Roulette- why you can't ever constantly win.

[fathead]

Whoa whoa whoa, unless I missed something here, there is no such thing as "improving" the odds in roulette. It's either going to hit 0/00/red/black. One spin has no influence on the next.

Okay, let me say it another way. The odds of 21 Reds in a row (before the 1st Red in the streak has been spun) is 0.0000268%. The odds of the 21st Red in the 21 streak being spun after 20 Reds have already been spun is 48.65%. The 21 streak being completed is more likely after the first 20 Reds have already been spun.

 

[tennis_balls]

Whoa whoa whoa, unless I missed something here, there is no such thing as "improving" the odds in roulette. It's either going to hit 0/00/red/black. One spin has no influence on the next.

precisely!

that's why I go the extra yard and only place the huge bet on black AFTER
the 21st red hits.

 

[gamblino]

....(deleted)

 

[gfkostas]

Lets say we have 20 reds in a row(very rare). Isn't it almost certain that in the next 10 spins it's going to be more likely for black to come at least once? This is a fact since we never really see over 30 consecutive reds because it is extremely rare. So after a certain point you can be sure that black will show up at least once!
With 20 reds in a row you can be "certain" that this streak will not go on till the 40th time. Has it ever happened before? It must be in the trillions.
Black has to come sooner or later otherwise we would have 100 red in a row easily. Am not sure if you get what I mean.

 

[mikepipe]

Clear what you mean.
But probabilities are often not concrete. Ask Heisenberg
And im afraid, in terms of likelihood your assumption is not correct.

 

[fathead]

Lets say we have 20 reds in a row(very rare). Isn't it almost certain that in the next 10 spins it's going to be more likely for black to come at least once? This is a fact since we never really see over 30 consecutive reds because it is extremely rare. So after a certain point you can be sure that black will show up at least once!
With 20 reds in a row you can be "certain" that this streak will not go on till the 40th time. Has it ever happened before? It must be in the trillions.
Black has to come sooner or later otherwise we would have 100 red in a row easily. Am not sure if you get what I mean.

I have tested this on the computer before and you are right, the player would have the advantage by starting a 10 step martingale progression after 15 - 20 of anything have shown in a row (red/black, odd/even, high/low). Unfortunately you would not make much money playing this way since this event does not happen very often. So, once again the casinos are safe.

 

[Reef]

so you're telling me that after a roulette ball comes up black 20 times in a row. The odds of the 21st roll being black is less than the odds of it being red?

 

[fathead]

so you're telling me that after a roulette ball comes up black 20 times in a row. The odds of the 21st roll being black is less than the odds of it being red?

No, they still have the same chance. I am saying that if red shows 20 times in a row and you start a 10 step martingale progression on either red or black at that point, you will make money, but only a small amount of money per month since this does not happen very often.

For you to lose, either red will have shown 31 times in a row, or red will show 20 times and then black will immediately show 11 times in a row after that. I know this is not intuitive, but my testing shows that it does not really matter if you start the martingale on red or black, the results are similar. My computer simulations are very consistent in this result. I have run it on several billion spin runs with the same result.

 

[tencardcharlie]

Lets say we have 20 reds in a row(very rare). Isn't it almost certain that in the next 10 spins it's going to be more likely for black to come at least once? This is a fact since we never really see over 30 consecutive reds because it is extremely rare. So after a certain point you can be sure that black will show up at least once!

Let me put it this way: The probability for getting 19 reds and then one black, is exactly the same as the probability for hitting 20 reds.

The probability of getting for example
Black, red, red, black, black, red.
(in that particular order), is exactly the same as the probability to get

Red, red, red, red, red, red.

 

[tencardcharlie]

For you to lose, either red will have shown 31 times in a row, or red will show 20 times and then black will immediately show 11 times in a row after that. I know this is not intuitive, but my testing shows that it does not really matter if you start the martingale on red or black, the results are similar. My computer simulations are very consistent in this result. I have run it on several billion spin runs with the same result.

Then you are obviously doing something wrong with your experiment. It cannot become more likely for the ball to fall on both red and black.

 

[gfkostas]

Having 20 reds in a row means that black will be coming at least once in the next 15spins. It is mathematically crazy to not to. Am not saying that the 21th spin is more likely to be black but that the consecutive row of reds has to end at some point and "certainly" before we reach 50 reds in a row.

