[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 247 KB, 1200x800, roulette.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
22873686 No.22873686 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Would this strategy work at roulette?

To start you would need at least $10,000 just to be safe.
1. Wait until there have been at least three of the same color in a row.
2. Then pick the opposite color and start out at maybe a $50 bet
4. If you lose, the next bet make it $150, to recoup your original losses and still profit
5. Then each bet increases if you lose, so if you lost a 4th time you would want to bet at least $250 to recoup the money you've already lost. This is why it's safe to have $10,000 on the extremely unlikely circumstance that there's like 10+ of the same color in a row.

In theory, the statistical likelyhood of there being further consecutive colors becomes more and more unlikely. The most I've ever seen at a casino was like 7 blacks in a row before going red. So if you just kept betting red it would eventually switch back. Is there any reason why people don't do this?

>> No.22873718

Don’t gamble it’s for boomers anyway

>> No.22873750

Are you being serious? Or are you actually fucking retarded?

>> No.22873753

That isn’t how probability works

>> No.22873772

Fair warning OP:
Your assumptions about probability are wrong. You are way dumber than you think you are at this moment.
If you gamble you will lose.

>> No.22873788

actually that is flawed logic, the statistical likelihood of it hitting red or black will always be 50 percent, previous hits have no impression on the next hit, its like the coin flipping thing, its always 50/50 no matter what happened previously, any time you would get it right would just be a random 50/50 correct guess.

>> No.22873799


>> No.22873803

I heard playing the side where its separated into thirds have good chances. Also heard number 17

>> No.22873816

the chance is actually significantly high of being wiped with 10 blacks or 10 reds in a row

>> No.22873821

Amazing bait

>> No.22873824


>> No.22873827

It’s actually 49.5% for red and black, there is a green color which accounts for 1%

>> No.22873839

Sure. You can win short term... but the long term, you will always lose when it comes to playing roulette, unless youre cheating somehow. The house always wins- its simple math.

google or wiki it - gambler's fallacy.

SOURCE: personal experience.

>> No.22873855

lmfao thats all bullshit superstitition, all numbers have the exact same probability, the house wins because they know you will keep playing and eventually lose, they take advantage of greed, the smartest bet is the red or black, that is actually fair, but they know people want to make good odds thanks to their greed, so they will bet smaller amounts on completely random numbers thinking they may hit it eventually and make more in the long run. They dont, they lose way more slowly and get sucked dry. Thats vegas.

>> No.22873856

It's only 50/50 if it's one roll. If you were to bet someone $100 you could flip a coin heads 10 times in a row it would not be a 50/50 probability.

>> No.22873867

All on double digits

>> No.22873884

oh i completely forgot, as you can tell, I dont gamble so i forgot about that detail in roulette, I do love playing poker though, much more of a skill based game, plus you play other players, no big scary casino that knows it will win eventually through statistics and trillions in research on taking your money.

>> No.22873889

Tried this once on monopoly live.
Started off with 10k.
Everytime 2x didnt hit 3 times in a row I would put in a solid 100bucks, dont hit, martingale, dont hit, martingale, was on the edge of my seat when it didnt hit 2x so many fucking times and i had to bet everything i had left. It did work for a solid 3 days, was up by 30k, shoulda cashed out apperently, anyways i thought i had it all figured out and i was going to a million bucks at this rate.
But yeah got fucked by "probability" at some point, chased the dragon for 2 years after that, about 200k down the drain. Came up with a bunch of different strategies, found out how to exploit the motor, sometimes got greedy and things put me on tilt, had a notebook to track my emotions and what the end result of my actions were etc..
Listen to me when I tell you this.
Gambling is for peasants. Dont ever go near that shit

>> No.22873892

Whole bunch of losers itt

>> No.22873896

I think they did a study and like 80% of gambling addicts think god is helping them lol

>> No.22873910

but you cant bet like that in a casino, you cant bet that you will hit something more than once in a row, each play is started and closed after one roll of the roulette table, so that nuance is mute in this instance

>> No.22873916

I tried it on satoshidice years ago. It kind of works but then you eventually get wiped out. Having an actual 50/50 chance instead of 49.5% would make it a fun game of chicken instead of a process where you always eventually lose.

>> No.22873924

You're forgetting about the 0 which is neither red or black. Remember, the house always wins.

>> No.22873934

that's why you wait until there have been 3-4 blacks in a row before even betting red at all

>> No.22873951

People have gotten killed for using this strategy. It’s called a martingale. Don’t try it. It’s not illegal but casinos do not appreciate people who do this at all, for obvious reasons.

>> No.22873952

This is why martingale is a stupid strategy. Yes, you'll probably get away with it for a little while. But the probability that you'll hit a losing streak that will completely bankrupt you due to martingale's exponential betting very quickly goes to one.

>> No.22873954

And how does this benefit you? It is impossible to predict the outcome based on the previous outcomes. How could you know when to place a big bet and profit? Your chances of winning will always be slightly less than 50%, so that the house is mathematically certiain to make a profit long-term.

>> No.22873956

Anon look up the gambler’s fallacy. It’s probability and statistics 101

>> No.22873969

Instead of gambling, look into starting your own online casino site. It's easier than you'd think. Become the house.

>> No.22873971

It's the Martingale system and I have used it in the past but stopped because im not turning up to a casino with $10000 in cash and most places have limits

I used to use my initial plus 2x so would win significant amounts the longer the streak lasted but I wiped out more than once.

Its not 50/50 because of 0 and if you think the odds increase on you winning the longer it goes on you're wrong. I've seen black 12 times in a row and it will fuck you good if you turn up with thousands playing that method


>> No.22873986

I wonder if you could train a dealer from birth to turn the roulette wheel with such precision that he can control where the ball will land, would take decades of practice but I bet its not impossible.

>> No.22874012

The probability is extremely low but it also doesn't mean that either result actually affects the "randomness" of the wheel

you're still able to deploy this strategy just not forever

>> No.22874021

The 50/50 rule assumes the mechanism is perfect. In reality, four reds in a row makes it more likely you will see another red. When pure probability tells you one thing, and reality shows you something else, it is rare that reality corrects itself to conform with your assumptions.

>> No.22874058

this is actually flawless. delete this thread now op, we only have so long before they figure out this loophole and close it.

>> No.22874063

lmfao dude it makes no difference, who are you placing this imaginary bet with? You cant just make a bet with yourself that you will hit black 5 times in a row and then if it ever hits 4 in a row, you switch on yourself and bet red, its the dumbest idea ever. You are betting based on one roll that resets every time. You placing some imaginary restriction in your head is again just superstition and makes no difference in reality.

>> No.22874064

I suppose you think you could flip a coin until you see 4 heads in a row, then drive to your buddy's house and offer to bet on a coinflip with that coin and bet on tails since its due, right?

>> No.22874082

this is either some of the worst 14yo larp ive ever seen or some truly megamind bait

>> No.22874088

>Your chances of winning will always be slightly less than 50%
Yes but the chance of 10 reds in a row is also lower than 3 reds in a row. Both perspectives have predictive power. In reality only one outcome is possible and from that objective perspective statistics are irrelevant.

