What is the worst anyone can do playing Roulette?
Quote: KeyserVisual prediction has nothing to do with the TCS data download system. And you give way too much credit to bumbling staffs.
Do you have some condo rentals there in Maui?
Yes, but I'm not here to rent out villas in Ka'anapali Maui ; no gambling on Maui. As the economy gets worse and worse maybe they will have a casino in our resort; who knows.....
WASHOO2
Probably not.
I always ask the dealer, when things slow down, if they have ever been at a table where someone constantly did really well. I've yet to have a dealer tell me that they were so impressed with someone that they were going to quit their job and switch sides of the table.
I like Roulette since I get to sit down and watch dozens/hundreds of folks make fools out of themselves - better than any TV show and I get free drinks too.
Beyond that I simply try to view gambling/Roulette as entertainment and I don't expect any other form of entertainment to pay me. I have a goal to do the best I can at Roulette - which is losing the HA over a long period of time.
I used to play BJ but I hated the small card I had in my hand all the time and if I screwed up just 1 game in 20 I was doomed it seemed.
Anyway that's why I play Roulette - for the entertainment value........
Quote: IbeatyouracesExactly. We always see them writing/typing but never playing.
Would you know if you saw a:
Cardcounter?
How about a "shuffle tracker"?
How about a "sort card player"?
How about a "hole card player"?
How about an "edge card player"?
Yes on all counts (no pun intended), so? Those are proven, viable techniques. I don't debate that there are ways to beat roulette, but they are almost invariably NOT the ways that are discussed on the roulette "AP" forums.Quote: KeyserWould you know if you saw a:
Cardcounter?
How about a "shuffle tracker"?
How about a "sort card player"?
How about a "hole card player"?
How about an "edge card player"?
Quote: KeyserWould you know if you saw them playing?
Probably not.
You are quite correct on that Keyser.
Ken
Quote: LonesomegamblerYes on all counts (no pun intended), so? Those are proven, viable techniques. I don't debate that there are ways to beat roulette, but they are almost invariably NOT the ways that are discussed on the roulette "AP" forums.
Don't mistake a roulette system forum for an AP forum. I know of only two active AP forums. One of them is private.
Quote: KeyserWould you know if you saw them playing?
Probably not.[/
I usually just see the path they wear in the carpet going from the table to the ATM machine !
Quote: Keyser
In short, bet the 0,00, 17,18 if you'd like to lose at a rate that exceeds the built in house edge.
-Keyser
Whoa! You are saying that there is not an even distribution amongst all 38 numbers over infinity spins? If I understand you, you believe that if you add the frequency of 0, 00, 17 and 18, the value will be notably less than 4/38? Wanna bet?
Quote: KeyserFor the reasons which I have stated, those numbers will tend to perform below expectation. As far as the "wanna bet part", you don't want to take that bet.
Then you don't know me. How much less frequently than 4/38 are you saying they hit? 3/38? How far 'below expectation'? You said it, now clarify it!
Quote: KeyserIf you'd like to prove me wrong, then feel free to go out and bet on them.
Uh - uh..... If i bet on them I will lose... as all roulette players do.... but the well known average of 5.26%.
YOU claimed that I would lose more..... I am saying that those number bets are EQUALLY poor as any single number roulette bet.
DO YOU CARE TO BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION WITH A BET?
Or are you adding your name to the list of blowhards who make ridiculous claims and won't put your money where your mouth is?
I am sure not... but prove me wrong?
I've stated the reasons as to why the numbers would perform below expectation. The reasons pertain to the actual assembly and design of certain wheels on the market. These are physical deflects that overtime do affect the performance of the gaming device. If you'd like to dispute the reasons that I have given, then by all means feel free to demonstrate the flaw. I suppose I could post some internals on data - demonstrating the effect over 100s of thousands of spins, but to do so would be an annoying burden. If I were to post a simple standard deviation graph, with chi square, then you'd simply dispute the source. Posting a number stream on a response also wouldn't cut it. There's simply not enough room. Really the only real option would be to post a slow motion video, or to perhaps provide and internal memo from another engineer or risk consultant -which isn't practical. I suppose you could contact Zender.
The game of roulette is a completely random game. However, the gaming device is something else. Subtle defects overtime do affect the outcome.
I'm sorry if my statements contradict YOUR latest roulette system, but that's just the way it is. Feel free to prove me wrong. Just please don't tell me how your latest roulette win while betting the "zeros" or "house numbers" is proof that I'm wrong. I won't buy it.
