Roulette A question to make you think

What or how would you bet on a roulette table if you DIDN'T want to win.
If your goal was to avoid a bet that you placed winning - where and why would you bet there ?
I think this might help some people along the way,
Don't get confused with "bet red and black and zero" (that's a whole different topic).
Lets say for the sake of example - you have to place a chip and you want to make sure that it doesn't win.....

 

If I wasn't thinking my first response would be bet cold and furthest back. But thats too obvious and Im great at over-thinking! So I'm gonna go away and think, too much probably!

 

No, that's actually a very good answer

 

Damn – I feel like I've spoilt this now!
Were you leading on to something else with it or just hinting at the food for thought for the flip-side of winning?

 

Both really.
You had a great suggestion though !

Lets say we wait until there is only 1 street left to show and then bet on it for 1 spin - knowing it could be 40+ spins before that last street shows. It's a great way to lose that bet.
Or waiting until all of the numbers on the table show except for 1 and then betting on it for 1 spin.... yep -
it could be 300+ spins (or more...) and we lose that one bet with no problem.
Any more from anyone ? Fossell sees where I'm going with this lol

 

Haha - I do indeedy

 

I once read some where, I don't remember where, but it was in a fairly advanced book on roulette and math, that on a fair wheel the last number to show has a teeny weeny less chance of showing immediately again than any other number showing. So going on that I would say I'd wait for the last number of all 37 numbers to show, and then immediately bet that last single number out for my losing bet.

PS, I don't think they used the term, 'teeny weeny' in the book.

 

Not to win? Thats easy.....I would find a system posted by RouletteGhost and play that!!

Ken

 

[SIGH]

All numbers have the same chance of hitting on a fair wheel. To think that hot numbers or cold numbers have a better or worse chance is to believe that spins are not independent. Why on earth people persist with this silliness is beyond me.

 

It's like religion, you have to have "faith". But in the case of systems, anyone can easily prove for themselves that the assertions are false. To take the current example, use RX to generate spins and count the number of spins it takes before you get a hit (1) when betting the number which hits on the first spin, and (2) when betting the last unhit number. (1) is hot and (2) is cold. Do this many times and then compute the standard deviation of the number of spins before a hit in (1) and (2). You'll find there is no statistically significant difference.

The system addict is completely unphased by this evidence no matter how times it's done or how many variations are tried. They will continue to argue that their beliefs reflect reality. Isn't that MORE irrational than believing that you have an imaginary friend (god)? It doesn't seem unreasonable to continue to believe that something exists or doesn't exist for which there is no hard evidence either way; being agnostic is reasonable. Because "god" is an abstract notion which can't be easily defined, there are endless sophisticated arguments for and against, but in the case of proving systems you just have to be able to count in order to get the answer. Apparently system players don't even believe in math.

 

Those people have psychic problems, they have an addiction for gambling but I would say a rational addiction because they do not spend any money in the real world. Fortunately for them, otherwise they would be sleeping under a bridge. You add to this a big ego because child they've been starved of affection, and the result is an adult who has been spending most of his life playing on RX and online Casinos for fun and claiming having found 10 times the HolyGrail. Sad but it's reality.

 

At least he thought about it and answered - unlike you who tries and fails to explain why people do what they do.

 

Individual spins are independent.. what you're not even thinking about is that a sequence of spins is also independent from the last sequence of spins.

 

In the random game:

Individual spins are independent.
Sequences of spins are also independent.

Claiming otherwise is a fools folly.

 

There ya go, we agree on something for once lol

 

TG,

Of course if individual spins are independent then sequences must also be independent. We agree then. In that case, how do you justify:

That would only be possible if spins were NOT independent. What am I missing?

 

TG,

You seem quite confused about the meaning of independence.

In roulette events are independent because the same number of pockets remain on the wheel between spins. If a pocket was blocked after the ball landed in it, like cards being removed from a deck, events would no longer be independent. This means that the probability of the street showing is not affected by the fact that it is the LAST street. In other words, waiting for the last street doesn't affect the probability of it showing. Similarly for your other example of waiting for all numbers to show but one. All probabilities of sequences also never change between spins, no matter what event has occurred.

This article may help.

http://www.statisticshowto.com/how-to-tell-if-an-event-is-dependent-or-independent/

I'm not trying to be patronizing here, but you do seem genuinely confused.

 

There's a lot of math that supports the independent nature of roulette numbers. Despite this, probability dictates that the possibility of all available numbers unfolding in any one cycle without any repeated numbers is infinitesimally small (immeasurably small; less than an assignable quantity).

Therefore one can predict with confidence that at some point in any 37 or 38 spin cycle some numbers will be reproduced.

I can't see any argument to disclaim this fact, certainly independence won't do it. Whether you can successfully use it to reverse the house edge is another story.

It should help a bit, but I can't see it being the end all. There's just too much other math going on, most importantly the unfair payouts.

 

What a load of gibberish.

You're problem Bago is that you're just a fuckwit.

 

Yes I fuck you dumbass and your law of the third, you talk for nothing, millions of people have tried to exploit "this law" but before the sequence of 37 spins is known, you cannot predict which numbers will show at least 2 times. So you better shut up instead of posting silliness like this.