's a reason why mathematicians "fixate" on the unfair odds. It's because it IS the main factor and variance isn't. Once again you ignore the experts and claim superior knowledge (without any evidence).
As the number of rounds increases, eventually, the expected loss will exceed the standard deviation, many times over. From the formula, we can see the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of rounds played, while the expected loss is proportional to the number of rounds played. As the number of rounds increases, the expected loss increases at a much faster rate. This is why it is practically impossible for a gambler to win in the long term (if they don't have an edge). It is the high ratio of shortterm standard deviation to expected loss that fools gamblers into thinking that they can win.
And please show me any B&M casino which offers a no zero wheel.

Harry & Pales have discovered a true and proven method of making a significant dent in the effects of variance. Their method has been objectively proven to lessen the maximum expected successive loss when compared to straight betting.
Where is this proof? Palestis clearly doesn't understand that he's still stuck in the gambler's fallacy.

As for variance .Yes variance is the main problem. All mathematicians fix on the unfair odds but none that I am aware have mentioned variance as the main factor .
There's a reason why mathematicians "fixate" on the unfair odds. It's because it IS the main factor and variance isn't. Once again you ignore the experts and claim superior knowledge (without any evidence).
As the number of rounds increases, eventually, the expected loss will exceed the standard deviation, many times over. From the formula, we can see the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of rounds played, while the expected loss is proportional to the number of rounds played. As the number of rounds increases, the expected loss increases at a much faster rate. This is why it is practically impossible for a gambler to win in the long term (if they don't have an edge). It is the high ratio of shortterm standard deviation to expected loss that fools gamblers into thinking that they can win.
And please show me any B&M casino which offers a no zero wheel.
I did not say that a B&M casino offered a no zero wheel . You are dodging the issue here as you already KNOW that online casinos do offer a no zero table. Where there is a no zero table then there is no House Edge so that argument clearly falls. If the HE is the only way we lose as you and " the experts clearly imply then the online casinos who offer no HE must have another reason for dispensing with it . I think it is because of variance . What is your reason ?
I do claim that " the experts" exaggerate the importance of the House Edge and the offer of a No Zero wheel supports my claim.
I maintain that a probability is only an estimate not the certainty you claim. You  and " the experts" overstate your case.
Even your quote doesn't claim inevitably it says " practically impossible "  another equivocation !
Some of these days you will realise that Chance and Certainty are opposites and where Chance exists  as in roulette  Certainty cannot.

That's the reason casinos don't go broke and not (necessarily) because of the HE.Reyth
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The reason the casinos make money, and keep the lights on is because of the house edge. I've repeatedly proved this point by showing the math.
Real
Your house edge IS Reyth's HE.
I'm sorry, but that's true !

Harry & Pales have discovered a true and proven method of making a significant dent in the effects of variance. Their method has been objectively proven to lessen the maximum expected successive loss when compared to straight betting.
Where is this proof?
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=772.msg12471#msg12471 (http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=772.msg12471#msg12471)
The expected max loss has been reduced from 25 to only 11 using their range method. You may queue your boiler plate "But you can't use this to win in roulette" response now.
Its so easy to be a negative ninny by quoting mindless theory; its actually efortless but it requires real work to demonstrate concrete results. Real work like with Harry and Pales who put in the sweat equity at the felt instead of just giving up based on popular opinion and theory.
Yes and I use the word theory to mean THEORETICAL just as professional statisticians do when referring to the THEORETICAL Gambler's Fallacy.
Btw, I would like to highlight a relatively new but highly productive member of our forum here:
http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2483
He has contributed a small fortune in details regarding AP based roulette play and has hijacked ZERO threads to attack system players. He is living proof that AP players do not have to go on some kind of mission to "save the world" from systems while promoting their chosen method of play.
Thanks Mr. Perfect!
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2224977/standingovationo.gif)

@ Real and Mike.
I have been busy elsewhere with personal problems. So have had little time for roulette. However I cannot allow you to get away with this nonsense.
To state that the main reason for casinos success is the HE is ridiculous. Many of the early casinos went bust even though their HE was much higher than it is today. They were beaten by players that had more Capital than they had ! A massive HE didn't help them.
Even the great Henri Blanc saw his Homburg casino go bust. When the Prince of Cardano walked off with all the cash.. Henri was able to convince his backers to refinance the casino. Which then survived until Homburg banned gambling. He was later offered the Monte Carlo Casino. It had already failed several times ! He revived it by cutting the HE to the lowest possible level. Hardly a reasonable move if HE represented all the profit..
Few people remember this but before the British act was fully promulgated. Casinos were only able to operate if they had NO HE. I believe this went on for several months until the rules were fixed. They seemed to prosper even so.
Even the famous Las Vegas Flamingo went bust at first. It had to be refinanced by the mob. The blame was placed on Bugsy Siegel, Who paid for it with his life. even the modern corporately financed casinos get into trouble. Surely impossible if the HE is so important, and will always overcomes variation.
I still intend to write a post on this subject. I must give it some attention.
Harry

Harry,
The house edge is why the casino wins money.
Lowering the house edge enabled the casino to compete against are casinos and gain a larger market share of the business. Meaning they were able to get more customers coming through the doors. Understand?
Again, I have repeated demonstrated the math that proves my point.
Compare luck (variance) verses THE HOUSE EDGE by using the crude simplified formulas below for a double zero roulette wheel. Input various spin amounts into the underlined portion. After a year of play, most system players will have played for at least 5000 spins.
1. Variance aka "Luck" = (+ or  ) 3 x the square root of the number of spins played.
verses
2. The house edge = 5.26% x the number of spins played.
After just 5,000 spins does luck or the house edge have the greatest effect on your bankroll when measured independently?
1. Variance = + OR ... or somewhere in between (3 x the square root of 5000 spins played.) a rough fluctuation of about three sds = + or  213 units
2. The HOUSE EDGE = 5.26% x 5000 = 263 units
After having input the average number of spins played over the course of a year or so, into the crude formulas, you'll find that the house edge consumes the largest part of your bankroll. Even with a positive fluctuation of three sds of play on the outside, your still a net loser at the end of the year. This means that all of the ECs are likely losers because of the house edge. If you're a net loser after only 5k spins, then what makes you think you won't have lost even more in the LONG RUN?

Well, at least, Real, we agree on " likely" and not certain.

Reyth,
I've had a look at the results of your simulation, and firstly, nowhere do you explain what those figures in your screenshot mean. Are we supposed to guess? Then you go on to conclude that :
This is very interesting proof of Harry & Pale's assertion that bets broken up into statistically advantageous portions perform BETTER THAN (over TWICE as effective!) straight bets; i.e. a 12 step martingale broken up into 4 sections of 3, where each section is only initiated after 5 successive losses of an EC will be expected to win whereas a straight 12 step martingale will most assuredly lose and in short order.
This isn't proof of anything. Apart from not explaining what the numbers mean, you haven't even done a simulation using a straight 12 step martingale, so how can anyone be expected to make a comparison? You just assert without any quantitative evidence that this will "most assuredly lose and in short order" !?
And please, stop the character assassinations. Apparently anyone who criticizes your conclusions are deemed to be "negative ninnies" and lazy because they're just repeating mere "theory". If you disagree with the theory, provide some evidence that it's wrong, don't just attack the poster in an attempt to undermine their views; whether anyone is negative or lazy has no bearing on the truth of the theory. As a moderator you should be setting an example, not encouraging mudslinging and petty bickering.
And as for highjacking threads, may I remind you that it was YOU took it off course in your reply #1 to Trilobite:
BUT if you are using some kind of trigger system in your interrupted streams, you will definitely achieve a noticeable difference when compared to the uniterrupted stream.
Pales and Harry have proven that rare events become even more rare when forced to repeat successively; i.e. the expected equivalent max loss is substantially reduced:
This has nothing to do with what Trilobite was asking, but you felt the need to make the point anyway. And it's not the first time  you have a habit of doing this and at the same time having a dig at what you call the "fantasy/theory guys":
This is the concept that the "fantasy/theory"guys fight SO HARD against. It is the statistical truth that bothers them the very most.
No. What bothers me most are posters who make unsubstantiated claims which are extremely misleading and potentially dangerous for the bettor. As Real has so eloquently put it  the infection of ignorance.

Real,
I have a bad dose of 'flu at the moment. So forgive me if this is short and terse.
Your formula assumes that the punter is making Identical bets. without reference to the fluctuations of variance.
There are a number of ways that variance can be utilized. The expected amount of variance can be roughly calculated using D' Moivre's theorem and statistical observation. As With everything involved in gambling. There can be NO CERTAINTY either way.
Mike,
I will deal with your post when I have more time and am feeling better. Sorry.
Harry

Harry,
You and scepticus are always telling us that there can be no certainty, and yet you would presumably agree that
1) The payouts are NOT fair
2) the wheel IS fair (no bias, so all outcomes are equally likely).
These CERTAINTIES entail the conclusion that losing over time is also CERTAIN, but you don't seem to be able to make the connection.
Hope you're feeling better soon.

Harry,
You and scepticus are always telling us that there can be no certainty, and yet you would presumably agree that
1) The payouts are NOT fair
2) the wheel IS fair (no bias, so all outcomes are equally likely).
These CERTAINTIES entail the conclusion that losing over time is also CERTAIN, but you don't seem to be able to make the connection.
Hope you're feeling better soon.
It is you Mike, that cannot join up the dots.
Yes. We are certain that uncertainty exists. Gambling would not exist without uncertainty so your criticism here is groundless. You still fail to see that Probability is mankind's attempt to understand the ununderstandable but you regard it as The Holy Grail .
Anyway, I'll stop here and leave it to other members to determine whether you position is tenable.