-Keyser
Quote: FleaStiffPlease review basic gambling math and then start using consistent terminology.
Most people who lose their bankroll play until they lose it.
Few people who lose their bankroll play much after that.
House Edge applies to money wagered, not bankroll.
Drop and Hold are different than House Edge.
I've stolen this from Vegas Made Easy: It is a simple and straightforward presentation.
Hold Percentage and House Edge
A Table’s Hold is determined daily over a mix of players and unknown number of sessions per player per day. This means the casino’s Edge is not the Hold % for the table. Here is an example. By the way, even casino employees don’t always understand why the Hold is different from House Edge.
Mr. Roulette, does a $10,000 Buy-In and plays for a while before going to lunch. He comes back and plays some more before going to a movie. He comes back and plays some more then leaves for the airport.
He looks at everything by gambling session so he has gambled 3 times that day. He notices that each time he lost 5.26% of his money. When Mrs. Roulette asks Mr. Roulette how he did, he tells her that although he ended up with $8,504 that he lost 5.26% each of his 3 sessions.
The Hold or winnings of the casino are calculated without any regard to specific sessions for specific gamblers. It is simply the difference between what was gambled in total versus what was kept or Held in total by the casino in a 24 hour period. If Mr. Roulette were the only player at that table that day, here are what the numbers look like.
Starting Losses Net % Lost
Buy-in $10,000 $526 $9,474 5.26%
After Lunch $9,474 $498 $8,976 5.26%
After Movie $8,976 $472 $8,504 5.26%
Final Results $10,000 $1,496 $8,504 14.96%
Player's Point of View
Session 1 Loss $526 5.26%
Session 2 Loss $498 5.26%
Session 3 Loss $472 5.26%
Casino’s Point of View Hold %
Daily Hold $10,000 -$8,504 $1,496 14.96%
Another factor that affects the Hold % is how well the game is played by typical players. Blackjack has a low house Edge but is often played by morons who view Basic strategy as a form of multi-dimensional theoretical physics. The casino edge will be higher than the theoretical casino Edge except for pure chance games such as roulette, etc.
If E is equal to the House Edge for a game such as 5.26% roulette and S is the number of weighted average sessions within a 24 hour period per player, then the formula to derive the Hold % is 1-(E) raised to the S. If the average number of sessions is 3 then, 1-(5.26%) =.9474 raised to the 3rd or .8504. Mr. Roulette left with $8,504 after starting with $10,000 and playing 3 sessions within the 1 day Hold period that casinos use.
Hold % is equal to the quantity [ 1-(1-E) raised to the "s" power ].
When you think about it, the hold for roulette should be the same as Blackjack, because while the HA is higher, the game is also slower paced.
It still bugs me when they change dealers on a hot craps table, as if they're trying to win their money back. The way I look at it, an hour+ long roll is VERY GOOD for the casino, because any new players are now hooked, and regular players are hooked more so to speak. They'll come back.
Quote: MauiSunsetI'm not a Vegas casino manager but I've got to believe that they have a constant program monitoring each Roulette table 24/7 and if the computer detects even the slightest loss of expected revenue alarm bells go off in the manager's office. Something's wrong - employees are cheating, players are cheating, or space aliens have discovered Roulette. I just can't imagine that anything goes unnoticed in the pits....
It is not constant. However they do scan the results from time to time.
Big winners trigger extra vigilance.
Its the same way with a pit boss walking around a craps table with a compass. Its not done every day but it is done from time to time. If someone in a wheel chair plays and starts winning, the casino is likely to do a compass walk just to make sure no magnets have been placed near the table and no iron-filled dice have been switched in.
Quote: FleaStiffI've stolen this from Vegas Made Easy: It is a simple and straightforward presentation.
Hold Percentage and House Edge
A Table’s Hold is determined daily over a mix of players and unknown number of sessions per player per day. This means the casino’s Edge is not the Hold % for the table. Here is an example. By the way, even casino employees don’t always understand why the Hold is different from House Edge.
Mr. Roulette, does a $10,000 Buy-In and plays for a while before going to lunch. He comes back and plays some more before going to a movie. He comes back and plays some more then leaves for the airport.
He looks at everything by gambling session so he has gambled 3 times that day. He notices that each time he lost 5.26% of his money. When Mrs. Roulette asks Mr. Roulette how he did, he tells her that although he ended up with $8,504 that he lost 5.26% each of his 3 sessions.
