Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

The silence about big wins is deafening .

 

Above all stay clear from a loud mouth baccarat player. Undisciplined like a DG .

 

That’s the issue with these mathboyz.

A quote from one of my favourite movie “You know what your problem is?…you’re all brains! Not enough cock and balls!”

These amateurs jump on the first available table they see. They don’t bother to scout what tables are favourable (but I don’t blame them, they just don’t know what to look for). They play EVERY spin that comes (rookie mistake). It’s like they never heard of skipping a few spins or waiting for the right time to place their bets (lack patience), stuck on using just ONE strategy (can’t adapt to changes) and many others.

Spikes favourite quote I only play when the game is playing my game or some shit like that holds true. Just like pattern recognition. Does it work all the time? The answer: Nope. But with enough time, experience a player can develop their game.

Players out here saying “I’ve been playing roulette over 20yrs and the game is unbeatable.” Over 20yrs experience playing roulette and still can’t win? Clearly, your ways aren’t working. Either change up your game or quit.
If you’re open minded and willing to learn new methods than there’s still hope for you.

I never bash anybody's strategy. I just simply move on. You mathboyz always insert yourselves into other posters business. You ain’t contributing anything to help other players improve their game and just getting in the way.
knock it off and apply your mathematics elsewhere.

Rant over. Good luck to all.

 

Math for the mythboyz.

 

So this will make my point:

 

I'm not saying I rely on math to the exclusion of other elements and cues. I'm just saying I keep math in my cross-check with other elements, considering all of them in the picture when making a decision about where to place the next bet and how much to bet. Who would say that's an unwise philosophy?

I'm not saying anything you are saying is wrong. I intend to read and learn from your Reading Randomness theory/strategy, and I appreciate your sharing it. I'm not here to have a dick measuring contest with anyone, as it seems many others are here to do. I'm just here to learn, because the more I learn, the more I see how much I don't know, and what I know about the universe doesn't even make a scratch on the surface. I'm a USAF/airline pilot and hobbyist gambler. I'm just a simple man and flawed human being. That's my approach to most things in life, including gambling. If I had all the answers to gambling, instead of typing this message to you right now, I'd be sitting in the High Limit Room at the Bellagio raking millions. Or I'd be in Macau at the Baccarat tables using $100,000 chips, making quarter-million dollar bets, with smokin hot Asian prostitutes hanging on each of my shoulders, while winning bazillions before the 3 of us retreat up to my $15 Million dollar penthouse atop a 40-story luxury condo tower.

 

How long do you think you'd last before they stopped you. When they saw you weren't losing you be gone. This is a fantasy lots of people have that if they have a winning method the casinos are just going to let you win win win when the exact opposite is true.

 

A lot of you guys are rejecting math for winning in Roulette. Perhaps those of you who feel this way have forgotten that casinos are using math, and nothing but math, to win at Roulette. They have a team of mathematicians who develop all the casinos' games precisely with math so that casinos will win each of those games overall by an engineered percentage amount.

Going to a gunfight without math in your holster is unwise when it is precisely math your opponent is using in his holster to give him the superior advantage.

 

No they are not using math to win. I proved that in the RR thread. I guess it's needed again. They are using player ignorance to take from 16 to 22 percent from the table games. Roulette, with the worst odds of 5%+ has nothing to do with the take that everyone thinks is the casino's advantage. The casinos that are publicly traded must file a earnings report every year for their share holders. The truth is in those reports.

 

That's because the math of the long-term works for the casino because they are in the long term. They deal with thousands and thousands and thousands of bets every quarter and the long-term math applies to them. It does not apply to the short-term roulette player. For him anything can happen. Steve Wynn has admitted that short-term players can totally screw up an entire quarter for a casino and it will actually lose money. Put the long-term math is always correct in the end and by the end of the year they will have made a profit. We roulette players don't pay attention to the math because none of it applies to us so why would we care.

 

What exactly is this math that you think applies to what we do in roulette. You cannot have an answer because there isn't any. Please don't say the house edge because my edge is so superior to the house edge it's not worth discussing.

 

The answer: Fjodor Dostoyevskiy book " The Gambler" a must read .


ND

 

I agree math is more important when playing some games rather than others. As you say, math is particularly important with Poker and Blackjack. Same with Craps.

