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

Lol! Probability of not winning in long run is being taken as absolute reality. Great. Probability says, it should happen not it would happen.

Mathematical expectation is set in stone considering a uniform bet, not with a varying bet size which could be based upon logic. What we win or lose is not determined by the mathematical expectancy alone. Variance and bets placed could change things far more than you think. By mathematical expectation we should lose only what house edge on bet dictates while we could be losing or winning far more in every random session.

Lol! Bluejay avoided tricky answers but you are showing your hollowness in basic maths. Naturally, you learnt gambling lessons in your school that you have forgotten with your books. Time to re read them.
Labouchere wins in 1/3rd+1 win, if we start like 0,1 so, in 200 spins, wherever we get 1/3rd +1, we win. 68th win should suffice howsoever cleverly you place it. Further, 69/200 is a case of 4 SD below mean which is rarest of rare to have in the real world.

Well, if a PhD is any criteria of being successful in gambling, there would have been a million winners, so far. Everyone can not become Prof Edward O. Thorp merely by getting a PhD. By the way, where did you do your PhD from?
Which pre existing mathematical theory helped Thorp win? Answer: None. Otherwise every math literate could have done the same.

 

I said: "You don't understand the difference between the mathematical expectation of a trial and the result of a trial."

albalaha said: "Mathematical expectation is set in stone considering a uniform bet, not with a varying bet size..."

So, like I said, "You don't understand the difference between the mathematical expectation of a trial and the result of a trial."

Expected value of a specific bet is *absolutely* based on the amount bet, by definition. I think you don't realize that you keep revealing how much you don't know.

But again, why are you wasting your time on this forum? Ring up the universities and impress the math professors with your superior understanding and show them how they've been wrong for all these centuries.

 

No, a bet doesn't have to be uniform. You obviously don't understand mathematical expectation. Read the Billingsley book I linked to, his derivation doesn't depend on flat betting.

I'm not the one claiming to get a positive result from a negative expectation game, you are.

Card-counting in BJ depends on dependent trials, which doesn't apply to roulette - it's really basic probability 101 stuff. And Thorp also showed that counting cards in Bacc doesn't yield an edge.

 

How can a cat have a losing style of play if he win more than 50% of his placed bet, hey hey?

 

I want to ask just one question to these self proclaimed math genius that do not hold a PhD in math themselves but consider every PhD in Math equal to Thorp:
Isn't blackjack a game of negative expectation/house edge too?
If yes, then how the hell Thorp defied the math by devising a card counting technique?

I know suckers have all the excuses and explanations now since Thorp explained his methodology, otherwise these half baked self proclaimed mathematician would have killed even him with their negative expectation theories.
On 12th of April 1633 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church.
Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy.

Do not pose your own set of beliefs as mathematics. No book of mathematics explains that a game of house edge or negative expectations can not be beaten absolutely.

 

albalaha, sorry you are a true genius indeed, I didn't realize until now that the Martingale progression or Labouchère progression would give you a dollar profit at some point with an unlimited bankroll, supporting an unlimited drawdown and no table limits. THANK YOU I am rushing to Las Vegas right now.

 

I don't claim to be a math genius, only to know college-level math. The stuff we're talking about here is only middle school/junior high-level math. It doesn't even require algebra.

Again, you don't realize how much you reveal about your unfamiliarity with these concepts by asking questions like this. It's like you're waving around a huge sign. And asking questions is normally good, if you're truly interested in learning something, but every time you get an answer you either double down on your wrong belief or move on to the next misconception.

Jerome already answered this, but I'll answer in a little more detail: In most games the trials are *independent* but in blackjack they are *dependent*. That is, in most games the odds don't change from one round to the next, but in blackjack they do, because the cards that have been removed from the deck can no longer be dealt. It's easy to turn blackjack into a game of independent trials, just use a continuously-shuffling machine. Then blackjack is completely uncountable.

You've got this exactly backwards. Galileo was a *scientist* who believed in *testing* his ideas rather than just pulling bullshit out of his ass and proclaiming it as fact. The concepts we're talking about here *have* been tested, rigorously, for centuries. The ideas you're promoting *don't* survive scrutiny, and adhering to them in contrast to all available evidence is the exact opposite of what Galileo was fighting for.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "irony"? Or "hypocrisy"?

