ROULETTE

Here is my question. You look it the tree. You pick a number that doesn't show. You keep betting on that number until it hits. You have enough cash to cover 100 spins, keeping in mind that you will have to increase your bet at certain points to cover what you are down and leave yourself a decent profit when your number hits. Let's say, start with $25 for 30 spins. Then $50 for 15 spins. $75 for 15 spins. (I know there is more math but I'm not being exact here.) Etc, etc. Your number WILL eventually hit. As long as you have the bankroll and are below the table limit, you will make money every time at 35:1. Correct? Also, would casinos kick you out for this if done repeatedly?

Most casinos will send a limousine to pick you up.

So you are saying this will work, but don't get greedy? Hit and run?

You have it figured out. You shouldn't have put that on the internet for free. You could've sold that! Then again, who cares, you'll make enough money to be covered for life anyway, right?

The odds of your number hitting one a 00 roulette wheel are 1/38. I don't care if the tree shows that a 9 hasn't hit since April 15, the odds of the next spin being a 9 are 1/38. The odds of the spin after that being a 9? Yep, 1/38. The tree is irrelevant!

OK...so forget the tree. What about implied odds? Such as, what are the odds that the same number will hit 5 times in a row? I'm not a math wiz, but there are more odds at play here than 1:38. I just don't know the mathematical term.

Quote: jpsjr

you will make money every time at 35:1

an odd conclusion and a very primitive betting system.

Congratulations for coming up with it on your own, but betting more and more thinking that the number "has to come up" just means you are betting more, and making the casino more.

You need to investigate a common fallacy.

Quote: the Wizard

One of the biggest myths about gambling is that games of luck can be beat by methods of varying bet size to manipulate the odds.

from https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/

dig around there and find more

oh, this spells it out and you don't have to read it

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7446457/34-gamblers-fallacy

Quote: jpsjr

You keep betting on that number until it hits.

Numbers have been known to sleep for 300+ spins.
Are you Bill Gates? Here's some advice. Anything
you can think of, and I mean anything, has already
been tried 10's of thousands of times by people who
are even smarter than your older brother. Give up
while you're ahead..

I love that video. OMG...it actually made me laugh. Thanks, that was instructional. Although, I tend to side with the female robot. LOL

But how often does that happen? OK...so its still gambling, but if your bet covers what you are behind, in the long run (500 plays) you will make much more than you lose. I'm looking at $100-$900 a play. Starting with $25 a spin. I'm talking about having $15K in your pocket to be able to play until your number hits. OK...someday I will try this and get back to you all.

Quote: jpsjr

But how often does that happen? OK...someday I will try this and get back to you all.

Do it. I love those kind of sad casino stories..

I'm in a black book for a certain group of casinos. (None in Vegas or AC). I know something about making money off a casino, without breaking the law, such that they booted me.

Really? So you just stumbled upon this thread and have made 6 posts asking us for advice? I smell tuna.

Quote: jpsjr

OK...so forget the tree. What about implied odds? Such as, what are the odds that the same number will hit 5 times in a row? I'm not a math wiz, but there are more odds at play here than 1:38. I just don't know the mathematical term.

But you don't bet for 5 in a row. That bet would have to be made before any of the sequence is hit.

For example, 17 is hit. The next bet isn't, "What are the odds that 17 will hit twice in a row?" The next bet is, "What are the odds 17 will hit twice in a row, after it has already hit once?" And the answer is, 38 to 1.

If 17 hits four times in a row, the next bet isn't, "What are the odds of 17 hitting five times in a row?" It is, "What are the odds of 17 hitting five times in a row, after the first four have already hit?" And the answer is, 38 to 1.

Because it is so simple is why the casino always wins.

Think about it. The game has been around for centuries, and it has been played by hundreds of millions of gamblers, if not billions. There are roulette betting systems that have names, for goodness' sake. There are no "implied odds". There is only a ball, and a wheel, and a layout, and probabilities. And the probabilities are determined by the math that describes the actions of the world we live in. That's all there is to it.

