/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4205652
This is... a really good idea.

>If you have a lot of money to start with it is IMPOSSIBLE to lose using this routine.
Exactly. Now can I have the "infinite of money" you are talking about so that I can go play? You have no idea what the St. Petersburg paradox is, do you?

Also, this is why casinos have 0 (and 00 in America) for this specific reason I believe, and also just to give the casino the upper hand in the long run.

>>4205660

No, what is the paradox?

Each bet is an independent event, in which you have a 50% chance of losing everything and a 50% chance of doubling everything. The last bet is no different: you have a 50% chance of getting what you lost back, and a 50% chance of losing it. You'd need to play for a long time to happen on a good enough setup. I like the idea though.

>>4205661

Explain how having zero nullifies that strategy?

>>4205663
Because it's not 50% any more, and it's more likely you'll lose each time.

If there were no 0's then it would work well, but you will end up losing more.

>>4205663
0 and 00 are neither red nor black, so as well as equal chances you get one of the other there's a 1/16 chance you lose no matter what. That means the return rate is lower than it was at first.

Nothing in terms of win or loss is set in stone, so you can win with 0/00 and lose with a fair wheel. If you don't guess right every time you play, you still lose out.

>>4205666
Jjust to explain further, say instead of 50% the odds of winning are 48%. You'd need to increase each additional bet by more like 2.05 or something, I'm not gonna do the maths but the more unlikely it is you'll win each time, the more oyu need to raise your bets.

>>4205662
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox
and in addition there is the 0. Which means that in the long run, you will lose more than you win, so you have a negative expected value. and casino's have a upper limit for what you bet. So if you reeach that upper limit by losing a lot of times, then you won't be able to recover.

What exactly is this zero that you wise men speak of?

All casinos have a max bet limit, I tried this years ago online and you'd be surprised how often you get a run of one colour meaning you reach the max bet limit.
A lot of sites market this technique and have lists of online casinos they suggest you use it on, the casino doesn't care because they know at some stage there will be a run of 7-8 red or blacks and you will lose!

>>4205676
Zero on the Roulette table idiot

ITT: full of retards
The casino has a limit, which is usually around $200,
means that if you lose 8 times in a row (and trust me, even 15 times in a row is not rare), you will be on a $128 loss and you can't double 128 to 256 because the limit is 200.

>>4205680
>Even 15 times in a row is not rare

Yeah only about 1:30000 rare fuckface

>>4205676
A roulette wheel has numbers on it, alternating red/black, with an equal split between them. There's also a 0 (or in some cases, both 0 and 00) meaning even if you bet on both red and black, where a win doubles the amount you bet, there's a chance you lose. It's to stop OP's strategy from being universally useful.
>>4205680
losing 8 times gives a $255 loss, actually.
Also
>$200 limit
>poorfag table

Yahoo answer

On multiple occasions (at least 5), I've seen well over 14 times in a row. Once I saw 20 times. I do not remember which color it was, and certainly I don't remember the colors.

The double it until you win idea is the worst way to play in the world! You are risking hundreds, or perhaps thousands of dollars in order to win just 1, 2, or even 5 bucks at a time.

In your first line, you wondered about "more than 14 times in a row". It is true that this won't happen very often. If you say to yourself, "OK, I'm going to go for it and double, double, double until I win; even if it takes me 14 spins." You won't lose very often - only about once every 7,990 times. (This is based on a double-zero wheel.) However, even if you were just trying to win ONE dollar, you would have lost a total of $16,384 by the time the 14th loss hit! And that's only if you're at a casino that will allow you to place an $8,192 bet on the 14th spin!

The truth is that most casinos are only going to let you get up to your 11th spin...that is a bet of $2,048. (If they don't let you bet more than $2,000, then you could win that final bet and still be DOWN by $47!)

