Roulette- why you can't ever constantly win.

[murdock]

ok gengis khan, cleopatra, whoever. I just picked someone famous and dead a while

 

[fathead]

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.

That is a good idea. I would rather try these two, though.

(1) As you suggested above, just beginning the 10 step martingale after a loss, 10,000 martingale progressions.
(2) Wait for a streak of 15 even chance results, then start a 10 step martingale at that point, 10,000 martingale progressions.

If the results of both tests are equal or very close to equal, then waiting for a 15 streak to begin betting would have no more merit than just starting the martingale progression after each losing bet.

Test '1' will be easy. Test '2' will take many, many hours. Maybe I can start it tonight before I go to bed.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

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.

Your whole argument is based on that because something happened in the past it makes something in the future less likely. That's all you are saying......and you are wrong, simple as that.

Also I can keep dragging you in this thread forever which shows to what extend some people go to prove that they are right.

I'm not trying to prove I am right. I already know I am right.
That may sound arrogant but it is a fact. I could be wrong about loads of other things.....but here I am right.
I am trying to show people like you with flawed logic the mistakes in their thinking when it comes to roulette.

As to your indirect implies that am dumb, I've got a record on this forum to be judged upon.

OK so because you perhaps had things right in the past......this means you are more likely to be right about things in the future ?
That sounds rather like your roulette argument.
You may have been correct about every other thing you posted on in your life....doesn't mean you are right here though. Does having more posts than me mean your posts are more important or should be listened to more or somehow have some greater kind of authority ? Perhaps it does, I was under the impression however that it doesn't.

Better both of you stay quiet a be thought a fool rather than continue and remove all doubt.

Considering you cannot even type the quote properly it sounds rather stupid.
No need to get personal. Peoples' perception of me or of anyone else does not alter the facts about roulette and probability. They can think whatever they like about me but what are you saying is still flawed and perhaps if we drag this out to say 100000 pages you will eventually realise it

 

[gfkostas]

Considering you cannot even type the quote properly it sounds rather stupid.
No need to get personal.

English is not my native language. Let's start speaking my native and see how you get on

As for the rest of the things you don't deserve a reply with the way you write.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

I don't deserve a reply ? Hahahha ok then.

 

[fathead]

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.

Wait, this is not correct. I just have to lose 10 in a row to lose the session. (19/37)^10 = 0.1275% or 12.75 lost sessions per 10,000 spins on average is what we should get for a 10 step progression (1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512). So my expected profit should be -$3056 per 10,000 martingales on average.

Okay, so both tests should give us about 12 lost sessions and about -$3000 in profit.

Not sure when I will be able to run the longest test, it takes 100% of my computer resources when it is running. I will let you know when I have some results.

 

[Simmo!]

Moderator Note: Let's quit the personal attacks and concentrate on the topic. Next one to aim personally gets a suspension. And remember, we have users from all over the world so allow for spelling/grammatical errors please.

Remember there's a difference between debating and arguing and if your aim is simply to antagonise someone or stroke your ego then you're on the wrong forum.

 

[Zaqwert]

Roulette- why you can't ever constantly win.

Because every single bet offered in -EV.

No matter how you configure your bets on the table, it doesn't matter, each and every bet is -EV.

No matter how much you wager on each bet, it doesn't matter, each and every bet is -EV.

No matter what has happened the last X spins, it doesn't matter, each and every bet is -EV.

This is simply inescapable, mathematical fact. The only possible outcome in roulette is losing (given enough trials).

Anyone arguing otherwise is either in denial, grossly ignorant about mathematics, or simply a fool.

Unlike many arguments the correct answer can be proven and has been proven by mathematicans and statisticans time and time again.

 

[Zoozie]

Mathematic arguments are wasted on believers. You have to beat them with their own logic. I will do an attempt at this.

I have a room with two IDENTICAL roulette tables, both straight from the factory. I then spin the roulettes at the same time until one of them has showed red or black 20 times in a row.

I then call a 'believer' into the room. Since he believes one of the roulette tables now are in a 'due' state, can he tell which? (He will probably answer no). So there is no physical difference. It is not like an atom with an electron in an excited state.

But now for the killing arguments about I would like to hear an answer to.

1) How long will this table stay in a 'due' state if I do not spin again?

2) If I take the roulette table apart in all pieces and gather them again, is it still in 'due' state?

3) What if I start a spin but catch the ball before it lands, will this ruin the 'due' state?