Yes. We are certain that uncertainty exists.
I'm glad you recognize that SOMETHING is certain, lol. But again you misrepresent me; I never said that probability = certainty, only that as far as ANYTHING is certain, then a probability of 100% is equivalent to certainty.
And probability isn't the attempt to understand the "ununderstandable" (which is an oxymoron), but a way to measure our uncertainty in an event. If you don't have any information relevant to the cause of one event rather than another, such as which pocket of the wheel the ball will land in, then it's reasonable to assign equal chances to the probability of each number hitting. And if that turns out to be true (and the casinos make every effort to make sure that it is), then OVER TIME each number will hit the same number of times (plus or minus some small deviation, or error).
The gambler is hoping that in the short term his decisions will favor him, and that's why it's gambling, because it's a guess. But since many short terms result in a long term, his choices will be increasingly irrelevant because no information will reliably inform his guesses  how can they, when each number is as likely as another?
What I'm claiming certainty for is that the probability will tend towards its true value, not that probability means certainty, which is a contradiction. You are denying that a probability will ever do that, and somehow that equally likely events will not tend towards their "theoretical" probabilities. That is an incoherent position to take.

The gambler is hoping that in the short term his decisions will favor him, and that's why it's gambling, because it's a guess. But since many short terms result in a long term, his choices will be increasingly irrelevant because no information will reliably inform his guesses  how can they, when each number is as likely as another?
So we are all mentally simplistic and are just trying to win in the short term hoping and hoping that the loss won't hit?
This shows you pay attention to nothing that we say nor do you care to actually investigate roulette. You just care to criticize.
I don't have to post a trial of 12 straight bets on an EC. We all know that sooner rather than later a streak of 13+ will hit and will wipe us out.
What is important is that running a simulation of straight betting an EC shows an expected max loss of 25 (Bayes agrees with this) and I ran a simulation using HarryPales' range technique and instead of 25 bets the expected max loss is only 11 once the range & triggers were optimized.
The reason for this is that stacking triggers on top of each other and only betting on the statistically less likely events shortens the total number of cumulative losses to be reasonably expected. The trigger & range betting system acts as a statistical sieve to obtain better than statistically expected results from straight betting.
Because of your onedimensional and theoretical view of roulette this, for you, is of course impossible.
You don't like my attitude? Well, besides the fact that you guys started it in this forum by attacking people for simply posting their views on systems, the way in which you lecture us as if you are in possession of some kind of objective fact that we are too mentally slow to comprehend is deplorable; your views are theoretical. I'll back down if you will  stop lecturing us as if you possess indisputable facts, because you don't.

Your formula assumes that the punter is making Identical bets. without reference to the fluctuations of variance.
Harry,
After only 5000 spins on the double zero wheel, a fluctuation of three standard deviations isn't enough to overcome the house edge. Over time, variance becomes a very small factor when compared to the house edge.

Reyth,
You guys repeat your mantra over and over and over. Every post is the same thing! Why can't you guys come up with some original ideas, instead of repeating and testing the exact same things over and over and over. You guys just keep recycling the same trapped in the box thinking involving triggers and rare events, while ignoring history, logic, and common sense. It's insane!
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/647933/thumbs/s03929_PO_ESCHER_07large640.jpg?4)

This is very interesting proof of Harry & Pale's assertion that bets broken up into statistically advantageous portions perform BETTER THAN (over TWICE as effective!) straight bets; i.e. a 12 step martingale broken up into 4 sections of 3, where each section is only initiated after 5 successive losses of an EC will be expected to win whereas a straight 12 step martingale will most assuredly lose and in short order.
This isn't proof of anything. Apart from not explaining what the numbers mean, you haven't even done a simulation using a straight 12 step martingale, so how can anyone be expected to make a comparison? You just assert without any quantitative evidence that this will "most assuredly lose and in short order" !?
And please, stop the character assassinations. Apparently anyone who criticizes your conclusions are deemed to be "negative ninnies" and lazy because they're just repeating mere "theory". If you disagree with the theory, provide some evidence that it's wrong, don't just attack the poster in an attempt to undermine their views; whether anyone is negative or lazy has no bearing on the truth of the theory. As a moderator you should be setting an example, not encouraging mudslinging and petty bickering.
Mike here is your problem.
It is clear that ever since you started playing roulette you embraced the probability as the roulette bible, and evidently you didn't bother embarking on long time testing of assumptions that form the basis of a system. You are asking for proof. It is impossible to provide you with any type of proof, that took years and years to conclude. Unfortunately, I personally cannot provide any long term proof, because the paperwork involved would've built stacks of papers from the floor to the ceiling.
I can only provide short term proof, when I post pictures of various assumptions and look at the results to see if the assumption is correct or not. And I asked you to provide me with just one real example that can prove me wrong. Instead, you always refer me to the theory and to events that will happen sometime in the future, but not visible at the moment.
If you were right you should be able to come up with a real example. If what you are saying is true, you should be able to provide an example.
That would be far more convincing than repetition of theory. And your point would be respected.
Not that theory is wrong or math experts are wrong, it is the assumption that they base their arguments that are wrong.
And the assumption is that there is constant betting with the same chip value.
Because that's very convenient. That's where they are wrong. It is impossible to generalize when amounts and number of bets change all the time. Not to mention that a player can stop and leave at any time. You can't generalize when variables fluctuate.
What they right about is that the casino always wins. Because of the HE.
But that applies to all players as a group and for the long run.
It doesn't apply to a few individual players who have done their homework.
Theory generalizes. It can't possibly include every practical scenario.

Harry,
The house edge is why the casino wins money.
Lowering the house edge enabled the casino to compete against are casinos and gain a larger market share of the business. Meaning they were able to get more customers coming through the doors. Understand?
Again, I have repeated demonstrated the math that proves my point.
Compare luck (variance) verses THE HOUSE EDGE by using the crude simplified formulas below for a double zero roulette wheel. Input various spin amounts into the underlined portion. After a year of play, most system players will have played for at least 5000 spins.
1. Variance aka "Luck" = (+ or  ) 3 x the square root of the number of spins played.
verses
2. The house edge = 5.26% x the number of spins played.
After just 5,000 spins does luck or the house edge have the greatest effect on your bankroll when measured independently?
1. Variance = + OR ... or somewhere in between (3 x the square root of 5000 spins played.) a rough fluctuation of about three sds = + or  213 units
2. The HOUSE EDGE = 5.26% x 5000 = 263 units
After having input the average number of spins played over the course of a year or so, into the crude formulas, you'll find that the house edge consumes the largest part of your bankroll. Even with a positive fluctuation of three sds of play on the outside, your still a net loser at the end of the year. This means that all of the ECs are likely losers because of the house edge. If you're a net loser after only 5k spins, then what makes you think you won't have lost even more in the LONG RUN?
You can't use POPULATION VARIANCE, because it doesn't reflect a system player's actual play.
Rather sample variance applies. Because a system's requirements rely only on sample segments. Which are biased samples.
And there are intervals between sample segments. Because only biased samples are taken into account.
A collection of only biased samples cannot form the true picture of all data contained in the sample if taken as a whole along with normal samples.

Palestis,
I'm not sure what it is that you're trying to say, and I suspect that you don't either.
Money management/raising and lower bets, hitting and running, trying to play in the short term...deep down I'm sure you already know that it doesn't really work.

palestis,
Not that theory is wrong or math experts are wrong, it is the assumption that they base their arguments that are wrong.
And the assumption is that there is constant betting with the same chip value.
Nowhere in the theory is there a clause that it only applies for a fixed chip value. The money management scheme you use is irrelevant because you can't get a positive number by multiplying it by a negative number.
It is impossible to generalize when amounts and number of bets change all the time. Not to mention that a player can stop and leave at any time. You can't generalize when variables fluctuate.
Theory generalizes. It can't possibly include every practical scenario.
Stopping and leaving at any time doesn't help. Reyth admitted that in her reply to Trilobite in the other thread. Breaking up a random stream doesn't have any effect on its characteristics. And in fact, this is all you're doing with your triggers. You believe that breaking the stream at certain points reduces the strain on the bankroll because you're only subjected to "rare" events. This belief betrays a basic misunderstanding of the nature of randomness.
My criticism isn't based only on theory because years ago when I considered the possibility of making money playing roulette I tested many many different kinds of systems by simulations, and all of them failed. How many systems do you think should be tested before you make a generalization and move on? One could spend their whole life testing systems which fail, and if you don't generalize, you will never realize that they are based on faulty logic.
If designing and testing systems is fun for you, then by all means knock yourself out, but if your goal is to make a profit you would be wise to consider that your assumptions are wrong, and try something else.
Furthermore, Reyth made a generalization in her post:
bets broken up into statistically advantageous portions perform BETTER THAN (over TWICE as effective!) straight bets;
So you're not against generalizations per se, because you haven't objected to this. If it's true, then any system which is based on the principle that "statistically advantageous portions perform BETTER", should be superior than systems which aren't.
You can't avoid generalizations, otherwise the way you play would having nothing in common with any other way of playing. You claim that your way of playing results in profit, which differentiates it from many other systems, so what is the cause of winning? By identifying why your strategy wins you've made a generalization which can be tested.

Mike,
Thank you fro your good wishes.
Gambling is essentially risk management. As an experienced business man and retailer. I can say with some authority that risk management relies on more than Probability ! Risk cannot be managed without Risk ! As the old saying goes, "Failing to try , is trying to fail"!
Probability is important in assessing the downside. Something more positive is needed on the upside. That something is more often than not STATISTICS, and dare I say this, a sound knowledge of how the game is played. With, perhaps, a little INTUITION when all else fails.
My decisions are mainly made outside the ambit of probability. Their success depends on meticulous research and data collection of similar situations. That doesn't mean I cannot meet one of TALEB'S BLACK SWANS, just that I am likely to recognize it before it's teeth sink too deep.
Harry

So far as I can see Real and Mike are just a coupe of trolls . Like a couple of parrots they repeat text book maths . They consider that Probability Theory is the Holy Grail while the rest of us regard it as a tool to be used. They believe in " eventually" without the wit to understand that we won't bet until infinity.
The Bottom Line is that the rest of us use different methods to try and beat the House Edge where there is one, They cannot see that by offereing a No Zero wheel these online casinos DO NOT regard the House Edge as the major benefit they enjoy and they STILL continue to talk about the HE being the major factor against us.
All they indulge in is point scoring . While we DO they TAWK !

