Roulette @ albalaha, do you have any database with real spin sequences of lots of repeats collected?

Lol. I never knew that in your country, primary books of mathematics talks of gambling too. Care to show me any chapter from a math book? Bluejay please check your kids books.

Half baked knowledge is very dangerous. Why the hell should it be a way to win in gambling? Just do one thing, find any continuous real 200 hands of Player. Use simple labby, you have to beat it, mathematically.
Now, you will start the rant of table limits instead of teaching maths. Mathematics has solutions, do not deny that. It is only about the applied use of it, that you, unfortunately, are not aware of.

Can any of you foulmouth members who says that it is unbeatable, come up with any lesson of mathematics, probability, statistics etc to prove the same or you accept that it is only a poor rant of hopeless gamblers? If you firmly believe that it is unbeatable and losses are only fate, why are you lurking around forums?

 

When you ask questions like this, you reveal how much you don't understand these concepts. Every bet in roulette is a negative-expectation bet, because of the house edge. Roulette math is dead simple, e.g. the chances of getting red or black on an American wheel are 18/38 = 47.36%. Since you get your money back on wins, your expectation on a $1 bet is 1 - (18/38 x 2) = -$0.05. All the other bets calculate out to the same negative result. So, by placing a bunch of various bets, each with a negative expectation, the average of all these negative bets is negative. You're trying to tell us that the average of all these negative bets can be positive, which is beyond simply wrong, it's ridiculous.

I'm not lurking, I'm participating. And you really can't fathom *any* reason why people who know the games are unbeatable might participate in gambling forums? Seriously?

 

OMG! Did you read this clevera##?

 

And your negative expectation will work perfectly only in a hypothetical situation when we play any bet flat forever. It doesn't mean anything else. Please do not mislead all by saying that you read this bullshit in elementary math books, since there is no book as such.

 

"Labby" is not a word.

"Clevera" is not a word.

## is not proper punctuation.

Try your question again in English.

Such a small sample could *sometimes* be beaten by the Martingale, or even flat-betting. But 100 sets of 200 rounds each would surely fail. Because, as I keep explaining, the sum of any combination of negative-expectation bets is negative.

BTW, have you figured out any reasons yet why people who understand math might still participate in gambling forums?

 

Labby= Labouchere
after a clevera , substitute ## for ss
By the way, where did u find a book of elementary math that gave you the revelation that a negative expectation game can not be won, in any manner?

 

I wasn't the one who made that claim. Take it up with the person who did.

Can you supply a set of negative numbers whose average is positive?

And are you still puzzled why people who understand math might still participate in gambling forums?

 

Can you please quote the source of this holy revelation that every outcome of all bets will be in negative for sure? In betting we get negative as well as positive numbers as outcomes and hence the average need not be in negative. As I said earlier, this hypothesis of yours requires all bets to be flat.
I gave you a very simple example of labouchere. Just a simple labouchere will beat all known cases within a span of 200 trials max. Math has immense potential, you might not be aware of all.

 

(groan) Clearly I'm wasting my time.

 

You belong to a league of frustrated and broken gamblers who lurk here and there to find anything worthy of winning. You put a challenge for the same but it didn't help you either on the lines of Steve Hourmouzis, the scammer. If you truly believe(you failed to quote any reasonable source of your belief) that gambling can earn you in negative only, better get yourself enrolled for a gambling de-addiction course. You truly belong there and you might get a job there too where you will quote your own mathematical principals that assures a guaranteed loss for gamblers.
For records, I tell you and all that gambling is not unbeatable despite the slight house edge against players unless one is crazy enough to bet flat perpetually. I have beaten over 10 million spins of roulette with the help of a very known programmer buddy of mine years back. It was not an all over approach hence I worked more to finally get something that can sustain the worst possible and still win back.
https://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/

 

Buddy, here, school is an obligation for kids, which I know is not the case in India, and excuse me I didn't keep all my school books I used when I was 10 years old.

And for your information, NO, Labouchere progression or Martingale do not beat the game of Roulette. But if you want, you can arrange all sessions you want to make your progression work, for some sessions, it will work, but we are talking about long term expectancy which is set in stone and negative for the player.

The only acceptable question you could have asked is: "If Roulette is a negative expectancy game, how come some people win some days?".
Because there is a variable in the equation called: LUCK. But unfortunately, it cannot be quantified. When and for how long it will last if it happens.

