BetOnline

Author Topic: Roulette systems don't work  (Read 16504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

McCoy

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: Roulette systems don't work
« Reply #210 on: November 02, 2017, 06:53:43 PM »
Real is wrong to say that no matter what system we use we will necessarily lose, although of course he is correct about the house edge being unavoidable. Even bias wheel players can't avoid it. The house edge in most sports bets is well over 10%, far more than roulette, and yet significant numbers of punters make a consistent profit, including me. I know the odds are not fixed in sports like they are in roulette, but that isn't important, it just means you have to focus your attention on the selection process. And he clearly doesn't know what the gambler's fallacy actually is, he just accuses anyone who uses a system of falling for it.

Quote
Real is of course correct, whatever we do, we will lose more than we win; its a simple fact.

Then why bother to research anything if it's hopeless? From what I've seen of your systems Reyth I think you're approaching things in the wrong way. You seem to be counting on events catching up, but that never works.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2017, 06:58:39 PM by McCoy »
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • Thanked: 1210 times
Re: Roulette systems don't work
« Reply #211 on: November 02, 2017, 07:14:40 PM »
Losing more than we win doesn't mean we can't be profitable, it just means we win less than what we lost. :)

I play a unique mix of hot and cold at the same time, betting on peaks and valleys.  Its similar to trading the markets, where we pick a certain stock/commodity to follow and buy/sell based on what its trading at.

Of course you are right, all of my past systems didn't approach the game in this way but I learned things from them that helped me to improve my game. :)

Roulette simply doesn't ever "even out".  Its a game that is based on Perfectly Balanced ImbalanceTM.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2017, 07:48:43 PM by Reyth »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Roulette systems don't work
« Reply #212 on: November 02, 2017, 09:27:30 PM »
Quote from: Naively Stated by McCoy
Real is wrong to say that no matter what system we use we will necessarily lose,

If you're playing a random wheel or rng, then you will certainly become a loser over time.  Regardless of your bet selection.  Again, this is a proven fact. 

Quote from: Naively Stated by McCoy
Even bias wheel players can't avoid it.

When playing biased wheels the player gets the edge over the casino.  Due to the defective gaming device, some numbers hit more frequently than probability would dictate because of the bias.  This is what enables the player to get the edge.  In visual ballistics the player can also get the edge because of the accuracy of his predictions. In the end it's getting the edge that enables the player to win, not money management or the hit and run nonsense.

Quote from: McCoy
The house edge in most sports bets is well over 10%, far more than roulette, and yet significant numbers of punters make a consistent profit, including me. I know the odds are not fixed in sports like they are in roulette, but that isn't important, it just means you have to focus your attention on the selection process.

You simply can't compare the selection process of the two.  In the random game of roulette, it doesn't really matter what you choose to bet on, over time the result will inevitably still be (the house edge) x (the total amount bet).  Claiming otherwise is ludicrous.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2017, 09:36:15 PM by Real »
 

McCoy

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 59 times
Re: Roulette systems don't work
« Reply #213 on: November 03, 2017, 09:32:33 AM »
The problem with your simplistic analysis Real and why it doesn't apply in the real (excuse the pun) world is that it's only relevant when thinking about what happens over millions of spins. What you call random means that each number has the same chance as any other to hit so that eventually all will have hit the same number of times or the ratios will be the same for each pair. However in the short term ie a playing session there is no tendency to balance and therefore you can't call the outcomes random in the previous sense of the word. They are still random in the sense that spins are independent but that's only half the equation because in order for outcomes to be random outcomes must be independent *and* equally likely. You only have to observe a couple of hundred spins in order to see that outcomes are not equally likely and imbalance is the norm. So I reject your premise that outcomes are random. What I'm attempting to do is capitalise on these imbalances, trends and patterns which occur in the short term. You can be of the opinion that this is a waste of time but it is not a 'ludicrous' enterprise as I have already proven for myself. And it is certainly not the 'gambler's fallacy' because that involves betting in the belief that the long term statistics apply in the short term, which ironically is exactly what you are doing when you criticise. So get real, Real.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 09:35:44 AM by McCoy »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth