Roulette Theory

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

So how many trials is it going to take for me then?

Wish me luck, I'm off to win more money at the track. If all goes well I'll go to the casino in the evening and increase my winnings even more.

Actually it takes quite a lot. How many wagers have you placed on a roulette table in your lifetime? On your typical game, the 90% confidence interval on 10,000 wagers is approximately plus or minus 10% return. The house edge on roulette is 7.89%. So approximately 1 in 20 people will be beating the house edge in roulette after they've made 10,000 wagers at the table.

That confidence interval shrinks the more games get played. The longer you play, the more likely you are to have converged close to the average. A casual player will never play enough games such that their confidence interval shrinks to a narrow range. The casino on the other hand will have an order of magnitude more games played than a patron. Their confidence interval is fairly narrow.

Some people are statistical outliers, and you claim to be one of them. Good for you. You think it's because of a system or because you "feel" the game. I think it's because of mathematics. Keep in mind that every game is an independent event and that past performance has no bearing on future games.

I assure you this "feeling" is all in your head.

:thumbsup:

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

So how many trials is it going to take for me then?

Wish me luck, I'm off to win more money at the track. If all goes well I'll go to the casino in the evening and increase my winnings even more.

Actually it takes quite a lot. How many wagers have you placed on a roulette table in your lifetime? On your typical game, the 90% confidence interval on 10,000 wagers is approximately plus or minus 10% return. The house edge on roulette is 7.89%. So approximately 1 in 20 people will be beating the house edge in roulette after they've made 10,000 wagers at the table.

That confidence interval shrinks the more games get played. The longer you play, the more likely you are to have converged close to the average. A casual player will never play enough games such that their confidence interval shrinks to a narrow range. The casino on the other hand will have an order of magnitude more games played than a patron. Their confidence interval is fairly narrow.

Some people are statistical outliers, and you claim to be one of them. Good for you. You think it's because of a system or because you "feel" the game. I think it's because of mathematics. Keep in mind that every game is an independent event and that past performance has no bearing on future games.

I assure you this "feeling" is all in your head.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: alkemyst
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.

I'm going to claim title as one of those two people. I'm sure ten other people in here could as well.

I also agree with one of the statements above. Either
1) You have a major misconception about how probability works.
or
2) You are communicating your ideas very poorly.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
You have, however, made me question something: just what the heck level of mathematics have you allegedly achieved??

I'm curious about the answer to this too, since you are calling the rest of us out. Do we all need to start listing our credentials before you'll believe us? I think mine are fairly impressive, personally.

I am not wrong on my post. Perhaps I worded it wrong or maybe people want to agree with the masses...I don't know.

My post is 1/6 is the odds of any single roll on a 6 sided die and 1-(5/6)^#Rolls is the probably on a sequence. This is fundamentally absurd to argue except here on ATOT it seems.

My math cred is algebra, trig, calc, matrix, discrete, queueing...nothing just was taken at only the Intro level. I have probably forgotten some as math was never a real major of mine just things that I picked up in college picking more challenging electives.

I communicate based on my time here. Those that truly know the subject should be able to understand it.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

No. The chance of rolling a six is always 1/6, no matter what you roll
before it, no matter what.

that's out of context but is true on any single dice roll....thanks.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Alkemyst, would you care to rephrase what you replied in this post - please? Two of my high school calculus students were reading this thread last night and laughing hysterically at you. I have to teach related rates in Calculus today and give them two nights worth of homework over a holiday weekend... I really need something to cheer them up when they hear about the homework load.

The odds of "only one roll of 6 comes up" is high school level mathematics. It's a simple Bernoulli probability (6 is a yes, anything other than 6 is a no.) They found it even funnier when you couldn't figure that out, but claimed that only 2 other people here have taken high enough level mathematics to understand what the heck you're babbling about. On the contrary - my high school students can compute these probabilities, You questioned what level of mathematics I taught... I teach up to Calculus II; I teach in a high school, so there's no opportunity for me to teach anything more advanced. (I give the students some exposure to other areas of math though - numerical analysis, differential equations, linear algebra, hopefully to foster some interest in those courses in college.) I majored in engineering for 3 1/2 years at the #1 school in the world in Ceramic engineering (at that time) - I then went on to major in mathematics (not education) at Univ of Pitt. I was ranked #1 in the junior class (but my ranking apparently fell, thanks to a B in art.) You have, however, made me question something: just what the heck level of mathematics have you allegedly achieved??

wow high school student laughing...great.

nice brag and moan.

