Triggers in Systems

[MickyP]

Some interesting replies coming through.

I've  been thinking about this topic for the last few days and something I mentioned in my opening remarks begs to be challenged.  "If roulette is a random game of luck and past spins have no influence on future spins then why bother with triggers and or systems?" Everything about man and everything known to man about life and the universe  no matter how small or large, thrives on the repetition of patterns, sequences and so on. Roulette is no different. Using the 37 numbers on the European roulette wheel, a multitude of patterns, sequences and repeats will or will not occur over a period of time. Past spin information helps to identify the natural trends of the game but random still exists because the length of a trend can't be predicted.

The stock market operates in much the same way. It is not an exact science but if you are good at reading the signs, you can realise your goals. Roulette has so many more variables  than just 37 numbers: wheel and ball type, spin direction and speed, deflectors (diamonds) and degree of bounce, and so on. In the end the ball will come to rest on one of the numbers; it's a closed circuit.

As I stated earlier,  triggers work and can easily be identified in the natural flow of the game but like MrPerfect says, "be careful."  On this note of being careful, one should alway test information about roulette even if it was paid for. There is a lot of misinformation that is used to sow seeds of doubt into the minds of players. This is evident in forums like this where an idea is shot down instead of contributing meaningful information that will grow that idea. An example of this can be seen in the many systems posted by Ignatus using different triggers; he even posts graphs to illustrate his systems yet the response is weak. It's a time consuming exercise to think out and developed a system and the reason for posting the systems is to develop it further through brainstorming responses.

I'm grateful for the interest shown in this topic.

[Reyth]

Yes, I notice he seems to always come out profitable at the end of his posts.  I think he and Jesper are somewhat similar.

[MrPerfect.]

 Micky... there is a fact, everyone knows it but not many accept.  It's HE. Systems are whatever they are, it's just how and when to bet. But need a target... it's a bet selection. And that one better being positive expectation on the long run... if not, you know what gonna happen, right?
    Designing systems is easy... l do it every day on the go. Difficult is to determine a proper target. That's why systems without a target do receive little response. 

[MickyP]

Now that I think of it, you are right Reyth; good observation. By the way, I wasn't knocking Ignatus . I used him as an example of someone who contributes a great deal to the forum with little return from other members. I like his system development and if I were to use one I would test it virtually for a minimum of 8 full hours at a B/M table.

Every time I play roulette. I spend at least an hour observing the tables and running my play through my head, identifying triggers, trends and always for hot numbers and hot areas.of the  wheel. When I feel comfortable I play but rarely do I stay at a table for over 50 spins. At times I will carry my game over to a new table and adjust my approach to take advantage of the trends on that table. It's like reading a newspaper, flip through and spend time on the hot topics. I've burnt many a bankroll on long games at one table. I find it better to observe a table from a distance, I'm then more focused on my approach. When at the table playing, ones focus is different, less clinical with all the distractions around. I think a great way to start your play is to play virtual for a while first.

[MickyP]

MrPerfect, you say a system should have a target. How do you define target in relation to a system?

If for example the system is playing the double streets like Hermes 4x4 DS system, what would be the target to you?

[MrPerfect.]

And what is his reason to belive that these double streets do have positive expectation?
   Target is numbers that will come more then expected. And they should do so when/ while you are betting. If you can achieve it, system doesn't matter, choose one that will produce maximum profit on the sequence of hits  that you expect to be there.

[MickyP]

I see your point MrPerfect and if I understand correctly, you are referring to "target" from your game play perspective as a visual ballistic player. I can't fault you on that.

Target for non vb players could have a different meaning altogether. From your definition of target you refer to a specific number or numbers on the wheel while other player types may see single streets, double streets, dozens, EC bets or other felt clusters of numbers as a target.

Hermes system is based on repeating double streets or against a string of non repeaters like DS 1 2 3 4 5 6 . This is not a very common occurrence and thus the relative winning sessions this system produces. The progression is a deal breaker though.

Target to some who play the felt as opposed to the wheel could simply be a win goal of X amount of units.

[Reyth]

If I was to define portions of a system by name, the portion that I think Mr. P is referring to is:  Bet Selection

The pattern of 1-6 that you mentioned sounds like it is bet selection.  Generally, for system players, this is where we use probability & statistics to decide where & when to bet.

If I was a S/U bettor, I could do it based on either the wheel or felt (or even both).

[MrPerfect.]