To finish with you, albalaha, if you had something that makes you money, you would not spam your blog link at the bottom of all your posts, in which you ask for money donations.

 

LOL, yeah, I'm a frustrated and broken gambler. You saw right through me.

 

I doubt that you did ever put your hands upon algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, probability, statistics and basic arithmetic seriously ever otherwise gambling math being told as elementary math in schools looks like a laughing material for me. Even bluejay does not seem to concur with this wisdom of yours.
Merely cutting- pasting from here and there doesn't make you look wise while you are unable to address even basic mathematical concepts.

I do not want to promote Labouchere or any other raw idea but let me tell you a fact worth learning: a simple labouchere is sufficient to beat any stretch of bet with +1 within 200 trials max. The worst found EC event in over 12 millions roulette spins was found to be 69/200. If you have even slight idea of how labouchere works and how much it can work upon, you will never comment like this ever. Do your math or take help of a coder to check this yourself. Again, I am not endorsing using plain labouchere but math is math.

It seems you have never seen any free blog in your life, otherwise you might have known that tapatalk, the host of the free blog asks for donations, for hosting my blog for free and it will go to them, if you do, not me. I can remove that unwarranted advertisement if I pay them a monthly fees to them but if I want a paid blog, I will rather own a website. Check reality before speaking such loudly. I have shown you my plays with thousands of dollars. I have nothing to sell for years. If I feel like doing that, I would post that openly and believe me I still have hundreds of takers.

 

You say this as though you've made some sort of point. Betting systems make frequent small wins but suffer the occasional massive loss, wiping out the wins and then some. The results of my Martingale simulator (available on my site) showed a 78% chance of winning single-zero roulette with one hour of play (which is akin to your argument), dropping to a 71% chance of *losing* after 8 hours of play (my argument). Labouchere would be similar. And for the record, I'm certain that Labouchere will not beat *all* sets of 200 rounds though I haven't yet modeled it to prove it. Anyway, of course you can win in the short-term. That completely misses the point.

Says the guy who thinks the average of a bunch of negative-expectation bets can be positive.

 

Lol! every one can see who is saying what. I said that our bets get both positive and negative outcomes and they can get an average that is not negative necessarily. Come out of your pseudo theories that doesn't prove anything. Math books that told you that there is no way to win casino games should be brought forward before all of us, for the sake of enlightenment.

Lol! Your martingale( I never knew you devised martingale or even simulated it for first time) showed 78% chance of winning, then not mine Labouchere wins 100% of historically recorded EC outcomes with +1 within 200 hands/trials max. If you do not know something or have not experienced such things, try before you start to cry. The worst historically recorded was 69/200. At a glance simple to understand whether a labouchere can beat it anywhere or not.

 

You are the one who does not understand an independant event with a fixed odds to win, higher than the payout is a negative expectancy game which means you lose money overtime, and the establishment who gets the advantage called a Casino makes his profit in the long run thanks to its edge.
Let's take another example with the Slots Machines: The payout is set this way: for every 100 coins put in the machine, on average it will give you back 85 coins. Will you win against it or will you lose?.

Ok, I give you a session of 69/200, and applying Labouchere system you show me a profit of +1. If you can't, you pay me 100$. If you can, I make a donation on your blog of 10,000$. Agreed?.

The question is how come you need other people to pay for your blog expenses if you had something that worked to make money gambling. It shows you are desperate for money, and I don't see the goal of keeping your cheap blog alive, noone is participating to it. The only reason is keeping your Paypal donation.

 

Exactly. You don't understand the difference between the mathematical expectation of a trial and the result of a trial. Moreover, you've shown no willingness to learn.

Why are you wasting your time on this forum? Ring up the universities and explain to the math professors your superior mathematical knowledge.

 

Yes, see the classic Probability and Measure by eminent mathematician Patrick Billingsley. You can download it from here :

https://www.pdfdrive.com/probability-and-measure-e186728641.html

He gives detailed mathematical derivations showing why any arbitrary system (bet selection and/or staking scheme) will fail for a "subfair" game. Subfair means negative expectation, eg roulette, baccarat, craps etc.

And concludes "Thus no subfair game can convert a subfair game into a profitable enterprise." (page 105)

But I guess you know better. Where did you get your PhD in math and what papers have you written? I'm looking forward to reading them.

 

Sorry, that should have been

"Thus no gambling system can convert a subfair game into a profitable enterprise."

 

He can read a study of his HolyGrail here:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1707/1707.00529.pdf