>> No.22874105

$5 bet it's tails.
if not then bet $15
if not then bet $40

Eventually it will go tails

>> No.22874116

Since you're all retarded:



>> No.22874144

actually no it isnt, the chance of 10 reds in a row in the game of roulette is not lower than 3 reds, the chances of both happening are each 50%, your problem is you keep creating this imaginary row bet, there is no row bet, it resets every time, the reality is that the probability of even 100 reds in a row is still 50 percent when you play the game in a casino, a casino will never bet on more than one roll at a time, so imaginary continuation bets have no basis on the reality of the actual bet that happens only one time per roll.

>> No.22874153

Next time your in a casino go look at the wall of roulette spins.

The longest streak ever was only 32. According to you the longest streak of black should be infinite. All your mathematical theory mumbo jumbo doesn't mean shit once youre at a roulette table that has had 4 reds in a row. Everyone will be betting black.

>> No.22874172

Your expected gain in a casino is less than 0.

>> No.22874181

now if you could somehow get the casino to agree to a bet that you will hit a certain color a certain amount of times in a row, then everything changes, but thats why the game has specific rules, and the biggest rule is that every bet resets each roll of the wheel.

>> No.22874218
File: 4 KB, 385x308, 3390765_orig.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Upping your bet 3x like that gives you less than 6 bets to lose in a row. You wouldn't last a day in the casino with your shitty version of the Martingale system. Even just doubling your bet starting with $10 will only allow you to lose 10 in a row. It's not uncommon at all to walk thru a casino and see the same color 10+ times in a row on a roulette board. Winning 10 in a row only gives you $500, losing 6 in a row puts you at -$18,200

>> No.22874219

Flip a coin a thousand times in a computer and record the output. The amount of times you get 10 in a row is predictable. It's not imaginary if you're actually betting many times, then it's more representative of the actual game you're playing if you use the system. You're not playing with individual flips but the probability of rows happening.

>> No.22874226

Ahh it warms my heart that no matter how many people learn this lesson since the 1700s, no matter that the probability theory to settle this was established centuries ago, there will continually be born new generations of suckers to believe that the sum of a bunch of -ev bets can be +ev

>> No.22874229

that is again, flawed logic, the game roulette has not been around that long in terms of infinity, so ofc the probability hasn't happened yet, if the game of roulette was being played for infinity, it is a guarentee that at some point during that infinity, black will run for infinity, and red will run for infinity, but infinity in itself is a paradox, so its probably impossible to have an infinity, but thats a conversation for another topic.

>> No.22874253


>> No.22874272

lol dude, i just said if you make a bet that something will happen a certain amount of times, then everything changes, the reason im saying it wont happen in his instance is because a casino will never fucking do a bet that is more than one roll and that is the entire point of this thread, the game of roulette in a casino, hes not betting anywhere with anyone else, in this exact instance, i am correct

>> No.22874294

>3 blacks in a row
>decide to go all in on red

>> No.22874308

The point still stands. For all the big talk of probability and independent spins one would assume the streaks must be at least 1000 or even 100, but only 32? If someone had Donald Trump money with no bet limits the Martingale system would definitely work.

>> No.22874340

>agree to a bet that you will hit a certain color a certain amount of times in a row
That's what this system is. You're betting that you don't hit x amount of bad flips of the coin in a row where x amount of flips bankrupts you.
Doesn't change anything, it models exactly the same as a coin flip with 1% house advantage or whatever if you include the zero.

>> No.22874378

Ive seen the same color hit 17x

>> No.22874398
File: 69 KB, 728x943, roulette-score-sheet-l1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Any of you fucks actually been to a casino? Preferably in Asia. It's great, they keep all the previous numbers up on a board. Even hand out sheets (pic related) so players can track for themselves. Watching dozens of retards marking numbers and jumping through mental hoops to predict the next number when you know it's perfectly random. Humans are dumb.

>> No.22874399

gambler here
its one of the oldest tricks ever.
didnt work if seen same color happen over 20 times in a raw.
and u need to double every round. do ur math u end up very high pretty fast even if u start with 5 bugs wich is min amounf on most casinos

>> No.22874427

The more secure the bet is the less you profit. It's equivalent to using a trillion to make a bet that's 99.999% in your favor but also only pays out 0.0001%. You're still risking the entire trillion for that small profit when you could just invest.

>> No.22874435
File: 103 KB, 750x732, 1599066489127.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Isn't this the Martingale system? I thought it was only useful for craps.

>> No.22874448

Who told you that the streaks must be at least 1000, or 100? do you know how improbable hitting something 32 times in a row is? each additional hit adds an exponential amount of improbability. The odds for that particular run your talking about is 10,321,314,387:1, so yes, anything more than that and even that exact run is probably not going to happen again for a very very long time, let alone something as proposterous as 100x or 1000x. 2.06x10^100 is the chance of it happening even 100 times, which btw i couldn't even get converted, 1 quintillion is 1x10^18, imagine a number 82 orders of magnitude above that. You are wrong.

>> No.22874476

That's the entire point of the thread. All of these faggots in here saying getting 100 blacks in a row is a 50/50 chance.

>> No.22874519

but your not betting that system, your betting with yourself, you cannot base a probability on a bet with yourself, you are not betting money against yourself, and yes it does model a coinflip, but the casino isn't betting on a coinflipp and even if they were, they would never bet on a multiple amount of times a coinflip would hit heads or tails, they would only bet on each flip individually, you just keep conveniently ignoring that, and it destroys your entire argument.

>> No.22874544

lol idk how to get through to you dude, the bet is no whether you are getting it 100 times in a row, the bet is only for one roll, you cant just make up your own fucking imaginary bet that the casino isn't using, your not betting with yourself, your betting the casino, how else can i explain that to you.

>> No.22874575

I tried this strategy years ago. Table went black 13 time sin a row and ate mine and a lot of other money. Also, this is why tables have maximum bets. There’s no sure thing other than you will be ported with your money in a casino.

>> No.22874583

You're a cucking retard OP, coin flips are always 50/50 regardless.
You know why casinos make bank from brainlets? Because they think they have discovered le epic method for roulette and lose their stack in 10 minutes. I can tell you've list a lot of money OP.

>> No.22874608

and its a 50/50 chance when you bet with the casino that it will turn red or black in that one particular roll of the wheel, you are not betting on any other circumstance when betting with a casino, what happened in the last 5 minutes on the wheel doesn't matter because your not placing your bet on that, your placing your bet on whether that wheel will hit red or black in that one exact particular roll, which will always be a little under 50 percent for each.

>> No.22874609


>extremely unlikely 10+ in a row

I can assure you that it is not extremely unlikely for this to happen, for martingale to work you need an infinite amount of money, otherwise eventually you will go broke and feel like an idiot risking thousands to win back thousands.

>> No.22874645

Excluding zero a red or a black bet is 50/50, a flip. The casino doesn't change how probability works. I've played this system many times and modeled it. It works exactly as modeled which is not very well. Not because of any of the nonsense you said though or the obvious fact that every single flip always has a 50/50 chance. You're betting on rows of flips, not individual flips.

>> No.22874656

exactly, its not extremely likely to happen at first because you just started, but after a while, the chance of a 10 in a row grows larger and larger, and eventually you will get cleaned. Casinos weren't built because they lose money to retards like you and the other idiots thinking they are smarter than them, they were built thanks to idiots like you.

