All betting systems are worthless?
Quote: EvenBobDo you actually think that you lose money
at exactly the same rate in roulette no matter
where you place your bets? You can't be serious.
Have you ever investigated the game at all, or
do you just blindly believe everything you're told.
Of course you lose at the same rate -- that rate is 2/38 of your total wager, no matter where you place your bets (except the 5-number bet, which is worse). And no, I don't blindly believe everything I'm told or I might believe in "sleeping dozens".
You might consider following your own advice though: do some investigation into probability theory instead of letting your instincts guide your comprehension. Your instincts are flawed. Humans aren't hardwired to comprehend randomness -- we're hardwired to detect patterns. Unfortunately, you're attributing causality to those patterns when none exists. It takes training and education to overcome those fallacious beliefs.
I wonder what it is about roulette specifically that causes so many false beliefs to pop up. It's not meaningfully different than dice or coin flipping -- all are independent random events. But you never hear anyone say "the 4 is sleeping" when you play craps, or "heads are sleeping" when flipping coins. What is it about roulette? Whatever it is, it's transcendent. Read Dostoyevsky's "The Gambler" for a nearly 150-year-old account of similar roulette misconceptions.
Quote: EvenBobAnd that average takes a long long time to reach.
Every bet you place has an eventual loss rate of
5.26%. For every $100 you wager, you'll get back
about $95 eventually. The key word here is eventually.
Sure, but every bet has the same expectation, based on the probability theory basics. You cannot control variance on the same bet, Each bet has the same variance and house expectation.
If you believe that you can, you are rejecting the core principals of probability theory. That's fine. But you can't then use the same probability theory to explain the results.
Quote: MathExtremistor I might believe in "sleeping dozens".
So they don't sleep, huh. Whatever you
say... LOL!
So you think variance is beyond your control, then.
We're all the victim of variance, helpless victims, I
should say. Well, some of us are, apparently.
Never mind.
Quote: EvenBobSo they don't sleep, huh. Whatever you
say... LOL!
So you think variance is beyond your control, then.
Variance is absolutely within my control: on any single spin, I can choose to wager my stake on one number or across multiple numbers. The more numbers I bet on, the lower is my variance. If I bet evenly across all 38 numbers my variance is zero: I will always lose 2/38 of my wager.
You seem to think that you can control variance in a different way by relying upon your perception that certain numbers sometimes become sleepy. That's just nonsensical hogwash. But, to quote you, "Whatever you say... LOL!"
Quote: PopCanThis thread is based on semantic arguments so let me to try explain it without using the words "systems" or "strategy".
If you still don't understand the difference please let us know.
Sure,
First off, semantics is the arguement of definition - in otherwords, what does a term mean? So absolutely, that is what we are arguing.
I think it is an important discussion and distinction to be made.
DJteddy says “betting systems are implied to be specific strategies to guarantee a win" and I really disagree with this. Assumptions and implications are usually not a good way to think and live. Some have used that frequently…betting systems imply – No it doesn’t! It never has implied that for me or dozens of others on this board.
triplell is annoyed about people that “take a word and change it…”. I am annoyed at people making false assumptions, wether they be about race, creed, color, or whatever. How could using the term betting system unanimously mean that the person using the term is universally retarded and thinks they can change the house advantage, or beat math? Here is a link to many craps betting systems.
http://starchip.com/crapdata.htm
Are you telling me that every single inventor of each of these systems thought that his/her system they were developing was to beat the house? That they unanimously had such a severe and flawed idea about math? I can’t and won’t make such a gross assumption. And honestly, some of you can choose to live like that. Who am I to change your thinking? And I guess we can argue until we are blue in the face. Similar arguments have frequently been made about wrongful assumptions about people and how smart, or useful they are in society.
It isn’t just semantics and people should say what they mean. And if someone means that betting systems can’t beat the house – that is fine, and if it means systems are worthless because they can’t beat the house, then that is fine. But implying that if you use a system you have now entered into the retarded realm breaches on bigotry – or the same line of thinking at least. Money management system seems the same as a betting (money management) system. Betting is money management.
And why does it matter? If you feel more comfortable saying that your betting system is really just money management - that is great.
Quote: slackyhackyIt isn’t just semantics and people should say what they mean. And if someone means that betting systems can’t beat the house – that is fine, and if it means systems are worthless because they can’t beat the house, then that is fine.