It's a sad state of affairs and a reflection of how far you're mired in fallacies that you think pointing out the simple facts of roulette is trolling.
They believe in " eventually" without the wit to understand that we won't bet until infinity.
And THEY don't have the wit to understand that the house edge is present on every spin.
They cannot see that by offereing a No Zero wheel these online casinos DO NOT regard the House Edge as the major benefit they enjoy and they STILL continue to talk about the HE being the major factor against us.
Where are all these wonderful casinos? There is only ONE that I know of and it's an RNG online casino. Even then it's not quite no zero because you have to pay 10% on winnings when you finish playing.
Betfair used to have no zero roulette but they withdrew it in 2013.
In any case, the best you can do is break even on a no zero game, and the casino still wins because of the risk of ruin for the player.

It's a sad state of affairs and a reflection of how far you're mired in fallacies that you think pointing out the simple facts of roulette is trolling.
They believe in " eventually" without the wit to understand that we won't bet until infinity.
And THEY don't have the wit to understand that the house edge is present on every spin.
They cannot see that by offereing a No Zero wheel these online casinos DO NOT regard the House Edge as the major benefit they enjoy and they STILL continue to talk about the HE being the major factor against us.
Where are all these wonderful casinos? There is only ONE that I know of and it's an RNG online casino. Even then it's not quite no zero because you have to pay 10% on winnings when you finish playing.
Betfair used to have no zero roulette but they withdrew it in 2013.
In any case, the best you can do is break even on a no zero game, and the casino still wins because of the risk of ruin for the player.
A classic troll's response !
ONE casino is enough !
10% commission is TOTALLY irrelevant to the House Edge argument !
"The best you can do is break  even on a no zero game " ? In your simplistic text book maths it may be but you should try real life betting !
Tell us Mike, just what have you brought to this forum other than criticism ?

10% commission is TOTALLY irrelevant to the House Edge argument !
What's relevant is whether the casino loses or makes money. No casino will offer a game which puts them at a disadvantage, and they are at no disadvantage for reasons I gave.
When people stop posting nonsense and making absurd claims, I'll stop criticizing.
What have you brought to the forum, other than fallacious systems?

(http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/299110/header.jpg?t=1447361717)

10% commission is TOTALLY irrelevant to the House Edge argument !
What's relevant is whether the casino loses or makes money. No casino will offer a game which puts them at a disadvantage, and they are at no disadvantage for reasons I gave.
When people stop posting nonsense and making absurd claims, I'll stop criticizing.
What have you brought to the forum, other than fallacious systems?
Well you are CERTAINLY good at " Shifting the goalposts "Troll.
You know you were wrong to mention the HE in relation to a nozero wheel and now it is the Risk of Ruin !
If " the best we can do is break even" just how does Risk of Ruin apply ? ( No. Don't tell me. In the Long Run LOL )
What's relevant to the gambler is not whether or not the casino makes a profit but whether or not he/ she makes a profit. He NEEDS other gamblers to lose and the casino make an overall profit so that they can pay him his winnings.
According to you ALL systems that are posted here are fallacious so I am in the good company of REAL roulette players and not an online troll like you.
Thanks for admitting that you are a Troll .
Pity that you were not Man enough to admit that I proved you wrong in your insistence that there were,at most , 81 Sets of Three or Man enough to accept my challenge to prove that I can win with my " fallacious system " while you prove to me that you canwin with your fallacious AP.
All you prove is that you ARE a Troll !

(http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/299110/header.jpg?t=1447361717)
" I don't know what you are trying to say  and I suspect that you don't know either "

The point is that you two DON'T CARE what any of us are trying to say. Actual objective output results is not simply "generalization".

My criticism isn't based only on theory because years ago when I considered the possibility of making money playing roulette I tested many many different kinds of systems by simulations, and all of them failed. How many systems do you think should be tested before you make a generalization and move on? One could spend their whole life testing systems which fail, and if you don't generalize, you will never realize that they are based on faulty logic.
If designing and testing systems is fun for you, then by all means knock yourself out, but if your goal is to make a profit you would be wise to consider that your assumptions are wrong, and try something else.
And that's what you did wrong. "SIMULATION". You can't simulate actions that are governed by human behavior. Not every system is betting one thing indefinitely and watch how many times it exceeds a previous record or the available B/R.
If "ad hoc" human decisions could be simulated, you can be assured that all McDonalds and Burger Kings, and most fast food restaurants would've had all personnel replaced, and use robots to take and dispense orders. It hasn't happened.
Yet in the auto manufacturing industry robots are used widely having replaced human labor. Y?
Because they perform repetitive tasks. Therefore they can be programmed to do what they are told to do.
Not every system is waiting for a specific trigger, and betting specific groups with a specific progression. Some systems operate differently.
And it's not how many systems you test before you give up, it's testing very few that look promising, and for a long time.
And I don't understand what your point is, when you go against every member when he is talking about a system.
Many members here are seasoned players with many years of experience.
In a way you are calling them liars. Because they already know where they stand with their system.
And telling them that there is no system that wins, indirectly, you are telling them that they are lying.
If you want to prove a point, all you have to do is give a real example that contradicts the success of a specific system.
The fact that you cannot come up with an example it is rather suspicious. If it is too hard and too rare and too time consuming to find an example and bring it to out attention, then that system must be pretty darn good.

@ Mike,
I enjoy your posts, although the style is a bit too dogmatic for my taste, but scep makes a good point, and you haven't really answered it.
The best you can do is break even? I've been playing at Betvoyager for years and have clocked over 200,000 spins. I've done rather better than breaking even.
If I have my mathematician's hat on, there's no disputing your facts; the house edge prevails over variance in the long run. But how many players actually lose their bankroll because of the house edge? In a session of perhaps 200300 spins it's usually miscalculation (or overconfidence) which results in the bust. In other words, variance. A player will more likely lose due to variance long before the house edge has its effect, which is slow and cumulative.
Have you ever read Russell T. Barnhart's "Beating The Wheel"? He believes that the main cause of loss for the average player is variance, not the house edge (and he's an advantage player).
Also, regarding risk of ruin, you're correct that casinos have nothing to fear even if they offer a no zero wheel, because in a fair game, the player with the largest bankroll will come out ahead. But isn't this just another way of saying variance? The casino wins in this case because their resources are such that they don't get knocked out by the "run from hell". In other words, they can survive the variance but the little guy can't.
Careful money management can go a long way to mitigate the effects of variance. I also believe (based on my own empirical tests), that there are methods of bet selection which can also help. The maths is correct of course, but expectation is an average, and by definition an average refers to a group, not an individual, and certainly not every individual. As a group, players lose, but to insist that each and every player must lose to the house edge (even over time), is untenable.

I really understand and appreciate the point Mike is making. Though I agree with Bayes about dogma. Mike (and Real of course) does sound dogmatic. And dogma is far from the scientific way of thinking.
I hate to repeat myself about issues like the house edge (http://www.roulette30.com/2013/10/roulettehouseedgestrategy.html) etc.
I have elaborated my opinion about the issue of dogma in probabilities, and had a nice exchange with Mike, in the topic:
The meaning of past spins (http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=750.0)
IMO this topic is a great read, but if you don't want to read all posts, see especially this post about science, physics, math and certainty (http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=750.msg11003#msg11003).

The point is that you two DON'T CARE what any of us are trying to say. Actual objective output results is not simply "generalization".
Reyth,
According to you, a mere print out of numbers is "objective output". And apart from that, the socalled objective output and the assertion about the output are two different things. FROM the output you have made a generalization (and a false one at that).
Palestis,
And that's what you did wrong. "SIMULATION". You can't simulate actions that are governed by human behavior.
That's nonsense, but it deserves a thread to itself. And by the way, Reyth uses simulation to "prove" generalizations, but I don't see you criticizing her. Double standards.
Bayes,
It may well be the case that variance will get you before the house edge does, but you can't ignore the long run. Why not start as you mean to go on with bets that have a positive expectation? Besides, you yourself have shown that the "long run" is far short of the infinity which scepticus absurdly asserts. Depending on how many numbers you bet, the expectation is that your variance will "run out" in only a few thousand spins.

Mike.
You deride my concept of The Long Run . When I looked up The Long Run in a maths text book many years ago , the definition was “ the nearer you get to infinity”. Please tell me where you find an alterative view from a mathematician
that is acceptable to his peers . I have read “ conjectures” from 3,000 to 1 .000,000 which shows that NO ONE can put a figure on it because NO ONE knows. That is because where uncertainty exists there can only be conjecture. We gamblers understand that while you don’t.
Bayes showed only that a bankroll could be destroyed within a fairly short term and did not show “ infinity “ to be wrong . Bayes has also said that he has won over a period that some regard as The Long Run.So what is YOUR definition of the long run ?
You are an intelligent person but fail to understand the nature of gambling .Your credibility is undermined because
Of your uncritical acceptance of Real’s fallacious biased wheel idea and his Last Five Numbers bet and you have the gall to criticise US !
Your statement that you will continue to criticise what you regard as “fallacious methods“ was silly. You are posting in a gambling forum so there will always be “fallacious methods “ posted here so you are saying that you will be here until either your own demise or the demise of this site.
Incidentally, how are you progressing with Real’s Biased Wheel approach ? Do you think that you will master it in Benedict’s’ 1 year or Mr. Perfect’s 4 years ?

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/1OPfHgtO1Vw/VeNEtIbxW5I/AAAAAAAAFAE/7xTfGOix_gg/s1600/anecdotal%2Bevidence%2B2%2Bweb.jpg)

If you want to deny facts based on your chosen theory that's up to you. You have a right to your own opinion.

Palestis,
And that's what you did wrong. "SIMULATION". You can't simulate actions that are governed by human behavior.
That's nonsense, but it deserves a thread to itself. And by the way, Reyth uses simulation to "prove" generalizations, but I don't see you criticizing her. Double standards.
I don't criticize simulation in general, and have no reason to criticize Reyth because the systems he's testing seem to have many consistent actions. At least that's the impression I get. Those of course can be simulated.
Many systems can be tested thru computer simulation.
I guess when I say some systems cannot be simulated, I draw from my own and only experience because of the way I play
I never have a standard way of playing. And I never have a set trigger. I have minimum requirements for a trigger, but they constantly vary. It's the situation I run into that counts and determines what and how much and how many spins I will play. And it may involve jumping from one system to another. I am not searching for anything. Like a predetermined trigger. My actions depend on the circumstances I encounter.
But of course that doesn't mean much to you, because whether there are 50 black and 50 red in 100 spins, or 90 black and 10 red in also 100 spins, doesn't make any difference as far as course of action
is concerned.
Statistics don't count, only theoretical probability counts. And because of the HE every system is doomed. That is your way of thinking. That is y you feel that everything can be simulated.
I can post a ridiculously simple system, and I challenge you to prove that it will fail. With real examples. And not reverting to the same old excuse of some vague "long run". Because it seems that for you "long run", is several million spins or several centuries from today.
It's very simple.
If I can show you a system that wins, but if at the same time you feel that it will certainly lose, then a proof of failure should be available in a reasonable period of time.
Y every time you want to stress that a system will lose, you always attribute it to some undetermined long run?

