How to Win at roulette Z - Q

I think Aphie needs a break. I KNOW he knows better than this. He must be typing faster than he is thinking.

Also, in the US, there is a double zero in addition to the zero. So that significantly lowers your probabilities with the mentioned method. Bottom line though, is the odds are the odds. When you get paid 35 to one on a 37 to one wager, you lose. Period.
More...

What are you talking about? I just took another statistics class two semesters ago and a lot of this is still fresh in my mind. If you don't agree with something I said, then please tell me where I am wrong?

A lot of people don't understand probabilities and statistics. They think they do, but they don't. It took me a few years to even understand the basic concepts of dependent and independent events, binomial expansion and the law of large numbers.

Yes, the house *does* have an advantage . Payout rates vary among various casinos but the point which I am trying to make is that people DO make money in casinos. It isn't a good long-term strategy to make a living by any means, but the law of large numbers isn't going to catch everyone during a weekend at Vegas.
 
Originally posted by aphexcoil


What are you talking about?

It isn't a good long-term strategy to make a living by any means, but the law of large numbers isn't going to catch everyone during a weekend at Vegas.
More...

Sorry Aphie,

Your thinking may be correct, but your way of expressing it is inaccurate. By tripling your bet, you do NOT have an 89% chance of winning.

Think it through, and express it properly. I don't doubt your abilities with statistics. Just go back and think about it one more time.

And yes, the law of averages will not catch everyone in the short time. That is why people sometimes win. That is what keeps the casinos going. They LOVE when people win. It's the best advertising there is.

Peace,
:)rs7
 
Originally posted by aphexcoil


What are you talking about? I just took another statistics class two semesters ago and a lot of this is still fresh in my mind. If you don't agree with something I said, then please tell me where I am wrong?

A lot of people don't understand probabilities and statistics. They think they do, but they don't. It took me a few years to even understand the basic concepts of dependent and independent events, binomial expansion and the law of large numbers.

Yes, the house *does* have an advantage . Payout rates vary among various casinos but the point which I am trying to make is that people DO make money in casinos. It isn't a good long-term strategy to make a living by any means, but the law of large numbers isn't going to catch everyone during a weekend at Vegas.
More...

What so hard about understanding that each time the wheel spins the odds of winning are exactly the same no matter what you do?

I'd get my money back on that class if you don't understand that.
 
rs7,

You're right. Gambling at a casino is a losing proposition. The whole point about tripling the bet was to offset the loss of the first bet while assuming the odds would be in your favor of winning the second since it would be more unlikely to lose two 66% success probabilities in a row.

There are a ton of gambling books at the bookstore and it always amazes me how anyone can look at something from a huge variety of angles and draw conclusions based on what they want to see.

Gambling can be a real problem for some people. I think it is the allure of making a fast buck that draws some people to the casinos. However, the last time I played in a casino was in Amsterdam and I played craps and doubled my first bet. I quit after that because if you are up and stop, they can't take it back at that point.

It wasn't a lot of money, but I think it paid for a lot of "smokes" for the weekend.
 
What so hard about understanding that each time the wheel spins the odds of winning are exactly the same no matter what you do?

I'd get my money back on that class if you don't understand that.
More...

You are half-right. The odds of spinning that wheel at any one moment says that any number should be selected randomly. However, the law of large numbers says that, as the number of trials increases, the number of probable outcomes should get closer and closer to their respective probabilities.

For instance, if the wheel spins and a "5" comes up, that's random. If the wheel is spun 5,000,000 times and 5 comes up more than 1/38'th of the time, by a significant level, then something is wrong because it should tend towards 1/38 (for American casinos).

We can somewhat apply this to independent events as the sample of trails increases. The odds of getting a 5 are 1/38 -- but if you had to put down money on the table for playing a game where you were betting on two 5's to come up in a row, wouldn't you want a payout of around 38 squared? The probability of two fives occurring in a row are 1 in 1,444.

If you don't believe me, you can list all the possible combinations for two roulette spins and find how many of them produce two 5's (only 1 out of 1,444 possible scenarios).

This is how probability gets strange rather quickly. Although each spin may be considered an independent event, so can a "set of spins" also be considered an independent event.

Hope this helps.
 
Originally posted by aphexcoil


You are half-right. The odds of spinning that wheel at any one moment says that any number should be selected randomly. However, the law of large numbers says that, as the number of trials increases, the number of probable outcomes should get closer and closer to their respective probabilities.

For instance, if the wheel spins and a "5" comes up, that's random. If the wheel is spun 5,000,000 times and 5 comes up more than 1/38'th of the time, by a significant level, then something is wrong because it should tend towards 1/38 (for American casinos).

We can somewhat apply this to independent events as the sample of trails increases. The odds of getting a 5 are 1/38 -- but if you had to put down money on the table for playing a game where you were betting on two 5's to come up in a row, wouldn't you want a payout of around 38 squared? The probability of two fives occurring in a row are 1 in 1,444.

If you don't believe me, you can list all the possible combinations for two roulette spins and find how many of them produce two 5's (only 1 out of 1,444 possible scenarios).

This is how probability gets strange rather quickly. Although each spin may be considered an independent event, so can a "set of spins" also be considered an independent event.

Hope this helps.
More...

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The main flaw here is that even if you consider a "set of spins" an independent event, the casino doesn't let you bet on a "set of spins". The odds based on anything other than what can happen during a single betting cycle are irrelevent.

If what you say is true - the casino would only let you place one bet - otherwise they would end up being a loser in the long run.

Also, why would people employing this "method" ever go back to their original bet? You'd think that if you lost the first spin and left, and then came back 2 years later, that you'd start with triple you bet - right? If that gives you better odd, why not?
 
Originally posted by aphexcoil

If, however, you lose the first bet, you can triple your bet and still win -- but now statistics says that you have a 33%x33% chance of losing -- or 10.9% chance of losing -- an 89.1% chance of winning.
More...

Aphexcoil,

Remember that the law of large numbers doesn't work in retrospect. If the chance of losing is 33%, then indeed the probability of losing 2x times in a row is 10.9%.

BUT, this is ONLY holds true BEFORE you play. Once you play once and lose, then your probability of losing the next time is still 33%. This is the flaw in your theory. You think that since you lost the first time, then the chance of losing both times is only 10%. This is not true.
 
!. Bring money to the Casino.
2. Head to the roulette table.
3. Buy chips.
4. Use any betting system you desire.
4. Use any money management system you desire.
5. Be emotional or don't be emotional, it doesn't matter.
6. Leave a winner or a loser for that session.

7. Repeat steps 1 to 7 for as often as it takes you to lose your entire bankroll.

The bottom line with roulette is that you have a mathematical disadvantage of 5.26 percent on any amounts that you wager, on each and evey bet. The only exception is the 5 number bet on 0-00-1,2,3 where I think the disadvantage is more than 7 percent. No money management scheme will overcome a game with a consistent mathematical advantage on every bet. Money management only works on games with a positive expectation.

In Europe they have roulette wheels with only one zero and a special emprision rule on even money bets that lowers your disadvantage to 1.5 percent or so on these even money bets but it is still a big disadvantage. And it applies to every spin.

Don't be fooled. Just because you lost the last ten bets doesn't mean you cant lose the next bet, or the bet after that!

I particularly find Lobsters rule "Q" intersting about not calculating everthing ....

Anybody who takes that advice would not be privy to the knowedge that the only winning move in this game is not to play!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top