Jerome already posted one. See page 2 of this thread. And here again, when you IGNORE THE EVIDENCE, you're spitting in Galileo's face.

 

Jerome did not quote from any textbook but a one liner shit from somewhere. If you claim it to be a basic Math, quote from a source worthy of relying upon and no oneliner shit, complete mathematical concept behind your claim.

 

albalaha don't go around in circles forever, did you discover the HolyGrail and if yes, how much do we need to tip in your blog paypal donation section to get it?.

 

Albalaha, it would help your credibility if you stopped saying things that clearly aren't true.

Jerome did indeed reference a textbook on page 2 of this thread: Probability and Measure by Dr. Patrick Billingsley of the University of Chicago. From the forward, written after the author passed:

Here's a link to the PDF: https://www.pdfdrive.com/probability-and-measure-e186728641.html

Can you now admit that a reputable textbook confirms that a negative expectation game of independent trials cannot be beaten, or will you be like those who persecuted Galileo, and believe what you want to believe despite all available evidence? (The former is the more intelligent choice, I hope you choose it.)

 

People were forced to add "independent trials" exception which no textbook taught before Thorp did beat blackjack. Blackjack was considered and acclaimed to be as much unbeatable earlier. You may add such adjectives/exceptions too, when I prove my concept. A negative expectation game of independent trials can be beaten but not with any routine methodology that succumbs to variance. I have done that earlier with over 10 millions spins of roulette albeit through a trigger based betting. Now I m doing that all over.
Both roulette and baccarat are games of independent trials and with negative expectations/house edge, I agree absolutely but nothing can beat it, is something I do not agree. This is not math but merely an assumption. I clarified with a mathematical model called labouchere that how increasing decreasing bets scientifically could beat even the worst variance. You failed to give any real session that remains unbeatable even upto 200 trials with even basic labouchere. My mathematical model is far superior to labouchere and can handle even 5 SD below mean or worse with bearable losses and can come out a net winner, thereafter.

 

Me: Will you now accept the evidence you claimed didn't exist?

Albalaha: [More B.S.]

Well, that was predictable.

 

Me: Do you have any mathematical concept that tells in your ears that hey games with house edge are unbeatable?
MJ: No, I read many people speaking like this on many forums.
Me: If a game of house edge is unbeatable mathematically(although there is no evidence of any such theories) how come Thorp beat Blackjack?
MJ: Well.........errrrrr...... it was not about independent trials
Me: Ok. Did any existing mathematician knew the same or could accomplish anything alike?
MJ: Now, you are stupid and I m smart.
Me: Ok. Have you ever heard of bias analysis that have evidently beaten another game of house edge plus independent trials called roulette
being beaten by Joseph Jagger to Pelayo? How come they change math again?
MJ: I do not trust them. They might have read some other books of math.
Me: Ok. I insist that even the basic labouchere can beat roulette or baccarat within 200 trials with +1 . Can you check that and find me some real data exceptions?
MJ: No. I will only blabber.
Me: Ok. Why are you into gambling and in this forum if you know it can not win, in any manner?
MJ: Well.. I am a habitual lurker and preacher. I offered 30k reward for a winner system but could not find one so got a bit crazy.
Me: Fuck off.

 

Lol. By the way, the difference between my quoting you, and you quoting me, is that I quoted *what you actually said*, while you quoted what you *wish I had said*. In rhetoric, this is what's called a Straw Man.

