Why the math guys are wrong in my opinion

[tezza12]

I feel I have to post something as I feel quite strongly about this, I hear a lot that regardless of what you do, even if you win, you lose because the pay out in roulette is not fair, all this negative expectancy with a 35/1 pay out on 37 numbers (European table)
I say what B0ll0cks, Ill take 35/1 all day long thanks very much.

If I see a football game say man city v reading for example, the odds on reading causing an upset may be 15/1, the odds on man city winning may be 1/10 on, yet 99.999999% of the time we all know reading do not stand a chance in hell, so 15/1 is not really very generous is it. Id take 35/1 on a roulette table any day of the week, here is why.

The wheel HAS to spin, we do not have to bet, there are that many systems, strategies, advantage plays etc.. around that variance should not really bother us, even better so, the wheel has no memory, the wheel does not know what the word fallacy is, the wheel does not know if you are waiting for something, the facts remain, the wheel HAS to spin, we do not have to bet.

Sure I have won, I have lost but one thing I am certain about is, in the 'long run' for me, a bout 15 years and millions of spins, I am a good bit up in £ terms, I am no millionaire because I always play with the air of caution, even after 15 years, but the point remains, 35/1, 17/1, 8/1, 5/1, even 1/1, roulette can and does offer a real way to make quick money, just do not play being a gambler, play smart.

[Tamino]

EC  1-1 with la partage is heaven .    106 years ago V. Bethell wrote a book  , Monte Carlo  Anecdotes  and Systems.  Only 7 pages  out 184 pages were devoted to  numbers .


Nuff said.

For recreational purposes only.Play at         your own risk.

[Willie]

I feel I have to post something as I feel quite strongly about this, I hear a lot that regardless of what you do, even if you win, you lose because the pay out in roulette is not fair, all this negative expectancy with a 35/1 pay out on 37 numbers (European table)
I say what B0ll0cks, Ill take 35/1 all day long thanks very much.

If I see a football game say man city v reading for example, the odds on reading causing an upset may be 15/1, the odds on man city winning may be 1/10 on, yet 99.999999% of the time we all know reading do not stand a chance in hell, so 15/1 is not really very generous is it. Id take 35/1 on a roulette table any day of the week, here is why.

The wheel HAS to spin, we do not have to bet, there are that many systems, strategies, advantage plays etc.. around that variance should not really bother us, even better so, the wheel has no memory, the wheel does not know what the word fallacy is, the wheel does not know if you are waiting for something, the facts remain, the wheel HAS to spin, we do not have to bet.

Sure I have won, I have lost but one thing I am certain about is, in the 'long run' for me, a bout 15 years and millions of spins, I am a good bit up in £ terms, I am no millionaire because I always play with the air of caution, even after 15 years, but the point remains, 35/1, 17/1, 8/1, 5/1, even 1/1, roulette can and does offer a real way to make quick money, just do not play being a gambler, play smart.

Nicely put tezza, couldn't agree with u more

[Scarface]

I agree!  Roulette can also be compared to day trading.  Stocks can go up or down, and commissions are similar to house edge eating away your money.  The most important thing to keep in mind is proper money management.  Don't risk it all on the short term.  And don't bet against what's trending. 

[TurboGenius]

Apples and Oranges.
You're comparing non-random things to roulette.
Comparing things that aren't "independent" to roulette, where each spin is independent from the last.
But whatever.
I'm a "math guy" and also a system player and creator - I can argue both ways and use math to beat a math game.

[Steve]

Tezza, what you've said is basically (in other terms):

1. I love the lottery payout. Someone has to win so it may as well be me. So I'll spend tonnes of money on tickets and eventually I'll win. Who cares about the amount of tickets I need to buy becaue the payout is good. You can win, you just need to be smart about it.

2. You've played at least 300 spins per day (on average) for the past 15 years.

[tezza12]

No I don't agree, what I mean is, saying something is lost, even when its won, because the pay out is unfair is just stupid, 35/1 on a 37 number board is pretty darn good, is it fluke that I win regularly and yet the long run or variance has never bit me, I don't play like a gambler, at least I try not to.

I was reading this interesting article the other day which pointed out that often, the best roulette players have some condition along the lines of bipolar, interesting. I do not, and this is partly the reason why I do lose sometimes, I am human, I make mistakes, mistakes of the mind.

