imlach

Oh dear II

"runs"...."patterns" - there is no such thing in true mathematical probability.

Your last statement says it all - if you're more likely to beat the probability, you're equally able to be less likely to beat the probability! It all evens out over time.

If the wheel is unbiased, you CANNOT predict runs or patterns as that is just pure pure luck.

milo

there IS a probability.. so you can say that is something has a 50% chance of happening, then for it to happen twice in a row, there's a 25% chance.. and so on. it means out of every 100, 25 will go that way. that's chaos theory... that's a run.. and i've just predicted it.

or do you want to go tell maths professors that they've got probability and chaos theory wrong?

btw, we're not trying to predict runs.. we are merely basing our system around the fact that they WILL occur.

imlach

They WILL occur - unpredictably....you overall return will be 35/37'ths.

milo

IF we were putting the same amount of money on each spin it would, yes.

but we're not.

imlach

OK, I'm not going to convince you.
Report back in 1 month with the details of your fortune

LG John

We don't need to predict them just resist them up to a certain level. Then on the 'winning' side of the coin we just need to figure out how to best take advantage of runs in 'our' favour. This is the part we are still not sure about

If you played a straight up system of betting £5 per two thirds over 100 Million spins and never did anything other that the same bet on the same two thirds then you would at that point be (using your figure for ease) 5% down than when you started.

Lets assume you did the exact same thing but on one occassion you doubled up a loss and recoved it. At the end you are only 4.999999% down and thus have changed the odds from being fixed at 95%.

ProperCharlie

i still see it in terms of my horse bets. if you always increase the stake sufficinetly to cover the loss on the previous bet, when you eventually win (which you will, even more definitely on a roulette wheel) you will cover your losses and come out ahead. the problem comes as SB says - what do you do when you win? if your starting stake is £5, IMO for the system to work you always have to start with £5, even if you've just won the last 3 or 4 or however many spins in a row. if you suddenly decide to start with £20, and you lose, you have just increased your potential final stake before you get a win by a massive amount. do you agree?

imlach - you can't argue against this. i understand why you are not likely to win over all, just as how you are unlikely to win overall against the bookies - the odds are not in your favour. however, by increasing the stake sufficient to cover the previous loss each time, so long as you can afford to continue until you get the win, you will win and you will come out on top. it's what happens after the win that is likely to cause the problem.

eClaire

Yeah, but isn't the fact that you don't know when to double up a loss a minor problem? you could do it one hundred times doubling your loss each time and lose Or am I just TOTALLY missing the point here?

imlach

But you cannot predict where the next ball is going to land.

You're talking retrospectively!!! Runs are retrospective.

<bangs head against wall>

eClaire

lmfao@imlach

milo

you double up EVERY time on a loss to cover subsequent losses plus turn an overall profit.

yes you COULD lose 100 (or however many you can cover) times in a row and wipe yourself out... but the chances of this happening would be something stupid like 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. in other words, more chance that you'd be struck by lightening while trying to place your bet... in which case it doesnt matter anyway

imlach

I understand the doubling up thing, but you can't afford to double up to infinity.

This is THE flaw in your system.

<bangs head against wall another time>

ProperCharlie

you have to do it after every single loss - otherwise it won't work. the potential problem is encountering an unsustainable run of losses, ie meaning that you run out of money or you reach the table limit. what milo and sb have been banging on about for 7 pages, is trying to work out how likely it is that you will hit one of these series of loss making bets.

milo

IT DOESNT MATTER!!!

all that matter is that it WILL land in your favour eventually... and that the odds are such that it's almost infinitely more likely that you'll be able to cover any number of losses to get that one win (which will clear ALL your losses and turn a profit).

i do agree - there should be a banging head smilie tho

ProperCharlie

but the chances of getting an infinitely long run of losses is infinitely small, isn't it? i thought the whole point was to try and work out what the chance was of getting a run of losses that "broke your bank?

