Roulette Theory

[DrPizza]

Oh, and in regard to the gambling strategies... For every strategy that you think works, because you've won 3 times in a row, there are 3 point something people who have tried it and not succeeded. i.e. the odds of someone winning 3 times in a row (or even 4 times in a row, or 5 times in a row) are far from zero. But over the long run, the casino is still going to make more money than it loses to people using that strategy.

If as an experiment, we had 50 people in a room with 50 different gambling strategies for some particular casino game, and those people were all supposed to try those strategies out, then at the end of the night (or weekend, or week, or however long it took) our results would be this: nearly every one of those people would find at least one strategy that they were convinced worked. Why? Well, because they won 10 times in a row using that strategy, so to them, that's evidence that the strategy worked. But for every dollar they made using the strategy that worked, the casino will have made more money from the rest of those 50 people attempting the same strategy. In other words, you're using anecdotal evidence to claim it works - your own experience being that evidence.

"I won, because the table was hot" is like a self-fulfilling prophecy, except it's applied to the past. Why'd you lose? Uhh, because the table was cold. This is more like an advanced version of the gambler's falacy. Of course, there are going to be streaks where the players win x number of times in a row. But there are also going to be streaks where the players lose x number of times in a row as well. And, there's no way to predict exactly how many times in a row "x" is. Thus, if the players won 7 times in a row, you might think, "wow, this table is hot." Then, if the next hand/roll/whatever, with its accompanying 47% chance of winning (or whatever it is) happens to win again, you attribute it to "the table is hot!" If, with a 53% chance of happening, you lose, you shrug it off to, "Damn, I just missed that hot streak" or "nope, looked like the table was about to be hot, but it wasn't." Of course, 48 hours later, the gambler only remembers the times they considered the table to be hot and they won, and not the times they lost.

There are NO strategies that give the edge to the player, well, with very few notable exceptions: card counting and absolutely perfect play in blackjack can give an exceptional player a VERY slight advantage. Not quite as large as the advantage the house has in general, but enough that over the long run, the player can come out ahead. Of course, casinos tend to figure out who these people are and ban them.

 

[spidey07]

Dr Pizza, the trick is to find a table that is hot and not play or not bet very much when it's cold.

And there are people who make their living by playing the ponies and absolutely would not reveal their strategy.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Are you asking what the probability is of getting just 1 six in 100 rolls?
100*(5^6)^99*(1/6)

Are you asking what the probability is of getting at least 1 six in 100 rolls is?
It's pretty damn good!
1 - (5^6)^100

As a percent, 99.99999879253265275863333993072% probability of getting at least 1 six.


However, I think I see where your logic if failing you.
This still doesn't mean that if you roll 99 times and not get a 6 that you're more likely to get a 6 on the 100th roll to make up for it. You seem to think that if you roll a non-six 99 times

I have already stated all of this above...I stated after 100 rolls if you have not gotten at least one 6, the odds for figuring the Xth roll is 1/6...but the more you roll as a grouping improves your chances.

rolling a die once for a 6, you have a 1/6 chance

rolling a die x times is the 1-(n-1/n)^X; n = number of sides, X is rolls.

The latter is how you gamble to 'beat the odds'...however as stated they get you by capping the bets.

People are more keen on disagreeing to disagree than to read. The Gambler's Fallacy also does not apply to all gambling situtations and none where proof via probablity works.

And to firebot...like I said, you can't figure that the next roll will be a sure thing, just that you are highly likely in the sequence to hit it.

With any odds not equal to 100% it's possible in theory to never win.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Dr Pizza, the trick is to find a table that is hot and not play or not bet very much when it's cold.

And there are people who make their living by playing the ponies and absolutely would not reveal their strategy.

There is as much trick to gambling and finding 'hot' tables as believing in daily newspaper horoscopes.

You can't also seriously be comparing games of pure random chance like roulette, and ponies / sports betting. While the odds are stacked against you, horse racing is a competitive sport and not at all random. Some horses are physically better racers then others. Of course you need to be extremely good at studying the sport and all the factors which may come into play, to be able to outplay the house odds on a consistant basis.

