- This topic has 82 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:  You keep making me smile you little devil, what was that you said…. unscientific wizardry…. hahaha….. I like it…….  but no, nothing like that. Lets get one thing out of the way though, I am talking solely of Online Roulette, I have never played in a Landbased Casino and when I talk about the relative chances of the game, I am referring to the Online computer run Roulette. Now I make no bones about what I’m saying here and make sure its understandable by all, Landbased Roulette is mechanical in its operation and it is probably as random as you can get, but I don’t know. What I am saying is that the online roulette is a program, yes, its a Random Number Generator, but it is still a program. Now if your like me and you aint sat on your arse for two years, you would have done your homework, perhaps even written to PricewaterhouseCooper, along with others to dig into the why’s and wherefore’s. The thing to bear in mind is the RNG is a program and is indeed, as the word says, programmed. The chances must always remain at 2.7% over a given amount of numbers, this fact is checked monthly by independant auditors as you so rightly state. The figure cannot rise above 2.7% (there is a bit of leeway but not a lot) or accusations of cheating would cause a furore. so the RNG is programmed to keep the balance. Let me repeat that again, this is a program and therefore a program must be PROGRAMMED. When you think about this, you can see things from a different angle, you have to look at a balance of PROBABILITY over 1000 spins, over that amount of spins you would expect the zero (or any other single number) to hit 27 times, now what if you had spun 740 times without the zero showing, this is called a no show number and is of great importance to many pro’s because given there is only 260 spins left to complete the 1000, that zero has to land 27 times in 260 and that belies its odds of 35/1…… now I hear you all poo pooing that, but why??… if you have some smartass doing it at Blackjack, he’s a clever top notch fella, but the idea of that same guy doing it at Roulette would be thought of as a pratt….. its the same guy…… why ,oh why, do casinos kick you out if you walk in there carrying a computer or even some calculators. Even Vegas has floorwalkers and cameras watching for the "cheats", why bother if they can’t lose……. these RNG’s are programmed to level out any blips and keep all things favourable to punter and house, so all this blurb about the program has no memory and doesn’t know what it last spins were, c’mon guys, were in the computer age, surely your not all that naive. Just nip into the programs history on your own play, you’ll soon see what numbers you’ve been spinning……. no memory my arse…… just write to Bill Hill and tell ’em that they deducted money from your account when they should have credited it with £50, they’ll put you straight in no uncertain terms, you’ll get short shrift with them cos they’ll reel of your last 200 numbers, 100 either side of where you queried…… hahaha….. no memory indeed. How do I know this, boys, I’ve been there and been kicked out, I have to play under my daughters name now……. I am surprised how many who actually knock this, haven’t really looked into it. Play ’em at their own game, you can do it, but you have to learn to count……<br>:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
MrE
MR E<br>I have to concede that you may have a point, especially if the programme has any in-built mechanism for balancing itself out in the long run. I would doubt that this is the case, but honestly don’t know. I’ve always been extremely suspicious of on- line casinos for obvious reasons. The main one being that they can be manipulated in favour of the house. If you have been able to anticipate such practices or figure out the programme and turn it to your own benefit, then good luck. I’m pretty sure that anyone trying these casinos for the first time has a fair chance of winning because that gets the punter interested. If you carry on winning and your account is then closed, it suggests to me that the game isn’t straight and that you’ve somehow sussed it out. An honest casino will never turn away a punter from their roulette tables.
Hi again Art….. its been a good discussion mate and will always be open to debate, but just to nail it down tight, I must just clarify exactly what I mean so that nobody gets hold of the wrong end of the stick….. The games are scrupulously fair and to within a noggin or two, the house % is just what it says on the tin, in the case of Roulette, the games are 2.7% in the house’s favour on every spin so we know that you can only win 97.3% of the time. We also know that we DO NOT know what is gonna happen on the next spin, but if you concur that the whole issue must balance out at one stage (and nobody doubts this), then the next logical progression is to wait for numbers (or colours) that have not shown. Now rightly or wrongly, I think its possible to shortcut this, and thats all this is about. Snow only disagrees with this approach, we both agree that Roulette is profitable….. the methods of placing bets or "Systems" are superfluous really, what will win or lose you money is the staking, if you aint got that right you can kiss your bank goodbye. So my methods control that expenditure, they stop you betting on a whim, they stop you placing your bet on Reds cos the counters landed 12 consecutive spins on Black. The staking is therefore controlled and your bank is protected, if you’ve read any previous threads you will note that I am a stickler for protective staking cos once the banks blown, its the end of the sports, I could never replace my bank, others who are earning might be able to, but I cant……. I hope you can see where I’m coming from, I’m not a whizz kid at Roulette or anything else but I’ve written letters and done a lot of homework and I’ve been taught staking by one of the best….. staking, thats where the profit is….. an excellent discussion Art, I’ve enjoyed it, started to get a little worked up at one stage but the "Famous Grouse" worked wonders….. hehehehe……<br>:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
MrE
Agreed, MrE, a good discussion. If the game is straight and you are beating it, long may your wealth increase.
