Roulette Theory

[Special K]

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%

Once again though, your math is not answering the question of:

What is the probability of rolling a 6 on the 99th roll, given that the 98 previous rolls were not sixes?



Are you familiar with conditional probabilities?

Once again, here is the step by step answer to the above question:

Let A = probability of getting a 6 on roll 100
Let B = probability of not getting a 6 on rolls 1-99

Now P(A|B) = P(AB)/P(B)

P(AB) = (5/6)^98*(1/6)^1
P(B) = (5/6)^98

Therefore, P(A|B) = 1/6

The math you just posted is not answering the same question as what you posted here:

"The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls is not 1/6. "

The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls IS 1/6, and I just proved it above for the 3rd time in this thread.

asking

"What is the probability of rolling at least 1 six in 99 rolls"

is not the same question as:

"What is the probability of rolling a 6 on the 99th roll, given that the previous 98 rolls were not sixes"

The first question can be solved using simple probability. The second is asking a different question, and is solved using conditional probabilities.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
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. .

The formula still remains 1 - (5/6)^n no matter how many rolls you add, yet the formula on which you, yourself get paid is getting a 6 on one roll, a 1 in 6 chance of hitting. You can be on your 101st roll, your 150th roll. Yes, the more rolls you take, the more likely you are to hit a 6 due to probability over those n rolls. However the fact remains, that each individual roll is still 1/6. You are just as likely to hit a 1 as you are to hit a 6 on the 101st roll. You can have been sitting at the table for all previous rolls, and another person just joined in, the odds still remain exactly the same for the current roll.

You still put money on each of those individual rolls, and your odds of winning is still 1/6.

The fact that you will have a better chance to get a 6 over a series of rolls get does not in anyway help you get more money, since all rolls are still independant of each other, and each bet is for one roll.

I hope you realize at one point just how messed up your logic has been, and why casinos exist in the first place. They exist purely on the fact that people think they can somehow beat a mathematically set system meant for you to lose.

 

[Tylanner]

jesus christ does this need to be moved to the Highly Technical forum so you can all be ripped apart?

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Special K
I was not talking about the probability of getting one six in X rolls. I was talking about the probability of getting a six on roll 101, given that the previous 100 rolls were not sixes. This probability is 1/6. Each roll of the die is an independent event.

And to say I don't understand probability:

Let A = probability of getting a 6 on roll 101
Let B = probability of not getting a 6 on rolls 1-100

Now P(A|B) = P(AB)/P(B)

P(AB) = (5/6)^100*(1/6)^1
P(B) = (5/6)^100

Therefore, P(A|B) = 1/6

To answer your other question - the rolling of exactly one six in 100 rolls is a binomial random variable with n = 100 and p = 1/6. Let X = number of sixes rolled. Now:

P(X = 1) = nCr(100,1)*(1/6)^1*(5/6)^99, which is approximately 0, as you said

I am not sure what about my reasoning is incorrect.

That wasn't your statement though...

You stated 6 has not come up in 100 rolls and it would be wrong that it'd be more likely to roll one in the future.

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

The formula you'd want is 1 - (N-1/N)^R N= number of sides, R=number of rolls.

At roll 101 you'd be at over nine 9's probability.

On your second way of presenting the problem (after 100 rolls, what is the chance of getting a 6 on roll 101...then I believe that would be a simple 1/6 like rolling from scratch. There is no need to consider the previous 100 rolls. Odds in gambling don't work like that though. They work like you originally presented.

I am not sure how the odds work on guaranteeing only one roll of 6 comes up or that out of 100 rolls the chance of a 6 being hit on roll X....but those can be computed.

A lot of this is why statistics / gambling odds give people the wrong sense of their real chances.

This is why bet caps are usually placed, otherwise you just keep raising your bet each time to cover your previous losses and ensure a profit (given an unlimited wallet in theory)...you'd have to be extremely unlucky not to win.

This doesn't work for fixed prizes only ones that always score a payout higher than the bet amount.

I guess it depends on how you want to view the events. If you consider each die roll separately, then the outcome of the previous rolls have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the next one. This is the situation I meant to describe.

On the other hand, if you take a fixed number of rolls, you can compute the probability of not rolling a six in any of them, and your formula was correct.

I guess we were just referring to different scenarios, although now I am confused - let's say a gambler wins if he rolls a 6, and loses otherwise. So he keeps rolling the die, hoping to get a 6. Let's say the first 20 rolls are not 6's. If we look at it the way I broke it down, then his probability of rolling a 6 on the 21st roll is 1/6, because each roll is independent. On the other hand, if we ask "what is the probability of not rolling any sixes in 21 rolls", the answer is (5/6)^21, or 0.0217.

Would anyone else like to comment?

You are right, alkemyst is wrong. Each event is independent. It's not like blackjack where a lot of low cards are gone so you can count and base probabilities on that.

I don't care if the 1st 99 flips of a coin are heads it doesn't mean tails is any more likely to come up if I am betting on flip 100.

 

[Legendary]

Originally posted by: Special K
The math you just posted is not answering the same question as what you posted here:

"The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls is not 1/6. "

The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls IS 1/6, and I just proved it above for the 3rd time in this thread.

asking

"What is the probability of rolling 1 six in 99 rolls" alkemyst

is not the same question as:

"What is the probability of rolling a 6 on the 99th roll, given that the previous 98 rolls were not sixes" many others

The first question can be solved using simple probability. The second is asking a different question, and is solved using conditional probabilities.

