### Author Topic: Betting on streets  (Read 5816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### mr j

• Mature Member
• Posts: 397
• Thanked: 162 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2017, 09:20:22 PM »
"Any or all of the 3 hot numbers you picked can cool off and any numbers in the street you picked can get hot" >> Sure but does that happen at the EXACT same time? The last time I checked, the ball can only land in one number. I did say.....if ALL three numbers just so happen to be in the same street are hot, bet the street, as I said.

....but it would be nothing more than a coincidence. I asked >> give me an example (according to a made up method) why you would be betting on a street. You already know where I'm going with this so ya might as well play along.

"as Scep has pointed out, with a street you can cover 3 numbers for the price of 1, and it's also quicker and easier to place bet" >> So if I'm betting 3 chips on the street line and NOW need to only bet the 4 & 6 of the street, why cant I put one chip on each the 4 & 6? So its the entire street or nothing? (lol)

Ken

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1416
• Thanked: 211 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2017, 09:48:15 PM »

The choice of betting them as individual numbers would cost me 3 chips but only 1 chip if bettingas a Street . The ODDS are the same   but it depends on the strategy being  used relative to the Bankroll .

I've recently, found a way...to cover every number on the layout with only one chip!

@Bayes,

I largely agree with you on most of what you've written regarding streets.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 09:52:28 PM by Real »

#### mr j

• Mature Member
• Posts: 397
• Thanked: 162 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2017, 10:05:25 PM »

but it depends on the strategy being  used relative to the Bankroll .

Relative to the bankroll? You mean a LOW bankroll, dont you? With a DECENT size BR, I dont have to make such choices.

Ken

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1364
• Thanked: 788 times
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2017, 10:07:11 PM »
Just need to take care to not bet ( overbet) negative numbers unnecessarily.  Common logic be your guide.

Common logic? What's logical about betting on hot numbers? Your argument is based on the assumption that any apparently hot numbers are the result of bias, which is an assumption too far.
Probably you could point out where l spoke about " hot" numbers?
Obviously following numbers or sectors is based on assumption that they will have higher frequency then expected. This assumption is based ( in my particular case) on careful study of the roulette device lm going to play.... You could even tell that l often go " too far" in my studies of the roulette devices, but not about "assumptions" that lm making. It's physics, Bro,  it's backed up by use of   main stream stats and math . You can be absolutely sure,  if l deside to bet on something, l have my solid reasons for it .

#### Trilobite

• Mature Member
• Posts: 340
• Thanked: 121 times
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2017, 04:16:41 AM »
I track a wheel and find that numbers 8-12-27 are hot, so I bet one chip on those three numbers for let's say fourteen spins.

Number 8 hits twice and number 27 hits once.

Did I waste my fourteen chips by betting the number 12?

The following users thanked this post: Bayes

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1416
• Thanked: 211 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2017, 05:07:47 AM »
Why only 14 spins?

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2078
• Thanked: 434 times
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2017, 05:54:54 AM »
Mr J
Bayes and I were responding to your nonsensical view that there were NO Streets - No Splits etc.
You  made no qualification so quite clearly are wrong .
Savvy  gamblers are not  impressed by boasts of HUGE bankrolls . The percentage profit or loss is what matters .

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2078
• Thanked: 434 times
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2017, 05:57:57 AM »

The choice of betting them as individual numbers would cost me 3 chips but only 1 chip if bettingas a Street . The ODDS are the same   but it depends on the strategy being  used relative to the Bankroll .

I've recently, found a way...to cover every number on the layout with only one chip!

And the Odds remain the same ?  I am impressed  Real   !

@Bayes,

I largely agree with you on most of what you've written regarding streets.

#### Trilobite

• Mature Member
• Posts: 340
• Thanked: 121 times
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2017, 06:49:03 AM »
Why only 14 spins?

Just an example, nothing more really. Still wasted chips on the 12.

It's essentially the same as putting three chips on a street fourteen times and only two of the numbers show.

#### Bayes

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 558 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2017, 07:46:55 AM »
Come on guys, I've already said in my first reply that the AP doesn't have much use for streets, lines, etc. Picking individual numbers is is generally the best option, but not always. Sometimes it's more efficient for the AP to use these bets, as Mr P has pointed out.