Can’t believe this thread is still running – but pleased it is, it’s a little bit of light relief after watching some of those banded stakes races! Artemis thanks for the kind words mate, much appreciated. You mentioned blackjack. Now there was a game in the days of only 4 packs to a shoe, where 4 or 5 quality players on the same table could (given average or better cards) get the better of the bank.
Sure an individual box may not have had the rub of the green and would be down, but the majority of the table would win. However since they’ve made it six packs and around a third cut out, you don’t seem to get consistent shoes and that, presumably, is why they did it.
Do you play Artemis?
Hi all<br>I don’t know much about Roulette strategy having only played it once and lost at it.
I believe there is something called the 3Q/A Reverse Select strategy for playing roulette that is supposed to give a 7%<br>advantage to the player.<br>Do any of you guys know what this is?
Kind regards
Hi John,
This is a roulette system developed by R.D.Ellison and expounded in his book Gamble To Win.
He states that it is specifically developed for the American Wheel ( Zero and Double Zero ) but I can’t imagine it could be any less effective on a European one.
Its based on Statistical Propensity or the way over a prolonged period of time, the %age chance of each No showing is ever more closely matched by actual experience.
It requires table charting i.e. looking at a table over a large No of spins to ascertain which Nos are ‘due’ and then backing groups of them covering about a third of the table (back to MrE’s 2/1 shots).
Just re-read that and it looks like gobbledegook even to me!
Basically it tries to turn the arguments of people like Artemis and myself back against them.
I would argue that over a prolonged No of spins although each No. wont come up the same No. of times there will be an ever increasing %age correlation between what should happen and what has actually happened.  AHA! says R.D.Ellison but here are some Nos which haven’t achieved anything like their expected No. of appearances, and you snowman say that ultimately they will come into line so now must be a good time to back them!
Its very hard to argue against this because he is basically using my own arguments against me and others who think like me, all I would say is that it is generally accepted that it requires a huge No. of spins for the theories and actualities to become close in %age terms.
I don’t know any more than this John but I hope that helps a bit.
(Edited by snowman at 6:19 pm on Mar. 8, 2004)
Hi<br>Sounds a bit like expecting "cold" numbers to come up next because they are "overdue", as in the lottery .
Unless the wheel has a bias I would think every number has exactly the same chance on each spin no matter what happened previously.
I think taking a sample of spins and then saying a number is overdue, and will now be more likely to occur, because it has not come up the expected number of times in one sample is a bit dodgy. <br>The idea of a number being "due" without a specific cause bothers me a little.
This "ultimately numbers will come into line", but when, now, next hour, next day, next week. After how many spins of the wheel? Expected frequency must surely apply only to a very large sample of many spins. So large that the point when these numbers occur, and play "catch -up, in the large sample is not predictable.
Thanks for the info though.
Kind regards
(Edited by JAR at 10:47 pm on Mar. 8, 2004)
To the members that are reading this….. its just like talking to a brick wall aint it, I get Artemis agreeing with me, or at least he is willing to call it a draw, when along comes JAR to stir the muddy waters……. can’t you understand that the 2.7% is fixed, its set in freaking concrete, the program will NOT let an imbalance occur, thats why they are using programs. Think of a number, any bloody number, and follow it for 1000 spins, see how many times it pops up, I’ll tell you something, if it misses for 500 spins (which I have yet to see), that number will come in a glut during the next 500 spins. I dunno who that guy is that wrote about "no show numbers", but he is on the right track. Casinos hate card counters and Number Crunchers…… if there is an imbalance in the wheel, how long do you think they’d last, there are thousands of astute fellas out there that would spot it in an instant and really take ’em apart…… lets try you lot from another angle, if you guys think that its all one sided, let one of you bet black only and the other bet red only, I’ll guarantee that your within spitting distance in a lot less than 1000 spins….. the game is straight, you only have to guess right……. were just regurgitating old stuff here, lets draw the curtains……
MrE
Hi<br>At least with horses you can bet against the crowd on betfair and find some value.<br>Since roulette has a fixed advantage and it is straight it follows that there is no value in the long run so no matter how stakes are manipulated you would lose in the long run.
