Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

OldGambler · 02-06-2009, 09:27 PM

I have this theory how to win just by playing red and black, but didn't try it in practice yet.
You wait till it comes red for few consecutive spins... (or black)
For example, 4 times in row comes red... and then the 5th time you play on black like for ex. 100 dolla's, and then if you don't loose you put 200 on black again for the 6th spin and so forth till like the 8th spin when you put 800 greens and if you win you walk away with 1500. So basicly you are waiting for consecutive colors to come (or other equal chance bets)
100+200+400+800=1500
What do you think?

***KillJoy*** · 02-06-2009, 11:03 PM

(02-06-2009 09:27 PM)manolo Wrote: You wait till it comes red for few consecutive spins... (or black)
For example, 4 times in row comes red... and then the 5th time you play on black

Probability theory says it's still 50:50 chance to come red or black.
I tried playing something similar, with little success. Why wait 4 times. Why not playing after it comes 2 times consecutively.

pokaMan · 02-08-2009, 04:34 AM

Well, theoretically you can't win on roulette if it doesn't include some sort of cheating. And the chances for red or black to come and you win are not even 50:50, it's 47.37%, and your chances to loose are 52.63% on american roulette (with 0 and 00). On european roulette (only one 0 field) chances to win are 48.65%, and to loose 51.35%, offcourse if you play on even chances.
But despite of this odds, we like to develop our "winning" systems Wink

02-13-2009, 12:53 AM

(02-06-2009 09:27 PM)OldGambler Wrote: I have this theory how to win just by playing red and black, but didn't try it in practice yet.
You wait till it comes red for few consecutive spins... (or black)
For example, 4 times in row comes red... and then the 5th time you play on black like for ex. 100 dolla's, and then if you don't loose you put 200 on black again for the 6th spin and so forth till like the 8th spin when you put 800 greens and if you win you walk away with 1500. So basicly you are waiting for consecutive colors to come (or other equal chance bets)
100+200+400+800=1500
What do you think?

What I think is that you need to read even one book on gambling. You have managed to state not one but two of the most simple things in gambling.

First, the odds of getting red or black are the same each time, the ball and wheel do not know it hit black 4 times in a row.

Second, the system you advocate is called "martingale" and is a sure loser over time unless you have unlimited funds and unlimited maximum bet at the table.

Surely you only posted this to stimulate discussion. Otherwise feel free to gambl at any casino I ever own. I will comp the heck out of you!

OldGambler · 02-13-2009, 01:35 AM

I wouldn't completely agree that the chances are always 50%, because it would mean, if we take the weather for an example (sunny/rainny), that after 30 days of rain, the chances for rain to fall the next day are still 50%.

And I wouldn't agree that you can't win at a Casino. Google about
Joseph Hobson Jagger, The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo

"In 1873, Jagger hired six clerks to clandestinely record the outcomes of the six roulette wheels at the Beaux-Arts Casino at Monte Carlo, Monaco. He discovered that one of the six wheels showed a clear bias, in that nine of the numbers (7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 22, 28 and 29) occurred more frequently than the others. He therefore placed his first bets on 7 July 1875 and quickly won a considerable amount of money, £14,000 (equivalent to around 50 times that amount, or £700,000 in 2005). Over the next three days, Jagger amassed £60,000 in earnings with other gamblers in tow emulating his bets. In response the casino rearranged the wheels, which threw Jagger into confusion. After a losing streak, Jagger finally recalled that a scratch he noted on the biased wheel wasn't present. Looking for this telltale mark, Jagger was able to locate his preferred wheel and resumed winning. Counterattacking again, the casino moved the frets, metal dividers between numbers, around daily. Over the next two days Jagger lost and gave up, but he took his remaining earnings, two million francs, then about £65,000 (around £3,250,000 in 2005), and left Monte Carlo never to return."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Jagger

***KillJoy*** · 02-13-2009, 07:00 AM

This is so called Gambler's Fallacy.
It's when an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events. This line of thinking is incorrect because past events do not change the probability that certain events will occur in the future when this events are independent. Since roulette spins are independent, the chances of red/black ocurring after a series of red, or series of black outcomes is ~50%.
When we talk about the weather, sun/rain, we are talking about dependent events with many variables. Whether it will be sun/rain tomorrow depends on many variables, wind, season...

Here's additional info on Gambler's fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
I hope to write a more interesting (more simplified, shorter) article on this in the future.

If you are still an unbeliever Wink

check this simulations:
http://cnx.org/content/m11213/latest/

Hope it's clearer now.

