Roulette- why you can't ever constantly win.

[bpb]

Is black more favorable to come at least once after 25 reds in a row? The answer is yes

After 20 reds the probability for each colour to come is still 48,65% but this isn't what am talking about here.

You're not making any sense at all.

Repeat after me .... "wheels have no memory"

 

[Slotster!]

Anyone seen Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead?

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

 

[Jarome]

All of you..... You're just so.... WRONG!

I have the best system and it always works for me. I watch the ball bounce and spins and then it's like - "Damn i told ya it's goin to be black" I'm telling my friend and I leave without making a single bet!

I don't really like the roulette - but it's fun to watch my friends gamble.

I should really head to Vegas next month - haven't been there for a while.

 

[gfkostas]

You're not making any sense at all.

Repeat after me .... "wheels have no memory"

wheels have no memory but mathematics dictate certain things regardless of your opinion about it. After 20 reds it is impossible to have another 20 of the same. That would make it 40 in a row. No chance!

 

[anadolu]

ımportant friends


Hi everyone;

I want to mention to you about my roulette system which i have been working on for a long time and just finished...

I began to play roulette approximately two years ago. At first; i was only betting on sports, then i knew roulette.
Roulette, which seems so easy to play, actually was the game of the devil and to understand this made my pocket empty.

Then i began to play with martingale, although i won very much, it wasn't too long to understand it was a suicide.

Then side bets, later others, result: lost,lost,lost...
The ones who started with me lost all of their money but i did not forgive and went on...

I thought... i cant win on colour bets, i cant win on side bets, i cant win with martingale, and what was necessary to win??? it was going to be nonsense to think about numbers... 1/37, huh... But this opinion became the main road to turn from... I understood that i had to bet on numbers if i wanted to win... i couldnt use martingale because the machine protects itself, if you use martingale... then i found a way... i was going to choose a number and bet on it 37 times...

This tactic seemed well first times, i was earning money... but it did not continue too long, i finished it as the number which i chose did not come in spite of 325 bets!!!

But i did not forgive again... i had to guess a number to come in a short time...

Anyway, lets turn to the topic... I had to guess the true number only after a few bets... But how could i do it? ( and i was writing datas of the hands i played.)

I needed a signal, and these datas showed me the signals. And i began to know the numbers... In first times, i couldnt believe to myself, i was saying that this number will come and it was coming, i thought that it was the time i became rich, if i start in morning, i would be a millionaire that evening... And i became, but it was only half an hour, i had won 2000 with a starting budget 250... but i lost all of the money half an hour... But what was the mistake? The numbers which i bet on was caming but what became and i lost all??? Then i understood, i didnt know to say stop to myself, for example i bet 1 stake on a number, as it didnt come i bet 5 or 10 than the machine became angry...

And finally, i noticed the patience factor which all the gamblers has to have... After i noticed the patience factor i win 30 - 50 stake once a day and i leave the game and the other day, i get 30 - 50 and leave again...

At this point, i decided to write this to the forum, because i wasnt able to win more than 30 - 50 stake... Dear friends, please do not want me to make an explanation about signals... At least, i dont want them to make changes on the algoritma... As you're reading, dont forget that there are others who are reading...

Someone who interests this topic, pls send me a pm and i will give my msn address and we would be in contact, i suppose, to write the address here is forbidden, and i hope these article which i wrote to share my experiments would not be cleaned...

Sincerely

 

[Swede]

This is getting better and better....please don't lock this thread guys, I really enjoy reading it

 

[bpb]

wheels have no memory but mathematics dictate certain things regardless of your opinion about it.

I didn't give an opinion about anything

After 20 reds it is impossible to have another 20 of the same. That would make it 40 in a row. No chance!

The chance of the 2nd series of 20 reds is identical to the chance of the 1st series of 20 reds. You can't say that you accept the fact that wheels have no memory unless you also accept that the probabilities are equal.

Chance of 20 reds in a row from an arbitrary starting point = (18/38)^20
Chance of 20 reds in a row after 20 reds = (18/38)^20
chance of 20 reds in a row after 20 blacks = (18/38)^20
Chance of 20 reds in a row after 100 reds = (18/38)^20
Chance of 20 reds in a row after 100 blacks = (18/38)^20

Notice a pattern?

It doesn't matter how improbable the previous series of events was, the fact is, THEY'VE ALREADY HAPPENED!

 

[winbig]

I didn't give an opinion about anything



The chance of the 2nd series of 20 reds is identical to the chance of the 1st series of 20 reds. You can't say that you accept the fact that wheels have no memory unless you also accept that the probabilities are equal.

Chance of 20 reds in a row from an arbitrary starting point = (18/38)^20
Chance of 20 reds in a row after 20 reds = (18/38)^20
chance of 20 reds in a row after 20 blacks = (18/38)^20
Chance of 20 reds in a row after 100 reds = (18/38)^20
Chance of 20 reds in a row after 100 blacks = (18/38)^20

Notice a pattern?

