Roulette

You can't win long term. Variance explains your experience.

Also: proof is required.

>>1425311
That's what I keep hearing, that one can't win long-term. Maybe that's true.

Care to explain what "variance" means exactly?

My gameplay involves a modified Martingale strategy playing dozens. My biggest loosing streak was 19 spins in a row on which I should have lost about $17,000 but I only lost about $40 because I used the data I collected up to that point to "predict" a loosing streak and I kept my bets at a bare minimum. It was also party due to gut feeling but my goal is to remove that and make my strategy 100% strategy removing all emotion and whatnot.

>>1425308
What you did was gambled and won. Congrats, you got lucky and you should quit now while you are ahead.

Learn a little about statistics and the statistics of roulette and you will realize that you just got lucky. Or continue gambling with your "system" until you lose all your money and continue chasing your losses until you are broke.

Are you retarded? There is no skill or strategy involved in playing roulette.

>>1425308
You'll regress to the mean soon. As all temporarily lucky gamblers with a 'system' do. The mean is a net loss btw. Quit while you're ahead.

>>1425324
If it's a random outcome on each spin how can you predict/prepare for a losing streak?

>>1425335
I break up my gameplay into sections (roughly 70-130 spins per section) and keep track of my entire history since the beginning. The average win rate is 32% of spins. If I'm halfway through a "section" and I have only won 10% of spins, I can more or less "predict" in impending winning streak where I win many consecutive spins and if I lose one, I double on the next etc. and that's when I start betting big. A winning bet of $100 will give me $300. When my winning % is way above the 32% then I bet tiny amounts like $1 for a while until I reach the mean again and eventually go below the mean and bet big again. My losses don't even compare to my winnings.

you might have found some internal flaw in the online roulette wheel. That's why the good casinos have actual wheels on the roulette machines (like in the Excalibur, you all know what I'm talking about).

On a real wheel you won't win forever. If you could, roulette wheels would not exist. There's no rhyme or reason to rolls, and the odds are slightly in the house's favor (due to 0 and 00). Roulette has one of the smaller house advantages, but it still exists.

Feel free to post your method, but I doubt you have anything universal.

>>1425325
this

OP's attitude is how gambling addicts are born.

>>1425343
There is literally no way you can predict a winning streak. This does not become more or less likely based on previous spins. It's all delusion, take it from /biz/. We are experts at delusion here.

>>1425308
I worked in a casino for 3 years. You literally cannot beat the casino statistically. Do you know what house edge is? That's what makes the casino's odds superior to yours. Casinos have hired better maths/statistics guys than you can find and afford.

tl;dr you cannot win

>>1425343
2 things:

1. Your first point is the gambler's fallacy. You're assuming, somehow magically, that if I flip a coin 10 times and they're all heads, that the 11 time for some pixie dust reason is more likely to be tails. Every previous game is irrelevant to the next.

2. The part about doubling after a loss is really where you're winning is coming from, but there is a flaw. You have much, much less capital than the casino, meaning the casino can keep playing chicken with you for what is effectively forever (realistically, you're going to hit some kind of betting cap), meanwhile it'll only take you a bad run to lose everything. Then your system is completely broken.

>>1425343
You make it sound like you can ride the fluctuations but each spin is completely random so doing so is impossible.
There is no way to predict a winning or losing spin. If you're adamant that your system works then put half your winning aside right now and do not touch them.

You'll thank us later when your 'system' transpires to be essentially just luck packaged in pretty words and flawed statistics.

>>1425356
Doubling indeed does not work. If at all, you will only win the amount you started with.
>tfw 8 red spins in a row, must be black now
>black still has a 18/37 (or 18/38 for inferior roulette) chance of rolling, nothing more, nothing less.

So what could happen is the following:
$100 bet - lose ($100 total)
$200 bet - lose ($300 total)
$400 bet - lose ($700 total)
$800 bet - lose ($1500 total)
$1600 bet - lose ($3100 total)
$3200 bet - lose ($6300 total)
$6400 bet - oh shit $5k bet limit (number does not matter much) - you lose your game altogether.

On the other hand if you do win the doubling game, you will only win the amount you started with:
$100 bet - lose ($100 total)
$200 bet - lose ($300 total)
$400 bet - lose ($700 total)
$800 bet - lose ($1500 total)
$1600 bet - win $3200 ($3100 total bet) = $100 won

>>1425357
I have already cashed out much more than half of my winnings yesterday. I will keep playing with the rest to see where it goes.

>>1425368
Downhill, only downhill. Cash out now and don't touch roulette again for a month.

>>1425367
Like I said in a previous post, my biggest losing streak was 19 spins in a row! I bet the absolute minimum on each spin and barely lost anything at all. Lost about $40. Over the next 5 or so spins I made about $2,300.