The Hold or winnings of the casino are calculated without any regard to specific sessions for specific gamblers. It is simply the difference between what was gambled in total versus what was kept or Held in total by the casino in a 24 hour period. If Mr. Roulette were the only player at that table that day, here are what the numbers look like.
Starting Losses Net % Lost
Buy-in $10,000 $526 $9,474 5.26%
After Lunch $9,474 $498 $8,976 5.26%
After Movie $8,976 $472 $8,504 5.26%
Final Results $10,000 $1,496 $8,504 14.96%
Player's Point of View
Session 1 Loss $526 5.26%
Session 2 Loss $498 5.26%
Session 3 Loss $472 5.26%
Casino’s Point of View Hold %
Daily Hold $10,000 -$8,504 $1,496 14.96%
Another factor that affects the Hold % is how well the game is played by typical players. Blackjack has a low house Edge but is often played by morons who view Basic strategy as a form of multi-dimensional theoretical physics. The casino edge will be higher than the theoretical casino Edge except for pure chance games such as roulette, etc.
If E is equal to the House Edge for a game such as 5.26% roulette and S is the number of weighted average sessions within a 24 hour period per player, then the formula to derive the Hold % is 1-(E) raised to the S. If the average number of sessions is 3 then, 1-(5.26%) =.9474 raised to the 3rd or .8504. Mr. Roulette left with $8,504 after starting with $10,000 and playing 3 sessions within the 1 day Hold period that casinos use.
Hold % is equal to the quantity [ 1-(1-E) raised to the "s" power ].
Wow, thanks much!
This is new information for me and I appreciate it and it helps explain what I've intuitively observed - that the casino is making a lot more than the HA, which means the gambler is losing much more than the HA.
I guess if we solve for the "s" power we can know the average number of sessions in a 24-hr day. [1-(1-5.26%)]^s = 15.35% Hold for Vegas Strip Roulette.
(So how do you solve this exactly? It's been 40 years since I've had any advanced math)
Just playing with a calculator gets me to: (.9474^s=.8465) which is close to s=3 (.8504), or the average Roulette player has 3 sessions per day in a casino. I guess this number makes sense.
However, HA is a long, long term based number and is accumulative. I'll have to think about this for a while, but thanks much.....
Thanks....
The folks who believe they beat Roulette are limited to non-terrestrial physics and math - they read random numbers and know what number comes next, they simply ignore the Gamblers' Fallacy and make billions playing Roulette each night, and then there are the super-secret folks who haunt the chat-room dropping helpful hints but can never reveal their secrets fully or they would have to kill me.
Very refreshing.............
Quote: Keyser.
I've stated the reasons as to why the numbers would perform below expectation. The reasons pertain to the actual assembly and design of certain wheels on the market. These are physical deflects that overtime do affect the performance of the gaming device. If you'd like to dispute the reasons that I have given, then by all means feel free to demonstrate the flaw. I suppose I could post some internals on data - demonstrating the effect over 100s of thousands of spins, but to do so would be an annoying burden. If I were to post a simple standard deviation graph, with chi square, then you'd simply dispute the source. Posting a number stream on a response also wouldn't cut it. There's simply not enough room. Really the only real option would be to post a slow motion video, or to perhaps provide and internal memo from another engineer or risk consultant -which isn't practical. I suppose you could contact Zender.
The game of roulette is a completely random game. However, the gaming device is something else. Subtle defects overtime do affect the outcome.
I'm sorry if my statements contradict YOUR latest roulette system, but that's just the way it is. Feel free to prove me wrong. Just please don't tell me how your latest roulette win while betting the "zeros" or "house numbers" is proof that I'm wrong. I won't buy it.
-Keyser
I understand your ASSERTION that the wheels are imperfect. Of course any man made device will not be perfect. My assertion is that the wheel will be far less imperfect than a 5.26% house edge. So--- in 3800 spins, as an example, 400 should be 0, 00, 17, or 18. How many fewer do you think will occur on average. You don't have to show me your logs or any data for that matter. Just give a number to nail down how imperfect you believe these wheels become.
Not about to happen.........EVER
As an engineer I have 0 faith in anything I can't prove myself. Now I don't demand proof in 100% of the things I bump into each day but for the important stuff, like anything that costs me $100 or more, I like to have proof. $1,000 and I can't get along without proof, and so on.