Hmmm, Pales appears to be asserting here that the Long Run does not exist for us if we simply take precautions to prevent it from happening through deliberate and calculated action/inaction. This is similar to Dobble's assertion that successive short runs do not equal a single long run.
Yes, my tests using your foundational theory is completely 100% static and the results I have received prove your thesis that sufficiently rare events will not repeat themselves successively to the degree that the results will be quanitifyably the same as a single long extended event.
Maybe there is something that is essentially the same between Dobble's short run theory and your range technique; the idea of successive failures of rare events being statistically superior to single runs of rare events... O_o

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/1OPfHgtO1Vw/VeNEtIbxW5I/AAAAAAAAFAE/7xTfGOix_gg/s1600/anecdotal%2Bevidence%2B2%2Bweb.jpg)
Another of your thoughtless posts, Real.
If your Last Five Numbers Bet was a winner we would all be betting it.
You ridicule anyone who uses past numbers so this should merit your ridicule.Trying to avade that charge you dream up the fantasy that “ you might unwittingly be betting a biased wheel “. But if you claim that then , logically, you must allow that ANY OTHER BETTOR may unwittingly be betting a biased wheel and win  which contradicts your constant refrain that ALL systems lose. As one of your critics in the Wizard of Vegas site said of it “ Silliness personified “.
As for your often touted Biased Wheel method . No Physicist or Mathematician would accept your claim that you can easily find a biased wheel or that you could do the necessary calculations in the allotted time. You often challenge members here to post their methods in a Maths Forum yet you decline to post your method in a Physics or Maths Forum . That, I think, is because you know it would be ridiculed.
As for facts  you don’t face them. We bet  We Win You ridicule  without anecdotal evidence.

Scepticus,
Have you really read on the history of the game? If so, then what does it say about how the world's most successful players have won? In other words, according to history...what strategy did they use?

You deride my concept of The Long Run . When I looked up The Long Run in a maths text book many years ago , the definition was “ the nearer you get to infinity”. Please tell me where you find an alterative view from a mathematician
that is acceptable to his peers .
As I've said before, this is just mathematician speak. In reality there is no such thing as infinity. If you are right and we only lose to the house edge after an infinite number of spins then the house edge would be entirely impotent! It defies common sense. As Bayes has showed in his nice article, the long run can be calculated by using Chebyshev's rule and the law of large numbers. These are well known facts in the mathematical literature. The long run depends on the house edge and how many numbers you're playing and it can be calculated for any degree of certainty you wish.
So what is YOUR definition of the long run ?
It's the point at which the house edge begins to dominate over variance and varies as explained above.
Your statement that you will continue to criticise what you regard as “fallacious methods“ was silly. You are posting in a gambling forum so there will always be “fallacious methods “ posted here so you are saying that you will be here until either your own demise or the demise of this site.
My beef isn't with gamblers and systems, it's with those who make claims such as "triggers work", or "hit and run improves your chances of winning". If someone chooses to gamble and they're aware of the risks then that's their choice. Their actions might seem foolish to some but there is no fallacy in gambling. We all take risks, it's unavoidable in life, the problem is in believing that your risks are reduced when they're not.
Incidentally, how are you progressing with Real’s Biased Wheel approach ? Do you think that you will master it in Benedict’s’ 1 year or Mr. Perfect’s 4 years ?
I'm not trying to master either of those methods. I have my own AP "system" which I developed over several years and I'm happy with it.

I can post a ridiculously simple system, and I challenge you to prove that it will fail.
Please do!
Y every time you want to stress that a system will lose, you always attribute it to some undetermined long run?
In my reply to scepticus above I have explained that the long run is not "undetermined", and that has never been my position. I have never said that the long run only occurs at infinity, which would be nonsense. If that was true then all roulette wheels would be effectively "no zero" wheels.

Hmmm, Pales appears to be asserting here that the Long Run does not exist for us if we simply take precautions to prevent it from happening through deliberate and calculated action/inaction. This is similar to Dobble's assertion that successive short runs do not equal a single long run.
Yes, my tests using your foundational theory is completely 100% static and the results I have received prove your thesis that sufficiently rare events will not repeat themselves successively to the degree that the results will be quanitifyably the same as a single long extended event.
Maybe there is something that is essentially the same between Dobble's short run theory and your range technique; the idea of successive failures of rare events being statistically superior to single runs of rare events... O_o
Whatever the long run is, it is definitely not a collection of short runs that fall in the special circumstances category. Like short run segments of great imbalances or segments of extreme variances.
If we count all the days of the year, we may come up with an average of shine vs. rain ratio in several years.
But if you only count dark cloudy days, it's unavoidable that the ratio will be much higher towards the rainy side, compared to the ratio when all days are counted.
Same in insurance vital statistics. Counting only the 80 years old and up will not yield the same statistics that you get from all people, or only the 20 years old.
In roulette a player has the option to chose only the equivalent of cloudy days.
Therefore he has total control of expected results.

I'm not trying to master either of those methods. I have my own AP "system" which I developed over several years and I'm happy with it.
There you go.
If you claim that a certain way of playing works for you, y can't you accept the fact that other ways of playing work for some other people? Just as we are not there when you cash out your chips, you are not there when other people cash out their chips. The fact that the majority of systems fail, doesn't mean that all systems fail. Insisting that something doesn't work and it will always fail is useless if you don't get specific about what works.
Chances that I will be playing your method next to you, therefore creating suspicions among the pit bosses, are extremely remote.

Hey thanks for all the input guys, didn’t help all that much but thanks.
Actually it did help a lot because I can now say with confidence that it makes no difference if I continue a session at one table or move about the tables to continue.
The results really are independent, and so can be cultivated in any manner we wish. We can blend a number stream from as many inputs as we like, switching and changing at any moment as we please, and it will not impact on any system’s overall performance
I’m now convinced that this system will be able to perform equally well over any collection of numbers randomly generated from one or various sources.

You deride my concept of The Long Run . When I looked up The Long Run in a maths text book many years ago , the definition was “ the nearer you get to infinity”. Please tell me where you find an alterative view from a mathematician
that is acceptable to his peers .
As I've said before, this is just mathematician speak. In reality there is no such thing as infinity. If you are right and we only lose to the house edge after an infinite number of spins then the house edge would be entirely impotent! It defies common sense. As Bayes has showed in his nice article, the long run can be calculated by using Chebyshev's rule and the law of large numbers. These are well known facts in the mathematical literature. The long run depends on the house edge and how many numbers you're playing and it can be calculated for any degree of certainty you wish.
So what is YOUR definition of the long run ?
It's the point at which the house edge begins to dominate over variance and varies as explained above.
Your statement that you will continue to criticise what you regard as “fallacious methods“ was silly. You are posting in a gambling forum so there will always be “fallacious methods “ posted here so you are saying that you will be here until either your own demise or the demise of this site.
My beef isn't with gamblers and systems, it's with those who make claims such as "triggers work", or "hit and run improves your chances of winning". If someone chooses to gamble and they're aware of the risks then that's their choice. Their actions might seem foolish to some but there is no fallacy in gambling. We all take risks, it's unavoidable in life, the problem is in believing that your risks are reduced when they're not.
Incidentally, how are you progressing with Real’s Biased Wheel approach ? Do you think that you will master it in Benedict’s’ 1 year or Mr. Perfect’s 4 years ?
I'm not trying to master either of those methods. I have my own AP "system" which I developed over several years and I'm happy with it.
I didn’t say that The Long Run was “ the nearer e you get to infinity . What I said was that was the text book definition which I took to be the accepted view. I have said before that there is NO long run because where uncertainty exists then no on e CAN know.
It is you guys that claim to know how long the long run is .
You claim that Chebyshev’s rule is The Holy Grail which can calculate with certainty what will happen under certain conditions. You say that The long run depends on the house edge and how many numbers you're playing and it can be calculated for any degree of certainty you wish.
You are the one who claims that we will certainly lose in the long run .
Let’s cut to the Chase and take my betting as an example.
I bet 4 straight numbers with an 80 unit Table Bank.
Given that the House Edge is 2.7% tell me when I will lose my bank. No prevarications. No “ about”.
You claim certainty so I am asking you now to prove it.
As for you own AP system. Is that based on observation of the wheel ?

Scepticus,
Have you really read on the history of the game? If so, then what does it say about how the world's most successful players have won? In other words, according to history...what strategy did they use?
" History" is selective. It doesn't preclude someone winning without using AP. Where in The History of Roulette is your version shown to win ? Except in Forums .
You have still to learn that Absence of Evidence is not the same as Evidence of Absence . I have said that I will not divulge MY method so that is absent in YOUR history. Also, might there not be others who are not prepared to divulge theirs ?

