Tell me why this roulette strategy won't work?

[Anonymous No.52825953]

Fellow degens, I stumbled upon this YouTube video where this dude claims to turn $384 into 8000+.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aZxp2TVIW4

In the "strategy" he basically placed a 2/1 bet (Like 1 column/row or 12 numbers) and if it lost, increased his subsequent bet by 33% instead of doubling it like Martingale, essentially allowing you to win back your loss plus profit, but not an insane value bet because it isn't doubling like Martingale.

Any feel gambling addicts tried this? Or got some good general gambling advice to make some side income?

[Anonymous No.52825995]

So a casino owned yt channel is instructing om how to profit from roulette?

[Anonymous No.52826005]

>>52825995
I think the old link got bought out by a casino, but either way it's a strange video nonetheless

[Anonymous No.52826014]

Sounds interesting. Have a bump

[Anonymous No.52826186]

>>52825953
You can sim it over 10,000,000 spins. I can assure, just like martingale, that you won't be up money at the end.

[Anonymous No.52826193]

The only way to win in the long run at roulette is to identify a particular table that has some defect causing it to land on certain numbers more often than random chance. Other than that, every "strategy" will have a negative return.

[Anonymous No.52826199]

>>52825953
every game in casino have lower than 50 percent winrate, whatever strat you pick doesn't matter. you are meant to lose in the long run

the safest thing you can do is either do card counting on blackjack (you get kicked if they notice) or follow sport matches and bet on them.

[Anonymous No.52826228]

>>52826193
You can also video tape the ball and use software to predict the segment of the wheel it will land. Then, quickly place bets in that area before the dealer waves off.

[Anonymous No.52826295]

>>52825995
fpbp

[Anonymous No.52827836]

>>52826186
>>52826199
>>52826193


Tried it online on penny roulette, started with £20 and am now up to £67

[Anonymous No.52828634]

>>52825953
short answer : mathematics

Gambling odds are always skewed so that you can't turn a profit.

[Anonymous No.52828681]

>>52825953
retard

[Anonymous No.52828902]

>youtube recommends me slot machine youtubers out of nowhere
>industry tech giving strategy to double money
>cash out with $0.02.

[Anonymous No.52828917]

>>52825953
there is no strategy to beat a controlled magnetic ball.

[Anonymous No.52828920]

kek

[Anonymous No.52828942]

>>52828902
If you catch a glimpse of that woman's face in the back, you've been cursed

[Anonymous No.52828952]

you fucking retard, this is all explicitly computable
jfc please go do this

[Anonymous No.52828974]

>play triple double bonus video poker with a perfect strategy
>99.7% expected return
>when factoring in rewards from player card, it's over 100% expected return

[Anonymous No.52829125]

This fails because the risk of losing it all is still there. Let's say the risk that all your bets go wrong and ruin you is 1%, then you have a 99% chance per sequence of making a handful of money, but a 1% chance of losing a bag of money. Mix in the house cut and it's never worth it. Gambling is a recreation, it's not a profession.

[Anonymous No.52829158]

The house never lose, stop listening to retards, I bet he refer link to the site

[Anonymous No.52829440]

>>52825953
corner cases.

[Anonymous No.52829917]

The way to win at gambling is to be the house, with 51%+ odds of winning every game

[Anonymous No.52829966]

>>52825953
I made 30k in 4 hours with roulette, starting capital 4k, its rigged, cashed out and never looked back

[Anonymous No.52829984]

>>52825953
>if it lost, increased his subsequent bet
Stock gamblers fallacy. This won't end well.

[Anonymous No.52830096]

>>52829984

Yeah, but if he loses all his money he can just take out a loan and get all the money back. What now smartypants?

[Anonymous No.52830143]

>>52826186
>10 M sims
100k is enough for MonteCarlo sims, 10M is too slow and completely unnecessary.
>>52826199
>le long run
you don't need to play 100k games you tards, just until you get a streak of wins long enough to call it quits.

Having said that, the real trouble in the casino is they will boot you if you win too much. Sometimes you'll be lucky if you get your principal back.

[Anonymous No.52830155]

>>52825995
FPBP

[Anonymous No.52830164]

gambling is for retards
that's why i invest in crypto, which has strong fundamentals

[Anonymous No.52830181]

>>52825953
>In the "strategy" he basically placed a 2/1 bet (Like 1 column/row or 12 numbers) and if it lost, increased his subsequent bet by 33%
so he's ponzi himself xD

[Anonymous No.52830187]

>>52828942
holy shit, what can I do to reverse this curse, she scared the shit out of me

[Anonymous No.52830203]

>>52830096
>Yeah, but if he loses all his money he can just take out a loan and get all the money back. What now smartypants?
Ending up sat on the floor outside the local grocery store like a pathetic piece of shit begging for £1 so you can rub over the Ladbroke to put
>the winning bet
on?

Seen it. More than once.

[Anonymous No.52830626]

>>52830143
The only reason casinos are in business is because there's enough retards like you, that can't grasp basic stats, to sustaining their business model.

No matter where you place your bet on a roulette table,for every $100 bet you place down, on average, you're getting back $97.2.

