Roulette- why you can't ever constantly win.

[gfkostas]

What am saying is that i would bet on the premise that a 50 red in a row outcome would never happen. Thus after 20 reds in a row i would still be positive that this streak won't continue. It never has in the past. Usually 20-25 is the most we have ever seen.

 

[winbig]

What am saying is that i would bet on the premise that a 50 red in a row outcome would never happen. Thus after 20 reds in a row i would still be positive that this streak won't continue. It never has in the past. Usually 20-25 is the most we have ever seen.

But that's the thing. It can, and has happened; somewhere, sometime - and it can & will happen again.

Point is, the time you bet the farm on a streak of 50 red not happening, it could happen, and you're out everything. While it's near impossible, it's not impossible.

ps: How can you prove it's never happened in the past? Do you have records of every single roulette spin around the world since the invention of the game itself?

(Don't mean to stir up @#$@#, but think about it....)

 

[gfkostas]

But that's the thing. It can, and has happened; somewhere, sometime - and it can & will happen again.

Point is, the time you bet the farm on a streak of 50 red not happening, it could happen, and you're out everything. While it's near impossible, it's not impossible.

ps: How can you prove it's never happened in the past? Do you have records of every single roulette spin around the world since the invention of the game itself?

(Don't mean to stir up @#$@#, but think about it....)

When I say 50 i just want to indicate a result that is near impossible. Assuming that 50 reds in a row is one in a billion isn't it out of the possibility of feasibility? On a similar note if you test a casino software and you end up having a result which happens 1 in a trillion you would immediately call the software rogue. 1 in a trillion can happen but it will *never* happen if you see what I mean.

By the time 50 or 100 reds in row has happened I would have won a lot. It is naive to believe that a winning streak can keep forever it is also naive to expect often a 20 win streak. Usually its 6-7 times in a row, more rare is 12-15 in a row and on very very rare occasions its 20+ wins in a row. To have 4-5 wins in a row is very usual and it is likely for you to continue winning but when we reach 15+ the chances for it to keep going are minimal. Sure it *can* happen but I would bet that it won't. History says that only very very rarely can we expect 20+ streaks. My bet regards the totality of the spins or hands. Fact is that winning streaks often end at about 8-10 in a row where they end. Me betting that it won't go up to 20 means that i'll be winning most of the time.

 

[aka23]

My bet regards the totality of the spins or hands. Fact is that winning streaks often end at about 8-10 in a row where they end. Me betting that it won't go up to 20 means that i'll be winning most of the time.

You don't bet on the totality of the spins/hands. You only bet on the next spin/hand, which is not influenced from previous results in roulette.

If you believe that previous streaks affect future outcomes, then it should be easy for you to make an unlimited amount of money in roulette. Bet the minimum until you see a streak, then increase bet size. Or go to a live casino and don't bet anything until you see a streak, then go all in.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

When I say 50 i just want to indicate a result that is near impossible. Assuming that 50 reds in a row is one in a billion isn't it out of the possibility of feasibility?

No. Did you read the link I posted earler. The same number came up 6 times in a row. That is a 1 in THREE billion chance. Yet it happened !
You know what ? The sequence 23, 14 , 7 , 35, 34, 2 is also a 1 in 3 billion shot, as is any other series of 6 numbers....but we only look for the patters and the ones that seem meaningful !

By the time 50 or 100 reds in row has happened I would have won a lot. It is naive to believe that a winning streak can keep forever it is also naive to expect often a 20 win streak.

You seem to assume you are betting with the wheel. What if 20 reds came up in a row whilst you were betting black ? You'd be rather alot down I would think. It is nothing to do with being naive, it's to do with probability.

If I bet Red, Red, Red, Red, Red, Red, Red, Red, Red and I win every bet people are like wow great winning streak, the wheel is hot, you are on a roll etc.
If I bet Red, Black, Black, Red, Black, Red, Red, Black, Red and win every single time then you might also class that a "streak". The probability of me winning those 9 bets in a row was the same, regardless of the colour I bet on.

History says that only very very rarely can we expect 20+ streaks.

History says ? What the f**k ? Probability says it's unlikely you will win 40 bets in a row or whatever but it's nothing to do with history !
Perhaps you mean the history of previous spins ? Previous spins have nothing to do with it though do they ! Do you have access to all the spins that all the roulette wheels have made since roulette has been played ? I don't. But I don't need to. Why don't you look for "streaks" of RBBRBRBBRBBRBBBBRBRR ?
That has the same probability of coming up as 20 reds !
Does history tell you that the sequence of colours there will rarely come up too ? Man it's probability.....repeat after me.....PROBABILITY !

To have 4-5 wins in a row is very usual and it is likely for you to continue winning but when we reach 15+ the chances for it to keep going are minimal.