So, if you like to play roulette, play it and have fun. Just do it with your eyes open. If you win, that is excellent. If you don't, make sure you got your moneys' worth of fun.

Quote: jpsjr

I know something about making money off a casino.

Like what?

Quote: jpsjr

But how often does that happen?

More often than the bankroll of the True Believers will allow but not quite often enough for the casino to send you a private jet.

Quote: jpsjr

Here is my question. You look it the tree. You pick a number that doesn't show. You keep betting on that number until it hits. You have enough cash to cover 100 spins, keeping in mind that you will have to increase your bet at certain points to cover what you are down and leave yourself a decent profit when your number hits. Let's say, start with $25 for 30 spins. Then $50 for 15 spins. $75 for 15 spins. (I know there is more math but I'm not being exact here.) Etc, etc. Your number WILL eventually hit. As long as you have the bankroll and are below the table limit, you will make money every time at 35:1. Correct? Also, would casinos kick you out for this if done repeatedly?

I want to take the time to explain a couple of rudimentary gambling facts to you, and only if it becomes absolutely necessary, I'll get into a little Roulette Math with you, however, I hope my words will ameliorate your perspective to the extent that I won't even have to do that.

The most important concept that you need to understand is past result independence. In other words, the past doesn't matter. We are conditioned from a very young age to recognize patterns in things, I'm sure you remember that first grade assignment where you'd have a list of numbers such as, "2, 4, 2, 4, 2," and then get asked what number comes next...which is four.

The purpose of that exercise is to build pattern recognition, which helps in the development of logic. Unfortunately, the pattern building which is logical in one context is nothing more than superstition in the context of gambling.

You are basically wanting to take something that is past result independent and look at it as though it were past result dependent, and this perspective is textbook gambler's fallacy.

I'm not going to get into the Math of your question unless it is absolutely necessary, but let's use a simpler example. Let's say I have $200 and I want to run a negative progression system known as the Martingale (double your bet on a loss) on a coin flip. In this case, I can lose four bets starting at $10 ($10-$20-$40-$80 total loss: $150) before I no longer have enough to make the next bet. I'm thinking about making this bet, so I ask myself the question, "What is the probability of me losing four coin-tosses in a row?"

.5 * .5 * .5 * .5 = .0625 or 6.25% or 1/.0625 = 1:16

The thing that you are doing here is that you are isolating these four bets, and effectively, you're making one bet of $150 to win $10 that Heads will come up at least once in four flips. However, the odds, "Float," which means that they change as events occur. For example, if I win on the first flip, then the probability of me losing those four flips is 0% because I have already won. The odds also float the other way. If I lose the first flip, then we have what is called a known result, so the odds of me losing those four isolated flips in a row are now:

.5 (Already Happened) .5 * .5 * .5 = .125 or 12.5% or 1:8

If I lose the next flip, then the odds of my losing the four isolated flips (given the result of the first two) are .25 or 25% or 1:4...If I lose that flip, then we are at a 50/50 proposition. At this point, you have a 50/50 Proposition, you are $70 down and about to plunk down $80 for a potential loss of $150 to win that same $10 pursuant to the first bet you made...this is when the Martingale bettor begins to defecate in his pants!

House Edge

Roulette is a game that carries with it a House Edge, unlike a coin toss. With a coin toss using an unbiased coin, your expectation on an even-money proposition in the long-term is $0.00 regardless of what system you decide to throw at it. The House Edge in Roulette is quite substantial, particularly with American Roulette.

The formula for determining your proposition for Roulette will be a more complicated version of the above formula, and you will see, if it is absolutely necessary, that the result of your system...which I believe may have been specifically discussed before here...will be that you will lose money in the long term.

You may win money in the short-term. You may slap $25 on Black-29 and hit it right off the bat. That does nothing to change your long-term expectation.