Also, I play dozen, meaning 2 to 1 payout. So using your example it would be more like this:

$100 bet - lose ($100 total)
$200 bet - lose ($300 total)
$400 bet - lose ($700 total)
$800 bet - lose ($1500 total)
$1600 bet - win $4800
= $3,300 won

>>1425367
The point is the first case is the situation that breaks the doubling, and not that hard to come across. The second situation allows the gambler to retain any winnings they've gotten up to that point and continue to bet. You're essentially betting against a losing streak.

The problem is that its not actually that hard to hit one (especially betting on 1 in 3), and you're going to run out of money FAST. It's a system that looks like it works until it doesn't, then it sucks.

The amount of money you've won up to this point will ultimately be irrelevant when that happens.

>>1425368
roulette is a foul temptress. Trust me, there's been thousands of guys in your shoes. reality will hit you eventually. Just don't be tempted to put more in and enjoy what luck has given you thus far.

>>1425376
>playing dozens
>12/37 chance of winning
>32,43% for 3/1 payout

Play single game bro
>18/37 chance of winning
>48,65% for 2/1 payout

>>1425383
Cont.

hurrdurr it all comes down to 97,3% ultimate payout
Playing single game eliminates part of the gut-feeling as you only have 2 options

>>1425383
>37

what kind of weird wheel are you playing with?

12/38 = 31.5% for 3:1 payout
18/38 = 47.3% for 2:1 payout

House favor is about 5.5%

>>1425379
Exactly this. Both the player's cash stack and the bet limit are finite, meaning it is only a matter of time until the casino wins using this "strategy".

>>1425391
In Holland we have tables with only a single zero. Double zero tables are inferior and you're cheating yourself if you play on such tables.

>>1425367
Of course doubling does not work, even if there was no cap. The world record for most consecutive reds in a row stands in vegas at 52 or so. Imagine those wins and losses.

14+ in a row is not at all unheard of and would utterly bankrupt virtually anyone if you start with 100.

>1 = 100
>2 = 200
>3 = 400
>4 = 800
>5 = 1600
>6 = 3200
>7 = 6400
>8 = 12800
>9 = 25600
>10 = 51200
>11 = 102.400
>12 = 204.800
>13 = 409.600
>14 = 819.200
Now you're in for almost a million $ to cover your $100 bet.
Just a few more rolls and you've reached amounts where no sane person with that kind of money would bother doing this for $100. They could make more than that faster than that without doing this retarded shit.

>>1425324
>Martingale

Into the trash

Dude stats are useless, roulette spins are COMPLETELY separate from one another, it's not like cards where the deck changes and thus the chances change too.

1 spin = 1 spin

It blows my mind that someone old enough to play Roulette doesn't know basic probability math based games wtf

>>1425395
>Double zero tables are inferior
Yeah, but so are Dutch people, so it evens out.

File: latest[1].png (515KB, 865x403px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 865x403px

>>1425311
this

>>1425308
No "strategy" or "gut feeling" can ever change the odds of the game. It was a losing proposition each and every spin, you just got lucky.

Small samples have a lot of "variance" or variability from the expected (long term) results. Without fail, however, the more you play the closer your results will come to the theoretical results. Those theoretical results are pretty horrible too. For single-0 roulette you will lose $2.70 for every $100 wagered ((18/37)*200-100), for double-0 roulette you will lose $5.26 for every $100 wagered ((18/38)*200-100).

You are better off (financially) literally lighting a $5 bill on fire than you are placing a $100 bet on double-0 roulette.

All "roulette strategies" rely on the Gambler's Fallacy. This is the FALSE belief that past results affect future results. In reality, each and every spin is an independent event, meaning you are just as likely to see red after 10 blacks as you are to see an 11th black.

The biggest losers in gambling are always those who think they've "figured it out". The more you bet, the more you lose. Those who bet large and frequently with a false sense of confidence inevitably lose the most.

Leave while you're ahead. Poker is the ONLY casino game you can possibly profit from in the long run.

source: made $10K USD gambling as "the house" in RuneScape years ago (sold the gold), I know how gambling works in the long run

>>1426038
Oh boy you sure got us there.

>>1426161
>us
What is this, the Dutch thread?

File: kankerhoedje groot.jpg (172KB, 1294x1298px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1294x1298px

>>1426201
Ja

>>1425308
The roulette wheel has no memory and no skill. It doesn't remember its previous results, and doesn't adapt its behavioural patterns to trick you. Each spin is random. There is no strategy and no martingale to win, especially online. You will lose all your money in the long-term because the game is designed this way.

Good luck.

File: mi4dCfo.jpg (31KB, 600x438px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x438px

>>1426348

>>1426201
Ja, en nou opkankeren.

File: Bsc.jpg (111KB, 474x595px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 474x595px

>>1426368
Okay, but you first, klerelijer.

>>1425515
these are statistical anomalies. yes over a long enough timeline the house wins these systems are meant for recreational gamblers like me who hit vegas once every few years. its not a gaurantee but it increases my odds. thats all i really want

>>1426498
>but it increases my odds
Naw.