PanamaRick · 03-03-2009, 08:22 AM

(02-08-2009 04:34 AM)pokaMan Wrote: Well, theoretically you can't win on roulette if it doesn't include some sort of cheating. And the chances for red or black to come and you win are not even 50:50, it's 47.37%, and your chances to loose are 52.63% on american roulette (with 0 and 00). On european roulette (only one 0 field) chances to win are 48.65%, and to loose 51.35%, offcourse if you play on even chances.
But despite of this odds, we like to develop our "winning" systems

There are techniques for beating roulette that are not cheating. For instance, you might a wheel with a bias. There was a case about a Spanish team which exploited such flaws for lots of money.

There is also a controversial technique where one predicts the outcome based on the wheel and ball speed. I cannot say whether such techniques work or not. My gut feeling is that it would be too difficult, but I have I been wrong about such thing before.

***KillJoy*** · 03-03-2009, 11:46 PM

(03-03-2009 08:22 AM)PanamaRick Wrote:
(02-08-2009 04:34 AM)pokaMan Wrote: Well, theoretically you can't win on roulette if it doesn't include some sort of cheating. And the chances for red or black to come and you win are not even 50:50, it's 47.37%, and your chances to loose are 52.63% on american roulette (with 0 and 00). On european roulette (only one 0 field) chances to win are 48.65%, and to loose 51.35%, offcourse if you play on even chances.
But despite of this odds, we like to develop our "winning" systems

There are techniques for beating roulette that are not cheating. For instance, you might a wheel with a bias. There was a case about a Spanish team which exploited such flaws for lots of money.

Yes, I heard about this, but it's hard to find a biased wheel today, 'cause Casinos watch out for this.

Here's a quote from wiki about it:

Quote:There are a number of roulette strategies which take a more mechanical approach to breaking the casino. The most famous is the biased wheel attack. In the biased wheel attack, the player clocks the wheel to find statistical deviations indicating some flaw to the wheel. Given that the wheel is man made it is quite impossible for the roulette wheel to be perfect. The biased wheel attack seeks to find imperfect wheels and exploit the fact that some wheels will return numbers more often than 1 in 35, which means there is potential to have an edge over the casino. Clocking the wheel involves taking spin results in great numbers to identify any opportunities.[8] Casinos are aware of players who try and mechanically exploit roulette wheels and take protective measures by rotating wheels, changing dealers, and switching roulette ball sizes, making mechanical strategies virtually impossible.

Biased wheels: Section betting

In 1982, several casinos in England began to lose large sums of money at their roulette tables to teams of gamblers from the USA. Upon investigation by the police, it was discovered they were using a legal system of biased wheel-section betting. As a result of this, the English roulette wheel manufacturer John Huxley manufactured a roulette wheel to counter-act the problem.

The new wheel, designed by George Melas, was called "low profile" because the pockets had been drastically reduced in depth, and various other design modifications caused the ball to descend in a gradual approach to the pocket area. In 1986, when a professional gambling team headed by Billy Walters won $3.8 million using the system on an old wheel at the Golden Nugget in Atlantic City, every casino in the world took notice, and within one year had switched to the new "low profile" wheel.

(03-03-2009 08:22 AM)PanamaRick Wrote: There is also a controversial technique where one predicts the outcome based on the wheel and ball speed. I cannot say whether such techniques work or not. My gut feeling is that it would be too difficult, but I have I been wrong about such thing before.

Heard about it before. There's even supposed to be a software for mobiles which can predict this.

When I googled it a little I found a patent for this detection system:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/583658...ption.html Idea

What do you think about it?

PanamaRick · 03-05-2009, 03:51 AM

(03-03-2009 11:46 PM)KillJoy Wrote:
(03-03-2009 08:22 AM)PanamaRick Wrote: There is also a controversial technique where one predicts the outcome based on the wheel and ball speed. I cannot say whether such techniques work or not. My gut feeling is that it would be too difficult, but I have I been wrong about such thing before.

Heard about it before. There's even supposed to be a software for mobiles which can predict this.

When I googled it a little I found a patent for this detection system:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/583658...ption.html
What do you think about it?

Using such software would be cheating and subject to felony charges.

I recommend the site administrator post guidelines against endorsing cheating.

***KillJoy*** · 03-05-2009, 04:35 AM

(03-05-2009 03:51 AM)PanamaRick Wrote:
(03-03-2009 11:46 PM)KillJoy Wrote:
(03-03-2009 08:22 AM)PanamaRick Wrote: There is also a controversial technique where one predicts the outcome based on the wheel and ball speed. I cannot say whether such techniques work or not. My gut feeling is that it would be too difficult, but I have I been wrong about such thing before.

Heard about it before. There's even supposed to be a software for mobiles which can predict this.

When I googled it a little I found a patent for this detection system:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/583658...ption.html
What do you think about it?

Using such software would be cheating and subject to felony charges.

I recommend the site administrator post guidelines against endorsing cheating.

Yes, device which can predict where will the roulette ball fall and software for iPhone which can help with card counting is illegal (card counting is legal only if you use just your brain), and anything similar.
I've updated the rules. (rule 1.15 talks about this)