Question: what is the game of roulette

[reddwarf]

Hi All,

I hope you all had a great Christmas!

Lately I have been thinking about what is "the game" of roulette. Many people use that term as if it is obvious. I think however that it isn't obvious at all. There are inherent losing games and winning games, so I believe it should be worthwhile to ponder for a moment on the "game" of roulette. What is a game? There a several definitions, but all agree that games have rules and goals.

Most common roulette game
After reading many posts, i conclude that the standard game definition is most common: goal is to "predict" the next number spun, or the next number characteristic spun. I think it to be common knowledge (by now) that this is a losing game proposition: if the wheel or the RNG are truly or pseudo random, than we can forget it, prediction is not possible (- true there might be wheel bias, or there might be a really simple and silly RNG algorithm; but I'm looking for the holy grail that is in dependant from other factors).

All statistical proofs, 99.99% of the systems deal with this roulette game interpretation, and indeed all are losers in the long run (for the truly stouthearted there are some systems with which you can reach a couple of kEuro in no time; but of course, in the end you will lose, it is not a hg method; for example a labouchere on the high and low at the same time - the starting row has 1 element and is 1 unit long)

Other games
Do not get me wrong, I do not know if other games will lead to winning systems/methods. This list are just examples, and might lead to nothing:

1. 3 dimensional tic-tac-toe (we have 4 3x3 planes)
2. 2 dimensional tic-tac-toe, we play on a 3x3 field per field we cover 4 numbers
3. ...

do you have any ideas?? (hmm maybe this is a subject for brainstorming, on the other hand I believe it is fundamental stuff for all students of roulette) ??

reddwarf

[reddwarf]

OK,

I give it a shot:
- higher or lower than the previous number (check out "optimal stopping" you will be amazed)
- ehhh, (indeed this is a difficult exercise, it forces you to think outside the box)

reddwarf

[darrnyf]

roulette is addiction..i thought i would quit..but i cant...thats y foks we should never gamble with the money we cant afford to loose..even i am in loss in my 10 years play..still i am happy..that i have used the money which i can afford to loose

[reddwarf]

Hi Darrnyf,

Yep, you are right, roulette is enticing. But in those 10 years, what roulette game did you play? What goal did you persue? Was it the same game allover: "predicting" the next spin? Or was it a radical different game?

reddwarf

[reddwarf]

The reason why I ask is: it can be proven that (OK, to avoid discussion I agree that there might be something in VB), when the games goal is to predict the next spin, you will lose on the long run. However, it has never been shown that playing another roulette "game" is also a losing proposition.

Although I have to admit that I do not know if such another games exists...

reddwarf

[Nickmsi]

Thanks for the article on "Knowing when to stop". 

That's what I love about this forum, you never know when something might spark an idea. 

Am testing the "N = 2 Surprise" to see if it can be applied it to roulette and preliminary results look promising.  More testing in progress and if it continues to look good will post system.

Nick

[reddwarf]

Hi Nicksmi,

Great someone tries something new: good luck 

[GARNabby]

Am testing the "N = 2 Surprise" to see if it can be applied it to roulette and preliminary results look promising.

There's nothing to test, because that "paradox" does what it claims.  So, either it can, or can't, be logically applied to roulette.

However, something can't follow from nothing, so-called "paradox", or not.  The problem with picking numbers at random from an infinity of integers is that those numbers can just keep getting larger.  And by artifically imposing a "reasonable end-pt", we are left with the simple prospect that the larger apart the two numbers, the more chance that those two will straddle those (reasonable numbers') overall mean.  The tip-off is that true randomness is randomness, whether we so pick just the first or second number (necessarily along with a guessed number in between), or only the number in between.

[reddwarf]

Hi Garnabby,

You might be right that there is nothing to test as it only applies for unboundend numbers (aleph-null numbers??), I could not make a winning system out of it, maybe Nicksmi can, or maybe it will lead to other brilliant insights no-one thought about, who knows?

The essence here is that, looking at number streams from a different angle might give new insights.

reddwarf

[GARNabby]

The essence here is that, looking at number streams from a different angle might give new insights.

And hi, reddwarf.

Yes, and try as might for a couple of hours before replying, i couldn't find a way to rule out this possible "other streams" approach for roulette.  I've done some similar baccarat-research to try to "hedge" some of the lesser-known card-counting routines so that whichever way and degree the counts went for some given scenarios, mostly one outcome would be indicated.

[Nickmsi]

 Both of you are right.


I'd like to think a little out of the box sometimes because it's fun and can be rewarding.


Here's how how I am testing this N2 surprise.  I've tweaked it a little bit so it's now exactly like it is in the article.


If the first number (Casino) number is <19 then get a random number.
If the random number is greater than the first number then what are the chances that the next Casino number will be greater than the first number.


So far in over 2500 spins (RNG), 75% of the time, the second number is higher than the first number.  This appears to be mathematically expected as we limiting our trigger to LOW numbers.


So if we know that 75%  of the time, the second number will be greater than the first number, can't we construct a bet to take advantage of this?


So I constructed two bets, one on HIGH and the other on remaining Streets.


So far the streets are hitting at a 10-1 rate, 429 wins, 41 losses.   All flat betting.


There are many, many 5 â€" 10 units streaks in those 429 wins.  Plenty of times to get on and off the win wagon with a  profit.


Testing continues.

[reddwarf]

Hi Nicksmi,

Ha, that is an interesting approach! I'm really curious to the testresults,  concerning the remaining streets, does one of the streets include the previous number?

And, what is the function of the random number, does this enhance the probability? Many questions, maybe I'll give it a shot today.


But, keep in the back of your mind that we still are looking for "other" games to be played...

reddwarf

[Nickmsi]

Hi reddwarf . . .

The street system I am testing is just betting the 11 streets that do not include the previous number.

I am also testing to see if adding the random number as a trigger makes any difference.

Will keep you posted.

Nick

[GARNabby]

It would be easier to focus on the "good guessing" element of that "paradox" than to precisely find/recreate its numeric intervals here.  What sorts of guesses can be of value; how to design your system around being right, if only by luck?

Playing for a solid shoe-mixture of baccarat- P's with B's is another simple example.  By far, the most-likely shoe, hence the best way to guess the most of its outcomes.  (BBBB... will very-likely net you only about half the outcomes.)

When you do just win, by other than progressive-betting forces,  you want to make the most of it.

[Nickmsi]

 I did a 1500 spin test (3 sets of 500 spins) to see what the results would be if we eliminated the random number.  This is all RNG.


Win% Without Random #:   68.5%


Win% With Random #:   73.04%   


High Bet Win% Without Random #:      44.88%


High Bet Win% With Random #:      53.09%


Street Bet Win% Without Random #:   92.91%


Street Bet Win% With Random #:      93.63%


I used the identical spin data to test both ways.


While this is only a small sample, it shows in each case, we would do bettor by utilizing the random number trigger.


So I will continue to test with the Random Number trigger and see if this is a worthwhile method.


Happy New Year to All . . .  Nick