The bad news about your system is that it will ultimately fail, regardless of what system you come up with. The good news about your system is that it does not make your long-term expectation of making the bet any worse, as the long-term expectation (with exception to the basket bet) is always that you will lose 5.26% of all monies bet in the long run.

The other good news about your system is that systems can be fun for some people and they don't make your long-term probability of winning any worse. I personally have fun using a few different systems when I gamble, even though I know they make no difference. I have a Modified version of the Labouchere System that I apply to Blackjack sometimes, I apply the Labouchere System to the Don't Pass Line in Craps sometimes, and I have an unusual variation of the Martingale that I apply to Video Keno when I play that.

Remember, unless you are an AP (Advantage Player) who butters his bread off of his gambling...and that cannot be accomplished by using a system...then it's all about entertainment and having fun. With respect to Progressive slot machines, I seek out those that are favorable at or near 100% ER, (Expected Return) but I will play games where I am bucking a small edge like Blackjack or Craps, or games such as Video Keno where I am going up against a massive House Edge. Why? Because I enjoy them and I gamble amounts of money that really don't matter to me to lose in the hopes that I will win an amount that does matter to me.

Quote: Mission146

.5 * .5 * .5 * .5 = .0625 or 6.25% or 1/.0625 = 1:16

.5 (Already Happened) .5 * .5 * .5 = .125 or 12.5% or 1:8

Minor quibble: you write 1:16 which reads "1 to 16" ; you mean one sixteenth, 1/16 [1:15, usually posed as 15:1, in odds]

likewise, the other figure should be 1/8 [7:1]

The 35 to 1 System is based on what is known as the "law of uneven distribution". It

is a fact that numbers on a roulette wheel tend to repeat often. During any 38-spin

cycle, not all numbers will appear, but certainly over trials of millions of spins all

roulette numbers will even out.

On average, the same 24 to 26 numbers will appear in 38 spins of the wheel. Rarely, if

ever, will all 38 numbers hit in 38 spins. On average, in 38 spins, about 1/3 of the

numbers will be repeats, meaning that while some numbers are hit two, three, four, or more times, others don’t

come up at all. This phenomenon is not theory, it’s a proven fact derived from tens of

thousands of spins of a roulette wheel. The interesting thing about this occurrence is

that often the numbers that have been coming up most regularly have a tendency to

keep on doing so.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: Mission146

.5 * .5 * .5 * .5 = .0625 or 6.25% or 1/.0625 = 1:16

.5 (Already Happened) .5 * .5 * .5 = .125 or 12.5% or 1:8

Minor quibble: you write 1:16 which reads "1 to 16" ; you mean one sixteenth, 1/16 [1:15, usually posed as 15:1, in odds]

likewise, the other figure should be 1/8 [7:1]

Thanks, I was going for 1 out of 16.

deleted

Quote: jpsjr

The 35 to 1 System is based on what is known as the "law of uneven distribution". It

is a fact that numbers on a roulette wheel tend to repeat often. During any 38-spin

cycle, not all numbers will appear, but certainly over trials of millions of spins all

roulette numbers will even out.

On average, the same 24 to 26 numbers will appear in 38 spins of the wheel. Rarely, if

ever, will all 38 numbers hit in 38 spins. On average, in 38 spins, about 1/3 of the

numbers will be repeats, meaning that while some numbers are hit two, three, four, or more times, others don’t

come up at all. This phenomenon is not theory, it’s a proven fact derived from tens of

thousands of spins of a roulette wheel. The interesting thing about this occurrence is

that often the numbers that have been coming up most regularly have a tendency to

keep on doing so.

