Calling All Math Guys!!!!

[Drogan]

Is this possible?

[Gizmotron]

Drag - " However, in roulette you only have a 94.7% chance on winning every spin because of the 0 and 00."

Are you really that inept?

[nitrix]

I didn't read le thing but its only true if you cover 36 numbers out of 38. It gives you 94.7% chances of winning.

That doesnt sound very new or practical to me.

[Drogan]

Jismtron- Yes. You have me pegged. I am inept. As a matter of fact, I am so inept that everytime I walk up to a Roulette table I walk away a winner.

Now....would anyone else like to make a rude comment, or do you think we can actually have some intelligent conversation about the topic?

[GameBreaker]

No.  This system is flawed.  You need simply to look at the initial rule of the method.  Each player bets one unit on pass and dont pass respectively. 

The author states this bet will break even.  It will not break even.  As a matter of fact this 'combination' bet can never net a profit but can and will net a loss.  The 12 is your enemy here.

The same holds true for every other combination bet.  They are all net losers.

If you want to play this type of method ... which is fine ... but dont expect to win long term ... You need to understand the idea of differential betting.  You do not need a partner and truth be told your results will be better if you never make any type of 'combination' bet as described in nthis method.

Good luck.

[reddwarf]

Hi Drogan,

Why ask us if you can test? Or, think about it for a minute and than do not ask. Of course this is a looser, and a fast one at that. Why do you think that it could be a winner at all?

Do not spend a second on "systems" or strategies that:

1. require you to wait ("wait for 20 spins and write blah blah")
2. use progressions: a lousy system will not become a winner because of a progression: on the contrary you will loose more
3. uses logic like: "this is so unlikely that overall you will win"
4. use some magic or "secret loophole" in either maths  or statistics or programming or wheel design or table layout


reddwarf

[Gizmotron]

Gads, you don't need the second player for one thing:

1, 2, 3, 5, 8,13 (yours)

1, 2, 4, 7, 12 (mine)

All you need is to find the first loser and then bet the progression against it. On each win you have the loser to restart on for the next bet. The second player's results always reduce the progression steps by one unit as a net result. So why not leave the partner to find something better to do?

[vile]

Drag - " However, in roulette you only have a 94.7% chance on winning every spin because of the 0 and 00."

Are you really that inept?

--Expect that some of us are playing enprison rule only...and that makes difference.

[amk]

Reply: Reddwarf:

"4. use some magic or "secret loophole" in either maths  or statistics or programming or wheel design or table layout"

Like that last one Reddwarf

[Drogan]

Wow...I am not exactly sure what I have done to invoke all of the hostility. I certainly didn't start this thread in order to insult anyone.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on what I was asking.

The reason I named the thread Calling All Math Guys is because I was looking for some sort of mathematical explanation as to why this bet would or would not work.

I have no interest in testing this system. I am not looking for opinions from people who say, "don't forget about the zero", "don't play systems that require progressions", "don't trust systems that require pen and paper", "no ec bets work", "don't forget that each spin in an independent event of......" blah, blah, blah, f@ing blah....

I know all that. I too am of the opinion that it won't work. But what I am looking for is mathematical evidence as to WHY it won't work. That is why I am asking for input from the math guys.

GLC, Bayes, Hermes, AMK, Mr. J, and anyone else who wants to weigh in with any sort of mathematical explanation. And please remember that the book talk about Craps and Baccarat as well. No zero to consider.

I am not interested in any opinions. I don't care about your experience or how many years you have been playing. I don't want to hear stories about whosiewhatsits in Nevada in 1964 and he tried this and yada yada yada.......none of that is helpful.

Just the math.



Shall we begin again?

[vladir]

I didn't read everything but I see similarities with diferential betting, something that is being discussed in another topic in this forum.

[amk]

Drogan,

How did you find this method? Would be an interesting story............

[Gizmotron]

Part of getting to the bottom of this mathematically is in identifying the real bet's true value for each step of the progression and how the progression is triggered.

1) The progression is triggered by any loss.

2) The true values of the progression are: 1, 2, 4, 7, and 12.

If you can see it. The second player cancels 1 unit from each bet of the progression.
So all you have is a weakened Marti.
The second player is an unnecessary redundancy.

[Drogan]

@Giz

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere.

@AMK
A simple pdf search of google. i.e. roulette filetype:pdf

[Drogan]

@GameBreaker

Your post did not show on my computer until just now. Weird.
Thank you for taking the topic seriously. Your post was very helpful.

@vladir
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will make a search to find the topic you are referring to.