imlach

READ MY E-LIPS

IT DOES NOT WORK, IT HAS BEEN TRIED BEFORE

<shudders as whole body hits wall with huge thud>

milo

u dont HAVE to double up to infinity.

you just have to be able to cover n+1 losses.. which you will be able to cover from the win that came from n losses... and so on to infinity.

you're right in the sense that you COULD just have an infinite number of losses against you (or a VERY large number) before ANY win, but there would be more chance of britney spears coming up to you, giving u a bj and handing you all the money you ever wanted anyway. so it becomes irrelevant.

eClaire

And everytime you doubled up your losses and lost, then you'd end up doubling those losses? Yes? No?

So eventually when you do hit a winner you get it all your money back x2. But what if you run out of money and miss a few spins? Does it matter that they are consecutive?

ProperCharlie

jeez - keep calm.

i've had 4 whole hours away from this thread so maybe i am not up to speed. i accept that it doesn't work, because otherwise there would be no roulette wheels in casinos. i still like the idea though.

imlach

You're blinding yourselves with visions of medium runs of wins.

There is an equal probability of medium runs of losses.

Try it, and you'll find out it just does not work. If it does, I will eat my e-hat.

ProperCharlie

one last thing - do we agree that if it does not work, the reason why is that you will either reach the table limit or run out of money at some point, due to a succession of losses, and therefore be unable to recoup your losses?

(or maybe get bundled out of the casino by some unfriendly men in suits )

LG John

You are 100% correct THAT IS the flaw in the system and why everyone that has tried it for long enough in the past has lost. This is the VERY reason why I came up with the concept of a fixed bankroll per 'game' consisting of £810 (not a penny more or less) and the concept of a 'race'. Such a roll will allow you to withstand a run against you that has a 0.54% chance of happening. If that run occurs before you double your money to £1620 you lose - if you get there first you win and you can use that money to play another game. Bank one £810 out of every 3 or 4 won and you'll make money. So far in my play for fun module I've made it to £410 up I have had to withstand a run that had me put £270 on 2/3rds so that bet HAD to come in but when it did (thank ****) it wiped out ALL of the losses from that run putting me right back to where I was before that run started (i.e. up). That last £200 was tough as there was a lot of low numbers so I couldn't string together much in the way of winning runs. There was also a lot of zeros!! I'm now halfway there though - if I can make it through another £400 without being killed then it worked If this happens I have to try loads and loads more times to see if I win the race more often than the house.

Uncle Rich, stop getting so up tight - as I said on page 1 I'll test this to death before putting real money towards it and even then I'll only use money I've won at poker and therefore can afford to lose

eClaire

Ooooh, pat on the back to Saxo Boy!

Let us know when you get the other 400

imlach

SB - I'm not getting tight - I'm just being your reasoned argument against

Whether you stop at £810 or not, it makes no difference.

A sequence is a sequence is a sequence no matter where you stop/start.

milo

we WELCOME a medium run of losses as it allows us to double up even more.

besides.. there is NOT an equal probability of a medium run of losses. a win has a near 65% chance.. a loss is just over 35%. how are they equally as likely to come up??? (hint: they arent)

imlach

I'm starting to consider a wager on this not working given you're both TRUE gambling men

imlach

Err.....that is quite clearly fundamentally wrong. If you had a 65% chance of winning, roulette would not exist.

imlach

Wait.....I can hear a faint whisper in the far distance.......it's getting louder...

fuel surge fuel surge FUEL SURGE FUEL SURGE FUEL SURGE FUEL SURGE

This could be one of those classic threads.....

LG John

This has been and continues to be a great thread IMHO - lots of good debate and theory, etc

What milo means is that with every spin of the wheel playing 2/3rds you have a 65% chance of winning

imlach

Err...no, with every spin of the wheel you have a 18/37 chance of winning.
You are taking financial winnings of the previous spins into account.....
If you're looking at it from a "spin of the wheel" point of view, you can't count previous performance.