Another reality check

[insidebet]

Hello everybody!

I have been following VIP and now this site for three years.
Most of the guys seem well intentioned and intelligent. Having said, I have my two bits of advice.  Bear with me here. And please prove me wrong!  OK Here we go...

1- Progressions and Money management are two of the same: totally overrated and useless.  They rely on luck.  That is they rely on good timing, which is luck.  If you have a winning `system`, (eg. your full bets hit at a rate better than 1 in 36), the more you bet and the LONGER you play, the more money you will make. Period. And obviously, vice versa.  As far as progressions are concerned, you will, without a doubt, run into that  famous session from hell and loose profits, house and clothes!  Again, if you play that way, you just HOPE you do not hit that session.  If you play on hope, you are no better than the average Joe who walks in the casino...

2- If you have a so-called `system`, you must test it for at the very least 20 000 spins to have any idea whether it is winning or not.  I keep reading stuff like: "I have tested this last night for 284 spins and it looks promising..."  I can show you 10 000 systems that look very promising after 284 spins.  It really means  nada.

3- Some of the more recent post (eg. GUT) look inspiring to a lot of people, looking at the number of replies.  Is someone capable of RX coding this stuff? Then we would know for sure whether it is winning or not. I suspect it is rather complicated to code.

4- Whenever there is a post such as this one, I usually see a tally of more or less insulting replies.  It is as though, whenever someone doubts the methods employed, that person is thought to be "negative" or "counter-productive". You read stuff like "if you cannot bring something positive, do not write at all".  Some of these replies come from hard cold facts that cannot be proven wrong, at least not so far.  Trust me on this one: if there is somebody that has tried to come up with something that wins long term, it is my little self!  I like the game of roulette for a lot of different reasons but I seriously doubt I will ever find a way to win LONG TERM.

Go easy on me!

Insidebet

PS.  If there is a winning way,  I strongly suspect that it will be playing "inside" and full numbers.  I also think that playing sectors is the way.  But that is just a feeling.

[gizmotron]

Welcome to the gallery of "We few, we happy few."

I find your observations and conclusions to be true and from having lots of experience as well. It's one thing to know roulette and it's another thing to be a good listener and watch gamblers making claims on public internet forums. You have grasped the reality of people that tend to run both their play and their understanding of things in rose colored environs. I would call it a kind of dependency on wishful thinking. There is only one way to beat Roulette. You must beat it consistently in the short term to beat it in the long term. The only way to do that is to make smart choices and smart adjustments. It's a long drawn out process to get experience.

[TwoCatSam]

insidebet

Your post was well written, obviously thought-out, probably edited on Word before posting, and right on the mark in many cases.  Do I agree with everything you said.  No, I don't.  As far as proving you wrong, people will try to do that as long as there is a roulette wheel.

Perhaps I read you wrong, but I came away with the impression you feel money management and a progression are the same thing.  If so, I strongly disagree with that one.  A progression is writing a bad check you hope you can cover in the next six bets.  (Those who bet progressions--don't take offense.  It's just my truth.  May not be yours.)

As to sitting and playing for hours and hours and winning all the time--that is possible.  Not probable, but possible.  However, don't you get tired?  Don't you want to walk the dog?  Go eat?  Nap? 

When I was studing the VLS Lw Methodology, I said I could tell which way the wind was blowing on a certain day.  Now, with Mr. Chips 4Selecta system, I see the same thing.  I see it with my Chicco/murph system. 

As to winkle, perhaps a million spins down the road his system will fail on him.  He'll be dead as the wood in a roulette wheel and he won't give a flip.

Your post is challenging but not insulting.  I hope you post more like it.

Samster

[TwoCatSam]

It is as though, whenever someone doubts the methods employed, that person is thought to be "negative" or "counter-productive". wrote the inside man.

insidebet

Nothing could be further from the truth.  My philosophy has always been when a system is posted, let's all do all we can to prove it wrong within the guidelines the author has set forth.  I have always said if we tear it down and prove it doesn't work, we all save money.  I have always said if we CAN'T tear it down and prove it's wrong, we have winning system.

There are numbers all over the internet for us to use to test systems.  As winkel has said, don't just throw rhetorical rocks at the system.  Grab you some numbers and show us in black and white why it won't work.

Any study I post is suspect!  I would love for someone to follow my footprints and prove me wrong!

Sam

[winkel]

3- Some of the more recent post (eg. GUT) look inspiring to a lot of people, looking at the number of replies.  Is someone capable of RX coding this stuff? Then we would know for sure whether it is winning or not. I suspect it is rather complicated to code.

Hi insidebet,

you asking for a lot of advice, but you don´t read the system on the board carefully:

1. I said: I´ve tested it over more than 20 000 000 spins. Trust me or don´t play that stuff!
2. I said: To improve winning you have to watch what´s going on. This may be possible to code it, but it is a hell lot of work. Nobody would do that for free, just to tell you; It´s ok boy, go and win with it!
3. I said: Because my days are counted and there is not more much time to become famous, I decided to share it around the world. Trust me or not, your decision. I´m not pressing anyone to believe, but everyone who reads carefully and follows the half of my advices will win.
(Even if you play like an idiot every crossing you will win: look in the Testing-Area)

Code Select Expand

As to winkle, perhaps a million spins down the road his system will fail on him.

4. No it won´t! because that to happen the statistical rules had to be out of command for a very very long time.
as long as these are back within 1369 spins this strategy will win!

br
winkel

[ChickenDinner]

@ inside bet.