I'm not so sure though that "the next outcome is not connected in any way to the last outcome math is worthless in playing roulette." Are you not analyzing the history board when making your bet decision? Of course you do. If the "next outcome is not connected in any way to the last outcome", you wouldn't do that. There'd be no value in or need for the history board at all.

Same with Baccarat, some believe the next outcome is not connected in any way to the last outcome. Some believe there is a connection. The Asians are deadly serious about Baccarat. Macau is the center of the universe for Baccarat, where Baccarat totals 85% of their gaming revenue, compared to just 15% on the Vegas Strip.

In fact it is the Asians in Macau who developed and included the Derived Roads on the board about 50 years ago. They believe, as do I, there is value in reading the Derived Roads to help predict the next outcome. Interpreting patterns and predictors in the Derived Roads isn't an exact mathematical science. I've been playing Baccarat for about 5 years and paid no attention to Derived Roads for the first few years. Then I really put the time into learning them and studying what the Asian Baccarat high priests had to say about it. I'm still just a Grasshopper with much to learn. Baccarat is where I spend most of my time now, and my Hit Rate improved 20% since I really learned how to use the Derived Roads.

I haven't read your Reading Randomness theory yet, but I intend to. Perhaps you are analyzing recent history to make a decision. Many of us analyze recent history to make decisions with Baccarat too.

 

Let's see how good math geniuses deal with simple arithmetic.

100 spins:

55 lose and 45 win.

45 lose at $3 each = -$135
10 lose at $30 each = -$300

20 win at $3 each = +$60
25 win at $30 each = +$750

Here is the tough part. $810 - $435 = +$375

That's actually less than most experts at RR.

So I use math with RR and win at a confirmed rate of two to one where one to one is considered impossible by mathZombie standards.

This is basically what the mathBoyz have objected to for decades. It was kept a secret from them for at least 15 years. But they were so fun to fuck with. Now, the method is out there in the wide open and the dick heads are freaking out with their ad hominem fallacy of self righteousness. This is what is creeping up on their blind sides. All they have to do is check it out for themselves and validate their own belief. Course that means that they must consider that they have been wrong. It's a test.

 

It's a self taught, self motivated instruction to pass on a set of skills. Nobody has written a theory of it. That's interesting on its own. I wrote it to see how many people could self teach. It's an experiment. Nobody has theorized the method. I suppose a predicate must be stated if such an endeavor were to occur.

 

"You mathematical dick."

 

Your math proficiency is healthy. Fine explanation. Thanks.

 

Although I have been discussing the math and long Odds against extended streaks, I too, after learning some tough lessons along the way, eventually became a believer in the maxim: "follow the streak you can only lose once but if you bet against it like he did you can lose many times", and in my own gambling, I generally follow that rule.

When I was 24, 30 years ago, I invented in my head a Money Management scheme where I would double up my bet after each loss to recoup the losses -- Martingale -- naively believing I was the first guy to ever think of it, foolishly unaware every other gambler thought of this too and it already had a name.

So, I stepped to a Roulette table on the Vegas Strip to begin making millions with my brilliant strategy. On my very first bet, on my very first attempt with this strategy, I put $5 on BLACK. The wheel immediately produced 11 REDs. I went 7 Martys deep before I busted out: 127 units: $635, which was half my total monthly paycheck at the time.

I suppose that was an excellent life lesson to learn right up front: Playing with Marty is like playing with fire. Fire can be a useful tool if used carefully, but you can self-immolate yourself with it real quick if you get careless.

 

There is no such thing as an overall probability. You math guys are so full of shit. You are setting the postulation that gambler's fallacy is backed up by magical thinking. You and your BS are dead on arrival. I know you can't see this and relate to it.

 

I see.

We could also examine this math principle with standard 6-sided casino dice:

The chance of rolling two 6s when rolling both dice at the same time would be

x^y

x = 6
y = 2

= 1 in 36 = 1/36 = PROBABILITY 0.02777777777777777777777777777778 = ODDS 1:35

However, if we roll the dice one at a time, and roll 6 with the first die, the PROBABILITY of rolling 6 with second die is no longer

1/36 = 0.02777777777777777777777777777778

it has now become 1/6 = PROBABILITY 0.16666666666666666666666666666667 = ODDS 1:5

Right?

I've been stuck for a few months trying to solve this in my head, but I think it's clear now. Thanks.