My '2 other here' refered to this post not all ATOT.

Didn't know you can pick your ranking based on only the classes you want counted.

I did crap GPA wise...I was given interviews by GT, MIT for engineering and was accepted to pharmacy college prior to even earning my AA degree. I know why my life is what it is, why are you teaching HS math and living on a farm.

Please oh great mathematics dude explain how I was wrong in the post you quoted.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

>Secondly, my friend says that if you roll several low numbers first, your
>chances are then better of getting a high roll. While he admits that this
>makes no logical sense probability-wise, he swears that there has been
>research done to back it up. Ever hear of anything like this?

No. The chance of rolling a six is always 1/6, no matter what you roll
before it, no matter what.

-Dan "Dr. Math" Eisenbud

that's out of context but is true on any single dice roll....thanks.

Fixed your post for you because that is not a quotation from me but is a quotation of Dan from the forum link.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Alkemyst, would you care to rephrase what you replied in this post - please? Two of my high school calculus students were reading this thread last night and laughing hysterically at you. I have to teach related rates in Calculus today and give them two nights worth of homework over a holiday weekend... I really need something to cheer them up when they hear about the homework load.

The odds of "only one roll of 6 comes up" is high school level mathematics. It's a simple Bernoulli probability (6 is a yes, anything other than 6 is a no.) They found it even funnier when you couldn't figure that out, but claimed that only 2 other people here have taken high enough level mathematics to understand what the heck you're babbling about. On the contrary - my high school students can compute these probabilities, You questioned what level of mathematics I taught... I teach up to Calculus II; I teach in a high school, so there's no opportunity for me to teach anything more advanced. (I give the students some exposure to other areas of math though - numerical analysis, differential equations, linear algebra, hopefully to foster some interest in those courses in college.) I majored in engineering for 3 1/2 years at the #1 school in the world in Ceramic engineering (at that time) - I then went on to major in mathematics (not education) at Univ of Pitt. I was ranked #1 in the junior class (but my ranking apparently fell, thanks to a B in art.) You have, however, made me question something: just what the heck level of mathematics have you allegedly achieved??

wow high school student laughing...great.

nice brag and moan.

My '2 other here' refered to this post not all ATOT.

Didn't know you can pick your ranking based on only the classes you want counted.

I did crap GPA wise...I was given interviews by GT, MIT for engineering and was accepted to pharmacy college prior to even earning my AA degree. I know why my life is what it is, why are you teaching HS math and living on a farm.

Please oh great mathematics dude explain how I was wrong in the post you quoted.

Round 17, FIGHT!

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I communicate based on my time here. Those that truly know the subject should be able to understand it.

I truly know the subject. I'm a "professional" in the field of gaming mathematics. I, along with many others, didn't understand what you said evidently. Perhaps the problem isn't with us?

I interpreted this:

"for every x rolls your chances of getting a '6' improve if it has not happened yet."

as:

If you roll a dice 100 times you have a very high probability of rolling a 6 during that sequence. If you get part way into the sequence and you have yet to see a 6, then you have a greater probability of getting a 6 on subsequent rolls.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I communicate based on my time here. Those that truly know the subject should be able to understand it.

I truly know the subject. I'm a "professional" in the field of gaming mathematics. I, along with many others, didn't understand what you said evidently. Perhaps the problem isn't with us?

I interpreted this:

"for every x rolls your chances of getting a '6' improve if it has not happened yet."

as:

If you roll a dice 100 times you have a very high probability of rolling a 6 during that sequence. If you get part way into the sequence and you have yet to see a 6, then you have a greater probability of getting a 6 on subsequent rolls.

Yeah I would surmise that's what everybody else on ATOT thought too, but not Alk's intent

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

>Secondly, my friend says that if you roll several low numbers first, your
>chances are then better of getting a high roll. While he admits that this
>makes no logical sense probability-wise, he swears that there has been
>research done to back it up. Ever hear of anything like this?

No. The chance of rolling a six is always 1/6, no matter what you roll
before it, no matter what.

-Dan "Dr. Math" Eisenbud

that's out of context but is true on any single dice roll....thanks.

Fixed your post for you because that is not a quotation from me but is a quotation of Dan from the forum link.

that was your intention of the post though...below that quote also showed the odds on the sequence. I was repeating what you tried to do to me.

Thanks for validating it.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

>Secondly, my friend says that if you roll several low numbers first, your
>chances are then better of getting a high roll. While he admits that this
>makes no logical sense probability-wise, he swears that there has been
>research done to back it up. Ever hear of anything like this?