So...11 spins in a row losing....that's really about the farthest anyone could take this anyway. You aren't going to see it a lot, but you WILL see it! And this is only trying to win ONE DOLLAR!!! If you tried to win 5 dollars, you'd be down to only being able to afford 8 or 9 losses in a row. (VERY easy to do!)

I'll say it one more time...doubling, doubling, doubling to try to win a bet is the WORST BETTING SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

>>4205681
I can tell you from personal experience that you will see that happen a lot more often than you think

>>4205683
>Implying there is any good system to bet in roulette - implying it's not just 100% pure luck

>>4205686
OK I'll just wait around a roulette table for 30000 fucking spins just to see someone lose 15 times in a row

Idiot. It happens almost exactly once in every 30,000 spins, which is exactly what I think. No more than that.

I've thought about this before. You have a very large chance of winning a lot of money, and a small chance of losing a lot. If you could continue this process indefinitely, you could make the odds of losing a large amount go to zero. However, every casino has a limit to how much you can bet, so what you end up doing no better off with this strategy.

>>4205689
I don't think that answer was implying anything, but you're right, roulette is pure luck and anyone who thinks they can make a living from it is deluded.

>>4205661
>>4205670
>>4205682

Alright so lets try another angle. Suppose I forget about roulette and try this strategy out on daytrading Hitachi stock on the Nikkei.

I start off assuming the price will rise in the next hour and bet $10. I lose. I bet $20 that it will fall in the second hour after that. I lose. I bet $40 it will fall yet again. I win. I cash out.

I restart with $10 betting it will ummm let's say rise in the next hour.

Lather, rince, repeat. Profit?

>>4205691
Don't forget that the spins before you went to the table also count you fucking retard

>>4205686
Not at a higher rate that we expect.

>>4205695
That should work, except that it doesn't work that way.
Lets assume that you start at X, it drops down to x-5 and you have a $50 loss. What happens if it doesn't move up at all? You remain with a $50 loss for way too much time.

>>4205695
Let's say you do it three times, so you have 8 possible combinations (WWW, LWW, WLW, LLW, WWL, LWL, WLL, LLL). In the first four you can win, in the second four you lose out. You still have a 0.5 chance of getting more than you started with. You probably make no more than you would if you just bet $23.33 three times.

>>4205691

24hr casino, 1 spin a minute=1440 spins a day
30000/1440=20.8

You are going to see a run of 15 losses roughly every 21 days.

Where is your roulette God now?

IDGAF anyway, try your "failsafe" system online on a practice table and watch your "I'm never gonna have to work again" dreams shatter.

>>4205701

>What happens if it doesn't move up at all

You merely wait. Problem solved. And it ALWAYS moves. But lets just suppose you're right and it doesnt move or move much. You can try a variation by betting on SONY, Panasonic and GM stock all at the same time. The ones that don't move you ignore until they do move while the ones that move will have the formula applie dto them.

Oh, oh oh I forgot to emphasize that I'm assuming total ignorance of the marker here which means my guess is going to be right 50% of the time EXACTLY as to whether it goes up or down, correct? And unlike a casino there's no limits to how many times I can bet.

>>4205705
Also,
15 in a row - once in 21 days
14 in a row - once in 11 days
13 in a row - once in 6 days
12 in a row - once in 3
11 in a row - once every day

>>4205704
Also, the mean win *and* loss value is $40, the same amount. You still have the same chances of getting your last bet back, or in fact not getting it back, as you would if you just bet $40. You simply have a lower level of risk. ($40 instead of $70)

>>4205712
I mean to say higher ($70 as opposed to $40)

>>4205711
You're missing the point.

You originally said that it happens a lot more than I would expect, and I pretty much calculated just how frequently it would happen and said fuck you. It happens exactly as frequently as I expect

>>4205686
Numbers v Your personal experience

You need to be more logical.

But the really high chance of winning a small amount this method give you is cancelled out by the low chance of losing a large amount, a non-negligible probability given the betting limits of casinos.