>> No.22874678

I put 5 on black and 6 on red and take the free drinks

>> No.22874679

This thread is fucking retarded.
Betting that a run of five reds will happen IS NOT THE SAME as betting on red five times in a row, no matter how much dressing you put on your word salad.

>> No.22874682

If you’ve got enormous balls of steel and/or infinite money go for it. Otherwise you’d be just as well off with no system and just rolling red or black.

>> No.22874685

yeah i dont know how else to tell you that you are not in fact betting on rows of flips, is the casino betting on this imaginary row of flips that you are in your head, whats their probability? oh yeah, its still 50/50 assuming only red/black in this particular example, you have a flawed logic going on right now and your unable to see it.

>> No.22874701

>about 200k down the drain
jesus fucking christ man. I'd sudoku if it was that amount. Hope you didn't go into debt

>> No.22874714

>you're still able to deploy this strategy just not forever
That's the point. You need infinite money to be able to guarantee pulling out with a profit.

>> No.22874732

Haha Hahahaha itt brainlets. This thread is actually a low key temp check for the markets. I just sold all my crypto after reading this

>> No.22874742

casinos and online gambling sites have min and max bets to handle this trick

>> No.22874751

>flawed logic
You're absolutely retarded and are unable to see anything. Make a simulation of a roulette table. Run it a million times. You will get a predictable number of long rows of reds. A player can bet from a perspective based on that model of rows and get predictable results. You can bet that the row of reds you're experiencing is not longer than x.

There is no participation from the casino required. Everything you're saying is some of the dumbest horseshit imaginable. Why are you acting like an authority on something you know nothing about?

>> No.22874775

Yea tried it you just need to know when to cash out.

>> No.22874799

Using the martingale strategy, by the time you hit 32 spins you would be betting ($50)*2^32 = 214,748,364,800.

You willing to risk 214 billion dollars under the belief that the longest streak could "never hit 33"?

>> No.22874823

your not making a bet that the roulette table will hit a certain amount of times in a row though, and dude, no need to try and name call when you feel intimidated because you have lost an argument, you are absolutely wrong and you can ask any actually smart person that is in your life(if you even have one, maybe a math professor), and let them explain to you why you are wrong. Because i don't see you understanding this here tonight. Your just too deep in the hole to imagine you could be wrong about the subject.

>> No.22874853

shit I need to try that, thanks for the idea

>> No.22874857
File: 1.73 MB, 1849x657, TIMERS 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Great platform #timers is launching token to replace #fake earning platforms , MLM platforms @timersnetwork is one stop destination for all individual for showing there skills and will get reward by staking tokens which is coming next month too!!!!


1150 IPM = 1 ETH (save up to 65%)

Where to buy: https://tokensale.timers.network

How to buy: https://medium.com/timers/how-to-participate-in-our-presale-using-metamask-27324d4ea52d

>> No.22874881

I can tell you never truly gambled before.
I have a full proof plan on winning its not easy to follow but if you do odds are good you win.
Its martingale same as your explaining but you dont start doibling your bet until at least 4 losses in a row.

>> No.22874896

fucking idiot

>> No.22874901

Already invested in this token.. Now i need time machine to watch my funds grow higher !!

>> No.22874913

Ask your math professor. Just don't strawman when you explain and pretend I'm denying each roll has a 50/50 chance.
What other explanation is there for someone who knows absolutely nothing about a subject making 17 long authoritative posts about it containing nothing but braindead horseshit? I know nothing else about you except that you behave like a retard so why wouldn't I call you what you are?

>> No.22874942

>...odds are good you win.
As with the normal Martingale strategy, odds are good you win but if odds are bad you lose BAD. If you work out the expected return, you're still losing, as you always do at a casino.

>> No.22874955

There is no sequence because the variables are not connected.

>> No.22874974

This is equivalent to just playing fewer rounds.

>> No.22874976

Yes, the likelihood of getting 12 blacks in a row is low. But, if you're making a bet on the 11th black that the 12th spin will be red, you have to consider that the actual probability of getting the first 11 blacks in a row in reality (versus as-modeled) is now 100% (as it has already occurred). Now, because the 12th spin is not in any way mechanically dependent on the outcome of prior spins, you are faced with two potential outcomes: black or red. There is a 50% chance of either.

>> No.22874982

Ideal Martingales have 0 EV and result in being wiped out fairly quickly by a string of losses
Real casino Martingales are worse and have negative EV because of the house edge (green 00 square)

Google the gamblers fallacy.
If you see a run of red wins, your best bet is actually to bet ON RED since you have potential evidence that the machine may be biased towards red

>> No.22874988

google gamblers fallacy

>> No.22874995

if anyone is interested in the actual math behind any games of chance, including breakdowns of most systems, including martingale and actual blackjack counting strategies, wizard of odds is the absolute best resource-


>> No.22874999

i have seen 20 color streaks for multiple times, play with smaller bets. like 1$ minimum bet to minimize the risk. you will still get fucked on the long run

>> No.22875018

strawman? what the fuck are you talking about. I am telling you that in a casino setting, playing roulette, the chance will always stay the same regardless of what has happened on the wheel in the immediate past, your argument is that if it hits 10 reds in a row, there is a higher chance than normal that it will hit black, but that's just not true, you are not betting on the fact that it will hit red x amount of times, like another poster said, betting that red will hit 5 times in a row is NOT the same as betting on red 5 times in a row, the key difference is that you are resetting the bet every time you bet, so the probability resets like always, don't know how else to word it to explain it to you, retard.

>> No.22875022

Casino Manager here, Jesus some of these replies are retarded.

Please try out these systems in a real casino so you can keep paying my salary.

>> No.22875040

this >>22874976, just look at what this guy said, he explained my argument in a better way. Maybe you will understand it explained like that.

>> No.22875072

How is being a casino manager? Its a nice one or just a shitty one full of slot machines.

>> No.22875136

>that if it hits 10 reds in a row, there is a higher chance than normal that it will hit black
No, that in the long run rows of 11 are as rare as modeled by a basic understanding of statistics. The individual roll is still always 50/50. It's easier to think of what's happening on a large scale when it's a dice bot starting with a low minimum but the exact same rules apply in roulette or any game.

>> No.22875138

It's a nice casino but by god is it boring, if it wasn't for the pay I'd rather go back to being a croup. About 40% of my job is audits, 40% "engaging with high-value customers" and 20% dealing with dumb fuck ups which means more audits and reports.

>> No.22875156

He didn't explain anything. He repeated the obvious fact that each coin flip is 50/50. That's the definition of a coin flip.

>> No.22875185

Each bet is a taxable event retard. Good luck filing your 300 nightly bets.

>> No.22875207
File: 64 KB, 811x563, system.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.22875245

if what I said is your argument isn't actually your argument then I don't know what your even arguing, we both agree that regardless of what has happened previously, that the individual roll is 50/50, that is exactly what my argument is against OP, I don't know what you think im arguing about.