No. The chance of rolling a six is always 1/6, no matter what you roll
before it, no matter what.

-Dan "Dr. Math" Eisenbud

that's out of context but is true on any single dice roll....thanks.

Fixed your post for you because that is not a quotation from me but is a quotation of Dan from the forum link.

that was your intention of the post though...below that quote also showed the odds on the sequence. I was repeating what you tried to do to me.

Thanks for validating it.

Pardon the obvious, but wouldn't craps be considered an independent event and not a series of events? Or is this the point of contention here.

 

[alkemyst]

I am going to push this aside. It's obvious my posts have gotten the hungry bottom feeders on my ass as well as other's that just want to believe I must not know crap.

I think I lost the true mathematicians in my laziness on forum posts at times and I apologize.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Pardon the obvious, but wouldn't craps be considered an independent event and not a series of events? Or is this the point of contention here.

last post since you posted at the same time.

This post is not about craps

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Pardon the obvious, but wouldn't craps be considered an independent event and not a series of events? Or is this the point of contention here.

last post since you posted at the same time.

This post is not about craps

In that case sequence wouldn't matter since die rolls are independent?

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

>Secondly, my friend says that if you roll several low numbers first, your
>chances are then better of getting a high roll. While he admits that this
>makes no logical sense probability-wise, he swears that there has been
>research done to back it up. Ever hear of anything like this?

No. The chance of rolling a six is always 1/6, no matter what you roll
before it, no matter what.

-Dan "Dr. Math" Eisenbud

that's out of context but is true on any single dice roll....thanks.

Fixed your post for you because that is not a quotation from me but is a quotation of Dan from the forum link.

that was your intention of the post though...below that quote also showed the odds on the sequence. I was repeating what you tried to do to me.

Thanks for validating it.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: alkemyst
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.

I'm going to claim title as one of those two people. I'm sure ten other people in here could as well.

I also agree with one of the statements above. Either
1) You have a major misconception about how probability works.
or
2) You are communicating your ideas very poorly.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
You have, however, made me question something: just what the heck level of mathematics have you allegedly achieved??

I'm curious about the answer to this too, since you are calling the rest of us out. Do we all need to start listing our credentials before you'll believe us? I think mine are fairly impressive, personally.

I am not wrong on my post. Perhaps I worded it wrong or maybe people want to agree with the masses...I don't know.

My post is 1/6 is the odds of any single roll on a 6 sided die and 1-(5/6)^#Rolls is the probably on a sequence. This is fundamentally absurd to argue except here on ATOT it seems.

My math cred is algebra, trig, calc, matrix, discrete, queueing...nothing just was taken at only the Intro level. I have probably forgotten some as math was never a real major of mine just things that I picked up in college picking more challenging electives.

I communicate based on my time here. Those that truly know the subject should be able to understand it.

Well then I guess you suck at communicating, because several posters here have shown how you have made a lot of conflicting statements on the issue at hand.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

So how many trials is it going to take for me then?

Wish me luck, I'm off to win more money at the track. If all goes well I'll go to the casino in the evening and increase my winnings even more.

Actually it takes quite a lot. How many wagers have you placed on a roulette table in your lifetime? On your typical game, the 90% confidence interval on 10,000 wagers is approximately plus or minus 10% return. The house edge on roulette is 7.89%. So approximately 1 in 20 people will be beating the house edge in roulette after they've made 10,000 wagers at the table.

That confidence interval shrinks the more games get played. The longer you play, the more likely you are to have converged close to the average. A casual player will never play enough games such that their confidence interval shrinks to a narrow range. The casino on the other hand will have an order of magnitude more games played than a patron. Their confidence interval is fairly narrow.

Some people are statistical outliers, and you claim to be one of them. Good for you. You think it's because of a system or because you "feel" the game. I think it's because of mathematics. Keep in mind that every game is an independent event and that past performance has no bearing on future games.

I assure you this "feeling" is all in your head.

:thumbsup:

Yes, yes, I know. Statistically my approach doesn't make sense. But I'll still do it and I'll still make money from a profit/loss perspective. Of course the feeling is all in my head, that's where feelings come from.

Wish me luck tomorrow, I will most likely come out ahead.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

wow high school student laughing...great.

nice brag and moan.

My '2 other here' refered to this post not all ATOT.

Didn't know you can pick your ranking based on only the classes you want counted.

I did crap GPA wise...I was given interviews by GT, MIT for engineering and was accepted to pharmacy college prior to even earning my AA degree. I know why my life is what it is, why are you teaching HS math and living on a farm.

