What Edge Do I Have ?
Leaving aside the zero / s for the moment.
If I bet only one column in two dozens I bet 8 numbers. This is 1/3 x 2/3 and if I win I get paid correct odds of 7 / 2.
The chance of choosing any 2 dozens from 3 is 1 in 3 , but what if I could get this down to 1 in 2 ? After factoring in the 1 zero or 2 zeros what edge do I have ?
Thanks.
Quote: scepticusWhat is my Edge in Roulette ?
Leaving aside the zero / s for the moment.
If I bet only one column in two dozens I bet 8 numbers. This is 1/3 x 2/3 and if I win I get paid correct odds of 7 / 2.
The chance of choosing any 2 dozens from 3 is 1 in 3 , but what if I could get this down to 1 in 2 ? After factoring in the 1 zero or 2 zeros what edge do I have ?
Thanks.
Not sure I udnerstand you 100% but as far as I know you can never alter the HE on Roulette unless you cheat. It will always be 5.26% for double zero and 2.7% for single zero, no matter what you do.
If you have a biased wheel or you cheat then you could make a difference. No betting system I know of can change the numbers.
Not sure I answered you but I did the best I could.
come up with, the edge never changes. All
bets in roulette are the same, the layout is
an illusion. The basket bet has different HE,
it's higher. Look at the layout as a math game,
a puzzle where the answer is always the same
no matter where you bet. You lose at the HE.
Just regard it as a maths question with no preconceptions.
Quote: scepticusbut what if I could get this down to 1 in 2 ? After factoring in the 1 zero or 2 zeros what edge do I have ?
Thanks.
But nothing. The casino has the edge. It is 5.26 percent against you. No matter what sort of "but what if" you come up with.
You can not eliminate one of the dozens by sound of the wheel or something and then bet on the other two.
The answer is 5.26 percent whether you want to hear that answer or not. Its 5.26 percent. That's all she wrote. 5.26 percent.
This link should give you a bit more of what you are lookng for. If you still have questions after reading that, come back and pose the question again.
So, come on Guys, give me the answer to my question.
Please !
Pretty Please !!??
If 2 from 3 can be reduced to 1 in 2 what is the edge.?
(+2)*.5+(-1)*.5=+.5
Adding in zeros:
1 zero: (+2)*(12/25+(-1)*(13/25)=11/25=44.0%
2 zero: (+2)*(12/26+(-1)*(14/26)=10/26=38.5%
After factoring the zeros, the HE is 2.63% on a single-zero wheel and 5.26% on a double-zero wheel. No betting system will change that.Quote: scepticusYes.
If 2 from 3 can be reduced to 1 in 2 what is the edge.?
In the future, you might want to use the phrase "warped wheel" so that people will know what you're talking about. A lot of people seem to be assuming that you're talking about a betting system. You might be, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
EDIT: Never mind. You are.
Quote: ScepticusWhat is my Edge in Roulette ?
Leaving aside the zero / s for the moment.
If I bet only one column in two dozens I bet 8 numbers. This is 1/3 x 2/3 and if I win I get paid correct odds of 7 / 2.
The chance of choosing any 2 dozens from 3 is 1 in 3 , but what if I could get this down to 1 in 2 ? After factoring in the 1 zero or 2 zeros what edge do I have ?
Thanks
Why did you think this would give you an edge?
The wizardofodds.com has a great link that explains the payoff and odds of the different bets. It's a must read for all new players.
You can't get it down to 1 in 2. There are three "dozens" on a roulette wheel and therefore it is 1 in 3 at all times, no matter what the wheel sounds like or the chicken entrails revealed.Quote: scepticusbut what if I could get this down to 1 in 2 ?
WOW ! Why didn't I think of that ?
Quote: scepticusGamblers face a disadvantage when they bet ?
WOW ! Why didn't I think of that ?
Not all gamblers, the evenbob-spike wins 72% of his placed bet at the roulettes tables, hey hey.
Quote: scepticusGamblers face a disadvantage when they bet ?
WOW ! Why didn't I think of that ?
Quote: soxfanNot all gamblers, the evenbob-spike wins 72% of his placed bet at the roulettes tables, hey hey.
I've often wondered if people actually believe this nonsense, or if it's just pure trolling.
Quote: ScepticusGamblers face a disadvantage when they bet ?
WOW ! Why didn't I think of that ?
Scepticus,
I sense that you believe you have a way to beat this game with a system?
Quote: KeyserScepticus,
I sense that you believe you have a way to beat this game with a system?
My favoured bet is an 8 /1 shot that wins much more than it loses so I smile when I often read that I MUST lose in some undefined " Long Run" . I don't claim that I will win in the Long Run - whenever that may be - only that I win in the Here and Now. That is quite sufficient for me.
.So far as I am concerned all talk of the Long Run is just " noise" .It has no relevance in choosing WHAT and WHEN to bet and at what odds ,and it is that - and only that- which determines whether you win or lose.
My bets are variable depending on a few past results - Sacre Bleu !- so I also reject that other misconception , we can't use previous numbers in our attempt to " beat the odds ".
Quote: ScepticusMy bets are variable depending on a few past results
What do the last spins tell you?
They tell me that some things are more likely than others..
Quote: BuzzardI am willing to bet the Here and Now will disappear when a witness is there ! All those negative vibes from non-believers.
But there have been witnesses.They just think I have been lucky though they don't know how I choose my bets. .Do you really think anyone would divulge something that was steadily winning?
I bet this one on every spin and walk when I win or at break-even . Why shouldn't I ?
Quote: scepticusThey tell me that some things are more likely than others..
Uh, no. (See Gambler's Fallacy)
(Sarcasm On)Reading Gambler's Fallacy is what will make you lose, they are dependent acts.(Sarcasm Off).Quote: Beethoven9thUh, no. (See Gambler's Fallacy)
Quote: FleaStiffReading Gambler's Fallacy is what will make you lose, they are dependent acts.
Huh?
So the only question is - Can we make use of this.?
Quote: rob45Perhaps I'm overlooking a vital piece of information, but why do I get the feeling this thread should have originated in the betting systems forum?[/q
As it has developed I think you are right.
Quote: scepticusmathematicians have themselves proved some things ARE more likely than others.
You didn't read this, did you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
What are you trying to say about mathematicians? What's your point?
Quote: rob45Perhaps I'm overlooking a vital piece of information, but why do I get the feeling this thread should have originated in the betting systems forum?
Have continued this in the betting forum but no CERTAINTIES are implied.
Quote: rob45Perhaps I'm overlooking a vital piece of information, but why do I get the feeling this thread should have originated in the betting systems forum?
Have continued this in the betting forum but no CERTAINTIES are implied.
