eClaire

Kenny,

Another question for you (I am getting into this deep thinking ).

Could the chaos theory have any consequence on the outcome of the spin. Or purely because the spin is totally random, it itself IS the chaos theory, so to speak. OR is it a loop within it?

ProperCharlie

eC - you are confused. your role here is just to look pretty and pour the drinks.

eClaire

Oi PC. I am trying!

ProperCharlie

in that case; mine's a large scotch

eClaire

LG John

ROTFLMAO

Choas theory is what makes it random. There are so many variables that where the ball lands could be affected by the smallest of things. Randomness of the wheel is assumed which is why we don't worry about that at all Some gamblers spend a LOT of time looking at a wheel to see if it has a bias towards any number - seem rather futile to me!!

ProperCharlie

don't worry eC - at least we'll get a few drinks out of it - SB will merely get a sore head and a hole in his bank account.



(just trying to even things up a bit)

milo

no.. chaos theory more is about modelling seemingly random events and finding patterns.

in the case of a coin flip.. we know that there's no possible way of knowing whether we will get a head or a tail on a given flip. however, chaos theory tells us that if you flip a coin 1000 times, we would expect an outcome of approximately 500 heads and 500 tails. it wont (sadly) tell us whether the next flip is a head or a tail.

it's more about macro probability (i.e. likelihood of something occurring given a large sample... which all the maths ive posted up is) rather than prediction or affecting outcomes.

eClaire

Right ok. I am getting there.

I am going to practise some random things, test your theory. I will compile the results in a report on a seperate thread

ProperCharlie

one more thing: why have you based your system on 2/3rds bets? wouldn't it work just as well on 50:50 bets, black or red or whatever?

milo

i GUESS they would be looking for inconsistencies rather than anything else. for instance... magnets... or a weighted/uneven wheel... and looking to use that to their advantage.

milo

yes it would... but the probably of losing 5 times in a row in 50:50 is around 3%. in 2/3rds, it's 0.4% (in other words, almost 10 times less likely to happen).

ProperCharlie

ahh - good piont milo. basically you would be more likely to hit the table limit during a run of losses if playing it with 50:50 bets.

imlach

eClaire - why not begin by wearing random jackets on random days - hehehehe

eClaire

LMAO I have it on today I'm going to chase you up Dalry Road shouting 'Unkilllllll Wickaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy'

imlach

..and with 100% certainty, I can safely say I'll trip over my zimmer as the handles will be greasy with grecian 2000.

eClaire

LG John

When I originally made this hybrid* method of playing it was based on Red/Black bets but I abondoned it for two reasons. Firstly when you are 'winning' you are far less likley to string together as lengthy a run as you would on the thirds and secondly you are far more likley to go on big runs against you. The payoff here is that runs against you on the thirds require you to tripple up rather than straightforward doubling like on the colours. Similarly when you win you don't win as much but you do win more often. In a sense its 6 and two 3s what you use but I personally prefer the 2/3rds simply for the fact that with each 'individual' spin of the table you are statistically likely to win - for this reason I felt there was more of an oppertunity to exploit the wheel than with the red/black bet where with each 'individual' spin of the wheel you are statistically likley to lose

*The reason I say hybrid is because this is essentially a combination of a number of other methods with a few touches of my own

imlach

SB - you just CANNOT beat the roulette wheel!!!

Prob is 95% long-term PERIOD!!

Probability does not lie. You can't beat probability.

ARGH!

eClaire

Uncle Ricky, he won't listen.

milo

i think what you're missing here is that we KNOW we'll lose more than we win if we just spun the wheel with £1 on it each time. but we're putting on different amounts each time. so each time a win does come, it covers all of our subsequent losses and then some.

we don't care that we'll get more losses than wins - in fact we welcome it because it allows more money to be placed on the next spin.

what we care about is that a win WILL come... and it will clear all our losses to date AND will turn a profit. a win coming along eventually is as near to 100% as you can get.

LG John

Milo are you open to the suggestion that it might work?

The great unanswered question in all this is how we calculate how many individual spins it will take before the start point of our 'fatal' run. I certainly can't see a way to calculate this and even if we did know it we'd need a fixed 'banking' and 'betting' structure when we are on the winning side of things before we can calculate with mathematical certainty whether or not it would work more times than not. Unfortunatly I don't propose nor suggest a fixed betting pattern when you are on a winning run. Sometimes, I'd stick with the minimum bet and other times I'd reinvest winnings to try and 'double up' so to speak. I can't decide what system of playing the 'winning' runs would work best but I can say with a degree of certainty that if you are going to beat the wheel you will almost certainly have to take advantage of your winning runs by reinvesting as making a £5 profit at a time will mean you'll need 162 wins to get to £810. Doubling up could bring with number down, increasing (i think/hope) your chance of beating the wheel to that 'finishing post'

imlach

Milo, it only works over the long term if you had infinite money.

