The basis for a perfect roulette system - Page 2

KurtSF · #11 10-03-2006, 06:23 PM

I honestly can't tell if this is a monkey or not.

Ocho · #12 10-03-2006, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Each spin of the roulette wheel in an independent event AND every possible configuration of betting combinations around the roulette wheel has a negative expected value for each spin AND the total expected value of multiple independent events equals the expected value of each event combined, THEREFORE there exists no betting strategy in roulette that will have a long run positive expectation.

Each spin has a negative EV, call it p, thus 2 spins has EV 2p, 3 spins has expected value 3p, and so on. Induce to infinity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect.

If you don't get this, Grinch, then go with your system. If you win money after 100,000 spins, I'll double whatever you win. If you lose money, how about you pay me the same amuont you've lost to the casino? Sound like a decent bet?

repulse · #13 10-03-2006, 07:03 PM

Relax, friend. The bold conjecture of "independent events are independent" does happen to be true. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but this isn't exactly the kind of place where you will find people who share your beliefs.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what this excel trial you describe is, but I'm pretty sure your results are not statistically significant. I can make this claim without checking it myself first because there is very little chance you know what "statistically significant" means.

kinghippo423 · #14 10-03-2006, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Each spin of the roulette wheel in an independent event AND every possible configuration of betting combinations around the roulette wheel has a negative expected value for each spin AND the total expected value of multiple independent events equals the expected value of each event combined, THEREFORE there exists no betting strategy in roulette that will have a long run positive expectation.

Each spin has a negative EV, call it p, thus 2 spins has EV 2p, 3 spins has expected value 3p, and so on. Induce to infinity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cannot be better than that. 11/10.

binions · #15 10-04-2006, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, now back to the system proposal. As you probably know by now, it is very rare (if not impossible) to have a streak of more than 25 different numbers. Hence the system basis - simply follow last numbers that came out, and sooner or later you'll hit a winner.
let's here what you have to say about it...

[/ QUOTE ]

So, 1st non-repeating spin, you cover that number. 2nd non-repeating spin, you cover 2 numbers, etc. Do I have that right?

At a 35:1 payoff, numbers would have to repeat on average every EIGHT spins to make money. Because on the 9th spin, you would be placing 8 bets, after having placed 7 bets, after having placed 6 bets, etc. 8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 36 and it only pays 35:1.

You would lose your butt if it averaged 20 spins before repeating.

Copernicus · #16 10-04-2006, 07:57 PM

Single zero roulette isnt a bad deal, but blackjack (basic strategy), craps (pass/dont pass with maximum odds) and baccarat (bank) still beat it. Double zero roulette is one of the worst games you can play. Wizard of Oz will give the house edge on all of them I assume.

No betting system will beat roulette, unless you find a biased wheel...highly unlikely in modern casinos.

HoneyBadger · #17 10-04-2006, 08:01 PM

with infinite money you don't win, you'll end up with infinite money... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Copernicus · #18 10-04-2006, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
with infinite money you don't win, you'll end up with infinite money... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

no one with infinite money would gamble

AlienBoy · #19 10-05-2006, 02:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thorpe found the only way know to beat roulette aroud the same time he found the only realistic way to beat black jack (and still the basis for any way to beat blackjack)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thorp say what? Thorp states there is no "system" to beat Roulette.

AB

AlienBoy · #20 10-05-2006, 02:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
if you have some knowledge of Excel, you know that Excel has built in Random Number Generator (easier way - load Analysis Tool Pack from Tools-->Addins, you'll get access to the function RANDBETWEEN). Make a sheet with desired number of simulated spins (and don't start about the weaknesses of Excel's RNG...) and then simply with IF function check how many times do you have a sequence of 20 completely different numbers. Then come back and report. I'd like to hear the results. I did the test on 30000 rows and got only one negative (22 diferent in a row).

[/ QUOTE ]

FIRST OF ALL, I program in VBA for Excel - the built in RND generator sucks, and is pseudo random (not truly random).

There IS a mersenn twister algorithm for Excel that isn't bad.

Nevertheless - 30,000 iterations? Hardly enough to be conclusive.

And still it shoes 22 in a row? can you say busto?

The only known methods of winning at roulette are:

1) Bias tracking, wherein the numbers produced by a wheel are tracked for thousands of iterations, and the bias of certain numbers is found, such that betting on those numbers results in a +EV over time.

2) Wheel timing, wherein a computer is used to analyze the speed and position of the wheel and ball, to predict which octant the ball will land on, and thereafter betting in that octant has a positive EV. And using a computer is illegal in Vegas. Jail or broken kneecaps for sure.

Everything else is voodoo nonsense.

AB