Please oh great mathematics dude explain how I was wrong in the post you quoted.

Geez, you seem to want me to respond to so much... my college junior ranking wasn't based only on classes I wanted counted. I was ranked #1 of the entire junior class - from engineering students to English majors. Art class killed me.

Why am I teaching HS math and living on a farm? Maybe because I love teaching? I love my job? Seems like pretty good reasons to me, not to mention a nice pension plan plus summers off (although I often take college courses - I'm looking at a physics course at Cornell for next summer - it's nice to have the time for such opportunities.) I also not only teach "high school math" but also teach college level math (Calc I and II) as an adjunct professor. Additionally, the head of the math department at one of the local colleges seemed interested in getting me to teach there part time - I'm not really interested in pursuing that at this time though.

The farm is suited perfectly to my family. My younger son comes home from school, hops on his 2008 Yamaha 250F, and goes riding on his own track. My older son comes home from school, and is able to grab one of the guns and walk out the back door to go hunting for grouse, pheasant, deer, turkey, etc. (He seems bored of his KZ350 or whatever the heck that green thing is.) My wife and I enjoy access to the several thousand acres of state forest that are adjacent to our land (as well as enjoying our land) which provide us with plentiful opportunities for hiking, cross-country skiing (special cross country ski trails), kayaking, fishing, hunting, etc. Snowmobile trails cross within 50 yards of our property; one of these days on a whim we'll probably get a pair of snowmobiles so we can do that during the winter as well. The farm provides a nice "hobby" income (we take it a little more seriously than a simple hobby, although we could get away with about 20 minutes of work a day on most days) not to mention numerous tax write-offs and fresh food that we can be certain isn't full of artificial hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, etc.

While we lack the convenience of having a best-buy, staples, 3 malls, uncountable strip malls, etc., all within a mile of our house, we also benefit by an exceptional quality of living. I can't remember how long it's been since I heard someone else's car stereo, except on occasions I was in someone else's car. The state police & local police investigate crimes such as someone putting super-glue in the locks to a building - why? Because they don't have anything more major to bother with. Not ironically, over the next 2 miles on our side of the road there are several seasonal camps. The camps are all owned by "city people" who relish the opportunity to get away from the noise and bustle of Buffalo and Rochester. They come here as often as they can because they love the peace and quiet. Do people go to your neighborhood to have a nice vacation? Or do people prefer to leave your neighborhood when they need a vacation?

Now for the last part - explain how you were wrong??? Allow me to recap:
First, Special K described the gambler's fallacy (by name)
You responded that Special K doesn't understand the way odds and probabilities work.
Neurosynapsis, DBL, and TuxDave defended Special K's post as being correct, followed by jman19 claiming "self ownage."
Your response at that point to jman was that "I know I am very right here." And, there really wasn't a problem with that post. It appeared at that point that you actually did know what you were talking about and merely misinterpreted Special K's post.

Later, and again in response to Special K, your post was very ambiguous - the meaning could be taken two different ways. However, within that post, you quoted Special K - Special K calculated in that quote to find the probability of exactly one 6 in 100 rolls. You: "I am not sure how the odds work on guaranteeing only one roll of 6 comes up..." - at which point two high school students reading over my shoulder were laughing at you because A.) You quoted how to do it - the answer was in front of you. And, B.) it really is something we teach in high school. Regardless, Special K was correct again.

Shortly after, you stated "In reality your odds get better each time. This question is fundamentally flawed as only in theory would you ever see someone NOT get at least one 6 in 100 rolls of a 6-sided die assuming no trickery is involved. " No, the odds do NOT get better each time. That's what we've all been saying. Also, your "only in theory" claim is also invalid. The odds of 100 rolls without a 6 are about 1 in 82.8 million. It's like saying "only in theory" can someone win the lottery, because the odds are so high for it happening.

then

The odds of getting a 6 in 101 rolls improves each time that the event does not happen. FALSE
The odds of rolling a 6 on the 101st roll is a separate condition. TRUE (finally)
However; in gambling you are betting on occurances over trials...each event is not independent at all. Each event IS independent, you've said so yourself.
I don't think anyone here is understanding how the math really works in these situations based on the absurd statements made. Actually, I don't think anyone in here understands what you're trying to say - and the blame doesn't lie with us
It's all totally provable in usage and this is where the casinos figure out at what level to cap a game or to add another variable to offset the odds.
So the question that 'does your odds improve after 100 rolls of not getting a 6 of getting one if you keep rolling' is yes, WRONG AGAIN however; the odds of getting it on a certain # roll are a not improved. wtf, make up your mind

It almost seems that you're trying to say that if you keep rolling and rolling, you're bound to get a 6 sooner or later. No fucking shit. However, the odds never change. It's always 1/6 for each trial (and you agree with this). The odds of getting a 6 during the next 2 trials are exactly the same as they were before. The odds of getting a 6 during the next 20 trials are the same as they were during the first 20 trials. So, what the heck do you mean by "odds improve"?!!