I can understand that when Roulette was invented over 200+ years ago a perfectly balanced Roulette wheel was beyond the technology and I'm guessing that some smart person, probably an engineer, hired folks to write down the numbers spun and other folks to tabulate the results and the imperfections, plus crooked dealers with magnets, could make all that worth while to that smart gambler and beat the HA of 5.26%. But that's 200 years ago.
However, I have great difficulty believing that casinos with facial recognition software and unblinking security of every table allows the same to happen today. The proof is on the folks making these claims - the 5.26% HA is a HUGE obstacle to overcome in America, maybe in 3rd world countries, on European wheels, run by corrupt despots it's doable but those folks can easily hire consultants to spot this too.
I just don't believe the AP folks in the slightest since proof never seems to be supplied from a credible source not selling this junk.
But, that's just me.....
1. I don't for one minute believe that you're an aerospace engineer. I've read part of your website. The written text and material doesn't appear to be written by someone that went to grad school.
2. The link that I gave you was to George Melas's website where he documents various players. He's chief engineer of TCS Huxley.
Quote: MauiSunset
This is new information for me and I appreciate it and it helps explain what I've intuitively observed - that the casino is making a lot more than the HA, which means the gambler is losing much more than the HA.
Like most statistics, this is open to interpretation. Here's what's really going on:
When a player buys into a casino gaming table, they deposit cash and receive chips. The cash goes into the drop box. The chips used for play may be used as long as the player wants, and the total sum of wagers made with those chips may be (and often is) much greater than the initial cash deposit. As an example, a roulette player may put $100 on the table and receive 100 chips valued at $1. If the player plays for 100 spins and makes $3 worth of wagers on each spin (say, 3 different inside numbers), they have wagered a total of $300. The expected loss during that play is 5.26% * $300 = $15.78. However, $15.78 is 15.78% of the initial buy-in (the $100), also known as the drop. On table games, win% or hold% is computed using drop as the denominator because the casino cannot calculate handle (wagering volume). The casino doesn't have any efficient way of knowing that you wagered a total of $300. All they know is you bought in for $100 -- because your $100 bill is in the drop box. If the player actually lost $16 during those 100 spins, the win% would be 16%, but the player's ratio of loss to overall action would be 5.33%, very close to the house edge.
Roulette is an interesting case because, other than the basket bet, every wager has the same EV. And most players don't make the basket bet anyway, so you can assume nearly all of the action on a roulette table is being wagered at 5.26% (assuming you don't believe the wheel is biased). That means the win % and win amounts can be used to compute the drop (total buy-in) on the game -- and then you can divide with the house edge to determine how many times the average player bet each dollar they bought in for. In Nevada, recent numbers put that at roughly 3x. (Win around 16%, EV at 5.26%).
silly
Quote: KeyserMaui,
1. I don't for one minute believe that you're an aerospace engineer. I read part of your website. The written text and material doesn't appear to be written by someone that went to grad school.
2. The link that I gave you was to George Melas's website where he documents various players. He's chief engineer of TCS Huxley.
I have a rule that proof must come from a 3rd party who has no interest and bias towards either of the other parties. George might be a good guy, I don't know, but he profits from the "proof" he provides so I must decline anything he says on this topic.
But I realize that for anyone to say they can "beat Roulette" they can't use well respected math and physics concepts.
Just follow the money and the truth eventually becomes obvious.......
And not one of them will put their money where their mouth is !
Actions speak louder than words.
Quote: MathExtremistLike most statistics, this is open to interpretation. Here's what's really going on:
When a player buys into a casino gaming table, they deposit cash and receive chips. The cash goes into the drop box. The chips used for play may be used as long as the player wants, and the total sum of wagers made with those chips may be (and often is) much greater than the initial cash deposit. As an example, a roulette player may put $100 on the table and receive 100 chips valued at $1. If the player plays for 100 spins and makes $3 worth of wagers on each spin (say, 3 different inside numbers), they have wagered a total of $300. The expected loss during that play is 5.26% * $300 = $15.78. However, $15.78 is 15.78% of the initial buy-in (the $100), also known as the drop. On table games, win% or hold% is computed using drop as the denominator because the casino cannot calculate handle (wagering volume). The casino doesn't have any efficient way of knowing that you wagered a total of $300. All they know is you bought in for $100 -- because your $100 bill is in the drop box. If the player actually lost $16 during those 100 spins, the win% would be 16%, but the player's ratio of loss to overall action would be 5.33%, very close to the house edge.
