Advanced Roulette 'a constructive debate'

[Mr Chips]

My best ever system I refer to it as my "Flagship EC system" is very complex and I use it more than any other system at
the casino. You will be pleased to here that I won't burden you with the details here, but I will show you the results of a spin off version as follows : [ Now available at nolinks://nolinks.signumsystem.com
 
[table=,]
R/B,+/-/0,Symbls,units
B,,,
B,+1,,,
R,0,M-1,
B,-1,,
R,-2,OOO,
R,-1,M-1,
B,-2,OOO,+1
B,-1,P+1,
B, 0,OOO,+2
R,-1,P+1,
B,-2,OOO,+3
0,,,
B,-1,P+1,
R,-2,P+2,+2
B,-3,P+1,+3
B,-2,OOO,+4
B,-1,M-1,
R,-2,000,+5
B,-3,M-1,
B,-2,OOO,+6
R,-3,P+1,
B,-4,OOO,+7
R,-5,P+1,
R,-4,OOO,+8
[/table]
 
This spin off version is half as complex as the original version and lacks it's flexibility. The symbols P and M represent Red and Black
and are constantly changing depending on how the session progresses.
 
I may or may not explain the details of this system or perhaps at some future time.
 
The point of showing the above results is that it would be good, if we could move the debate on about -2.7% and that all systems
will eventually fail and that it is not possible to win long term.
 
I know for certain this is a fallacy, because my Flagship system has produced such results over a number of years.
 
I would like all those who hold the view that every system will result in -2.7% to consider the following :
 
I could produce a years results using spielbank-wiesbaden spins and show that this system will make a profit every month,
roughly 300 sessions. The sceptics will say yes that's all very well, but it will most probably fail in the next 300 sessions.
OK, conservatively lets say the results produce +600 units. For those units to come down -2.7 most months would have to
show a number of losses. I should add that there is an exit strategy of -3/4 losses in a session.
 
The symbols in this system P and M develop in various ways, depending on various trends. The trend as you can see is that of
an indifferent trend, it doesn't develop into for example P+1,P+2,P+3,P+4 etc. It shows OOO (neither P or M) and a P or M has
to show again for the session to continue.
 
If we accept the sceptics view that the above system will fail, I will incur a number of -3/4 unit losses. The symbols will be in a
consistently chaotic state, they will rarely produce the above results.
 
It will of course dawn on my poor brain that the symbols which normally produce a positive result are now in negative mode
thanks to the sceptics lol. So why not reverse the role of the symbols and what would have been considered a positive trend
therefore do the opposite because I know by doing so I will turn a losing session into a winning one. Don't forget I now expect
most sessions to lose!
 
Most probably anyone reading this thus far, has take a couple of headache pills. It is I think an interesting proposition and
hopefully one or more sceptics will consider carefully, what I have proposed and give a intelligent reply and not just quote -2.7%.
 
Let's try and move the debate on if at all possible.
 
Mr Chips

[Tangram]

Hi Mr Chips,

So why not reverse the role of the symbols and what would have been considered a positive trend
therefore do the opposite because I know by doing so I will turn a losing session into a winning one. Don't forget I now expect
most sessions to lose!

That's an interesting way of looking at things. I've been using an EC method for some years and am still ahead in terms of profit, what puzzles me though is that it failed when I wrote a computer program to test it. I tried lots of tweaks but the result was always the same - -1.35% (notice I didn't mention -2.7%  ).

I've written a lot of computer programs over the years to test systems, all with the same result, so these days my only thought is - "I wonder what the achilles heel of this system will be?"

Nevertheless, I continue to play but I don't have your faith that long term results as predicted by the maths (and computer simulations, which are only another way of "doing the maths") can be overcome.

The only explanation I have for still being in the black is that my play isn't completely fixed and rigid. I use a variety of bet selections and money management methods, I duck and dive with the wheel, so to speak. To include all this moment-by-moment stuff into a computer program would be a nightmare (when I first programmed my system, it was much simpler than it is now).

I've noticed that this seems to be a common theme with systems. A relatively simple system is unlikely to get past first base. In order to have a chance of winning, it must be reasonably complex. That's not to say that the complexity is the only ingredient for success, but it is, I believe, a necessary one.