[Anonymous No.52831074]

>>52830626
even a brainlet strategy like martingale is profitable with infinite bankroll. I have found a much better system but I won't share it with someone that called me a tard.

[Anonymous No.52831120]

Kek at all the "muh math" retards coping in the replies, it's. It about math. It's about whether god loves you or not, there's lucky and unlucky people, the ones seething are probably just unlucky well obviously it doesn't work for unlucky people. But lucky people can make a very consistent income doing that

[Anonymous No.52831154]

>>52831120
>Doesn't get dubs
Faggot

[Anonymous No.52831188]

>>52831120
true if God doesn't want you to be rich then even a 99.99% chance of winning is not enough.

[Anonymous No.52831376]

>>52831188
>>52831154
hopefully my dubs mean I'm on the clear and can make money again.

[Anonymous No.52831411]

>>52831074
>Gambling with infinite br to proof u can profit of it.

Retard

[Anonymous No.52831421]

>>52825953
>these are the people giving you financial advice on /biz/
you're probably trolling or just a shill but anyway:
EXPECTED VALUE is the wikipedia article you're looking for
fucking morons

[Anonymous No.52831623]

>>52825953
You have a good return on investment even on martingale. The trick is to know when to take profits. But this shit takes a lot of time.

[Anonymous No.52831645]

>>52825953
lol yes the rigged infallibility of the casino can be beaten using 3rs grade level math/logic. go try it right now and report back, you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.52831964]

>>52831421
>>52831645
I've actually done the sims, an edge can be obtained by introducing what I call asymmetry, which can be best explained this way:
>create a situation in gambling where you have a very small chance of losing a lot of money, but a very big chance of winning very little money.

[Anonymous No.52832005]

>>52831645
a lot of casinos have bankrupted, I'm not sure why you think casinos are infallible.

[Anonymous No.52832015]

>>52831964
this is only an example of how to obtain an edge in a small number of bets. My actual system is way more complicated and schizo.

[Anonymous No.52832019]

>>52830187
I stared back at her for you bro and then lte me eyes wandre to everyone, looking at the brown guy in the middle last then finally the face on the wall (two black eyes greywhite face on the left). it's all good. the people in that picture will stare at themselves now.

[Anonymous No.52832064]

>>52831074
>martingale is profitable with infinite bankroll.

[Anonymous No.52832065]

>>52831964
What is a 'very big chance' in your book? Use percentages.

[Anonymous No.52832110]

>>52825995
This.

All martingale or "stake higher" techniques are casinos trying to sell you the "risk free technique" while you keep betting higher and higher amounts on their jewish games.

[Anonymous No.52832260]

>>52832065
something like this

[Anonymous No.52832272]

>>52832260
so here you basically win or are even in most numbers and you only lose big on 13 and 16

[Anonymous No.52832292]

>>52825953
this is a variation of fibonacci martingale, a system where you slowly increase your bets (rather than doubling them every lost round) in order to make up for previous losses, the "rationale" being that the chance of losing x times in a row is very low

the problem with all these systems is that the roulette has 37 numbers but only pays 36 per win, meaning the house will always have an advantage no matter what
you can try out all these systems by writing a program that simulates both the roulette and the proposed strategy, the inevitable end is the player losing his money

only way to win the roulette is through some underhanded method like colluding with casino staff or discovering a faulty roulette that does not behave randomly
as far as im aware, the only beatable casino game is blackjack through counting

[Anonymous No.52832313]

>>52832292
even without counting blackjack has the best odds in the casino bar none. The return to player is something crazy like 99.5%. I can habitually get 5x on my bankroll playing blackjack for hours using my system, until I get too tired and start making mistakes.

[Anonymous No.52832434]

>>52825953
Why is the /biz IQ so low this bear?

[Anonymous No.52833553]

>>52825953
Here is what you get on 100 games of 10 successive roulette turn using your strategy.

No strategy can beat the negative expectation.

[Anonymous No.52833653]

>>52831074
>profitable with infinite bankroll
Would be truly a shame if somebody added caps on bets...

[Anonymous No.52833800]

>>52832260
How much do you bet in every spot tho? Something (more that 20 IQ) tells me you are still going negative

[Anonymous No.52834010]

>>52833553
this is pathetic you need 100k simulations at least. I can't even read your shitty graph.

>>52833800
so it depends on what you get
1st12 (top 2 rows) = 2 Chance = 4/18
1st12(bottom row) = -1 Chance = 2/18

19 to 36 (top 2 rows) = 1 Chance = 6/18
19 to 36 (bottom row) = -2 Chance = 3/18

14,15,17,18 = -1 Chance = 2/18
13, 16 = -4 Chance = 1/18

so if you add this up it obviously has a negative expectation. So you kinda go wishy washy:
I don't expect a 1/18 event to happen and delete the last one from your expectation. Play a bit and run like a bandit.