Not to speak out of turn, but I'm pretty sure that's what he meant by "worthless". I don't think he meant that anyone who plays or designs a betting system is mentally defective. However, there are many Internet scammers who guarantee riches at the roulette table if only you buy their Guaranteed Winning Roulette System for $129, and I believe "worthless" is meant to indicate that the price of that system should be $0.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's just nonsensical hogwash. "
Actually, its not. I first noticed it when I would see
players once in awhile betting two dozens on the
airball roulette setup. Sometimes they would have
good luck and win 9 or 10 in a row betting the same
two dozens. This was because the one they weren't
betting wasn't hitting at all. But they never seemed
to catch on to that, they would keep betting the
same two dozens even when the sleeping one woke
up. If you mess with it in practice there are some
loose rules you can apply to keep up with it & stay
fairly close to even. You won't get ahead and stay
ahead too often but neither will you get too far
behind. What kills it is you only win half of what you bet.
Quote: EvenBobBut they never seemed
to catch on to that, they would keep betting the
same two dozens even when the sleeping one woke
up.
Are you implying that when a dozen is asleep there's a less than 12/38 chance it will hit on the following spin and when it's awake there's a greater than 12/38 chance it will hit?
Quote: PopCanAre you implying that when a dozen is asleep there's a less than 12/38 chance it will hit on the following spin and when it's awake there's a greater than 12/38 chance it will hit?
Bob is trolling. Really, don't waste your time. I'm done with my end of his conversation.
Even if he's not -- and he truly does believe that he can detect and avoid "sleepy numbers" -- are you going to be able to convince him otherwise? Do you want to?
Quote: PopCanAre you implying that when a dozen is asleep there's a less than 12/38 chance it will hit on the following spin and when it's awake there's a greater than 12/38 chance it will hit?
I'm stating that if a dozen is sleeping, you'll win
by betting the other two dozens.
Quote: thecesspit"if you bet the winning bet, you'll win money".
WHAAAAAAATTT? It was so obvious all along. How could I have missed that? Time to go wins all da moneys by betting on teh most bestest bet. It's genius.
If a dozen is sleeping, you'll win by betting the other two dozens.
The tricky part is knowing when the dozen wakes up...because it seems to do it at point when you can no longer change your bet...It's just like that darn seven...Always shows up on a short roll. Or it always shows up when one of the dice is spinning. Or if it hits my chips...
I never really believed the statement that there is a sucker born every minute...until I came to this forum.
Quote: EvenBobI'm stating that if a dozen is sleeping, you'll win
by betting the other two dozens.
If anyone ever wants to see Bob's total lack of understanding of even the simplest concept, just burn this sentence into your memory.
I feel like such an idiot for not just betting the 'non sleeping' other two dozens...........
Quote: EvenBob
So you think variance is beyond your control, then.
We're all the victim of variance, helpless victims, I
should say. Well, some of us are, apparently.
Not victims, beneficiaries. Variance is what makes us win sometimes. The more the variance, the greater the probability that you'll win.
If there was no variance, then everybody would always lose, every single bet.
Quote: EvenBobI'm stating that if a dozen is sleeping, you'll win
by betting the other two dozens.
Unless, of course, it wakes up exactly when you bet on the other two. The chance of which happening is ... what?
Quote: TriplellHe's completely right...
If a dozen is sleeping, you'll win by betting the other two dozens.
The tricky part is knowing when the dozen wakes up...because it seems to do it at point when you can no longer change your bet...It's just like that darn seven...Always shows up on a short roll. Or it always shows up when one of the dice is spinning. Or if it hits my chips....
Casino managers know this, of course. That's why they put the craps pit near the roulette tables: when a craps table gets hot and the players start yelling, it wakes up those sleepy roulette numbers nearby. You can put them back to sleep by spilling your drink on the roulette wheel. But be careful you don't get kicked out.
Quote: Triplell
The tricky part is knowing when the dozen wakes up...
Thats kinda sorta why theres a strategy involved..
Ever time I think I am out, he drags me back in. LOL
Quote: MathExtremistEven if he's not -- and he truly does believe that he can detect and avoid "sleepy numbers" q]
The nquestion is, its not that I can detect them, its why can't you.
And its not trolling just because you don't understand something."It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Quote: PopCanWhy not explain how you detect them and what you do when you do detect them?