[Mr Chips]

Hi Tangram.
 
I have come to realise that there has to be two versions of a system if someone intends to write a program for it. As you say
"my play isn't completely fixed and rigid". A program cannot completely match the human intervention program.
 
One of the most difficult problems is working out an exit for the program. If you take the example I gave above the target is
+5 units. However it is an excellent trend and has reached +8 units. Conversely in a very difficult session say -2,-3,-2 a
decision to exit at -2 could well be a good decision but, the program will exit at -4.
 
I am hoping the sceptics will make a constructive contribution to this debate and invite Herb to post here and I don't do that
too often lol.
 
Mr Chips

[Tangram]

I will conservatively have accumulated approx 600 units. My minimum loss in any session will be 3/4 units. In order to lose the accumulated profit thus so far gained I will have to incur a great number of 3/4 unit losses.

It will become apparent to me that whereas the P and M trends were favourable in the direction, as dictated by the system, that will no longer be the case. I will expect a great many sessions to lose. As I will expect more losses I will decide instead that say a P trend is likely to incur a 3/4 unit loss and instead will switch to a M trend and by so doing turn a losing session into a winning one!

So a number expected losing sessions will become winning sessions simply be following your certainty that this system will fail.

The argument may be logical, but any argument is only as good as its premises. The premise that you have accumulated 600 units is not true, it's an assumption. IF it's true that you can accumulate 600 units then it's also true that you could lose them. Your proof that you won't lose them is to say that you will reverse your betting method in expectation of losses to come. This sounds a lot like the gamblers fallacy.   

[Mr Chips]

Tangram,
 
Yes I said I could produce the 600 approx units, that's no problem apart from the work involved in doing it. I provided almost a years
results for the 4Selecta test, so I am quite capable of producing such verifiable results.
 
You can't have it both ways either I have a long term winning system, in which case I will have more wins than losses, which I have
experienced so far or in order to satisfy the theoretical -2.7%, I will have to sustain a number of 3/4 unit losses, in which case I will
expect there to be more losing sessions than winning ones, is that not logical?
 
A P+1 or M-1 trend will show a consistent losing trend and therefore the following trends will be a rarity:
 
P+1
P+2
P+3 +1
P+4 +2
P+5 +3
 
M-1
M-2
M-3 +1
M-4 +2
M-5 +3
 
Example of a losing session:
M-1
OOO
P+1
P+2 -1
P+3  0
P+2 -1
P+3 -2
 
This example would have to be the norm in order to accommodate the number of -3/4 losses required to arrive at the -2.7%.
 
The reason P+2 -1 is a loss is because I expect the trend to continue OOO. If you look back at my first post you will see a
typical trend where this occurs.
 
Now as the scenario is a number of losses and the example I gave earlier will be a rarity I will assume correctly that P+2 in this
position is likely and therefore it will change to P+2 +1 :
 
M-1
OOO
P+1
P+2  +1
P+3   0
P+2  +1
P+3  +2
 
This scenario will demand that there cannot be a series of P or M or OOO trends as shown in the first post.
 
It has nothing to do with gamblers fallacy, it's a fact that one or other scenario has to take place, either I win, as dictated
by the system or win in the losing scenario, as dictated by the trend shown above.
 
Mr Chips

[Mr Chips]

Tangram,
 
A mathematical proof as you probably know begins with a series of axioms or self evident truths, they are statements which
can be assumed to be true. There then follows a logical argument. If the axioms are correct and there are no
flaws in the logic then the conclusion will be an irrefutable proof.
 
If the axioms and logic were true, it would be impossible for me to consistently win with this system and make a profit in the long
term.
 
I could provide a years results as previously mentioned, but what would that prove. We will be in the same position as now, as you
may say it will fail in x number of years time and then we will have arrived at the paradox, that the accumulation of wins will have to be
depleted by a number of 3/4 unit losses and if that happens, I will of course turn losses into wins, as previously described. The logic is
irrefutable.
 
 
The system requires human intervention and therefore coding it is a non starter.
 