Wow, really amazing. This guy just does not get it. Yes on 38 spins, the odds are that 1/3 of numbers will repeat. The same problem still exists, there is no way to predict which numbers will repeat because the bottom bottom bottom line is on each spin, every single number still has a 1/38 chance of hitting. Lets say for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 repeated after 38 spins. Lets say 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 hit once and 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 0 00 never get hit in those initial spins. If you bet on 1, it came up twice in the last 38 spins. Odds of 1 hitting, 1/38. If you bet on 13, that came up once in 38 spins, odds are 1/38 of 13 hitting. If you bet on 25, that number never came up in the last 38 spins. I wonder what the odds are on a number that never came up in the last 38 spins. Amazingly, the odds are 1/38. So if a number comes up twice in the last 38 spins, there is no more of a chance of hitting that number as a number such as 25, that never came up in the last 38 spins. Both numbers, 1/38 chance.

Quote: jpsjr

The 35 to 1 System is based on what is known as the "law of uneven distribution". It
is a fact that numbers on a roulette wheel tend to repeat often. During any 38-spin
cycle, not all numbers will appear, but certainly over trials of millions of spins all
roulette numbers will even out.
On average, the same 24 to 26 numbers will appear in 38 spins of the wheel. Rarely, if
ever, will all 38 numbers hit in 38 spins. On average, in 38 spins, about 1/3 of the
numbers will be repeats, meaning that while some numbers are hit two, three, four, or more times, others don’t
come up at all. This phenomenon is not theory, it’s a proven fact derived from tens of
thousands of spins of a roulette wheel. The interesting thing about this occurrence is
that often the numbers that have been coming up most regularly have a tendency to
keep on doing so.

This has already been quoted, I just wanted it at the top of my post for reference, so I took the Line Breaks out of it.

I don't even know where to start...

Okay...

1.) You have now admitted that your system relies on the assumption that the same number will appear more than once within an isolated set of 38 spins of the wheel. This assumption is incorrect. It is true that it is likely that there will be one (or more) repeat numbers within an isolated 38 spins, but that does not necessarily have to be the case. You only really need to look at one spin to determine the validity of this assumption. If I were to isolate 38 spins and the first 37 spins were all different, then in the final spin of the isolated 38, there is a 37/38 chance that I will get a number that causes there to be a repeating number in that 38 spins and only a 1/38 chance that the number that has not hit will appear.

There is always only a 1/38 chance that a number will appear.

Always.

Past-result independence, please refer yourself to my previous post again...and a couple times if you have to.

2.) The assumptive argument you are using to attempt to support your system simultaneously works against your system. I suppose you could switch your number halfway in if you really wanted to (makes no difference) but let's say you pick one number. Now, you're saying that in an isolated 38 spins some numbers tend to come up more than others while other numbers come up zero times. Okay. What if your number is one of the ones that comes up zero times?

The argument that you are making to try to support your apparent theory that your odds of selecting a number and having it hit within an isolated 38 spins are better than 1/38 (per spin) also support an antithetical theory that your odds of selecting a number and having it hit within an isolated 38 spins are worse than 1/38!!! (per spin)

No.

Both arguments are wrong.

There is always only a 1/38 chance that a number will appear.

Always.

Past result independence, please refer yourself to my previous post again...and a couple times if you have to.

3.) Your final leg to stand on is a reiteration of the gambler's fallacy in which you defend your system by stating that you are going to play numbers that have already come up a few times, and pursuant to the, "Law of uneven distribution," are (according to you) more likely to come up again at this point.

That position is a pile of crap pursuant to past-result independence. Every spin of the Roulette wheel is a new spin, and for any purpose aside from System Betting, every spin effectively starts a new series of spins because previous spins are a known result. In other words, every spin begins a new set of 2, 4, 8, 16, 27, 38 and any other number that you want to pick.

The past only matters with respect to System Betting, again, because you are effectively making one bet of (insert massive amount) that x will happen within y attempts in order to win (insert comparatively small amount).

Why does the past matter with respect to system betting?

The reason why is because when you enter into a negative progression system (which yours is) the system relies upon a high initial probability of success given that failure would necessitate that x result fails to happen within y attempts.

