TurboGenius Turbo, do you remember the discussion on how to select the repeat?

As long as YOU know the answer . I am not a teacher amd / or never wise up a chump .

 

Boom! Median Joe wins the debate.

 

I think I’m starting to understand now. The claim that system players are losers because you guys want proof that a winning system really works is all making sense now.

I could tell you this: all systems have their limits. Not all systems win 100% of the time. Some say their systems never lose has been misinterpreted. Through the eyes of someone else that can be easily misunderstood as “I win 100% all the time, and I win all 100 spins I play”. People making that claim are the real fraudsters and steer clear from them.

Even a blackjack player that can truly count cards lose from time to time. But what I can vouch for really is that we walk away on a positive surplus of chips. That’s truly what they mean (at least for me anyways).

Pretty sure most system players don’t rely on just one system. I use multiple strategies and can adopt to the changes depending what the game is doing.

Hope that clears some things up

 

Gizmo, in a win streak you may well win 2/3 of your bets, or even more, but on average you won't win more than 47%. By your calculation you will win 106 out of 200 bets -- 53%. That won't hold long term.

 

Glad to see that your brain is on intravenous poop. Let's try looking how fucked up you are in reading. I have 140 of 200 at $5 each. That's flat betting at the low price, table minimum in some cases. Are you with me so for math wizard? That leaves 60 possible bets placed that are left of the same 200. Are you OK with that? It's an attempt to communicate with you where there is evidence that you can't do simple arithmetic. The only math that you need to figure out is that there are 60 big bets placed during win streak phases. You are saying that these will end up being 47% wins in the long run, and that only during win streaks. That's what I mean by magical math. It can't be a win streak and lose more than it wins.

 

SirAnyone has avoided posting a direct committed reply as expected since we all know he copy paste math from WoV.

However, he clicked like to MJ's post to mean he agrees to the post completely.

I have given enough time to MJ and Benas to reconsider their replies. Time to read the exact math. Facts time.

From Wikipedia,

The term gambler's ruin is a statistical concept, most commonly expressed as the fact that a gambler playing a game with negative expected value will eventually go broke, regardless of their betting system.

Another common meaning is that a persistent gambler with finite wealth, playing a fair game (that is, each bet has expected value zero to both sides) will eventually and inevitably go broke against an opponent with infinite wealth.

Given the max table limits rule, the gamblers ruin do not ensure 100% sure to lose for the gambler. Max table limit means both the gambler and casino play with a finite bankroll.

Gambler's ruin happens only when the game ends with a winner when one of the player(gambler or casino) loses his bankroll.

The facts confirm that Benas statement that "the gambler is 100% sure to lose" that is agreed by MJ and SirAnyone is wrong.

 

So here is a picture of a graph of 200 spins all bet at $90 per bet on red only for each spin. Can you see the win phases?

 

Benas, there is no such thing as playing the right or wrong way to win or lose in a modified fair bet roulette.

SirAnyone who click like is also wrong with his math. What else do we expect from this copy paste clown.

 

What you must ask yourself, if during those exampled 200 spins, is that I stipulate that I have lost 75 of those bets and won only 65 in all the $5 bets combined leaving 60 bets to be placed during win phases only, at $100 each. After looking at the graph above do you think that I can reach 3 net wins from all of those uptick phases combined? Now knowing that my goal is to win, why would I bet big during losing phases? That is the only way to get back to a 47% win ratio. The cheaper bets are irrelevant. I can lose them at a rate worse than the 47% and they don't effect the outcome of the session. To believe Joe I must not get any net wins during win streaks for most of the sessions played in the long run for his 47% to become true. How many people believe that?

 

This is for you Joe:

 

A picture paints a thousand words and it's why I don't mind sitting at a B+M Casino for 200-300 spins because I know that somewhere down the line I am going to get something similar as above with my own bet selection and can take advantage. Looking at the graph above, think how it can be attacked from several different angles.

 

LF, at least read the rest of the article instead of the first sentence.

