Royal Panda roulette

Author Topic: Dobbelsteen`Blog  (Read 107588 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #555 on: July 09, 2017, 05:24:53 PM »
I can see an advantage for the casino:  The zero.  The house payoff is short of what the odds dictate as fair, so the casino has the edge!
 

Sheridan44

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 232 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #556 on: July 09, 2017, 07:44:51 PM »
I suppose they could alter the layout/wheel in many different ways. I've seen some proposals where the zero or zeroes have been removed completely, but the single number payout is reduced to 34:1, which would maintain a house edge to 2.78%. The devil is in the payout structure.
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Thanked: 482 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #557 on: July 09, 2017, 08:10:19 PM »
Do you have seen ,what has happened with number 13.

The wheel has now 36 and the ECs are no more 50/50
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #558 on: July 09, 2017, 10:12:49 PM »
I can see an advantage for the casino:  The zero.  The house payoff is short of what the odds dictate as fair, so the casino has the edge!

As I have said 31  is missing so there are only 36 numbers available .
If the odds on offer is 35 /1 the odds are "Fair " .
So what are the odds on offer Dobbel ?
The odds on EC are NOT fair dobbel because there are fewer Blacks than Reds .
« Last Edit: July 09, 2017, 10:14:35 PM by scepticus »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #559 on: July 09, 2017, 11:33:03 PM »
Erm...Maybe I'm lOOking at the wrong picture in the thread, but I still see number 31 on the layout.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #560 on: July 10, 2017, 01:30:45 AM »
err ...maybe I need my eyes tested . you and dobbel are right . It is 13 that is missing  . I was looking at where 31 usually  is - and it is not there .
Perhaps they have put 13 upside down  ? ;D
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Thanked: 482 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #561 on: July 10, 2017, 01:07:02 PM »
Another explanation is, that the developer has removed the number 13 , because the number 13 is international a number that brings misfortune.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #562 on: July 10, 2017, 02:37:27 PM »
Could be dobbel.
To entice the punter's fear of -well - fear of fear itself ?
But why notleave it in so that the punter won't win ?
Why bother with something of which we have NO knowledge ?
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Thanked: 482 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #563 on: July 15, 2017, 09:08:13 AM »

The three number bet
A wager on three random numbers is the same as a wager on a street. I have programed this in Excel .The DTOP
for a three number bet is more than 1000 spins. I have researched a 100 and a 750 event. Both are short run samples.
Short run samples have the feature that the results are unpredictable. Here the graphics of 4 events.
In general short run samples can end with a profit or a loss. Without a strategy every system will fail.
 also a system on streets. A betting selection can not change the features
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #564 on: July 15, 2017, 04:57:06 PM »
Using ANY programme -  including Excel - is a waste of time. The result will always be negative.
The only way to create an advantage is to leave something out when using excel .That requires a judgement to be made. If your judgement is correct you are likely to win .If not-  you are likely to lose.
Choosing the area of the wheel -OR THE TABLE -where you consider the winning number will be is the problem to be solved  .

 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Thanked: 482 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #565 on: July 16, 2017, 09:22:23 AM »
Scepticus you do not understand the use of the computer. The results of simulation is to discover the particular features of random sequences. Without the help of the computer you can not find the DTOP of systems. The graphics show your misunderstanding. The graphics show that every system in the short run can end with a profit or a loss. There are no winning numbers. Every number has the same chance to win.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #566 on: July 16, 2017, 09:57:40 AM »
I do understand simulations, Dobbelsteen .
Where I differ is the usefulness of them .Mathematicians agree with me that , in regard to roulette , past numbers have no bearing on future numbers . This is why my focus is on anticipating future  numbers and not analysing past numbers. A difference of opinion .
Every number has the same chance to win but some groups of numbers can sometimes have a better chance than others .
Incidentally, after boasting that your 10 bet system was better than any other why do you now use the first 3 as virtual bets ?
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Thanked: 482 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #567 on: July 16, 2017, 11:30:48 AM »
Every group of numbers have a chance of occurrence, but there is not a group with a better chance.
Please explain "a better chance".
What do you mean with "why do you now use the first 3 as virtual bets".
My SSB system is not better than others, but I challenge the forum for a better presented system.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #568 on: July 16, 2017, 12:10:13 PM »
Every group of numbers have a chance of occurrence, but there is not a group with a better chance.
Please explain "a better chance".
What do you mean with "why do you now use the first 3 as virtual bets".
My SSB system is not better than others, but I challenge the forum for a better presented system.
1 )
In my ( block there are 36 possibilities of 3 being correct but only 4 have a chance after 2 spins .Threfore some groups have a better chance than others.
2)
In one of your earlier posts you said you used the first 3 spins f your system as "virtual bets " ?
3)
If you challenge others to present a BETTER system than yours then , clearly, you think yours is the best . If all you meant  was that you were inviting others to present their system then you should  have omitted " better " .

Further, I think you have misunderstood Blaise Pascal here. He was referring to the POSSIBILITIES of each and every " spin" being correct while you are only looking for oly 1 to win .So I think you are overpaying here . Real, correctly IMO,  made the point that there were only 37 Possibilities in each and every spin. What he failed to see was that it is the mathematicians who talk of the escalation - not we gamblers.  We gamblers " Take Chances " in roulette. Mathematicians don't   
But if any member does NOT want to Take A Chance -or  think they will eventually lose - what the hell are they here for ?
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Thanked: 482 times
Re: Dobbelsteen`Blog
« Reply #569 on: July 16, 2017, 01:17:49 PM »
If a player has the meaning that a 10 step martingale is too risky than start the betting after a hit with 3 virtual losses. This is not a system but a strategy.
The SSB challenge is to beat SSB.
I play nearly every day 2 hours on a real tables. My goal is to leave the casino with more money than by entrance.My pleasure is the playing with the random sequences and their features.

Sorry I do not understand your roulette idea or is it a system?

An EC has a larger chance than a dozen, but not a better chance to beat the roulette.