4) What if I spin it, turn out the light, so noone see what it lands on and then take the ball. Is it still in 'due' state?

5) What does it take to ruin the 'due' state except by spinning and getting a result?

As a final remark I can say that if I saw a roulette table showing red etc. 20 times in a row I would definately bet on red again and not believe black must be due. It could be the table/software has a flaw and in that case betting on red is best. If it just was a streak and I bet on red, nothing was lost since I would still have the same chance. It is a win/even situation.

As an analogy to my thinking try drop a stone 20 times from 1 meter. You will hopefully watch it fall to the ground. So next time it is probably due to fall up you think? ( I will a take that bet btw.)

Zoozie

 

[brutaldeluxe]

Btw Simmo sorry if you thought me being picky about spelling was a cheap shot but when I am being called a fool by someone who can't even spell it does seem rather amusing - native language or not.

A few other amusing ideas. First of all if you have a roulette wheel in a streak do you bet against it or with it ? It's as Zoozie says in point 5. Is one colour "hot" and you should bet with it or should you bet against it cos the other is "due" ?

If you had a roulette wheel that had spun the same colour 20 times, then you took off all the number markings on the wheel and replaced them with pitcures of food, which food would it spin to ?
Could it ever spin to a kebab after having just been red for so long ?
Would a large run of blacks mean it couldn't ever spin to a curry ?
What happens to your "streaks" then ?
A slightly less ridiculous example might be to change the colours of red and black to green and yellow. Is a streak of 20 yellows now more or less likely ?
Apparently another streak of 20 reds is less likely after a streak of 20 reds has just happened so how do you apply this to different colours ?


What happens if a roulette wheel has spun red for the 20th time on the last spin of the night and you then come into the casino first thing the next morning ? Would you be aware of the "state" of the wheel ? Or does the wheel somehow suddenly lose the special state it is in of somehow being an intelligent organism and knowing which numbers to spin that the maths say it has to ? Does it lose this ability after an hour of no spins perhaps or is it longer ?


Why do casinos actually actively encourage the tracking of previous numbers by often displaying them on electronic boards and providing roulette cards for people to write down all the spins ? They know it makes no difference !
Casinos love "system" players ! You won't find casinos actively encouraging card counting at blackjack though, funny that eh ?

 

[GrandMaster]

Since nobody has mentioned it yet, I will:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

. Not that it will convince those who believe in systems. For all the betting systems, the casinos in Vegas are still prospering and people are building bigger and more expensive ones.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

Yeah I was gonna mention that as well Grandmaster but wasn't sure if posting of other sites was frowned upon.

 

[fathead]

I went ahead and ran the longest test last night. It was still running when I woke up this morning, but finally finished.

This simulator is running a 37 number wheel, French rules. You lose 50% of your bet when zero appears. My sequence is a bit unique in that if zero appears, you then skip one spin, then resume with the full bet (instead of the minimum half bet) in the next level of the martingale sequence. This often gives you a bit more pop since you only lost half of your bet on zero, thus the full bet is not needed on the next level of the sequence. For example, if zero appeared on a $256 bet, you would only lose $128, so if you win the martingale you win more than $1, you actually win $129.

In these tests I am betting high/low, using a 10 step martingale (1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512). I ran for 10,000 martingales each test. The first result below is waiting for a streak of 15 high or low, then betting on the opposite using the 10 step martingale.

profit / drawdown / peak profit / sessions / losses

765.5 -3145 2825.5 10000 10

We made a small profit here with peak profit of +$2825.50, worst drawdown of -$3145 and 10 martingales that failed.

Next I ran 5 tests with no delay, just betting the opposite immediately, using a 10 step martingale. These tests are very fast, so I went ahead and ran 5 for comparison.

profit / drawdown / peak profit / sessions / losses

501.5 -2941 2259.5 10000 11
-996 -3630.5 694.5 10000 12
-2813 -5557.5 1569 10000 13
2355.5 -2618 2355.5 10000 8
-2506 -5329 1869.5 10000 12

These last 5 tests show the randomness of the roulette wheel, with varied results. 3 tests lost money, 2 won money. The number of martingales lost per test were similiar, though, in the 8 to 13 range.

Judging from these results, there appears to be no advantage in waiting for a 15 streak of an even chance to begin betting. The results are similar if you just start your betting immediately.