95% - remember that number!!!!!

milo

oh, i KNOW that it MIGHT work. i am open to the suggestion that with some luck it WILL work.

your "unanswered question" is immaterial. we ONLY need to calculate the probability of you getting the RUN of losses that totally wipes u out vs. the probability of getting enough wins to finish. who cares how many individual spins that is? all we need to know is, do we have a > 65% chance of succeeding overall. if so, then we're beating the odds. if not, you might as well put all your money on in one spin.

the fact that you're not following a single strategy means you're relying even more on luck.. and your "gut instinct" cannot be mathematically expressed (not easily anyway as to all intents and purposes its random in itself).

what i hope (my plan) is that the likelihood of getting 5 losses against you before you're able to cover 6 losses is VERY small. that would mean that the likelihood of getting 6 losses against you before being able to cover 7 losses is also VERY small... and so on.

if there's only a 0.00001% (example) chance of you not being able to make enough money to cover n+1 losses, then it's as sure a thing as anything can be.

the problem is... even with that small chance... with enough "lots" of wins, you will eventually hit that probability of 0.00001% (unless you've already been able to cover a greater loss than that with your winnings so far...). so u need to have a plan of when to stop (by definition you WILL have to).. and estimate how much you're going to make from what investment.

that's the key.

milo

it also works long-term if you continually generate enough wins to continually cover you for a larger amount of losses.

analogy.. think of it like this: you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all filled with guests. another person comes to stay... how can you accommodate her?... you move the guest in room 1 to 2, and 2 to 3, and n to n+1. then you put the additional new guest in room 1. simple.

this system is like that theory... IF you're constantly able to win enough to cover you for n+1 losses... it doesn't matter that n+1 losses comes.. you're able to cover it and win. what about when n+2 losses comes along? well, with your win from the n+1 losses stake, you'll be able to cover it. and so on.

LG John

Ok, I'm sort of with you here. Do you suggest any system of playing the winning side of our system to bank us as much money as possible and as quickly as possible. Should we look for runs of 3 in our favour or 6 or just bank with each win?? How do we calculate what pattern will work best here?? The way I did it last night was to go for four standard bet wins in a row thus giving £20 of 'clear' profit. I'd then bet £10 on each third (hence doubled up which if I won would give me an additional £10 clear profit (now £30) or if I lost would put me back to zero - at which point I'd pay a double bet to recover my original stake taking me back to £10 up. If it won I'd continue at the double bet rate until I lost my bottle (which is no system at all in that regard). I cought a few good runs at the £10 level and lots of smaller £5 ones so I got to £200 up quite quickly. Still got a long way to go to get to £810 up though

milo

i need to do some more involved maths for this... we need to see which one (if any) will allow us the infinite theory i expressed above... or at least as close as possible to it. i would ASSUME that the perfect infinite does not exist or someone would have found it by now (having said that... if everyone who was hoping to invent/discover something said that, nothing would ever get invented/discovered)... but if we can get as close as possible, we might be able to make a significant amount before stopping, and i can retire and bodybuild/powerlift full-time without need for a day job

what you were running into with small wins is the by-product of choosing a 2/3rds probability... your chances of losing are small, so you're going to be making a lot of small wins (as you may not be doubling up each time). picking 50/50 means you'd get more losses... but bigger wins. that's another thing that could affect what brings us to the infinite value. so there's lots of calculating to do...

LG John

I'm happy to crunch figures if someone tells me how ?

imlach

Oh dear....

What part of 95% do you both not get?!!!???

There are 37 holes on the wheel, only 35 pay out. Your overall return is 35/37 all things being perfect.

Feel free to contribute to whatever roulette owner's wheel you like, I'm sure he'd welcome you with open arms if you're willing to risk the HUGE amounts you're talking about

Also, at least with spread betting, there is no manipulation going on. If I can buy something at a price, then that's the price I get it for.....the prices they quote at close have to match the US official indices...and a small spread betting company in London cannot influence the US markets!!

A roulette wheel can be influenced by

1) online - randon number generators, and also algorithms behind the scenes
2) casino - dodgy wheels, dodgy croupiers, and bouncers who get angry if you win too much.

So, I ask again, with a return of 35/37'ths, and all the uncertainties, remind me which part of this "system" is lucrative?

LG John

We both get the 95% thing (which btw is a non-european table) but that is the odds per individual spin. Factor in different spin 'runs' and betting 'patterns' and you can surely influence the effective of that 95% over time. You could definately make yourself less likely to win so by that logic you could make yourself more likely.