Ding ding ding!
So many pages explained in so few words...well done.

Edit: Alkemyst's hypothetical would never be a casino game

 

[silverpig]

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.

If you understand this, then why did you post this:

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Special K
It may have worked for you, but I'm saying if you analyzed the probabilities associated with your strategy, I doubt the expected value of the winnings would be in your favor.

It sounds like another case of the gambler's fallacy to me - i.e. let's say you roll a dice 100 times and never roll a single 6. The gambler's fallacy would say "I haven't rolled a 6 in 100 rolls! That means I'm more likely to roll one in the future!"

I am not thinking you understand the way odds and probablities work.

Buddy rolled 100 times and got no six. He now says "I'm more likely to get a 6 in the future now." Other guy comes and says "You're wrong. Your probability is still 1/6." You come and say to that guy "No, you don't know what you're talking about."

 

[TuxDave]

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%

It's pretty clear to me that you fail at the English language

"The odds of getting a 6 when one has not occured in a series of rolls is not 1/6"

Let me break it down for the retard.
"The odds of getting a 6..."
Is the next random event that has not occured yet that you need to calculate the probability for. Essentially on your next throw, the probability of it being a 6.

"... when one has not occured in a series of rolls"
Is the past event that has just occured and is given as information for the problem.

That question is NOT the same as "What's the odd of getting a 6 in 99 rolls?". Go back to school, learn to read and write.

And honestly, if you insist that the answer is not 1/6th, I'm not going to try to convince you anymore. It's very obvious that you are misinformed and I really don't care enough about you to teach you.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: 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.

I think you're the failure here:

>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

 

[Jack Ryan]

The probability doesn't change, alkemyst, but the "law of large numbers" is probably what you are thinking about.

 

[KnickNut3]

lolmartingaleaments!

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Special K
I was not talking about the probability of getting one six in X rolls. I was talking about the probability of getting a six on roll 101, given that the previous 100 rolls were not sixes. This probability is 1/6. Each roll of the die is an independent event.

And to say I don't understand probability:

Let A = probability of getting a 6 on roll 101
Let B = probability of not getting a 6 on rolls 1-100

Now P(A|B) = P(AB)/P(B)

P(AB) = (5/6)^100*(1/6)^1
P(B) = (5/6)^100

Therefore, P(A|B) = 1/6

To answer your other question - the rolling of exactly one six in 100 rolls is a binomial random variable with n = 100 and p = 1/6. Let X = number of sixes rolled. Now:

P(X = 1) = nCr(100,1)*(1/6)^1*(5/6)^99, which is approximately 0, as you said

I am not sure what about my reasoning is incorrect.

That wasn't your statement though...

You stated 6 has not come up in 100 rolls and it would be wrong that it'd be more likely to roll one in the future.

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

The formula you'd want is 1 - (N-1/N)^R N= number of sides, R=number of rolls.

At roll 101 you'd be at over nine 9's probability.

On your second way of presenting the problem (after 100 rolls, what is the chance of getting a 6 on roll 101...then I believe that would be a simple 1/6 like rolling from scratch. There is no need to consider the previous 100 rolls. Odds in gambling don't work like that though. They work like you originally presented.

I am not sure how the odds work on guaranteeing only one roll of 6 comes up or that out of 100 rolls the chance of a 6 being hit on roll X....but those can be computed.

A lot of this is why statistics / gambling odds give people the wrong sense of their real chances.

This is why bet caps are usually placed, otherwise you just keep raising your bet each time to cover your previous losses and ensure a profit (given an unlimited wallet in theory)...you'd have to be extremely unlucky not to win.

This doesn't work for fixed prizes only ones that always score a payout higher than the bet amount.

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??

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
The probability doesn't change, alkemyst, but the "law of large numbers" is probably what you are thinking about.

He probably is thinking about it, but the Law of Large Numbers doesn't promise anything about a particular roll/flip/etc. - it only states that the variance of the observed mean from the expected mean will decrease as the number of experiments increase.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Kev]

Please stop feeding the troll.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 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.

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.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 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.

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.

post your tax info (w/o personal data, of course).

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 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.

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.

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.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 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.

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.

People have won the lottery twice, and hit by lightning twice despite the incredible odds. Just because you are consistently beating the probability of losing set by the casino, doesn't mean that probability still don't exist. You are playing against a mathematically set system meant for you to lose in the long run, and sooner or later those numbers will catch up to you. The likelihood of you to keep on winning is heavily stacked against you.

There's no problem with going in to the casino to gamble and hope to get a little lucky and win. Realize though that there is no system in the world which makes you beat the mathematical house edge put in the games by a casino, and any such system only works in your head. Like I said, I could have a lucky pet rock and win when I'm holding it, but I'd be foolish to think that it has any impact at all on my chance of winning and expected return.

 

[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.

 

[Firebot]

The way that 'professional' blackjack players are making money is by getting comps from the casino. The house has the edge in blackjack, however it's one of the smallest edges in a casino game when playing optimal blackjack. It's a huge grindfest though, and people who are doing it have to put in a ton of hours. In the long run, the players are losing money on the blackjack, but they are getting free hotel rooms, meals and drinks, and other freebies which make them go on top. Blackjack is one of the only games where playing for comps profitably can be done.

This is of course, aside from card counting. Not only is it rather difficult to use it and get an edge with the 6-8 deck, but you will be booted long before you will get much out of it.

 

[Ns1]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 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.

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.

Hey brainiac, someone already mentioned how betting on horses isn't the same as betting on dice rolls.