When l was testing systems for a sake of systems .... l sou same thing happening with bankroll.... if numbers choice is positive it goes up, if numbers choice is whatever , it goes down.
   I can not show off with advanced math on this one, but extensive experience of contemplating same thing over and over is very convincing. 
    Systems are just a chortcut for money management and player's decision. They do require positive numbers as a target to perform properly..  and not only. Maximise the take of money per hour should be a priority of player , if he see this thing as an income.
    MickyP, target is a target, be it distances or numbers or a mix of both. As long as it's make profit. ... if l find someday something felt based, l will play that, but for now l just focus on what brings money .

[MickyP]

Once again I'm inclined to agree with you MrPerfect . Playing roulette is all about making a profit. Those who say they do not play for profit should rather play video games at home.

I don't think that systems are a shortcut to playing roulette effectively. There are a number of systems that produce consistent winnings, not 20 X your bankroll, maybe 50% of bankroll but winning is winning. There are systems based on the law of thirds that are played off the wheel and off the felt when a cluster of numbers is identified as hot.

Everyone has their own opinion as to the best and only way to play roulette and because they are successful with their approach it doesn't mean that no other approach is right. I try not to knock the different approaches players have, instead I try and learn from them.

Triggers identify potential targets and if the target is hit as expected then it confirms the trigger works. You can't presume this with a few success but with hundreds of concentrated successes, yes, and this can be a felt or wheel based approach.

[MrPerfect.]

There is a rull... first make hipotesys, then verify them. Target comes first, then you look a triggers for it and verify trigger on consequtive data taking..  then play. No any other math correct way. Even stats has rules. .. target comes FIRST. Everything else is secondary fine tuning..  if target doesn't win by itself, you need other target.

[Mike]

Triggers identify potential targets and if the target is hit as expected then it confirms the trigger works. You can't presume this with a few success but with hundreds of concentrated successes, yes, and this can be a felt or wheel based approach.

A trigger "works" if the target hits at a rate higher than that expected using no trigger or just a random bet. This is what most system players forget. They dream up some trigger which appears to work. Usually, though, it works no better than random, but the player doesn't check whether that is so.

[MickyP]

That's a strong statement Mike, almost like sticking a cattle prod into the side of system players. I haven't associated with many roulette players so I wouldn't know how they "dream up triggers". Plebs who dream up triggers without testing them properly deserve to loose as do those who play systems blindly because a "pro player" recommended or sold it to them.

My approach is well thought through and planned from game entry to exit. My being on the forum is not to convince "the plebs" of anything. In fact I have not encounters any dumb members on the forum and if there are lesser skilled players than I on the forum then big up to them for taking steps to learn.

Would you be so kind and give us a positive approach to triggers from your perspective?

[Mike]

Micky,

It's not my intention to label any players as "dumb" because they use triggers based (only) on past spins. Independence is a tricky concept and we have an intuition that, because, say, 10 blacks have occurred, then red must come up pretty soon (because reds and blacks have equal probabililty of hitting). You can substitute red and black for any other bet on the table and any other number of hits or nonhits.

This intuition is incorrect.

What I'm saying is that if you believe that such triggers "work", you should test your particular hypothesis correctly. What's missing is the concept of a "control" group. Researchers working on a new drug might conduct trials in which there are 2 groups : one taking the drug and the other taking a placebo. If the placebo seems to work just as well as the drug this shows that there is no merit in the drug, yes?

In the same way, and using the above example of 10 blacks in a row, suppose you believe that this is a good trigger. What would "good" actually mean? It means after having seen 10 blacks and betting red, a red will appear, on average, within FEWER subsequent spins than when you did NOT wait for the 10 blacks. See what I mean? So in order to test a system, you need the "placebo" group in order to verify that the system/trigger actually does what you believe it will; namely, perform BETTER than the non-trigger, or a random bet.

[MickyP]

Now that was a meaningful reply. Thank you Mike.

Roulette is a bit like people's chosen occupations. Not everyone wants to be a white collar worker. Some prefer to be blue collar while other, the artistic type prefer no collar. The measurement of their success in life is their personal happiness and family wellbeing. Although they all strive to make money, some more than other want to enjoy the process.

On placebos, a good example to explain your point but in reality placebos outrun actually medicine in returning the health of a patient. Long story not relevant to this forum. It's just psychological conditioning, manipulating the power of the brain.pharmaceutical companies are like roulette scammers.

On the red black example, it would be silly for anyone to take the occurrence of ten black appearing as a trigger to bet red. That on its own is not a trigger but it is expectation. Although they are linked I think triggers control expectation to some degree.

The way I see it you don't believe that past spin history has an influence on future spins and thus don't believe in the trigger concept.

Judging what and how to bet is not an exact science no matter how deep the maths may go. You can not accurately predict what number the ball will land on. There is simply no time to calculate all the variables. As MrPerfect put it, "it's all about profit". No triggers works 100% of the time just like vb can not produce wins indefinitely.