It doesn't matter how improbable the previous series of events was, the fact is, THEY'VE ALREADY HAPPENED!

Yes, but he said a series of 20 reds after a series of 20 reds already occurred. That would bring it to (18/30)^40. Not impossible, but nearly.

 

[winbig]

Sorry, typo. That should be (18/38)^40, not 18/30

 

[hitobito2005]

i lost all of the money half an hour... But what was the mistake? The numbers which i bet on was caming but what became and i lost all??? Then i understood, i didnt know to say stop to myself, for example i bet 1 stake on a number, as it didnt come i bet 5 or 10 than the machine became angry...

Your mistake was continuing to play a -EV roulette "system". If you keep the stakes small, you may win at first - but in reality it will just take you longer to lose.

 

[hitobito2005]

Sorry, typo. That should be (18/38)^40, not 18/30

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.

 

[anadolu]

dear sir

Your mistake was continuing to play a -EV roulette "system". If you keep the stakes small, you may win at first - but in reality it will just take you longer to lose.

dear sir,

ı am every time winn.. never losss..

seen again , please contact

 

[winbig]

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.

Correctumundo

dear sir,

ı am every time winn.. never losss..

seen again , please contact

Uhm, sure. If you win every single roulette session, then you're just plain lucky. There's nothing in this world that you could do to win every gambling session, no matter what game you play. Unless of course...well, you get the idea.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

Why do people still think there is some system or magic formula that allows you to make money at roulette ?!?!

There is no bet, no series of bets and no combination of bets that can ever yield a positive expecatation, end of story !

You are not being paid the correct odds for the probability of the outcome of the event, you can't ever beat that. If you bet on a coin flip at -110 ( 1.909 or 10/11) all day long are you going to win money ? Of course not. Sure you might have a few winning sessions but the more you play the more your money will dwindle. Doesn't matter how you stake your cash, how you bet, how much you track the past 20 flips, the more you play the more likely you are to lose.

However bet on a coinflip at +110 ( 2.100 or 11/10) all day and you will make money. You are now being paid odds which are in excess of the probability of the outcome of the event (assuming coin is completely unbiased and flip is fair). You have a 50% chance of winning yet you are being paid as if you only had a 47.62% Again it doesn't matter how you stake this, the more you bet on this the more likely you are to win.


It's the exact same thing happening with roulette it's just there are a few more outcomes and this somehow seems to confuse people into believing you can fool it.

Imagine a roulette wheel has just spun 50 blacks in a row. At this point some guy just walks into the casino and has no knowledge of this and bets on red.
Is this a bad bet ? No worse than any other bet on roulette.
As people keep saying the wheel has no memory ! It is a game of independent trials, previous results do not affect future ones !



20 reds in a row is unlikely yes, but possible. Now after 20 reds in a row have happened the chance of another 20 reds in a row is exactly the same as it was in the first place. If we forget the zeros for a second to make it simpler the chances of four reds in row is 1 in 16 yeah ? Now say we notice a time when four reds in a row have come up. Now the chances of another four reds in a row coming up is again 1 in 16. Nothing has changed. It's not more or less likely for four reds in a row to happen just because the previous four spins were red. However the chances of 8 reds in a row is 1 in 256. But you can't suddenly jump in during a sequence and say...ooh it's been 7 reds in a row, if it comes in again that would be a 1 in 256 shot so surely it'll be black !
The chances were 1 in 256 at the start before you had started to track it !
Red Red Red Red Red Red Black is also a 1 in 256 chance to come in, as is any particular sequence of 8 colours you wish to quote. We just like to look for patterns like all red or all black and attach some sort of significance to it like it is a streak. There's many other times when there is no apparent or obvious streak but you don't look to ride the "no streak" part do you ?


If people want to put their effort into a casino game they are better off studying blackjack because you can actually give yourself an edge at that.
It is a game of dependent trials. Previous results DO affect future ones(used cards are not shuffled back), that's the key difference. Obviously in online casinos it is different cos deck is shuffled every hand but in single deck games the cards dealt can alter the composition of the deck enough to warrant some basic strategy changes. For instance 7,7 v 10 is actually a stand !
These days trying to play blackjack in a casino for any advantage is hard going and not something you would wanna take lightly !


I sympathise with the people trying to explain probability. You really feel like banging your head off a wall cos no matter what you say some people will just not accept or believe the facts. Perhaps they don't want to I'm not sure why.

 

[winbig]

Another useful tidbit:

Betting on a single number all of the time has the exact same EV as betting on red or black all of the time.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

Not strictly true actually winbig. It depends on the rules. In european casinos with a single zero the house edge on the "even chances" is 1.35% whilst betting on single numbers the house edge is 2.70% This is assuming that if you bet on an "even chance" and the ball lands in 0 you get half your money back. This is the case in alot of UK casinos. There is also the french "en prison" rule where if you bet on an even chance and it comes up 0 they spin the wheel again and if you get your colour/number up you get your stake back and if you lose you lose your stake. This equates to just paying half your bet back anyway.

