- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Location
- America
Cipher's software is basically for blackjack, not roulette, but nevertheless it is based on seeing patterns (which suggests non-randomness) that develop in a session. I've used it successfully.
mitch said:rebel
Look at the posts of Cipher who was a long time contributor to this forum ( he is currently banned but posts on other forums).
Cipher had the same theory as you and devoloped software to take advantage of it.
Frankly I consider it a load of old tosh. Why risk your whole business if it came out that you were cheating? Casinos have the advantage and can just sit back and watch the money come in from the house edge.
How could all the software programmers be kept silent, have they assassinated them? Also if the software is non random how could they prevent these very same programmers from taking them to the cleaners?
Don't get locked into the idea that you can beat the house edge by betting different amounts in some pattern, believe me you can't and you can lose a lot of money finding this out for yourself. You can beat the Casino but only by the obvious method.
Mitch
RebelDearg said:I also don't want a barage of 'strategies don't work' posts as that is not what I'm asking.
It may make no sense, but that hasn't stopped casinos from rigging their games:Slotmachine said:My view is just that the pursuit is futile, because it would make no sense for the software manufacturers to rig the games...
Westland Bowl said:Cipher's software is basically for blackjack, not roulette, but nevertheless it is based on seeing patterns (which suggests non-randomness) that develop in a session. I've used it successfully.
caruso said:It may make no sense, but that hasn't stopped casinos from rigging their games:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Don't assume that because they don't have to, they don't. They do - because they can.
Of course, the Casino Bar gaff could not be taken advantage of, and it was a very specific fix.
The "intelligent software" suggestion is unsubstantiated conjecture, like all other betting systems.
Not a good basis for a strategy, of course! Chess software is now almost unbeatable in the type of positions where sacrifices work (even the top 5 players have to try and avoid them). There are still a few occasions where humans can easily see something computers can't calculate, but they're rare enough to explain why computers have won or drawn all the matches played against humans recently (it's a bit pointless, though - like a formula one car winning the 100m!).RebelDearg said:IBM's problem is simple for them to explain but hard for them to solve. 'A computer cannot be programmed to understand sacrifice.' This is the sentence spoken by an IBM programmer that I base my strategy on.
As others have said casino operators are always going to be willing to cream off a little more profit as long as they can do it in a way that's difficult to prove or exploit.Slotmachine said:What be the point of designing such complex cheating software when fair software already has a guaranteed house edge??
Slotmachine said:Since you quoted my post specifically I'll just point out that my post wasn't a "strategies don't work" post, and you didn't start this thread. I was specifically responding to your theories - but if it's only those in agreement with you that you want to post here, that's fine too. My view is just that the pursuit is futile, because it would make no sense for the software manufacturers to rig the games, therefore the games are random, and even if they weren't, they would not succumb to these confounding plays, sacrifice or not. But prove me wrong and I'll be happy to change my thinking.
But please, not another roulette strategy..
Anyway there have been no reports of any succesful programs or strategies anywhere that beat online roulette or blackjack, and I suspect there never will be.
Cheers,
SM
bpb said:No, you haven't. Trust me. Any positive result you've seen using anyone's "system" is nothing but variance.
Westland Bowl said:Blackjack will ALWAYS be a negative expectation game....
Westland Bowl said:BUT you can overcome the losses by making your average wins high enough. At least that is what I believe and am experiencing.
Westland Bowl said:What??? No benefit of a doubt???
This is how flaming wars get started. I only stated a fact that I used Cipher software successfully. It wasn't an opinion but a fact, looking at the increasing bankroll. But you had to stand up and say as a fact "it ain't so" as if the increased bankroll doesn't exist, at least that's what it seems to me. So every winning blackjack player is "on variance" even if they die before the variance ends. Then I'm on one hell of a variance.
So do successful card counters. Card counting works because in certain circumstances the deck is favourable to the player and this can be exploited. If the deck is shuffled before every game, there is no such opportunity.Westland Bowl said:Successful commodity traders lose on more of their trades than they gain. But their average gain is more than enough to offset their average loss.
How do you make your average wins high enough? If you vary your bets wildly, you only need to win a few big bets to come out ahead and to feel that you have a winning system. Would you care to publish your results for statistical analysis?Westland Bowl said:Blackjack will ALWAYS be a negative expectation game....BUT you can overcome the losses by making your average wins high enough. At least that is what I believe and am experiencing.
GrandMaster said:Btw, there are easier ways to rig a game in a casino than the artificial intelligence analysing your betting patterns that you worry about. For example, start-your-casino.com on the rogue list won't let the players win more than a pre-determined amount. A more subtle version would just slightly increase the house edge for big bets, which is what some players believe certain casinos are doing.
GrandMaster said:Would you care to publish your results for statistical analysis?
Westland Bowl said:What??? No benefit of a doubt??? This is how flaming wars get started. I only stated a fact that I used Cipher software successfully. It wasn't an opinion but a fact, looking at the increasing bankroll. But you had to stand up and say as a fact "it ain't so" as if the increased bankroll doesn't exist, at least that's what it seems to me. So every winning blackjack player is "on variance" even if they die before the variance ends. Then I'm on one hell of a variance.
The "No, you haven't. Trust me" part of your response is a slap in the face. If you said "In my opinion, you are only experiencing variance...." or "It is my belief that variance is what you are........" or something to that effect, you'll present you views with a benefit of a doubt. You need to temper dogmatic statements unless you know absolutely the truth.
Successful commodity traders lose on more of their trades than they gain. But their average gain is more than enough to offset their average loss. Remember the phase "cut your losses, let your gains ride"? IMO, Cipher's software helped me cut my losses (minimum bets on those) and let me ride the wins (varying bets in accordance to post #13 above).
Blackjack will ALWAYS be a negative expectation game....BUT you can overcome the losses by making your average wins high enough. At least that is what I believe and am experiencing.
freakin said:How confident are you in your betting system? If you're sure it's a winner, why not up your bets? You should be a billionaire by now.
Why not prove wizard of odds wrong in his long run simulation challenge? Surely if you prove your system successful over 1 billion hands, it should quiet the naysayers. In fact, you'll also be able to take $20k off the Wizard while you're at it.
The long run is really long, and you'll realize that when you lose all your money.
Westland Bowl said:How do I program the human factor into a computer? This goes to what RebelDearg was saying about IBM couldn't program the human factor into Deep(er) Blue.
bpb said:What is the "human factor" in blackjack? You have 2 cards, the dealer shows 1, you have a decision to hit,stand,double,split or surrender. The dealer reacts to your decision with a well defined set of rules. This isn't poker. What am I missing?
The cards have no memory (at least in a case where the deck is shuffled prior to each deal). Whether the hand you are dealt is part of this session or that session or the other session doesn't matter. Each trial is independent. Sessions are something you use to define your play. The cards have no knowledge of sessions.
We're not really discussing opinion here. We're discussing facts.
N.B. - Please understand that I am making these posts in the (possibly vain) hope that I can prevent someone from losing a lot of money because they don't fundamentally understand what casino gambling is. Gambling for entertainment is fine. But if you're gambling to make a profit, you better have a very clear plan to exploit a positive expectation situations. If you can't define that positive expectation situation in a logical way, then it doesn't exist.
silcnlayc said:I I have split 10's against a 9, I have doubled down on 6, I have stood on 7's and 8's....I have always stood on 14-16 against 9 or 10 and won 99% of the time, .
Westland Bowl said:These postings are exhausting me here.
liquidsoap says: but ive never done that bad in vegas, ive seen so many jokes hands online its not even funny