Hi <br>I don’t mind be told when I am incorrect in a view, but I would like to know why?
Kind Regards
Hi Jar…. its funny that we should be talking about Roulette as against the GG’s when we’ve just had another smack on the arse by the likes of Fallon. It aint just him either, they’re all bloody at it, I’ve been into the horses now for 40 years and I’ve never had as much mistrust in the game as I do now…… we are trying to compare one form of gambling with another, I would rather have to battle against a fixed 2.7% than against a fixed race,. I aint gonna say that you will WIN on Roulette, that would only start it hitting the fan again, but you will lose a lot less often. We must assume that the casinos are straight because they have independent adjudicators in, the big boys cannot afford a whiff of scandal and it must be seen to be fair, you cannot say anything so kind about horseracing. Forget the systems and the staking plans, just compare one against the other because that was what this thread started as. The fixed "mark up" to the casino of 2.7% is far better than most bookies give you on the horses, the only thing thats fixed in the GG’s is possibly the race itself, at least with Roulette you know where you stand from the very outset….. just look at the imponderables with racing….. going, weight, stall positions, A/W, Turf (Flat), N/H, over rounds, jockeys, trainers, the horses themselves…… bugger me JAR, your on a hiding to nowt before you start, and I’d want a damned sight better value than the 8%  to 12% they mark up on most races, that why the majority of punters lose, it’s terrible value. You may also get your arse kicked at Roulette but you’ve got a far better chance of winning and if you lose, you lose slower……..
MrE
Hi Mr E <br>I cannot really argue in too much detail about Roulette as I simply admit to not knowing much about that particular game. I was talking about the old fashioned Roulette wheel that works by gravity on a ball. I’v no idea how a computer program version of Roulette works or how you could exploit any possible anomaly in a computerised version of Roulette.
I agree with you’re last post, the bookmakers do give terrible value on horse races. It is possible to make a profit on the GG’s for at least one season if not every season providing you can pick winners at odds longer than 2/1 and that is not an easy thing to do on a consistent basis.
Certainly if you are going to accept very short odds it is better to stick with Roulette. When I bet short odds on a horse I am only betting for fun and not profit.
Short odds on horses can be profitable if you use a staking plan to enhance profits. These staking plans are usually aggresive and rely on not hitting a long losing run.<br>Fat chance of that happening.
My biggest grumble against bookmakers is that if you start winning they don’t want to know and either refuse to accept a bet or cut the price of a horse. I’ve only had one bet refused myself probably because I only bet in very small amounts.
So along come the exchanges such as betfair, great now everyone can lay horses to lose. Lo and behold, some people allegedly state, before you know it jockeys are falling off horses.<br>Also a short while ago when there was a jockey dispute over mobile phones. It seemed to me that a lot of favourites that should have won suddenly started coming in second, coincidence or imagination on my part , I don’t know.<br>I’d like to see all the bookmakers cut their margins or only betting exchanges survive. Bookies to my way of thinking – today are going in for machines too much, with <br>virtual racing, lottery balls, and so on.
However I think punters have only themselves to blame, all punters should simply refuse to bet on any horse at odds shorter than 6/4, then see what the bookmakers would do. <br>We need a punters union where all members promise not to accept odds anywhere shorter than evens , then as the union gets bigger refuse to accept odds less than 6/4.<br>Where’s Arthur Scargill when you need him!
Kind regards
Yep, I’ll go along with some of that JAR, certainly things have changed, although I think it woulda been better if the media had treated us like mushrooms, kept us in the dark and fed us on bulls**t
. A second jockey having a 21 day ban, withdrawals of horses from 16 runner races, this is surely one of the hardest games to win at and I think I preferred the days of yesteryear when we all thought that the game was reasonably straight, taint so now, its a media circus……. at least it caps this discussion off neatly, you may lose at the wheel (or cards if thats your poison), but at least the odds are not trimmed to your detriment and the flankers that are worked on us are hidden from view and aint as blatant as GG’ racing. Yes, I may lose at the casino, but I know that I have a better opportunity of keeping my bank intact……. frigging boring though……. all the best guys, I think this might just about wrap this up, there aint a lot more I can say……. My name is MrE, not Jesus, I cannot make the lame walk and neither can I make the blind see…… you gotta form your own conclusions from the discussions that have taken place, just keep an open mind……. good luck with it fellas……<br>:biggrin: :biggrin:MrE
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.