[Anonymous No.52834124]

>>52830143
>10M is too slow
generating 10m random numbers is completely trivial retard I just did it in fucking python and it took 5 seconds

[Anonymous No.52834144]

>>52825953
just look at his face in that thumbnail kek

[Anonymous No.52834157]

>>52827836
and OP was never seen again

[Anonymous No.52834268]

>>52834124
generating the numbers is not the taxing part, it's usually storing the numbers and the parts involving memory that take time you dummy.

[Anonymous No.52834274]

>>52834157
lol math nerds took over the thread

[Anonymous No.52834332]

>>52832005
Casinos go bankrupt from failing to bring in enough suckers to cover operating costs and debt.

[Anonymous No.52834344]

>>52826186
if the initial bet size is sufficiently small relative to the total amount you are gambling with, the likelihood of "loosing" with martingale is borderline zero.
1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16... twenty consecutive roles would have an odds of 1:10 million of failure.

[Anonymous No.52834371]

>>52834268
ur a n00b lmao have you ever even programmed in your life

[Anonymous No.52834397]

>>52830143
Play online casinos with real people live video dummy, they wont kick you

[Anonymous No.52834402]

>>52834397
they'll make it really hard for you to cash out tho.

[Anonymous No.52834416]

>>52834371
Yeah, I make simulations for a living. Having said that I'm more of a math/finance guy than a programmer I'm sure you could teach me a thing or two.

[Anonymous No.52834465]

>>52834344
yeah, but as I said you'd need an infinite bankroll, and there must not be a bet limit.

[Anonymous No.52834466]

>>52831964
cool. go try it irl!!

[Anonymous No.52834493]

>>52834466
I have, I've made 5x a couple of times, but I haven't really tried to cash the money out. I'm dreading the verification process.

I don't want to misrepresent what gambling is, even with my system you wipe (go to $0) pretty frequently.

[Anonymous No.52834548]

>>52834465
Not if you start sufficiently small, in the case of 20 bets going wrong, if you began with 1 cent as initial bet, your last bet would be $10K. Which is nowhere close to "infinite bankroll".

[Anonymous No.52834579]

>>52834548
yeah but what if 50 bets go wrong tho?
if you keep playing it's inevitable that you'll find greater and greater strings of losses.

to get out of the hole with 50 losses you'd need: $11,258,999,068,426.24

[Anonymous No.52834618]

>>52832313
what system do you use for blackjack??

[Anonymous No.52834691]

>>52834579
>yeah but what if 50 bets go wrong tho?
the 20 bets being wrong is a 1:10.000.000 scenario. Lets say it takes a minute to complete one play of roulette. there are 8765 hours in a year. 8765x60 =525900. lets say 500.000 for sake of argument.
you could play roulette 24/7 for twenty years and not expect this outcome to happen to you.
If we assume you take some time of for sleep, eating etc. so you only spin 12 hours a day.
it would take 40 years before this occurrence is likely to happen.

Loosing in the martingale system 50 times in a row is not something that would occur (statistically speaking). If all 8 billion people on the planet began using the martingale system, how long before someone hit the magic 50 times in a row loosing streak? a million years? a billion? not gonna do the math.

[Anonymous No.52834779]

>>52825953
gambling the odds are stacked against you, you are mathematically certain that your odds of loss are greater then the odds of win no matter what you do. thats how gambling works. your magical thinking strategies are just mentally ill cope to feed your retarded addiction.

[Anonymous No.52834831]

>>52825953
N
that's why

[Anonymous No.52834924]

Dumbest thread on the fucking planet, anyone who claims to have outsmarted the gambler's fallacy is lying or stupid. Unless you have an infinite amount of money, you will eventually wind up with none using martingale.
>In the "strategy" he basically placed a 2/1 bet (Like 1 column/row or 12 numbers) and if it lost, increased his subsequent bet by 33% instead of doubling it like Martingale, essentially allowing you to win back your loss plus profit, but not an insane value bet because it isn't doubling like Martingale.
How the fuck do you remember to breathe

[Anonymous No.52835002]

How about doing this:
>statistically speaking, outcomes will alternate perfectly, such as BRBRBRBRBR
>in reality, there are streaks, such as BBRRBBRBRRRRBBRB
>wait for a streak
>bet that it will end

[Anonymous No.52835028]

>>52834779
there are strategies that give you a bit better numbers. think about this, a coinflip:
if you all in you have a 50% chance of doubling your money, 50% chance of wiping out.

if you martingale instead bet half and double it if you lose you now have a 50% chance of winning your first bet, a 25% chance of winning your second bet which would be equal to winning the first bet, and only a 25% chance of wiping out.

so instead of a 50% chance of wiping out and 50% chance of increasing your bank by 100% you get a 25% chance of wiping out and a 75% chance of increasing your bank by 50%.

[Anonymous No.52835033]

>>52835002
Gambler's fallacy again. You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.52835075]

>>52835033
if someone told you that the next roulette spin would land on 0 and you couldn't bet on 0, you'd bet the minimum or just not bet at all.

This is at the heart of betting systems, there can be no other way of playing chance games (without cheating).

[Anonymous No.52835129]

>>52835028
You're such a brainlet. Nothing changed.
>>52835075
What are you even trying to say?

[Anonymous No.52835141]

>>52835033
Gambler's fallacy is something different.
Essentially it's what is the likelihood of this coin toss coming up heads, when the previous 5 came up heads. The Gambler's fallacy is believing the likelihood is less than 50% because of past events.

In martingale and other system, the question is what is the likelihood of 6 coin toss in a row becoming heads (which would be 1/64).

[Anonymous No.52835180]

>>52835141
the 6th toss is equally likely to be heads or tails (1/64 chance each)
It's the same shit and you're too dumb to figure out that out

[Anonymous No.52835185]

>>52835129
How'd you figure nothing changed? do you agree with my math or not?

I would rather have a 75% chance of increasing my money by 50% than a 50% chance of increasing my money by 100%

[Anonymous No.52835216]

people making "qyqtemq" is what makes gamblers live and it's a real addiction with people who are slightly above average intellectual capacity but still delusional

[Anonymous No.52835219]

>>52835180
>(1/64 chance each)
then what are the other 62/64 outcomes?

[Anonymous No.52835229]

>>52835216
sorry I meant to write "systems"

[Anonymous No.52835238]

>>52835185
This fails for the exact same martingale fails, I don't know why you think it's any different.

[Anonymous No.52835254]

>>52835238
this is not martingale tho, I don't tell you to repeat the bet. This is asymmetry, it's about hedging a bet to make it safer.

[Anonymous No.52835309]

>>52835254
Okay, maybe taking a 75% chance is better than taking a 50% because you are more likely to lose it all, but there's no reason to do this unless someone has a gun to your head and is forcing you to make a bet. If you gamble following this logic, you will make and lose on average the same amounts of the 50% faggot, just over the course of twice as many games.

[Anonymous No.52835329]

>>52825953
Every time I've played Roulette I've came out at least 4x before leaving.
Just be psychic and go for the broad R/B and add some number ranges in there every now and then.
Don't know shit about payouts.
Don't know shit about odds.
Just follow your intuition.
>bet black 5th time in a row
>"dude it was just black the last 4 spins"
>win
It's really that easy. Browse /x/ sometimes.

[Anonymous No.52835383]

>>52835309
now you get it.
>you will make and lose on average the same amounts of the 50% faggot
You shouldn't try to understand probability like this it's very unintuitive. Just build the fucking simulation.

[Anonymous No.52835418]

>>52835383
You're an idiot. Why do I even try? Talking to gamblers is like putting a drill up to your temple and going to town.

[Anonymous No.52835483]

>>52835418
said the NEET to the guy with a degree in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.52835521]

>>52835483
I'm not a neet, but I am a tad bit skeptical you have a degree in anything that isn't african history or gender studies.

[Anonymous No.52835546]

>>52825953
it doesn't work, 0 and 00 are there to make sure martingale doesn't work

[Anonymous No.52835578]

>>52825953
also, as someone who has tried this before, it's so fucking boring. tables take a few minutes to do a spin and if you're just minimum betting, it takes so fucking long to go through bets, and you're not even thinking at all so you're just sitting there staring at the board, betting on red, and scrolling through news and social media

[Anonymous No.52835610]

>>52835329
true /x/ chad right here.

>>52835521
I studied in a National polytechnic we don't have those types of degrees lol, our country is not that jewed yet. Trust me, building the sim and making sure it's correct will save you tears and pride down the line, also make versions of everyt change you make, no matter how insignificant.

>>52835546
roulette doesn't have 00

>>52835578
yup, you'll be there forever until you lose everything using martingale, or you hit the table limit.

[Anonymous No.52835620]

>>52835546
I meant Euro roulette does not have 00, don't play the american one.

[Anonymous No.52835641]

>>52835610
huh, I had to google it. here in the usa (at any casino i've played anyway), it's had 0 and 00. but in Europe there is only 0?

[Anonymous No.52835896]

>>52830096
Then he will end up sucking off dogs for packets of quavers

[Anonymous No.52836296]

>>52832313
>muh system

[Anonymous No.52836343]

>>52836296
I can confirm I am in pic related.

[Anonymous No.52836362]

>>52836296
you won't goad me into revealing my chad system. You all called me a retard you can develop your own.

[Anonymous No.52836373]

>>52826193
It seems like the way to win in roulette is all about risk management and taking bigger bets at opportune times.
>>52826199
Most traders are happy with a 40% win rate. It isn't about win rate so much as it is about controlling what you lose and winning bigger when you do win
>>52829984
The gamblers fallacy applied to stocks is just that if you're already down you should keep holding because 'well if it's down X then surely it will be up soon". Might as well call it the HODLers fallacy

[Anonymous No.52836381]

>>52836373
I actually think martingale makes more sense in stocks since options are a thing.

[Anonymous No.52836397]

>>52836362
go take out a loan then and retire

[Anonymous No.52836404]

>>52836397
I am retired.

[Anonymous No.52836423]

>>52836397
wait you are browsing 4chan during wagie hours and you have a job!?

Give me your boss's contact info right now wagie.

[Anonymous No.52836505]

>dude every coin flip has the same 50% chance!
Brought to you by the "our bones are made of exploded stars" crowd.

[Anonymous No.52836508]

>>52826193
>>52825953
there are people which can predict in which area the ball will stop. But guess what, when you win the casino dont allow you to play anymore.

[Anonymous No.52836522]

>>52836508
Imagine the crazy shit croupiers have seen.

[Anonymous No.52836538]

>>52836508
>when you win the casino dont allow you to play anymore.
This is all the edge anyone would ever need. Just let the losers play.

[Anonymous No.52836553]

>>52825953
I worked in casinos for 20+ years, there is no system to beat roulette. You can use electronic devices to predict the general region where the ball but this only works once the ball starts spinning and isn't 100% foolproof.
If any of the games were beatable they wouldn't be in the casino.

[Anonymous No.52836571]

>>52836553
How did the people that walked away with the biggest bags play? I assume they were big betters instead of minimum bet cucks?

[Anonymous No.52836627]

>>52830143
>you don't need to play 100k games you tards, just until you get a streak of wins long enough to call it quits.

Damn you are a fucking retard. Your
IQ is as low as your mom tits.
It is like saying, boy the odds are low if you play the lottery but just win and quit. How retarded is that reasoning?
Please tell me you are high as shit!

[Anonymous No.52836663]

>>52836627
My IQ is genius tier in every country.
Me moms tits are fine, thanks for the concern.
>It is like saying, boy the odds are low if you play the lottery but just win and quit. How retarded is that reasoning?
It's not at all like that.
>Please tell me you are high as shit!
I don't do drugs, except caffeine and tobacco.

[Anonymous No.52836675]

>>52825953
The game is rigged. The ball is magnetic and the house always wins.

[Anonymous No.52836682]

>>52836675
this should always be a consideration in anything. The game is always rigged unless proven otherwise.

[Anonymous No.52836713]

>>52836675
>>52836682
there is no need to rig the game as long as there are retards like the specimens shown in this thread

[Anonymous No.52836755]

>>52832292
>The "rationale" being that the chance of losing x times in a row is very low

WROOOOOOOOONG. Chances stay the same even if you loose 20 brazilian times in a fucking shit row. Learn to math.

Do you really think some old retard grandpa of 95 years old that is playing the lottery for 80 years has a higher chance of winning than you because he lost the previous 80years????

[Anonymous No.52836813]

>>52836755
This is why we do simulations, people so we can avoid making a fool of ourselves like our friend x+GOkJOX

[Anonymous No.52836846]

This guy tries to debunk and fails because even in his simulation he gets up to 400 spins before he loses everything.
Seems like the moral of the story is to take profit off the table instead of just YOLOing it all until the end.
I’m tempted to try this out with a few grand $1/min bets. I think if you did this every day though they’d kick you out of the casino

[Anonymous No.52836884]

>>52836846
YES! the more you bet the more your results approach the inevitable expected value. When you try to walk away with profit you're dependent solely on volatility, the mean will fuck you.

[Anonymous No.52836894]

It happens the same thing as in the Martingdale. With 33% increase, you also grow exponentially your bets, you simply exchange some profit for more spins. So you have to wait longer to make the same profit, your chances of failing 16x in a row or whatever, depending on initial bet. increase because you spend more time in the game

[Anonymous No.52836896]

>>52836846
in casinos less is more any system where you start with the minimum bet is cucked bs.

[Anonymous No.52836904]

>>52836884
Fuck I forgot the link
http://gradientdescending.com/martingale-strategies-dont-work-but-we-knew-that-simulation-analysis-in-r/

[Anonymous No.52836950]

>>52836505
Think of 2 roulette tables near eachother. The right table has 4 times green. Do you really think that the left table has now a bigger chance of landing on red?

Do the balls communicate with eachother? Damn you guys are retarded.
Im here for financial advice, not math.

[Anonymous No.52837259]

>>52836950
you're thinking of probability in a human way, and that's mostly worthless. In human terms a million heads in a row is as likely as any other permutation of coinflips, but you never expect to see a million coinflips in a row do you?

[Anonymous No.52837390]

This is the stupidest thread I've seen. You can't beat roulette idiots. There is no strategy, otherwise there would be millionaires everywhere. BTW did you know all the roulette numbers added up is 666?

[Anonymous No.52837422]

>>52837390
you can beat blackjack and there's no millionaires everywhere.

[Anonymous No.52837435]

>>52837390
(37*36)/2 = 666 you're right on the numbers tho

[Anonymous No.52837546]

A lot of bullshit in this thread, I used to know the guys in the Vegas 4, poker players who also got involved in the card counting stuff with blackjack and later branched out to stuff like craps and roulette but I knew one of them well and he said he had a strategy for roulette that meant he was a de facto professional roulette player, didn't believe it myself until I was stood there with him at a table and he started getting the numbers right, way too often for it to be a coincidence, walked in with a grand walked out with 10 grand, all in all took three hours at the table to ride the waves as there's something to the fact that over longer periods of time there's an underlying pattern that you can deduce from the table, basically if you pay attention to how everybody is betting you can play a subgame that we liked to call "spooking the wheel", for every 10 plays say, you wait until everybody has bet without betting yourself and then you realise you just read this load of bullshit for no fucking reason and your mom gay lol imagine a dog sticking its cock in your mom right now lol amazing post, literally the best post ive ever fucking made

[Anonymous No.52837577]

>>52837546
least degenerate crypto investor.