And how much you expect that detection & response to alter the outcome -- on average of course. Please show the calculations.
Quote: DocAnd how much you expect that detection & response to alter the outcome
Does guessing alter outcomes? How so?
Not at roulette, and that's the point. Guessing (or even determining by thorough examination, tracking, and practice) that a dozen is "sleeping" and that it will continue to do so for even one more spin does not give any better outcome on average than betting the same amount of money on any other bets on the table.Quote: EvenBobDoes guessing alter outcomes? How so?
Quote: DJTeddyBearStrategies are priceless.
Oh, about $2 for a Basic Strategy card in any casino gift shop... ;)
Seriously, a strategy does not seek to overcome the house advantage unless there is a mathematically proven means to do so, such as counting cards. Otherwise math-based startegies only reduce, a little, the house edge, and only where possible. For example, a simple craps strategy is to place line bets with full odds. this will reduce the hosue edge on pass line bets, but won't do squat to make you win on hardways or the Fire Bet
Quote: DocNot at roulette, and that's the point. Guessing (or even determining by thorough examination, tracking, and practice) that a dozen is "sleeping" and that it will continue to do so for even one more spin does not give any better outcome on average than betting the same amount of money on any other bets on the table.
Its all about trends. A dozen not hitting is a trend.
You can study trends and get very good at second
guessing them. You can't beat the house edge with
trend play, but you can stretch out your game and
play for a long time and lose very little money. Trend
play tricks players into thinking they're doing something
constructive because you sometimes walk away a
winner. If you do that 3-4 times in a row, you might
think you have a winning system. You don't..
Quote: EvenBobIts all about trends. A dozen not hitting is a trend.
A trend is merely a tendency to do things. When you walk up to the roulette table, there is a trend of people walking away with less money then they came. A dozen not hitting happens 68.4% of the time. Weird that you would notice a trend of if not hitting as often as it hits (because it's not supposed to...) It's like me standing there and stating...wow..I havn't seen a 1 or a 2 hit in a while...I'm going to bet all the other numbers...
Quote: EvenBob
You can study trends and get very good at second
guessing them.
So your saying by studying them, you can predict the future? You should try and "study" the powerball instead...
Quote: EvenBobYou can't beat the house edge with
trend play, but you can stretch out your game and
play for a long time and lose very little money.
I can lose very little money by betting the table minimum on red/black all night. When you bet two of the dozens, you are essentially laying odds that the ball doesn't hit the "sleeping dozen" or a zero. Sadly, the casino is still giving you a bad deal.
Quote: EvenBobTrend
play tricks players into thinking they're doing something
constructive because you sometimes walk away a
winner. If you do that 3-4 times in a row, you might
think you have a winning system. You don't..
That is the whole reason casino's make money, and it has nothing to do with how a person plays. Any person playing a system, that wins money on that system (or method...whatever you want to refer to it as)...thinks they have a winning system. But without the math to support it, you're basically just getting lucky.
Craps has your definition of trends as well...You should try and study those trends...You'll be getting better odds from the casino(unless you start throwing money at the stickman...then stick with roulette)
Quote: TriplellA trend is merely a tendency to do things. When you walk up to the roulette table, there is a trend of people walking away with less money then they came
Yes - that's the only kind of trend that qualifies as such. Trend implies a continuation of an observed pattern into the future. If you're outside at dusk and the sky is getting darker, it's reasonable to conclude that the trend of the darkening sky will continue. It would be very surprising to see the sun magically appear mid-sky. That's because the light level at a given time is not independent of the light level before it. As a bizarre thought experiment, think about how life would have evolved on this planet if the outdoor light level did fluctuate across the range full day and night at any point in time.
However, unlike the brightness of the sky, each spin in roulette is an independent event. The number 6 appearing on a given spin doesn't mean that 7 is coming next, nor 5, nor any other number. It's very easy to observe patterns after the fact in roulette; that's why the casinos use the past-number readerboards. However, the logical breakdown comes when one concludes that "there is a trend" based on that observed pattern and makes any prediction about the future result or results. That necessarily violates the precept that each spin is independent, a fact conveniently ignored by system hucksters.
