Possibly a winner ?? finally ?
Quote: masterburnHi, yes martingale! don't shoot it down yet, bet voyager has a min of 0.01 cent and max bet of 1000, given the circumstances if we martingale at 0.01 cent and not be greedy we can make profit. with a 0.01 cent bet we can martingale with a progression of 17 times ending at 655.36 here is my plan with new age roaming around bots are being released all over the place for roulette, now my plan is to run the bot to look for 4 reds in a row and then start the betting progression so in we can have 21 progressions, my simple math dictates european roulette to be about 0.48^21 = 0.000000202, can some one with a more advanced skill set math tell me if it viable ? key the system is to not get greedy but to make a few bucks around 50-70 a day. will i blow my bank roll before doubling up ?
You will more likely blow your bankroll before doubling up in a negative expectation game using ANY system.
If your 'unit' is $0.01, then you must win 5000 progressions to get to your $50.
If you don't know why looking for 4 reds in a row before you start your Martingale doesn't matter, I suggest a basic introductory course in statistics.
You should use your 0.48 to the 17th power, not 21st.
If your goal is to risk your $1000 to make $50 ONE day, you will more likely succeed than fail.
If your goal is to make $50 on 20 days, you will more likely fail than succeed.
Quote: Wizard of Odds, Commandment #6
Thou shalt not believe in betting systems.
For every one legitimate gambling writer there are a hundred charlatans trying to sell worthless betting systems promising an easy way to beat the casinos. I know it sounds like a cliché, but if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.
Also, please read this page... The Truth About Betting Systems
And this page The Ten Commandments
Welcome to the Forum.
First of all, you shouldn't round. ( 18 / 37 ) ^ 21 = 0.000000268Quote: SOOPOOYou should use your 0.48 to the 17th power, not 21st.Quote: masterburn...my simple math dictates european roulette to be about 0.48^21 = 0.000000202
Secondly, if you don't know why SooPoo is telling you to use 17th power instead of the 21st power, it's because past performance is no inticator for future events. In other words, waiting for 4 reds (or blacks) is irrelevant. Getting 21 in a row is a lot easier when you give yourself a 4 in a row head start.
Therefore, your risk of ruin is ( 18 / 37 ) ^ 17 = 0.000004788
While that may still seem like a rather slim chance, remember this: You have to win 5,000 times to make your daily target. You need to do that 20 times to make your ultimate goal. 5,000 * 20 * 0.000004788 = 0.4788, which, rounded, is 48%.
Hmmm.... Where have I seen that number before?
You will be promptly banned for bot use...
silly
Sally
That is a lot to risk, over 1300 to win .01Quote: masterburnHi Sally I was actually stating max progression is 655.36 on the 17th step I would actually have the bank roll for the full 17 steps, I know straight up progression is a sure loss, the key is the use of bots that can bet for you, if I told my bot to wait for 8 reds in a row then start my 17 step would that have a higher chance ?? I'm only so keen on this because red appeared max 23 times in a row on a 12 million spin test
I also agree, waiting means nothing.
On average, how many trials will it take to see a streak of
Sally's data tables shows the average wait time for a streak of 8 in a row is 618.75 trials
That is a whole lot of waiting!
May take you a year to win $50.
I am sure the online sites know when a bot is making the bets.
They know what is at stake.
And once they know what you are doing, what universal power would stop them from just making you lose, cheating, selecting the winning spin based on your wager?
You would never be able to prove it.
That is strike 3 you are out!
Enjoy!
OK then,Quote: masterburnHi Sally I was actually stating max progression is 655.36 on the 17th step I would actually have the bank roll for the full 17 steps, I know straight up progression is a sure loss, the key is the use of bots that can bet for you, if I told my bot to wait for 8 reds in a row then start my 17 step would that have a higher chance ?? I'm only so keen on this because red appeared max 23 times in a row on a 12 million spin test
RoR is actually (19/37)^17 for his starting bankroll of $1,310.71
To lose a 17 step progression is
1.20055E-05
or
1 in 83,294.8
To win the 17 step progression is = 1-(19/37)^17 =(99.9988%)
To win 5,000 times in a row is (1-(19/37)^17)^5000
94.173808% prob
10,000,000 players
9,417,380 win the first attempt. Play again?? Yes, of course silly!