I apparantly was not letting the simulator run long enough previously, since it was so slow. After I had won $50, $100, or $200 I just ended the test. I had never seen it fail until this longer 10,000 martingale test. I jumped to the conclusion that there was an advantage in waiting for the streak to begin betting. Obviously this is not the case.

Interesting study.

 

[tencardcharlie]

I apparantly was not letting the simulator run long enough previously, since it was so slow. After I had won $50, $100, or $200 I just ended the test. I had never seen it fail until this longer 10,000 martingale test. I jumped to the conclusion that there was an advantage in waiting for the streak to begin betting. Obviously this is not the case.

Kudos for admitting that you were wrong
Happy 2007

 

[brutaldeluxe]

Another point about simulations. Often people will say that computer simulations of gambling are not accurate as they are not like the real thing or it's all computer numbers so doesn't accurately represent things or basically that they don't mean anything or count for anything cos it's not a "real wheel" or whatever.

Computer simulations are used in so many different fields yet you never hear people shouting down their accuracy there. I mean we have population density simulations, traffic flow simulations, aeronautical type simulations the list is endless. The reason people use them is because they work !
Yet somehow when it comes to gambling these computer tests are branded as unrealistic and their validity is disputed !??!

 

[fathead]

Kudos for admitting that you were wrong
Happy 2007

Well, I learned a long time ago that if you arrange your activities so that you will never be wrong, look foolish, or make a mistake, you will learn little and accomplish less. There is no shame is making mistakes as long as you learn something. Some of the people with the biggest accomplishments have had the biggest failures previously as well.

Happy holidays to you also. Hope your 2007 is a prosperous one.

 

[Zoozie]

Another point about simulations. Often people will say that computer simulations of gambling are not accurate as they are not like the real thing or it's all computer numbers so doesn't accurately represent things or basically that they don't mean anything or count for anything cos it's not a "real wheel" or whatever.

Computer simulations are used in so many different fields yet you never hear people shouting down their accuracy there. I mean we have population density simulations, traffic flow simulations, aeronautical type simulations the list is endless. The reason people use them is because they work !
Yet somehow when it comes to gambling these computer tests are branded as unrealistic and their validity is disputed !??!

I can only agree. Simulations are the real thing.

Last year showed me that simulations are extremely more accurate than I believed. 'ThunderStruck' payout% simulator was excact within 0.1% within 1 hour, but getting a few more digits excact took many hours.

My JoB simulator was also excact within 0.1% very fast. Actually at first it did converge fast, but to 99.45%, so I checked and found a mistake in my programming of the 39 step WoO algorithm... After correction it converged to 99.5-99.6 within 1 hour.

I program in Java which I believe is one of the fastest languages, but of course C++ programmers will always argue it is faster. But actually if it is raw mathematical algorithm simulations the Java JIT compiler is of C++. (But for grahics engines C++ is still better on Windows though).


Anyway... The point is... hhmm. A bit drunk.... BURP

But I think it was that computer similations are very accurate even in high variance games.



Zoozie

 

[Zoozie]

Double post Sorry.

Ps: Meister - please delete this before everyone realize how drunk I am since I double post.

 

[Pinababy69]

Anyway... The point is... hhmm. A bit drunk.... BURP

Classic!!

 

[anadolu]

Hİ GUYS COME ON

Dear friend...

My systems main issue is to play according to the algoritma,

The numbers are said to come randomly but they are not random, they come in a system...

My main intent is not to sell the system, it is to make people believe...

If i can guess the true numbers, u can make it too...

I can prove this to you, if you contact with me via msn, you will be eyewitness to this system...

You will spin in your own computer without risking any money, u will only spin and tell me the coming numbers and i will tell you the numbers which will come in the next spin
and i will bring you 30 - 50 stakes once a day as soon as u start to play risking money...

As we are testing; it is not necessary to risk money and u dont have to have money in your account,

Spend half an hour with me and see how the casino is beaten...
WİN TOGETHER..............! % 50 - % 50
Sincerely...
ruletci36@hotmail.com

 

[brutaldeluxe]

If you know how to do this why on earth would you need to tell someone else and split the winnings with them 50-50 ?
Why not just go out and win money with it yourself ? Or if you have been barred get your friends to sign up and play on their accounts.
Of course it could be that what you claim is not the case !
Plus also it could well be that the numbers AREN'T random when generated from certain computer programs.......but that doesn't mean you can necessarily predict them.

 

[anadolu]

hi guy

contact me via msn you will be surprised and maybe you will die because u cant dare to see sth like that, come and see if i can predict the numbers or not...