 

[fathead]

Then you are obviously doing something wrong with your experiment. It cannot become more likely for the ball to fall on both red and black.

The odds of falling on red or black are the same. It is the unlikely event of the 31 streak which generates the profit. Either 20 reds + 11 blacks or 20 reds + 11 reds would be required to lose. This is so unlikely that once you see 20 of either color you will make money by starting a 10 step martingale (1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512) at that point. You will win during one of the 10 bets. The 20 streak is so rare, though that you will not make much money doing this. You don't even have to go all the way out to 20. At about 15 or higher for the initial streak you have good results.

It is an easy system to program, try it yourself. You don't have to take my word for it.

 

[tencardcharlie]

Having 20 reds in a row means that black will be coming at least once in the next 15spins. It is mathematically crazy to not to. Am not saying that the 21th spin is more likely to be black but that the consecutive row of reds has to end at some point and "certainly" before we reach 50 reds in a row.

It is very probable that black will come at least once the next 15 spins, that is correct. However, this probability is exactly the same regardless of the 20 spins you made before. Anything else would imply that the roulette table does indeed have a memory, which does not make sense.

The probability of getting 35 reds in a row extremely unlikely. However, the probability of getting a 15 more reds given that you already have got the first 20 reds is the same as the probability of getting 15 reds at any other time. There is nothing crazy about that.

 

[tencardcharlie]

The odds of falling on red or black are the same. It is the unlikely event of the 31 streak which generates the profit. Either 20 reds + 11 blacks or 20 reds + 11 reds would be required to lose. This is so unlikely that once you see 20 of either color you will make money by starting a 10 step martingale (1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512) at that point. You will win during one of the 10 bets. The 20 streak is so rare, though that you will not make much money doing this. You don't even have to go all the way out to 20. At about 15 or higher for the initial streak you have good results.

It is an easy system to program, try it yourself. You don't have to take my word for it.

On a roulette wheel, the probability of a new streak is not in any way affected by the fact that you have already had a streak. I don't really need to do any simulation when I could just use my calculator to find out the expected results.

 

[gfkostas]

Previous results do matter not on the outcome of the next spin but on the general outcome of the wheel. If you have 20 reds in a row it is almost certain that black will show up at least once in the next few spins because reds cannot keep coming all the time. 20 reds is already very rare. So maybe with a martingale you can take the house but so many reds in a row is very rare so casinos are again safe. Past spins do not determine the future spins BUT mathematics dictate that Black has to come and usually it does far sooner than 20 spins.

 

[tencardcharlie]

Previous results do matter not on the outcome of the next spin but on the general outcome of the wheel.

No, it doesn't affect future outcomes at all.

If you have 20 reds in a row it is almost certain that black will show up at least once in the next few spins because reds cannot keep coming all the time..

No, the probability of, lets say, 5 reds in a row is exactly the same if you have got 20 reds, 20 black, or 10 red an 10 black, in the previous spins.

If you could prove that this system does work you could probably become rich even if you don't use the system because such a finding would constitute a scientific revolution.

 

[gfkostas]

No, it doesn't affect future outcomes at all.

Of course but perhaps i don't verbalize what I want to say properly.
It is common sense that after 20 reds in a row (one) black will show up shortly isn't? 30+ reds in a row is so rare that borderlines to "impossible" thus after a very rare event such as 20 reds we can expect the event to finish sooner than later.

 

[tencardcharlie]

It is common sense that after 20 reds in a row (one) black will show up shortly isn't?

No it isn't.

30+ reds in a row is so rare that borderlines to "impossible" thus after a very rare event such as 20 reds we can expect the event to finish sooner or later

Of course 30+ reds in a row is extremely unusual. But if the first 20 spins were red some of that unlikelyhood has already 'happened.' You then are 100% sure that the first 20 spins are red so you can take them out of the calculation. They're already done.

 

[fathead]

On a roulette wheel, the probability of a new streak is not in any way affected by the fact that you have already had a streak. I don't really need to do any simulation when I could just use my calculator to find out the expected results.

I went back to my simulator just now and ran another 1,000,000 spins at the 15 streak level, starting a 10 step martingale at that point. It won $30 with worst drawdown of -$127 before recovering. As you can see the casino has no worries here since it did not make that much money. You could possibly play on and off your whole life and never see a 15 streak of red or black.