I can post a ridiculously simple system, and I challenge you to prove that it will fail.
Please do!
Y every time you want to stress that a system will lose, you always attribute it to some undetermined long run?
In my reply to scepticus above I have explained that the long run is not "undetermined", and that has never been my position. I have never said that the long run only occurs at infinity, which would be nonsense. If that was true then all roulette wheels would be effectively "no zero" wheels.
Here we go.
Hopefully you can come up with a straight answer for a change, rather than repeating the same old boring philosophical ramblings. Which doesn't prove the point anyway.
It's a very simple system a 10 year old can design and play.
TRIGGER: A dozen being absent for 4 spins.
ACTION: Play that dozen UP TO 4 SPINS and stop. Win or lose we wait for the next trigger.
The picture may look a little complicated but in fact it is very simple.
I circle the trigger with blue marker, and then I put a blue check mark on the number (missing dozen) that wins, in any of the 4 next spins that we will play, after the trigger.
If that missing dozen doesn't show up, I put 4 RED dash marks to indicate the 4 lost spins.
Data is taken from Wiesbaden from Sept. 67 and 8 2016.
It doesn't really matter as these data could've come from several open roulettes in the same room.
Let's not worry about progression style. We just make sure that every time there is a hit we are in profit. Whether the win comes in the first spin or the 4th or in between.
With $10,000 B/R and playing with $10 chips that should be not a problem at all. With under $1000 B/R the system will most likely die. (B/R to chip value ratio very important to sustain a system).
Looking at the pictures, it is clear that there is an OVERWHELMING majority of wins. A lot more frequently in a consecutive fashion. And that's not a coincidence. The same results have been observed for years and years. I am tired of testing and retesting only to see the same results repeat.
Any losses can be easily recovered in the next trigger, starting with a higher value chip.
Or if you opt for slower recovery, you can use the next trigger or the next 2 triggers for that, and it's ok too. Personal choice.
In the picture it is obvious that consecutive losses do not exist, except 2 in a row in somewhat rare occasions.
Can $10,000 handle that? Piece of cake.
I can't guarantee that you won't run into 3 consecutive losses in extremely rare occasions, but
$10,000 can override that mishap very easily with no risk to B/R whatsoever.
However, I have yet to see 4 or more consecutive losses. Which again a large B/R can handle.
Now is there any way you can prove with REAL EXAMPLES, that this simple system will ever lose?
Don't give me the same answer you gave me before on the same subject.
That I would get the same results if a started betting without waiting for a trigger.
That's not an answer. Certainly not proof of failure.
And if you insist that this is the best answer you can come up with, then if the system wins played with a trigger, then it should win playing it the way you suggest.
Ideally I'd like to see pictures like I posted, indicating a situation that this system would lose.
For this system to fail, you have to search and find a situation/s where there is an overwhelming majority of losses and very few wins. (the exact opposite of what I posted). And for many daily results.
As a matter of fact you have to point out a situation where there are at least 20 consecutive losses and no win in between to put that B/R at risk. Or a repetition of 10 consecutive losses for every win.
But you are not going to find any, even if you search the daily results of every casino in this world for the last 100 years. Maybe it will happen sometime in the next million years, but definitely not in our lifetime.
I put quite an effort to post this system with the pictures, I expect a decent answer that validates your arguments. Hopefully with real examples. If you are going to repeat probability theory and the effects of the HE, then it's best not to bother.
We are all eagerly waiting for a real proof. Philosophical ramblings need not apply. We had enough of those and for so long. Time to talk real business.
Simple. If a pictorial proof can verify winning, a pictorial proof can verify failure, especially if it is certain.

(http://i63.tinypic.com/2qdsq3k.png)
Here we can see that there is a 79.15% chance of the trigger occurring (which is a bit loose in my opinion) and the bets will occur at 85.91, 90.48, 93.57 and 95.66 respectively. I think this configuration is good but that it can be tightened up a bit to best take advantage of the favorable statistics (an additional 3 spins for your trigger will increase your shortterm win rate by 3% which is substantial imo).
Once again Pales, you show practicality trumps theory every time.
Why should we listen to people that have given up on roulette and refuse to admit even the most basic statistical fact that is proven before their eyes? It doesn't make sense to claim a higher level of intelligence while ignoring basic facts.

...Trump's theory...
Aha, that's your HG... ;D

(https://media.makeameme.org/created/remaincalmmy.jpg)

Let’s cut to the Chase and take my betting as an example.
I bet 4 straight numbers with an 80 unit Table Bank.
Given that the House Edge is 2.7% tell me when I will lose my bank. No prevarications. No “ about”.
According to Chebyshev's law there is a 95% degree of certainty that you will lose within a little over 42000 bets. I coded a simulation to find the average number of spins (out of 1M sessions) it took before losing the 80 units:
Average number of spins until bank lost = 376.728929
Max number of spins until bank lost = 41075
Min number of spins until bank lost = 20
So the maximum number of spins is pretty close to Chebyshev's value.

In roulette a player has the option to chose only the equivalent of cloudy days.
Therefore he has total control of expected results.
WOW. :o
Palestis, this is most ridiculous assertion I've ever read on a gambling forum, and that's quite an achievement.
Are you living under a bridge and getting your food from a dumpster? Because if anyone actually believed that and followed through then that's what they would be doing.
Anyway, thanks for giving the details of your system. It might be a couple of days before I get back with the results.

...Are you living under a bridge and getting your food from a dumpster? Because if anyone actually believed that and followed through then that's what they would be doing...
Maybe I should call this system I'm working on, "Dumpster Diver" :)

Now run the system with straight betting, which is his his point.
Your point is, "it doesn't matter what you do, you are going to lose your bankroll with enough demonstrated spins" which isn't necessarily true (depending on the actual configuration of the system).
For his point to have merit, it only needs to be demonstrated that there is an improvement, which is the basis for a potentially working system.

Let’s cut to the Chase and take my betting as an example.
I bet 4 straight numbers with an 80 unit Table Bank.
Given that the House Edge is 2.7% tell me when I will lose my bank. No prevarications. No “ about”.
According to Chebyshev's law there is a 95% degree of certainty that you will lose within a little over 42000 bets. I coded a simulation to find the average number of spins (out of 1M sessions) it took before losing the 80 units:
Average number of spins until bank lost = 376.728929
Max number of spins until bank lost = 41075
Min number of spins until bank lost = 20
So the maximum number of spins is pretty close to Chebyshev's value.
Thanks for that Mike but doesn't it support my view that we are only LIKELY to lose and not, as you claim, 100% certain ?
We have heard all this before Mike  many times. As I said before you overstated your case and now you prove I was right  95% is NOT 100%.
So now answer the question I asked before . Do you think we are certain to lose or that we are only likely to lose ?

Maybe I should call this system I'm working on, "Dumpster Diver" :)
Or perhaps "Bridge Builder". :)

Why should we listen to people that have given up on roulette and refuse to admit even the most basic statistical fact that is proven before their eyes? It doesn't make sense to claim a higher level of intelligence while ignoring basic facts.
First, I haven't "given up on roulette"; I've only given up (long ago) playing losing systems. Second, your statistical facts don't prove what you think they prove. Take the first figure in your simulation of 32.44%. This is just the probability of a dozen bet winning  12/37 = 0.3243.
This is with the house edge, so all your simulation has proved is that the "theoretical" probabilities you're always dismissing are in fact the true statistics. In which case, how can you possibly conclude from this that "practicality trumps theory"?
What it shows is that practicality proves theory!
This will become clear when I show that palestis' system fails like any other.

Thanks for that Mike but doesn't it support my view that we are only LIKELY to lose and not, as you claim, 100% certain ?
We have heard all this before Mike  many times. As I said before you overstated your case and now you prove I was right  95% is NOT 100%.
So now answer the question I asked before . Do you think we are certain to lose or that we are only likely to lose ?
No 95% is not 100%, but if you happen to be one of the lucky 5% remaining you CERTAINLY will lose if you continue to play. A 99% degree of certainty gives you about 200,000 spins.
The point is, does using a system make it more likely that you won't lose? There is not the slightest shred of evidence anywhere that it does. In fact, the all the facts point to the reverse.

Why should we listen to people that have given up on roulette and refuse to admit even the most basic statistical fact that is proven before their eyes? It doesn't make sense to claim a higher level of intelligence while ignoring basic facts.
First, I haven't "given up on roulette"; I've only given up (long ago) playing losing systems. Second, your statistical facts don't prove what you think they prove. Take the first figure in your simulation of 32.44%. This is just the probability of a dozen bet winning  12/37 = 0.3243.
This is with the house edge, so all your simulation has proved is that the "theoretical" probabilities you're always dismissing are in fact the true statistics. In which case, how can you possibly conclude from this that "practicality trumps theory"?
What it shows is that practicality proves theory!
This will become clear when I show that palestis' system fails like any other.
I detect an effort to use someone else's simulation to prove your point. And it doesn't.
A failure of this particular system, can only be proven if you find a session where there are enough consecutive losses that will consume the entire B/R, long before a winning session can recapture it. That's what it comes down to.
In plain language you may have to locate a session where there are at least 20 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES following 20 CONSECUTIVE TRIGGERS. With not a single win in between. That's the only way to deplete an entire B/R. Good luck finding such session. Three consecutive losses followed by one win, being repeated throughout an entire session or sessions
(which never happens nor it will), does not make the system fail. A session that wins with a $100 chip and up, erases several losses occurred with a $5 starting chip. It has to be a hell of a lot more consecutive losses to deplete a $10,000 B/R.
When that happens there is no money left to support a chip value high enough to recover.
The question is where can I SEE such session? If you find one AND YOU SHOW ME A PICTURE OF IT then I will gratefully give in to your arguments.
Reverting to black humor is a clear indication of inability to prove, as you run out of all valid arguments.

Good point that the recovery system wasn't implemented but only flat betting.
Also good point about the "snap back" phenomenon regarding improved statistics subsequent to a very rare statistical loss; i.e. your foundational theory about how rare events stacked successively won't repeat very often or for very long.
These two points together represent the ability of your system to recover from the worst sequence types.
This argument is very similar to those that play with chess computers who try and tell GM's about the best moves to make. Computers cannot capture the complexity of a devolped human mind which applies itself to a conceptual task. Computers actually appear stupid (its actually the programmed algorithims) compared to the human mind and I have seen a particular GM point this out on Chess.com. The hash tables are too large at 10 moves out to be able to match human thought. I've seen what happens to a computer that analyzes a GM's moves; it runs itself into knots & fits before it gets a few moves and finally catches up to the genius of the GM and can analyze properly. The human mind has analysis skills where it can "intuit" logical realities that a computer algorithim simply cannot simulate; i.e. the human mind perceives and simply "knows" things. A good example of this is how I can know if a number is in the 3rd column or not, perceiving instantly without conscious thought, if it is divisible by 3; I simply "know" if it is divisible by three or not.

