Roulette- why you can't ever constantly win.

[jjh]

Hi JJB
Rest your case ? I don't think so !
THE FUTURE.
All gambling is about the future.You don't have to be accurate.What you seek is profit .You back horses. You don't always win, but you show profit.The whole point of Probability Theory is to try to guess the future whether its roulette, horse betting , the Stock Market etc.
THE HOUSE EDGE
is 2.7 % against the punter.You would be so lucky if the bookies overround was as low as that ! Punting on the Stock Market has its costs too !
THE LONG RUN
Until the long run is defined it is irrelevant.In the long run we are all dead, and the planet will destruct .We don't worry about that do we ? Why not ?Bercause its irrelevant in our daily lives.When you or anyone else defines the long run then, and only then, is it worth considering.Don't meekly accept what mathematicians say .Think !
PREDICTION
If betting the dozens in roulette any competent mathematician could devise a system GUARANTEEING eleven doubles in the average 37 spins.If that isn't picking winners I don't know what is. The problem is the odds.As a horse bettor you must know that you have often PICKED the winner but did not back it because you did not get fair odds .True ?
ONLY THE LAST NUMBER TO GUIDE ME ?
Not true ! Its easy to concoct an argument,ascribe it to someone
else, then demolish it. Shame on you JJB !
IMPOSSIBLE ?
When mathematicians talk of something as being impossible they quite often mean only that it is extremely unlikely.NOT IMPOSSIBLE as we in the real world understand it.
BIAS
Why the bias against roulette punters ?Because of a mindset ! Don't think for yourselves lads ,join the gang.THere's safety in numbers THat seems to be the motto .
Anyway JJB ,good luck with the punting !

.

You've completely missed my point. Yes bookmakers have an overound, but there are factors you use to be selective and find when the 2/1 shot is value. You only back the selections that are value...

You're looking to get a better A/E index Actual/Expected, found by looking at form and stats. You're pitting your wits against the bookmaker.

With roulette, there is no way to create a system to find a good A/E index because each spin of the wheel is irrelevant of the last, there is no way of knowing what will happen.

If you can even suggest anyway of doing so, of predicting the future, which you need to do to beat roulette in the longterm.

BTW, the longterm is just a phrase- a month is long enough if you play every day for a couple of hours. I'd be willing to put money down t osay you would be down over a month if you played everyday.

[sk1982]

Just add, this is nothing personal, I just see someone blatantly deluding themselves thinking they can overcome the house edge based on mathematics, when it is mathematics that proves you cannot win in the long run-

Exactly. It'll probably just be some sort of repetitive system like the better on one third every 5 spins or so etc. All you do is increase your odds of winning, but they're never 100% in your favour. The trouble with these repetitive "systems" is that quite often they'll work initially, you start winning, and you know that you can win, so when you lose a little bit, you're convinced you can make it back, and obviously you keep trying til you lose it all. And if you start winning - how much is enough? You'll just keep using the system cos you think it works til you eventually lose again.

[fergus lee]

Hi JJ
I am glad we agree that the long run is irrelevant in real roulette.I reckon mathematicians use it as their "Get Out Clause ".
The main purpose of my epistle was to get people to agree that the ONLY thing to overcome is the 2.7 % disadvantage.The rest is "noise ".On this ,we seem to agree JJ.
The only disagreement is that you think it cannot be overcome and I do, so let me now deal with it from my perspective.
My "formula " gives me an 8.1% advantage .( Pause here to let the jeering subside ) It is a 7/ 2 variable shot at level stakes requiring a betting bank of 324 chips.
When you rebuked Steve for deluding huimself for thinking he could overcome the House Edge I thought Oh Oh Its my turn next so I booted up a Gala Casino disc to test my formula on it. It gives a starting bank of £ 5000 so I chose £25 bets with the intention,if I went bust , of rebooting to use a further £ 3,100 required to make up my bank to its preplanned 324 chips @ £ 25 each. O.k. so far JJ ?
As we both know ,volatility occurs whether or not you have an edge.If there is a way of fiddling this particular betting bank I don't know of it.
At this moment the bank stands at £ 30,300.
Give me your thoughts.
Like you , I am not a bullshitter.I think they are a menace to normal punters.
Regards, Fergus.

[jjh]

I'm fully agreed that the 'only' thing to overcome is the house edge. It's a big 'only' though!!

My point about there being nothing to try and judge which numbers have the best chance of suceeding- you use form and stats in horse racing, there is nothing in roulette but just a load of random numbers, which if you backed all of them, would show a small loss each time (house edge).

The aim of betting is to find value, which to level stakes is impossible with roulette because you do not know what number is going to come out or which numbers have the best chance of coming in. Do you agree with that point Fergus because that is the key mate...

The only way to try and suceed is to attempt staking plans- be it raise them each time you lose, which can work for a while but will make you bust sooner or later. But fair enough, you say you have a formula and staking plan.

You say you start with a bank of £5,000. If this goes bust you start again with £3,100? Well what happens when that goes bust too? Now you'll be £8,100 down, what do you do there?

You say you have a formula-

My "formula " gives me an 8.1% advantage .( Pause here to let the jeering subside ) It is a 7/ 2 variable shot at level stakes requiring a betting bank of 324 chips.

What is the basis of the formula, does it try and predict patterns etc? Your making points but nothing is clear and I'm sorry to say it just sounds like your still holding on to the hope you can overcome the house edge. Until you can prove to me otherwise, I think Roulette is a mug's game unless you play every now and then for a bit of fun.

