### Author Topic: Why our systems fail?!  (Read 13516 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1425
• Thanked: 738 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #75 on: January 26, 2018, 05:37:49 PM »
At a fair odds game, it does not matter how many number we use. If we find a 38 number wheel and it is 38 on a single, we can bet all  but one. If 38 the chance to miss is a bit less if 38 than 37,.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1668
• Thanked: 272 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #76 on: January 26, 2018, 06:47:00 PM »
Why on earth would you want to bet every number but one?

That's a horrible idea.

Stop trying to hedge the layout.  If you had a fair game the best game that you could play would still be one that attempted to exploit any bias that may exist in the wheel.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 06:48:48 PM by Real »

#### Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1425
• Thanked: 738 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #77 on: January 26, 2018, 08:09:17 PM »
I did not advice a bet, I told a fair wheel with more numbers, has a less chance to hit a
number (bet or not). Simple! The odds has not to do with it, but fair is better IF you bet.

If a wheel pays fair, it does not matter anyhow how many numbers you bet (In the "long run").

The following users thanked this post: kav

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1556
• Thanked: 878 times
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #78 on: January 26, 2018, 11:16:23 PM »
If the wheel is " fair" there is no way to win. Fairness of wheel is speculation based " perfect wheel " math model that does not exist.

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2086
• Thanked: 1075 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #79 on: January 27, 2018, 11:26:09 AM »
Jesper is mathematically absolutely correct in what he says.
He says that whether you bet many or few numbers the (dis)advantage stays the same.

This has nothing to do with AP. Please do not turn every topic in a "AP is the way - all systems fail" discussion. We already have one such topic here: Roulette systems don't work. You can vent your frustration with system players and explain the mathematical basis of your denial of usefulness of any kind of strategy, there.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 11:37:52 AM by kav »

#### Mike

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 795
• Thanked: 117 times
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #80 on: January 27, 2018, 12:30:25 PM »
Kav,

Although Jesper is technically correct, he does add two qualifications - that the wheel is "fair", and that the result holds "in the long run".

But in the first place, all wheels in B&M casinos pay short of the true odds, and so are not fair, and secondly, the "long run" varies depending on how many numbers you bet. The long run will be reached much more quickly for someone playing 30 numbers than for someone playing 3 numbers. The latter player's bank will on average last longer and he will have more opportunities to quit with a reasonable profit.

I find it somewhat ironic that you, a system advocate, are basically saying that no system is better than any other, for the average gambler. I, on the other hand, disagree, even though I'm an AP advocate.

The following users thanked this post: kav, scepticus, MrPerfect.

#### Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1425
• Thanked: 738 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #81 on: January 27, 2018, 03:41:08 PM »
A bankroll may last longer if we spend slow, like things we drink, last longer if we use it slow. On a wheel with no HA, we are not losing faster if  play more or less numbers , if we have a bank, standing enough spins to meat some variance.   With a underfinanced bank, we may stand longer playing small and few, we can also win, as much is up to luck.

Take the time to run a simulation, playing many numbers with no HA, and a few numbers on a double zero with HA over 5%.  It will soon show, the fair wheel is far better.

There are in the individual case a lot of reasons why a system fail, the most common is high bets and few chips.
It is as allways in the game, so we win if the numbers we bet comes up.  A method which can not stand some variance against it will lose more often. It may lose more at the time it is a loss.

If we win for a longer time, will not sure say we got a good system, we got rather good numbers during play, suiting the method used.

#### Fyodor

• New
• Posts: 105
• Thanked: 110 times
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #82 on: January 28, 2018, 02:11:41 AM »
Let's face it, in a Casino, an "average" player soon becomes his own worst enemy.
He is susceptible to almost every influence, and then, if he hits a "major coup" he will often succumb to the "grandstand" syndrome, and in an apparently nonchalant "pressed wager" lose!
It is possible to win a small fortune at Roulette, as long as you have a potentially disposable large fortune to begin with.
With limited bank funds, say 100-500 LCU's, influenced speculation is the enemy within.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1668
• Thanked: 272 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #83 on: January 28, 2018, 02:27:58 AM »
Over on roulette cc they've got a pretty good roulette simulation game running.

Just a suggestion. Try your ideas over there for free... before throwing any big money at the game.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 02:29:44 AM by Real »

#### Fyodor

• New
• Posts: 105
• Thanked: 110 times
##### Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #84 on: January 28, 2018, 03:04:30 AM »
The trouble with simulated anything, they do not emulate or correctly represent the "Real" thing, by any strategy of the imagination.
The B&M table has an atmosphere, an ambience, an interactive, subtle/overt, reason-to-exist within a social environment.
It is part of the presentation ritual, the circus.
Besides, after a lifetime of crafting real world skills, and an outlay of around \$2.5M, over time, I would say that playing "fun-mode" at this stage would be fairly pointless, wouldn't you agree?

The following users thanked this post: kav, MickyP