Online Roulette and Baccarat Systems that work ?

[Deej]

Hello,

I was wondering if there are any online Roulette and/or Baccarat Systems that work well ? I have tried a few different Roulette Systems online that worked for a while, but then I lost all of my winnings in the long run. If there are any, please let me know the names and where I can find them.

Thank You,
Deej

[Vesuvio]

Deej, there aren't any. You'll always lose in the long term unless you're incredibly lucky.

Just thought I'd jump in before any scam artists get the chance to reply.

If you want to make money from on-line casinos without needing luck then playing with bonuses which give the player an edge is the only proven 'system'.

[Deej]

Vesuvio,

Thank you for your honesty and the heads-up. I greatly appreciate it.

Deej

[Casinomeister]

And let me jump into this thread while it's still fresh.

There are no "systems" that work. There have been a load of arguments pro and con concerning this topic in this forum. Believe me, you'd be better off playing the stock market.

[dominique]

The only system is a good knowledge of basic strategy for the game you are playing. Learn the rules, learn the basic strategies.

Bonuses can help or hurt depending on the wagering requirements.

I had access to a backend for a short time a couple of years ago, and I watched people play Blackjack, and I was horrified. They had no idea and were playing by hunches and losing and losing....

So, learn the odds of your available moves and play according to them. It's the only thing that will definitely help.

[GrandMaster]

The truth about betting systems: http://www.wizardofodds.com/gambling...g-systems.html

[chandra8000]

I am a long time Baccarat player and I have seen almost every system imaginable.
If you are lured by what a system claims, do not look at how it wins but figure out what it loses to (they all lose to something). Once you have that then calculate how often that loss will occur and how much that loss will cost you. Then see if you still have a profit (and this does not take into account human mistakes, panic and general loss of control).

[XANATOS]

i am new to this forum
and i hate to be disagreeable
but there are working roulette systems
at least there is one its mine
and it is not for sell
i started working on it when i was 13
when i recievd a roulette game as a gift
it took me five years to develope my system playing
for fun
when i turned 22 i played it for money
and have every since
i have yet to try it online but that is soon to change
in fact its going to change tonight


XANATOS

[bokske]

I am convinced that all the naysayers really mean what they say, and that their answer is a well-intended advice not to rely on systems. People with this opinion have probably come to this conclusion after a long time of gambling and likely some experiments with systems of their own. Too bad that the truth is still one step beyond.

This discussion is all about two mathematical properties of whatever gambling proposition :
1. The average House edge on each single play
2. The expected average result for a specific playing algorithm on this game
Many people intuitively equate one to the other in the blink of an eye. WizardOfOdds is only one of so many websites to perpetuate this falsehood.
I contend that these two figures are quite different. Therefore, a game with a built-in disadvantage can still be played with a positive statistical expectation about the average result in the long run. I posit that a system (a.k.a. playing algorithm) can slant the House edge in either direction. But it's harder to find a specific system to sway this House edge several percents in the positive direction, than just half a percent. Therefore it's still useful to look out for games with a very small negative expectation value.

It's actually difficult to construct a system that yields exactly the same expected overall result as the House edge. I think the best way to go would be a strategy of always playing exactly 1 betting unit on some chance. Any deviations from this scheme probably cause a difference between the two said mathematical properties.

A last line of thought to win over the diehard pessimists. Do you think it's possible to construct a system with a worse expected overall result than the House edge ? As an extreme case, could you construct a system that always loses the entire initial deposit (expected overall result = -100%). I would think along the lines of "keep playing forever, no matter how much you win, until all your money is gone". But this is mathematically not watertight I guess, as there could be this one lucky streak that keeps piling money into your account and never reaches those end criteria. Still, many people must feel that it's easy to define a playing algorithm that loses twice as much money as it wins (expected overall result = -50%). Admitting that, is admitting that the two mathematical properties are NOT the same.

It's probably ill mannered to refer to a "better" forum in my very first post.
Let's just say that those who want to really delve into the mathematical details, should google for "Deep mathematical thoughts on systems".

[GrandMaster]

Originally Posted by bokske

Therefore, a game with a built-in disadvantage can still be played with a positive statistical expectation about the average result in the long run. I posit that a system (a.k.a. playing algorithm) can slant the House edge in either direction.

Wow! This is quite a statement! Please read an introductory book on probability. It will be a very good investment as it will stop you from losing a lot more money in the casinos.

Originally Posted by bokske

A last line of thought to win over the diehard pessimists. Do you think it's possible to construct a system with a worse expected overall result than the House edge ? As an extreme case, could you construct a system that always loses the entire initial deposit (expected overall result = -100%). I would think along the lines of "keep playing forever, no matter how much you win, until all your money is gone". But this is mathematically not watertight I guess, as there could be this one lucky streak that keeps piling money into your account and never reaches those end criteria. Still, many people must feel that it's easy to define a playing algorithm that loses twice as much money as it wins (expected overall result = -50%). Admitting that, is admitting that the two mathematical properties are NOT the same.

If you play a negative expectation game long enough, you WILL LOSE your whole bankroll, lucky streaks nothwithstanding, it is just a matter of time. (For details again see a book on probability.)