Find me a player who makes his 'living' playing roulette, and I'll show you a guy who probably has a permanent comp hotel room and meals given to him by the casino.

 

[Epic Fail]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: alkemyst
2) if you are at a casino and have not rolled a 6 in 100 rolls...your odds will continue to improve with further rolls even if days go by between those rolls. No one is understanding how this works...the only way you'd be back to 1/6 odds is if you were requiring it to happen on X roll.

This is undeniable. If you do not believe me go ask someone either in your math department or any math site.

You sir have a case of gambler's fallacy. Either that or you are doing a pretty crappy job at explaining yourself. This is the truth and you can go to anyone in your math department or any math site to confirm.


(all coins are fair)
Truth)You just flipped a coin 100 times and got 100 heads. You still have a 50/50 chance of getting tails on the next flip.

Truth) Person A just flipped a coin 100 times and got 100 heads. Person B just started playing. The chance of getting a tail on the next flip is equal for both people.

Truth) Person A just flipped a coin 100 times and got 100 heads. Person B just started playing. The chance of getting a tail in the next X flips is equal for both people.

I really give up on this...great google searches guys and changing the question to suit your purposes.

I WILL REPEAT:

The odds to get a 6 on any ONE roll is 1/6. The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls is not 1/6.

You guys would have been the same group of idiots claiming the world was flat because everyone else thinks so.

is this troll?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Firebot

Originally posted by: spidey07
Dr Pizza, the trick is to find a table that is hot and not play or not bet very much when it's cold.

And there are people who make their living by playing the ponies and absolutely would not reveal their strategy.

There is as much trick to gambling and finding 'hot' tables as believing in daily newspaper horoscopes.

You can't also seriously be comparing games of pure random chance like roulette, and ponies / sports betting. While the odds are stacked against you, horse racing is a competitive sport and not at all random. Some horses are physically better racers then others. Of course you need to be extremely good at studying the sport and all the factors which may come into play, to be able to outplay the house odds on a consistant basis.

Find me a player who makes his 'living' playing roulette, and I'll show you a guy who probably has a permanent comp hotel room and meals given to him by the casino.

Well, I'll just keep doing what I do then. You're correct of course that ponies and table games are completely different, I was just trying to point out there are strategies to gambling. What I have works for me. And my taxes show it consistently over the last 6 or so years.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Are you asking what the probability is of getting just 1 six in 100 rolls?
100*(5^6)^99*(1/6)

Are you asking what the probability is of getting at least 1 six in 100 rolls is?
It's pretty damn good!
1 - (5^6)^100

As a percent, 99.99999879253265275863333993072% probability of getting at least 1 six.


However, I think I see where your logic if failing you.
This still doesn't mean that if you roll 99 times and not get a 6 that you're more likely to get a 6 on the 100th roll to make up for it. You seem to think that if you roll a non-six 99 times

I have already stated all of this above...I stated after 100 rolls if you have not gotten at least one 6, the odds for figuring the Xth roll is 1/6...but the more you roll as a grouping improves your chances.

rolling a die once for a 6, you have a 1/6 chance

rolling a die x times is the 1-(n-1/n)^X; n = number of sides, X is rolls.

The latter is how you gamble to 'beat the odds'...however as stated they get you by capping the bets.

People are more keen on disagreeing to disagree than to read. The Gambler's Fallacy also does not apply to all gambling situtations and none where proof via probablity works.

And to firebot...like I said, you can't figure that the next roll will be a sure thing, just that you are highly likely in the sequence to hit it.

With any odds not equal to 100% it's possible in theory to never win.

You are falling under the gambler's fallacy even more as you try to explain it, since you never include what you bet for those rolls and what you are winning should you hit a 6. HERE is where the problem lies (never mind the warped logic you are using).