>>1426515
it literally does tho?

>>1426527
Naw.

>>1426527
No. The odds are the same at each spin.

>>1426498
>but it increases my odds
Remember the man who told you this "secret"?

He works for the casino.

>>1426543
im not talking about the odds of a single spin. im not yoloing my whole wad on one spin i dont think many people do that. im talking about the probability of encountering a net loss over a small series of spins using a martingale system. the odds of losing 8 spins in a row is very small

>>1426578
>win a little money with low risk of losing your whole bankroll
The odds are the same no matter what betting system you use. Martingale just makes it so you can use your entire bankroll as leverage. Its just not a great idea because eventually you will lose it all. You might even lose it all the very next time you bet.

>>1426578

EVERY SINGLE SPIN ANYONE EVER MADE AT A ROULETTE WHEEL WAS A NEGATIVE EXPECTED VALUE ACTION.

A martingale system merely exchanges a large probability of a small loss, with a small probability of a big loss.

File: gambling_addict[1].jpg (74KB, 430x238px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 430x238px

>>1426498
You're just shifting the risk vs. reward. Green pays out more because the probability is lower. Martingale pays out less but the probability is higher. Technically you increase the odds, but the expected value of the game remains constant.

In the end you still only recoup 94.7% of everything you put on the table - it doesn't matter how you structure the bets.

People who use martingale usually think they've found a loop hole, they'll say things like "this is why there are table limits". In reality, casinos would bring in A LOT more money with no-limit tables. The reason they have limits is because it prevents those soul-crushing defeats which turn people off gambling for life and creates negative PR. Casinos are simply playing the long game.

>>1426578
There are no "series of spins". The wheel has no memory. Your odds on each spin are not modified in any way by the previous spins.

Thus, it is impossible to say if the "series" will last for 2, 5, 8, 14, 29, 51, or even more tries. (Doubling down 30 times with an initial bet of $100 requires $53.6 billion.)

Meanwhile, your only certitude is that the odds are in the house's favour.

If there were a way to martingale the shit out of the game, it wouldn't have been a successful cash cow for casinos in the last 150 years. Read Dostoevsky's Gambler.

>>1426613
>Dostoevsky's Gambler
Was that the one where Polly Walker gets bent over the roulette table?
That was fucking hot.

>>1426589
>>1426607
>>1426613
You cannot change the odds of each spin, obviously.

You CAN change the odds of "the bet" which, in the case of martingale, is comprised of a succession of spins.

In martingale "the bet" changes from "i think it will be red this spin" to "i think it will be red at least once in the next X spins". In the first scenario you are putting up $1 to win $2, in the second you are putting up $2^x-1 to win $1.

The EV (expected value) of the game remains exactly the same and that is the important part, not the odds.

>>1426634
>You CAN change the odds of "the bet"
Naw.

>>1426640
What is the probability of the next spin being red?

>>1426644
The same as the probability of this spin and the spin after it.

>>1426648
Give me a %.

Let's assume we're playing in Las Vegas, double-0 roulette.

>>1426589
>eventually
yes on an infinite timeline the house wins. again thats not what im talking about. im talking about a recreational gambler playing one night for maybe an hour or two
>>1426607
again im not talking about single spins. please read the words im typing
>>1426608
>Technically you increase the odds
exactly. that was my entire point. thank you
>In the end you still only recoup 94.7% of everything you put on the table
o shit nigger you were so close. no that is true on an infinite timeline. thats not what im talking about. just a small series of spins
>>1426613
>There are no "series of spins"
i dont even know how to argue against this. im not living in vegas. im playing maybe an hour or two. how is that not a small series?
>>1426634
>The EV (expected value) of the game remains exactly the same and that is the important part, not the odds.
exactly. you can shift the odds slightly. idk why this is so hard for people to comprehend

>>1426640
No.

>>1426644
Always the same.

>>1426649
18/38

>>1426659
Correct.

What is the probability of at least 1 red in the next 3 spins?

you guys are so dumb it painful
>hurr durr roullette is impossible to win!!!
if that were true then nobody would play. You can win a little here and there. Yes the house has the odds in their favor but probability isnt certainty. If i bet on red and my buddy bets on black and another dude bets on green one of us will win. Its not impossible to win roulette IN THE SHORT TERM

>>1426652
It has nothing to do with an infintite timeline. It has to do with the odds of each spin being independant of the next no matter what the previous results were.

>>1426652
>you can shift the odds slightly
Naw.

>>1426669
but im not talking about the probability of a single spin. Are you seriously this retarded?

Play roulette games(there's one on Android phones called Double Down Casino that I like) and see if you can craft your own strategy of winning that way.