Mr Chips

[Mr Chips]

The proof was in the very first post when I referred to producing a years results and before you type out "you haven't done so",
that is academic.Yes I can in time, then we will be in the position where certain people will say, so what!
 
Ok, I will conservatively lets say produce 600 units, so what!
 
Ok, I will be expected to lose those units over a certain period of time. I could go on year after year producing the same results,
but that would be heading into the realms of absurdity, because lets say I produced 3 years results, that would be approx 1,800 units.
In order to comply with the expected -2.7%, I would have to lose between 450 to 500 sessions.

Lets say after having produced the years results I am showing the approx 600 units. I then agree to a further test of a years results.
During this second year, I am either obviously going to carry on making a profit consistent with the previous year or the -2.7% will kick
in.
 
Lets assume the -2.7% produces a number of losses in the first month of the second year test, such that the month totals show a loss
for the first time. If someone other than me, examines all the results from the first year they will discover a number of trends, in particular
the one as shown in my first post. That particular trend will not appear during the losing month, because it is a winning trend.
I now know that Herb was right lol and that the system is doomed to fail. Do I carry on and accumulate more losses or accept that a
previously P trend, has now become a M trend and vice versa. Of course I may come across the odd session, as shown in my original post,
but this will be an occasional loss!

What you have to decide, is it important that I produce a years results. If yes, then you will have to accept what follows from that
acceptance as described above. If you say it will fail in x number of years time that will be absurd, as it will take x number of years
to lose the accumulated profit and no one is going to carry on doing that it's a nonsense.

If on the other hand you accept that having produced a years results, a person other than me examines the various trends that have
produced the results and that they are consistent month on month, it would be possible to show also the number of losses. It would also
be possible to show that those losses could be shown to win, should the -2.7% scenario occur.
 
The logical proposition is based on the fact that this system wins long term either in the accepted sense or turning losing sessions
into winning ones. I posted earlier the requirements for a mathematical proof and I consider there are sufficient self evident truths and
logical conclusions, that shows this is a winning system and that the logical proposition is true.
 
Mr Chips

[Mr Chips]

Unfortunately once a proof exists, it cannot be reversed. Something proved a thousand years is still valid today
and will still be valid in another thousand years. There can never be a proof which proves the opposite of what has
already been proved, that would be a contradiction

Tangram,
 
The mathematician Kurt Godel put forward his theory of 'undecidability', which in essence stated that mathematicians
could never be certain. that their choice of axioms could not lead to a contradiction.
 
In my opinion, you place far too much weight on the solidity of a proof, as there is always the chance as Godel has stated
that a contradiction is just around the corner.
 
Mr Chips

[Tangram]

Mr Chips,

If I really took the proof to heart I would never bother playing roulette. Losing money is not my idea of a fun night out. 

In any case, it wasn't my idea to prove that roulette can be beaten, but if that's what you want to do, you have to play the game by the rules!

you place far too much weight on the solidity of a proof, as there is always the chance as Godel has stated that a contradiction is just around the corner. 

If that's true then your proof is just as much suspect as the "real" proof that roulette cannot be beaten. The axioms or assumptions pertaining to the proof are that the spins are independent and random, so maybe if one or both of these can be shown to be false then there might be a way of proving that the game can be beaten, but don't hold your breath. 

In the meantime we can all try to "prove" for ourselves that success is possible, isn't that what this forum is all about?

My own "proof" is money in the bank. Frankly all else is academic, although it can lead to interesting discussions. Put up a good fight at the table, and know your enemy (very important).

[Mr Chips]

This 600 units is not significant. This is like randomness. Since your hand testing, it probably seems like a lot of spins
to you, but statistically it's nothing relevant

You may consider 600 units as insignificant, but as I pointed out previously, if you consider that several years results are
required you will end up in an absurd situation. If you take 10 years results that's  say 6000 units. At the rate of 3/4 unit
losses it would take several years sessions to lose that amount.
 
The significance of the 600 units may become more apparent, when losses are discussed further on in this post.
 

