Playing with the Houses Money
-
Marcossvon
- Senior Member
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:51 pm
- Location: Wigan
-
mr lugsy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5776
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:19 pm
- Location: looking over your shoulder
- Contact:
anyway , while we wait for someone to come up with the best method, here is the 3rd best .
viewtopic.php?t=8772&highlight=methodology
viewtopic.php?t=8772&highlight=methodology
1st best is don't play of course 
And anyone who thinks they have a "system" that wins is just deluding themselves.
I have no objection to people playing roulette. We all enjoy a nice gamble here. But a lot of people seem to think they do well because they have a system. They don't. They just got lucky. There's nothing wrong with getting lucky but it's important to acknowledge that that's why you won. Start deluding yourself into thinking you have some sort of edge and before long you'll be waving bye bye to your money.
And the reason casinos display the last numbers and the gazillion various other statistics is because people are stupid and somehow think think information gives them an edge over the game hence they are more likely to bet more. The information is of course completely irrelevant.
And anyone who thinks they have a "system" that wins is just deluding themselves.
I have no objection to people playing roulette. We all enjoy a nice gamble here. But a lot of people seem to think they do well because they have a system. They don't. They just got lucky. There's nothing wrong with getting lucky but it's important to acknowledge that that's why you won. Start deluding yourself into thinking you have some sort of edge and before long you'll be waving bye bye to your money.
And the reason casinos display the last numbers and the gazillion various other statistics is because people are stupid and somehow think think information gives them an edge over the game hence they are more likely to bet more. The information is of course completely irrelevant.
Have seen some real sickening runs on FOBT's of many millions to one against to be coincidental (yes, I am being serious) and a run of luck that equated to c 15,000,000/1.
Anyone trying a martingale with £2000 to win £5 is mad.
You get to the casino. First bet wins and you go home. Hmmm, don't think so.
Anyone trying a martingale with £2000 to win £5 is mad.
You get to the casino. First bet wins and you go home. Hmmm, don't think so.
Roulette free since December 2011.
I was being serious spyder.
JG - I know that all numbers have an even chance of dropping in and are NOT affected by any of the previous spins. Number 1 has the same chance of coming in 36 spins in a row - however its very rare to see any one number come in more than 3 times in a row (and I've only seen that once!) In reality, if not mathematically, that missing number has to come in at some point. If you have the float and the time, surely this is not a bad path to take?
The double up on red / black system is a sure way of winning your original stake in profit. The only things that screw you are not having a high enough float and the table limits. The table limits are not an issue here (or don't seem to be anyway) so a high enough float should be OK to do it?
Mr L - OK, cheers. I'm not the type of person who would throw away their years wages and keep trying to do this if it wasn't working. If it stops working then I will stop doing it.
I'd like to add that I don't think the system gives me an edge over the house or anything like that. The odds are the same whether I'm betting with the system or doing any old random bet. I'm just saying this has made money for me so far - and can't really see how it would stop providing that you have a decent float.
Also, I only do this in a casino. Not online or on a FOBT. I've never played a FOBT and based on the posts I have seen on this board I never will. I don't believe them to be fair, judgemental I know when I haven't played them but I have seen MULTIPLE posts where people say they have covered every number except one and that just happens to come in. I expect over a large number of samples they give a fair spread but in the short term individual spins may not be 100% random. Anyway, I don't particularly want to start another FOBT debate.
JG - I know that all numbers have an even chance of dropping in and are NOT affected by any of the previous spins. Number 1 has the same chance of coming in 36 spins in a row - however its very rare to see any one number come in more than 3 times in a row (and I've only seen that once!) In reality, if not mathematically, that missing number has to come in at some point. If you have the float and the time, surely this is not a bad path to take?
The double up on red / black system is a sure way of winning your original stake in profit. The only things that screw you are not having a high enough float and the table limits. The table limits are not an issue here (or don't seem to be anyway) so a high enough float should be OK to do it?
Mr L - OK, cheers.
I'm not the type of person who would throw away their years wages and keep trying to do this if it wasn't working. If it stops working then I will stop doing it. I'd like to add that I don't think the system gives me an edge over the house or anything like that. The odds are the same whether I'm betting with the system or doing any old random bet. I'm just saying this has made money for me so far - and can't really see how it would stop providing that you have a decent float.
