Roulette Gambler's fallacy is a fallacy --- And i'll prove it !!

Less risk, 50/50 chance to win, easy low rolling to build a larger bankroll to then start to play inside bets, and they're easier to predict.

53yrs old, been playing roulette since i was 15yrs old, got trained to be a croupier, have way more responsibility than most and have learned enough to want to learn more about probabilities, averages etc etc so i use tools to help, tools are for professionals buddy, super advanced players.


Sorry for ruining your confident beliefs for the day


Let me know when your shovel breaks from that huge hole you just dug for yourself and i'll buy you a new one, with my winnings haha !!

 

38 years of experience and still use tools . Lmao
Super advanced lmao
Thx , that was a good read and laugh

Enough said ... bye Mr tools

 

weirdo lol

You can't even read ha ha ha !!

 

Dm me, i'll send you some cash for a new shovel, a really big shovel ha ha ha !!

 

Another gif master master. Must of been trained by the gif master himself, The DSAA.

The blind leading the blind, FOOLS.

 

you sound angry, mad, jealous and all the other immature sayings around the net, including "another gif master"


Brains for sale !! only £3.99 !!

 

Gifs are given to stupid people that don't understand words lol

You're a just a forum that keeps giving haha !!

 

hi, check my home page website for message me

 

thxs i've emailed you buddy

 

I agree with your first two paragraphs.

Regarding "tools" though, I guess it depends on how that term is defined. If we're talking about devices/apps/programs purporting to advise us on a specific Bet Selection placement and Bet amount -- then yes, it's unreliable and only for "fools" who are either incapable or unwilling to put in the years and work it takes to learn the game.

But if we're taking about "tracking and charting" tools, such as the graph you display in your own Avatar, and the spreadsheet used to create it, then no, those aren't for fools. Such tools can be quite useful and accelerate our learning and correlation of concepts. I wish I knew how to use spreadsheets to improve my gambling, but I don't. I'm trying to learn now though. Seems like quite an advantage for those who understand how to create and use them.

 

@Denzie your statement, although not wrong per se, ain't entirely correct, since it only covers for the monetary aspect -- & not what it gets you in terns of probability as well.

--

While inside bets have a higher payout, simultaneously also have lower probability of a hit within the same amount of numbers played

ie. to get ≈50% chance of a hit -- you play 18 numbers in one spin, while, on the other end of the spectrum, you gotta play as single-SU 24 numbers over 24 spins ..

So. 6 numbers extra or 33% cost-increase, provided you've played EC 18u (1:1) & 24x SU 1u (35:1) = get the ≈same probability, ± give or take.

In short, payouts & probability are inversely correlated.

Both factors balance out at the DS or 5:1, as default payout, or single-position play.

Specifically, 4x DS 1u (5:1) or 20 numbers played, or comparatively directly to the above scenario, 4x DS 5u = 20u in total, giving just a tinge below 50%.

All other possible bet-types locus' is somewhere in-between on this spectrum.

--

Thus, in my opinion, none of them is better or trumps another, per se!

Thereof, also in my opinion, a payout trumps over another given the use-case, or its function, the purpose assigned to it given the overall picture.

One of such use-cases can be .. if you decide to play so, otherwise it is irrelevant as immaterial to you anyway .. & is a system optimization to the game target, nominal +1 → restart accordingly.

Or in short, alternating or shifting the payouts throughtout the play till +1 = system & its bets are optimized for the cost-efficiency.

This, according to two two factors, of both of mutually-inclusive property:
firstly, the exposition (debt-size) generated
& secondly, to the number of hits requirement for closing (positive, including house-edge paid-out→ restart).

Basically allowing you to keep the bets low, at minimum during the play, proportionally to the exposition & number of hits required.

By the way, these hits are quantified as & have to be relatively close-by, otherwise, passing the latest-hit's gains, as in exhausting them as the cost of the next bets, the number if hits required is increased by one again ..

In such use-case, then, one particular payout at a certain exposition-notch & remaining hits required might be more appropriate than any other, trumping then according to the function it serves, or is purposed to within the overall specifications of a certain system.

This function or purpose, is in such a case to buy -- on top-level, keeping it simple, to buy the highest-probability of a hit for the same price .... & as more detailed, better defined, the highest-probability possible based on or relative to the amount of numbers played, for the lowest-price versus accumulated &or partially resolved debt so far (exposition).

Essentially, price of probability, as the cost per number played.

