Roulette - Page 2

cardcounter0 · #11 09-05-2005, 08:09 PM

Walking by roulette tables with a heads up display of past numbers, I have often noted strings of 10 or more of one color. Once I saw 23 reds in a row. Imagine if you were using your double-up strategy and betting black on that table!

Your system will produce a long, long string of many, many tiny wins of 1 bet. Then eventually, WHAM!, you will hit the "almost impossible" bad run, and wind up losing it all back (plus a little extra representing the house edge of all you had wagered in the past).

#12 09-05-2005, 08:46 PM

The wizard describes it here to the mathematically challenged with pictures and tables: http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems.html

punter11235 · #13 09-06-2005, 05:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt work because you dont have unlimited money

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not true. It doesnt work even if you had unlimited money. While its pretty obvious for anybody who have some contact with mathematic its not for average person. You can try to search a thread "less obvious martingale fallacy" with more discussion about the topic.

Komodo · #14 09-06-2005, 07:32 AM

<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
It doesnt work because you dont have unlimited money

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not true. It doesnt work even if you had unlimited money. While its pretty obvious for anybody who have some contact with mathematic its not for average person. You can try to search a thread "less obvious martingale fallacy" with more discussion about the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not obvious. Could you explain?
I dont see how you can lose with this system if you have unlimited money as long as the winning chance is bigger than 0

bpb · #15 09-06-2005, 08:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt work because you dont have unlimited money

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not true. It doesnt work even if you had unlimited money. While its pretty obvious for anybody who have some contact with mathematic its not for average person. You can try to search a thread "less obvious martingale fallacy" with more discussion about the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not obvious. Could you explain?
I dont see how you can lose with this system if you have unlimited money as long as the winning chance is bigger than 0

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you can assume infinite bankroll, the casino can assume an infinite string of losses.

Komodo · #16 09-06-2005, 08:28 AM

<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
It doesnt work because you dont have unlimited money

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not true. It doesnt work even if you had unlimited money. While its pretty obvious for anybody who have some contact with mathematic its not for average person. You can try to search a thread "less obvious martingale fallacy" with more discussion about the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not obvious. Could you explain?
I dont see how you can lose with this system if you have unlimited money as long as the winning chance is bigger than 0

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you can assume infinite bankroll, the casino can assume an infinite string of losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I make 4 assumtions here:
1, We have unlimited money.
2, We have unlimited time to complete each session.
3, The casino also also got unlimited time and money.
4, Winning chance is bigger than zero, so a string of losses can never be infinite like you suggest.

Every session will land on +EV after completion under these conditions. These conditions are 100% impossible to apply of course.

wtfsvi · #17 09-06-2005, 09:37 AM

I'm copypasting my own reply from last time I saw this statement. I'm so cool [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

<blockquote>Svar på:<hr />
Nah. If you bet on the roulette wheel an unlimited ammount of times, there is a 100% chance you will face an (unlimited number of) unlimited losing streak(s) at some time during this betting. (You will also face unlimited winning streaks, so your unlimited bankroll will be multiplied unlimited times, at the same time as unlimited ammounts will be lost.)

Okok, my point: You can deduct some stupid [censored] if you're allowed to presume "unlimited" anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roulette is a losing proposition for anyone but the casino. Some irrelevant factors are: How you manage your bets, what you bet on, how much money you have, what hair styling product you prefer, what outcome you pray for, and so on forever.

The only relevant factor is how much money you bet all together, because that's the sum you're going to lose 1/38 of.

Komodo · #18 09-06-2005, 01:05 PM

<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
<blockquote>Svar till:<hr />
It doesnt work because you dont have unlimited money

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not true. It doesnt work even if you had unlimited money. While its pretty obvious for anybody who have some contact with mathematic its not for average person. You can try to search a thread "less obvious martingale fallacy" with more discussion about the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not obvious. Could you explain?
I dont see how you can lose with this system if you have unlimited money as long as the winning chance is bigger than 0

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you can assume infinite bankroll, the casino can assume an infinite string of losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I make 4 assumtions here:
1, We have unlimited money.
2, We have unlimited time to complete each session.
3, The casino also also got unlimited time and money.
4, Winning chance is bigger than zero, so a string of losses can never be infinite like you suggest.

Every session will land on +EV after completion under these conditions. These conditions are 100% impossible to apply of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it now. The main thing is that even with unlimited time and money, the player who use this system will never be 100% sure to win it. The figure will be 99,999999999999999% etc etc but never 100%.
The Condition that every martingaler is allowed to complete his session is mathematically impossible.

Terry · #19 09-06-2005, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do casino's mind use of this strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. They call it "Playing to lose".

If you are willing to risk enough money they really will send a limo to pick you up; that's not urban legend ... and neither is the fact that you will eventually lose 17, 19, or 21 in a row.

RoundTower · #20 09-06-2005, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is it more profitable that regular roulette play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but only for the casino.