/sci/ - Science & Math

Bet 2 on red
>win
Take the money, congratulations you have won at roulette
>lose
Bet 4 on red
>win
Congratulations you have won 2 overall
>lose
Bet 8 on red

etc.

Be the house. The house always wins.

>fullproof

foolproof? sure, the bank always wins. all you can do is minimize your loss. best way to do so is not to play..

go for the x3 bets always place 2 at a time then you have a >60% chance of winning with every bet

There honestly isn't one, it's just pure luck. It's not the same as counting cards.

>>2784061
only works if you have infinite money

there is no system OP, else we would all be rich and casinos would close

>>2784060
>>2784066
>>2784067
>>2784070
Failurefags.

My system is flawless.
>>2784061

You don't need infinite money as there will never be an infinite number of reds/blacks when it's nearly 50/50

there is no system for roulette.

>>2784078
No it's not. It doesn't alternate between two colors. I've seen it land of Black 3 times in a row before and then on Red. So by your system it would be,
>lose
>lose
>lose
>win

>>2784061
unfortunately if there is a betting limit, which there is, this is no better than any other method.

>>2784085
fucking fail
yeah because when u win the 4th time u will recover everything u lost and win extra cash

>>2784085
One win is all you need. You still make the same profit whatever time you win.

>>2784078
so what happens if you keep getting black and run out of money?

also, you know you are making bigger and bigger bets just to recover the money you lost.

and all this is without factoring in the zero you could get and lose.

google random walk for the math on why this fails

>>2784078
if you don't have infinite money eventually a string of the wrong colour will come along that will bankrupt you. the probability of this is 1

check out random walk if you don't believe me

or stay stupid

>>2784098
>>2784099
And what if it never lands on Red and you run out of money?

The chances are too risky for it to be a probable method, because eventually you'll hit the betting limit.

>>2784099
one win is not guaranteed

you may lose all in a string of bad luck

the odds of this happening, and the huge loss that results, exactly compensates the odds of winning.

do the math, i have, you just did some flawed intuition.

>>2784096
>so what happens if you keep getting black and run out of money?
In the HIGHLY unlikely situation in which that happens then yeah you're right, it wouldn't work. But there is more chance of an elephant storming the casino than getting 8+ black/reds in a row

>also, you know you are making bigger and bigger bets just to recover the money you lost.

No you aren't. You will make a profit eventually.

>and all this is without factoring in the zero you could get and lose.

It's like <1%

>>2784098
>>2784078
>>2784061
this system is called the martingale method

it doesn't not work

for a full analysis see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29

>>2784108
chances of that happening are very low.
unless u are stupid.

the only problem with this method is the betting limit

. >>2784113
No, the chances of getting 8+ black/red in a row are a lot higher than you think. It's 50/50, it's the same probability of getting Heads on a coin 8+ times, which could easily happen.

>>2784121
No. Same probability of getting a coin toss wrong consistently. It's common.

>>2784123
no.

There was a case, when people could put bets while the ball was rolling. Some guys built a software program, that predicted the sector the ball lands based on how it was already running. They managed to get a small edge and won quite a lot before they were caught.

>>2784134
Yes. It's very easy for a 50/50 chance to fuck you over exponentially. Coin Toss, Roulette, whatever.

>Bet
>Lose
>Bet
>Lose
>Bet
>Lose
>Bet
>Win Money Back
>Bet (Hit Betting Limit)
>Lose all your money

Easy
Bet 1$ only on black until you loose 8 consecutive times and then start betting 10$ and multiply it each bet by 2. By waiting for so many looses you get higher chance for the next one to be a win. Sadly, this ain't practical irl but its very useful in games (thats how I get rich in there)

>>2784123
No, it's 50/50 the first toss
2 heads in a row is unlikely
3 heads in a row is freaky
4 heads in a fucking row, no fucking way insane, incredible
5 heads in a row = unfair coin

>>2784148
That isn't how that works at all, did you pass 2nd Grade Math?

>>2784143
>so good at gambling i can't even spell lose

god why can't anyone on the internet spell lose

you lose weight, your belt is loose

>>2784148
5 heads in a row comes up with 1/32 chance

not much in an evenings gambling

>>2784150
ok so theres 1million dollars

we are going to toss a coin to decide who wins the million

the coin that we are using has been tossed 99 times prior to this official coin toss

99 times it has been heads

are you seriously telling me you still think that it's 50/50 and would be happy to take tails?

fullretard.jpg

inb4 martingale method

http://casinogambling.about.com/od/moneymanagement/a/martingale.htm

>>2784154
I think you mean 1/32,000,000

>>2784163
It is. You may not think the chances are likely, but they are. There are only two possible outcomes, heads or tails. It's going to land on one of them, so it's 50/50.

>>2784163
do it infinite times and you will get 50/50

>>2784168
5 throws of a fair coin is 1/32

a coin that is unfair, we don't lnow without knowing how unfair

>>2784180
nope, lern2statistical significance
the coin would not pass a t-test

>>2784174
i think the other guy is claiming the 99 times show that the coin is unfair, rather than a fair coin has had a string of heads

No one's mentioned the actual house.
They're not fucking retarded, they'll see you bet 2, 4, 8, 16, and kick your ass out of the casino.

>>2784186
>pass a t-test
That doesn't really make any sense. You don't 'pass' a t-test.

>>2784196
They can't kick you out for being clever.

>>2784142
you would have to be retarded
>>2784196
this.

>>2784209
Pass = statistically significant
Fail = statistically insignificant

>>2784193
If the coin has both heads and tails, then it's a fair coin. Just because it landed on heads a bunch of times, doesn't make it unfair, nor does it make the chances of it landing on heads again any less. Yes the chances for it to land on heads that many times are unlikely, but the coin itself has a 50/50 chance for it to happen, so anything could happen.