And interestingly I do not play the lotto, have no interest in it at all, yet roulette is a big fav of mine, sure, I can go 6 months and not play a single spin or even think about roulette, but then I can spend 10+ hours a day sometimes playing it.

I do not consider myself a 'lucky' person at all really, not in general, so if I am not winning through pure luck, and the long run and variance, deviation has not caused me to go bust, I must be doing something else right.

[tezza12]

Also, think about it, roulette offers better odds than the lotto, for the UK lotto you need 3 numbers from 59 at a pay out of 25/2 if it were pick any 1 single number from 59, get it right and we pay 35/1, that would be attractive, yet, still worse than roulette, as roulette has 37 potential outcomes, not 59.

[Steve]

You are missing the point and don't understand. But if you're profiting, keep doing it

[tezza12]

I would like you to explain why the below statement is wrong or untrue

roulette offers better odds than the lotto, for the UK lotto you need 3 numbers from 59 at a pay out of 25/2 if it were pick any 1 single number from 59, get it right and we pay 35/1, that would be attractive, yet, still worse than roulette, as roulette has 37 potential outcomes, not 59.

Fact is, you cant

[Turner]

I would like you to explain why the below statement is wrong or untrue

roulette offers better odds than the lotto, for the UK lotto you need 3 numbers from 59 at a pay out of 25/2 if it were pick any 1 single number from 59, get it right and we pay 35/1, that would be attractive, yet, still worse than roulette, as roulette has 37 potential outcomes, not 59.

Fact is, you cant

The title says "the maths guys are wrong"

What is it you are saying they are wrong about?

If its the fact that the casinos dont pay fairly, then how are they wrong?

I dont see any maths guys saying roulette doesnt pay out higher than the lottery

I dont get what your point is.

[Steve]

Tezza, it is hard to argue with you when you say unfair payouts is a stupid thing to say when justifying why random bet selection leads to negative expectation. Its not saying math is stupid logic, it IS saying its stupid.

Theres a big difference between odds and payout. The odds are your chances of winning. The Payout is what you get paid for wins.

Maybe the lottery works differently in your country. I dont bother playing it. Last time I checked, the odds of winning the jackpot were around 1 in 15,000,000 or so. The payout varies because the jackpot increases when it isnt won.

The "house edge" in lotteries varies, but its usually between 40-60%. In roulette, its just 2.7%. Its a big difference.

Maybe you can find lottery with lower house edge, but its all fundamentally the same, which is unfair payouts for the odds. Trillions and trillions are made on this principle. It is not "stupid", and any serious player needs to understand it. A casual player doesnt need to look at it, and they arent interested in the details - only what they win if they get lucky.

What you dont appear to understand is if you only win 1 in 37 time on average, but are paid just 35-1 when you do win, then over time you'll lose money. The only way to overcome this and win is to win more frequently than you would with random accuracy bets.

Im not having a go at you but its simple math. Maths guys are not wrong about it. And btw Im not a math guy. Im not an AP guy either. Im just someone who understands basic logic.

[tezza12]

But again, you are obviously miss-understanding what I am saying, I am saying that I am more than happy with the casino having an edge as low as 2.7% as that is for the gamblers, 2.7% is silly low, and easy to beat, especially if you do not fall under the typical 'gambler' notion.
You will never get a loan and not pay interest, that interest is the loan companies edge, profit, in roulette, typically its 2.7% but again, what I am saying is, that only applies to the people who are not making money from it. a lot of people will lose a darn site quicker than the standard 2.7% house edge, because they are gamblers, or just have money to waste.
I do not sit and play roulette with any intention of losing, and I rarely do, if I do, its because im a muppet and made a mistake, invariably, I always, always win, just by playing a mix of about 30 different strategies which can be changed, flexible, interlinked etc....

Look, all I am saying is, if there were no house edge, the game would no exist, look at Bet voyager no roulette, they take 10% of any winnings, id rather have the 0 and play 2.7% against thanks.

[Steve]

Well in any case, the key to winning roulette is predicting the winning number (with high enough accuracy). There are many ways to do that.

[tuddilue]

Well in any case, the key to winning roulette is predicting the winning number (with high enough accuracy). There are many ways to do that.

Yes of course it is. Which one is your favorite?  I mean bet 0x, 1x or >1x? Just curious..
Myself is betting 1x must of the time..

- Tuddilue