I my humble opinion, Money Management is everything. Whatever system is used, the player will have big winning streaks and big losing streaks, and sooner or later they will start losing more than they are winning (perhaps Winkel's GUT could prove me wrong though!). However, if the player can manage his or her money so that they bet less when losing and more when winning, they will end up on top. This is the hardest part: identifying when the wheel is not on your side & swiftly reducing your bets until you start getting hits again (or if they still don't come, try a low risk strategy, but if this also fails - quit & lose as little as possible). I'm still learning this skill, but for what it's worth, I believe that you can win at roulette over the long term by becoming an expert at this type of play. This is something Victor calls passive-aggressive methodology and Manrique calls dispersion surfing...

CD

[insidebet]

Thanks for all the replies, guys.

It is good to see different opinions.

Gizmotron: To win short term to win the battle long term sure is a difficult task. Loosing strings can really last, even if you have a good plan. 

Samster: I think I know the difference between progressions and money management.   Chickendinne says: play more when lucky and vice versa.  Let me tell you a little story. (Hush hush. Do not tell anybody).  I played biaised wheels for years, making a fair amount with limited BR.  I have tried to maximize my gains by doing what the Chicken prones.  To no avail: I found my winning % of return was pretty well the same no matter what I did with money management. Maybe I did it all wrong, I do not know.  But it my experience. 
A lot of people also think money management is equivalent to: make X amount of units and get the hell out!   That goes back to what I said in my opener. This way of playing relies on good timing, in other words luck.

Winkel: You seem to be quite  sure of yourself. Good for you. But surely, you cannot believe everything you read on the web. Right?
I have tried to understand your stuff, as you call it. I am not sure if I understood everything. I tried to test it for a few spins, with mixed results.  I really have to test it a long time to know.  20 000 000 spins? Really?  It would take 100 years to do that manually.  This means you do have a programme for this.

Regards

Insidebet

[winkel]

The only Moneymanagement that works:

start with a bankroll playing minimum Chips
if you´r bankroll is +200%
play 2 x minimum Chips
if you loose you can start again with starting BR
and so on

If you know it is, you can be sure of it with no doubt.

But surely, you cannot believe everything you read on the web. Right?

But you can go and proof it right or wrong. If you are not able to, just leve it alone.

I tried to test it for a few spins, with mixed results.

didn´t you read what I said?: It wins and it loses, but overall long term it wins more units than it loses
The Gral is not Winning every bet. To earn the Gral you have to work.

20 000 000 spins? Really?  It would take 100 years to do that manually.  This means you do have a programme for this.

And again: Yes I tested it over more than 20 000 000 spins and daily the number of spins grows.
Of course the test was down by a computer.

br
winkel

[ChickenDinner]

I found my winning % of return was pretty well the same no matter what I did with money management. Maybe I did it all wrong, I do not know.  .

Have you tried something similar to Victor's 50% MM plan? nolinks://vlsroulette.com/money-management/vls-50percent-money-management/?topicseen

[ChickenDinner]

Or Lanky's divisor?

nolinks://vlsroulette.com/money-management/6-point-divisor-plan/msg18889/#msg18889

[insidebet]

Hello,

I have proven 99% of the systems posted on VIP and on this site tank on the long run. I have tested everyone of them on RX or manually. They ALL tank or they require a 4876 unit bet at some point. (Please don't ask..) The other 1%, I do not know (EX. GUT) because you have to do it manually and it really takes too long for some of the systems.  Please don't tell me I have to work for the success.  I already know that and I do work on this a lot.  Hasn't anyone heard of RX?  Why work like a freggin donkey when a computer can do this in seconds?  I sure as hell am not computer-wise enough to code anything. (I can't even programm my cell phone proparly).  What happened to Stormor and Spin-dizzy?  Samster: you create software available for members.  Could you RX everything in one shot. It would analyse your 12  numbers system, your magic street system and others.  These seem to relatively simple systems and surely would not take too long to code.  Once this done, you can run as many spins as you wish.  And then you know if it is worth it or not.

Winkel:  I appreciate your comments and your predicament health-wise.  You keep saying that you are not in it for the money.  Fair enough.  But please do not contradict yourself.  When I suggested you provide you programm to test GUT, your answer was something like this: "Yeah right. You think somebody will create a complex programm like this and say: There you go, Insidebet, go make yourself some money"."   You imply that I have to pay for it, right?  If not what did you mean.

Winkel:  You are not in this for the money but you hope to leave something worthwhile when you are no longer with the rest of us mere mortals.  This has been said before but I will say it in other words.  If you publish you GUT system in a SERIOUS scientific magazine, and you really prove what you ask us to believe in blind faith (EG. it doesn't tank after millions of spins), then you will be front-page news all over the world.  How is that for recognition?  You will have proven that the game can be beaten without cheating when every serious mathematician says it is not possible.  Nobel Prize in maths??? Maybe not.  But close.   Think about it...  Please don't think I am being sarcastic cos' I am not.

Regards.

Insibet

[TwoCatSam]

Samster: you create software available for members.

Not me.....

Wish I could.

Sam

[insidebet]

Doublecat,

Sorry,
The part about creating a RX code should have been addressed to Bjb007.  My mistake.
Waiting for Winkel to reply...

Insidebet

[TwoCatSam]

Easy mistake....bj and I are both old and ugly!

[bjb007]

Sam

Plead guilty to the charge of "old" but ugly?
Will have to ask my "very good friend" Dianne
about that one but I expect her opinion would
be biased.

[bjb007]

-