Mike
You still don’t seem to understand that what you are stating is a only a Probability  and that is all your calculations show  and that for only 80 chips ! Do you realise how silly that sounds ?
To bet your 200,000 spins I would need to be betting for the next 19/20 YEARS ! Since I am unlikely to be here on Earth for that length of time this means ,you admit ,that I am just as likely to win as lose during the rest of my lifetime !
Again you claim certainty for what is only your opinion when you claim that systems make no difference to betting randomly. You claim to know what you cannot possibly know  that there is NO shred of evidence that systems can be profitable. You forget that I was prepared to show you me betting in your own local casino and I said that I was unlikely to lose  while you showed me you operating your superduper AP method. Perhaps when HarryJ “eventually” comes to the UK all UK members can meet and demonstrate our different methods. I would LOVE to see the AP show their claimed prowess ! Real could come over in his private jet well  he must be at least a millionaire by now considering all his boasting !
A likliehood is NOT a certainty  even over 200,000 spins  until the end of those 200,000 spins.
Once again, you overstate your case.

you admit ,that I am just as likely to win as lose during the rest of my lifetime !
Hardly "just as likely". That makes it sound as though it's a 50:50 proposition, whereas in fact the odds are overwhelmingly against you reaching even 50,000 spins.
The simulation I did is more accurate because it takes the size of the bank into account. I ran it again but this time for 10M sessions. The longest the bank survived was 53,000 spins. And don't forget the AVERAGE number of spins before you lose the bank is only 376 spins.

A failure of this particular system, can only be proven if you find a session where there are enough consecutive losses that will consume the entire B/R, long before a winning session can recapture it. That's what it comes down to.
In plain language you may have to locate a session where there are at least 20 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES following 20 CONSECUTIVE TRIGGERS. With not a single win in between. That's the only way to deplete an entire B/R. Good luck finding such session.
So it's not important to you that the system can work within realistic casino house limits? And you are the guys who talk about being "practical". ::)
Anyone can come up with a system which wins on paper.

you admit ,that I am just as likely to win as lose during the rest of my lifetime !
Hardly "just as likely". That makes it sound as though it's a 50:50 proposition, whereas in fact the odds are overwhelmingly against you reaching even 50,000 spins.
The simulation I did is more accurate because it takes the size of the bank into account. I ran it again but this time for 10M sessions. The longest the bank survived was 53,000 spins. And don't forget the AVERAGE number of spins before you lose the bank is only 376 spins.
Now my 80 chip bank can sometimes survive for 53.000 spins ! Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?
The average is 376 before I lose my 80 chips ?
Now deduct from that loss my winnings and what do you now calculate ?
My target for a session is 80 chips and I have , on occasion
, won that . Actually, I won that on my last visit .In 35 minutes  on 3 tables  in 38 spins.
As I said before, Mike, you deal in theory  I deal in reality.
Come into the real world , Mike.

A failure of this particular system, can only be proven if you find a session where there are enough consecutive losses that will consume the entire B/R, long before a winning session can recapture it. That's what it comes down to.
In plain language you may have to locate a session where there are at least 20 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES following 20 CONSECUTIVE TRIGGERS. With not a single win in between. That's the only way to deplete an entire B/R. Good luck finding such session.
So it's not important to you that the system can work within realistic casino house limits? And you are the guys who talk about being "practical". ::)
Anyone can come up with a system which wins on paper.
Multiyear observations have not indicated a single case, in this and other similar systems, where you have to exceed the house limit, in order to continue betting. Certainly not for 20 consecutives losses, for this particular system, ( which never happens anyway). And not even 10 happens. You will be searching for years and years to find a single case, where a consecutive 5 lost betting series might happen. There is plenty of room to win before reaching the max. And on top of the maximum in a dozen bet, you can bet all 12 numbers within that dozen to their max, plus splits among the 12 numbers in that dozen to their max, plus the 2 DS's of the dozen, plus the 4 streets of that dozen, plus quad combinations among the numbers of that dozen.
That postpones reaching the max and makes many more bets possible. (Not that you will ever have to resort to that).
You gave up systems testing too soon, to speak with such certainty. If you had stuck with systems testing a lot longer, you would've discovered things that you are not aware that they can happen.
I gather that you cannot come up with a valid answer that this simple system will fail.
If you wonder, y then so many players lose with their systems, the answer is simple.
1.The majority of players (like 99% of them), do not play in this fashion.
2. Those who play like this, do not have enough B/R to support their system, and run out of money, or get scared, long before they are presented with the chance to recover.
Only very few can claim winning consistencies. And they are out there.

Good point that the recovery system wasn't implemented but only flat betting.
Also good point about the "snap back" phenomenon regarding improved statistics subsequent to a very rare statistical loss; i.e. your foundational theory about how rare events stacked successively won't repeat very often or for very long.
These two points together represent the ability of your system to recover from the worst sequence types.
Actually when I posted this sample system I had progression in mind. Otherwise it wouldn't work with flat betting.
The minimum dozen progression required to come out with a profit for the first cycle is 1 1 1.5 2 (yes 1.5 means raising a $10 bet to $15).
The key issue is how many consecutive losses at 4 spins each can happen.
The examples I posted in the pictures showed a few rare instances of 2 consecutive losses. ( 8 step dozen progression). That is a typical session, as more daily results testing will come up likewise.
Which a large B/R can handle very easily. Just as it can handle 3 and 4 consecutive losses. (1216 steps progression).
In extremely rare occasions you might encounter 3 consecutive trigger losses. (12 step dozen progression). But before that happens, there will be tons and tons of wins.
I haven't seen it yet and certainly I haven't seen 4 and up. In long term testing.
Recovery mode means, that after 2 consecutive trigger losses, instead of aiming for a profit, you opt for getting your money back. In one trigger or even 2. (that way you don't use a steep progression).
That's a good method if you have a smaller B/R. And can't take big progression risks.
However with a very large B/R (like $10,00) and $5$10 chips you have nothing to worry about. You will always win or recover and win afterwards, even if the consecutive losses came like a biblical catastrophe.
To lose a very large B/R, there has to be at least 15 consecutive losses at 4 spins each. And no winning interruption in between.
And that's what I challenged Mike to find and post. Because it will never happen. More likely to see 40 reds in a row than 15 consecutive trigger losses.
But as you said previously this system can be made much more robust.
I used a 4 spins missing dozen and placement of 4 bets after that to challenge Mike.
You can certainly use a 68 spins missing dozen as trigger and only 3 betting steps. Much lesser progression risk, high degree of certainty to win.
If you isolate all cases of a dozen or column missing for 68 spins, you will find that they will not continue missing for another 3 spins in 3 consecutive situations.
Definitely you will find a dozen missing for 15 or 25 spins at some point INTERMITTENTLY but not CONSECUTIVELY.
Most likely it can only happen for up to 3 consecutive times And that's on the rare side.
Again a large B/R can handle that very easily.
In a few words it is the INTERMITENT NATURE OF RARE EVENTS, that gives you the opportunity to get a hit during the time when things return to normal and before they start to become rare again.
Knowing the maximum number of consecutive trigger losses of any system, is the best information a player can have. 
PS: The picture below indicates one of the many rarities in roulette.
3 consecutive times a dozen was missing for an unusual high number of spins.
As hard as you can try you will not find a situation like this very easily.
However you will find it happening intermittently. It is during those intermissions that you can hit and run .

A failure of this particular system, can only be proven if you find a session where there are enough consecutive losses that will consume the entire B/R, long before a winning session can recapture it. That's what it comes down to.
In plain language you may have to locate a session where there are at least 20 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES following 20 CONSECUTIVE TRIGGERS. With not a single win in between. That's the only way to deplete an entire B/R. Good luck finding such session.
So it's not important to you that the system can work within realistic casino house limits? And you are the guys who talk about being "practical". ::)
Anyone can come up with a system which wins on paper.
It may not be "practical" or "realistic", but if a system wins on paper it is some sort of proof of concept that roulette is not unbeatable.

Now my 80 chip bank can sometimes survive for 53.000 spins ! Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?
scepticus,
You're moving the goalposts again. You want to know whether it's CERTAIN whether you will lose your 80 unit bankroll, and I've demonstrated by a simulation that it IS certain. The issue isn't how "ridiculous" it sounds that sometimes your bank may survive for X spins. And "sometimes" is being a bit optimistic; in fact that number of spins before the total loss only occurred once in 10 million sessions, and the other long sessions represent only a tiny fraction of the total number of sessions.
So it seems that you guys are right; some "theory" really is just theory. Chebyshev says that there is a chance, albeit a miniscule one, that you could go to as much as 200,000 or more spins before the bank is depleted, but in practice this isn't so.
Reality trumps theory! :)
Incidentally, I added some code to count the number of sessions in which you would have made a profit at some time in the session.
Number of sessions in which profit was made = 7911627
So the probability of being in profit at some point is 7911627/10000000 = 79%. Pretty good. But of course this doesn't mean you will come out ahead if you quit each session after making a profit, because this will be offset by the sessions in which you never make a profit before losing your entire bank.
and I have , on occasion, won that . Actually, I won that on my last visit .In 35 minutes  on 3 tables  in 38 spins.
See Real's reply #65.

I detect an effort to use someone else's simulation to prove your point. And it doesn't.
Maybe not, but Reyth hasn't proved the opposite point either by merely showing probabilities.
A failure of this particular system, can only be proven if you find a session where there are enough consecutive losses that will consume the entire B/R, long before a winning session can recapture it. That's what it comes down to.
In plain language you may have to locate a session where there are at least 20 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES following 20 CONSECUTIVE TRIGGERS. With not a single win in between.
So the claimed superiority of your system rests on the idea that consecutive losing runs won't occur. But you're still using a progression which must give a profit after every win. This means a progression (for dozens) which looks like this:
1,1,2,3,4,6,9,13,20,30,45,68,....
But instead of using this progression in one go, I split it into groups of 4 bets, waiting for a trigger of 4 virtual losses before applying the next sequence in the progression and quitting on the first win, like this:
wait for trigger, then bet 1,1,2,3. If loss, wait for trigger, then bet 4,6,9,13. If loss, wait for trigger, then bet, 20,30,45,68.
Correct?

