Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

There's an old saying that everyday somebody in the world discovers the Martingale and thinks he's discovered instant wealth.

 

You have to get it out of your head that independent random events are in any way connected to each other. The last outcome in roulette is not physically connected to the next outcome in any way shape or form, it's totally independent. The game of roulette resets itself after every spin. And that's why it can be beaten. There are no real patterns in roulette just because we think we see patterns. We pretend the patterns are real but of course they cannot be real. You can see a chop of black and red that goes on for 18 spins and you can see it all the way across the casino on the tote board. It's an illusion, we see it because that's the way we record things. The pockets on the wheel don't know they have numbers, they don't know they have different colors. It's just 37 or 38 identically made pockets. Therefore any pattern we think we see on the tote board isn't real. And because it's not real you absolutely cannot apply any rules to it. it's just an illusionary event that's happening right this minute and it could end or keep going on the very next spin. The only thing that we can apply to it is our experience. No math in the world will help you. What does my experience tell me about a chop that has been going on for 18 spins? Bet once for it to continue and stop. This chop is long in the tooth and it may go on for a few more spins but it's going to end. Be happy with one unit profit and look for something else to bet on. Lots of people will bet into a chop on the 7th or 8th spin hoping to ride it for a long time. I will bet once for it to continue and quit. If I win for me the session is over. The way I used to play I would win one unit and go looking for another pattern. I don't do that anymore, too much exposure of my bankroll to the casinos bottomless bankroll. This is a very easy to understand example that I gave. I wish the entire game was this simple. There are times when I bet for a pattern to end and those are much harder to learn.

 

There is no way the the mathBoyz will se what you mean.

 

You can simulate with lots of random walks, and confirm yourself.

The ArcSine law covers the crossovers and shows that the probability of a crossover is it its greatest at the start or end of the sequence. Very few crossovers mid series and crossovers are not linear but proportional to √n. They also are most probable to occur right near the start or the very immediate past as per ArcSine law. Classic example is lead changes in basketball scores happen predominantly near the end.

Consider player A vs the house (Player B) with even odds:

P(A leads at least the proportion x of the time) = 2π•arcsin √(1 − x)
P(A leads at least 80% of the time) = 2π•arcsin √(0.2) = 0.295
P(someone leads at least 80% of the time) = 2•2π•arcsin √(0.2) = 0.59
P(someone leads at least 90% of the time) = 2•2π•arcsin √(0.1) = 0.41
P(someone leads at least 95% of the time) = 2•2π•arcsin √(0.05) = 0.29
P(someone leads at least 99% of the time) = 2•2π•arcsin √(0.01) = 0.13

It's pretty interesting stuff. More reading here:

http://www2.math.uu.se/~sea/kurser/stokprocmn1/slumpvandring_eng.pdf

 

That makes sense.

If we start spinning a brand-new unbiased Roulette wheel right out of the box, and the first 40 spins produces 30 RED and 10 BLACK, for a 3:1 ratio, I wouldn't expect to see the same 3:1 ratio to still exist after 100,000 spins, with 75,000 RED and 25,000 BLACK. Nor would I expect to still see the 3:1 ratio 75 RED and 25 BLACK after the first 100 spins.

The asymmetric ratio produced in the short term will seek equilibrium in the longer term, even if it never regains exact equilibrium. I'm not fluent enough with the math to explain this though. Perhaps you are. If you understand the math in Mark Shilling's paper, you are much more fluent than I with math, because most of that was well over my head. "Statistics" is a useful class I would like to have taken, but never did.

The brilliant Jean-Baptiste le Rond d'Alembert (1717 – 1783) was a French mathematician, mechanician, physicist, philosopher, and music theorist. In 1743, he published his most famous work, Traite de Dynamique, in which he developed his own laws of motion. His "Theory of Kinetic Equilibrium" explains some of this principle we're discussing as well, though again, I lack fluency to articulate his math myself.

The famous d'Alembert Money Management wagering strategy is based upon his theory of kinetic equilibrium. The man was not a professional gambler and was busy doing far more important things for the world than playing Roulette like I'm doing, but the Money Management scheme that bears his name can be quite profitable when used properly. I give a special personal shoutout to Jean-Baptiste, for helping me win tens of thousands of dollars over the years.

 

It can be quite profitable if you have the correct bet selection. But if you have the correct bet selection you won't need this money management scheme. I don't need it because it's a waste of time, I can win flat betting.

"The asymmetric ratio produced in the short term will seek equilibrium in the longer term, even if it never regains exact equilibrium."

