Roulette Math Players vs System Players

There is no way to find a biased wheel online period.
These wheels are almost perfect to beat them with physics or VB or even RC.
I know many people that bought roulette computers but they had no success and when i read about people that beat this kind of wheels with VB i laugh and wait for them to prove me wrong.
Nobody proved me wrong after 9 years.

 

Nice example never would’ve of thought of that.
In this case math would prevail in roulette. The only math I use in roulette is to calculate my winnings. Say I make a picture bet. Never happened to me but I’ve seen other players get short chipped by the croupier when they payout winners.

However, the math based player, uses math to calculate why players don’t win.

 

The paradox of the winner: if you win, why are you here writing that you win and you don't keep winning?

In fact I don't write ........ let's say that I rarely write!

The results I have reported to you may be false, but if they are true ....... then ask yourself what mathematical logic they respond to.

Binomial distribution and correlation between groups of numbers !!
For example, what is connection between the first 24 and the last 13 shots, in a 37 shot cycle?
If you do a statistical survey you do not have to use all the 37 shot cycles, otherwise the result will only be respect for symmetry.

Regards, Raf

 

Does a basic martingale count as a winning system?

 

First, I fully agree with the math on one point:
It is impossible to beat the house advantage. And that's for sure because if it weren't for Las Vegas it would no longer exist and all mathematicians would be rich.
But I also believe that games like baccarat and roulette, you can identify patterns and enjoy it somehow by taking a positive variance in your favor.
So even those who say that they only use patterns and nothing in math is somehow wrong, because they use some patterns, in other words, a statistic that they noticed in the game. And statistics is also math.
My definition is that we use mathematics in some way in the systems we create.
And one factor that will always be in favor of casinos is human nature. We are greedy and undisciplined by nature.
when we are winning we want more and we don't know how to deal with losses and we lose control of the situation.
I say this with a little 10 years of poker experience. I see many losing control when it's losing.

And the following video is just an interesting and mathematical curiosity about the deck.

Title: how many ways can you arrange a deck of cards? Yannay Khaikin

 

The Wellbush is absolutely worthless for roulette.

It's not possible to build a progression that will win in the long term for a negative expectation game.
In the long term, your expectation is a negative value. There doesn't exist a betting amount that you can multiply times a negative number and produce a positive value.

 

You are wrong because we can create +EV.
A very simple example is wait 100 spins and when you see a 35% in any outside bet just bet flat on that and see what happens.
You may face some coldness there but it sure will come back.
The only thing we do not know is when.

 

Very nice post, i still do not know how to like posts...

 

I agree that it's difficult to come up with a system to beat the house, but I'm not sure it's impossible.

Also, I agree that systems are mathematical too. I guess the original poster assumes the mathematical view is that the house edge cannot be beaten, whereas the systems view is that it can. That's what I think he meant.

 

Then give an example of a system play in action .

 

Thanks for your reply. You seem to be quoting the oft used mathematical one-liners.
I disagree with that point of view. Stating -EV to me is pointless. I don't see it as having any practical credibility. It's just mathematical terminology without any practical meaning.

How?

Well just look at the Fibonacci sequence example I used in an above post. Just that simple example makes a mockery of the -EV promoters.

I agree that most gamblers lose, and that it's not easy coming up with a legitimate system. But impossible? I wouldn't stand on -EV propositions for that. When someone can show me how the Fibonacci sequence doesn't theoretically work, then I may start listening!

 

I'm working on one my friend. Would you like me to show you where it's currently at?

Never mind I've spent countless hours on it over about a year. I'll just hand it to you on a platter, because....ah, what planet are we on again?

 

I am not interested in your system . Is it the EVEN CHANCES ? mThat`s all.

Thank uou .

 

Hi, are you running your roulette systems through simulations?
Could you run a system and share the grap here?
I use Roulette Xtreme for spin samples but i do not know how to code it.

 

I think a 7 step martingale in theory is a winner.
But theory is different than practice, think like you start now and you lose in the next 7 steps.
Would you do it again?
Also the risk reward ratio is really bad but if you find a betselection that s solid you could use it for some steps.
It s not a system is a way of betting. Actually it s half of a system to have a complete system you need your betselection.

 

HJ, I'm working on a negative progression system. I don't see why it couldn't work for most games, but I'll be keeping it to myself. I'm happy to give clues away though.

 

A 7-step Marty would be a real life nightmare! I couldn't think of a better strategy to lose all your money real fast!

 

I wasn t reffering to your system but anyway.
I had in my mind to post a system with MM and run it through 100k spins and see what s going on.

 

It doesn t matter what you think or what somebody else thinks, probabilities say otherwise especially when you combine it with a +EV betting system.
I personally never use it but that s the truth.

 

That's ridiculous, no you haven't.

Once you get more experience with the game you'll come to realize just how silly your claim really is.