[Anonymous No.52837602]

>>52828902
vegasfag here, local news started promoting "slot machine youtubers" a few months ago. some expensive casino added a machine themed after one of the popular guys, and apparently everyone in vegas has to hear and fawn over it. i didnt even know that was a youtube genre. all they do is idly chat while playing slots.

[Anonymous No.52837612]

>>52837602
seems like a comfy sidehustle.

[Anonymous No.52837732]

>>52837546
this honestly

[Anonymous No.52837887]

>>52837259
Dude my question is. Do you count them all together or not?

Person A is flipping coin
Person B is flipping coin
Person C is flipping coin

If person C flips 3 times head
Does person B have a higher chance of tail?

[Anonymous No.52837907]

>>52837887
yes

[Anonymous No.52837945]

>>52837546
kek

[Anonymous No.52838984]

>>52825953
I ran every possible betting strategy I found on my roulette sim and you always lose in the long run

[Anonymous No.52839110]

>>52838984
Instead of doing 1 trial of 100k do 50k trials of 2 bets.

[Anonymous No.52839210]

>>52825953
doesn't matter what it lands on the previous roll, every number has the same exact chance to win on each consecutive spin. there is zero correlation between the previous numbers and future numbers.

[Anonymous No.52839355]

>>52838984
No shit, but that's only because there is no option to put money off the table or just leave.
Simulators don't account for risk management

[Anonymous No.52839426]

>>52833553
you have so many chances to get out in profit though. just leave when you are up 5k and then redo the strategy the next day which resets the math. simple.

[Anonymous No.52839486]

Reverse martingale is better because you can never go bust. Using reverse martingale you have a 100% chance of eventually reaching some amount of money. It could be $100 or $1mil you will get there the only question is how long it will take, it may take more than your life if you are unlikely.

[Anonymous No.52839547]

>>52837546
This man is Satoshi Nakamoto

[Anonymous No.52839622]

>>52839426
lol resets the math.

[Anonymous No.52839635]

>>52839486
>Reverse martingale is better because you can never go bust. Using reverse martingale you have a 100% chance of eventually reaching some amount of money. It could be $100 or $1mil you will get there the only question is how long it will take, it may take more than your life if you are unlikely.
lol so retarded. Where were you guys all day?

[Anonymous No.52839708]

>>52839635
Do the math retard. You halve your bet every time you lose so you will never reach 0. But you double it when you win so you are statistically guaranteed to have a string of wins eventually that will lead you to your target. But you should stop as soon as you get to your target because it may be a loong time before you get there again.

[Anonymous No.52839739]

>>52839708
this is perfect. I can't any way this could go wrong. You can't lose if you keep halving your bets, it was so simple.

[Anonymous No.52839965]

>>52834344
even without a consecutive loss streak, with martingale you slowly loose due to the cassino edge

[Anonymous No.52839989]

>>52839965
that's not how martingale works.

[Anonymous No.52840035]

>>52839989
martingale doesn't work unless you have unlimited funds

[Anonymous No.52840039]

>>52840035
it also doesn't work if there's a bet limit. I've been saying this all day, get with the program.

[Anonymous No.52840049]

>>52837546
Can I pay you $50 a month for more gambling tips?

[Anonymous No.52840059]

>>52840039
Can you explain how? I'm retarded by the way.

[Anonymous No.52840061]

>>52825953
My brother used to work at a casino. He was roulette guy for 2 years until he managed to get a different position, he hated doing the same thing all the time. One night a couple guys game to the casino and started winning. What they did was observe the table for weeks and find out what numbers it more frequently hit. At this time also a new guy was running this table. So this was not good, you are now allowed to WIN at a casino. So the managers went and got my brother and asked him to go run the table. My brother did roulette so much for so long he got so good at it he could hit or avoid any number he wanted. So he went to the table and took everything back and sent them home a few thousands of dollars lighter.
The house always wins.

[Anonymous No.52840118]

>>52837546
kek'd 10/10

[Anonymous No.52840373]

>>52840059
in martingale you bet a low amount, lets say $1, if you win your balance is now ($2). if you lose you bet $2, say you win that your balance is (-1 from the first bet, -2 from the second and you get 4 back so = $2) so now you see it's like you won the first bet. If you instead of winning, lose again then you need to bet $4, then $8 and so on.

If the table limit doesn't let you bet more or you ran out of money then martingale stops working and you lose basically all your money.

[Anonymous No.52840405]

>>52840118
I liked how he came up with the spooking the wheel shit, that shit sounded so legit to me.