>> No.22875248

Actually, if you read my post carefully, you will also notice that the odds for each of the first 11 "coin flips" which have already occurred turned out to be 100/0. The first 11 are objective historical fact, and there is no basis to say that "well, technically they were 50:50 and it's just random chance that they are all black even though the odds were against it," because while according to the model they should have been 50:50, reality has proven different; you can't go back and "re-do" these flips to establish different odds at this point. Therefore, waiting until the twelfth flip/spin to make a bet is no different that making a bet on the 1st flip.

>> No.22875277

If you wait for times when the coin has fallen tails three times in a row, you’ll find that in half of such cases the fourth toss will be heads and the other half will be tails. The same goes for eight or any other number of heads or tails in a row. Broken n-streaks are just as rare as continued n-streaks.

>> No.22875279

>long run rows of 11 are as rare
How rare? How much money are you willing to risk on this, and how much money do you stand to gain? That's the crux of the issue with Martingale, things go well most of the time but when it does go bad you lose ALL of your money. If you're risking a streak of 11, you're basically risking 2048 times as much as what you stand to gain from an individual win.

>> No.22875309

It's called a martingal and it work until it doesn't, the more you do it the more you get close to the unavoidable day you will lose everything. If you do it once in your life and then stop forever you might win some change, not a lot compared to the risk you took but you'll get to be one of the 0.0000001% of people who actually won money against a casino, that's something.

Also you first step is useless, past colours have no influence on future colours.

>> No.22875313

There is no worse addiction than a gambling addiction.

>> No.22875334

You were talking some insane nonsense about the casino not consenting to me betting on rows of flips.
Like I said before even with a trillion dollar bankroll and a 1 dollar minimum bet you're still deploying a trillion into something giving little returns. It's like taking a bet 99.999..% in your favor that only pays out 0.000..1%.

>> No.22875342

I think what is going on is your trying to base your argument on theoretical probability, which is already debunked by >>22875248, but even if we assume hes wrong (which he isn't), the entire point of this thread is if the strategy is actually practical at all, you cant roll the roulette table a million times to get a reliable prediction, practically speaking, you will get cleaned every time you try this strategy and that is the whole point of this thread in the first place, is it practical and a way to win in roulette. The answer is no and that's why my argument is correct.

>> No.22875348


it's interesting because although the probability of getting infinite blacks in a row is the same as getting infinite reds you will never find a 50/50 game that doesn't have a 50/50 distribution of results. To know a game is 50/50 you have to have a 50/50 distribution of results. The fallacy is really believing that a 50/50 game can get significantly away from a 50/50 distribution

>> No.22875359

>you will get cleaned every time you try this strategy
But you still have no idea why. You're still saying some absolutely braindead horseshit about roulette tables as if the specific game is important.

>> No.22875362

I actually was up $4,000 on lucky games .io before they shut it down doing exactly this, waiting for 3 in a row, with XRP. Dropped to $2,000 profit and I cashed the fuck out and bought silver with it.

The reason this is no different from not waiting for 3 in a row is that you are giving up all the games you'd win where there isn't 3 in a row before. So the odds remain the same as if you were always betting. Except you haven't experienced 13 in a row like I have multiple times.

t. 50,000 spins online

>> No.22875367

it doesn't matter whether they consent or not because the row of flips isn't real, your assuming that the previous run of reds or blacks has any impact on the next, and they dont, that's why your wrong. The way I explained it could have been better, but the main idea is still there.

>> No.22875374

all that shit you wasted time writing out is a fallacy
there is no greater likelihood of a color occurring after so many reds or blacks, every single spin the odds are the same.
also following this strategy the 0 and 00 are against you.

>> No.22875384

What if their randomness algorithm is fucked up for online casinos in such a manner that it won't give a certain color more than x times in a row? There's always a chance that it was programmed by a pajeet.

>> No.22875387


>> No.22875390

the reason you get cleaned if because you keep uping your bet to match what you lost, eventually you run out of money on a long enough streak of wrong picks, its not a hard thing to understand, the game specifics do matter, because the entire fucking thread is about this specific game.

>> No.22875427

>In reality, four reds in a row makes it more likely you will see another red.
Not unless the game is rigged

>> No.22875428

>your assuming that the previous run of reds or blacks has any impact on the next
I'm not and I explained myself many times. Why do you keep posting braindead nonsense? Look it up, try it yourself. The amount of rows of 10 same colors in a million roulette rolls is predictable. That's all you need, the strategy doesn't rely on the individual roll going either way.

>> No.22875444

Wow congratulations you've just discovered the Martingale system. How about you put it into practice and see how long it is before you get completely wiped out.

>> No.22875457

btw i only brought up the fact that the casino will not do a running bet like that because you said that the bet is a row of hits and not a bet on the individual hit itself, which is fundamentally incorrect. I think we just are having a misunderstanding on what we are actually trying to get across to each other.

>> No.22875460

>four reds in a row makes it more likely you will see another red.
t. doesn't understand probability. Barring green, the chance of red next is always 50%.

>> No.22875477

>1. Wait until there have been at least three of the same color in a row.
This is called “gamblers fallacy”. Look it up. The previous spins have no bearing on future spins. There’s no such thing as a color being “due”.

The strategy you outlined is called the “martingale” and pretty much everybody in gambling has heard of it. The problem with it is that eventually that monster streak will happen, and you’ll get destroyed on it.

It’s mathematical certainty that you’ll eventually lose.

>> No.22875478

I'm not the one having any kind of "misunderstanding". I understand exactly what kind of mindless parrot you are.

>> No.22875485

You're not making any profit until you start betting. That's where your probability goes back to the 50/50.

>> No.22875499

Based retard

>> No.22875523

>each additional hit adds an exponential amount of improbability
No it doesn't, if you get 99 blacks in a row you still have 50% probability to get black for the 100th time

>> No.22875524


Not true. Theoretically speaking, if you had a enough money to counteract the ultimate losing streak that would wipe you out, you could utilize the martingale system until you die. However, bet size limits nullify this ever happening.

>> No.22875546

lol dude your so fucking arrogant that you can't understand that everything your saying literally has no meaning because it would never be practical in any possible way in the exact specific situation that this entire thread is based on. Your a complete retard picking a fight about something that I wasn't even arguing about. But no, the amount of times you get a row of 10 in a million tries is not predictable because there is nothing tying the fact that the million tries is going to happen again in the next million, your literally just collecting random data, and any pattern you see is not a real pattern but one made up by your brain, which is false based in the reality of probability.

>> No.22875596

OP is a retard but you're an even bigger retard.

>> No.22875599

>Spin Zero
>OP firmware locks up and he is recycled into a (more productive) toaster

>> No.22875605

I was referring to the fact that hitting red 32 times in a row in its entirety as a string of actions is what is exponentially improbable. You cant figure out the probability until after it has happened, which is why it is possible for something to be 50/50 when looking at the single event, but not 50/50 when looking at the entire string of events happening in sync with each other.

>> No.22875616

Fools like OP are why casinos still make money

>> No.22875619

For any retards that don't believe the skeptics in this thread: Bitcoin dice type games have better odds than roulette. You'll still lose but you have better odds in a sample of 99+1 numbers rather than 36+1 at roulette.

I've wrote a program before to model this in python and the simulation on average made 70% of its initial money before losing everything. If it was over 100% then this would be profitable but even if you doubt stats you can still code it and run a simulation.

Your best bet is that the online casino is using an algorithm that is too "random." This is opposite to what we think and maybe the programmer fell for the fallacy.