Why everyone closes their eyes to what is most important in system design?
BET SELECTION.
Everyone speaks about how to explore their bet selections instead of speaking how to make that selection in the first place. I do not speak about black/red kind of stupidity, where random groups of numbers are used.
Funny thing about it is the fact that AP and " System players" use similar math, but different ways of bet selection. This is what AP try to tell system players all the time. USE WISE BET SELECTION. Providing the fact that bet selection do have reasonability, all these " systems" get the boost of positive expectation and in fact may work.
So wich numbers to use and how to determine when they are good (triggers)?
It's simple, collect number hits frequencies for several days. Then put these frequencies side by side on daily basis into your spreadsheet . This is where real work in " designing system" starts. You will see maximum and minimum edge values that your numbers may take.... determine 1/2 of median of this value between days and you got yourself reasonable estimation of true edge you may have on these numbers.
After " system player l wanna be " can find any amount of numbers to his liking. If you wanna bet 12 numbers , it's equivalent of a dousen , if 3 numbers prefered  equivalent of 3 number line.
Why limit yourself for a bet combination provided by table? Doesn't it make more sense to choose yourself instead of taking " preselected " choices given to your by your enemy?
I belive that following this simple guidelines, system player can have better expirience in designing systems for a wheel he wanna play. These " systems" gonna be more " portable" for other wheels.
If no wish to determine when your numbers hit more for physics related reasons , look when they hit on math basis. Qwestions to be answered:
What skips are between hits to your numbers? How frequently they are in last "x" spins. If you see small skips and frequent hits one after other bet more!!! If otherwise bet less or stop. It will be good indicator of your selected numbers performance and will be directly related to physical conditions anyway( numbers do have positive expectation, remember?).
So , if designing systems, why not doing it correctly for the wheel you wanna play in conditions you are offered? If use math, abuse it, be fortuna on your side.

It will be interesting to see how you manage the math here. Remember each lost trigger requires a dozen to fail to appear for 8 spins. So for the total loss to occur 3 different dozens must to fail to appear in 8 spins consecutively.
The fact that one of the triggered dozens fails to appear 10,20 or even 50 times has no relevance. It is simply a trigger loss. Any win at any point in the series negates previous losses.
The total loss for this series is 202 units. So you must show that a 3 consecutive trigger losses, without a single win, will occur more frequently than 202 attempts.
I doubt that this is possible theoretically. Even less likely empirically.
Harry

Question: having started the progression, do I only continue it on the same dozen?
Example:
There are 4 misses on the 1st dozen and the first part of the progression loses because dozen 1 fails to come up in 10 spins. A few spins later the 2nd dozen goes missing for 4 spins. Do I continue the progression (betting 4,6,9,13) on this 2nd dozen or do I begin another progression starting from 1,1,2,3?
Put another way, do you use separate progressions for each dozen?

Mike
Twist and turn how you may you are only dealing in " Expectations" and you will NEVER know until he end of any trial what the result will be. EXPECTATION Mike  Get It ?
As for Real's l #65 . THAT is a question you have to answer about my FACTS !

Mr Perfect
my main focus has always been on Bet Selection because I think it obvious that it should be the main ingredient in any method.

Very interesting post MrPerfect!

It will be interesting to see how you manage the math here. Remember each lost trigger requires a dozen to fail to appear for 8 spins. So for the total loss to occur 3 different dozens must to fail to appear in 8 spins consecutively.
The fact that one of the triggered dozens fails to appear 10,20 or even 50 times has no relevance. It is simply a trigger loss. Any win at any point in the series negates previous losses.
The total loss for this series is 202 units. So you must show that a 3 consecutive trigger losses, without a single win, will occur more frequently than 202 attempts.
I doubt that this is possible theoretically. Even less likely empirically.
Harry
I am pretty sure this (or these) worst sequence(s) exist(s). I can actually code this and output the actual worst sequences for review. Since Pales' example is kinda loose, it can be improved significantly by adjusting the trigger and betting range.

I detect an effort to use someone else's simulation to prove your point. And it doesn't.
Maybe not, but Reyth hasn't proved the opposite point either by merely showing probabilities.
A failure of this particular system, can only be proven if you find a session where there are enough consecutive losses that will consume the entire B/R, long before a winning session can recapture it. That's what it comes down to.
In plain language you may have to locate a session where there are at least 20 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES following 20 CONSECUTIVE TRIGGERS. With not a single win in between.
So the claimed superiority of your system rests on the idea that consecutive losing runs won't occur. But you're still using a progression which must give a profit after every win. This means a progression (for dozens) which looks like this:
1,1,2,3,4,6,9,13,20,30,45,68,....
But instead of using this progression in one go, I split it into groups of 4 bets, waiting for a trigger of 4 virtual losses before applying the next sequence in the progression and quitting on the first win, like this:
wait for trigger, then bet 1,1,2,3. If loss, wait for trigger, then bet 4,6,9,13. If loss, wait for trigger, then bet, 20,30,45,68.
Correct?
There is nothing superior about this system. I just made it up quickly to prove a point. Many systems can become good systems if executed differently.
Any way the progression does not have to be whole numbers. 1.5X, 2.5X etc. qualifies. Like from $10 to $15, or $20 to $25.
One way of playing it is to increase the bet enough to gain a minimum profit, while recovering all losses up to that point.
Another way of playing is, after losing a whole trigger with its 4 bets, to raise the progression just enough to recover in the next trigger. Without seeking profit. Because the overwhelming majority of wins will eventually prevail. So there is no need to risk a smaller B/R with sharp progressions.
And yet another way of playing it is to let an entire trigger lose (with all its 4 bets), and then actually bet in the next trigger. Considering that 3 consecutive trigger losses are extremely rare, you are almost certain that one of the 2 next riggers will win.
But basically it is the way you describe it, and by using 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 increases you won't reach the numbers of units required, as you listed them.
The point is that you have to find quite a few consecutive trigger failures for the system to lose.
Trying to prove it theoretically, for some distant future doesn't count as an answer.
As it doesn't count the idea of betting one dozen from the beginning without any triggers.
It's not the same. Because when you run into a dozen that will go missing for 15+ spins in a row,
(which will definitely happen), the loss will be devastating.
With the trigger you confine the losses to 4 spins. Thus avoiding a bad run.
You have to lose plenty of triggers at 4 spins each (consecutively), to make up an equivalent loss of one bad run. And it's not just a bad run of one specific dozen. It is consecutive bad runs of all dozens mixed in. That's what makes it a rare occurrence.

Question: having started the progression, do I only continue it on the same dozen?
Example:
There are 4 misses on the 1st dozen and the first part of the progression loses because dozen 1 fails to come up in 10 spins. A few spins later the 2nd dozen goes missing for 4 spins. Do I continue the progression (betting 4,6,9,13) on this 2nd dozen or do I begin another progression starting from 1,1,2,3?
Put another way, do you use separate progressions for each dozen?
No. You only bet the particular dozen that is missing. It's not the same dozen all the time. Whatever dozen happens to be missing, that's the one you target. Having lost one progression series of 4 bets, you continue the progression, in another dozen that will be found missing.
And as I said in the previous post, the progression can be profit driven or recovery driven if a loss intervenes. Once you recover you shoot for profit as usual.
As you probably noticed, betting different dozens each time, you make it hard for the roulette, to take each dozen and repeat consecutive missing patterns that apply in all 3 dozens.
Finding a specific dozen missing for at least 10 spins it's not that difficult.
But repeating a missing pattern (even for lesser spins), consecutively and for all dozens, it's very rare to happen.
And as for your last question, restarting the same progression from its initial stage after every new trigger will not work.
And the most correct progression is 1, 1, 1.5, 2, instead of 1,1,2,3
PS:
I posted this picture before but I forgot to explain it.
It shows 3 different dozens each of them missing for many spins, and the whole thing happened consecutively. I doubt that you will find a situation like this no matter how hard you look.

Why everyone closes their eyes to what is most important in system design?
BET SELECTION.
So wich numbers to use and how to determine when they are good (triggers)?
It's simple, collect number hits frequencies for several days. Then put these frequencies side by side on daily basis into your spreadsheet . This is where real work in " designing system" starts. You will see maximum and minimum edge values that your numbers may take.... determine 1/2 of median of this value between days and you got yourself reasonable estimation of true edge you may have on these numbers.
Mr. Perfect
I have done extensive work along the lines you are suggesting, similar to the pics. you see below.
I note all the number that fell far below their rightful average for the day, and those numbers that exceeded their average by far. Observing the behavior of those numbers for consecutive days in the same roulette, doesn't give you much information that you can use to your advantage. Certainly there is no indication for bias.
Numbers that fell too short of their expectations in one day may continue to fall short in the next 2 days. Numbers that shot up in frequency may continue to appear more often, but there is no guarantee that this is going to happen. Except certain extremes that continue for at least 3 days.
Numbers that fell too short in 34 days, most of them will make up by exceeding their average in the 5th day. But that's too time consuming to find. When you do you bet high.
These are "long range systems" and require cooperation of more than one player. As the numbers for the entire day for a specific roulette/s have to be recorded.
Basically numbers that fell very short of their rightful average are more useful that numbers that exceeded it.
If there were 250 numbers spun for the day, average appearance for each number should be 6.7.
(250/37). Based on that you judge what fell short and what exceeded the average.

Why everyone closes their eyes to what is most important in system design?
BET SELECTION.
So wich numbers to use and how to determine when they are good (triggers)?
It's simple, collect number hits frequencies for several days. Then put these frequencies side by side on daily basis into your spreadsheet . This is where real work in " designing system" starts. You will see maximum and minimum edge values that your numbers may take.... determine 1/2 of median of this value between days and you got yourself reasonable estimation of true edge you may have on these numbers.
Mr. Perfect
I have done extensive work along the lines you are suggesting, similar to the pics. you see below.
I note all the number that fell far below their rightful average for the day, and those numbers that exceeded their average by far. Observing the behavior of those numbers for consecutive days in the same roulette, doesn't give you much information that you can use to your advantage. Certainly there is no indication for bias.
Numbers that fell too short of their expectations in one day may continue to fall short in the next 2 days. Numbers that shot up in frequency may continue to appear more often, but there is no guarantee that this is going to happen. Except certain extremes that continue for at least 3 days.
Numbers that fell too short in 34 days, most of them will make up by exceeding their average in the 5th day. But that's too time consuming to find. When you do you bet high.
These are "long range systems" and require cooperation of more than one player. As the numbers for the entire day for a specific roulette/s have to be recorded.
Basically numbers that fell very short of their rightful average are more useful that numbers that exceeded it.
If there were 250 numbers spun for the day, average appearance for each number should be 6.7.
(250/37). Based on that you judge what fell short and what exceeded the average.
Palestice, make yourself a favor, change software you are using. It's misleading....
What you have written here has nothing to do with results you posted on the picture.
I'll post what l see, so you can compare...

