| Posted by: winbig at January 8, 2007, 6:14 pm | | Topic: Theoretical basis for a perfect roulette system Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by Casinomeister
Hitting a winner will usually get you thrown out of a casino. I never go to Circus Circus because it makes me want to punch a clown. The kids wouldn't appreciate that.
Did tennis_balls hack CM's account???
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Casinomeister at January 8, 2007, 3:16 pm | | Topic: Theoretical basis for a perfect roulette system Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by soflat
I think he has a point: you will eventually hit a winner.
Hitting a winner will usually get you thrown out of a casino. I never go to Circus Circus because it makes me want to punch a clown. The kids wouldn't appreciate that.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: kyleb at January 8, 2007, 8:43 am | | Topic: Theoretical basis for a perfect roulette system Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by kingfile64
Simply find a roulette system that fails time and time again. Now just do the opposite of your original system. I think you will find the results ery interesting.
What's the opposite - never betting?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: vinylweatherman at December 31, 2006, 7:21 pm | | Topic: Theoretical basis for a perfect roulette system Forum: Casino Meister |
This is just a ariation on the martingale system. It falls over when the improbable eventually happens. Often, table limits prevent the full implementation of the system, and it is possible to dig oneself into a ery deep hole indeed.
If this system works online, it is because the RNG is not completely random.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Amigo at December 31, 2006, 3:40 pm | | Topic: Theoretical basis for a perfect roulette system Forum: Casino Meister |
Quote: Originally Posted by mbcobretti
Hello everyone!
I know it's impossible to find a system that will always win, but here is an idea of a system that actually might be fruitfull
If you know its impossible to find a system which wins, surely this cant win?
Your data about rare to have a streak of 25 is flawed because lets say there is simply a streak of 15 numbers different, you've spend 1+2+3+...+14+15 = 120. Therefore you've spend 120 units before finding a winner which pays 35.
The only way this would win is if you could expect on average, the number of spins before a number is repeated to be 7-8, which naturally isnt the case.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: mbcobretti at December 31, 2006, 2:29 pm | | Topic: Theoretical basis for a perfect roulette system Forum: Casino Meister |
Hello everyone!
I know it's impossible to find a system that will always win, but here is an idea of a system that actually might be fruitfull. Hope someone has enough time and patience to implement it.
First of all, there is one argument against those who believe that the house advantage cannot be overcome - house advantage relates to the NUMBER OF WINNING SPINS HOUSE HAS OVER THE PLAYER, and not the money you put in a game. This means that the house wins approximatelly 52.5 times in a 100 spins series, while the player has 47.5 wins. If player wins 1.5 chip each time, and loses 1 chip when the house wins, who's ahead?
That is one thing! The other relates to odds. It is ery common opinion that each spin represents an isolated event, and each time you bet on red you have around 47.5% of chance for winning. However, what is the probability of the tenth red in a row? It is actually simple to calculate:
0.475x0.475x0.475x0.475 (and so on... 10 times...)=0.0007 (0.07%). This probability ... | | Read Entire Entry |
|