Also, I only do this in a casino. Not online or on a FOBT. I've never played a FOBT and based on the posts I have seen on this board I never will. I don't believe them to be fair, judgemental I know when I haven't played them but I have seen MULTIPLE posts where people say they have covered every number except one and that just happens to come in. I expect over a large number of samples they give a fair spread but in the short term individual spins may not be 100% random. Anyway, I don't particularly want to start another FOBT debate.
Not if you treat each number independently. E.G. If you are betting on numbers 1 and 2 doing £5 each. Number 1 comes in so you collect the profit and stop betting on it, but continue to bet on number 2.LordOoze wrote:Some small things about this 'system'
(1) If you have two numbers that haven't come in and you are putting money on both then after 18 spins you have to increase, likewise if there are three then you only have 13 spins per cycle.
On systems where by you are doubling up every spin, yes that is correct. But here you are doubling up once every 30 spins. So if a number comes in on the 30th spin then you make £30 profit (based on £5 bets) but if it come in on the 1st spin you make £175 profit.LordOoze wrote:(2) even money double up systems only return a profit of the initial stake.
streaky bacon?
you arent flipping a coin here... you're spinning a wheel with 37 positions..
you seem to be saying on each spin you either hit or miss the spin and each "miss" makes the number you are betting on more likely to come up..
also, you are (in a way) removing half of the odds by betting on more than one spot.
so theoreticly your chance of hitting one of your two numbers is nearly 18/1
----------------------------------
but, even if the odds are affected by the number of bets, and even if the wheel wasnt pure random, if the wheel had the ability of going in order of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, etc etc thru to 36, but randomly miss the cycle and hit a random number every random amount of spins, therefore, going up something like this:
0,1,2,3,4,1,6,9,8,9,10,23,17,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,36,26,27,28,29,29,31,32,04,34,35,36
then starting back from zero.....
you could miss hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cycles of the number you have chosen.. and thats with a noticeable pattern BUILT in to the spin of the wheel... a pure random wheel could probably quite easily miss a number for a couple of thousand spins..
*surely betting on a number that has already come out would mean you get more chance of it hitting again?
*surely betting on a set/pre chosen number would give you a more informed starting point?
-----------------------------------------------
if you use the same system and only bet 1 number, you would have more spins and "win" less often, if you had 4 numbers instead of 2 you would spin less times and (should) "win" more often?
its not really a system, its more like controlling your urge to tilt, and bet big in the gamblers plee of "please god let me break even"
your system of picking the number to bet on is completely flawed and will make everyone call fallacy.
you seem to be saying on each spin you either hit or miss the spin and each "miss" makes the number you are betting on more likely to come up..
also, you are (in a way) removing half of the odds by betting on more than one spot.
so theoreticly your chance of hitting one of your two numbers is nearly 18/1
----------------------------------
but, even if the odds are affected by the number of bets, and even if the wheel wasnt pure random, if the wheel had the ability of going in order of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, etc etc thru to 36, but randomly miss the cycle and hit a random number every random amount of spins, therefore, going up something like this:
0,1,2,3,4,1,6,9,8,9,10,23,17,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,36,26,27,28,29,29,31,32,04,34,35,36
then starting back from zero.....
you could miss hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cycles of the number you have chosen.. and thats with a noticeable pattern BUILT in to the spin of the wheel... a pure random wheel could probably quite easily miss a number for a couple of thousand spins..
*surely betting on a number that has already come out would mean you get more chance of it hitting again?
*surely betting on a set/pre chosen number would give you a more informed starting point?
-----------------------------------------------
if you use the same system and only bet 1 number, you would have more spins and "win" less often, if you had 4 numbers instead of 2 you would spin less times and (should) "win" more often?
its not really a system, its more like controlling your urge to tilt, and bet big in the gamblers plee of "please god let me break even"
your system of picking the number to bet on is completely flawed and will make everyone call fallacy.
flawed point, to utilise this "shortcut" or extra chance of not-losing you would have to play on independent tables...Oli wrote:Not if you treat each number independently. E.G. If you are betting on numbers 1 and 2 doing £5 each. Number 1 comes in so you collect the profit and stop betting on it, but continue to bet on number 2.
number 1 and number 2
£5 on 1 & 2... result is 33 --- you miss both numbers
rebet on 1&2... result is 1 --- you hit one bet and miss one bet
--at this point you swap the number 1 to 3 as the last number was a hit.