Lol im done. This is basic math and you guys cant comprehend it. Have fun being retarded

File: 1444926313002.jpg (25KB, 500x340px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x340px

>>1426679
>call people out for not knowing basic math
>thinks he can somehow shift the odd (which is 47.5%) of doubling your money.
nice m8

>>1426673
Let me make it easier for you to understand. Le's assume there are no betting limits. Using martingale you have a slightly less than 1% chance of winning 1% of your bankroll. You have a slightly greater than 1% chance of losing your entire bankroll. You also have a slightly less than 10% chance of winning 10% of your bankroll and a slightly greater than 10% chance of losing your entire bankroll trying to win that 10%.

>>1426686
ok hawking. what are the odds of a wheel landing black or green 9 times in a row?

>>1425343
This is absolutely not how math works.

>>1426652
Every spin is "a single spin". There are no series.

>I'm playing two hours!!!
Two hours of individual spins, which all carry the exact same probability of being black, red, or 0/00.

As you have negative edge, the more you play, the more your chances to lose everything are high. In reality, two hours (100 spins) are more than enough to lose it all. We're not talking about some "infinite timeline".

>>1426666
When someone talks about series and martingale, it's not "short term" anymore.

>If i bet on red and my buddy bets on black and another dude bets on green one of us will win

If each one of you played $1, you collectively had $3 before playing, and now you only have $2 (in most cases). So you lost 1/3 of your money in one single spin. You are a literal retard.

>>1426654
(Not no to your "naw", I quoted the wrong post.)

>>1426689
>Let me make it easier for you to understand. Let's assume there are no betting limits. Using martingale you have a slightly less than 99% chance of winning 1% of your bankroll. You have a slightly greater than 1% chance of losing your entire bankroll. You also have a slightly less than 90% chance of winning 10% of your bankroll and a slightly greater than 10% chance of losing your entire bankroll trying to win that 10%.
Fixed. I typed it too fast.

>>1426666
So?

>>1426652
>>In the end you still only recoup 94.7% of everything you put on the table
>o shit nigger you were so close. no that is true on an infinite timeline. thats not what im talking about. just a small series of spins

"In the end" refers to an infinite timeline/projected results. Variance exists, especially in the short term, and it's entirely possible to walk away ahead. Just realize you did so because of DUMB LUCK, that these results are statistical oddities, and that attempts to repeat said results for long term profits will end in certain failure.

>>1426690
0.6%, more or less.
now tell me, if you start with 10k and you use your smart strategy with doubling your money after you lose, how many rolls do you need to get 20k?

>>1426702
What a waste of quads.

>>1426690
654 to 1.

So, statistically, it will just take a few hours of online play to reach that situation.

See you in 650+ spins, m8.

>>1426724
Wrong.

The odds of 9 non-reds is (20/38)^9 = ~0.3%

But you've missed the entire point:

The odds of red (single spin) is ~47.3%

The odds of at least 1 red in 9 spins = ~99.7%

47.3 =/= 99.7

Using martingale allows you to bet on the second proposition. You are changing the odds.

>>1426743
>You are changing the odds.
Naw. The odds of it hitting red are 18/38 regardless of how many times it has hit red before. I don't think you believe us when we say that each spin is independant of the last one but it is a mathematical certainty.

>>1426743
it's still 47.3 if you want to double your whole stake
99.7% is the chance of increasing your total stake by less than 0.6% and it's pretty dumb to bet on that

Hey, I just played an online roulette game, playing $100 on red at every spin, and doubling down when I lose.

Took me exactly three minutes before black came 5 times in a row and swallowed my $3,000 :^)

>>1426743
Thank you for being the only person with common sense in this thread

>>1426771
The odds of missing red 9 times in a row are not 18/38. That is just blatantly wrong. Please ctrl t and find a calculator

>>1426666
Waste of quads. Anyway why do speak of short term? If you play short term you should never gamble again from the moment you win any amount.

>>1426778
again im not talking about gambling as an investment. Ive conceded several times the house maintains favorable odds in the long run. this is for entertainment and mitigating your loss for an hour or two of recreational betting. assuming you can afford 8 consecutive losses you have a 90% of winning your initial bet 35 times. (.997^35=~.9) that would take way more than the amount of spins im speaking of. again catastrophic loss is possible just unlikely in a limited timeframe. im talking an hour or two of gambling. yes gambling not investing. this is probability not certainty
>>1426816
i speak of short term because some people just hit a casino once every couple years and want to have fun. this system allows them to shift the odds in their favor

>>1426821
i don't even care anymore, i'm out. reread this thread if you lose it all.

>>1426825
if i lose it all in an hour ill consider myself very unlucky

>>1426771
> I don't think you believe us when we say that each spin is independant of the last one but it is a mathematical certainty.

No shit. When the hell did I ever disagree with that?

Your reading comprehension is awful.

You're also dead wrong, if you actually read my replies you'd realize that.

>>1426821
>assuming you can afford 8 consecutive losses

Need a $25,600 bankroll as "protection" for every $100 you're betting, with a 0.3% chance of losing your whole bankroll anyway (i.e. it has to happen in a few hours)?