Roulette is an interesting case because, other than the basket bet, every wager has the same EV. And most players don't make the basket bet anyway, so you can assume nearly all of the action on a roulette table is being wagered at 5.26% (assuming you don't believe the wheel is biased). That means the win % and win amounts can be used to compute the drop (total buy-in) on the game -- and then you can divide with the house edge to determine how many times the average player bet each dollar they bought in for. In Nevada, recent numbers put that at roughly 3x. (Win around 16%, EV at 5.26%).
I'm wondering how a Roulette table differs from a Roulette computerized game - I'd have to assume that the two are similar; which means the casino can get a lot of info from the computerized Roulette tables and games that they can extrapolate to the live table. I doubt that info will ever be released to the public.
Since the drop and hold is the only thing they can measure from a Roulette table I bet there are graphics presented to management each day/week/month/etc that can be used to determine how the things they control, like location, limits, personnel, etc can be fine tweaked to find any problems.
Especially wacky Roulette wheels that wobble, yaw, pitch, and roll apparently (A little Aerospace Engineering lingo there)........
Quote: MauiSunsetI'm wondering how a Roulette table differs from a Roulette computerized game - I'd have to assume that the two are similar; which means the casino can get a lot of info from the computerized Roulette tables and games that they can extrapolate to the live table. I doubt that info will ever be released to the public.
Those electronic games are almost always classed as slot machines or other electronic gaming devices. Unlike their non-electronic counterparts, e-tables (roulette or any other) do have the ability to tally coin-in (handle) and coin-out. They report statistics equivalently to slot games. For those roulette games, RTP (coin-out / coin-in) does indeed approach 94.74%. (1 - 5.26%)
Quote: SoopooMy assertion is that the wheel will be far less imperfect than a 5.26% house edge. So--- in 3800 spins, as an example, 400 should be 0, 00, 17, or 18. How many fewer do you think will occur on average. You don't have to show me your logs or any data for that matter. Just give a number to nail down how imperfect you believe these wheels become.
It would depend on the severity of the ridge. Even if a sizeable ridge has formed, the numbers could easily fluctuate between between winning and losing in a sample size of only 3800 spins because of randomness, and changing conditions. For example: If a casino used a heavy dense ball, then the effect would be negligible, at best, because the ball would rarely escape the front of the pocket, even after 38,000 spins. However, if the casino were to use a lighter, and more resilient ball, then the effect would become much stronger.
By the time you reach 38,000 spins, a sizeable ridge could have enough of an effect to reduce the hit frequency down close to 1/40 - 1/42, or even much lower. (Keep in mind you're just approaching only 3 standard deviations below when the frequency drops to 1/42, (roughly 906 hits). The hit frequency alone is almost an inadequate way of describing it. You really have to account for the variable conditions that were present during the data collection in order to adequately measure it.
-Keyser
1) The Roulette odds table
2) The Roulette payout table
They instantly realize that neither table can be tampered with, and eventually try to get lost in statistics and that how statistics can be manipulated and need not approach the House Advantage in the long run. The other tact is to "understand" random numbers and that they defeat Roulette that way.
If neither of the above seem to work there is always AP - that seems to be the last hope..........
I agree. So please provide us with the needed information.
What color socks were you wearing while collecting this data ?
Quote: buzzpaff
I agree. So please provide us with the needed information.
What color socks were you wearing while collecting this data ?
White. :) Those are the details you really need. For example, when I'm at the horse track, I don't give a rats ass about the track condition, rain, etc...
The same thing is true when I'm playing BJ. The playing conditions just don't matter. It doesn't matter whether the dealer hit's soft 17, or even whether it's a 6/5 table. All that matters is that I'm wearing my white socks. Ignorance is bliss! :)
Attempting to beat the "game" of roulette is a fools folly. Attempting to beat the wheel is something different.
Quote: buzzpaff"that there are hundreds of folks here who brag about "beating Roulette" every night "
And not one of them will put their money where their mouth is !
Actions speak louder than words.
Hmmm.....there is another side to that coin of course.
Perhaps a person has put in hundreds and hundreds of hours (not 9), has lost thousands of dollars in the past, does NOT want to openly SHARE information to people who have not sacrificed a thing, is tired of hearing "you cant win" and feels he/she does not need to show any type of 'action', not to a damn soul.
Is this possible as well?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjHmmm.....there is another side to that coin of course.