No no no no no no no. The chances of winning the next spin are exactly the same as they were all the other times. To win 15 spins in a row is quite unlikely but once you have reached 15 wins it doesn't mean the wheel dooms you to ensuring your winning "streak" doesn't continue. After exactly how many wins does the chance of keeping winning begin to fall ? After 2 wins ? 4 wins ? 10 wins ? How many wins is it ? The answer is it doesn't !
Every single spin is the same probability......why can people not understand that ?!?!?

Fact is that winning streaks often end at about 8-10 in a row where they end. Me betting that it won't go up to 20 means that i'll be winning most of the time.

That statement is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start.

 

[bpb]

Discussing mathematical concepts with people who have no concept of mathematics is a pointless endeavor.

 

[gfkostas]

brutaldeluxe ,

The attitude of your posts directed to me is laughable. You being "right" or "wrong" doesn't entitle you to chat like you do.

That statement is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start.

You assume things and seem to reply to what you think that I mean not what I really mean. Nonetheless put your money where your mouth is. Am issuing a challenge to you. We go to a casino and I bet that if we stay there the whole night there will be far and few 20+ streaks. For every 20+ streak of the same color i will give you £500 in cash. For every 20 spins of non streak you give me £100. I bet that you will have some streaks of 5-10 colors but before you reach 20 it will most likely end. Sure you might get it once but at the end of the night i'll take you. I'll visit any casino in London for this challenge and i'll be having enough cash on me for the whole night.

Winning streaks rarely reach extraordinary levels. Usually 5-10 in a row is the most common. That's why I say after 7-8 wins in a row usually the streak ends and it does. Check your gambling log. How many 20+ streaks you had and how many 8? I do not say the last spin determines the % of the next one. I bet on the fact that long streaks rarely occur. Am speaking hypothetically knowing that you don't bet on whether a streak will happen or not though you don't even bother to ask what I mean but to the contrary you assume the position of "I'm right, you wrong" which blinds you. Am speaking hypothetically *ding* *ding* anyone there?

 

[brutaldeluxe]

Discussing mathematical concepts with people who have no concept of mathematics is a pointless endeavor.

Yip.


As people in this thread before me have been forced to conclude.....it's pointless trying to explain.

 

[gfkostas]

Yip.


As people in this thread before me have been forced to conclude.....it's pointless trying to explain.

I see you passing by my challenge

 

[brutaldeluxe]

I'd love to take you up on that actually. Just tell me what casino, what date and what time and I'll bring my gun erm I mean myself along and we can spin some roulette.

 

[gfkostas]

I'd love to take you up on that actually. Just tell me what casino, what date and what time and I'll bring my gun erm I mean myself along and we can spin some roulette.

You are not serious. If you are send me a pm and we arrange a meeting at a well known London casino. You better bring plenty of cash with you

 

[anadolu]

hi guys

hi my friends,

you are to belive algoritma.ı know straıngs bet. algoritma asıstance.


ı am soryy . ıam know small englısh. but ı know numbers.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

Of course I am not serious ! Notice how I "accidentally" said the word gun.
Why would I want to make a stupid bet like that ? I get 500 every time 20 reds or 20 blacks in a row come up and every time they don't I give you 100.
Don't have to be a genius to work out that is a bad bet.

OK here is one for you. How about we get a single dice....or die if you want to use the singular. I get to roll it four times. I reckon I can roll a six in four goes. You can bet whatever you like. If I roll a six I keep your bet. If I don't roll a six I give you your bet back plus another amount equal to your bet ie I pay you even money on your bet. Do you fancy that bet ? Is that a good bet ? How are the "streaks" going to run there then ?

 

[hitobito2005]

It's truly frustrating reading this thread.

 

[gfkostas]

It's truly frustrating reading this thread.

It's truly frustrating that some people speak english and yet they don't understand english nor accept that they don't understand. No win situation.

 

[bpb]

It's truly frustrating that some people speak english and yet they don't understand english nor accept that they don't understand. No win situation.

It's truly frustrating that some people try to use mathematical concepts, and yet they don't understand mathematical concepts nor accept that they don't understand. No win situation.

By the way, your "challenge" is dumb. Nobody is arguing that streaks of 20 happen frequently. What we're trying to pound through your skull is that if you've just experienced a string of 10 non-correlated results, each with a probabilty P of occuring, (making the probability of that string of results P^10), then the chance of the next 10 results mimicing the previous 10 doesn't magicamally increase to a number greater than P^10. It's still P^10. Why? The results are non-correlated. They are independent. There is no dependence between each result. One result has no effect on the probability of another. It doesn't matter anymore that the chance of 20 reds in a row was P^20. If ten trials have come up red, the chance of 10 more reds is P^10. Not P^10+some random gfkostas bullshit chaos pseudo-probability red crayon factor. Why? Because the first 10 trials have already happened. They're done. Finished. Occured. Resulted. They don't fucking matter anymore.

Here's a challenge for you. We'll flip a fair coin over and over and over again. Each time we get N heads in a row, I'll bet that the next flip will be heads. You take tails. I'll pay you $10 if it's tails. You pay me $11 if it's heads. You get to pick how large N is.

