Play roulette at Royal Panda

Author Topic: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...  (Read 6564 times)

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1249
  • Thanked: 148 times
  • Gender: Female
Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« on: February 05, 2016, 07:19:26 PM »
Who's playing live wheels in an actual casino?

Who's playing machines in live casinos?

Who's playing live wheels online?

Who's playing RNG cartoon wheels online for money?

Who's playing RNG cartoon wheels online in fun mode?



 

december

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
  • Thanked: 39 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2016, 08:58:11 PM »
Who's playing RNG cartoon wheels online for money?

Guilty.
And Airball.

But paused last few months.
 

Trilobite

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 103 times
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2016, 09:21:47 PM »
option 1 for me..
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1249
  • Thanked: 148 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2016, 10:17:42 PM »
Anyone else on live wheels?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 10:26:22 PM by Real »
 

Rourke

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2016, 08:17:45 AM »
3, 4 and 5.
 

rotaman

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2016, 08:55:18 AM »
What about machines online? That's what I play, and occasionally RNG. The live (dealer) wheels are too slow for me.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 980 times
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2016, 10:43:54 AM »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1249
  • Thanked: 148 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2016, 03:10:50 PM »
Numbers 4 and 5...  therein lies the problem.  You're essentially playing a slot machine.  Unfortunately it's a slot machine without any large progressive jackpot.  You have zero chances of winning for very long on the cartoon rng wheels with live money.  However, on many of the cartoon fun mode rngs, you'll find that most of your systems work.  Now just why do you suppose that is? 

My advice is to follow Trilobite and play the live wheels, or live airball machines. 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2016, 03:17:07 PM by Real »
 

rotaman

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2016, 05:04:03 PM »
Numbers 4 and 5...  therein lies the problem.  You're essentially playing a slot machine. 

Nonsense. Where is your proof of this? If the numbers are random on an RNG and the payouts are the same as a live wheel then why should the results be any different than a live wheel? Unless the RNG is crooked of course, but that's not what you're saying.

Furthermore, I've had both winning and losing sessions playing an RNG in fun mode. So much for your theory (and others) that fun mode is set up to make you win and then lose when you start playing with real money.

You should stick to what you know, which is biased wheels.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 980 times
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2016, 06:55:27 PM »
Numbers 4 and 5...  therein lies the problem.  You're essentially playing a slot machine. 

Nonsense. Where is your proof of this? If the numbers are random on an RNG and the payouts are the same as a live wheel then why should the results be any different than a live wheel? Unless the RNG is crooked of course, but that's not what you're saying.

Furthermore, I've had both winning and losing sessions playing an RNG in fun mode. So much for your theory (and others) that fun mode is set up to make you win and then lose when you start playing with real money.

You should stick to what you know, which is biased wheels.

 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1249
  • Thanked: 148 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2016, 06:38:40 PM »
Quote
Nonsense. Where is your proof of this? If the numbers are random on an RNG and the payouts are the same as a live wheel then why should the results be any different than a live wheel? Unless the RNG is crooked of course, but that's not what you're saying.

Furthermore, I've had both winning and losing sessions playing an RNG in fun mode. So much for your theory (and others) that fun mode is set up to make you win and then lose when you start playing with real money.

You should stick to what you know, which is biased wheels.

Ok, then never mind my experience with the wheels, the game, and the fact that I'm a professional gambler.  Let's see what the other experts have to say on the subject.  This way you can have an unbiased oPiNioN. 

-Really

--------------

The Truth about Betting Systems


Not only do betting systems fail to beat casino games with a house advantage, they can’t even dent it. Roulette balls and dice simply have no memory. Every spin in roulette and every toss in craps is independent of all past events. In the short run you can fool yourself into thinking a betting system works, by risking a lot to win a little. However, in the long run no betting system can withstand the test of time. The longer you play, the ratio of money lost to money bet will get closer to the expectation for that game.
In the many years that run this site I have received thousands of e-mails from believers in betting systems. Their faith surpasses religious levels. However, in all things, the more ridiculous a belief is the more tenaciously it tends to be held. Gamblers have been looking for a betting system that works for hundreds of years, and yet the casinos are still standing.

----
The Wizard of Odds Challenge

For about six years, from 1999 to 2005, I offered $20,000 to anyone with a betting system that could show a profit over a one billion hand computer simulation. Here you can find the rules of the challenge. However, in all this time I only had one serious taker and hundreds of people wasting my time, pretending to be interested but never following through. So in January 2005, I took down the offer.
My webmaster, Michael Bluejay, now offers essentially the same challenge on his own site, VegasClick.com. If you accept his challenge, and win, I will be happy to state as such on the front page of this site, for proving the experts wrong.
-The Wizard of Odds...mathematician, actuary, gaming consultant.

--------------------------


$30,000 Betting System ChallengeEight years and counting without a taker
(started April 2008)
Last update: January 2016

Any betting system that promises to make you a winner is junk, and I'm so confident about this that I'm putting my money where my mouth is:  I'll wager $30,000 against any system seller's $3,000 that their betting system can't beat the house.  (Or I'll wager my $10,000 against their $1,000, if they prefer.)  My goal is to show that every huckster selling a "winning system" on the Internet for $29.95 (or whatever) is selling garbage.  Not a single one of these scam artists has ever put their system to the test with me.  The reason is simple:  They know their systems don't work. -Michael BlueJay  http://vegasclick.com/gambling/betting-system-challenge.html

--------------

Guidelines for Evaluating Systems -Source is "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.
The general principles apply to almost all gambling games, and when they apply, they guarantee that systems cannot give the player an advantage.To help you filter and reject systems, here are conditions which guarantee that a system is worthless.