I don't understand why you use P instead of R (red) and why you use M for B (black). I think this confuses most people

The P and M are a central part of the system. They are not there for the sake of calling P red or black or M red or black.
There is a set procedure to follow and there are only three possible ways for a session to develop. P trends, M trends and an
indifferent trend OOO an example given in the first post. The purpose of P and M is to identify R and B. It is unnecessary
therefore to have to observe any LwwLLw etc or after a number of reds, bet red again or choose black. P and M will identify a
sufficient number of R and B, no matter how complex the R and B session and therefore make a profit in the long term.
 

Regarding your exit points: I don't see any point in quitting when you are just 3 or 4 units down or up. I believe in exit
points for various reasons (as they pertain to playing conditions), but quitting when you are just 3 or 4 units down doesn't make
sense. Why don't you play for longer periods of time? Your limiting your sample size by having such an early exit point. Now I
understand how you can play for six months and still be in profit. Your barely playing any spins at all. What you consider to be
six months of play, others would consider just a few days of play

The number of sessions I have examined in tests and played at various casino's over a number of years, has now gone into 4
figures. I have therefore accumulated an inevitable expertise, in evaluating a session in terms of when to exit a session. I would
expect a session to last between 15 and 20 entries ( whenever I note say P+1 etc I refer to that as an entry). There are of
course exceptions, both for winning and losing sessions. From the first entry to say the 15th entry, there could be an almost
uninterrupted trend, which could continue beyond entry 20. Conversely there could be a very difficult session, that has shown
by entry 10, a -3 for the third time. My evaluation of the session could well lead me to decide on an exit at the 10 entry point.
I have come across such situations of course on previous occasions and I know that the number of -3 or -4 unit losses, are
insignificant compared with the overall profit made from most sessions.

If you think of it in terms of a poker game. You could well have in Texas Holdem a pair of 7's. As the game progresses, there
are three other players in for the flop. The flop shows A,Q, 9. It is highly unlikely you would want to continue, with the expectation
that one or more players could well have 2 Kings or AK etc.

If I am faced with a difficult session showing mostly - and not + results, it makes sense to exit at -3 or -4 units.
 
In the poker example the pair of 7's could well become three 7's, as the flop progresses and the -3 or -4 losses in a session
could become +5 at entry 30, but why risk it and incur -8, -10 losses. I have a formula that works within certain limits, as
tried and tested over time.
 

You can't step outside of probability. You also haven't limited the possibility of other outcomes occurring by simply
observing the past outcomes

It's not clear from your quote, what exactly you are referring to so I will discuss the problem of losses, which is a key component
in the logical proposition.

If after considering the above logical arguments, you are of the opinion that there is no proof or ever will be and that the system
will inevitably lose, then you must take the 'Herb route':
 

Roulette the game is a game of independent trials. Past results simply don't effect future results

There is also reference to 'Gamblers Fallacy' and no one can overcome the house advantage of 2.7%.
 
If we explore this scenario then we now know the system is going to fail and therefore there must be more losses than wins to
comply with the 2.7% house advantage. The losses as you know will be in the form of -3 and -4 units.

We have now reached a paradox and as the name of this system is called SIGNUM, we will refer to the SIGNUM PARADOX.
 
The Signum Paradox

The system has now changed and the accumulation of 600 units, as mentioned at the start of this post will now decline and this
will be evident by the number of -3 and -4 losses. The system was designed to produce a number of trends, examples have been
shown previously, lets refer to these formation of trends as A, B, C, D. When the system was having more wins than losses the
occasional loss had the limited formation E.
 
The system now produces far fewer A, B, C, D, formations and far more E formations.
 
Your quote above and reference to Gamblers Fallacy has been show now to have a serious flaw!
 
The numbers and associated colours should not be expected to conform to a certain pattern, trend in order to satisfy the requirements
of a number of losing sessions to produce formations of P and M, in particular E formations to produce losses. There should not be an
expectation that there will be more losing sessions than winning ones and therefore more E formations than A, B, C, D. formations
 
I have set out below an example of a losing session and below that the same session, but the M now becomes P and so a losing session
in the original system now becomes a winning session thanks to the Herb scenario :

E formation: 
M-1
M-2
M-1  -1
M-2  -2
M-3  -3
M-2  -2
M-3  -3
M-4  -2
M-3  -3
M-4  -4
 
P+1
P+2
P+1 -1
P+2  0
P+3 +2
P+2  0
P+3 +1
P+4 +2
P+3 +3
P+4 +4
 
What you have to decide now is that, if I haven't proved my system to be profitable long term by the logical proposition described
in this and previous posts, then you must take on board the 'Signum Parodox' and the implications that this will have on the -2.7%
and of course Gamblers Fallacy.
 