It's very easy to spot patterns in past results, especially the ones that are explicitly pointed out (red/black, odd/even, etc.). Nobody notices "hey, that's a long streak of prime numbers" at roulette because it's not related to any betting opportunity. And because it's easy to spot patterns in past results, it's also easy to conclude that those patterns may continue into the future (i.e. become a trend). As I've mentioned before, that's the way we're wired to think. In this case, however, that thinking is wrong. While it's easy to make the wrong-headed conclusion, it's far harder to accept that independent results are actually independent and that any pattern observed in the past is wholly unrelated to future results. It's hard to overcome that instinct, but it's worth doing so as not to labor under false beliefs about the way the world works.
Quote: TriplellAny person playing a system, that wins money on that system (or method...whatever you want to refer to it as)...thinks they have a winning system.
Over and over I've said, even in my last post, that this
doesn't beat the HE and it doesn't win. I even said
some people are fooled into thinking it does. It works
to draw out the game, and it works far better than betting
black and red. It doesn't win, its not supposed to win.
All systems work part of the time, the trick is to learn when
not to play them. With practice loose rules can be developed
that help in knowing when to bet. Betting 24 numbers,
betting two dozens at once, even an inexperienced player
can stay ahead by accident. Somebody with a lot of practice
can tweak some longevity out of it.
Quote: EvenBob...All systems work part of the time, the trick is to learn when not to play them. With practice loose rules can be developed that help in knowing when to bet. ... Somebody with a lot of practice can tweak some longevity out of it.
I think the quoted comments may be the only parts of your post with which I disagree:
(1) No trick in learning when not to play them. Either play them or not; the results will average out the same.
(2) Practice won't help in knowing when to bet, if "knowing when to bet" implies getting better results on average.
(3) If the objective is longevity (while accepting that you expect to lose), a lot of practice won't help. Any low-variance strategy will reduce both the quick outs and the long-or-winning sessions.
Quote: Doc(1) No trick in learning when not to play them.
(2) Practice won't help in knowing when to bet
(3) If the objective is longevity (while accepting that you expect to lose), a lot of practice won't help. .
You have to qualify that and say it doesn't work for you.
If it didn't work for me I wouldn't do it and I certainly
wouldn't be talking about it. What you mean to say is its
not supposed to work, therefore it can't work. And it
doesn't win, except sometimes in the short term when
the zeros are sleeping during your session. I saw the
zeros sleep for over 400 spins on an airball machine
once. Was I supposed to ignore that info because its
an illusion, pockets don't really sleep?
Quote: EvenBob... I saw the zeros sleep for over 400 spins on an airball machine once. Was I supposed to ignore that info because its an illusion, pockets don't really sleep?
I don't know what an airball machine is, but for a standard roulette machine, I believe the answer is, "Yes."
Quote: DocI don't know what an airball machine is, but for a standard roulette machine, I believe the answer is, "Yes."
Airball has a regular roulette wheel under a glass dome that spins
with a motor and has compressed air for a dealer. It gets off a spin
every 60 seconds. So if they weren't sleeping, where were they, on
a coffee break? Its a fact of life that certain pockets go inactive in
roulette, and sometimes (often) they're all in the same dozen. To
say they don't is to deny whats going on right in front of you.
What was funny was the people who saw they were asleep for a
long time who piled money on them on every spin. Most of them
exhausted their BR, said the game was rigged, and wandered
away. Always bet into a trend, you can only lose once. Never bet
against it, it'll murder ya.
Quote: Docshould not be called a trend if there is no reason to expect it to continue. In roulette, there is no such reason to expect it.
Its not a matter of expectation, its a matter of exploiting whats
already there. If its slept 8 out of 10, theres a chance it'll sleep
for a lot more. You can also look at other things, like has it slept
for a long time recently. If you see that just 30 spins ago it was
inactive for a long time, do you really want to bet its going to do
it again? Experience and practice tells you it could, but more than
likely won't. Its a matter of understanding the game and learning
what happens a lot in the short term and what doesn't. None of
it is written in stone, its a matter of going with the flow.
Of course not! You were supposed to seize the opportunity, and start betting on them like crazy, because they were due to wake up any moment!Quote: EvenBobI saw the
zeros sleep for over 400 spins on an airball machine
once. Was I supposed to ignore that info because its
an illusion, pockets don't really sleep?
Quote: EvenBobIts not a matter of expectation, its a matter of exploiting whats
already there. If its slept 8 out of 10, theres a chance it'll sleep
for a lot more.
So, you are saying then, that the chance of a ”sleeping” number hitting is less than 1/38, and consequently, the chances of other numbers hittinv are greater than that. Correct?
