Lovely...from one of your children?

Bayes

A neat idea. A shame it didn't work. I guess Mr Random is the ultimate dictator.   


Bally

I'd really like to see that work out OK for you.  We'll see if Mr Random has other ideas, won't we? 

A nifty bit of programming.  Very well done 

Getting the colours to display like that must have caused more than a few headaches!!

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 12, 2012, 05:02:56 PM
To do this in a way that attempts to teach a moron a new trick, without ever insulting him.

Kindly refrain from that sort of discriminatory remark. It's spiteful and totally unnecessary -- and insulting.

A moron is defined as:  a person of subnormal intelligence. 

As such, it is a handicap over which they have no control.

Free speech does not do away with being responsible for what you write.

On THIS forum we do NOT allow posters to use such terms to denigrate those who can't understand or who disagree with them.

Quote from: spike on December 12, 2012, 08:02:33 PM
that's what happens when you get too heavy handed with
the moderation. People want to be people and express
themselves, that's why so many countries have free speech
laws now. Freedom of expression is essential for growth.
Otherwise you have one persons or a group of persons
viewpoint running everything and that never works for very
long. Its what breeds revolutions.

I previously wrote in a warning: Espousing free speech does NOT mean being free of responsibility for what you write.

In simple terms: Freedom of speech carries with it certain responsibilities. 

For example, nobody on THIS forum is free to post personal abuse.

We are all free to explore and express our opinions about IDEAS -- but definitely nobody is free to attack the person expressing those ideas.


That is a responsibility of free speech.

It's really that simple. 


And I'm pleased to note that most of the folk on this forum abide by that standard of decency.


For those who want to be outlaws or who refuse to adhere to that standard then the door is over there...

11 December 2012   

His recent post attacking a member of this forum has now been referred to all Moderators for their consideration.

I present the following argument that I found recently, for your debate and discussion. [Got that, did you? It's not my article]

Feel free to tear it apart if needs be.

   
• If there is any internal truth we need to find it.
• If it's a flawed argument we need to know that too.
• If the consensus is that it's valid and sound I'll reveal the source. Otherwise it can simply wither on the vine.

Over to you...




Many roulette players tend to succumb to the idea that their chance of winning will increase immensely if they're betting on more numbers.

However, this is a wrong move if you want to win in the long term.

Yes, your chances increase in the short-term when you're playing multiple numbers, but short-term winnings can just as easily and quickly be lost again if you continue to pursue that betting strategy using multiple numbers.

You need to concentrate on long-term winnings if you want to strike it rich.


I will prove to you below through mathematics why that is so:



Let's assume you play 37 spins and each number on the wheel lands just once during those 37 spins. You are betting $1 on number 0 throughout all spins.

When the ball lands on 0 you'll win $35 ($36 - $1 = $35). But you'll lose $1 for each of the other 36 numbers/spins.

That means that after those 37 spins you've ended up with a total net loss of $1 ($35 won - $36 lost = -1$).

Now let's play that example through again. This time you're betting on 2 numbers during each of those 37 spins.

Let's say you're betting $1 on number 0 and $1 on number 1. When the ball lands on 0 or 1 you'll win $34 ($36 - $2 = $34).

But but you'll lose the $2 total bet for all other 35 numbers.

At the end of those 37 spins you therefore have incurred a total net loss of $2 ($34 x 2 - $35 x 2 = -2$).

We're going to raise our stake now, shall we? Okay, now let's say you'll bet on 10 numbers during each spin of those 37 spins.

You place a $1 each on number 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

When the ball lands on either of these numbers you'll win $26 ($36 - $10 = $26).

But you'll lose the $10 total bet for all other 27 numbers.

After 37 spins you've now suffered a total net loss of $10 ($26 x 10 - $10 x 27= -10$).



See how your losses mount the more numbers you play?

It's a mathematical certainty and the idea that the more numbers you bet on the higher your winnings will be is simply a misconception that doesn't work.

The unshakable fact is that you losses become exponentially higher the more numbers you play.

If you bet $1 on 20 numbers, you'll have lost $20 after 37 spins. There is nothing you can do about it.

It's been proven through thousands of records that the above is true in the long term and of course under the assumption that each number really lands on average once every 37 spins.

Betting on multiple numbers at the same time is a fundamentally wrong decision for long-term winning.


The perfect solution, however, is betting on only one single number and stick with it.