1. Each individual bet in the game has a negative expectation. This makes any series of bets have a negative expectation.
2. There is a maximum limit to the size of any possible game. (This rules out systems like the Martingale and up as you lose.)
3. The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game.(Note that we are talking about the "game of roulette", not the "gaming device."
4. There is a minimum allowed size for any bet. (This is necessary for the technical steps in the mathematical proof.)

Under these conditions, it is a mathematical fact that every possible gambling system is worthless in the following ways:

1. Any series of bets has a negative expectation
2. This expectation is the (negative) sum of the expectations of the individual bets.
3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
4. If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
 a. be a loser
 b. eventually stay a loser forever, and so never again break even;
 c. eventually lose his entire bankroll, no matter how large it was. 

-Please note the source "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.
Edward Oakley "Ed" Thorp (born August 14, 1932) is an American mathematics professor, author, hedge fund manager, and blackjack player best known as the "father of the wearable computer" after inventing the world's first wearable computer in 1961.[1] He was a pioneer in modern applications of probability theory, including the harnessing of very small correlations for reliable financial gain[citation needed].
He is the author of Beat the Dealer, the first book to mathematically prove, in 1962, that the house advantage in blackjack could be overcome by card counting.[2] He also developed and applied effective hedge fundtechniques in the financial markets, and collaborated with Claude Shannon in creating the first wearable computer.[1]
Thorp received his Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1958, and worked at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) from 1959 to 1961. He was a professor of mathematics from 1961 to 1965 at New Mexico State University, and then joined the University of California, Irvine where he was a professor of mathematics from 1965 to 1977[citation needed] and a professor of mathematics and finance from 1977 to 1982.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 07:02:41 PM by Real »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1249
  • Thanked: 148 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2016, 07:00:06 PM »
Rotoman,

Now I realize that my posts above have moved a little beyond your post, but I felt that I should make a point.  When I say that you're not going to beat the random game or rngs games...my opinions aren't really just opinions...there well documented facts.  Your only chance at winning over time is to attack the wheel, instead of the layout.



The Wizard of Odds, aka Mike Shackleford, and Dr. Thorp have some pretty impressive credentials...don't ya think?  What did you say that your credentials were again???


Now if you disagree with what I've written, then here's your chance to prove us all wrong.  It's  in the $30k challenge.  Perhaps you'll consider taking up the challenge?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 07:06:21 PM by Real »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1249
  • Thanked: 148 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2016, 07:07:41 PM »
 Here's the question:

How many mathematicians will it take before many of you will accept the fact that you are slaves... trapped in a box.  A box that is called the "gambler's fallacy"?  How much time are you willing to waste...searching and trying to find "just the right progression" to make your "absurd triggers" work"?

Triggers, progressions, they're all in the box.  They're all part of the fools folly.

Who would like to escape the confines of the box and learn how to really win?  Who would like to take the red pill?

Free your mind.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 07:10:39 PM by Real »
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Thanked: 402 times
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2016, 12:59:37 AM »
This system challenge is a ridiculous joke.
A successful system cannot be simulated in the computer for neither 1 billion spins or 200,000 spins.
Because a good system does not follow preprogrammed actions. A lot of actions are being decided on the spur of the moment. They don't follow specific bets with specific amounts.
And that's where they got it wrong at the wizards of odds, and everywhere else.
They assume specific bets with specific amounts and specific progressions.
But that's not how a good system works. It's ben mentioned in many posts how a good system works and there is no need to repeat it.
The fact that the challengers demand 1 billion spins tailor- made for a computer proves that they are joking.
A real challenge would be to follow a good system player on a live wheel and observe his results for about a month. Then and only then the challenge can be taken seriously.
And neither Dr. Thorp can be taken seriously.
The game of roulette has been around for many years with hundreds of millions of players active in the past present and the future.
Can one individual speak for the millions of players out there? How does he know what every player's results are? Does he have access to their bank accounts?

The fact that roulettes did not put casinos out of business, does not mean that all systems lose.
For every successful system player who wins there are thousands of players that lose. That is y casinos don't close their roulette tables.

And last but not least here is my $100,000 challenge.
I challenge anyone to prove to me with actual results that seeing 5 more black after 5 already spun equals the number of instances of 5 black groupings.
Not with theories or pointing to Dr.  Thorp and his likes, but with real examples. Just as I provide
If it doesn't happen then it must be a reason for it.
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1249
  • Thanked: 148 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Quick Show Of Hands. Who's Betting On...
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2016, 03:45:24 AM »
Quote
And last but not least here is my $100,000 challenge.
I challenge anyone to prove to me with actual results that seeing 5 more black after 5 already spun equals the number of instances of 5 black groupings.

Are you saying that after you have seen five blacks that the probability of seeing another five blacks is reduced?

verses

The probability of seeing five blacks with no trigger?

Really?

Perhaps you'd like to again read the trigger game.   http://rouletteforum.roulette30.com/index.php/topic,670.0.html
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 04:00:52 AM by Real »