Of course the real crunch comes when if my system is proven to win long term the -2.7 is false, on the other hand if my system is
a loser in terms of a number of -3 and -4 losses, then because of the E formations it must be a winner.
 
Regards

Mr Chips

[Tangram]

A well made mechanical system is equally as capable as any human experience to accurately predict outcomes above the house edge in a random environment such as roulette. In fact, I would go so far as to say it could well be superior, as human error and or excuses for sloppy play, etc, will surely be reduced.

I agree. It's silly to say that no mechanical system can work. If you use a variety of methods or bet selections, as I do, it doesn't mean that it's non-mechanical. If I took the trouble to "systematize" all my methods into one then it could be called mechanical. Mechanical doesn't necessarily mean simple.

If you are using rules then it must be a mechanical system. There's no such thing as a non-mechanical system. It's an oxymoron.

[Tangram]

Mr Chips,

I'm still not clear exactly what it is that you are trying to prove, if anything. Are you trying to show that your system is a winner, or that the "real" proof is false, or that the gambler's fallacy is itself a fallacy?  or maybe all three? 
Your proposition may be logically correct, but logic only shows that one thing follows from another, it doesn't tell you much about the truth. 

Look at these two arguments about God:

Argument 1

premise 1: Everything has a cause
premise 2: If the world has a cause, then there is a god.
conclusion:- There is a god.

Proof:

assume that there is no God.
This, together with premise 2, implies that the world doesn't have a cause.
But premise 1 says everything has a cause. This is a contradiction, therefore the assumption that there is no God must be false, so there is a God.
QED.

Argument 2

premise 1: Everything has a cause.
premise 2: If there is a God, then something doesn't have a cause (namely, God).
Conclusion: There is no God.

proof:

Assume that there is a God. This, together with premise 2, implies that something doesn't have a cause. But premise 1 says everything has a cause, and this contradiction shows that the assumption that there is a God must be false. Therefore, there is no God.
QED.

Both arguments are rock solid logically speaking, but we are no closer to knowing whether God exists! 

Although you've offered a logical explanation of what follows, given the data, you haven't given an explanation of what explains the data in the first place. If you want to convince Herb, you need to address that issue.

nolinks://nolinks.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs/PsychHistory/Cards/Logic.html

[mane]

Hi,

   I´ve been reading this and other roulette foruns for a few months but this is my first post.  

   I´ve tested a lot of the systems I find on the foruns and really can´t find any consistent winner.  

   One of the systems that has had a better performance is 4Selecta from Mr Chips, so I listen very carefull to everything he has to say.    Here however I think Mr chips is doing some assertions which aren´t true.   .   .   unfortunetly, because if they were true we would have an even change system that could bring profit over time.  

   The problem I see is that, using the system on the first post in this thread, as Mr Chips says there can be 3 types of sessions : A balanced session as the one in the example where M and P keep coming back to 000 ; a session with a P trend and a session with a M trend.  

   I first tested betting that the sessions would all be balanced and I have some wins and some losses.   .   .   wins when 000 keeps apearing and losses on sessions where P or M start increasing and dont come back to zero.    Overall its not a winner.  

  So I though the trick was to change my bets as the session developed, as Mr Chips hints to.    So I would bet for balance at start but if P gets at lets say P+5 or M gets at M-5 I start betting that P or M will increase.    When I thought of this I really thought I had some sort of Holly Grail because after all a session is either balanced or P trend or M trend.    If I could follow the trend I could not lose.   

  But unfortunetly that is not the case.    I made a lot of tests with different switching points from betting on balance to betting on a trend, and I still can´t get an overall positive balance.   .   .   I tried switching bets when P or M get to 3, to 5, to 7.   .   .   no way.    For instance if I swithch on a trend of 5 a session like this would lose : P+1 ; P+2 ; P+3 ; P+2 ; P+3 ; P+4 ; P+5 (im at -5 and I switch betting) ; P+6 P+7 P+6 P+5 P+6 P+5.   .   .   .   and it never gets to P+10 where I would begin making profit.  

