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

Right. What an amazing breakthrough, Thorp will be so jealous. Have you ever thought of writing a book? It will be the end of roulette as we know it.

Even a marty is a winning system if you have 1) No house limits 2) Infinite bankroll 3) Infinite time. Labby is less aggressive but you still need all three to win in the long run.

 

albalaha, if you're so convinced that Labouchere can beat any set of 200 rounds, why don't you write a computer program and see for yourself that it doesn't?

Oh wait, I forgot, you don't like actual evidence.

 

And I doubt he's capable of writing a simulation. If he was he wouldn't be making such absurd claims.

 

Forget table limits and talk of mathematics only. I knew you will jump upon table limit and then forget your own math classes that you learnt in your primary schools that it can't win nevertheless due to some unknown mathematical theories.

It seems you need psychiatric help too, apart from visiting an ophthalmologist. I told you clearly that if I start a labby with 0,1, it will need exactly 1/3rd plus 1 win to finish the labby line winning the 1 unit profit finally. The worst of the worst outcome of an EC officially recorded so far was 69/200. Now it is a matter of mathematics of primary classes and not a big software to compute whether we can win within 200 spins or not with a plain labby.
So far as actual evidence is concerned, I know its importance more than any of you being an attorney. Rather it is you, who are not having any evidence of your claims that you found a mathematical theory that confirms that a casino game can not be won.

Regarding programming/writing simulations, I know a bit but have an array of bot programmers working for me. VLS, Ophis, Nickmsi, Stef and many more. Those who are old on any of the Victor's forums must have heard of these names. All of them worked for me and I have not less than 200 different simulators that can let me assess things on a single click. I have simulated all probabilities you might have heard of with the help of simulators.

 

Do you want me to keep posting the link to Billingley's book so you can ignore it again? What's the point?

If you had a grasp of basic probability you would know what a negative expectation game is and that as an abstract concept it can apply to ANY game, which obviously includes roulette.

I doubt very much that you are a lawyer, because you're not demonstrating much knowledge of logic and good argument, only ignorance and sophistry.

Some of us live in the real world, not La La land, and are subject to house limits and limited bankrolls. Sorry if that offends you.

Then ask one of them to test your theory that a labby can beat any sequence of 200 outcomes and stay within reasonable house limits.

 

albalaha, say I wrote a simulator, making the source code public so you and anyone could check it to make sure it's actually doing what it's supposed to do. Would you dismiss the results because it used a random number generator (e.g., xorshift+128), rather than live results from a physical table?

 

albalaha, I'm not kidding myself that this is going to make any difference, but read chapter 7 of the attached book - Betting Strategies : Why They Don't Work

 

That's a great resource, Jerome, thanks! You're right about it not making a difference, though. I checked and this guy has been preaching in the fora that betting systems can beat roulette (and that he's a lawyer) for ten years now.

It's interesting, though: Most betting system believers think that the mathematicians are wrong (much like armchair climate skeptics think that they know more about climate science than actual scientists). However, albalaha keeps demanding proof that mathematicians have shown that betting systems can't beat the house, apparently thinking that they agree with him. That's a new one on me.

 

I won't dismiss it. Physical Table games are also as much random as any True RNG.

 

Billingley is not a godsend angel that whatever he says is a gospel truth. Assumptions are different from the reality and so is the probability may differ from reality. On the one hand you talk that average/sum of all bets in a game of house edge has to be in negative no matter what and how we bet, on the other hand you talk of a reasonable table limit when I referred you 69/200 as the worst recorded case. Obviously you could not spot any real bet history worse than 69/200. If it is a mathematical concept that size of bets doesn't matter, why do you talk of table limits along? Both are anti thesis to each other.
Either come out of these frustrated quotes or quit gambling and gambling forums yourself. House advantage or Negative expectations is not the real killer, variance is.

 

Michael Bluejay, may i ask a question to you? Why you want a system which will win in a long run? What will be purpose of that? I think our life will not be enough to do as much bets as there are in long run definition. You said, martingale can beat house for a small period of time. Why not to use martingale for a small period of time, taking 1 unit and hit and run?

 

Simulating a system in the long run allows the tester to know what kind of session he will have to face if his goal is to play regularly and a lot of spins, or to laugh, becoming "a professional roulette player"

Of course, the advice of stopping after a small gain is good because you don't have an edge playing Roulette, and is only the result of a lucky day. But if you are very unlucky, even in the short term, you can decide to use the Martingale on Red and the wheel decides to give you Black 15 times in a row

 

What is the main idea you want to tell? Is that, we gamblers, dont have an edge? Knowing that we have no edge we must leave gambling and go to factory now? Okey, we dont have but there are players which has gained good money in baccarat and roulette and i think its worth to try, to create own system and try to earn some money even if anything is by luck.
Have you tried your luck? Maybe you also are lucky and can gain extra money without an edge. Why you dont like luck?

I never simulate anything because without a simulating i know that every system in thousand bets will give a such a streak
WLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLWLLLLLLLLLLW

 

I like it but I don't have a crystal ball that tells me when and for how long it will last Otherwise I would go all in on Red at Las Vegas to double all my savings in 1 minute

 

So, by far we know that gambler CAN and CANT beat casino.
With system gambler cant because he has no edge.
With luck gambler can. It were your words.

So, casino is beatable. Only thing is - you must be ride of your fears. Fear dont allow even to try.

 

If we talk about betting systems, based on my experience, i can say that of course, using 1 betting system with strict rules and with one strict money management there is no way to win casino in thousand bets.
Roulette is random number generator and trying to beat it, means you must have something what is also like random number generator.
You must change your betting system and money management after every 10 bets. Only in that way its possible to stay alive in thousand bets.

 

Do I need to wear different clothes also each time I switch a losing system for another? It might fool the wheel and ball even more.

 

You can do a simulations which you like a lot and you will see that randomly choosen and changing systems will let your deposite live longer than if you use just 1 system for a 1000 bets. Its all about staying alive longer and not about beating casino till death. But in all cases its stupid caus i dont see practice purpose of billion bet test. Till your death you can never meet that frightening loosing streak which you are searching in long run tests.

 

We're talking about mathematics, not a matter of opinion. The truth and proof of 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't depend on who does the proving, does it?

The game of roulette is modeled very accurately by common probability distributions such as the binomial. The casinos' long term income from games depends on this accuracy and the model holding true. What assumptions are you making that are different from reality and why do you think they're not already taken into account by casinos?

I think you'll agree that you can't win with flat bets (because of the negative expectation). In reality, in the long run progressions are no more effective than flat bets. Yes you can win in the short term using progressions where you would have lost flat betting, but you're living on borrowed time. You use progressions systematically, you don't just vary the stakes randomly. However, the result is the same as if you do vary them randomly because the stream of outcome is random. If the outcomes don't conform to the progression sequence at the time you apply it they are worthless, but you have no idea whether they will or not. Progressions just magnify your edge, so compared to flat bets, if you have an edge you will win more but if you don't you will lose more.

Ironically, progressions do nothing more than increase the variance, so if you want to dampen down the variance the last thing you should be doing is using them.

 

If the long run is dangerous - do short run.
In short run everything works. Why do you need long run?
If you are afraid of losing streaks which can happen and can not happen - go to factory.

You are full of fear of gambling with live money that's why you are making a test with billion bets to be sure, that there will not be a sequence which will kill you.