so now, you are one extra step along the system with number 2
and at the starting point of number 3
--------
BUT: did the "hit" on number 1 mean you hit number 1, or do you concentrate on the miss of number 2,
if it classes as a hit on 1, you are correct to change the number
if it classes as a miss on 2, you should keep the bet as it is for the next spin.. but then continue with the original system
either way is a contradiction.
also, from the point i am making, you should either remove the second number and double the bets, or remove one number and half the total stake.. (depending on the reason for the original overall stake choice)
No not at all. I know that statistically the odds are the same every spin. Each number always has a 1 in 37 chance of dropping in and this is not affected by any of the previous spins. However, that’s based on each spin individually. See my next point for clarification.Spyder wrote:you seem to be saying on each spin you either hit or miss the spin and each "miss" makes the number you are betting on more likely to come up..
Really? If you take a high number of samples, let’s say 3,700 spins as an example. Statistically you would expect each number to come up 100 times during those spins. Obviously that doesn’t follow suit over a small sample number, but over a high sample that’s what happens. (On a fair wheel). Of course, it could be that number 1 is missed completely for 3,600 spins and then drops in 100 spins in a row. Statistically that is just as possible as it dropping in once every 37 spins, however in reality 100 spins in a row just does not happen.Spyder wrote:a pure random wheel could probably quite easily miss a number for a couple of thousand spins..
My point is, eventually it will ‘even out’ so that statically it shows every number coming in at an average of once every 37 spins. So if it hasn’t come in for 50 spins then you could consider that the number is ‘due’ (I know that the odds based on one individual spin are still 37/1!) Of course, I don’t know what the frequency of those numbers were prior to the 50 spins when I started recording, but remember that I’m not waiting for the number to come in all 100 times and for the entire wheel to ‘even out’, I’m just waiting for it to drop in once. So if you have enough monies, the chances of you having to bet for the whole 3,600 spins are very very very low.
No, you miss understand. Number 1 comes in so you win on number 1 and miss on number 2. You collect the profit from number 1 and no longer bet on number 1. You do NOT replace it with another number, and only continue to bet on number 2 and number 2 only. The counter does not reset. It carries on from when you first started betting with both numbers 1 and 2, so after 30 spins you would double up to £10.Spyder wrote:number 1 and number 2
£5 on 1 & 2... result is 33 --- you miss both numbers
rebet on 1&2... result is 1 --- you hit one bet and miss one bet
--at this point you swap the number 1 to 3 as the last number was a hit.
streaky bacon?
Thinking that things will "even out" in probability is a very dangerous idea. In reality you'll never have a big enough sample for this to happen.
Assume we are doing red/black. And 100 spins. The expected distribution is 50/50 (ignoring 0). Now assume the first 50 spins are red (v unlikely obv). The expected distribution is now 75/25. The first 50 spins don't matter.
Over a very large number of trials (millions say) it's likely that the numbers will be 50/50 maybe a % either way. But on a roulette wheel you'll never see that many spins. And choosing numbers there's 36 outcomes. On my phone so can't check but I'd be willing to bet that over 1m spins there would be some quite different %s between the numbers.
I think you get that the system doesn't work. And if you're making money from it then go for it and gamble. But you're winning because you're getting lucky. Not because of a system.
Assume we are doing red/black. And 100 spins. The expected distribution is 50/50 (ignoring 0). Now assume the first 50 spins are red (v unlikely obv). The expected distribution is now 75/25. The first 50 spins don't matter.
Over a very large number of trials (millions say) it's likely that the numbers will be 50/50 maybe a % either way. But on a roulette wheel you'll never see that many spins. And choosing numbers there's 36 outcomes. On my phone so can't check but I'd be willing to bet that over 1m spins there would be some quite different %s between the numbers.
I think you get that the system doesn't work. And if you're making money from it then go for it and gamble. But you're winning because you're getting lucky. Not because of a system.