Then

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.

Again, it's slightly ambiguous. But, the odds never change! Again, it almost seems that you're saying "keep rolling, eventually you'll get a 6. If you haven't gotten a 6 yet, keep rolling."

However, DBL stated that your odds of not rolling a 6 in 101 rolls are: (estimate.) And, if you've managed to get to the 101st roll without a 6, then the odds of not rolling a 6 during the next 101 rolls are exactly the same as they were during the first 101 rolls. You disagreed with him and stated that it's one cycle of 202 rolls. Sorry, but this is the one case where there's no ambiguity. You're wrong. The probability of not getting a 6 in 202 rolls is NOT the same as not getting a 6 during rolls 102 to 202 *given* that rolls 1 to 101 did not result in a 6. You don't improve your chances of winning by sticking with "6". If you suddenly switch to betting on 2 at that point, your chances are exactly the same as if you stayed with 6. If you switched to betting on 1 at that point, your chances are exactly the same as if you stayed with 6. If you decided to use the pattern 1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,... over the next 12 or more rolls, your probability of eventually winning is exactly the same. It doesn't matter what you bet on - your odds of eventually winning stay the same.

You could roll your own little die, and always bet on whatever number your die showed... over the next 100 rolls, or next 500 rolls, all of the probabilities (individual rolls, groups of rolls, etc.) are exactly the same as if you picked 6 every one of those 600 rolls.

To your credit though, Alkemyst, I've figured out what you think you're saying. And, I think that you *do* have it correct in your head, mostly. However, man, you really need to work on reading what you've written before clicking "reply" - you frequently don't type what you mean, and it's what led to everyone attacking your posts.

But, essentially, what you're even attempting to say isn't quite correct, simply because you are linking the probabilities to continuing to bet on 6. The essential point which you apparently want to make is this: no matter how many rolls in a row you lose on, eventually, you're going to win a roll. No fucking shit.

 

[UncleWai]

HAHAH forgive alkemyst, he didn't go to clown college to study math.

 

[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.

 

[her209]

Can I just say something in this thread?

THIS IS THE BIGGEST NERD FIGHT I'VE EVA SEEN!

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: thepd7
You'll just have to take my word for it, obviously there is no arguing with you.

Dude you try to argue with everyone. The reason you have a problem understanding is you have got to be one of the least knowledgable people on the forums yet love to throw crap into a debate then wonder why no one is paying attention to you. Stick the the topics you know about.

Google seems to suit you well though.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: DBL
Because you complicate things with your own confusion and contradictory statements, I have listed most (I'm sure there are more) of your statements that are flat wrong.

I present exhibit A.

Originally posted by: alkemyst
[*]The big breakdown in these systems comes from discipline and second guessing the mechanism. All it takes is a little variance and you now ruined your odds.
[*]Playing by feel usually wins out and screws up any math involved. It's the 'heat' that gets people throwing money at the table without a real hand....much like ebay when people bid up a $50 item new to $100 used.
[*]The odds of getting a 6 in 101 rolls improves each time that the event does not happen.
[*]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.
[*]The latter is how you gamble to 'beat the odds'...however as stated they get you by capping the bets.
[*]The Gambler's Fallacy also does not apply to all gambling situtations and none where proof via probablity works.

quoted again for hilarity

Many think the truth is hilarious...doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TuxDave

>Secondly, my friend says that if you roll several low numbers first, your
>chances are then better of getting a high roll. While he admits that this
>makes no logical sense probability-wise, he swears that there has been
>research done to back it up. Ever hear of anything like this?

No. The chance of rolling a six is always 1/6, no matter what you roll
before it, no matter what.

-Dan "Dr. Math" Eisenbud

that's out of context but is true on any single dice roll....thanks.

Fixed your post for you because that is not a quotation from me but is a quotation of Dan from the forum link.

that was your intention of the post though...below that quote also showed the odds on the sequence. I was repeating what you tried to do to me.

Thanks for validating it.

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

 

[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.

 

[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.