  So the point is you cant tell beforehand which kind os session you will have and incredibly you cant switch during the session and still have a profit overall.   .   .  


  So I really would like to hear how Mr Chips plays the system so that he can benefict from the trends, I mean when should we swithch betting from a balanced session to a P trend or a M trend session.    I think this is the Key to all this debate and to this system as well.  


  Thanks Mr Chips for your time.  


Mane

[Mr Chips]

I'm still not clear exactly what it is that you are trying to prove, if anything. Are you trying to show that your system is a winner,
or that the real proof is false or that the gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy? or maybe all three?

I have been using this type of system for sometime now and if gamblers fallacy was true, I would have known about it by now,
but not in the way you might think. I know for certain that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy, but proving it is something else!
 
As you know in maths, it's not necessary to prove a particular equation is true, for every set of numbers from 1 to infinity, because
obviously it's impossible, but by the use of axioms and logical arguments, it is possible to come up with an irrefutable proof in all
cases.
 
I could never absolutely prove that my system can win in the long term. Even if it could be coded and it was in profit after a
billion spins, it could in theory fail soon after that. The only way to prove that my system wins more than it loses is to find a
flaw in the gamblers fallacy and by doing so, create a paradox and prove forever that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy.
 

Your proposition may be logically correct, but logic only shows that one thing follows from another, it doesn't tell you
much about the truth

We are not dealing here with a logical problem concerning the existence of a God. There are a number of self evident truths,
they are not assumptions:
 
1. The Sigmum system exists ( as evidence of it's existence can be produced).
 
2.The system will produce certain formations in the form P+1, P+2, P+3,etc also M-1, M-2, M-3, etc, also P+1,P+2,P+1,P+2, and
M-1, M-2, M-1,M-2, also a series of OOO.
 
3. The formations will be referred to as A, B, C, D and they are winning formations. The +600 units referred to earlier would show
that they are winning formations.

4. The losses will be in the form as shown previously and referred to as E formations. They are restricted to a particular format, as
any other format will produce A, B, C, D formations.

In your reply 23: 

If it's true that you can accumulate 600 units then it's also true you can lose them

5. If the system does not win in the long term it must produce more losses than wins.
 
6. As there will be more losses than wins, there will be more E formations than A, B, C, D, formations.
 
In your reply 26:
 

The proof of -2.7% is based on expectations and payoffs and assuming random outcomes.

7. In order for there to be more E formations than A,B,C,D formations random numbers must be expected to produce numbers and
their associated colours, so that more E formations can be produced more than A,B,C,D, formations.
 
8. The system was designed to produce more A,B,C,D, formations than E formations. As a result of more losses than wins the system
now produces more E formations than A,B,C,D, formations, therefore a P becomes M and a M becomes P. This arises because originally
when A,B,C,D, produced P and M, there were more wins than losses. Now when E formation produces P and M and M and P, the M
becomes P and the P become M, as the system requires a formation to produce more wins than losses.
 
9. As the system is producing more E formations than A,B,C,D, formations it will produce more winning sessions than losing ones. The
-3/4 losses are from formations A,B,C,D.
 
10. The original expected losses as a result of -2.7%, are now showing as wins and the original wins are now showing as losses.
 
11. Gamblers fallacy has now shown itself to be a fallacy, as it has created a paradox.
 
12. The random numbers should not be expected to produce a number of E formations, more than A,B,C,D formations.
 
13. Original losses should not be turned into wins.
 
14. The Signum system should not be able to win more than it loses, in any eventuality.
 

You haven't given an explanation of what explains the data in the first place.

Please can you clarify this, as I am not sure what you are referring to here.
 
Mr Chips

[Mr Chips]

Mane,
 
First of all welcome to the forum.
 
As I haven't explained the system I really don't know why you are trying to use it.
 
I said in the very first post that I may or may not explain the system at this time.
 
The example shown was to assist in this debate, that is all.
 
Mr Chips

[Mr Chips]

-