Playing roulette to earn a living...

[hey]

^ this poster does not understand infinity.

How is it wrong? You cannot lose infinitely many times in a row (if you can, you are a retard for playing an unwinnable game), so if you keep playing until you win, the only way to lose is to run out of money, hit a limit, get kicked out, or die before you win once.

It doesn't work because it is impossible to have an infinite amount of money, all tables have either a max bet, or they have an unreasonably high minimum bet.

The math is fine, the conditions required are impossible.

[Myrrh_Quetz]

I'm personally a fan of the 12s. First 12, second 12, third 12. Last time I played Roulette I won 1500 dollars in 30 mins playing the twelves and I started with 20 bucks. I'd have kept going but they changed the dealer on me and I lost 250 bucks. Said fuck it, and left after that.

[zoobernut]

Right answer, according to wiki. It's called the "Optional stopping theorem"



I should of just went to wiki in the first place and avoided some closed-minded spam forum users.

You quote a part of the wiki but you didn't even read the whole thing where they go into mathematical detail about why this is false, the martingale system doesn't work and even on an infinite bankroll will ultimately result in losses. Again you call us close-minded spam forum users when you completely ignore statistics/math/and everything else stated that is actually the right answer. You ask a question, answers were given and you ignore those answers in favor of what you want to hear, that sounds pretty close minded to me.

Edit: Not only that but the wiki focuses on the martingale system with respect to a coin toss which is a 50% chance on either side of the coin so the odds are very simple to calculate, which is completely thrown out the window when considering roulette because again you are ignoring the green 0 and 00 which despite what you think have a major effect on the odds of the game over an infinite amount of spins.

[Sta]

How is it wrong? You cannot lose infinitely many times in a row (if you can, you are a retard for playing an unwinnable game), so if you keep playing until you win, the only way to lose is to run out of money, hit a limit, get kicked out, or die before you win once.

It doesn't work because it is impossible to have an infinite amount of money, all tables have either a max bet, or they have an unreasonably high minimum bet.

The math is fine, the conditions required are impossible.

Yeah, wiki supports what you say.

In practice, the idealized version can only be approximated, for two reasons. Unlimited credit to finance possibly astronomical losses during long runs of tails is not available, and there is a limit to the number of coin tosses that can be performed in any finite period of time, precluding the possibility of playing long enough to observe very long runs of tails.

[TummieGaruda]

Or do what most people do:

Go in with a specific amount and bet on Red or Black. If you lose, you walk away, but if you win, you pocket your initial bet and play with the casinos money.

[aurik]

How is it wrong? You cannot lose infinitely many times in a row (if you can, you are a retard for playing an unwinnable game), so if you keep playing until you win, the only way to lose is to run out of money, hit a limit, get kicked out, or die before you win once.

It's perfectly mathematically possible to lose infinitely many times in a row.

[tyven]

oh no he di in't
(tyven and I are the only ones in this thread who frequent spam, and we barely had a hand in this conversation lol)

haters, etc.

@ OP Bet on MMA. seriously, become a fan, learn your fighters, make smart parlay bets. I have paid my last two months rent on the last two big cards.

[Kerberoz]

How the fuck can you be "closed-minded" about math?

Anyway, here's your answer: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamblin...in_at_roulette

[Ferion]

No it won't, all casino games have a payback percentage based on an infinite amount of bets and even on a scale of infinity you will win less than you bet. Auriks last post is correct.

You're right. I was thinking of a Markov Chain problem I had in one of my classes that I could have sworn was based off of roulette, but it had completely different probabilities than the actual game once I looked up the problem. Really was a facepalm moment.

[Thunder]

Or do what most people do:

Go in with a specific amount and bet on Red or Black. If you lose, you walk away, but if you win, you pocket your initial bet and play with the casinos money.

Then you lose that money and end up with what you came in with. Waste of time.

Go in with your life savings, bet black. If you lose you turn to a life of crime and hope for the best. If you win you're in for a (short) good time.

Whoever said playing the roulette once is the best "method/trick" is correct. Playing anything in a casino for a long period of time is destined to make you lose money; unless you somehow are able to figure out the result before hand(ie cheating) and bet large on that. Leaving afterwards of course.

[Sta]

Again you call us close-minded spam forum users when you completely ignore statistics/math/and everything else stated that is actually the right answer. You ask a question, answers were given and you ignore those answers in favor of what you want to hear, that sounds pretty close minded to me.

"us"? I actually said "some". There where 2 users that where giving short, snappy answers that only related to the topic through argument (much like spam users do, go check it out). Also, I didn't ignore the statistics or math since I read the page on wiki and I gathered my answer that it would be a loss if you had an eternal lifetime and an infinite bankroll. Also, someone told me to go learn basic math. If what i read on wiki is basic, i needed to be educated in the US, maybe you people learned all these equations in detail in grade school, i didn't. =/

anyways, my first post on BG this year turned out to be a complete flop. Thanks to the people that actually made sense to me without being sarcastic or a bitch attitude

@tyven: the spam-forum bit wasn't at all directed at you, at all

[aurik]

The point being, you should treat a casino like an amusement park. Go to have a good time and spend some money.

[hey]

Playing anything in a casino for a long period of time is destined to make you lose money; unless you somehow are able to figure out the result before hand(ie cheating) and bet large on that. Leaving afterwards of course.

Counting cards can get you an overall advantage over the house in blackjack.

[tyven]

The point being, you should treat a casino like an amusement park. Go to have a good time and spend some money.

perfect. plus casinos come with free drinks

[Sta]

Counting cards can get you an overall advantage over the house in blackjack.

It can get you put in jail, too. right?

[aurik]

No. But it will get you kicked out.

[Kerberoz]

Casinos nowadays use multiple decks and/or shuffle every round in blackjack.

[hey]

It can get you put in jail, too. right?

There is nothing illegal about not making a bet you are likely to lose. The result will depend on where you are. In vegas, it will get you kicked out. In atlantic city, you cannot get kicked out, but they can prevent you from joining a table in the middle of a shoe (hurts, but still leave you at an advantage), prevent you from changing your bet (same as above), or both (makes counting entirely pointless). In some other countries, and/or when dealing with people that are not afraid to break the law, you may get your ass kicked, robbed, etc, but legally, all you are doing is calculating the odds of winning, and either only playing when your odds are higher than the house's, or betting higher, which is certainly not illegal anywhere.

Casinos nowadays use multiple decks and/or shuffle every round in blackjack.

Multiple decks don't really make that big a difference. Certainly not enough to prevent you from getting an advantage. Shuffling every round does indeed make it pointless, but not every casino does it.

[archibaldcrane]

If you can't count cards, then playing craps on the don't pass line, laying full odds is the best bet in Vegas - slightly better than playing standard multi-deck blackjack by "the tables". If you are going to do the martingale, you'd be better off at either craps or blackjack because the house edge is significantly smaller - but even then it doesn't "work" in the long run.

[Boyiee]

No. But it will get you kicked out.

And your fingers broken with a hammer!