Quote: EvenBobIts not a matter of expectation, its a matter of exploiting whats
already there. If its slept 8 out of 10, theres a chance it'll sleep
for a lot more.
Quote: weaselmanSo, you are saying then, that the chance of a ”sleeping” number hitting is less than 1/38, and consequently, the chances of other numbers hittinv are greater than that. Correct?
What Bob said was technically correct. If a given set of numbers S has not hit 8 out of 10 times, there is definitely a chance (call the probability P) that those same numbers S will continue to "sleep for a lot more"; call "a lot more" N out of the next M spins.
However, what Bob left unsaid is that the probability that the set S will not appear in N out of the next M spins is still P even if numbers from S had occurred each time in the prior 10 spins or 100 spins; that is, the numbers in S are not "sleeping" at all. You are assuming that Bob is making the opposite implication, and arguing against that point.
You are being artfully trolled.
Quote: MathExtremist
What Bob said was technically correct. If a given set of numbers S has not hit 8 out of 10 times, there is definitely a chance (call the probability P) that those same numbers S will continue to "sleep for a lot more"; call "a lot more" N out of the next M spins.
Of course (and I did not say that what he said was not correct). I was replying to the implication that this probability of the number ”continuing” to sleep for N more spins is higher than that of any other number ”falling asleep” just now for the same number of spins.
Quote:You are assuming that Bob is making the opposite implication, and arguing against that point.
Yes, because that implication is the only way to interpret his statement as an explanation for his percieved significance of ”trends” in the first place.
Quote:You are being artfully trolled.
Oh, I know that. I don't really mind :-)
Quote: weaselmanSo, you are saying then, that the chance of a �sleeping� number hitting is less than 1/38,
How would that be possible when there are 38 pockets
on the wheel?
Quote: hook3670True Nareed. To me what basic correct strategies do is keep you from increasing the house edge from what it normally should be and, in theroy, maximize your bankroll in relation to the game your are playing. It does not turn the edge into your favor unless you have some advanced matematical advantage, such as counting cards or hole carding.
What I think some system-salesmen claim is that you can do things like "ride the trend." Which is true, in a way that's pretty useless.
Say black hits 20 times in a row in roulette. If you'd been betting black the whole time, you'll do great. if you press your bets the whole time, you'll do even better. But how do you know how long the trend will last? How can you know there's a trend? Or that, say, 12 hits ten times in sixteen spins. If you bet 12 in every spin, you'll clean up. But how do you know ahead of time? Hell, how do you even know that if 12 hits three times in four spins, the odds of it hitting again are what?
Quote: MathExtremistIf a given set of numbers S has not hit 8 out of 10 times, there is definitely a chance (call the probability P) that those same numbers S will continue to "sleep .
Its just a chance. There are other clues involved and a
knowledge of what a wheel 'normally' produces in the
short term. About 85% of the time they act is a rather
routine way, its the 15% of the time when they go whacko
that you have to watch out for.
Quote: NareedIf you'd been betting black the whole time, you'll do great. if you press your bets the whole time, you'll do even better. But how do you know how long the trend will last?
You don't know and you can't know. When you play,
you bring with you all your experience in real play
and in practice. You can't isolate one trend and
say this will happen and that will happen. Its one
long game and the parts can't be separated from the
the whole. What action you take this time might be
totally different than the action you take next time,
even though the circumstances look the same to the
casual observer.
Quote: DocOn every spin, 37 of the numbers were sleeping. At least 36 of those will be "sleeping" on the next spin.
But one spin isn't considered anything. Its not a trend,
or a pattern. You can lay one brick at a time, and by
itself its nothing. Lay enough of them and you have a
building.
Quote: EvenBobBut one spin isn't considered anything. Its not a trend,
or a pattern. You can lay one brick at a time, and by
itself its nothing. Lay enough of them and you have a
building.
Bob, if you want to bet "trends", by all means. Go on ahead.
The rest of us will stick to our maths and fulfill our gambling pleasure with games that have much lower house edges.
Quote: TriplellThe rest of us will stick to our maths and fulfill our gambling pleasure with games that have much lower house edges.
The math is the place where you start, not the
place where you finish.
Quote: EvenBobThe math is the place where you start, not the
place where you finish.
Well, you obviously skipped the start and went straight to the finish then...