 

I still have my questions up for you or any sensible person who wishes to argue and not blabber. You can re-answer them but I believe you won't. I wonder where is the wizkid Jerome in whose school's elementary mathematics classes, gambling odds and mathematics are also being taught. Great curriculum. Las Vegas Primary School for Gamblers' Kids may be?
These Self certified Pseudo mathematicians know that you can not win in casino due to the house edge. To make some analogies to the real world, the math boys argument is like saying that you cannot be profitable in business because you have to pay taxes or like a 105 Kg boxer has to lose to a 110 Kg one. Mathematics and Physics both will support the boxer with 110 Kg weight but we know that skill matters a lot more than those 5 Kg advantage. How about 10 kids of 10 years fighting against a pro boxer of 75 Kg? Both scenario are different but a mathematician may conclude those 10 kids winning against the pro boxer cumulatively.
When the associate of Edward Thorp, Claude Shannon beaten roulette(which has a house edge and which is a game of independent trials too) with wearable computer, it still had the same mathematically unbeatable house edge. When Joseph Jagger did beat it with bias analysis, house edge was not on vacations, later many known gamblers including Pelayo family did that again and again but poor guys who comprehend a higher probability of losing than winning with absolute certainty could not digest that.
I do not know from which book of mathematics they got this statement:
" Any combination of negative-expectation bets is always negative. (e.g., the average of any set of negative numbers is always negative)"
While what the say under brackets is right but why the hell I will have all negative numbers to take average of? If I place say 100 bets, can't I win more while I am winning as I will be getting almost similar number of wins and losses i.e. positive and negative numbers and not only negative number as this self acclaimed genius asserts?
When I asked them to provide any continuous 200 outcomes of baccarat(be it banker or player) or even roulette from any verifiable source where none can get at +1 just with standard labouchere, they are not even able to trace one, so far. For records, I am not asserting that standard Labouchere is a way to play but the concept of "Any combination of negative-expectation bets is always negative. (e.g., the average of any set of negative numbers is always negative)" gets negated just by that. Variance, table limits, bankroll limits are different set of issues which are real killers and none of the so called Mathtards bothers to talk of them
Even I once read an interview of Edward O Thorp in which he said that Martingale is not a way to play as it could seek uncountable chips to win 1 and house has a table limit to stop player doing so. He never said that : Any combination of negative-expectation bets is always negative.
Anyways, I have no business to prove that I can win random game not just with house edge but with extreme variance against me, in its worst recorded case and even beyond that. I wonder why these frustrated gamblers who themselves assert that it is impossible to win in casino, fucking around casino gambling forums.
I have not come across sensible real players or system analysts here apart from 2-3 guys. Maybe one who plays does not write and those who write do not play and none has any conclusive strategy to be profitable so far. I think I must quit such places.

 

Except that you've shown absolutely no ability to listen or learn. Given that, I conclude that I've wasted enough time here.

 

Yes you did waste time of all of us without providing any credible evidence of what you are asserting vehemently.

 

Yeah, I never repeated the reference to Billingsley's work. You got me there.

 

You can add false analogy to your list of fallacies.

So you've just identified the two ways it's possible to win at roulette. Past spins taken alone have no predictive power whatsoever because outcomes are independent (and pure staking systems don't work either because they depend on better than random accuracy of prediction in order to be effective). However, insofar as past spins can indicate the probability distribution, they can be used to identify biased wheels (although visual techniques are more efficient, according to our resident expert). Numbers around the wheel conform to the uniform distribution meaning that they are equally likely to hit; any departure from uniformity may yield an edge.

The second way is using computers/visual ballistics. Although successive spins are independent, the outcome is not independent of the initial physical conditions such as wheel speed, type of ball etc. An analogy is throwing darts at a board. Where the dart ends up depends on its initial velocity and angle of release, among other things.

What you and other system addicts are doing is like marking the points on the board where previous darts have hit and using the patterns to try to predict where the next one will hit. Yeah, like that makes sense.

Understand?

<Sigh>. Once again you've just demonstrated that you fail to understand the concept of expectation. Even the Wizard of odds admits that players can win, sometimes for long periods, with nothing but luck and progressions. Progressions win until they don't.

At last, a sensible post.

 

Answer my queries one by one if you dare. Merely assertions won't prove your point.

It seems you need to see your ophthalmologist very soon. I am rather asking the opposite. Bring forth the worst you can and check that with basic labouchere and educate yourself. There is no need to predict, in order to win. Just go with the flow and in the long run, you will win. Long run progression might look an alien science to you, not my fault.
There are one way or two to beat roulette or baccarat is not something you are qualified to answer. You can merely comment on what you know about.