You bet 1$ per roll. Let's say that there is no house odds at all (lol!) and that all paying odds are the same as the rolling odds. You do 60 rolls to try to hit a 6 (to keep it simple without decimals), and you are getting 6:1 odds for your money - if you hit a 6 I pay you 6$, if you hit anything else I take your 1$. Mathematics will tell you that out of 60 rolls, you have the probability of hitting a 6 10 times out of 60 rolls (1/6). If you hit a 6 11 times or more, above the probability, you are making money. If you hit a 6 9 times or lower, you are losing money.

Now lets say you do 600 rolls to try to hit a 6, and still making 6:1 odds for your money. Out of 600 rolls you have a probabilty of hitting a 6 100 times (1/6). If you hit a 6 101 times or more, you are making money. If you hit a 6 99 times of less, you are losing money. Even though the chance of hitting a 6 obviously increases the more times you roll, your winning expectation remains exactly the same.

Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a ton, as you get more chances to roll. You will have a far better chance to hit a 6 on 60 rolls, even to an almost certainty probability wise, compared to 6 rolls or just 1 roll. The problem is, you aren't being paid to hit a 6 over a number of rolls. You are being paid 6:1 to roll a 6 on your current roll.

The obvious problem is, there IS house odds. Let's say instead of paying 6:1, I put on a huge house edge and pay only 5:1. No matter what happens, you roll 60 times, 600 times, 6000 times, 60000 times, the result remains the same. I am taking your money and putting it in my pocket. Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a lot when comparing 60 to 60000 rolls, but your winning expectation stays constant. In fact, under this system, my house edge is 1/6, or 16.67%, or rather your winning expectation becomes 83.33%. For every dollar bet, your expected return is 83 cents. To combat my house edge here, you would need to roll a 6 13 times or more to make money while anything 11 or under loses money. Yet, your chance is still only 1/6 to hit, or 10 out of 60. Since your winning expectation remains constant, I will always take your money over the long run.

http://wizardofodds.com/roulette

The following table displays the available bets, the payoff, and the probability of winning under U.S. rules. All casinos in the U.S. follow these rules except for in Atlantic City. The house edge on all bets is 1/19, or 5.26%, except for one bet. The exception is the 0-00-1-2-3 combination, which carries a house edge of 7.89%.

As long as there is a house edge even under optimal play, gamblers will ultimately lose money.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Firebot

Originally posted by: spidey07
Dr Pizza, the trick is to find a table that is hot and not play or not bet very much when it's cold.

And there are people who make their living by playing the ponies and absolutely would not reveal their strategy.

There is as much trick to gambling and finding 'hot' tables as believing in daily newspaper horoscopes.

You can't also seriously be comparing games of pure random chance like roulette, and ponies / sports betting. While the odds are stacked against you, horse racing is a competitive sport and not at all random. Some horses are physically better racers then others. Of course you need to be extremely good at studying the sport and all the factors which may come into play, to be able to outplay the house odds on a consistant basis.

Find me a player who makes his 'living' playing roulette, and I'll show you a guy who probably has a permanent comp hotel room and meals given to him by the casino.

Well, I'll just keep doing what I do then. You're correct of course that ponies and table games are completely different, I was just trying to point out there are strategies to gambling. What I have works for me. And my taxes show it consistently over the last 6 or so years.

Playing on a 'feel' is not a system. You are simply one of the minority who has won more rather then lose and beating the odds, and attributing that probability on your 'feel' system. I could be holding a pet rock when playing roulette. If I come out of the night ahead, does this suddenly make my pet rock a winning strategy to gambling?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Firebot

You are falling under the gambler's fallacy even more as you try to explain it, since you never include what you bet for those rolls and what you are winning should you hit a 6. HERE is where the problem lies (never mind the warped logic you are using).

You bet 1$ per roll. Let's say that there is no house odds at all (lol!) and that all paying odds are the same as the rolling odds. You do 60 rolls to try to hit a 6 (to keep it simple without decimals), and you are getting 6:1 odds for your money - if you hit a 6 I pay you 6$, if you hit anything else I take your 1$. Mathematics will tell you that out of 60 rolls, you have the probability of hitting a 6 10 times out of 60 rolls (1/6). If you hit a 6 11 times or more, above the probability, you are making money. If you hit a 6 9 times or lower, you are losing money.

Now lets say you do 600 rolls to try to hit a 6, and still making 6:1 odds for your money. Out of 600 rolls you have a probabilty of hitting a 6 100 times (1/6). If you hit a 6 101 times or more, you are making money. If you hit a 6 99 times of less, you are losing money. Even though the chance of hitting a 6 obviously increases the more times you roll, your winning expectation remains exactly the same.

Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a ton, as you get more chances to roll. You will have a far better chance to hit a 6 on 60 rolls, even to an almost certainty probability wise, compared to 6 rolls or just 1 roll. The problem is, you aren't being paid to hit a 6 over a number of rolls. You are being paid 6:1 to roll a 6 on your current roll.

The obvious problem is, there IS house odds. Let's say instead of paying 6:1, I put on a huge house edge and pay only 5:1. No matter what happens, you roll 60 times, 600 times, 6000 times, 60000 times, the result remains the same. I am taking your money and putting it in my pocket. Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a lot when comparing 60 to 60000 rolls, but your winning expectation stays constant. In fact, under this system, my house edge is 1/6, or 16.67%, or rather your winning expectation becomes 83.33%. For every dollar bet, your expected return is 83 cents. To combat my house edge here, you would need to roll a 6 13 times or more to make money while anything 11 or under loses money. Yet, your chance is still only 1/6 to hit, or 10 out of 60. Since your winning expectation remains constant, I will always take your money over the long run.

http://wizardofodds.com/roulette

The following table displays the available bets, the payoff, and the probability of winning under U.S. rules. All casinos in the U.S. follow these rules except for in Atlantic City. The house edge on all bets is 1/19, or 5.26%, except for one bet. The exception is the 0-00-1-2-3 combination, which carries a house edge of 7.89%.

As long as there is a house edge even under optimal play, gamblers will ultimately lose money.

People must be thinking something other than what I am trying to get across, I know for a fact that what I have stated is dead on accurate. I have already stated this gets affected by caps and pay out odds, however; that doesn't change the odds of winning...just the likelihood of covering your bets with the win.

You like many I feel are simply turning to google and websites and pulling out a quick answer.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Firebot

You are falling under the gambler's fallacy even more as you try to explain it, since you never include what you bet for those rolls and what you are winning should you hit a 6. HERE is where the problem lies (never mind the warped logic you are using).

You bet 1$ per roll. Let's say that there is no house odds at all (lol!) and that all paying odds are the same as the rolling odds. You do 60 rolls to try to hit a 6 (to keep it simple without decimals), and you are getting 6:1 odds for your money - if you hit a 6 I pay you 6$, if you hit anything else I take your 1$. Mathematics will tell you that out of 60 rolls, you have the probability of hitting a 6 10 times out of 60 rolls (1/6). If you hit a 6 11 times or more, above the probability, you are making money. If you hit a 6 9 times or lower, you are losing money.

Now lets say you do 600 rolls to try to hit a 6, and still making 6:1 odds for your money. Out of 600 rolls you have a probabilty of hitting a 6 100 times (1/6). If you hit a 6 101 times or more, you are making money. If you hit a 6 99 times of less, you are losing money. Even though the chance of hitting a 6 obviously increases the more times you roll, your winning expectation remains exactly the same.

Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a ton, as you get more chances to roll. You will have a far better chance to hit a 6 on 60 rolls, even to an almost certainty probability wise, compared to 6 rolls or just 1 roll. The problem is, you aren't being paid to hit a 6 over a number of rolls. You are being paid 6:1 to roll a 6 on your current roll.

The obvious problem is, there IS house odds. Let's say instead of paying 6:1, I put on a huge house edge and pay only 5:1. No matter what happens, you roll 60 times, 600 times, 6000 times, 60000 times, the result remains the same. I am taking your money and putting it in my pocket. Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a lot when comparing 60 to 60000 rolls, but your winning expectation stays constant. In fact, under this system, my house edge is 1/6, or 16.67%, or rather your winning expectation becomes 83.33%. For every dollar bet, your expected return is 83 cents. To combat my house edge here, you would need to roll a 6 13 times or more to make money while anything 11 or under loses money. Yet, your chance is still only 1/6 to hit, or 10 out of 60. Since your winning expectation remains constant, I will always take your money over the long run.

http://wizardofodds.com/roulette

The following table displays the available bets, the payoff, and the probability of winning under U.S. rules. All casinos in the U.S. follow these rules except for in Atlantic City. The house edge on all bets is 1/19, or 5.26%, except for one bet. The exception is the 0-00-1-2-3 combination, which carries a house edge of 7.89%.

As long as there is a house edge even under optimal play, gamblers will ultimately lose money.

People must be thinking something other than what I am trying to get across, I know for a fact that what I have stated is dead on accurate. I have already stated this gets affected by caps and pay out odds, however; that doesn't change the odds of winning...just the likelihood of covering your bets with the win.

You like many I feel are simply turning to google and websites and pulling out a quick answer.

How about providing some evidence that you're right? You bash people for "turning to Google" yet we are supposed to accept that you're right based on faith.

Do you agree that dice rolls are independent events?

 

[alkemyst]

WTF?!?...I have posted probably 6 times above that the probablity for any Xth roll is 1/6, that is an independant event.

The odds of getting a 6 in 100 rolls is near 100%, the odds of getting a 6 on roll #25 is 1/6.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Firebot

You are falling under the gambler's fallacy even more as you try to explain it, since you never include what you bet for those rolls and what you are winning should you hit a 6. HERE is where the problem lies (never mind the warped logic you are using).

You bet 1$ per roll. Let's say that there is no house odds at all (lol!) and that all paying odds are the same as the rolling odds. You do 60 rolls to try to hit a 6 (to keep it simple without decimals), and you are getting 6:1 odds for your money - if you hit a 6 I pay you 6$, if you hit anything else I take your 1$. Mathematics will tell you that out of 60 rolls, you have the probability of hitting a 6 10 times out of 60 rolls (1/6). If you hit a 6 11 times or more, above the probability, you are making money. If you hit a 6 9 times or lower, you are losing money.

Now lets say you do 600 rolls to try to hit a 6, and still making 6:1 odds for your money. Out of 600 rolls you have a probabilty of hitting a 6 100 times (1/6). If you hit a 6 101 times or more, you are making money. If you hit a 6 99 times of less, you are losing money. Even though the chance of hitting a 6 obviously increases the more times you roll, your winning expectation remains exactly the same.

Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a ton, as you get more chances to roll. You will have a far better chance to hit a 6 on 60 rolls, even to an almost certainty probability wise, compared to 6 rolls or just 1 roll. The problem is, you aren't being paid to hit a 6 over a number of rolls. You are being paid 6:1 to roll a 6 on your current roll.

The obvious problem is, there IS house odds. Let's say instead of paying 6:1, I put on a huge house edge and pay only 5:1. No matter what happens, you roll 60 times, 600 times, 6000 times, 60000 times, the result remains the same. I am taking your money and putting it in my pocket. Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a lot when comparing 60 to 60000 rolls, but your winning expectation stays constant. In fact, under this system, my house edge is 1/6, or 16.67%, or rather your winning expectation becomes 83.33%. For every dollar bet, your expected return is 83 cents. To combat my house edge here, you would need to roll a 6 13 times or more to make money while anything 11 or under loses money. Yet, your chance is still only 1/6 to hit, or 10 out of 60. Since your winning expectation remains constant, I will always take your money over the long run.

http://wizardofodds.com/roulette

The following table displays the available bets, the payoff, and the probability of winning under U.S. rules. All casinos in the U.S. follow these rules except for in Atlantic City. The house edge on all bets is 1/19, or 5.26%, except for one bet. The exception is the 0-00-1-2-3 combination, which carries a house edge of 7.89%.