--

Example:

a)
game-start
±0 -- EC 1u, hit
+1 -- 18ⁿ (ⁿ =numbers-played) & 1u in totalthe highest-probability you can get for the nominal, the very lowest-price of 1u (payout 1:1)
cost per number-played ... 1/18= 0.05555555555ⁿ

at (±0) nothing else trumps that in terms of numbers-played + cost = resulting probability of getting into positive

b)
playing as attack = one hit-to-finish requirement
±0 -- EC 1u, no-hit
-1 -- DZ 1u, hit (+2)
+1 -- 30ⁿ & 2u in total; price of a number-played ... 2/30= 0.06666666666/ⁿ

c)
playing as recovery, definition = >1 hit-to-finish .... single-position-play
±0 -- EC 1u, no-hit
-1 -- DZ or CL 0.5u, hit (+1)
±0 -- EC 1u, hit (+1)
+1 -- 48ⁿ & 2.5u; 2.5/48= 0.05208333333

d)
playing as recovery, definition = >1 hit-to-finish .... ≥1 position-play
±0 -- EC 1u, no-hit
-1 -- 2DZ or 2CL 0.5u/position or 1u/total = overall-flat, hit (+0.5)
±0 -- EC 1u, hit (+0.5)
+0.5 -- 60ⁿ & 2.5u; 3/60 = 1/20 = 0.05/ⁿ

 

First off, send your gratitude credits to @juice for pointing that out.
Having said that, you should also point the questions to him specifically, to get them addressed most competently.

Since you asked me, in my opinion, & according to the video + the facts presented ...

First-off, this requires, structurally, a virtual-bet incoporated .. within the whole bet-sequence.
Not zero, not two, not more = one, & one exactly.
This already, by itself & pre-emptively, defeats all the usual & standard arguments about waiting = virtual-bets + triggers related.
Alike, awaiting for so or so many spins, then in relation to the probability of a hit, as in reduced number of no-hit streaks vs hit probability & gaining some sort of edge due to this .. as a counter-argument to them arguments, which is, as correctly pointed out by those, is non-sense anyway.
I'd add though, to be entirely correct .. unless foundationally basing such bet-structure on the premise of the variance-limit (eg. for EC at about 33x-spins, & accordingly to the DZ &or other payouts) + combined with the table-limit = the progression-type opted for + the bankroll-necessary to satisfy the condition overcoming the cost of progression-steps required to an individual-game to positive irregardless ... but then the this-trigger-type-based betting-opportunities would be so rare, that such systems are usually deemed as "good on paper" & non-playable practically, at least at B&M tables... & then again, unless used by bots on pRNG-based digital-roulettes, but liable to have a online-casino account suspended anyway, fir whatever bogus reason them decide to use upon their discretion.

With this virtual-bet included though, an aadvantage is gained two-fold, mutually-inclusive, contingent on the perspective of seeing it:
monetarily, the first-outcome observed was not financed; so on this count, we've already evaded scot-free
in turn, the bet, as a whole as structured, has factually gained an increase in terms of probability, specifically cumulative-probability; meaning our actual first-bet, as the second-step, although the spin-probability is ≠50/50, the cumulative-probability of a hit on the first-spin financed is already at ≈76.63%.
1-(19/37)²= 0.73630387143

In essence, the probability of the whole bet-sequence is pushed out forward by one spin in terms of cumulative-probability, due to the virtual-bet being incorporated = as the first-spin observed not being financed.

Anyway, long-story short, the trigger is available on each & every spins, relative to when betting starts, or the bet-sequence is initialized ... zero(es) are simply ignored.

Second-off, for the rest of the structure of this bet-sequence, to satisfy the improved 'average waiting time' of a hit (HT vs HH & TH vs HH) → the bet-selection implied is opposite-same repeatedly (OSS ....) till hit.

Is this advantage of 33% (4 vs 6 spins, excluding Zero(es) & on average) enough to overcome the house-edge & get to positive overall?

Well, at least the advantage based on thus bs-type itself is proven, seems all you gotta focus on is mm-proper -- if I am correct, juice implied at that & at as well, at the tip of use of positive-progression, press specifically.

 

preach on Brotha! Amen

 

Lord have mercy!!!

 

@RouletteTools
Let’s be real, you ain’t fooling anyone Joe

 

He's saying you're immature, yet he acting like a little baby . Go figure....Lmao

Idi0ts are best to be ignored!

 

38yrs of roulette experience and you still play ONLY the outsides.
With over 20yrs of experience and graduated from the outside bets within 3yrs. Outside bets just ain’t cutting it. Sorry, not sorry.

Y’all using any type of tools to win in roulette are one dimensional. Y’all only can do what you do online.

Step in a real brick & mortar casino y’all be losing your head. Real AP’s don’t need that shit. Shit is done in our heads. Be like us where you can do it in both worlds. But then again, I stay away from those fake scamming online casinos.

 

I appreciate your taking the time for me with that very thorough explanation. Thank you.

 

Pattern Breaker?????

 

never mind, you do you haha !