[Anonymous No.52840449]

Martingale will always be EV negative because even if you assume perfect 50/50 you must take into account the liquidity of both parties and subtract both the probability that the player busts the house does. Its just amazing how utterly stupid gamblers are. Look up the EVs of lottery tickets. You're losing 50 cents for every dollar you put in. Casinos and lotteries are darwinian filters for those that are too stupid to handle money.
If we gave every person in the US a UBI 90% of that money will end up in the hands of the powerful and wealthy regardless

[Anonymous No.52840640]

>>52840061
And my dad works at Nintendo
>>52840059
Go look up how the strat works and youll figure it out in 2 seconds

[Anonymous No.52840714]

>>52840449
>The house is going to run out of money due to your $400 bankroll + martingale strategy on $10 roulette

[Anonymous No.52840747]

Poker and Sports Betting are the only wagers where you can win money with skill. I've made $15k over 500 hours or so for two years

[Anonymous No.52841520]

>>52840449
Some MIT nerds pooled money and bought 100s of thousands of tickets for guaranteed wins.

[Anonymous No.52841668]

>>52836571
Its just random chance, the longer you spend playing the higher the odds are that you'll lose because that's how the games work, the odds are all very slimly in favour of the house. There are ways to play to minimise that advantage but outside of actual cheating there are no systems that can put the odds in your favour, especially not with roulette which has some of the worst odds in the casino.
People have good nights but the reason I never played roulette myself was because I knew that the odds are bad minimising playtime is vital. Blackjack has some of the lowest odds in favour of the house but table limits exist on every game to stop people from just doubling their bet every time they lose.

[Anonymous No.52841732]

>>52833653
I think these people have likely never been in a casino and don't realise that this is standard for precisely the reason that if you had unlimited capital you could just double your bet every time you lost.

[Anonymous No.52841754]

>>52825953
It won't work because eventually the casino will clock onto you and ban you from their platform without explanation.

[Anonymous No.52841880]

>>52834402
Casinos love people with strategies because they already know there is no winning strategy, the games are literally stacked in favour of the house.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726144/The-Ritz-Casino-wins-High-Court-battle-recover-1m-owed-wife-Oman-s-foreign-minister-lost-2m-single-night.html

I dealt to this lady on numerous occasions, we actively wanted her to win because she could tip a £100k+ in an evening and more and she still lost consistently playing one of the games with the lowest odds in favour of the house.

[Anonymous No.52841968]

>>52825995
/Thread

[Anonymous No.52842219]

>>52825953
Strategy doesn't beat math.
You will lose.

[Anonymous No.52842622]

What probably tards on /biz/ don't understand is that I'm wearing my lucky socks

[Anonymous No.52842928]

>>52841880
this is disgusting. i will never work a normal job and participate in the system in a typical way like an NPC. especially in my country the vast majority of people don't have access to high wage jobs and the taxes are high as fuck. some people will never save up 100k in their life and you get it randomly in one evening.

[Anonymous No.52842943]

some americans take 3 full time remote jobs at a time and get away with, they make $300k+ a year and even if they get caught they'll just lose one of their jobs they won't get charged with fraud or anything

[Anonymous No.52843323]

>>52842622
Yeah but I know a guy.

[Anonymous No.52843452]

>>52825953
There's a video that explains why it doesn't work but tldr because you don't have enough money to keep doubling and if you did you wouldn't be gambling.

[Anonymous No.52843521]

I have ran the martingale thing hundred of times without ever loosing.

My strategy was a tad different: wait for a streak to repeat 12 times in a row, it could be any combination but Straight colours are easier to remember.

So lets say you have 12 red in a row: start to bet £2 on black.
If no black in next spin double your stack.
If win the session is won and wait for another 12 no colour combination.

If you bet £2 per stack it would take 10 spins to arrive to £2560 bet (which is usually what most table limits are around). 22 spins in a row without seeing a colour is a one in many millions possibilities and will likely not happen in your lifetime.

Now the catch is:
This is so fucking boring since even 12 spins without a combination is pretty rare, so you would need multiple live casino software at the same time etc. even with 5-6 different software running in parallel I was making around £10 per hour and wanted to shoot myself by boredom.
Also if during a streak your internet fails or laptop explodes etc. you are screwed

[Anonymous No.52843693]

>>52831964

Fat tailed kurtosis, in HFT we called trade algos like this "picking up pennies in front of the steam roller" and they frequently wrecked amateurs

T. Formerly hft market maker fag

[Anonymous No.52845269]

>>52843521
>22 spins in a row without seeing a colour is a one in many millions possibilities and will likely not happen in your lifetime.
I have seen 20 in a row couple times. Yes 22 is more unlikely, but still

[Anonymous No.52847080]

>>52825953
Zero

Zero is why you will lose everything in roulette

[Anonymous No.52847273]

>>52825953
I tried the martingale strat on an eth dice game once. Doubled up then went on a losing streak and lost it all. Only $300 staked but I felt like a greedy idiot. Once I hit a winning streak I feel like I've unlocked some kind of real life infinite money cheat code and can't stop. I only gamble on speculative stocks and crypto now.

[Anonymous No.52848294]

my ex did something similar to this and she really did win more over time but the thing is, the min buy in is 1 pound so its easy to just flip it
i'd imagine if the min buy in is $10 and it'll be super difficult coz you might lose all of your capital if you have a small budget
she made enough to buy herself and me a gucci bag / shoe so it does kinda work in a way i guess

[Anonymous No.52848483]

>>52825953
Increasing bets can't work because there is a maximum bet limit.