Anyone else want in on this action?

 

[fathead]

The probability of 40 reds in a row is indeed (18/38)^40

But if 20 reds have already been spun (in the past, so can be disregared) the probability of a further 20 reds is (18/38)^20.

Hi again. I have been pondering the situation and have some other thoughts.

Really, I am not a 'believer', I just am very open minded and am not afraid to test an idea on the computer even if it seems far fetched.

Maybe I am not running the simulator long enough? Would you double check my math please? This is on a European 37 number wheel.

If I am using a 10 step martingale progression, the 11th step will cause a loss. My chance of losing 11 in a row is (19/37)^11 or 0.0655%. So for every 10,000 martingales used, I should have 6.55 losses. Is that correct?

Maybe I should run the simulator for a total of 10,000 martingales and see how many times it fails. This will take a long time, probably all night or even longer, but might be interesting.

If my math is off, let me know.

 

[bpb]

Your math is correct.

May I suggest an alternate simulation though? Test the following two situations.

1) 10 step martingale, betting on every outcome, always on the same color
2) Wait for a streak of 10 consecutive matching results. Then, 10 step martingale on the opposite color. Each time you win a wager, you wait for another streak of 10 before betting again. If you lose all 10 in a row, you also wait for another streak of 10 before starting over at step 1.

The results of these two simulations over the same number of wagers (not spins) should demonstrate that the expected loss over both of these scenarios is equal. Gfkostas would bet his house that #2 will win more money in the long run than #1.

Inevitably though, simulation results will be disregarded using the rationale that "computer simulations don't accurately reflect B&M conditions".

 

[gfkostas]

It's truly frustrating that some people try to use mathematical concepts, and yet they don't understand mathematical concepts nor accept that they don't understand. No win situation.

By the way, your "challenge" is dumb. Nobody is arguing that streaks of 20 happen frequently. What we're trying to pound through your skull is that if you've just experienced a string of 10 non-correlated results, each with a probabilty P of occuring, (making the probability of that string of results P^10), then the chance of the next 10 results mimicing the previous 10 doesn't magicamally increase to a number greater than P^10. It's still P^10. Why? The results are non-correlated. They are independent. There is no dependence between each result. One result has no effect on the probability of another. It doesn't matter anymore that the chance of 20 reds in a row was P^20. If ten trials have come up red, the chance of 10 more reds is P^10. Not P^10+some random gfkostas bullshit chaos pseudo-probability red crayon factor. Why? Because the first 10 trials have already happened. They're done. Finished. Occured. Resulted. They don't fucking matter anymore.

Here's a challenge for you. We'll flip a fair coin over and over and over again. Each time we get N heads in a row, I'll bet that the next flip will be heads. You take tails. I'll pay you $10 if it's tails. You pay me $11 if it's heads. You get to pick how large N is.

Anyone else want in on this action?

You keep saying the same and the same all over again when where i want to direct your attention is elsewhere not whether previous results change the probabilities of the next ones but you are too off balance in this discussion to get anything. Also I can keep dragging you in this thread forever which shows to what extend some people go to prove that they are right. As to your indirect implies that am dumb, I've got a record on this forum to be judged upon.
Better both of you stay quiet a be thought a fool rather than continue and remove all doubt.

 

[murdock]

the thing is, probability is scary.

Our friend gfkostas' brain is perfectly able to comprehend these things, but he took his thinking to the next step and realised that considering water molecules each gulp he takes contains some of Hitler's piss. At this point his brain shut down and refused to accept probability anymore.

 

[anadolu]

hi friends

Dear friends;

My intent is not to sell the system; it is to make you believe the algoritma's potential...

I dont want money from you and ı dont want you to risk your money, when you are playing...

I only want your 30 minutes and see what i can do...

You will be surprised to see this and dont forget that as i can do it, you can do it too...

You can see my msn address in my profile...

Sincerely...

 

[gfkostas]

the thing is, probability is scary.

Our friend gfkostas' brain is perfectly able to comprehend these things, but he took his thinking to the next step and realised that considering water molecules each gulp he takes contains some of Hitler's piss. At this point his brain shut down and refused to accept probability anymore.

What a preposterous post. Really low.... You should be suspended.

 

[tencardcharlie]

Dear friends;

My intent is not to sell the system; it is to make you believe the algoritma's potential...

I dont want money from you and ı dont want you to risk your money, when you are playing...

I only want your 30 minutes and see what i can do...

You will be surprised to see this and dont forget that as i can do it, you can do it too...

You can see my msn address in my profile...

Sincerely...

Anyone else who find these posts a wee bit suspicios?

 

[murdock]

What a preposterous post. Really low.... You should be suspended.

well if you first consider the total volume of water on earth, then consider the number of molecules of water hitler should have urinated in his life time, then you would have to conclude if there was any kind of water dispersion going on you would infact be drinking some of his urine in every glass of water you consumed.

 

[gfkostas]

I see you are rather keen to mention hitler in your posts

Any moderator around here?