It doesn't change the fact that betting either a street or 3 numbers has the same odds and return: 11:1 or 3/37. Whether the numbers in the street are all "hot"  or all "cold" doesn't change the maths.

Ken wants an example of why you would bet on a street. Ok, the minimum stake is \$1. I have \$100 and want to play as long as possible but also want to bet on 3 numbers because that suits my risk to reward preference. Why should I bet on 3 numbers and spend \$3 per spin when I can bet on street and spend \$1? My bankroll will on average last 3 times as long.

Quote
Probably you could point out where l spoke about " hot" numbers?

You said to avoid the negative numbers, which is the same as saying pick hot numbers (or at least numbers which are not cold). This only makes sense if you have some physics-based reason why; it doesn't apply as a blanket rule, because statistically, cold numbers are just as likely to hit as hot ones. As far as I'm aware Ken isn't an AP, but still prefers "hot" numbers. That's ok, but there's no statistical reason for choosing them.

Then there's the argument for not picking cold numbers because they might be biased. Well if that's true, then it's an argument for betting on streets, lines, dozens etc because you can target either hot or cold. You have more options because it's unlikely that a street, line etc will consist of numbers which are all biased. You can't have it both ways.

The predefined groups give you more options, not fewer, and it's absurd to say that they don't exist in "reality".  You can choose to pretend they don't exist but you're just limiting yourself unnecessarily.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2017, 07:51:28 AM by Bayes »

#### Bayes

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 558 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2017, 08:00:41 AM »
@Bayes,

I largely agree with you on most of what you've written regarding streets.

I've no idea what you mean by this. If anyone needs help with the gambler's fallacy it appears to be Ken, because he believes hot numbers are more likely to hit. We both know they are not.

#### mr j

• Mature Member
• Posts: 397
• Thanked: 162 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2017, 10:43:00 AM »
I track a wheel and find that numbers 8-12-27 are hot, so I bet one chip on those three numbers for let's say fourteen spins.

Number 8 hits twice and number 27 hits once.

Did I waste my fourteen chips by betting the number 12?

Ok, you said the 12 was hot so you bet it, no hits. You did not waste any chips on it.

I said >> if the 4 & 6 were hot and NOT the 5, why WASTE an extra chip(s) on the street line?

You can play that 4 6 and a DIFFERENT hot number.

Ken

#### mr j

• Mature Member
• Posts: 397
• Thanked: 162 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2017, 10:45:13 AM »
Mr J
Bayes and I were responding to your nonsensical view that there were NO Streets - No Splits etc.
You  made no qualification so quite clearly are wrong .
Savvy  gamblers are not  impressed by boasts of HUGE bankrolls . The percentage profit or loss is what matters .

Of course there are ACTUAL streets, splits to bet on!! (lol)

I just think they are sucker bets, nothing more. People are lured to them for the convenience.

Ken

#### mr j

• Mature Member
• Posts: 397
• Thanked: 162 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2017, 10:53:21 AM »
@Bayes,

I largely agree with you on most of what you've written regarding streets.

I've no idea what you mean by this. If anyone needs help with the gambler's fallacy it appears to be Ken, because he believes hot numbers are more likely to hit. We both know they are not.

Fallacy or not, that is a COMPLETELY different topic. We have been arguing for YEARS as to why a person should bet on "whatever" numbers. I'm not doing it again.

Why Larry in Canada bets on "whatever", I really dont care. You should see me now at the casino compared to years ago.....now, a guy bets on every number...... I dont utter a word, I barely even notice anymore.

I know the end result and thats good enough for me. In the past, I would give the guy my little speech, why waste my time? So that is fallacy against the guy but I dont give a s**t.

Ken

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2078
• Thanked: 434 times
##### Re: Betting on streets
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2017, 11:51:32 AM »
@Bayes,

I largely agree with you on most of what you've written regarding streets.

I've no idea what you mean by this. If anyone needs help with the gambler's fallacy it appears to be Ken, because he believes hot numbers are more likely to hit. We both know they are not.