The longest red or black streak that I am aware of is 24 in a row. This was in a German casino some years ago. This test goes out to 25 in a row for a loss, so it is pretty safe.

It is not critical that you believe what I am saying. I thought it was interesting and that others might be interested as well. I don't really have anything else to say on the subject. Have a nice day.

 

[hitobito2005]

Anyone who thinks you can make money on standard, unbiased, internet roulette doesn't understand basic maths/probability.

 

[gfkostas]

No it isn't.

My point is that reds cannot keep coming all the time. Usually the coming of 1 black after 20 consecutive reds is more sooner than later simply because (I repeat once more) reds cannot keep showing up forever and the proof of that is that we never had 500+ reds in a row. A streak has to end at some point. Mathematics say that after 20+ reds the streak will end before we reach 100reds in a row. Past spins "determine" future ones to an extent though i find it difficult to explain how. A streak of 20 reds will end most likely within the next 15 spins with the coming of one black. It always has been like that and it will continue to be. What I want to say is pretty clear I believe but am not expect so I can't put it in words properly.

So the answer to the question: Is black more favorable to come at least once after 25 reds in a row? The answer is yes considering that we are getting into billions to 1 probabilities there. It is impossible for red to show up 50 times in a row. Why? because black is in the game too.
After 20 reds the probability for each colour to come is still 48,65% but this isn't what am talking about here.

If I have completely lost the plot can someone put me back on track? Grandmaster?

 

[Thorn]

Hey guys,
Interesting discussion and here is what I have to say regarding it. I do not believe you can win in roulette I know you can...I do not however believe you can sit and make a living off of it. I have personally come in to several online casinoes and pulled a profit up to 12 times that of what I came in with. I do have a system(s) I use and you can definetly make money using them...however in the long run if you hang around to long and get greedy you will lose. Hence I use a system(s) set a win goal and a max loss and stick to it when I reach either one Im done for the day so ultimately I leave wit profit. The problem I have encountered online is that if you over stay your welcome it seems that no matter how good your system you begin to lose...so get you mini goals...then your final goal.....and leave. I will not share the exact system (no I am not trying to sound like an uptight ass...the material is copyrighted and I have great appreciation for the makers of it so I don't wish to illegally share it and I payed for the systems) but I can tell you that playing colors or exact numbers is not how to win. You want to either stick to betting on one of the three sections depending on the sections hit in previous spins or you want to cover the board except for X spaces (determined using a formula and calculating dependant on the history of numbers landed on)...
Cheers,
-RB
P.s. Sorry if this sounds a bit vague, I tried my best to right somethign comprehensible at 5am without giving away too much info...if you have any questions post em' up and i'll try to answer as best I can.

And on a side note.....black jack is the least risky way to make cash if that is what you are trying to do, in my opinion.

 

[tencardcharlie]

Hey guys,
Interesting discussion and here is what I have to say regarding it. I do not believe you can win in roulette I know you can....

You can win in roulette as in any other game. It's just that you cannot consistently profit from it. It doesn't really matter how you make your bets, the house edge is the same.

(no I am not trying to sound like an uptight ass...the material is copyrighted and I have great appreciation for the makers of it so I don't wish to illegally share it and I payed for the systems)

You shouldn't show any appreciation for the makers, because they have pulled a scam on you. I'm sorry about that. Good thing that you seem to have been lucky and won some money, but you shouldn't thank the scammers for your luck.

I hope you can continue to enjoy the game, which can be quite fun, without believing in systems that doesn't work, have never worked and will never ever work.

 

[Zoozie]

Even though I have only been member of this forum for one year, I have now seen this kind of thread several times - 'believers' vs facts.

Because these discussions are so common this could be the reason why so few serious posters are not trashing this ridiculous idea that you can win at the roulette. Or maybe it is below some people standards to take part in this thread.

Roulette is -EV. There are no systems that works.
And this is also the last time I also will bother to write this here on casinomeister.

Not even if you I give you a roulette that has shown red 50 times in a row. It makes no difference.

If anyone have a program that shows otherwise, you can attach them to your post and I will have a look at them...

Zoozie

 

[tencardcharlie]

Thanks Zoozie.

I have finally come to realize that I'm only wasting my and other peoples time in these kind of discussions.

I naively believed that the discussions it might convince a potential believer or two about the facts about systems, but I guess the probability for that is less than for hitting 20 reds in a row.