You need to elaborate more as it is all too vague at the moment.

I've been on a demo table and won over £50,000 in half an hour, trying to do so for real is another matter altogether.

[fergus lee]

Hi J J H
My main aim in posting here was to show that we should avoid casual demeaning of punters who hold different views from ours.

We agree that the house edge is the problem as is the bookies overround .You claim to beat the bookies overround and I believe you. You don't believe my claim that the house edge can be beaten. I don't hold myself responsible for your hang ups.

I bet only at level stakes in any betting environment because if your ideas don't show a profit at level stakes it is unlikely to do so with variable stakes I am surprised that you advocate increasing stakes.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that if you cannot foretell the future then it follows that you cannot say with certainty that a certain thing will NOT happen.Extremely unlikely, perhaps, but impossible ? No !

Of course I am being "vague " ! I claim that it is " profitable " so if I tell everybody then casinos are likely to change the rules as happened in Blackjack when Ed Thorpr published his book " Beat The Dealer ". ( Mind you, by the amount of words in my posts I could wrirte a book ! )

If my bank of £ 8,100 went bust ? Based as it is on a 5% chance of it going bust it is likely to happen sometime .The only question is, would it show a profit before doing so ? Actually , it did go bust .It hit £32,000 then slid gradually to £ 28,000 then did a freefall to £ 23,900 which is " bust point ".I would then move to another table.But, take away the original startup of £ 5,000 leaves a profit of £ 18,900 or 756 chips. Not bad from a calculated bank of 324 chips.You, of course, may differ.

The only aim in betting should be to make a profit whatever the method..You choose "vALUE while others don't. To quote a well known advocate of Value Betting, Malcolm Howard," There is no magical system known that will guarantee success all the time, nor is it possible to devise a system that is even guaranteed to succeed in the long term " He was talking of Value Betting though it applies to other forms of betting .He also says that probability is not certainty. I don't claim certainty only highly probable .

It seems that we will never agree on this matter J J so this is my "LAST POST !"
With best regards, Fergus

[jjh]

OK mate, fair enough, you have your opinion and I respect you.

I don't agree with increasing stakes, if you took my post for what it is, you'd see I back to level stakes and was saying how are you meant to beat roulette to level stakes if there is no way of knowing what number will appear next due to the random nature of the numbers?

I quote you here-

"You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that if you cannot foretell the future then it follows that you cannot say with certainty that a certain thing will NOT happen.Extremely unlikely, perhaps, but impossible ? No !"

Your saying that no one can tell the future so we can't say for certain that roulette cannot be beaten, for me, you've repeated this a few times now and is actually the basis of your argument. I 'grasp' the point, but as an overall argument, it is pretty weak and I think if you bet to level stakes at roulette every day for a month, you'd be prety certain it is unbeatable. No man so far has been able to run at 100mph, but just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it will happen because we haven't seen the future so we can't say for certain

You haven't put forward any evidence or thoughts on as to how you can beat roulette especally to level stakes, apart from a strange buy in system that decreases in value after you go bust- £5,000 lost, then buy in with £3,100...? To a level stakes system, I think this, well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to prove this is not going to work.

I'm not dissing you or anything, this is just a discussion on a forum , I want you to try and convince me, because I don't think you can prove any way of beating roulette.

All the best

((I hope it isn't your last post, I just want you to reply with maybe some previous betting strategies you have used that have shown profit for that session, maybe I could learn something there??))

[monkeynuts]

did that bloke who bet it all (house etc) win ??? i heard about it ages ago but never heard the outcome!!!!

lol imagine how gutted you would be if you bet everything and lost hahaha

i would just be like 'ohhh....... *****' then id have to walk off n go ho.. oh no wait... i wouldnt have a home.... lol why would you ever bet everything you owned on that is beyone me! madness!

[DannyC]

Yer he won, and endemol also paid him £250,000 for taking the risk!

[junglepocket]

Hi guys

Im new to the forum and thought Id share my opinions on the whole roulette online issue. Let me tell you that it doesnt matter what system you use at online casinos - you will NEVER achieve long term profits. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the laws of probability but simply this - online casinos are fixed.

View this blog to read more.

[millenia]

Hi Jhh,
i tried using the red and black system, it seemed to be working ok but then i have lost so it put me off. Im only using it occasionally now when I see on the screen that a certain colour has been repeated 6 times then I will bet on the other colour. Yesterday I had a streak of 13 same colour so just as well I only started betting after 6.
Im now using predominantly the dozens system, combined occasionally with the one mentioned above. I was fairly impressed with it until yesterday when I had a chain of 20 numbers of 2 dozens come up and lost £200. So now Im not sure. Also im concerned about whether the online play is set up. LIke once they work out what system you are using, the table is more likely to produce long chains of numbers that you are not betting on. Because today when I was just spinning to see what would happen after 7 spins i had another streak of 17 numbers of 2 dozens. that is twice in 24 hours. and before it has never happened.
so far overall i lost bit more than I won but it is nearly even, i ve only started playing like two weeks ago so i give it to try and set up some rules and get some discipline, even tho im not really greedy i was quite happy with making £40 a day and it seemed to have worked fine till yesterday. Now i have £56 in my account and not really sure whether there is any use to keep playing with that especially if these bloody streaks of over 10 numbers will keep coming up.