imlach

It's hard to beleive as it is 100% certain it won't work.

ProperCharlie

example - if i go and make a bet, and win, and collect my winnings and never go back to the bookies, i have beaten the odds and won. if i lose i do the doubling up system until i win, at which point i am back at the same point as if my original bet had won. i don't see why this can't work *in theory* on the roulette table. as i said before, the only thing that i can see which stops it is running out of money or hitting the table limit. btw i have won on 50:1 shots in the past, so anything can happen

(mind you - i've lost a damn sight more on 3:1s and 2:1s )

imlach

...yes, so you're looking at it from an ideal point of view.
You admit this.....

We could talk about ideals, but back in the real world, it will not work as these two things exist (money limit, and table limit)

ProperCharlie

that's why i said *in theory*. the theory of the system works, but the casinos have imposed table limits to prevent it from being used to its ultimate conclusion.

imlach

Yes, I know....I stated that!

......and it the theory only works with infinite amounts of money anyway......

imlach

..and no-one in this world has infinite amounts of money, so if that part of the theorem fails, the whole theorem fails.

ProperCharlie

but as i mentioned before, the chance of getting an infinite number of losses in a row is infinitely small, so presumably not worth worrying about. IMO the table limit is the more serious impediment to the system.

milo

for it to be 100% guaranteed money, yes.

but we're willing to accept SOME risk.

when you do shares, there's some risk... when you put money in a bank... there's some risk. with any investment comes risk.

we're looking to have such minimal risk that having unlimited money becomes a pointless requirement (as we would expect for example to be able to cover all losses with 99.9999% probability).

imlach

You fail. You should worry - it is chance we are playing with.

imlach

One helluva risk! Nearly 100% of your money sometimes all on one bet.

ProperCharlie

ok - i would give you odds of 1000:1 (max stake 10p ) that you can't toss 100 heads in a row. there is a statistical probability that you could toss 100 heads, but it is a risk that most people would be prepared to accept as it is so small.

milo

*gets his weighted coin out*

ready?

LG John

LMAO

I dunno, I leave this thread for 10mins and we are talking about tossing head

Imlach you are still not looking at the full concept of the system here. You mention infinate money being required and table limits but we do not require infinate money and are not concerned with the table limit as its 10 times greater that what our maximum bet would ever be.

There are three critical concepts to this system. Doubling up (so to speak) to recoup our losses (the martingal system). This is a system that is known to fail eventually because of the table limit. The other component is a fixed betting bankroll and the concept of a 'race' to double or bust it. The third and final concept is reinvesting winnings on a winning run to maximise profit when we are winning (this is the bit we haven't perfected/decided a strategy for). Any one of these methods in isolation would fail but the combination of them might be enough.

Its true that at some point if you do this for real you will have to risk £810 or real money but there is one good thing here - you cannot POSSIBLY lose more than that! If I was playing for real last night I could now bank my original £810 as I won my first game and now I'm playing with the casinos money. If I make it again I now have two sets of £810 to play with. If they both create two more I now have 4 sets and then 16. Even if we starting losing some we still have other sets of £810 to fill the place and try and generate more and we cannot lose any more than one game (£810) in any one go. So essentially all we are concerned with is who wins the race more often. If we win the race 50.5% of the time then we WILL make money in the long run, its mathematical certainty. What we don't know (on the basis of 1 result) is if we win the race more often than the house but at the moment we are 100% ahead

I still think I'd be inclined to make a bigger spread bet if those are the potential returns. If £300 can generate 15 times its value and you are sure you have the skill insight to make and win that kind of bet more times than 1 in 15 then you will make money in the long run reinvesting a bigger stake. What is important however is whether you actually need to bank that money for other things or not. I don't so I'd risk it. £100 or even £2-5k isn't going to make much difference to my life to be honest (it would be nice but I'd probably blow it on a plasma tv). If I could generate £10-30k from it then that is a different story and I'd be willing to take some degree of risk.

Thats what its all about in ALL forms of betting/gambling/etc. Risk v reward - poker, roulette, spread betting, dogs, horses, are all the same.

imlach

Well, you know my thoughts on this.

You will not make 30k. No chance.

As someone once said, the best way to make a £1m is to start with £10m.

imlach

You want it too fast, to soon. A sure sign of a bad gamble

LG John

I'm still a little hazy - remind me

Btw, I'm starting to think you abuse your work internet privillages 'almost' as much as me

eClaire

I think a trip to the casino is called for ......

LG John

No, risk v reward. The £300 bet you made that created £4500 - do you think you could find and make 15 similar bets and win more than one of them? If the answer to this is yes then you make the smaller bet over and over until you can withstand a loss of 15 runs against you at whatever your higher stake is. Lets say you win 5 times - you now have a bankroll of £22500. Now find similar bets and place £1000 as a stake. If you were correct that you can win more than one times in 15 then you will make money but now with a greater stake you'll make more having minimised the risks. Now for every winning bet you are getting £15k - a few of those and you can give up your day job

Next edinburgh SN meet at the Maybury anyone Free sannies

imlach

No, because it was a one-off due to being able to anticipate a movement in the market due to a news event (interest rate). Can't do that too often.

You have the downside of not being able to predict/guess anything with roulette.

eClaire

Im being serious, I reckon we should hit the casino. Once you have determimed the third concept, of course Then I am going to rip it off

imlach

There is only one game in a casino that you can potentially win at, and it's not roulette....

LG John

Two problems there Claire:

1. To play this system in a bricks and mortar environment would take ages as there is only about 2 spins of a wheel per minute. With animation, etc turned off you can make about 20 spins a minute online.

2. Playing such a fixed and obvious system may (not always) attract the attention of big guys in coats who don't take to kindly to it. Maybe not though, not sure

LG John

what imlach?? Don't say blackjack because even if you play that mathematically perfectly you can still only get a 49% win ratio. Poker is played in casinos so you can defo win that game as its a skill game but no matter what you and the fish do the house always makes money through rake

Another thing you can be sure of is that whoever invented roulette all those years ago never imagined it could be played so readily and as quickly as it can online.

eClaire

Actually, it will be near impossible to perfect this 'third concept' To have a better chance wouldn't it be better if you worked with a team of three, each covering a third? Tell me if I am talking crap!!

eClaire

Thought about it, I am talking crap! Doh, typical girlie

imlach

..and that makes what diffference exactly?

eClaire

It won't take as long to get to infinate spins

LG John

Plausability - previous systems of playing the table that might be implausable because of the time taken to play them vs the reward are now an option

imlach

Absolute popple-****.
If a system makes money, it doesn't matter how long it takes within reason.

Anyway, it also makes it quicker to LOSE

LG John

No argument there

I do argue with the speed v time concept though. If you play a system at the casino roulette that you know will gradually make you £20 clear profit every night you go would you do it? No!! Because you'd spend £5 on fuel getting there (£15 if you own a scooby :rolleyes), £10 on drinks and then there is the time lost playing consideration. Assuming a speed rate of just 10 times greater online (conservative estimate) you suddenly profit by £200 a night and have no overheads other than a computer and broadband which, in this day and age, you'd probably have anyway.

This is also the reason online poker is growing at an amazing rate - there are very few overheads involved in playing. All you need to beat is the 'rake' and other players - you don't even need to tip the dealer!