You must remember, though, that after a failure the number of attempts you have left to succeed is y -1 = z, therefore, the probability of failure will be x failing to happen now within z attempts as opposed to within y attempts. For every failure that happens, the overall probability of failure becomes more likely.

By having a system in which you have a larger spread, for instance a $5-$1,280 Martingale (on an even money proposition) as opposed to a $5-$40 Martingale, the probability of you losing that many results in a row is reduced. It would take nine consecutive failures to break your system in the former compared to four consecutive failures in the latter. However, what if you have five consecutive failures while employing the former? In that event, your new probability of failure for the former is now the same as your initial probability of failure in the latter.

The further you can spread out a negative progression system, the more chances that you can give yourself to win, decreases your initial probability of losing. However, when you do lose, and you will, the effects will be much more devastating.

Remember, the Roulette wheel doesn't care at all that the number 13 hasn't come up in the last fifty-two spins, and if 17 shows up on spins 49-52, the Roulette wheel still doesn't care that the number seventeen has shown up four times in a row.

Switch numbers if you want to, though, because it makes no difference.

There is always only a 1/38 chance that a number will appear.

Always.

Past result independence, please refer yourself to my previous post again...and a couple times if you have to.

After strapping on all the personal protective gear in my closet, I'll wade into the water gingerly.

There is only one way that employing the 'law of uneven distribution' MAY have any possible merit. And that is if the wheel itself is biased, or the Roulette dealer is (intentionally or otherwise) utilizing an approach to spinning the ball which alters the otherwise random action of the wheel/ball. If any of these condition ACTUALLY EXISTS during the relevant session, well then, using a betting approach which focuses upon the numbers/sectors that are showing a greater tendency to 'hit' MAY have some arguable validity.

The frets on the wheel MAY wear down differently, the dealer MAY have an intentional/unintentional tendency to spin the ball uniquely, and if any of these things are true - then betting on repeating numbers MAY have validity.

Quote: midwestgb

After strapping on all the personal protective gear in my closet, I'll wade into the water gingerly.

There is only one way that employing the 'law of uneven distribution' MAY have any possible merit. And that is if the wheel itself is biased, or the Roulette dealer is (intentionally or otherwise) utilizing an approach to spinning the ball which alters the otherwise random action of the wheel/ball. If any of these condition ACTUALLY EXISTS during the relevant session, well then, using a betting approach which focuses upon the numbers/sectors that are showing a greater tendency to 'hit' MAY have some arguable validity.

The frets on the wheel MAY wear down differently, the dealer MAY have an intentional/unintentional tendency to spin the ball uniquely, and if any of these things are true - then betting on repeating numbers MAY have validity.

That's certainly correct if any of those conditions were actually demonstrably the case, so I imagine that the Kelly Criterion would probably be in order for a situation such as that betting on one (or more) of the numbers that the biased wheel or unique croupier is expected to hit disproportionately provided it is disproportionate enough to actually result in a player advantage.

The problem you run into then is with, "Demonstrably the case," what would be the minimum sample size suitable for the determination of a wheel biased to a certain pocket of numbers, 10k or more?

I like Roulette from a pure gaming standpoint. And I always play for repeaters... Why? Because doing so is no worse than any other random approach. And IF wheel or dealer bias is a factor at THAT wheel during THAT session... My approach is arguably taking me beyond pure randomness. All good.

Quote: jpsjr

Quote: Buzzard

Most casinos will send a limousine to pick you up.

So you are saying this will work, but don't get greedy? Hit and run?

How could you possibly think that that's what he meant?

I mean, I know that if I had a business, and someone had a method to take money from me that would work, I would absolutely send a limo to pick them up. Uh huh. For sure. That's how you run a successful business, right? You find people willing to take your money, and then send limos to pick them up so that they can take your money in style and comfort.