>>4205705

>Implying Ed Thorpe didn't rack up oceans of sweat firing his neurons while formulating his strategy
>Implying the brain doesn't consume more calories than any vital organ when sitting at rest
>Implying cereberal pursuit's aren't classified as work when your plan is to earn currency

>>4205717
It's not even a high chance. You *still* have the same chance of winning as you do of losing, just spread over four games so with an increased chance of landing on a -0.

>>4205708
Your only limit is your max money but yeah, it should work, just hope that it doesn't fall down way too much (that's usually why I lose all my deposited money, playing at around 1:200 leverage is an awesome way to get a little boost of dopamine)

>>4205716
What point? That long runs happen a lot?

>>4205723
No, that they don't happen more often than he expects. FFS, we're /sci/. We can do probability.

>>4205726
They happen enough to make the system unworkable as most casinos have bet limits. If you have unlimited money and a no limit table this system would work but what are you going to make, $60 an hour?

>>4205747
>They happen enough to make the system unworkable

No they don't, lol. Each bet is an independent event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

>>4205747
Even with unlimited money and a no bet limit it won't work because of the zero.

>>4205751
It would work.

>>4205751
Wait, wait. We're all working with the assumption you do a set number of bets, rather than just betting until you get a win. This is faulty.

Let's ignore the 0 here, as it's not pertinent to the point:

If you win, you can stop or you can continue. If you stop, you have a win overall and you can start again, with a profit. The chance of a win is 0.5, so the chance that you won't win at some point before you reach the limit is 1-<span class="math">\frac{1}{2^{7}}[/spoiler], less than 1%. Assuming you play intelligently rather than just betting a set number of times, there's a less than 1% chance you make a loss before you start betting again.

>>4205757
So there's a 1/128 chance that you lose $255, a 1/128 chance you gain $255, and a 126/128 chance that you gain a smaller amount. Now, casinos exist and are still profitable, so does anyone mind pointing out where I'm going wrong?

>>4205751
There will be a point when your colour does come up, winning you your money back. It could take 20 spins but it will happen.
You would of course need around $1000000 to make that bet.

>>4205761
You don't double if you win. If you win 7 times in a row, you've made 7 dollars.

>>4205757
So you're gonna lose roughly every 100 spins?

>>4205767
Very well then, start doubling if you win as well.

>>4205768
Bingo.

>>4205757
You have a 1/2^7 chance of losing 2^7-1 dollars.
You have a 1-1/2^7 chance of making a dollar.
Expected gain is 1-1/2^7 - (1/2^7 * (2^7-1)) = 0
This is why there is 0, and possibly 00.

>>4205775
But what if you double when you win too?

>>4205777
wait, I'm retarded. If you double when you win then you're betting blindly and I've already told myself what happens here>>4205704

>>4205769
Either you win your original bet, or you bust.
If you win before you bust, you start over.

http://www.roulletteonlineDOTcom/flash-roulette/

Ok, everyone. Let's give this a go!!!

>>4205788
Looks good so far. I'm not playing this to the end though.

>>4205791
Nice!
This time tomorrow we'll all be driving Bugetti Veyrons!

>>4205799
I might try writing something to simulate this, to show why it doesn't work. You have a 127/128 chance of getting $1, and a 1/128 chance of losing $128.

>>4205808
Intadasting

NEW STRATEGY GUYS

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

I only lost $50. Worth it to piss off the dealer.

>>4205808
Same here, almost done, it might take another 10-20 mins or so

>>4205817
I'll let you do it then.

>>4205683
>The truth is that most casinos are only going to let you get up to your 11th spin...that is a bet of $2,048.

Actually, no. Wow, this thread is filled with people who know nothing about casinos. Tables have a minimum and maximum bet. Usually a (low tier) table will start at $15, that is the lowest bet you can make. A table like this would usually have a maximum of $250 or so. That is: you cannot place a bet over $250. That is only 5 rolls. This can really screw you.