As long as there is a house edge even under optimal play, gamblers will ultimately lose money.

People must be thinking something other than what I am trying to get across, I know for a fact that what I have stated is dead on accurate. I have already stated this gets affected by caps and pay out odds, however; that doesn't change the odds of winning...just the likelihood of covering your bets with the win.

You like many I feel are simply turning to google and websites and pulling out a quick answer.

Originally posted by: alkemyst
What do I know?

The funny thing is, your link actually disproved your theory.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF?!?...I have posted probably 6 times above that the probablity for any Xth roll is 1/6, that is an independant event.

The odds of getting a 6 in 100 rolls is near 100%, the odds of getting a 6 on roll #25 is 1/6.

Show how knowing either of those (both are true), ends up in you making money in a consistent way where you overcome the house edge.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Firebot

You are falling under the gambler's fallacy even more as you try to explain it, since you never include what you bet for those rolls and what you are winning should you hit a 6. HERE is where the problem lies (never mind the warped logic you are using).

You bet 1$ per roll. Let's say that there is no house odds at all (lol!) and that all paying odds are the same as the rolling odds. You do 60 rolls to try to hit a 6 (to keep it simple without decimals), and you are getting 6:1 odds for your money - if you hit a 6 I pay you 6$, if you hit anything else I take your 1$. Mathematics will tell you that out of 60 rolls, you have the probability of hitting a 6 10 times out of 60 rolls (1/6). If you hit a 6 11 times or more, above the probability, you are making money. If you hit a 6 9 times or lower, you are losing money.

Now lets say you do 600 rolls to try to hit a 6, and still making 6:1 odds for your money. Out of 600 rolls you have a probabilty of hitting a 6 100 times (1/6). If you hit a 6 101 times or more, you are making money. If you hit a 6 99 times of less, you are losing money. Even though the chance of hitting a 6 obviously increases the more times you roll, your winning expectation remains exactly the same.

Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a ton, as you get more chances to roll. You will have a far better chance to hit a 6 on 60 rolls, even to an almost certainty probability wise, compared to 6 rolls or just 1 roll. The problem is, you aren't being paid to hit a 6 over a number of rolls. You are being paid 6:1 to roll a 6 on your current roll.

The obvious problem is, there IS house odds. Let's say instead of paying 6:1, I put on a huge house edge and pay only 5:1. No matter what happens, you roll 60 times, 600 times, 6000 times, 60000 times, the result remains the same. I am taking your money and putting it in my pocket. Sure, your chance of hitting a 6 increases a lot when comparing 60 to 60000 rolls, but your winning expectation stays constant. In fact, under this system, my house edge is 1/6, or 16.67%, or rather your winning expectation becomes 83.33%. For every dollar bet, your expected return is 83 cents. To combat my house edge here, you would need to roll a 6 13 times or more to make money while anything 11 or under loses money. Yet, your chance is still only 1/6 to hit, or 10 out of 60. Since your winning expectation remains constant, I will always take your money over the long run.

http://wizardofodds.com/roulette

The following table displays the available bets, the payoff, and the probability of winning under U.S. rules. All casinos in the U.S. follow these rules except for in Atlantic City. The house edge on all bets is 1/19, or 5.26%, except for one bet. The exception is the 0-00-1-2-3 combination, which carries a house edge of 7.89%.

As long as there is a house edge even under optimal play, gamblers will ultimately lose money.

People must be thinking something other than what I am trying to get across, I know for a fact that what I have stated is dead on accurate. I have already stated this gets affected by caps and pay out odds, however; that doesn't change the odds of winning...just the likelihood of covering your bets with the win.

You like many I feel are simply turning to google and websites and pulling out a quick answer.

How about providing some evidence that you're right? You bash people for "turning to Google" yet we are supposed to accept that you're right based on faith.

Do you agree that dice rolls are independent events?

I honestly think some people on here like arguing for the sake of arguing just to get some entertainment out of watching everyone come in and argue back.