If they notice 15 blacks in a row, they might modify the algorithm so it doesn't give that many as it doesn't seem random. But in fact it is random! Given a ton of random numbers you can expect many numbers in a row or even patters that don't look random. So what we might see as "not random enough" is actually a correct amount of randomness.

>> No.22875630

>not using quantum computing to make a billion simulations on whats the most probable outcome dependent on wheel positioning

>> No.22875636

>house edge
Given no house edge you can do things like turn multiple turns of a 50/50 game into other odds like a 99% chance of winning 1%. At a roulette table you can make it appear like you won big when you only made a few bucks with a low chance of actually losing much more.
>no, the amount of times you get a row of 10 in a million tries is not predictable
That's demonstrably false. It's predictable to a level of precision that increases the more tries you have in your data set. Why do you keep making demonstrably retarded statements instead of shutting the fuck up and familiarizing yourself with basic statistics?

>> No.22875641
File: 27 KB, 548x560, FAAD29DD-DAF8-43DF-B71F-6BB8452BCDE8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.22875658

No, like you stated in an above post, you would need an infinite amount of money. Since the universe is finite, that’s not possible.

I don’t even think a multi billionaire like Bezos would have enough money to counteract the ultimate losing streak. Those martingales start doubling at an extreme rate once you get to a certain point.

>> No.22875673
File: 113 KB, 500x345, 1592348535678.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Gambling is fun but the odds are always at least slightly against you. It's entertainment and should be treated like it is.


>> No.22875705

Damn so many retards in this thread. We need to know which shitcoins you're all holding so that we can avoid the fuck out of them.

>> No.22875708

What you call string of events is just an illusion, there is no string of events, just stuffs happening independently.

>> No.22875717

I'm not sure what you're saying? In that chart the house has an edge. It clearly shows the chance of getting a streak of x length up to 10. With the correct negative expectation shown at the bottom.

>> No.22875779

You're actually really fucking dumb dude, if in your exact scenario the probability that a color will be red or black after a million spins could be 70% black and 30% red. You are saying that because of that sample size, you can predict that the next million will also be 70% black 30% red because it has already happened enough times to form a pattern in your eyes. But that pattern is imaginary, its not real, and there is nothing making the next million more probable to red or black, it will always be a random event regardless of sample size and that's why you cannot predict how many times something will happen in a row in reality.

>> No.22875787

The 50/50 probability of the individual event is also an "illusion". In reality there's a 100% chance that the thing that happens happens.
The house edge is what makes gambling in general boring but with decentralized games you can play against other players where these strategies may be more fun. The house edge isn't an inherent problem with the strategy, only when applied in modern casinos and the house edge problem again has nothing to do with the obvious fact that every coin flip is a coin flip.

>> No.22875798

its not an illusion after it has already happened, which is exacty what im saying anyway, you cant predict what will happen next, but you can find out the probability of something that has already happend aka the string of 32 reds.

>> No.22875799


Poker is weird in which you can make money over a very long period if time.

>> No.22875810

If after a million spins a roulette table has 70% black and 30% red that's considered a broken roulette table. You're not operating in reality, you're just trying to parroting shit you heard that you don't understand.

>> No.22875836

Still not sure what your point is, but without house edge martingale is still terrible because of risk of ruin.

>> No.22875850

It's not terrible if your goal is to change the odds of the returns on a series of bets. You can derisk for lower returns.

>> No.22875859

that 100% chance is also an illusion until it has actually happened, in reality, nothing is actually random, say for example, a coin flip, if you know exactly how much pressure to put on the flip you can guarantee based on the starting position of the coin exactly how many times it will flip and what it will land on when it reaches the bottom thanks to gravity and whatever other formula needed to do this exact calculation. Same thing goes for the roulette spin, the amount of pressure put on the spin if calculated exactly right in terms of math, and the exact speed and amount of gravity/ air slowing down the ball, you could guarantee a certain number. But ofc this is not practical to humans, so we assign a 50/50 chance since it virtually impossible for us to measure and actually execute such feats.

>> No.22875870

lol i had the exact same thought
but i'd be more conservative and wait til there's
like 10 in a row of same color
and instead of just putting in $50 I'd put in $500-1000 and just double from there

>> No.22875875

You can't change the odds of returns with any system. It is always (bet size) * (expected value) for any given bet, or series of bets.

>> No.22875884

The way I'd do martingale is on go up to three losses in a row then walk away.

>> No.22875889

I would bet at least a few ETH that you spend a lot of time on reddit if I get 50/50 odds. That would be an example of an informed +ev bet.

>> No.22875893

No it is not broken lol, it just didn't conform to what you think it should have, if you spinned it a million times and did an infinite amount of sets of that million spins, you would get some sets of those million spins to be 1% to 99%, 10 to 90, 50 to 50, every possible combination would happen eventually, the table is not broken, its just random, and that randomness doesn't conform to any one previous sample set like you believe it does. Just because you cant understand it doesn't mean im wrong smooth brain.

>> No.22875896
File: 853 KB, 100x169, Lawoflargenumbersanimation2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.22875903

>The pit boss comes over and intimidates you into retiring your strategy.

>> No.22875920

now because you literally have no rebuttal for what I said, you just start making some random insult (well what you perceive to be an insult) and will for the rest of the thread just make dumb jokes.

>> No.22875938

If it's a series of bets you can bet on rows not happening instead of relying on the outcome of an individual bet. You can calculate it to give any odds you want. I both tested all this using my own dice rolls in a computer and tried it with real money with dice bots.

>> No.22875977
File: 39 KB, 632x435, edward-thorpclaude-shanon_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Anon, I hate to break it to you, but Ed Thorp and Claude Shannon, two of the smartest motherfucking geniuses in the history of mankind came as close as you can possibly get to "beating" roulette and we're barely able to eek out an advantage over the house. A fascinating read: https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/on-beating-roulette-part-1/

>> No.22875983

The problem is no test can actually be random, so the sample size you created and the data gathered are essentially useless, computers cannot actually do anything random because there would be no way to program them into doing so. Any supposed random number generated by a computer would be pseudo-random. The only “random numbers” a computer can generate on its own are “pseudo-random numbers” and generate a sequence of numbers depending on a seed value that is used to compute the next seed and return a value.

>> No.22875989

>No it is not broken
According to everyone who operates roulette tables that's the definition of a broken roulette table.
The more points of random data you have the more it conforms to the random distribution. A million points does not allow for much variance. If after a million tests you have 70/30 instead of the expected 50/50 you have shown that the odds of each event are in fact 70/30 not 50/50 conclusively enough for all applications including roulette tables.
Again, why are you talking about these things as if you know anything? You have no clue at all.

>> No.22875997

>le evil casino bullies
They just have to set an upper limit for bets and every martingale strategy is immediately worthless

>> No.22876001

it overall outcome is always (total bet size) * (expected value). Look at the chart I posted again, it shows exactly what your are describing. Round the probability up if you want to eliminate house edge.

>> No.22876011

>almost managed to make my money back
>got dumped right before my exit
>now less than half of what I started with

Don't try the "if I bet all my cash I can win it all back" strategy. Better to walk away with 75% of your money than 30%

>> No.22876017

Why the actual fuck do you think any of your braindead horseshit is relevant to anything? You're now undermining the very idea of statistical models and pretending you're somehow even slightly reasonable. Why are you posting?