Different casinos have different tables. At some casinos, the lowest table will be $5, but the maximum bet will be far below $250 (Around $125, I want to say). Other casinos have tables where the minimum bet can be well over $10,000.

So that's how OP's idea would probably lose him/her money in the long run.

I swill between initial sums of 5$, 10$, 30$ and 50$.

>>4205823
you do understand why it doesn't work, right?

>>4205825
>in theory

>>4205826
All I'm saiyan is that at some point you're probably going to lose everything you've made, at least.

>>4205652
Thanks OP!!! Just made my first million!

Send me your paypal and I'll give you 100000.

Keep this quiet everyone, we don't want the casinos to hear about this system.

It works. You jelly of all my play money?

>>420583
I'd stop now.

>>4205836

>>4205836
Lol, very good. You're a lucky guy, you should play for real!

>>4205836
Can't lose. Great strategy OP!

>>4205819
>>4205819
What if once you reach the max bet you just go to an higher tier table?

>advertisement
>for casinos
>on /sci/
>75+ replies

>>4205846
>>4205846

>>4205856
>he thinks it's an advert

this method is time consuming and profit-less for casinos. Bite me.

Alright, I did my best but I wrote it as fast as possible coz I have to get to work soon. There might be several errors, cba to fix it, here is the source if you think that there is an error and you want to fix it/check it (it's the messiest thing, I know).
pastebin.com/imFfhFYP
It is written with autoit (sorry for not being some of the real languages, I learned it writing bots)
Here is the exe
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WV7HRPTW
Limit is $2000, the profit ain't working because I have to go and I had no time to write it.
Best would be for someone with a better programming logic than mine to remake it, mine is way to messy.

>play roulette
>there is a zero
>US wheels have a 00
>will be a dice fucked

and you think this would work

>be a croupier
>see an n-th person trying to pull this

i wonder how it feels

>>4205891
Probably annoying, because it works 127/128 times.
The reason people lose when gambling is that they have no idea when to stop.

>>4205894
>win a dollar
>or get bankrupt trying

>>4205897
play with 20s, twice.

someone make troll infographics for this

in the vain of the "how to make diamonds"

>>4205897
/thread/

you guys really suck at roulette

>>4205952

>>4205952
Is that legit, or did you game engine it?

>>4205652
impossible to lose eh?
what if you get an infinite number of 0's?

casinos love this strategy. it always results in people handing over their life savings

>>4205967
Never bet anything over what you can afford to spend on luxuries. Casinos work on the principle that you will.

ok, I'm up to $2500 without using more than $500 of my starting money. I can see why people get addicted to this

>>4205979
and now I'm at $100. This explains a lot.

>>4205691

Yes, this man understands probability.

Once while playing (and losing) at roulette, there was this one guy just sitting at the table, writing down every number that came up. I went and had lunch with my friends and we came back, and this guy was still there, just writing down every number.

Then all of a sudden he puts a bet on for 250 dollars on number 32. It fucking wins, the guy grabs his chips and walks away utterly unsurprised.

Kind of unrelated but what the fuck? Was he just a wizard or what.

>>4206005
>>4206005
Haha, what a bunch of lies

OK $500 maximum bet reached after a losing streak of five with a $25 starting bet. So this is where the strategy comes unstuck yeah?

Interesting fact, there was a guy who was cleaning house at the roulette table until the casinos worked out that he had a little switch in his shoe that he would trigger precisely as the ball did one lap and a little computer worked out where it would stop within a couple of places.

>>4206031
Seems doubtful this would work unless he had a 2nd switch which represented the wheel.

>>4205846
I posted the link, I'm glad you're enjoying yourself. Let us know when you're broke again.

>>4206047

Im sure he did, or triggered the one switch twice for the wheel then twice for the ball.

>>4206047
Here is a link:

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

>>4205819
There exist tables in Vegas (mostly downtown) with <span class="math">1 min. The highest maximum I can find is [/spoiler]20,000, but I assume there is a little more. One could travel between tables/casinos to adjust bets. So yeah, stop acting like such a high-and-mighty faggot.