Sweet.

>>1425308
When I first turned 18 I went to a casino. I was a pretty smart kid and thought I would try martingale system (back then I didn't know it had a name). So I'm sitting at a blackjack table and I bet. As soon as the dealer saw that I was using martingale he let out a literal groan (I shit you not). Not to be deterred and thinking that I knew better than him, I continued with my betting and lost a little over $1k in 15 min. I left feeling defeated but thought that I just got unlucky and that it was a fluke.

Years later, after getting my degree in physics, I thought I would try my luck again, this time at roulette. I would wait until the table had spun red 5 times in a row then start my martingale. I had pretty good early success but had to be patient and wait for the reds to come out before betting black. After winning 10% of my bankroll, I would leave. I did this about 3 more times over the course of a year and bragged to everyone that I had found a foolproof system. On the 4th time, something weird happened. My black never came. 14 fucking spins later I lost my entire bankroll which was about $10 grand.

I was pissed. I was a decent programmer and a math wizard so I decided to program an advanced algorithm in Basic to simulate roulette spins. I was fucking flabbergasted. No matter how many times I did the martingale the odds were always less than 50% of me doubling my bankroll. I tried to wait for 6 reds, 8 reds, 10 FUCKING REDS and no matter how many times a red came out the odds of string of blacks coming out on the next spins were exactly the same. I really didn't believe it and I couldn't wrap my head around it but the numbers were there in front of me. I tried a ton of different betting strategies and none of them worked either.

The whole point of this long story is that gamblers fallacy is a real thing. Some cant understand it until they see it for themselves. If you need help, wizardsofodds is a good place to start. Don't lose any money on this.

>>1426858
That would be an interesting formula to have:

% of X "streak" in Y spins

I'm usually good with probability but unsure how you'd calculate something like that. Hmm.

>>1426858
Or a meager 2560 roll for ten dollar bets? Thats not much and my life wouldnt be over on the fractional percent chace it happened.
>it has to happen in a few hours
ya. cuz if it doesnt im getting up and leaving. did you even read the thread?

>50% of me doubling my bankroll
But who says you have to double it? Im just trying to have fun at the smallest risk possible

>>1426890
sorry this was for >>1426872
lol he has a degee in physics and he cant comprehend basic probability

>>1426872
>My black never came
This happened to me when I called "Rent-A-Bull".

Seriously though, I taught Martingale to a friend years back, when I thought it was legit. He tried to use it, got ruined on a 7 spin stretch, and never forgave me.

Let me just restate my thesis in meme form for you retards because apparently a lot of you are just skimming through these posts.
>If you try to use martingale to make money you will probably (from the root word probability) lose.
>If you use it over a short period of time for fun you will probably (from the root word probability) win.
pick 2

>>1426890
Less than 50%. Even if you are only trying to win %10 of your bankroll you still have more than a 10% chance of total loss of your entire bankroll. Is it fun? Yeah, I gamble sometimes for fun too, but you are not increasing your odds of winning. Lets say you have $1000 bankoll. If you bet $1000 on a flat bet then you have about a 47% chance of winning $1000. You can gamble smaller increments using a martingale strategy, it comes out to the same thing. Lets say you bet $10. You need to win 100 times in order to make that $1000. Over those 100 times, your odds of losing 7 times in a row and losing your initial $1000 increases to about 47%. It's the same thing either way. Can you stop if you win 10% of your bankroll without losing and never go back to playing roulette ever again? Of course. That would be the smart thing to do. Most people don't do that though because they think they have found a system. They keep going back until they lose. Which they will. The longer you play the more of a gaurantee it is.

>>1426894
>rent a bull
Haha nice.

>>1426900
Let me ask you something. Would you play a game where you had a 89% chance of winning $10 bucks and an 11% chance of losing $100? Do you think thats a good bet, even in the short run?

oh boy, I really didn't think people like OP existed. I though only people who didn't know about the house edge gambled to make money.

>>1426607
this is probably the best short summary of OP's "strategy"

>>1426900
the problem is, it's still completely random what happens. you bet on red appearing in the next X spins and you figure you have a 95% chance it happens, which means 5% odds of a catastrophic bankruptcy. now you *think* you have an edge. but you don't. because there is no way to know whether you're entering the game on the 95% or the 5%. the first session you do could very well be within the 5% of outcomes and break you right away. this is what the thread is trying to tell you. it's random. the wheel doesn't care about statistics or probabilities. you sit down and the wheel produces a random series of results. since your over-all expected value of the game of roulette never changes, your "short-term profit" is nothing more than dumb luck. and despite what you may think, there is no way to guarantee any (even short term) profit.

you cannot know "where" you are in the grand scheme of things. there's no way to only play the 95% of games where everything works out. and due to the randomness, the inevitable streak that breaks you could be the first, tenth or it could never come in your lifetime. but the odds are always against you overall.

it is impossible to figure out a "100% strategy" in the game of roulette.