>> No.22876052

odds dont change after each roll, they are exactly the same. If you hit black 999 times in a row, the next roll is still 50-50 odds moron

>> No.22876066

Who said a million is enough of a sample size for it? Your entire argument is that you can guess the next number or color based on random data generated from a computer in your own personal experience. But that was never truly random and therefor just bullshit data, their is absolutely a possibility for something that is 50/50 chance to not have had a 50% of red or blacks after a million spins, the only way you could guarantee that the 50/50 percentage distribution will be hit is if it was spun infinity, 50/50 is just the chance it will do something, not a guarantee that it will happen exactly to that distribution. Regardless of sample size outside of infinity. Idiot.

>> No.22876101

>their is absolutely a possibility for something that is 50/50 chance to not have had a 50% of red or blacks after a million spins,

>> No.22876102

>(total bet size) * (expected value)
I don't know what this means. A series of 50/50 flips that double your money if you win can be changed into something like a 90% odds of winning 10% of what you risk.
Fine. Statistics don't work. Statistical models that reliably predict reality don't in fact work. You have it all figured out by not bothering to even think about the subject for a minute before making 34 long winded reddit posts which assume everyone but you are absolutely braindead.

>> No.22876123

Dude your not actually even arguing anything..... What did I undermine? Your fucking computer generated dice rolls were not actually random, so the statistical probability of what they output is possible to predict because the computer is not actually choosing at random, with enough sample size you will see patterns because of the fact that it is not actually random, if it was, that sample size wouldn't matter because the next action is, guess what? random. You're just fucking stupid and cant understand what is being explained to you so instead of actually trying to understand you just immediately write it off as wrong, literally the epitome of an idiot.

>> No.22876136

Stop posting retard. Look at the wikipedia link. Think about and learn about the subject you're posting about even slightly before posting.

>> No.22876145

Do you know what the definition of "possible" is? It is possible for what I said to happen, probable? No, but it is possible, so stop saying it is impossible, the law of large numbers is just that, the law of large numbers, how large of a number it takes to complete the predicted distribution until it actually happens

>> No.22876154


Yeah, but Poker is you vs other gamblers where the house takes a cut of the winnings. The fact there aren't MORE games like that in Casinos boggles my mind.

>> No.22876155

is unkown, until it actually happens.

>> No.22876184

Expected value or EV (which you used in a prior post so you claim to understand). Is the expected outcome of any bet, ie. the averaged result if you made that bet an infinite amount of times.
For a 50/50 bet, EV is always zero. It doesn't matter how many bets you make.
Martingale can shift the distribution into a number of tiny wins, or a big loss, but the overall expectation is always 0 for a 50/50 bet.

>> No.22876202

You keep parroting things you heard that you don't understand, reddit in the flesh.
You heard someone say computers can't produce true random numbers but in this context that's again more horseshit. The randomness generated by modern computers is "more random" than any roulette table. The randomness generated by computers is used to predict real world events reliably in a million practical contexts but you're resorting to pretending that an entire field of study that has consistent results is wrong because you want to save face anonymously instead of acknowledging that you behaved like a retard this entire thread.

>> No.22876207
File: 127 KB, 555x555, 1561005631641.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Missed these threads
This is how you know 2017 is back bros

>> No.22876217

>50/50 game not having 50/50 distribution after 1 million games
it's not meaningfully possible. universe would heat death before it would happen

>> No.22876231

Their is honestly no point in continuing to reply to a brain dead retard like you, your assuming a ton of shit. I never said the law of large numbers is wrong, i just said that it is possible for that large number in each specific type of event to take more than a million tries to hit the average distribution, each time you do it, it will hit that average distribution at different times, could take 1000 spins, could take 1 million, could take 10 million, but it is absolutely not guaranteed to happen, it almost certainly will happen, but not guaranteed, that is the entire point of statistics, to find the closest probability of an event, not to find a guaranteed probability of an event. That is simply impossible. You are just too minuscule in your deeper understanding of probability.

>> No.22876249
File: 12 KB, 423x195, martingale.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.22876290

Did reddit rape you in the shower or something? Why are you so afraid of it? Get some therapy, reddit can't hurt you friend. And you just said something that is absolutely false, you can say your computer is generating random numbers all you want, but it is actually impossible for anything to be truly random. The conversation went way out of bounds of where it was supposed to be anyway. Oh and stop saying parrot, did a parrot rape you up the ass to? The end result of this thread is that the OP is wrong and that's it, no you cannot predict something random from a large subset in any practical sense in a casino because you would never even be able to create that sample set in the first place, it would still always be 50/50 as far as we are concerned.

>> No.22876312

Stopped reading after “wait for 3 of the same color”. Gamblers fallacy. That had precisely 0 impact on the next spin

>> No.22876332

it has to turn red eventually

>> No.22876354

The EV stays the same but the odds change.
>I never said the law of large numbers is wrong
You did and even dumber shit than that and in the dumbest, smuggest possible way. Now you're suddenly talking about guarantees just to underline how absolutely useless you are. If a real data set with a million points of data doesn't match your model the model is wrong.
Reddit created and spread mindless zombies like you around. You now roam the internet removing all thought where you find it and replacing it with your mindless parroting of the latest tweets from black science nigger.
Casinos operate on the fact that you can more reliably predict a set of events in a computer the more of them there are. That's how "the house always wins" which is a line you repeated without understanding it and then started arguing the house doesn't in fact always win since it's not "guaranteed".

>> No.22876385

What do you mean by odds, and how is it different than EV?
No matter what tricks or systems you use, for a 50/50 even money bet you can never expect to win or lose money.

>> No.22876396

The series wouldn't have "an infinity", but it would effectively have what you mean. The probability of any particular sequence NOT occurring approaches 0 as the sequence gets longer, including a consecutive run of the same color of any length. Basically, any run of length K must eventually occur, and K has no maximum.

>> No.22876403

What about this, but instead of roulette it’s NFL games. They have to give adjusted odds to get the money equal on both sides. Bet the underdog . The favorite has heavy money in it and vegas tries to get the money equal on both sides to lock in a profit

>> No.22876416

yeah and those that think this is impossible have clearly spent more time "scheming" than actually gambling.

>> No.22876471

What are table limits bro

>> No.22876473

Amateur gambler here. I will go through your post line by line. I live in Henderson, NV. I go to casinos pretty much every weekend with friends.

>Would this strategy work at roulette?

>To start you would need at least $10,000 just to be safe.
Okay that's a fair amount for most people.

>1. Wait until
Okay, this part doesn't "exactly" matter, but the problem is that you are going to be waiting for a long time, about 10 to 20 minutes.

>2. Then pick the opposite color and start out at maybe a $50 bet
You can start with a $1 bet if you want.

>4. If you lose, the next bet make it $150, to recoup
You missed the number 3. The next bet you should make isn't $150. It's $100. You want to double it. If you lose $50, then bet $100, you will gain a total of $200. You won back your lost $50, your bet of $100, and you gained $50.

>5. Then each bet increases if you lose,
You should double your bet each time. Explained above.

