I poked around a bit on the roulette pages of ap.com, and I'm burning to hear what Don or some of the other masters have to say about it. Is roulette really beatable? Would you endorse Scott's system?
I poked around a bit on the roulette pages of ap.com, and I'm burning to hear what Don or some of the other masters have to say about it. Is roulette really beatable? Would you endorse Scott's system?
> I poked around a bit on the roulette pages
> of ap.com, and I'm burning to hear what Don
> or some of the other masters have to say
> about it. Is roulette really beatable? Would
> you endorse Scott's system?
I have the manuscript here but haven't completed it. My feeling about physical prediction of a roulette wheel has always been that it is possible, but that finding exploitable situations is an extremely tedious process and therefore may not be worth the effort. But, I may be wrong.
Don
I must confess that when Viktor first told me about his plans for a roulette page, my reaction was, "You gotta be kidding!"
However, after going over the material, meeting Laurance Scott, and discussing it with him at some length, I came to the following conclusions:
1. The system is legitimate.
2. This is not an easy thing to learn and do. It is far more difficult than counting cards, shuffle tracking, etc. Casinos have little to fear from "advantage roulette players" because few people will be willing to put forth the effort required to master the system.
3. Mastering the system does not mean that you can walk into any casino with a wheel and play with an edge. Certain conditions must be met. This is no different than card counting or any other form of advantage play.
3. Also like any form of advantage play, you must be properly bankrolled in order to minimize risk of ruin. All of this is covered in the material.
the book "Eudaemonic Pie" (sp?) ?
Interesting approach using illegal computing devices.
I studied Laurence Scott's method in the early 90s but never actually used it in a casino. It does seem to have validity but, as Parker states below, it is not something that you can pick up in a day or two (or even a week). You have to put a lot into it in order to get a lot out of it. That said, it may be quite viable due to the lack of adequate effort most would put forth.
rwp
> the book "Eudaemonic Pie" (sp?) ?
> Interesting approach using illegal computing
> devices.
Devices that are virtually legal in the U.K, being that the trio who won over ?1 million ( $1.87 million US ), could not be prosecuted under any current UK law.
> let me tell you-
> roulette is beatable you must learn first of course
> find good conditions
> have an open mind
> realize they do give you the boot on roulette too
> the pay offs can can be huge when you hit straight up pays 35 to 1
we usually play 8 spots though..
ever go by a roulette table and notice many of the same numbers hitting..ahhh...
>
> finding
> exploitable situations is an extremely
> tedious process and therefore may not be
> worth the effort.
Some may say the same thing about playing blackjack for profit in its current state of bastardization by the casinos... a whole lotta effort for a 2% edge & plenty of variance to boot.
-holly d.
1. There was no evidence whatsoever of device use at the Ritz.
2. Users of devices in a casino can be charged with "Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception".
This charge, if tried in a Crown Court carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison.
It is an arrestable offence.
MB
Thank you for the info, of which I'm certain you are quite knowledgeable. Nice to see you coming out of "lurk" mode.
For the newbies, "MB" is Michael Barnett, founder of Surveillance Technology, an Australian-based outfit whose website states, "Surveillance Technology act as consultants to the casino industry in the area of gaming risk, or more specifically, the risk posed by professional advantage players."
If anyone harbored any doubts that surveillance types monitor these boards, here is your proof. Be careful what you post. Be especially wary if someone you don't know starts e-mailing you and asking a lot of questions.
Michael once threatened me with "a severe dot on the nose for that kind of talk," which rather made my day. :-)
Be especially wary if someone you
> don't know starts e-mailing you and asking a
> lot of questions.
This happened to me back in November. Emailer said they were to new to post on board and wanted me to help them get started. It seemed odd then and now. Could have been a legitimate inquiry, I dunno. But they volunteered a lot of personal info right off the bat. Odd. Makesya wonder.
Kid
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks