Winner at roulette? Or lucky sucker?

One night in Vegas I lost $400 at Texas hold'em. The big losing hand was as follows: I had a flush on the turn. I bet big. A guy who couldn't have more than two pair went "all in." Sure enough, the all-in guy caught a full boat on the river. I was despondent. Upon leaving the Venetian (I think it was) I stopped by the roulette wheel. I had never played roulette before in my life, what with a 5 1/4 percent house advantage. I had $500 left in my pocket. I reasoned that if I lost it I wouldn't feel that much worse than I already felt after losing with that flush; but if I won, I would be on top of the world. I dug into my pocket and put the entire $500 on RED for one spin. I won and just as I thought, I felt like I was on top of the world. I was tickled pink as I strode back to my hotel room and told my wife what had happened. I have never played roulette again. If I can just keep away from the wheel, I will be one of the few lifetime winners at the game of roulette! :grin:

I'm in that club!!! Played once, had remarkable luck, will probably never play again.

:cool2: Cool!

I play roulette fairly often online, in cases where it's conducive to the particular bonus that I'm whoring. But I prefer to play single-zero roulette with a la partage rule and the "Passenger 57" strategy (always bet on Black).

But there's really no fun in it for me. I decided that the real roulette fans are people who like betting, and slapping chips all over the place.

What the heck!

:yikes: As Ronnie Reagan once said,"Well, there you go again..." ...talking over my head, that is. What the heck are la portage rule and Passenger 57 strategy. Sometimes I think this forum is designed to make me believe I'm a complete imbecile.

PS - Apparently Pass 57 means always betting on black. My question is, "Who the heck is passenger 57?"

Wesley Snipes. He used the line in the movie by the same name.

I'm thinking that Easy probably is referring to "la frotage" which means fondling of unknown women.
The second interpretation would be that it is similar to "surrender" on even money bets ala. Red/ Black or Odd/ Even. In this case you bet $100 and if a zero comes up you get 1/2 your money back (AKA $50). It's also known as "En prison".

Thanks for catching my typo.

I'm a lifetime winner at roulette, but that's because I play roulette with an edge.

what edge is that?

Do you use visual ballistics, or some other method?

Right on

Yes. I saw that movie I think. Wasn't he a hidden passenger or in-flight boarder, or something like that, who saved the plane from terrorists?

Okay, I'll bite!

You know you can't get away with making statements like that and not explaining! Please explain.

On the voodoo board you can. In fact, it's par for the course.

-Sonny-

Sorry, but I'm through explaining anything like that in threads. The moderation policy around here makes me not want to contribute that sort of thing. Any petty nay-sayer could come along, start up a flamewar full of personal attacks, and then the thread would get locked, instead of just putting the brakes on people who want to ruin the chance for quality discussion. You can ask me in a private message, but there's no guarantee I'll answer you there either. I'm starting to think that the wisdom and knowledge of a Real Pro is neither appreciated nor deserved here, so I'll just have to be content to leave you guys in the minor leagues. I'll just go as far as to tell you that you can get the edge at roulette (though I wouldn't recommend the book of the same name).

I’ll make a few comments.

The British equivalent of the bureau of weights and measures tested a roulette computer and found that it is possible to find microscopic biases. However, Laurance Scott, who has spent 20 years researching Roulette, tells me you can rarely find a wheel with adequate bias. Problem, is the casinos rotate the wheels from table to table on a regular basis. But, this does not mean that Roulette cannot be beaten. Wheel bias just isn’t the way to go.

Scott’s advanced techniques are based on both visual and acoustic indicators. I can’t go into detail as it’s not my methodology to explain; but it requires measuring ball vs. rotor speed, a lot of patience and a lot of calculation. There are tricks to simplify the measurements. When you think about it; Roulette has some great advantages. First, it’s the only casino game where you can bet after the game is put into action. Imagine betting at the track after the bell. Second, suppose you can hit the correct quarter of the wheel one out of three times. Your advantage is enormous. Mind you, casinos know Roulette is beatable and there do exist cover plays that cut into EV.

Disclaimer: I wrote Scott’s Roulette Analyzer that identifies opportunities and calculates EV and variance. But I would never have developed it had I not been convinced the game has been beaten. Having said that, it is difficult. Scott says it’s as easy as counting. I don’t think so and would never advise anyone to try it who has failed at counting. And I make no mention of Roulette on my sites. Note: Most of the pro Roulette players do not admit that they play Roulette or that it can be beaten. You'd likely be surprised at the names of some of Scott's adherents.

Scott's methods are actually inordinately complicated and largely inapplicable in casinos. He either deliberately left out a few key pieces of information to greatly simplify the process of visual prediction, or he totally missed a few things. If you think you can become a profitable roulette player using the techniques as Scott has described them, you will be in for a hit to your bankroll. But, you can use Scott's premise and add to it to come up with a method that actually works. I'd actually be very surprised to learn that Scott has made any serious money with his techniques (as he describes them in his literature). As with so many things in gambling literature, he only gives you a piece of the story, not the entire picture.

EDIT: No roulette professional I know (and I only know a few, because they're very rare) uses Scott's techniques, and some have never even heard of Laurance Scott.

Most publications leave out important info. A good example is shuffle tracking cookbook. Scott's original systems did leave out some things. His advanced techniques are far more complete. And he is available to answer questions and give further advice. And a couple of the BJ players respected by everyone use his technique - although they have denied it publicly.

Probably because they don't actually use his technique. His technique has always been flawed, and remains so even to this day. People have been using visual prediction methods since long before Scott came on the scene, and they are still using those same methods. Methods that actually work, unlike Scott's, which doesn't quite get you the money. I know who you're talking about, I know what they do (because I know how to do it, too, and learned about it from someone whose roulette experience predates Scott's), and I know it's not the same as what Scott talks about. It's similar, but there are a few key differences between what theoretically might work (Scott), and what actually does work (unnamed players).

I'm sure, however, that you've never actually attempted to use Scott's methods in a casino. Go out and give it a try, and perhaps an epiphany will hit you as to what's missing from his methodology. That's about the only way you'll ever really learn.

Once again with the personal stuff. I know for a fact that Scott's techniques are used by a hero of yours. I know also that several people have pulled over a million out of casinos using these techniques. My sources are on both sides of the game. You can have the last word (accusation.) Conversation with someone that simply makes claims to be better than everyone else without providing one bit of actual info is pointless.