File: Copy-20of-20DSC-4532-1-.jpg (23KB, 572x322px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 572x322px

>>1426977
>a "100% strategy" in the game of roulette

Own the casino.

File: 1463716883640.jpg (88KB, 750x747px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 750x747px

>>1426900

>Martingale
>at best 50-50 odds if you pick red/black
>OP's claiming 2 to 1 payout (much different than the typical high-probability 0-3% gains and low-probability 100% losses)

Drink bleach.

gib website

>>1427024
Now we're talkin'

>>1425324
look up law of large numbers dumass
the only way to beat any casino game is to run good immediately and never to play again
(unless you can get them to change rules in your favor)

>>1425535
Then why don't we see a hundred "6s" in a row come up in Roulette?

>>1426038
REKT

>>1427113
Because the wheel wants to deceive you lol

>>1427113
You would, given an infinite number of spins. The probability of it happening is improbable not impossible. There is a difference. Even something that has a .000000000000000000001^100th possibility of occurring, given a large enough timescale, will occur. Now we are getting into the realm of theoretical physics and science fiction ala Douglas Adams lore, however. Math gets a little fuzzy at these levels.

this is what private education does to your population america

how is anyone this stupid?

>>1425354
what about playing poker as a team?

File: negrosurroundedbyquestionmarkings.png (74KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x256px

>>1427216
>america
>private education

>>1427113
100 6s in a row is no less likely than any other potential outcome

>>1427307
Any other specific sequence yes.

dumb faggot, just come lose ur money to me at draftkings

>>1425308
you're on the right track m8. i do the same, always betting on the 2nd dozen if i lose i double until i win, then shift to the third and so on.
i have to say i surprised myself by how much money i made and can say there's good money to be made for all anons on this board, just get 200bux and start small, say 2bux and gradually go up as you win.
as an investment, id say i got a good 25% ROI in a day.

>>1427373
*of length 100

It's funny how humans interpret certain patterns as "wow rigged" while others as "totally expected" even though the probabilities for each are identical. 6 6 6 6 6 6 is just as likely as 34 0 5 8 14 22 but the first will illicit a strong reaction and the second will go completely noticed.

If you snuck into a casino at night and repainted the roulette numbers (differently) you would inevitably swap some old-paint streaks into "random noise" and some old-paint "random noise" into "omg what is going on!?". In reality the wheel is spinning in the EXACT same way.

Humans are dumb sometimes.

>>1427276

Poker against other people and poker against the house are completely different

Playing against people introduces strategy.

The house will eventually always win as long as you remain in your seat long enough

>>1426921
Its more like 99.7 percent chance to win $10. And yes we established i would play it

>>1426977
I never claimed it was a guaranteed win. I said martingale increases your probability of winning over a short series of spins. Which it does. Everyone in this thread is so retarded it hurts to see

>>1427036
Martingale is not 50/50. You are failing basic mathematics

I feel like everyone in this thread is about 12 years old. Ive never seen anyone struggle with basic probability this much. This is junior high level math

>>1427403
the house actually never profits from running poker
they only break even at best

(unless you're playing in an illegal underground game)

>>1427584
This. The house makes money from you buying drinks, buying a room for the night (or multiple nights), eating at the restaurants, etc.

>>1427569
Someone failed math lol. You are so fucking retarded.

op is 100% retarded

>gut-feeling
>online roulette
top kek

>>1427584
and a small rake fee, if applicable

>>1427024
touché. you're right.

>>1427572
>I said martingale increases your probability of winning over a short series of spins.

yes. while at the same time ensuring, if you happen to lose over your "short series of spins" you are completely broke. the expected value is still exactly the same - negative.

consider the following: you play 3 spins, walk away. return, play 3 spins, walk away. return, play 3 spins, walk away. tell me precisely and without bullshitting, what the difference between this scenario and a scenario where you play 9 spins in a row is.
we agree that every spin is independent from the previous and the next. we agree that the overall expected value of roulette is negative due to zeros on the wheel. explain to me clearly and concisely why it makes a difference, how many spins you play in a row. i think this is where you lose everyone in this thread. you make it seem, the wheel has a memory and recognises how many time you played in this session. it doesn't.

also, there is no "short series". all your plays are part of a big long series of random spins that (slowly) approaches the overall negative expected value. if you come out ahead, it's due to luck, not skill or strategy.

btw, i'm not opposed to you playing roulette. i'm just opposed to you claiming you can beat the mathematics of the game. (disclaimer: i'm talking about the mathematical odds of a perfect game of roulette - it's entirely possible that online casinos use shitty random number generators and physical casinos use shitty wheels that may provide an edge or a strategy).

when in doubt, run the numbers like >>1426872 suggested. hell, grab 3 dice (d6) and play roulette at home. first dice gives you results (evens/odds=red/black with 2:1 payout, dozens=1-2/3-4/5-6 with 3:1 payout, etc). if the other two dice come up with double 1s you lose anyway (1 in 36 chance = 1 zero on the wheel). that's a pretty good estimation of roulette. just run the game and play around with it.