That being said, this strategy is awful and nonsensical.

Ok, so, say I live near a casino, and every day I go in with $1000, go to a table with a minimum of $10 and a maximum of $1000 and I play 300 games of roulette every day. What is the probability I will lose the entire $1000 dollars on any given day?

>>4206108
Ok, I'm going to ignore the zeros (even though they matter A LOT in practice). Let's say when double your last bet is more than what you have or the house limit, you just bet the minimum of those two.

An average stretch (a stretch being defined as the number of bets, from one win to the other, the first starting at the beginning of the game) will last two spins (well, a tiny bit less). That means about 150 stretches per day. That means, if you never lose but still have an average of 2 spins per stretch, you'll win about <span class="math">1500. So let's go ahead and say you have [/spoiler]2500 to start and that you don't lose anything until you lose a <span class="math">1000 spin or lose a bet of all of your money. That means you have to have two stretches of 8 and then one stretch of 7. Let's go ahead and assume you need 3 stretches of 8 to lose all of your money (to make calculation easier). The probability that you'll have 3 eight-stretches is [/spoiler]\sum\limits_{i=3}^{150}\binom{150}{i}\left (\frac{1}{128}\right )^{i}\left (\frac{127}{128}\right )^{150-i}$ which is about 11%. That's 11% chance of losing everything on a given day, and I lowballed the fuck out of the thing several times. The actual answer is probably over 20%.

>>4206108
That only gives you 7 chances of doubling up, 7 in a row is probably almost certain in 300 spins. You'd lose it all, I'm sure someone could do the math.

>>4206181
Beat me to it, I know little about probability but I would have thought 7 in a row was pretty likely over 300 spins.

the probability changes after the event takes place.

For example, What is the probability that the roulette table will land on black 15 times in a row, given that the last 14 times were black.

@No.4205695

Your assuming that the price of stock is independant from you buying them, which is false.

>>4206293

Knowing how to quote post numbers would make you look like less of an idiot.

Ignoring the zeros for the moment, when you finally win, you will have profited $1.

>>4206323 maby i wanted to troll you so you would try to show your superior intellect by quoting me

>>4205668
The way the casino gets around allowing "odd" and "even" bets is just using "red" and "black" but making 0 and 00 (not even a legitimate number) green squares. They're cheating, plain and simple.

>>4206394
>They're cheating, plain and simple.

They can't cheat at their own game you retard.

>>4206353
With large probability you will need a large amount of money to cover temporary losses.

You don't have deep enough pockets to play this game, it's an exponential requirement. By doubling down each time, you risk more than you can afford, and will lose.

>>4206394
A shop charged me more than the goods cost them. They're cheating, plain and simple

>>4206399
>>4206404
Inventing a new number and calling it your rules is cheating at a game of numbers. Charging over the price of cost for goods in a capitalist state is not.

>>4206407
You think casinos are cheating by making a system that works slightly in their favour? You genuinely think that's cheating?

>>4206409
Explain how "slight" it is? They make hundreds of millions in profits. That is not slight. These games are cheating. There's a reason mathematicians do not play Roulette.

I suppose I should add 000 to Roulette and as long as people play it, my small percent increase of profit from the 00 model should be perfectly fine in every way. Let's see how many bullshit spaces I can add to the wheel to tip it in my favor before people stop wanting to play. I suspect, many.

>>4206415
They only have a small chance to make profit in roulette, the games are fully voluntary, and the existence of the greens is fully visible. It's not like casinos are pouncing on people on the street and forcing them to play, then changing the rules after they've parted with their cash. This isn't cheating any more than the stock market is.

If people don't want to play, they won't play. Magic.

>>4206422
Oh so I suppose it's okay to take advantage of people who don't know any better then. Excuse me while I go become a professional hustler under your moral guidance.