Quote: EvenBob

Numbers have been known to sleep for 300+ spins.

The longest consecutive miss for one number on an American Roulette that I've personally observed is 420 spins. Yes, 420 consecutive whiffs -- took over 7 hours -- I didn't want to leave until I saw that number hit again.

Quote: Ardent1

The longest consecutive miss for one number on an American Roulette that I've personally observed is 420 spins. Yes, 420 consecutive whiffs -- took over 7 hours -- I didn't want to leave until I saw that number hit again.

AND THERE IT IS. The new bet for roulette. The DON'T.
Player gets to bet on the number(s) that won't show up. Bet 2 greens, win a white.

Quote: RaleighCraps

AND THERE IT IS. The new bet for roulette. The DON'T.
Player gets to bet on the number(s) that won't show up. Bet 2 greens, win a white.

The 420 consecutive whiff was an eye-opener. It could have been something to do with that pocket, the nearby frets, the position of the pins all contributed to the systematic error.

I am a firm believer in the law of large numbers, but I also believe there could be a root cause for the 420 spins.

While I believe in randomness, I know roulette slots like Interblock use pseudo-random generators. I also believe in wear and tear, i.e. the wheel not being 100% perfectly balanced.

People make assumptions that on the next spin, every number has a 1/38 chance of being hit, i.e. the wheel has no memory. I only believe that after some sampling -- I was very close in identifying a systematic error in the roulette slot only to face the N. Taleb black swan. Btw, I've been up on every session (if you ignore one experiment) when playing roulette since starting my side project 3 months with over hundreds of hours of play -- I've bet on every spin to betting on rare events. I should have busted out per the math -- so the possible explanation is that I am extremely lucky or the wheel isn't as random as are led to believe. I've hit a situation where a six-number section or neighbors didn't hit for 74 consecutive spins, or about a 1 in 330,000 event and should have busted out. I even hit a situation where a 8-number section misses for 49 consecutive spins, again I should have busted out.

I have compared my notes with my friends that sampled the wheels in their neck of the woods, and our data using Chi-Square tests show the wheels are not biased. That is when I understood how the wheel could be beatable -- there are these bets that appear once or twice every two hours that are highly predictable -- but you don't know when the situation that created it will appear.

So far my research shows the best predictor of these situations are: (a) the number of double(s) -- a number repeats itself -- or (b) triple(s) -- a number that hits three times within a certain run of numbers. The othe best predictor is the number of consecutive misses on a contiguous section of the wheel within a certain run of numbers. Whenever a continuous section of misses totaled 12 or more, then the situation I am looking for has a high probability of occurring. And if the this contiguous miss occur for two consecutive run of numbers, there is a high probability of a rare occurrence -- something like 1 in 40,000 or rarer!!

Maybe what I've observed is simply voodoo or witchcraft grade analysis -- however, my growing bankroll begs to differ and I continue to defy the math. Since I believe in the law of large numbers, I've either stumpled on a defect in the software or have yet to hit the mother of all cold streaks so I will be busted out once and for all.

May the variance voodo be with you.

Quote: jpsjr

Here is my question. You look it the tree. You pick a number that doesn't show. You keep betting on that number until it hits. You have enough cash to cover 100 spins, keeping in mind that you will have to increase your bet at certain points to cover what you are down and leave yourself a decent profit when your number hits.

This certainty that some recently absent number will eventually appear is reflected in someone's signature line about nowhere in the world is there a wheel that is currently showing 25 reds in a row.

Rarely would anyone of us expect a single color run to be that long. We don't know whether we would go with the trend or against it if suddenly presented with such a situation but fortunately we are not really presented with such a long run.

So fallacy or not; large numbers or not; ... the real world is that no number is due and no lengthy run is impossible, the only questions are what is more "real world" than "theoretical" ... and that issue is the same as at a dice game: mathematically defined "average rolls" do occur, but are not always that magic 6.5 number or whatever it is.