It was the same with the 0.9999..... = 1 thread - I can't believe some of those people would continue to argue against it for pages and pages after being presented with numerous proofs.

The only thing I can figure is they like to keep the argument going for the entertainment value.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Firebot

Originally posted by: spidey07
Dr Pizza, the trick is to find a table that is hot and not play or not bet very much when it's cold.

And there are people who make their living by playing the ponies and absolutely would not reveal their strategy.

There is as much trick to gambling and finding 'hot' tables as believing in daily newspaper horoscopes.

You can't also seriously be comparing games of pure random chance like roulette, and ponies / sports betting. While the odds are stacked against you, horse racing is a competitive sport and not at all random. Some horses are physically better racers then others. Of course you need to be extremely good at studying the sport and all the factors which may come into play, to be able to outplay the house odds on a consistant basis.

Find me a player who makes his 'living' playing roulette, and I'll show you a guy who probably has a permanent comp hotel room and meals given to him by the casino.

Well, I'll just keep doing what I do then. You're correct of course that ponies and table games are completely different, I was just trying to point out there are strategies to gambling. What I have works for me. And my taxes show it consistently over the last 6 or so years.

Regardless of your individual results, it is impossible to make a profit over a significant number of trials at either roulette or craps.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF?!?...I have posted probably 6 times above that the probablity for any Xth roll is 1/6, that is an independant event.

The odds of getting a 6 in 100 rolls is near 100%, the odds of getting a 6 on roll #25 is 1/6.

The odds to get a 6 on any ONE roll is 1/6. The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls is not 1/6.

I think you are a confused person, because you are claiming different things.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Just curious, but when you gamble, what games do you play? Do you choose them on the basis of pure fun or best odds or some combination?

I play a lot of slots because that's mostly what I work on. In terms of best odds, it's almost always the best bet not to play. There are some exceptions of course, but doing well at those games is a lot of work.

Well, I knew the bolded part, but if I was really smart I wouldn't go to Vegas or gamble in the first place and then I wouldn't be asking.

I stick to blackjack for the most part, and count cards, but inevitably get liquored up and do a poor job of it after a while. Vegas loves people who count cards but aren't good at it.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Firebot

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF?!?...I have posted probably 6 times above that the probablity for any Xth roll is 1/6, that is an independant event.

The odds of getting a 6 in 100 rolls is near 100%, the odds of getting a 6 on roll #25 is 1/6.

Show how knowing either of those (both are true), ends up in you making money in a consistent way where you overcome the house edge.

show where money affects probability.

Go back and read everything...we have all already hashed out all your points.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Firebot

Originally posted by: alkemyst
What do I know?

The funny thing is, your link actually disproved your theory.

I think you suffer reading comprehension problems then.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF?!?...I have posted probably 6 times above that the probablity for any Xth roll is 1/6, that is an independant event.

The odds of getting a 6 in 100 rolls is near 100%, the odds of getting a 6 on roll #25 is 1/6.

The odds to get a 6 on any ONE roll is 1/6. The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls is not 1/6.

I think you are a confused person, because you are claiming different things.

I am not confused at all. Probabilities change for different scenarios.

for any single roll whether in a series or not you have 1/6 chance of getting a result. If you take that series as a whole the odds change for getting a 6, but that doesn't mean you know exactly on what roll you will get it and unless the odds are 100% you still may not get it.

The florida lottery is 22MM:1 odds...if you bought 21,999,999 combinations you'd still have a possibility to lose no matter how unlikely that is.

I am willing to bet maybe 2 other people in this thread have taken any math course that could give you the understanding of these concepts.

A ton of probability doesn't work like the layman would think it does.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF?!?...I have posted probably 6 times above that the probablity for any Xth roll is 1/6, that is an independant event.

The odds of getting a 6 in 100 rolls is near 100%, the odds of getting a 6 on roll #25 is 1/6.

The odds to get a 6 on any ONE roll is 1/6. The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls is not 1/6.