>>4206422
You have no idea how the market works then. The stock market works by other people betting on things with no absolute probability calculations. It is more fair because there is no "house" advantage because there is imperfect information even for the majority stockholder. The casino is being unfair by definition and we both know that people do not understand probability enough to accurately gauge their outcomes in the casino. Casinos are playing off of the ignorance of their crowd the way the market does, sure, but the difference is that there IS a knowable house advantage; and the house knows it.

>>4206435
You are so naive.

People *choose* to play the game, of their own accord. They aren't forced to. They can leave, or play something else. All the rules, all the parameters are easily available. If people are dumb enough to spend money on playing, good for them. They aren't cheated, because unless they're of their own accord not paying attention they know exactly what they're doing

>>4206447
Tell that to the people who try to play the only fair game: blackjack

Let's see how fair the casino is when you're up a couple grand from that game.

And tell superstitious and gambling addicts that the unfair chance games aren't "fair". They'll insist, against all evidence, that they can win. Casinos are taking advantage of these people in the way that churches take tithes from ignorant flock to give it to "God".

>>4206455
The for profit enterprise are *for profit!!!*

Gasp

The games are still voluntary. Casinos are taking advantage of these people in the way shops mark up their prices, only it's even less of an issue because they get more choice.

>So tell me sci, what's wrong with this strategy?

The expected value after any number of games is always negative. Let's say you are doubling your bets starting at $1 and you have $255. Let's also say the casino has a 51:49 advantage over you.

In each implementation of your strategy (playing until you lose all money or win) then you will win $1 with probability 1-(.51)^8 = .995423. You will lose $255 with probability (.51)^8 = .004577. Thus the expected value of playing your game is 1(1-.51^8) - 255(.51)^8 = $-.172

On average each time you play your game starting with $1 and a total of $255 you will lose 17 cents.

no gambler has an infinite purse.

>new world of mr. tompkins

>gambling at casinos to try to make money
>smart people

Pick one.

Casinos are designed to have the odds stacked against you in their very nature, if they weren't they wouldn't make very much money. A real smart idea would be to take your money and open up your own casino so retards like OP can give you their money.

>>4206543

>Implying I'd ever try that technique out without thoroughly analysing all the permutations
>Implying a business has to make money off EVERYONE rather than break even on most and fleece the rest
>Implying professional poker players don't exist and keep making money
>Implying professional roulette players aren't playing and winning largely against noobs rather than the house

Every game at casinos you have less than 1/2 chance of winning, except for craps where I think there is either no bias or a bias toward the player sometimes

>>4206732
Poker has skill involved, roulett is pure luck

>>4206732

>roulette
>playing against noobs

>>4206732

>roulette
>playing against other poeple

>>4206773
>>4206776

Ok. Being a nerd, I wasn't aware of that. I could have sworn I saw James Bond playing with lots of people. Perhaps everyone took turns against the house?

Anyway, my strategy may apply to poker or blackjack instead. Or the stock market.

>it is IMPOSSIBLE to lose using this routine.
>implying the wheel has no zero

>>4206761
>Implying there is no strategy in luck games
>Implying roulette has no strategies
>Implying this thread doesn't exist

>>4206827

>Anyway, my strategy may apply to poker or blackjack instead. Or the stock market.

I figure you're trolling, but you made me chuckle, because I gambled for a living for nine years, and met so many people IRL who said the same thing and were dead serious, who had strategies for games where they didn't even understand the basic rules. People who thought every bet is at 50/50 odds, because, 'you're either gonna win or you're gonna lose...'

I'm somewhat sure that you can't pick your bets back up once you've set them

If you double your bet 3 times (80 dollars if your base bet is 10) then you have to let it roll, don't you?

>>4206827
>black jack
>playing against other poeple

>>4206881

I'm dead serious in applying scientific principles to games of chance. I can learn the rules later as I try to determine whether it's feasable or not. So yes, I am serious.

What's the point of just knowing the rules anyway when that's only the beginning?