ONLY 582,620 Bust a $1,310.71 bankroll with some money left over from the previous wins!
Probability to win $600 before a bankroll bust (60,000 wins in a row)
(1-(19/37)^17)^60,000 or about 48.658821%
Probability to double your starting bankroll of $1,310.71 before a bankroll bust (131,071 wins in a row)
(1-(19/37)^17)^131,071 or about 20.729998%
still about 1 in 5 that try will succeed.
Are you really feeling that lucky?
IF so, go for it!
Let us all know how you do.
Sally
Quote: thecesspitIt doesn't matter if you wait one spin or eight. Those results have no effect. You only care about results you make a bet on. The chance of the next bet winning does not change after a streak of eight reds or blacks.
How can we say waiting means nothing if we are doing probability of streaks, obviously independent spin means nothing because of no memory
I.E. The probability of a specific number of future consecutive events is the same regardless of how many consecutive events you witnessed.
It's what I said before about a "head start". 25 Reds in a row might be a lot less likely than 17 Reds in a row. But if you give that 25 Reds a head start by waiting for 8 Reds in a row, then the odds of the two 17 Red events are exacly equal.
I say it can mean something. Look at all the wins you are giving up while waiting for 8 in a row to happen.Quote: masterburnHow can we say waiting means nothing if we are doing probability of streaks, obviously independent spin means nothing because of no memory
Yes, Each spin is an independent event but not a streak of any length.
Probability is about the events that have yet to happen.
So you wait and see 8 blacks in a row and bet that the next 17 in a row has at least one red.
The next 17 in a row are the spins that only matter, true, it would be a streak of 25 in a row, but you are not betting on that as already pointed out.
You only bet the next 17 spins max, the past really does not make any difference, streaks or no streaks that came before.
8 in a row does not always turn into 10 in a row or 16 or 25 in a row.
The very next spin is still 18/37.
You should be able to run a simulation on this and see that after any length of a streak, the very next spin is only 18/37 to win and the lengths of the very next streak or streaks is just 18/37^N where N = number of spins.
You are attempting to bust a streak using a negative betting progression.
Sally shows that one can easily double a bankroll about 1 out of 5 tries.
Those odds only pay even money.
That is not good any way one looks at it.
Quote: masterburnHow can we say waiting means nothing if we are doing probability of streaks, obviously independent spin means nothing because of no memory
Same reason you can't bet on the outcome of the game 5 minutes before the end - because the deciding events have already been decided.
If the probability of San Antonio to win over Oklahoma is 10:1 on the next game, and there is 1 minute left in the game and oklahoma is up by 20 points, is the probability still 10:1 in San Antonio's favor? By GADS NO! Why is that? Because a series of events have already happened to change the future probability of what you thought was going to happen in the past.
In other words, if the probability of heads flipped 5 times in a row is 0.03125%, and a coin has flipped heads ALREADY 4 times in a row, and you are betting on that very next coin flip, would you say you still have a 0.03125% chance of a head being flipped? Absolutely not - it is 50%. Why? Because a bunch of events (4 heads flipped) have ALREADY happened and changed the probability of that last (5th in a row) being flipped.
Quote: masterburnHow can we say waiting means nothing if we are doing probability of streaks, obviously independent spin means nothing because of no memory
It is a hard pill to swallow - I get it.
It is fun to believe, however. It does make gambling more interesting.
Here is a great read on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
Quote: slackyhackyHere is a great read on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
That's a great article... problem with it is if it has already been suggested that somebody read up on fallacies and all of that jazz, it's probably not going to make a difference what is said beyond that point. So if the OP wants to risk 1300 to win .01, have at it. I agree with other posters that if there is a flaw in the computing, what's to say the website would even pay out. I'm sure there will be another posting about how "x website screwed me over" and then we'll debate the validity of a corrupt website...
Well, some of you will... I like to sit back and read the insanity.
Bingo!Quote: SOOPOOIf I owned an online casino I would INVITE all bots to play roulette against me.
The quicker a bet can be made the quicker the casino can collect. As hard as it is for me to believe that 'brick and mortar' roulette exists, it is almost impossible for me to believe that anyone would play on-line roulette for real money.