Then further down it gives the equations. By the way, "infinite wealth" doesn't literally mean infinite (who has literally infinite wealth?), it just means your opponent's bank is very large compared to yours. I've done simulations of this and it works just as the formulas say. In a fair game you will lose if your bank is << than the opponent.

 

If you mean that you're the one that doesn't grasp what it implies you are correct. Math people desperately cling to this obvious fact that everybody agrees on like it explains everything about why roulette cannot be beat. When the truth is the fact that all outcomes are independent is the very reason you can beat the game. Pretty ironic.

 

Gizmo, here's how I did the math : 47% of 140 = 66 wins. 66% of 60 bets = 40 wins. 66 + 40 = 106, and 106/200 = 53%. And what does it have to do with reading random? So now you're saying you can win consistently using a progression?

 

MJ, I am disappointed that you still try to deny when you are wrong with your citation of gambler's ruin.

I have been civil and polite to leave it to you and whoever readers to look over the facts to decide if your citation is correct or wrong.

For a typical fun gambler he goes to the casino with a finite bankroll. If he plays a fair bet roulette game in an example of say $100 sessions bankroll with a fixed $1 bet on red for 200 spins in a fun roulette session, the once a few years game who may win or lose a small fraction of their bankroll.

The Gambler's ruin will not apply for such gamblers.

And for many other gamblers whose objective is to win or lose a fixed target.

Admit you are wrong and move on.

Read Benas follow up clarification which he clearly talk about right and wrong way to win or lose. He is completely wrong with his math.

You can keep arguing as usual. It doesn't change the facts, applying Gambler's ruin to fun once in a blue moon gambler for a sure to lose interpretation is simply wrong math.

 

Really ? Not all, but most ? Not 100%, but about 97 % ?....

 

You don't have to do simulation. You just have to apply the math and use logic to know that the player with the bigger bank wins in a game where the game ends when one player losses his bankroll even in a fair bet. That's Gambler's ruin.

The key required criteria for Gambler's ruin is the game ends when one player losses his bankroll.

 

Let's complete the math since you are so good at numbers Try this equation in computer speak : $5 <> $100 equates to true.

Shove your progression idea up where your head is always planted. No red herrings here. Deflection does not work in a simple to understand arithmetic discussion.

We will use your figures: I have 66 wins at $5 and 74 losses at $5 making up for 140 spins of the 200 and a score of -$40. So I lost the recommended number of spins during a losing streak. Funny how you missed that one. There should be more losses during a losing streak. But let's move on to the arithmetic for win streaks. You are giving me 40 wins out of 60 on the big bets. That comes to $4,000 won and $2,000 lost for those 60 flat bets at the big price. So I take my -$40 and take it out of my $2,000 aggregate win for a total of $1,960.

So now you are using the excuse that a progression was used. Sorry but I switched to virtual bets and had 140 bet selections that were not funded. That was to fuck with the simple minds in the math world that see progressions where there aren't any. The only bets placed were the big bets where I won $2,000 in net winnings. There was only one level of bets placed that were funded and that was $100 per funded bet placed. Now if a car is traveling down the freeway at 70 MPH and slams on the breaks, then where will it come to rest? It will come to rest up your ass because you suck at this.

 

That’s why experienced roulette players play the game with multiple strategies. They don’t rely on just ONE strategy.

For you or anyone else to say systems don’t work let’s me know you just rely on one hoping it’s the Holy Grail.

 

Someone said it here “Probabilities don’t make you money”. There’s some truth to that. Your ability to calculate probability really means nothing either way you still need to place your bets somewhere.
If calculating probability was a casino game you guys would be rich.

With that answer, what are you gonna do with that information? You have a better probability not playing and keeping your money in your pocket. But since your here, you’re here for a reason. I’m assuming to find an advantage over the casino? If so, let them spread their knowledge and stop trying to debate them.

“Wise men speaks because they have something say; The fool speaks because he has to say something”
- Plato