>>2784213
Yes they can. You get kicked out for counting cards, it's considering illegal and cheating the system.

You would get kicked out for doing this method, it's blatantly obvious.

>>2784196
no they won't

they love suckers that try the martingale

http://casinogambling.about.com/od/moneymanagement/a/martingale.htm

"No betting system will change the overall casino edge and the Martingale system can be disastrous when things go bad. Please don't be one who is fooled by this system."

just play it until you get good at it

>>2784222
There is no, getting good at it. It's completely probability and chances.

>>2784219
except that system favours the casino

as any derp who followed the links in this thread would know by now

>>2784163
getting tails 100 times is 1/2^100
if getting tails 99 times. The next time will be 50/50

>>2784235
And? I really don't think casinos care.

>>2784219
Counting cards isn't illegal but they will kick you out for it, casinos are private property and they also share their information so if you're banned from a big one you'll be banned from all of them.

Also the only way to win without luck is to cheat using lasers and you can analyse the drop to around 5 spaces but that is definitely illegal

this system works (doubling each bet)
but the thing is:
1) there is a betting limit
2) you need a lot of money (or will win few)
3) they can kick you
4) chances of black/red aren't 50/50 because of the 0 and 00.

>>2784241
>and

[ ]not told
[ ] told
[x] totally told

>>2784163
99 times?
Then the coin is rigged.
Replace coin with something out of a vending machine
Of course, it could happen, but once you get over a certain number the purmutations must equal.

>>2784259
49/49 with a 1/1 for either 0 isn't any better.

>>2784259
>you need infinite money

ftfy

even with no 0 and 00, and without getting kicked out

if you have finite money you will eventually lose it all

if you continue playing the probability of this is 100%

of course you could quit when you are ahead, but there is a 50/509 chance you will never be ahead

this betting system is 300 years old and has been mathematically analysed to death

>>2784264
Not really. Just because it never landed on tails doesn't mean it's going to magically decide to land on it this time. It's not probable, sure, but it can happen.

>>2784288
If you flip the coin enough times, it WILL land on the other side.
If the coin can not land on the other side, it is rigged.
Learn big number theory.

>>2784078

Why is it that nobody ever understands probability?

>You don't need infinite money as there will never be an infinite number of reds/blacks when it's nearly 50/50

It's entirely possible for it to land on the same color over and over again until you are out of money and cannot continue your method.

In fact it's highly probable that it will do this to you eventually if you play like this enough.

Odds of nearly 2:1 doesn't guarantee shit except that it'll average 2:1 over infinite plays.

this thread is just so fucking full of people that can't do maths. and rely on, idk, intuition or something

americans i guess

>>2784301
No. It's a coin, like I said, there is a 50/50 chance for it to land on either side, the probability of it happening is slim to none, such as the 1/32 Heads 5 times in a row calculation, but it can still happen, rigged or not.

>>2784058
Put a magnet on one of the numbers and switch the ball out with a magnetized ball. It won't always land on the number you magnetized, but the odds will be in your favor.

>>2784301
There is a reason it's called a theory and not a fact.

>>2784264
>Then the coin is almost certainly rigged
ftfy
Just saying, you can't infer that the coin is definately rigged. I'm not saying it isn't extremely likely to be rigged, but you can't say with absolute certainty.

>>2784320
The ball would be obviously heavier and not move the same way.

>>2784322
>12 years old

you know a mathematical theorem is perhaps one of the truest most factual things that exists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

Just flipped a quarter 10 times.

9-Tails
1-Heads

See, it's very possible for shit like that to happen, because I had a 50% chance to get Tails, or a 50% chance to get Heads. inb4 hurr rigged quarter or some stupid shit.

>>2784330
Obviously be heavier? Why's that, just make it not heavier by using a foam center and a metal shell around the the foam, and then the regular plastic around the edges. If you are worried about the magnetism playing a large role that is obvious, just use a slight magnetism on the number so it only doubles the chance of it landing on that number, so that it's not obvious. Merely doubling the odds should be good enough if you play for long enough.

>My matlab code showing how the martingale method does in the long run, its with e=7, which is seven double ups allowed before you reach table limits. It shows that this method actually does worse than just playing normally.

rand('state',sum(100*clock))
derp=[1:37];
a=0;
b=0;
e=0;
h=zeros(1,5000000);
for n=1:5000000
derp=derp(randperm(37));
c=derp(37);
if c<19 a=a+(2^b); e=0; else a=a-(2^b); e=e+1; b=e; if e==7 e=0; end end h(n)=a; end disp(a) plot(h);

as a poker player I must concur that you can easily go bust playing a 50/50 flip coin. as many said, you need infinite moneyz

>>2784413
And if you have infinite monies then you make relatively zero monies.

It has already been mentioned that there's a very simple way to make a lot of money at gambling. Own the casino.

If you have any gambling system for roulette, swing on by Las Vegas and try it out. The casinos will welcome you with open arms. They look at gamblers with systems the way that a pit bull looks at a steak.

>>2784413
I almost made what added up to $240 (not counting my $10 dollars I put in at the start) at a poker tournament with some friends, but it was in a frat house and we all got in trouble and had to give the money back.

Shitsux. I was going to take my girlfriend out to a LUDICROUSLY expensive meal, then a movie. Two nights in a row.

>>2784058
Beating roullete is not really about math. according to the math there is no way to win.

its about physics. The roullete wheel obeys the laws of physics and slight imperfections in the construction of the wheel can allow you to make predictions about which numbers the wheel is most likely to land on. Also, if you have the state of the wheel you can predict which numbers are more likely to come up.

Real professionals have done this many times, for example, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eudaemonic_Pie