I think you are a confused person, because you are claiming different things.

I am not confused at all. Probabilities change for different scenarios.

for any single roll whether in a series or not you have 1/6 chance of getting a result. If you take that series as a whole the odds change for getting a 6, but that doesn't mean you know exactly on what roll you will get it and unless the odds are 100% you still may not get it.

The florida lottery is 22MM:1 odds...if you bought 21,999,999 combinations you'd still have a possibility to lose no matter how unlikely that is.

I am willing to bet maybe 2 other people in this thread have taken any math course that could give you the understanding of these concepts.

A ton of probability doesn't work like the layman would think it does.

Here's a new tactic since math is a nice equalizer.

You said...
The odds to get a 6 on any ONE roll is 1/6. The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls is not 1/6.

What is the probability then? We can work from there to figure out what you're really trying to say. You can assume "a series of rolls" = 99 rolls.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

What is the probability then? We can work from there to figure out what you're really trying to say. You can assume "a series of rolls" = 99 rolls.

AGAIN FOR THE RETARDED KID: I will also assume we are talking the same 6 sided die,
The odds of getting a 6 in 99 rolls is: 1-(5/6)^99 or 99.999998551039183310360007916863%

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Firebot

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF?!?...I have posted probably 6 times above that the probablity for any Xth roll is 1/6, that is an independant event.

The odds of getting a 6 in 100 rolls is near 100%, the odds of getting a 6 on roll #25 is 1/6.

Show how knowing either of those (both are true), ends up in you making money in a consistent way where you overcome the house edge.

show where money affects probability.

Go back and read everything...we have all already hashed out all your points.

You're kidding right? You are doing this to win money aren't you? You don't win anything for knowing the odds of getting a 6 in 100 rolls is near 100%. You aren't getting paid to play those odds. Is has everything to do with money, since how else do you get paid on probability? The simple fact is that if you are getting paid 5:1 to hit a 6:1 shot, you are not gonna come out ahead in the long run. In roulette, all bets but one have a house edge of 1/19, the other being even worse. No strategy in the world can circumvent simple math probability and make it profitable for you, against a house which has profitability built it for itself on probability. Casinos are in it to make money, and obviously they are gonna set the games so that no matter what, the odds are in their favour to come out ahead.

Why is this simple concept so hard to understand?

And who is we? You are the only one debating against the basic math of probability.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: alkemyst
WTF?!?...I have posted probably 6 times above that the probablity for any Xth roll is 1/6, that is an independant event.

The odds of getting a 6 in 100 rolls is near 100%, the odds of getting a 6 on roll #25 is 1/6.

The odds to get a 6 on any ONE roll is 1/6. The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls is not 1/6.

I think you are a confused person, because you are claiming different things.

I am not confused at all. Probabilities change for different scenarios.

for any single roll whether in a series or not you have 1/6 chance of getting a result. If you take that series as a whole the odds change for getting a 6, but that doesn't mean you know exactly on what roll you will get it and unless the odds are 100% you still may not get it.

The florida lottery is 22MM:1 odds...if you bought 21,999,999 combinations you'd still have a possibility to lose no matter how unlikely that is.

I am willing to bet maybe 2 other people in this thread have taken any math course that could give you the understanding of these concepts.

A ton of probability doesn't work like the layman would think it does.

LOL I have taken courses in probability - thanks for "teaching" me about lottery tickets :laugh:

You completely ignored what I wrote - your two statements are contradictory.

The top statement is correct, that each roll has a probability of 1/6 for hitting a 6.

Your bottom statement claims that your odds of rolling a particular number increases because it has been a while since your rolled one.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

What is the probability then? We can work from there to figure out what you're really trying to say. You can assume "a series of rolls" = 99 rolls.

AGAIN FOR THE RETARDED KID: I will also assume we are talking the same 6 sided die,
The odds of getting a 6 in 99 rolls is: 1-(5/6)^99 or 99.999998551039183310360007916863%

You still haven't explained how knowing that = a magical loophole in beating the house and making money.