Perhaps a person has put in hundreds and hundreds of hours (not 9), has lost thousands of dollars in the past, does NOT want to openly SHARE information to people who have not sacrificed a thing, is tired of hearing "you cant win" and feels he/she does not need to show any type of 'action', not to a damn soul.
Is this possible as well?
Ken
No.
Quote: duckmankillaNo.
Bravo!
Don't you just hate to have all those folks who make billions playing Roulette then haunt freebie websites taunting us.............
Quote: MauiSunsetBravo!
Don't you just have all those folks who make billions playing Roulette then haunt freebie websites taunting us.............
A) I dont make billions.
B) I dont taunt.
NEXT.......
(Good luck with those comps buddy)
Ken
Quote: duckmankillaNo.
I appreciate your OPINION, have a great day.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjA) I dont make billions.
B) I dont taunt.
NEXT.......
(Good luck with those comps buddy)
Ken
Oh come on Ken, you hint here and on other chat rooms that you make money playing Roulette; admit it and be proud of it.
As you know all I do is to try to play Roulette the best it can be played - losing the HA over a long period of time. I try to get comps that make that loss a little less painful.
But I look at Roulette and going to the casino as entertainment and whether I snowboard, go sport fishing, fly a rental airplane, or spend weeks in Maui that entertainment costs me a lot of money.
For some crazy reason some folks want their casino entertainment to cost them nothing and even demand it be profitable.
Sad to say the casino isn't there to hand out money in the long run; just enough to hook you to lose even more..........
Quote: MauiSunsetOh come on Ken, you hint here and on other chat rooms that you make money playing Roulette; admit it and be proud of it.
As you know all I do is to try to play Roulette the best it can be played - losing the HA over a long period of time. I try to get comps that make that loss a little less painful.
But I look at Roulette and going to the casino as entertainment and whether I snowboard, go sport fishing, fly a rental airplane, or spend weeks in Maui that entertainment costs me a lot of money.
For some crazy reason some folks want their casino entertainment to cost them nothing and even demand it be profitable.
Sad to say the casino isn't there to hand out money in the long run; just enough to hook you to lose even more..........
"But I look at Roulette and going to the casino as entertainment" >>> Thats cool for you, I dont.
"come on Ken, you hint here and on other chat rooms that you make money playing Roulette" >>> Well, they're not chat rooms.
Sure, I do 'well' with roulette. I didn't say I dont.
Ken
Quote: mrjjj...
Sure, I do 'well' with roulette. I didn't say I dont.
Ken
See there's the taunt - this chat room seems to believe in math and physics from Earth and there are NO documented cases of a single gambler "beating Roulette" - i.e. doing better than the HA over a period of time of a year or so. Sure some folks play Martingale and do quite well until that one day when their luck runs out.
There are stories from 100 to 200 years ago about great Roulette players but I'd believe stories about Bigfoot before believing in those tall tails.
An offshoot to this website had offered huge rewards to folks who could demonstrate the ability to outwit Roulette - only one person took the challenge and made a fool out of himself.
Maybe I'm wrong - I still like the David Blaine YouTube Roulette Trick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gca-bD4gOec
Now that's impressive....
Quote: MauiSunsetSee there's the taunt - this chat room seems to believe in math and physics from Earth and there are NO documented cases of a single gambler "beating Roulette" - i.e. doing better than the HA over a period of time of a year or so. Sure some folks play Martingale and do quite well until that one day when their luck runs out.
There are stories from 100 to 200 years ago about great Roulette players but I'd believe stories about Bigfoot before believing in those tall tails.
An offshoot to this website had offered huge rewards to folks who could demonstrate the ability to outwit Roulette - only one person took the challenge and made a fool out of himself.
Maybe I'm wrong - I still like the David Blaine YouTube Roulette Trick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gca-bD4gOec
Now that's impressive....
Please be carefull with your wording. What chatrooms, do you mean message boards?
I have *NEVER* said 'beat', so leave my name out of that discussion. I know what words to use, trust me on that.
You fall into the....9 hours total type of guys. Your calculator says 5.26%, you put in around 9 hours testing/studying different ideas....END RESULT? You threw in the towel. I have no interest in listening to people that have given up after 9 hours, why would I?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjI have no interest in listening to people that have given up after 9 hours, why would I?
Ken
20 minutes to learn the payouts on various bets, 3 minutes to learn the house edge on each payout, 37 minutes to read about how combining bets with a negative expectation results in a negative expectation.......what are the other 8 hours for? :-)