Though interesting, this information is quite useless in making bets in the extreme short-term. All long-term statistics are useless in the extreme short-term. I can't say this too many times, in the extreme short-term anything can happen. It can even make one of Steve Wynn's casinos have a losing quarter. Because the short-term is totally unpredictable. Here is the difference between us players and the casino. We bet the extreme short-term and the casino bets the extreme long-term.
If they can keep players coming through their door the casino has a sure thing. The math is always on their side. But there is no math for the short-term. If there is I would certainly like to hear it. If I pay attention I can beat the kind of pitiful random that is produced by a roulette wheel. It's really not that difficult if you put enough time into it.

 

Money management can absorb some negative variance but always requires raising bets to recover, (and pays more house edge).

When developing a betting method always push as far as possible using flat betting to measure the bet selection effectiveness. Bet selection may capture certain patterns and lose against others, but the true measure of the bet selection is, can you avoid raising your bet and still give yourself a reasonable chance at a win?

The next step is does the method allow a positive progression? Because that can accelerate the profit and reduce time at the table when your bet selection is capturing sequential winning patterns.

Does your selection improve chances of back to back wins?

Negative progression approaches should be a last resort and ideally never used as a compensation for a bet selection that offers no value.

Some will say bet selections can in principle never provide any benefit. In the long term average that may be the case but there may be some situations based on statistical norms which could provide an opportunity to have a better outcome.

 

Classic Spike gibberish, which doesn't even attain the status of bovine scat.

With you so far.

Right. So you know what's coming next BECAUSE nothing in the history tells you about what's coming next.

Ok...

So according to you, math has nothing to do with experience? Clueless...

You mean the chop which you just told us is an illusion and totally meaningless?

So, you're applying a rule to the imaginary illusory pattern which you just got done telling us that you can't apply any rules to. And furthermore, you win 4 out of 5 bets applying these rules. Got it.

Over 2000 years ago, Aristotle, who invented logic, came up with 3 "Laws of Thought", one of which was the law of non-contradiction, which states that "The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously". I know it's trendy in these days of "post truth" to be contradictory, but at least make an attempt to disguise it a little, lol.

Or perhaps that's the point. It's so blatantly nonsensical that you hope we think you have some profound insight which defies common sense?
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/06/pseudo-profundity-from-believing.html

 

Well, I hope to find out firsthand myself what happens after never losing in a casino and winning suitcases full of millions. I'll let you know what happens if I ever get there.

 

Disregarding Advantage Player advantages, name one wager anywhere in a casino where the House doesn't have the mathematical advantage to win? We can be certain the casinos have asked themselves this question, and that's really the only question that matters to them.

 

The house edge only works in the long term. Two people can go to a roulette table with $100 each and one hour later one of them has $900 the other one lost the entire $100. The house edge had nothing to do with their play because they cannot play long enough for it to affect them. What does affect them directly is their bet selection. Bet selection is the only thing that affects short-term play.

 

Nope, no rule. I have no rules, rules do not work with random outcomes. I have an educated guess that I might use or might not use. Every situation is different.

 

Do not get paranoid and enjoy s day at the Casino ( B & M ) .

 

Casinos are not my life .

 

Gizmo was correct, no matter how much you try and explain educated guessing to a math person they will never get it. They cannot force themselves to think that way. Anything that does not involve math in the solution to them is Hocus Pocus witchcraft. They wear math tinted glasses and see everything in the world through the prism of math. Which keeps them locked into the prison of math thinking.

 

If a casino sends you free play vouchers, which they often do to intice players back, go to the craps table and use it for passline or don't pass wagers and add or lay free odds with your own money. Zero house edge.

The option is do the same at a casino that allows 100x free odds behind your line bet and you start to push the house edge to zero. The don't pass is 1.36% (most advantage and the biggest benefit with the odds) and the passline is 1.41% so when adding 100x your base bet in free odds the house edge as a percentage of the overall bet is now under 0.02%

Playing $1010 bets and 14 cents in house edge.

 

lol. "Explain"? You've explained nothing. Your post was just a collection of contradictions. Apparently you have the same contempt for logic as you do for math. You're the Deepak Chopra of the gambling world, but everyone can see that the emperor has no clothes.

Another contradiction. An educated guess must be based on something - the guesses are educated by what? past outcomes and patterns which you say don't exist and have no meaning.

 

Thousands of hours of experience observing the game. Do you really think you're going to talk me out of what I do every single day, win at roulette? The casino verifies what I do every time they pay me. That's all I need.

 

I wrote a simulation to test H/T outcomes and how often one side stays in the lead. 10,000 sessions each lasting 100 flips. The average number of switches (when H & T exchange leading positions) was 3.43. While it's true that the single most frequent occurrence is zero switches, this happens in only about 17% of sessions. See the attached. The final column on the left keeps track of the switches (I've only included the last 3 sessions because the file is too big to upload). At the end is the frequency distribution.