>>1426872
What shit country gives you a physics degree if you can't even comprehend simple high school math?

People can't be this stupid right?

>>1428522
I know. Its hard to believe

>>1426795
the odds of it being black 9 times in a row are exactly the same as the odds of any other combination

>>1428717
No shit sherlock, whats your point.

File: homi2.jpg (64KB, 530x600px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 530x600px

I've been banned from several casinos playing live roulette

>>1428733
stop assaulting waitresses fuckface

File: homi3.jpg (67KB, 600x530px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x530px

>>1428736

>>1427572
>martingale increases your probability of winning over a short series of spins
Literally wot. Are you like 5?

>>1425308
Casinos hate him. Learn how one man beat the gambling industry with this wierd trick!

>>1425308
back when doge was the hot new trend I was using one of those "provably fair" gambling sites

I had played it about a month manually and felt comfortable with it legit.

i built a simple bot to double down on every loss and some basic betting rules between red/black

let it run overnight every day for 7 days, literally came back to a zero balance every morning. Sometimes it barely ran 10 minutes before being zerod.

statistically speaking, you -will- lose. It's literally a sure thing. I managed to break the record for "most spins of same color in a row" every single night

Since then I've also come to the conclusion that although these sites use "provably fair" methods, they still have cheat systems built in place. It says that the next roll is randomly generated BEFORE you bet/spin, but theres nothing saying it's not paying attention to all you previous rolls and using some form of pattern analyzing to help it decide what that next role will be.

>>1425308
Gambling as a form of making money is already fucking retarded. And doing online gambling is even more retarded.
Your best bet is to find and exploit in the software used and hack the system.
Good luck with that tho.

>>1428829
its basic math

Seriously it amazes me. These are the people giving financial advice to others. The same people that cant comprehend basic probability. Im sure youll all become titans of industry

>>1429312
Wait, so the only number that is green is zero?
What about 8?
You know, like the magic 8-ball?

>>1429317
>8 posts by this ID
>all shitty jokes
youre just as funny as you are good at math

>>1429318
>24 posts by this ID
>pure self delusion in all of them
You are destined to make a fortune playing roulette.

>>1425343
Okay dude you're trying to justify your luck right now. Real life does not operate on pseudo random distribution. Quit while you're ahead.

>>1429322
Im just laughing at this point. Its basic math. Get out a calculator. What are the odds you miss red 9 times in a row? I want you to seriously give me a percentage on that then get back to me

>>1429325
the. expected. value. is. negative.

get back to me when you understand what that means.

you can't look at the odds independently of the amount you wager. it doesn't matter that you win most of the time, when all the times you lose the stakes are much much higher.

missing red 9 times in a row, the odds are ~0.25% (single zero) or ~0.31% (double zero). i still wouldn't bet on such a 1 in 400 chance. but even worse, when it happens, you're in for 511 times your initial bet already and you'd have to wager 512 on the next spin. and if you win on the 10th spin (which is far from guaranteed), you've simply doubled your initial bet - by wagering 1,023 times the amount, risking catastrophic bankruptcy (which *will* eventually happen because unless the house, your backroll is not infinite).

File: sha-256-bit-encryption-provably-fair[1].jpg (29KB, 372x184px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 372x184px

>>1428984
Don't make dumb assumptions on things you don't understand.

"Provably fair" is a game-changing innovation and should be a standard, if not explicitly mandated, in the gambling industry.

Correct implementations GUARANTEE the game is fair, independent of what the operators are doing/not doing. Don't knock "provably fair" because math fucked you over. Maybe this doge casino was incorrectly labeling their system as "provably fair" when it didn't actually check all the boxes but that on you, not "provably fair".

File: gamblingwut.jpg (722KB, 1364x774px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1364x774px

With the odds heavily in your favor, you will still lose on these sites. Don't waste your money.

File: 1447267854403.png (325KB, 382x417px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 382x417px

>Playing roulette when blackjack exists

It's more interactive and the house has less of an edge. What's not to like?

>>1429377
>99.7%
>not good odds
Are you seriously this retarded?

File: 81yLNPLgp0L._SY355_.jpg (19KB, 355x355px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 355x355px

>>1425308

Another fucking moron who doesn't understand how math and expected value works.

>>1429776
Nobody coreect this dumb nigger. Let him keep thinking he has a system and get wrecked.