Quote from: wannawin on December 09, 2012, 06:27:55 PM
What is the link to the Roulette 30 forum?

I search in the main website and I can not find a forum.

Thank you.

http://www.roulette30.com/

Sadly, he seems not to update it very often.

Your English is fine.     A lot better than my Italian!!

Very nice looking software. Did you write it for Excel?

Flat betting will appeal to many members, if your method is profitable.

Thank you for your generosity and kindness, Ralph. 


A shame it won't run under XP (I tried...just in case...) as there are still lots of XP users.

(In fact, XP will be supported by MS until April 2014.  A long way to go.)


Any chance of enabling it for XP?


But not if it means a lot of extra work for you!!  We'll quite understand if it's a Big Ask.

All please take note:

I've NOT stated anywhere I'm in favour of it for table games, nor should anyone attempt to pin that label on me..

[I'm not having a go at anyone -- I just want to clarify. OK?]


I have tried to stress the quote is OUT OF A BOOK FOR SPORTS BETTORS.


It's presented here for you to mull over.

Take from it what you will.


Let us not forget the name of this forum -- it has a wide application...not just to roulette...!

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 08, 2012, 02:21:51 AM
Martingale always looks like a panacea but risking 31 units for gaining 1 unit is not a wise idea, irrespective of u use it for a fixed bet or randomise the series of bets, bet it on roulette, baccarat, craps, coin flipping or sports bet. It is one and same.

It certainly works for sports betting.  Mr Belanger expands on the above quote, of course.

You would need to buy his book to get the full picture.

I use the strategy as part of a portfolio of profitable sports betting strategies.

This extract is for sports betting. 

It's taken from Frank Belanger's Bookie Buster

Forumites might find something of value -- a different perspective, perhaps.

---

If you use Martingale, it will eventually deteriorate your bankroll, despite the fact that you have
been accumulating steady 1 unit profits over some time.

If you limit the martingale to 3 to 5 steps in favorable situations, you can still
make profits without severely damaging your bankroll.

A 3 step Martingale risks 7 units and a 5 step Martingale risks 31 units (1 + 2 +
4 + 8 + 16).

However, there is a way to use the martingale at sports betting in
order to perform very well.

The trick is to use a pre-determined series of Win/Lose games.

If you have a pre-determined Win/Lose betting sequence of 5 steps
(say W, L, L, W, W) what are the chances that you will be right on all 5
bets?

The answer is 50% (or 1/2) multiplied 5 times by itself, or 1 in
32.

That means that if you tell yourself that for the next 5 bets you will be
betting W, L, L, W, W regardless of the outcomes of the games, there
is 1/32 probability that you will be hitting all your bets right.

This is a very low probability.

However, the opposite is also true, that the probability of hitting all
your 5 bets wrong is also 1 in 32.

That means, that if you use a pre-determined sequence of W, L, L, W, W, by using a 5 step Martingale
betting method, you have a 31/32 or97% chance that one of the 5 bets will hit right.

Now this is a very high probability.

One important thing that you should know is that it is not unlikely to
get the exact opposite pattern: L, W, W, L, L even if it will happen 3%
of the time.

The fact is, if you bet your pattern (W, L, L, W, W)
continuously, statistically you should hit the opposite pattern within
the next 32 bets.

The result would be the lost of all your winnings.
We don't want this to happen.

So, the strategy will be to change the pattern after every winning
sequence.

This way you will be attacking the next 5 bets, with an
equal probability of 97% winning chances from session to session.

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 06, 2012, 03:44:15 PM
Why don't you agree that you have nothing to offer? I challenge you to put a workable method here that wins more and loses less in long run. We can test it and everyone will accept your "out of the world capacity" to recognize randomness and beat the game.  You can be a nice critique but not a randomness expert.

Gizmotron most certainly DOES HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER.

You obviously have not visited his section here:  http://betselection.cc/gizmotron/

As  a Moderator I suggest you do exactly that.

AND that you then begin to work through what he is kindly offering there.

Only then can you form an opinion based on FACT, on experience,  and not on ignorance.

I certainly agree with a minimum of one a month.

But beyond that it's up to the posters and if they have something relevant to a topic or worth saying at all.

If they feel compelled to keep posting because of some artificially imposed limit beyond one,  Moderators and thread starters will  be forever having to prune the forum from rubbish.