The average Roulette player also has no concept of ev and variance and what it means over a series of the same bets.
Now we get the betting system players that also do not understand the ev and variance concept but they make bets in such a way so the distribution of outcomes are now shifted.
Now one has a very high probability of many small wins and a very low probability of a few very high losses.
if you have to play a system, play it a few times and stop.
Most will not.
Easy winnings.
The losing streaks needed to bust a bankroll seem really impossible to hit. That is the illusion.
This also shows the difference between the short and long runs.
Sometimes they are almost the same.
Quote: masterburnHi, yes martingale! don't shoot it down yet, bet voyager has a min of 0.01 cent and max bet of 1000, given the circumstances if we martingale at 0.01 cent and not be greedy we can make profit. with a 0.01 cent bet we can martingale with a progression of 17 times ending at 655.36 here is my plan with new age roaming around bots are being released all over the place for roulette, now my plan is to run the bot to look for 4 reds in a row and then start the betting progression so in we can have 21 progressions, my simple math dictates european roulette to be about 0.48^21 = 0.000000202, can some one with a more advanced skill set math tell me if it viable ? key the system is to not get greedy but to make a few bucks around 50-70 a day. will i blow my bank roll before doubling up ?
Not even sure where to start with this. First off, no need to click on any of the mentioned links.
I like your 17 step progression and YES I AGREE, using those past results, SMART....I like it !! A couple mistakes....you are using 4 past results, I would consider 7.
Second, why only red? You have a total of SIX choices, why limit yourself?
I think 24 steps (total) would be just fine. Impossible to lose? Of course not. Now the bad news....you're playing on-line....NO FRICKIN WAY (not for me) *BUT* thats my ONLY complaint regarding your plan.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjNot even sure where to start with this. First off, no need to click on any of the mentioned links.
I like your 17 step progression and YES I AGREE, using those past results, SMART....I like it !! A couple mistakes....you are using 4 past results, I would consider 7.
Second, why only red? You have a total of SIX choices, why limit yourself?
I think 24 steps (total) would be just fine. Impossible to lose? Of course not. Now the bad news....you're playing on-line....NO FRICKIN WAY (not for me) *BUT* thats my ONLY complaint regarding your plan.
Ken
MrJ^3,
I have a question that you may have answered before on this board - so sorry if you have. You can link to your answer if you want.
If I am playing a coin flip game - and I am betting that a coin flip won't hit heads 8 times in a row (in the next 8 rolls - and the probability of that happening is .39%), and it flips 7 times tails. What do you think the probability is for the next flip that it will come up tails? Since when you started the probability of this happening was 0.39%, is it still this? Is it 50%? Or somewhere inbetween?
Just curious how you view it.
Quote: slackyhackyMrJ^3,
I have a question that you may have answered before on this board - so sorry if you have. You can link to your answer if you want.
If I am playing a coin flip game - and I am betting that a coin flip won't hit heads 8 times in a row (in the next 8 rolls - and the probability of that happening is .39%), and it flips 7 times tails. What do you think the probability is for the next flip that it will come up tails? Since when you started the probability of this happening was 0.39%, is it still this? Is it 50%? Or somewhere inbetween?
Just curious how you view it.
The ole', I'll corner Ken question, I love it.
50/50 on the next flip (of course).
Ken
there are some people who can
predict the future of a random event
based on their observations of the past.
they do not rely on systems or biased wheels,
rather a "method".
i am sure mrjjj can tell you
what the next flip of the coin will be
by determining which side is the sleeper.
Quote: WongBooh havent you heard?
there are some people who can
predict the future of a random event
based on their observations of the past.
they do not rely on systems or biased wheels,
rather a "method".
i am sure mrjjj can tell you
what the next flip of the coin will be
by determining which side is the sleeper.
You seem a bit 'upset' today, everything alright? (lol)
Ken
Quote: WongBooh havent you heard?
there are some people who can
predict the future of a random event
based on their observations of the past.
They're called weather forecasters. The Old
Farmers Almanac is eerily correct many times.
Good luck with that.
Ken
A guy who thinks a wheel has a bias (cough) to it. Is he not predicting (to a degree) that a certain section will hit more than it should?
Ken