US type wheels with 0 and 00 the house edge is 5.26% on every bet bar the 0,00,1,2,3 combo bet where the house edge is 7.89% It only pays 6/1
Large house edge on that bet ! What you said is right for US roulette wheels except for that one bet though aye.

 

[winbig]

Thanks, I forgot to mention that it only applied to games with 0 & 00, and not betting on those.

 

[gfkostas]

When I play blackjack and I have won 15 hands in a row I KNOW that at least one lose is near because I simply cannot keep winning all the time(impossible). That's why we have no winning streaks of lets say 50+ hands. Same with roulette. If I bet that 40reds in a row will never happen i will win every time regardless if at some point 20 reds show up. I will still be confident that it won't go up to 40. Looking at the history of the game we never had such long streaks so If I were to bet after 20 reds in a row at each casino that would have these 20reds streaks I would have been a winner

 

[brutaldeluxe]

This is what I mean about banging your head off the wall ! You know a loss is near ? Wow you must be able to predict the future !

That's why we have no winning streaks of lets say 50+ hands. If we make a bet that 1 black will show up in the next 50 spins and you say that it won't I will win every single time not because I can predict the spins but because of the mathematics behind it. You cannot win all the time. I bet on that.

First of all I'd like to look up the most impressive "streaks" there have been.
A win streak of 50+ hands you say ? Well depends if you mean dealer hands or player hands. I'll show you a win streak of 1000000000 for the dealers hand in blackjack if you want, I'll just draw till I am bust every single hand.

If we made the bet you describe you will not win every single time. You will win the overwhelming majority of the time. In fact we could probably spin wheels for the rest of our lives and you'd never lose. But you can't say with 100% certainty you'd never have a loss although you could be as close to 100% as you are likely to get. What are the chances of 50 blacks in a row ? It's an absolutely ridiculous figure. But ridiculous things do happen...

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

All you are basically saying is the probability of not spinning at least 1 black in 50 spins is very very very small. We already knew that. We could demonstrate with exact numbers if you want. You aren't actually disproving what I or anyone else who understands probability has said.


After 20 reds in a row another 20 reds is exactly the same probability as it was in the first place ! It doesn't become less likely because the previous 20 were red, the probability is exactly the same ! The wheel doesn't think "Oh man I've just spun 20 reds I better make sure I don't spin another 20 cos that would be ridiculous" The roulette wheel is not some intelligent organism that decides what colour it is going to spin !

 

[brutaldeluxe]

How about if it went to 39 reds in a row ? Would you still be 100% confident that the next spin wasn't going to be red ? Would you be your entire wealth on that the next spin would be black ? Or perhaps......just perhaps........the chances of it being red or black are exactly the same as they were for the previous 19 spins ! It just so happened that it came up 19 reds !

 

[EasyRhino]

I finally figured out a way to explain it to myself:

1) If I'm experience a winning (or losing) streak, I am not "due" a loss (or win) any time sooner. It's the same chance as it always is.

2) When you're playing, streaks, both positive and negative, are inevitable, you just don't know when they're going to start or end.

The awesome part is these two statements are not contradictory.

 

[bpb]

When I play blackjack and I have won 15 hands in a row I KNOW that at least one lose is near because I simply cannot keep winning all the time(impossible). That's why we have no winning streaks of lets say 50+ hands. Same with roulette. If I bet that 40reds in a row will never happen i will win every time regardless if at some point 20 reds show up. I will still be confident that it won't go up to 40. Looking at the history of the game we never had such long streaks so If I were to bet after 20 reds in a row at each casino that would have these 20reds streaks I would have been a winner

Any casino manager who monitors this forum (assuming they have half an ounce of brains) should start sending you roulette bonus offers up the wazoo right now.

Everything you said in the above paragraph is wrong. This isn't my opinion. This is fact. It can be clearly proven with mathematics. I could make the effort to explain it to you, but I won't. I don't think you would be able to understand.

 

[Reef]

it seems that no matter how good your system you begin to lose

lol @ systems. There is no "system" that can overcome a house edge. If ANY system truly worked, why would these people be selling it? (hint: to make back the money they lost using their system).

 

[gfkostas]

Everything you said in the above paragraph is wrong. This isn't my opinion. This is fact. It can be clearly proven with mathematics. I could make the effort to explain it to you, but I won't. I don't think you would be able to understand.

I don't think you have understood what am trying to convey here. Winning streaks have to end at some point and they usually end sooner than later.

 

[Swede]

Since my first suggestion for a true winning roulette system was shunned, it's probably time to try a different approach. More scientific this time.

I'm gonna try this in conjunction with a Martingale 2B and reverse Betty for 10,000 spins and let you know how it went. Wish me luck.

 

[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?