>This is why it's safe to have $10,000 on the extremely unlikely circumstance that there's like 10+ of the same color in a row.
It is not extremely unlikely. You think it is because of a small number of games, but EVENTUALLY you will lose. I've played millions of games of roulette.

>The most I've ever seen at a casino was like 7 blacks in a row before going red
The most I have ever seen is 47 times black in a row. Was it rigged? Probably.

The only game that the Casino does NOT make money on, are the poker tables. All other games provide direct profit to the Casino. If you remain sober you can make money through Black Jack and Video Poker.

Your strategy is called the Martingale https://www.888casino.com/blog/roulette-strategy/tabone-martingale-strategy
It has been a time tested LOSING strategy. The truth is there is no way to win Roulette. Don't believe me? Go play Dice on earnbet. You can use your strategy with any game that has 50% odds.

If you do try it on earn bet then use my referral. https://earnbet io/?bonus=ez01044235735567855

>> No.22876476

I made a small fortune one night with 4 corners...just kept picking the same spot. Don't know how, but a nice profit.

>> No.22876515

You can get to a certain section of wheel for sure

>> No.22876525

>Don't know how
its called luck you moron.

>> No.22876532

There’s a couple guys who practiced rolling dice in craps, have absolutely perfected it to get certain roles every single time, listen to the joe rogan podcast with david blaine, he talks about it

>> No.22876549

It requires more time and effort to program a fucked up random number generator, than just use the one provided by the libraries. It would be extremely unlikely that online casinos would use something else than random, because random is good enough to keep the money coming in.

>> No.22876585

It is unlikely that Kucoin gets hacked yet it did because of human error. They fucked up security somewhere. Don’t underestimate human incompetence.

>> No.22876596

You can for example use a series of 50/50 bets as one 90/10 bet. With 90% chance to win you only get around 11% profit when you win which is the same 0 EV bet in the long run. 9 out of 10 times you win 11.1% but 1/10 times you lose 100%. With no house edge over enough games you still just take turns holding the money but with martingale you can look like you're reliably winning until you suddenly don't. It's like taking multiple 9/10 bets, you win them until you don't. If you win one cycle and get that 11% and just walk away you made the 90% bet and won. This will work 9/10 times.

>> No.22876628

It’s a shame they changed the owner of I Love Sushi in Henderson and got rid of Boom Boom. One of the reasons I enjoyed Vegas. What game/which casinos you prefer? I had a decent run in black jack just for fun then lost.

>> No.22876639
File: 217 KB, 1024x478, Martingale-Table-50-winning-1024x478.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>it has to turn red eventually
Yes, but how long can you last?
In Vegas tables have minimum and maximum bets.
The cheapest tables are $1. They have max of $100.
You can just go to a new table once you hit $100, but how long can you stay solvent.
$10,000 will not be enough even if you start out at $1.
The Martingale strategy you are trying has been test for over 300 years now. It is confirmed to be a losing strategy.
You have to lose 11 times in a row. Eventually you are going to lose 11 times in a row because eventually you will have the probability of losing 11 times in a row.

"16 wipe outs per 1,000 attempts."

If you do your strategy 1,000 times. Then 16 of those times you are going to get fucked. Does it make sense now? Eventually you will do your strategy and it will burn you.

>> No.22876691

Sounds to real to be a larp. Yeah I go to casinos for entertainment, never expect to win. If I want to gamble with a chance of making it I’ll just trade shitcoins

>> No.22876716

If the rolls are public or you can gather information on thousands of rolls cheaply you could map them in an image and see visually where the randomness fails and make a strategy that exploits it for guaranteed profit.

>> No.22876787

Roulette is my favorite game because it's way more relaxed than other tables. Most high strung people go immediately to slots or blackjack. If you want a party exciting game go join a Craps table.

Roulette for me is the only game where me and my friends can openly smoke cigars and drink and not have to worry about someone being enraged or overly excited, we usually go on nights with a specific dealer we all like to joke around with. I like Caesars Palace for gambling and The Cosmo for getting laid.

It really depends on what you like to do while there. I highly suggest going with friends. It's really lonely gambling just by yourself, but it's not too hard to find a fling on tinder if you are in shape. Or just hire some girl for the night. Don't fall for scams handing you out cards.

>Gambling is for peasants.
It's meant to be a fun hobby. It's the same as going to a baseball game. If you're trying to make money on it you will not win though. It costs money to gamble, just like it costs money to go to a sports game.

>> No.22876821

How to get laid at the Cosmo?
I had this sketchy lightskin thot into me at one of the casinos 3AM who was likely an escort but seemed like she’d put out for free. She also said she had a knife in her purse and acted all weird and randomly ran off so I’m glad I dodged that bullet. My friend got his wallet and passport stolen by a hooker his buddy fucked in his room.

>> No.22876834

Seems like it's definitely worth the risk. The shitty part is that you're only making $1 so it's a waste of time anyway.

>> No.22877030
File: 96 KB, 960x562, https___blogs-images.forbes.com_larryolmsted_files_2019_07_Cosmo-TerraceView.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Seems like it's definitely worth the risk.
It's not because you are guaranteed to eventually lose.
If you try your strategy 100 times. How many times will you go on a lose streak? 1.6. The more times you use your strategy the better the chances you have as going on the lose streak that you are trying to avoid. Does that make sense?
>The shitty part is that you're only making $1
You're not just making $1. You're making more than that when you lose big and eventually win. For example betting $1,000 after a $500 bet makes you $500 profit, and when combined with previous losses would net about a $200~ win.

To get laid anywhere you need to get in shape, no one wants to have sex with a fatass. There is a "cool wine aunt" epidemic in the USA. Las Vegas is the #1 attraction for "independent" women between 25 and 35. I play the "cool local guy" shtick with ladies I see playing alone at tables. I'm not saying go full retard and be a pick up artist, start with casual conversation and get to know people. Because I'm local I have the advantage. Usually if they place their hands on you after they win a decent amount then you've pretty much got your fling for the night, weekend, or week.

I say the Cosmo because it has the best view of the city, check the picture, and the best lounges for comfort. It also has a higher percentage of women staying there because of the name "Cosmopolitan". You know. The woman's magazine. There are also numerous dance clubs, but Marquee was the best, I think its still closed though.

Coronavirus has been complete shit for me, which is now why I'm into cryptocurrencies lmao.

I would be very wary of any girl coming onto you. That's just not how it works. Escorts are fine and all, but you really need to make sure you aren't getting scammed. You have to know people and if you're a tourist you won't be able to figure out if it's legit. I don't do this because it's way too much money. Hit up something like Bunny Ranch.

>> No.22877046

Jesus an actual unironic idiot

>> No.22877057

Thank you for the based advice, Nevada anon.

>> No.22877066

>the martingale but this time we're gonna add statistical fallacies

>> No.22877079

Great explanation

>> No.22877125

Never bet against a colour streak OP.
Also some tables are more likely to hit certain diamonds more times than others meaning they're more likely to fall in a certain pattern

>> No.22877215

KEKK you fucking retard

>> No.22877263

so it's still possible???????

>> No.22877304

Say something retard.
All the casinos in the world going bankrupt from all the patrons randomly winning all their bets is more likely.