(you'll be so pissed off next time a number doubles up if you never continue the betting)
if you could bet that the first number spun would be 1, and the second would be 7 then the 3rd would be 19 you get odds of about 50,000/1
however, you arent betting the string of numbers, you are betting the next number only... so you get 36/1 every time.
compare the number that you are betting on to any string of any past numbers on any roullette table anywhere, ever... and yes eventually, you will hit, but it doesnt make it a good system let alone a working one..
it is exactly like saying a number is due, you are taking past and future events on a fixed probability, using the mathematical fact that there are 37 options and that the outcome is purely random, and connecting these facts to state that sooner or later the next number will be your chosen number..
you might as well start at 1, bet £10, f you win start over, however if you miss, +1 to the number and bet on that square.. 1 2 3 4 5...etc etc..
or:
look across at another wheel and use the last number to come up on that wheel as your number each spin???
staying on the same number and stating it will eventually come in is not viable.. each spin is independent and the next spin, although connected by gravity, starting points and other variables is irrelevant. you are betting on each instance of the wheel spinning, if you choose to pick the same number, a different number or a different amount of chips, it will not make any difference to the outcome...
this way of playing roulette is so far out, your bankroll would have to be massive.. i sometimes spread loads of chips across the 1st 12 (plus zero) and even chasing this can miss 10 times in a row... id hate to see you sweating over a 100 missed number bets...
however.. on a long enough timeline, YES, your theory of reasonably similar outcomes SHOULD be true... mathematicly... but the "drift" could be over more spins than could be spun in your lifetime...
if you could bet that the first number spun would be 1, and the second would be 7 then the 3rd would be 19 you get odds of about 50,000/1
however, you arent betting the string of numbers, you are betting the next number only... so you get 36/1 every time.
compare the number that you are betting on to any string of any past numbers on any roullette table anywhere, ever... and yes eventually, you will hit, but it doesnt make it a good system let alone a working one..
it is exactly like saying a number is due, you are taking past and future events on a fixed probability, using the mathematical fact that there are 37 options and that the outcome is purely random, and connecting these facts to state that sooner or later the next number will be your chosen number..
you might as well start at 1, bet £10, f you win start over, however if you miss, +1 to the number and bet on that square.. 1 2 3 4 5...etc etc..
or:
look across at another wheel and use the last number to come up on that wheel as your number each spin???
staying on the same number and stating it will eventually come in is not viable.. each spin is independent and the next spin, although connected by gravity, starting points and other variables is irrelevant. you are betting on each instance of the wheel spinning, if you choose to pick the same number, a different number or a different amount of chips, it will not make any difference to the outcome...
this way of playing roulette is so far out, your bankroll would have to be massive.. i sometimes spread loads of chips across the 1st 12 (plus zero) and even chasing this can miss 10 times in a row... id hate to see you sweating over a 100 missed number bets...
however.. on a long enough timeline, YES, your theory of reasonably similar outcomes SHOULD be true... mathematicly... but the "drift" could be over more spins than could be spun in your lifetime...
Roullette is still operational in casinos over the world because it is unpredictable. If it was predictable to any degree, you'd soon find bankrupt casinos (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Jagger).
The game has been around since 1796, and better men than us have tried to make systems and all have failed. Take the hint and save your money, or admit that you are having a gamble and nothing else.
The game has been around since 1796, and better men than us have tried to make systems and all have failed. Take the hint and save your money, or admit that you are having a gamble and nothing else.
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
Not if you treat each number independently. E.G. If you are betting on numbers 1 and 2 doing £5 each. Number 1 comes in so you collect the profit and stop betting on it, but continue to bet on number 2.LordOoze wrote:Some small things about this 'system'
(1) If you have two numbers that haven't come in and you are putting money on both then after 18 spins you have to increase, likewise if there are three then you only have 13 spins per cycle.
>> This is true. Though if neither comes in then the above is true.
On systems where by you are doubling up every spin, yes that is correct. But here you are doubling up once every 30 spins. So if a number comes in on the 30th spin then you make £30 profit (based on £5 bets) but if it come in on the 1st spin you make £175 profit.[/quote]LordOoze wrote:(2) even money double up systems only return a profit of the initial stake.
This is very true. If you are say playing just one (the missing ) number then
36 spins @ £ 5
18 spins @ £10
9 spins @ £20 or 15 spins @ £15
etc etc
Still if it is working then great
A small tale from a recent casino visit.
Tier turns up then again 20 numbers later then 38 numbers later
<tier = 12 numbers opposite zero >
For once I didn't bother playing but fingers were heavily itching after the first ten in set 1 and like mad around 17th on set 2 lol
Labouchère system is my personal favourite - though I play it reverse and on the sets of 12 (top middle bottom or 1/2/3 dozens)
Aiming to LOSE the set and thus the initial full stake. However when a win comes in it offsets the initial stake and with ~1/3 wins to loses you can recoup the stake - faster or slower depending if you win a double etc...
Once more if it is working then good on you. Personally I hope it continues to do so