milo

correct.

no thats not right tho - there isnt a 0.02% chance of u being wiped out. you WILL be wiped out with enough combinations of "win, win, loss" and "win, loss" and "win, win, win, win, loss" etc. the chance of u losing is MUCH greater than 0.02%. 0.02% is the chance of being COMPLETELY WIPED OUT IN ONE GO.

you can gradually get wiped out without ever having 8 losses against you... and by the figures thats whats statistically most likely to happen.

milo

exactly - and given that the house gets the 0 (or 00 too on some tables), you KNOW that the odds are VERY SLIGHTLY in the house's favor... meaning long-term it WILL win.

LG John

Not so ***Just before I go on our original 0.02% for 8 runs and 8 runs wiping out a £1250 bankroll is ALL incorrect as we based that on a 65% win ratio and more critically on a 3:1 return on the winning 3rd when in fact its only a 2:1 return. We will however stick with these simple figures to examplify my point for now until I can be arsed to recalculate ***

The reason its not so is because with a £1250 bankroll you can with stand exactly 8 runs against you assuming for doubling up everytime and provided a negative run is broken BEFORE it exceeds 8, the winning bet that brakes it will be of sufficient value to take you back to exactly even. So, you could have 10 runs of 7 negatives in a row against you (thus 70 losses with a beautifully timed 10 wins out of 80 spins) and you wouldn't loose a single penny. A run of 8 or worse and ONLY 8 or worse can take you out. Its an all or bust game in that your profit will always slowly grow and can never go down. All that can happen is you are wiped out completely in one go. Also of interest is that out of those 80 spins the house is winning 87.5% of the time which is WAY above the 35% win ratio it has for each of those 'individual' spins yet it gains the sum total of nothing from you because it didn't string together a run of 8 or more against you

milo

wait... you're starting off with £2560, right?

bet £10 each time?

so in the event of win, win, loss, you bet:

£10 (get back 20), £20 (get back 40), £40 (you lose it).

now you're down to £2550 and start again?

if this is what you're saying, then your ONLY chance of winning and keeping any money is a run of 6 wins... which has a less than 7% chance of happening. that'll take around 1500 runs to come up. given than all of the other runs cost £10 a go, you'll be out of money after 256 runs.

how are you working out that you'll be winning money?

LG John

Stand by - I'll calculate the exact science of it when I get a chance - little busy at work at the mo

LG John

Ok, you place your first bet of £5 on 2 of the 3 thirds and you have a 35.2% chance of losing it.

You do lose so you are £10 down. Now you place a bet of £10 per third which if it wins will give £10 profit taking you back to zero up or down. You have a 35.2% chance of losing this bet but the chance of losing the first THEN the second are 12.4%.

You lose again and are now down £30 so must place £30 per third to get to zero. Cumulative chance of losing is 4.3%.

You lose again and are now down £90 so must place £90 per third to get to zero. Cumulative chance of losing is 1.5%.

You lose again and are now down £270 so must place £270 per third to get to zero. Cumulative chance of losing is 0.54%.

And so on.....


Lets stop our example here and assume we play with a bankroll of £810. This will allow us to withstand at ANY point, even the first run of spins, a run of 4 losses against us. On the 5th we will be all in but the chances of a run of 5 against us is 0.54%. Therefore the aim of our 'game' it to get to £1620 before our 0.54% event occurs. If we can beat it to £1620 before it wipes us out more often than not then we win. Under such circumstance was could regards our first £810 as our 'father' and his only reason for living is to create two £810 offspring. If he does this before he dies (i.e. we get wiped out) then we kill him (i.e bank £810 profit) and play with his two sons who's sole purpose in life is to have two offspring of £810. This method of playing could obviously be tracked on a spreadsheet and once you have a family of about 10 sets of £810 playing for you its pretty safe to say you are winning and its unlikely they will all be wiped out at the same time.

What I REALLY need to know is roughly or better yet exactly how many spins of a roulette table it will take before our run of 5 against (0.54% event) will occur?

LG John

Currently under testing in William Hills 'play for fun module' So far I'm £200 up so 1/4th (almost) of the way there. Biggest bet I've had to place so far is £180. That's enough for tonight - going to play some poker and hopefully earn some real money

milo

i mis-understood then... i didnt realise u were doubling up regardless of win or loss.

your 0.54% chance will happen once every 185 "runs". a run could be 1 spin... or it could be 5 spins. you shouldn't care about spins anyway... you only need to care about "runs" of spins. so once every 185 is your answer.

LG John

But just as a run can be w,w,w,l,w,l,w,w is can be w,w,w,w,w, or l,l,l or w,l,w,l - so I don't see how 185 'runs' tells us anything that is of use in determining whether we'd make it to £810 up before the table gets us. More so because we don't know the length of a run Looks like I'll have to continue to test the theory in play for fun and depending on those results perhaps for real. Da, da, DUM!!

eClaire

Kenny, you need to get out more

milo

185 runs tells us everything we need to know as you need to work out the probability that you'll make £810 and work out how many runs that will take to come up.

LG John

How do you come to that conclusion. By your own admission you are always looking for ways to make some extra cash so what is so wrong with me investigating a few possibilities??

