Roulette Theory

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: thepd7
This is a whole different argument from the OP's.

Yoss, how do you think that blackjack pro's make money? The house has the edge, however there are people who consistently make money playing blackjack for a living.

It's about having a good feel for the game you are playing and making the right plays at the right times.

You CAN make money gambling it's just stupid to COUNT on making money gambling. You should only gamble what you can afford to lose.

w/o counting cards, this can't be done. Those who are winning Blackjack players must have a sytem and a team to count cards and would never admit that they are winning players, since they would immediately be banned from casinos.

My guess is that people playing straight blackjack and who claim to be winning players are lying. Do you think the casino is going to contradict them? Who else besides the casino could prove them wrong?

Now, if there are some tournaments where you are competing against other players, then perhaps there is a way to profit by playing more perfect blackjack than everyone else. That is the only way I could see being able to win at BJ.

You'll just have to take my word for it, obviously there is no arguing with you.

There are people who've made serious money playing blackjack, but "feel" had nothing to do with it. It was some very dedicated card counting, knowing the math and willingness to play a lot of hands.

But you see, my feel is by the counting and an instinct that I cannot explain. I'll just keep doing what I do. I won 800 bucks today gambling. I'm just going to keep doing what I do.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Dear Failure:

You must be on drugs because you have serious problems. In conclusion, you need to learn to read, write and perhaps learn what 'conditional probability' is. Oh... and you're still wrong. Probability of getting a 6 in 99 rolls is not equal to the probability of getting a 6 on when the first 98 was a non-6.

kthxbye, Tuxdave

Never said it was...that asshat goes nice with your tux.

Tuxdave and everyone - I deciphered Alkemyst's code. He *does* understand that the probability is 1/6th on every individual roll, so there's no point in arguing with him about that. But, he also believes the gambler's fallacy. It's beyond me how his brain works, because most of us would think that those two thoughts are mutually exclusive. The only correct thing that's even similar to what he's trying to say is "if the odds are 1/6, then you aren't going to keep guessing wrong forever." Nonetheless, he's stated that the odds improve so many times in this thread that it's clear that he still believes the gambler's fallacy. I'm at a loss as to any way to convince him otherwise.

It's like those people who continue to believe that .999... doesn't equal 1 despite dozens of proofs to the contrary. Except in this case, it's more like someone saying "Well, duhh, I know that .999... isn't less than 1. It's just that it's not equal to 1."

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Turfzilla
On a roulette table, red and black pay out 2-1. So, as long as you have the money to cover it, you will never lose.

Theory: Always bet the same color and evertime you lose, you double down.

X-Factor: "00" and "0"

Ex.

Bet Black: $20 - Lose (Red)
Double Down - $40 - Lose (red)
Double Down - $80 - Lose (red)
Double Down - $160 - Lose (red)
Double Down - $320 - Win (Black)

Total bet: $620

2-1 payout = $640 winnings vs. $620 lost

Payout: You will always pocket your 1st bet i.e. 640-620 = $20 earned.

Up the bets and you up the reward when you win. Enless of course you hit "00" or "0".
You make your money back plus what your original bet was.

And this, boys and girls, is why casinos have betting limits.

Gee thanks for educating us... this was said days ago.