>>1429776
>plays a random game of chance
>99.7% chance of small to moderate gains
>every ~322 plays you lose everything including all your previous gains and then some
>good odds

are you seriously this retarded?

assume you bet x every time. assume (unrealistically) that you win 321 times in a row, doubling x each time with no setbacks. you now have 322x bankroll. like clockwork on the 322nd play you hit a 9 times streak against you. you'd need 511x to weather it. even assuming batshit insane luck before, you end up broke. and that's without accounting for the random nature, because that losing streak could turn up anywhere before, even on the very first spin you take. yes, i would definitely not play that game. it's a losing proposition, purely by running the numbers. if i left the table with any gains, it would only be due to pure dumb luck, not any kind of strategy or favourable odds.

because there are none.

but then again, you conveniently keep ignoring any real arguments brought up against your delusional belief in the martingale system. you haven't answered any questions (how are "short series" supposed to be different? do you understand what a negative expected value means?), you haven't shown any sign of understanding what you're dealing with. all you have to offer is blind denial of facts.

>b-but muh odds!!!
keep calling people retards and keep gambling. both suit you and entertain me.

>>1429910
sorry man, already had it typed out and posted before i saw your post. i'm done now anyway and it's not like any amount of words are smartening him up...

>>1425308
>online roulette
What website?

hey guys better roulette strategie

Place 5 bet on 6 square groups. This gives you a 30/38 chance of winning your money back plus 20%. Reinvest all you can (keep bets even)....3 wins in a row doubles your money. 5 wins triples.

However you still have negative odds. Your risk is smaller and your reward isn't as great.

>>1430684
The only strategy is to increase your odds of winning. Everything else is bullshit and mom science.

You are playing a losing game until your odds are 50%.

>>1430706
How is 30/38 not at least 50%? thats almost 80%

>>1430738
78% chance to win 20% of your bet. Real smart lol.

>>1430756
You win your bet back with an additional 20%.

I'm curious, what is wrong with this? Does it not generate money as fast?

Since all spins are independent, each spin you have a 78% chance of winning. Like any other method, it sucks when you lose, but at least that's only a 22% chance.

Altering this strategy slightly, bet on 4 groups of 6. 24/38 chance to win your money back plus 50%

>>1430766
>Does it not generate money as fast?
Meant to say "as fast as you'd like"

>>1430766
>I'm curious, what is wrong with this?
Because it's a negative EV bet. If it was a 78% chance to win 23% of your bet then I would make that bet all day long. What some people dont seem to understand is that regardless of what betting system you use at roullette, every bet is a bad one. Every single bet you make is a bad bet. With the system you are talking about, yes you have a 78% chance to win but you are risking $25 to win $5. On average you lose that $25 at least 1 out of 5 spins.

the only time martingale works is when the implied odds are greater than the actual odds.

>>1429936
but im not playing 322 times in a row. we established this. you psuedo intellectuals keep acting all condescending but you cant comprehend basic probability.its hilarious to me

What I find most intriguing is how in a lot of these posts you fags will concede the point that theres only a .3% chance of losing. Then without skipping a beat you say its impossible to win. Ill take 99.7% odds any day of the week
>b-b-but expected values!!
yes on an infinite timeline the house edge will take over. And yes theres a small chance it will happen on the first few plays. Again im not saying its foolproof. Im saying for someone like me who just wants to have fun for a few hours at the wheel this system shifts the odds in my favor
>the odds are always 47%!!!!
no. thats the odd of one single spin. do the math correctly and youll see what im talking about

Unbelievable how dumb you people are. And youre giving financial advice? This is the one of the worst boards on 4chan right up there with /pol/. Anyone coming here for more than keks is a fool

>>1431903
>>1431923
Ok. This is nothing but pure trolling now. You don't really believe any of this.

>>1431975
What is there not to get? Please show me mathematically how this is wrong. Odds of missing red 9 times in a row is .3% Those are great odds m8

>>1431989
I ain't showing you shit, kid. The fuck out of here, pest.

>>1431994
lol ok rain man

Can we all agree to let this thread die?I havnt spent this much time on 4chan before and the autism level around here is effecting me

>>1425308
If you actually did this, fucking cash out, nigger. Variance. You got lucky, and we're jealous. Yes. Don't lose it.

Hey man I majored in math. There is no system to win at roulette. If you have convinced yourself there is you have a very fundamental flaw in your understanding of statistics. Because of this I won't try to prove you wrong because you probably wouldn't understand my explanation. Just as a favor to yourself put trust in my authority as someone who spent years studying math and stop well you're ahead. At the very least swear to yourself right now that when you hit 0 you will stop and not dig yourself deeper trying to win it back.

>>1432668
Ok then, since you majored in math I actually have a serious question for you.

Let's take a coin toss for example. Every rtoss is independent from the next, correct? In fact, the probability of heads coming up every single toss for eternity is equally likely to every other outcome, correct?

Yet, this is not the reality. Given an infinite number of tosses it always evens out to 50/50, correct?

So there is the crux of it, isn't it? Where does statistical probability take over? How can such a thing even exist when the longest record for consecutive of reds stands in vegas at 52? Given that according to a basic calculation of probability the odds of this happening are smaller than a jumbo jet spontaneously assembling itself out of nothing on top of the table.

Why do we not see roulette never rolling black? Or red?