Quote:
|
My post was intended for those who know a bit more about roulette than your unthinking, unalterable 1 in 37 scenario.
|
As a professional croupier and casino inspector of many years standing i can safely say i have seen and conducted hundreds of thousands of spins of roulette. I am trained in wheel maintenance and inspection, have overseen the implementation and testing of new roulette balls and have been trained in many ways of cheating at roulette. I have also the seen the results of millions of spins through the electronic roulette terminals broken down into daily, monthly and yearly figures. As such my post was intended for someone who knows a little more about roulette than your unthinking shangri-la, dance with the fairies while the leprechaun gives me his pot of gold scenario.
However. With the aid of my roulette layout and a stack of chips i
think have worked out what you are talking about. You mean only play the black and odd numbers and the red and even numbers (BORES as you put it)
in either the high or low section? ie 29-36 or 11-18.
However you cannot evenly cover either bet with four chips.
28 29
30
31
32 33
34 35
36
10 11
12
13
14 15
16 17
18
Any combination of bets you put on those numbers subjects you to the house edge. This edge is 2.7%. And yes, that is unthinking. Yes, that is unalterable. Yes, it is because there are 37 numbers on the layout and you are paid 35-1. All your system does is double the house edge over playing the outsides. There is no point even going into your maths because your theoretical solution does not match the reality of the game.
If i am wrong or have misinterpreted your system please feel free to correct me but you already had the chance to outline your system in a more thorough way and didn't so i dont hold out much hope. You were correct in one part of your first post, it is the odds on offer that are the problem.
You have outlined no way around this. This also means you are wrong when you say you can forecast the next winning number from previous spins unless there is mechanical failure of some kind. This is exactly how i come to translate "mathematical expectation" as mathematical certainty. One spin does not relate to the next. You are betting at a disadvantage. You will lose eventually.
As to when, that is a question more of philosophy. Im sure there is someone, somewhere in the world who has never lost a single chip on roulette just as i am sure there is some poor soul somewhere who has never won one. But that is what makes you a true believer, it would be too disrespectful to call you a delusionist and my response to your offensive post has softened over the time it has taken me to write this. You may think i am a delusionist but i base my opinion on mathematics. Vegas, Baden-Baden and the Grand Casino are billion pound monuments to my certainty. I have yet to see either from a legitimate system.
Quote:
|
And why do people finish their posts with amateurish putdowns posing as" words of wisdom'?Why not do a proper job like Georges Salas who wrote " I look upon Vizelly's system as perhaps the most idiotic of the innumerable imbecile sustems evolved from the distempered brains of gamblers " Now that is what I call a putdown. EXQUISITE !
|
Well i hoped that it might stop the impressionable, the greedy, the naive and the desperate from losing money they cannot afford and destroying their lives. If i really wanted to put you down id tell you to sell all your personal possessions and start playing your system.