Day 1

Day 2

And finally day 3. This one killed my moral. I got exited.

Here all together. In this moment you killed randomness and went higher then 3 std. It particulary says nothing, but l would track such a wheel day and night.

Question: having started the progression, do I only continue it on the same dozen?
Example:
There are 4 misses on the 1st dozen and the first part of the progression loses because dozen 1 fails to come up in 10 spins. A few spins later the 2nd dozen goes missing for 4 spins. Do I continue the progression (betting 4,6,9,13) on this 2nd dozen or do I begin another progression starting from 1,1,2,3?
Put another way, do you use separate progressions for each dozen?
No. You only bet the particular dozen that is missing. It's not the same dozen all the time. Whatever dozen happens to be missing, that's the one you target. Having lost one progression series of 4 bets, you continue the progression, in another dozen that will be found missing.
And as I said in the previous post, the progression can be profit driven or recovery driven if a loss intervenes. Once you recover you shoot for profit as usual.
As you probably noticed, betting different dozens each time, you make it hard for the roulette, to take each dozen and repeat consecutive missing patterns that apply in all 3 dozens.
Finding a specific dozen missing for at least 10 spins it's not that difficult.
But repeating a missing pattern (even for lesser spins), consecutively and for all dozens, it's very rare to happen.
And as for your last question, restarting the same progression from its initial stage after every new trigger will not work.
And the most correct progression is 1, 1, 1.5, 2, instead of 1,1,2,3
PS:
I posted this picture before but I forgot to explain it.
It shows 3 different dozens each of them missing for many spins, and the whole thing happened consecutively. I doubt that you will find a situation like this no matter how hard you look.
(http://img.cryptlife.com/2014/04/facebookgoogleplussocialnetworking.gif)

MrPerfect,
I really like presenting the numbers in the order they are in the wheel. But I guess I state the obvious ;)

Here all together. In this moment you killed randomness and went higher then 3 std. It particulary says nothing, but l would track such a wheel day and night.
You know there is freeware that will take a screenshot of that spreadsheet?

MrPerfect,
I really like presenting the numbers in the order they are in the wheel. But I guess I state the obvious ;)
You make a very good point. It's nessesary to see entire picture, altroth not an ultimate solution, provides good idea of what may be going on .

Here all together. In this moment you killed randomness and went higher then 3 std. It particulary says nothing, but l would track such a wheel day and night.
You know there is freeware that will take a screenshot of that spreadsheet?
quicktime player does,l think... l used phone as most convinient way in the moment.

Ok kewl. Can you summarize your opinion of that final screenshot you took? I mean what do the contents mean to you?

Ok kewl. Can you summarize your opinion of that final screenshot you took? I mean what do the contents mean to you?
there is a half wheel hitting on 3 consequtive days ( centered around number 17). It provides close to 710 % edge on average. Maximum edge was observed 20%. Minimum 5%.
As l can see, results are conditions dependent. Posible hunt for small groups ( or even individua ) numbers in selected conditions.
Particulary interesting chance of randomness.
Only 1: 6208000000000000000 wheels would display such behaviour due to a chance.
In 700 spins wheel show results right near boundary after wich l would consider go for table maximum betting ( providing l would have proper data on it. ).

Wow. Do you apply your analysis skills to RNG sequences as well?

Wow. Do you apply your analysis skills to RNG sequences as well?
Nothing impressive, it's just a preliminary analysis. Real assessment of the wheel require much more then just numbers totals. More variables taken into the spin, more tests....
I stop to play rng. Used to have some suxsess with bookmaker slot mashines in the past, later they updated software and started to literally still money from players, so l stoped as l could do nothing anymore....

@Palestice, if you by any chance do have a number stream on that wheel ( order of numbers as they come up), we could try to make a "system" of betting on this wheel and run some simulations for different scenarios wich may be present in the game.
As you pointed earlier, it require cooperation of several players, so let's set an example. Who knows if this forum will produce new pro team where people gonna share same objective and workload? This is exactly what casinos fear the most... teams.
Imagine, if folks here stop to argue about their systems and push each to his own side , and start to create ways of betting for particular wheels and situations? Our name will be " ligion" , cos we are many ;).
We will be like " piranha" come to bite and run away ....

@Palestice, if you by any chance do have a number stream on that wheel ( order of numbers as they come up), we could try to make a "system" of betting on this wheel and run some simulations for different scenarios wich may be present in the game.
As you pointed earlier, it require cooperation of several players, so let's set an example. Who knows if this forum will produce new pro team where people gonna share same objective and workload? This is exactly what casinos fear the most... teams.
Mr.Perfect you mentioned earlier that I should change software. What I posted previously was not the results of software. It is actual results form a live casino in Wiesbaden Germany. Where they list all daily results from several tables. With total statistics on the bottom. It has the total number of spins,
and the frequency of each number that appeared on that date on that table. Of course all statistics of EC's, dozens and columns. The link to that is: http://www.spielbankwiesbaden.de/index.php?id=105&L=1&view=archiv. Then you chose any date any table and see all the results of that table on that date.
You can pick a single table , and see all the results for as many previous days as you need to see. Then you can confirm the results of any system, by monitoring the data of subsequent dates on that same table. Very simple.

@Palestice, if you by any chance do have a number stream on that wheel ( order of numbers as they come up), we could try to make a "system" of betting on this wheel and run some simulations for different scenarios wich may be present in the game.
As you pointed earlier, it require cooperation of several players, so let's set an example. Who knows if this forum will produce new pro team where people gonna share same objective and workload? This is exactly what casinos fear the most... teams.
Mr.Perfect you mentioned earlier that I should change software. What I posted previously was not the results of software. It is actual results form a live casino in Wiesbaden Germany. Where they list all daily results from several tables. With total statistics on the bottom. It has the total number of spins,
and the frequency of each number that appeared on that date on that table. Of course all statistics of EC's, dozens and columns. The link to that is: http://www.spielbankwiesbaden.de/index.php?id=105&L=1&view=archiv. Then you chose any date any table and see all the results of that table on that date.
You can pick a single table , and see all the results for as many previous days as you need to see. Then you can confirm the results of any system, by monitoring the data of subsequent dates on that same table. Very simple.
I apologise for my ignorance ;).
I had a hance to look it from phone only. But looks like not very usable for a purpose. Much better would be if we could separate spins by direction at least. Or do they spin same direction always?

I apologise for my ignorance ;).
I had a hance to look it from phone only. But looks like not very usable for a purpose. Much better would be if we could separate spins by direction at least. Or do they spin same direction always?
In US casinos they spin in one direction only. But the ball can be thrown above any number randomly.
In all the casinos in a certain European country where I was, the spins alternate direction, with the ball starting from above or very near the last number span. I assume that it is the same in all European casinos.
Looking at results from Wiesbaden, every other spin should in the same direction. Like 1st , 3rd , 5th.... spin should be in one direction, and 2nd,4th ,6th ..... spin in the opposite.
So there is a way to separate spins by direction, and observe consistencies, if that's what you are looking for.

I apologise for my ignorance ;).
I had a hance to look it from phone only. But looks like not very usable for a purpose. Much better would be if we could separate spins by direction at least. Or do they spin same direction always?
In US casinos they spin in one direction only. But the ball can be thrown above any number randomly.
In all the casinos in a certain European country where I was, the spins alternate direction, with the ball starting from above or very near the last number span. I assume that it is the same in all European casinos.
Looking at results from Wiesbaden, every other spin should in the same direction. Like 1st , 3rd , 5th.... spin should be in one direction, and 2nd,4th ,6th ..... spin in the opposite.
So there is a way to separate spins by direction, and observe consistencies, if that's what you are looking for.
Unfortunately, such way of separation wouldn't work.... dealers are human and mistake often. Like twice same direction....
Wisbaden has no practical value for this very same reason.... we can see things, but can not know for sure how to exploit them or make any genrealisations that can help us in the future..
Big practical value at this case could be similar information from US casino...
In general things that simplify life are:
1.direction
2 . Rotor speed
3. Ball in use
4. Type of poket separator
5. Atmospheric pressure
6. Ball behavior
7. Drop point
8. Number stream... plus any other information that player may consider to take.
Qwolity of data is much superior to the Qwontity in this case....

Analyzing the random stream, a base of 616 numbers would allow for a complete assessment. Just my 2 units. :D
We are counting on all numbers representing true random as closely as possible.

In general things that simplify life are:
1.direction
2 . Rotor speed
3. Ball in use
4. Type of poket separator
5. Atmospheric pressure
6. Ball behavior
7. Drop point
8. Number stream... plus any other information that player may consider to take.
Qwolity of data is much superior to the Qwontity in this case....
Wow. Atmospheric pressure? Do they allow barometers in the casino?
Because the pressure outside is not the same with the atmospheric pressure inside. So somehow you have to measure it.
How do you connect atm. pressure with simplifying life in predicting numbers?

In general things that simplify life are:
1.direction
2 . Rotor speed
3. Ball in use
4. Type of poket separator
5. Atmospheric pressure
6. Ball behavior
7. Drop point
8. Number stream... plus any other information that player may consider to take.
Qwolity of data is much superior to the Qwontity in this case....
Wow. Atmospheric pressure? Do they allow barometers in the casino?
Because the pressure outside is not the same with the atmospheric pressure inside. So somehow you have to measure it.
How do you connect atm. pressure with simplifying life in predicting numbers?
in this game everything is enter related. ... For example, imagine there is somewhat unstable drop point, in some atm.pressures it will be more stable then others. It's will provoke more systematic ball behavior exiting ball track. On other hand, atm.pressure affects how much ball jamp on average ( wich can change numbers also). Everything affects everything, that's why lots of data is needed to be able to model different ball behaviors, and tests to determine in wich conditions play is favorable.
To measure pressure l use fishing watch " alexa".. but l gess any fishing watch would do.