To win at roulette, watch the croupier closely. Sometimes they get into a rhythm and the same groups of numbers will come up. Casinos often rapidly cycle croupiers to avoid this, however, at 3am you might find they stay on the table longer. But this depends on the croupier, some never get into a pattern.

Also,playing four corners of a number in the central column can be good risk management. You are covering 9 numbers, so a quarter of the board (less the zeroes), plus, the central number is paying you 8-1 times your four bets. And you have four chances of hitting two bets on the adjacent numbers.

[Anonymous No.52851229]

Here's some simple math to tell you why martingle and the likes doesn't work.
Let's say you want to play $1 per bet, You want to double your bet on each loss to try and recover he past losses. Also let's say you are extremely paranoid and you want to survive a 19 losses in a row. Thus you deposit $1048576 in bank, giving you a chance to double your last bet for the 20th time in a row.

If you lose the bet 20 times in a row, then it's gave over. That's a 1 in 1,048,576 chance (assuming 50% win rate) so it sound absurdly minuscule.
But you also have to consider the fact that in order to double your initial deposit, you have to win the game 1048576 times, because you are winning only $1 each set.
The chance of surviving each set is 1048575 in 1048576. But to double your money, you also have to play at least 1048576 times.
Thus giving you the overall survival chance of (1048575 / 1048576) ^ 1048576 = 0.3678792
This means 63.21208% of people who try this strategy will lose all their money in an attempt to double it. Might as well just bet the whole 1048576 dollars the first time and you'd have a better edge of doubling it

[Anonymous No.52853848]

>>52839110
I did. It's my own java code, so I could change a lot and tried many different approaches

[Anonymous No.52853992]

>>52839355
Did that too, it was actually the last strategy I tried and I ran out of ideas afterwards. What's your risk management? In the end it's all basically just the same as stopping to play after your first lose lol

[Anonymous No.52855450]

>>52853992
that's probably a better idea than martingale.

[Anonymous No.52855536]

>>52851229
>Here's some simple math to tell you why martingle and the likes doesn't work.
>Let's say you want to play $1 per bet, You want to double your bet on each loss to try and recover he past losses. Also let's say you are extremely paranoid and you want to survive a 19 losses in a row. Thus you deposit $1048576 in bank, giving you a chance to double your last bet for the 20th time in a row.
>If you lose the bet 20 times in a row, then it's gave over. That's a 1 in 1,048,576 chance (assuming 50% win rate) so it sound absurdly minuscule.
>But you also have to consider the fact that in order to double your initial deposit, you have to win the game 1048576 times, because you are winning only $1 each set.
>The chance of surviving each set is 1048575 in 1048576. But to double your money, you also have to play at least 1048576 times.
>Thus giving you the overall survival chance of (1048575 / 1048576) ^ 1048576 = 0.3678792
>This means 63.21208% of people who try this strategy will lose all their money in an attempt to double it. Might as well just bet the whole 1048576 dollars the first time and you'd have a better edge of doubling it
i can't dispute this at first glance but my gut tells me you're full of shit and your assumptions are garbage.
>But you also have to consider the fact that in order to double your initial deposit, you have to win the game 1048576 times, because you are winning only $1 each set.
this sticks out as the false statement to me, as martingale increases the bet each time you win as well, no?

[Anonymous No.52855623]

>>52834344
I used excel to map out martindale

I ran 100 simulations and 99 of them busted at 16 spins, one busted at 17. This was assuming the casinos maximum bet caps you at 5 consecutive loses

[Anonymous No.52855810]

If you HAVE to bet, put everything in a single game. Casinos are designed to win in the long run. Your only chance is to front load a win and quit after.

[Anonymous No.52855860]

>>52855536
If you do, then your bank doesn't protect you for 20 losses

[Anonymous No.52856045]

>>52855810
i wouldn't say this.
Martingale it once instead.

[Anonymous No.52856580]

this is not rocket science tho.

let's assume a coinflip for simplicity: (50% chance to win)

Martingale never (all in): 50% to win 100% (of bankroll)
Martingale once (split bankroll in two, bet one half): 75% chance to win 50%
Martingale twice: 87.5% chance to win 25%
MT 3 times: 93.75% chance to win 12.5%
MT 4 times: 96.88% chance to win 6.25%

you trade total winnings for win chance with martingale, this makes sense to me no more than once or twice, else you're risking a milion dollars to protect a failed $1 bet.

[Anonymous No.52857044]

>>52828902
cursed jpg

[Anonymous No.52857122]

>>52828902
imagine being the only non-demon possesed employee in Meta.

[Anonymous No.52857245]

>>52856580
15 + 30 + 60 + 120 + 240 + 480

You lose a grand if you lose 6 times in a row, the trick is to win a grand before you eventually lose a grand. I like to throw in a reverse martingale from time to time and double on my winnings when I'm ahead.

[Anonymous No.52857441]

>>52857245
yeah you'd throw reverses and martingales according to the streak and how you feel about it (6th sense)