>> No.22878189

nailed it, discussion ended

>> No.22878221

its called the "Martingale strategy". It works, but not on tables with limits. Therefore ever casio has table limits.

>> No.22878253

Betting with low outcome is the easiest way to win money, I do and I put the rest in bitcoin(eth)

>> No.22878764

I won 2k with a 1 dollar bet yesterday tho
better than flipping altcoins

>> No.22879694

>extremely unlikely circumstance that there's like 10+ of the same color in a row.

I play roulette with this strategy in mind. Every roll is an independent event, thus the probability of 10 or more consecutive combos might seem low statistically speaking, in reality it isn't. Every time i play in the casino, i've encountered 20 blacks or reds in a row, or some greens in between before continuing pattern.

>> No.22879749

didn't know biz is so dumb
iq here is below 90
everyone thinking this might actually work is below 80

>> No.22879948
File: 11 KB, 225x225, uuu6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.22880485

Best Thread!

>> No.22880778

>The 50/50 probability of the individual event is also an "illusion". In reality there's a 100% chance that the thing that happens happens
Probabilities is just a way to deal with uncertainty, of course we are in a deterministic universe

>> No.22880830

You fail to understand probabilities for what they are. Someone already told you but when 32 reds happened in a row it becomes a 100% sure event. Once it has happen, the probability of getting a 33th red is still 50%. Are you denying that it's 50%?

>> No.22880850


>> No.22880903

I did this 3 reds, bet black, ball landed on green. I got wrecked.

>> No.22880925

theyll always be 50% before, no amount of datasets previously can predict future outcomes of a 50/50 output

>> No.22880931
File: 98 KB, 710x565, Nicholas Nassim TalebL1000991-Modifier_E_Caupeil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So if you go to a casino and see the roulette doing 32 reds in a row, you will smuggly bet everything on the black since after all the chances of having 33 reds in a rows are statistically low?

You're a total sucker, a roulette have more chance to be trafficked or broken than to do 32 reds in a row, meaning that if it already made 32 reds the probability of the 33th colour being red too is actually higher than it being black.

>> No.22880934

Jesus Christ this is sad. You must be American because only a dumb ass American could understand probability this poorly.

>> No.22880946


>> No.22880979

Pseudo-random is as good as true random in this context and anyways the roulette of a casino is pseudo-random too, meaning deterministic, the only difference is that we don't fully understand the determinism at play

>> No.22880988

Of course we’re not, reliability costs money.

>> No.22881063
File: 89 KB, 792x545, 1561933041891.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Fuck you're right I remember. I think I was even the first one to make one of these threads, good times

>> No.22881105

desu, the colours could even be interchangable, the roulette pits could be clear.
The fact that reality would favour a certain colour because of past probability is pure insanity

>> No.22881124

You don't understand that he is talking about the real word. Things that are almost impossible (0.0000000000000000000000000000001%) can reasonably be called impossible when you are operating in the real world.
The difference betwin neglectable and impossible have no practical importance.

>> No.22881159

Only on BetHero

>> No.22881187

>wait for three reds in a row
>thinks black is now more likely because colors somehow need to even out for probability to work

Anon, I...

>> No.22881205

Ok if you keep playing you will eventually lose, but what if you decide that you stop playing as soon as you are even somewhat in gains? And then you never play ever again? Then you have a 99% probability of having cucked the casino of some amount of money, right?

>> No.22881236

You're stupid, randomness doesn't actually exist it's the just name we give to out uncertainty

>> No.22881256

There was that gang who could estimate the velocity of the wheel very accurately. It took them years of practice after buying an identical wheel from the manufacturer

>> No.22881315

You don't have a 99% chance of winning, in fact you have a greater than 50% chance of losing all your money in the number of runs it will take you to double it, no matter your starting purse and no matter your minimum bet. That's how probability works. The casino does not run any game where you can get an edge against them. Except maybe card counting in blackjack but that takes a lot of work and they kick you out if they catch you doing it.

>> No.22881320

Doesnt work since previous rolls do not make difference in the next one

>> No.22881524

The 50% probability is true for individual bets and it's true once you already have 9 loss in a row for exemple, but before you play, it's a fact that if you decide to fuck off once you win just one time and that your martingal allows for 10 tries before going bust, it's a fact that you have 99% chances to win and fuck off with the banks money.

Casino makes their money from people being greedy, but if youn decide to not be greedy and to take any win at all and then stop forever you have a high probability of making little money and a small probability of losing everything.

>> No.22881579

Don't tell OP this, but a variation of the Martingale involves swapping colors each bet to specifically avoid the Casino rigging something.

>> No.22881624

That's actually very smart to do that. You can also just bet on a random colour each time since after all it's 50% no matter what.

>> No.22881658

Here is the strategy I use:

$100 on red
$10 (each)on 5, 7, 11, 17, 20, 22, 30, 32, 0, 00

Sometimes works, the idea is that you have an above 50% to hit something every spin and have quite a few big win events. Once you are up $200 leave.

>> No.22881709

It's LESS than 50% you retards. What color do you think 0 and 00 are?

>> No.22881914

Rounding to 50% is faster than calculating whatever the exact odd is, for the purpose of this conversation it doesn't matter you fucking nerd

>> No.22882133

Then it hits green 5 times in an hour and you've just spent $50 on drinks.

>> No.22882488

Negative expected value, ball has no memory (independent rolls), table limits... almost everything about the odds has already been said.

But this is /biz/, so let's talk about risk/reward and sunk costs of Martingale which nobody has touched upon yet (short of the image in >>22875207).

>Round 1
Bet 1, Total Exposure 1, Max Profit 1
>R 2
B 2, TE 3, MP 1
>R 3
B 4, TE 7, MP 1
>R 4
B 8, TE 15, MP 1
>R 5
B 16, TE 31, MP 1

You notice something? Your bets grow, your total exposure grows, but your max profit always stays the same - a measly 1x your initial bet. With Martingale every consecutive bet becomes more and more unreasonable. You're throwing good money after bad because of sunk costs. By round 10 you're pushing in an additional 512 for a total investment of 1023 in the hopes of ending up with an over-all profit of 1. Now take a step-back in think if you would put 512 of your hard-earned money on a 50/50 bet that could result either in total loss or in a gain of 1. This is the position Martingale forces you in.

Best case, that means if Martingale works out and you hit your color before you go broke or hit the table limit, you've risked a shitton of your money for a miniscule profit. That's not a sound investment strategy, even if the odds were stacked in your favor (which they aren't).

>> No.22882578

In other words, with Martingale your potential losses are infinite, but your potential profits are capped at your initial bet.

>> No.22883028


I've seen the whole screen filled with black. 20 spins. All black. Wew lad.

>> No.22883028,1 [INTERNAL] 

Won't even try. It never ends well. Maybe I am just that unlucky or something

>> No.22883028,2 [INTERNAL] 

That is not how probability works for sure. Have you tried playing casino games? I don't think all people who do that have $10,000 in their pocket. Moreover, if you play online, there are different rules. I mean, some casinos set a specific winning percentage. So, players can't predict the outcome of the game. My colleague and I play on differents UK online casinos we found on https://www.liveblackjack.org.uk/ . We've tried the same strategy. Despite this, I got a higher income.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.