Milo - thats all very well but how the heck do I calculate something like that?? How long is a 'run'? How do we define the start or end point of a run? The way I played for fun last night there was no real 'system' to the winning part. I'd often double up my winnings to try and string together a run and very often it would pay off that little bit more but the only fixed part of the system is how to deal with a loss

eClaire

Forget it.

imlach

Love is in the air.....dee-dah-dee-dah-dee-dum

Old_Fart

Take a look at this Kenny, it pretty much explains all you need to know about roulette - basically the house always has edge because all the payoff's are based on 36 for 1 (35 to 1 ), where in reality the fair payoff is 38 for 1, so the 2 greens give the house a 2 in 38 or 5.26% edge.
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~gthompso/roulette.htm
Any system built to defeat these intrinsic odds is based soley on luck.
Rgds
Cman

ProperCharlie

i'm still trying to get my head around this "system". the way i see it - you start off with a certain number of stakes, and you carry on playing until you have used up all your stakes and are broke, or you quit if you reach a predetermined level of winning? is that how it works?

imlach

Yeah, you're onto a loser SB.

As much as luck will help you, it will also clean you out........

eClaire

Quit it Ricky

LMFAO Imlach, Brace yourself

ProperCharlie

you could use this "system" with any fixed odds bet. E.g find 3-1 shots at the bookies and keep increasing your stake until you eventually win. that would work, wouldn't it?

LG John

ROTLMAO I have no idea what Claire is getting so p!ssy about - not that bothered either

Odds at the bookies are not always accurate so you need a degree of skill to know if each 3:1 bet is truely reflective of a 3:1 situation.

The way this model works is fairly simple. You NEVER loose money and always gain money. The only way the game ends and you do actually loose money is if you get a string of runs against you that you can't cover with your £810 bankroll. The chance of such a run occuring is 0.54%. If you get to £810 before such a run comes along you can 'bank' your original stack and repeat the process with the casino's money. You then try again and if you win again I'd then try again with both those sets of £810 with an aim to build a few 'games' of £810 to play with. If you got to 5 or more to play with you can then play each one and bank if you make it safe in the knowledge that if one or two of them get broken down you still have some to play with. Understand?

Old_Fart

At the bookies it's more difficlt to determine fair value of the bet, and by extension the houses edge, but the theory is very similar PC. Roulette is a fixed-odds mathematically certain game..in the long run the house *will* make 5.26% on a 0 00 greeen wheel.
It's a fairly harmless game played correctly..just be aware that you should expect to get back only £95 of every £100 you stake...if you find it exciting then it's fairly cheap..I'd rather go to the cinema though with my fiver for popcorn.
C

eClaire

It was a joke for crying out loud! Get a grip, ffs.

imlach

SaxoBoy - long term, as someone has said, you will only get back 95%.

You cannot judge when to not play - it is pure luck. You will lose long term.

imlach

Also, if it was so straighforward to perform this system, it wouldn't exist as a game in the gaming halls!

The halls HAVE to make money long term.

LG John

Me get a grip Just leave the thread please, you have contributed nothing constructive.

Some people must win at Roulette or nobody would ever play it. People make money at everything in life and usually at the expense of the majority. Only 10% of online poker players make money - at the expense of the majority. I'm probably wrong but I can't help but feel that for every 1 person that takes a regular £100 a week from a roulette table there are 1000 punters blowing that much and more every week hence the casino doesn't care about the few winners.

From the first two pages you'll see I've made it quite clear that the casino's 'edge' applies on every single spin of the wheel. But look at the slightly bigger picture: You bet two thirds and it doesn't come in. The 'edge' has just acted against you (if its a zero then you know that for sure it was the edge that did you as its the 'bast@rd' of the board ). Lets say you double up and win taking you back to zero. On THAT (and only THAT occassion) you have nullified the casino's edge. Now you bet again and its wins so you reinvest the profit, and again, and again, and again. Through the power of multiplication you've just strung a wee run together (taking advantage of the fact you are far more likely @ 64.2% per individual spin to string a run together than the wheel) and make a nice wee sum. You place your original stake and you loose so you double it up again, you loose again so you double up again and this time you win. Again you have nullified the edge. In fact for the 'edge' to beat you it must act time and time again in a row which has in our example has a 0.54% chance of occuring. Clearly if you swaggered on with a monster bankroll and just kept on playing you would eventually catch a MASSIVE run against you which would take you right up to the table limit and take out very scary sums of money. This is why I suggest a 'first past the post' approach where you try to beat the dealer to double your money or him wipe you out (online this would take a few hours of play) If you make it there first more often than not then the amount of games in your pyramid of 'games' will grow and you'll start to a) make money, and more importantly b) build resistance to loses. Even when the wheel puts together a nasty run against you it can only kill one off your games at any one time. If you play this on a European table (which we've been discussing all along) AND maybe even one with the 'prison' rule you have IMHO as good a chance as you're ever going to get of getting those odds as close to or perhaps on your side

P.S. Imlach like you or one of your 'share' friends said yesterday: Most people lose money on the stock market which is where you make your money being in that minority.

imlach

But the stock market is NOT pure chance, whereas roulette is......

imlach

The odds on the stock market are not 95%...they are unlimited.

Return on roulette is 95% period.

imlach

YOu also cannot double to infinity......

LG John

I don't know man, C3P0 once said the falcon had something silly like 10,000:1 odds of negotating the asteroid field but han solo made it

I'm no maths buff but it just seems to me that with as little an edge as the wheel has and so many options about how you play both the wheel, your own money and your overall game there has to be a way to take advantage of that edge. Its clear you can NEVER do it in an individual spin but perhaps you can construct a playing model to defeat it. Like I said on page 1 though - what are the chances of a low-life scottish planning officer doing so

imlach

None sadly......
It's a mugs game.