VLS Roulette Forum

Main => Main Roulette System Board => Topic started by: mogul397 on February 26, 2012, 03:11:06 PM

Title: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: mogul397 on February 26, 2012, 03:11:06 PM
Hi,
About 20+ years ago I worked at MIT and one guy (who explained the martingale method as how to win) decided he was going to the casino and play craps. He took $1000 and with $5 or $10 bets just bet pass until he moved the $1000 through the table. His results were incredibly close to the statistical .08 house advantage. He lost $10 or some statistically small amount.  (Smaller than that I think).

The idea that always comes to my head when I see any gambling system is, if the house advantage is generally so small, then how is it that most gamblers, with or without a system, always seem to loose VAST AMOUNTS compared to any house edge?

It would seem  :scratch_ones_head: that betting the exact opposite of whatever they are doing would lead to great profits :yahoo:.  Of course I know that has been said a million times.

But the math is still true. Based on a small house advangage, whatever methodologies people are using seem to produce losses in great multiples of that advangage.  Which simply means that reversing that would lead to profits.

Having placed that stake in the ground, I just simply wonder if the logic of betting and winning/losing is backwards.  The reflex, if you will.

That is where I focus my efforts and starting point to winning. It is a known starting point.


Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: crackers on February 26, 2012, 04:05:21 PM
Consider this. If you take away the zeros these same gamblers would still leave the casinos as losers. Most people leave once they spend the amount they were willing to lose.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: bombus on February 26, 2012, 05:04:55 PM
Quote from: mogul397 on February 26, 2012, 03:11:06 PM

It would seem  :scratch_ones_head: that betting the exact opposite of whatever they are doing would lead to great profits...

Wrong.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: mogul397 on February 27, 2012, 03:56:36 AM
Good point crackers.  Glad you can see what I mean.

And the point of it all is that we seem to be able to be able to reliably lose.
And lose big. (I do not lose nor is it my habit.)

But I am focused on this ability despite any odds. And am wondering
how to use it to my advantage.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Proofreaders2K on February 27, 2012, 10:07:42 PM
"...that betting the exact opposite of whatever they are doing would lead to great profits"--Mogul397

Well, the exact opposite of Martingale I've learned is a positive progression--increase your stake after a win & reduce it on a loss.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: mogul397 on February 28, 2012, 01:37:48 PM
I had posted that in another spot in this forum.

Let the casino play a martingale.. If it is so dangerous and stupid then they
will lose. (And you will leave collecting the table max minus your small
one unit losses)
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Ulysses on February 28, 2012, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: mogul397 on February 26, 2012, 03:11:06 PM
if the house advantage is generally so small, then how is it that most gamblers, with or without a system, always seem to lose VAST AMOUNTS compared to any house edge?

The house edge is a probability nothing more nothing less. A way of looking at it, is if a gambler has $10,000. and plays a 100 sessions with $100 in each session. Out of those 100 sessions he might have lost the whole $10,000 or he might have won an extra hundred thousand or he might have churned over an amount equaling $97,300. and ended with a loss of $2700. fitting the house edge probability.

It's a game of chance not an exact science. A gambler can take a $100 to the roulette table and leave with $5000 another player might leave with nothing. I think people get too hung up on the math IMO.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: mogul397 on February 28, 2012, 03:53:56 PM
That is entirely true. And I was somewhat surprised at how close to the statistics
this guy came in that trial.

I like to think about it like breathing. You inhale the wins and wait out the exhale.
(If you can put that into a box).  At least in the context of what you said.

A guy called "Mr C" would bet pass after 2-3 don't  on the craps table. Made his living.
It was a matter of winning the clusters of shorter patterns when playing. Did what he
called the "movie test". Like when you go to a movie (and watch the table) and you
don't like the movie, you go to another one.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: pins on February 28, 2012, 07:07:28 PM
the maths do not lie. if you win it is pure chance.  no skill is possible. when i lost. i used to blame myself. i should have done this .i knew the next number but did not back it. self delusion, my advice play for fun. but expect to lose in the long run.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: mogul397 on February 29, 2012, 03:33:08 AM
All I can say is that I have known two people that made their living
gambling.

One craps and the other roulette.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Nathan Detroit on February 29, 2012, 10:46:05 AM
I know of a professional gambler who makes a living from: sports betting, craps, roulette, PaiGow poker, Baccarat,sports betting advice, and seminars . It`s a  7 day venture except Christmas day.


Nathan Detroit
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: mogul397 on February 29, 2012, 11:31:21 AM
That sounds more like an obsession.  Compulsion Not a profession..

I also knew a guy who made a living at the track. It took him like a 60 hour
week.  He played all straight percentages.  (Like a certain horse had a 5%
edge somehow. I forget). He said "I pump $1500 through the machines and
I get out $300".  SOmething like that.

It was not pretty. IMO.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Nathan Detroit on February 29, 2012, 05:02:56 PM
But that`s the way it is  with this  gent. It`s a message to all those  wannabees  who think pro gambling is an easy life.

BTW I forgot to include hand poker at the tables.

N.D>

Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: pins on February 29, 2012, 06:53:36 PM
if you wanted to make a living playing roulette.  a thousand dollars a week . would that be enough. what kind of bankroll would you need. what bets would you make.  its all right playing for a few dollars  but when you play for big money its a lot different..
i have gambled all my life.  but there no way i could make a living out of gambling. a thousand on red. there your first weeks wages. :diablo:
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Proofreaders2K on March 02, 2012, 09:57:46 AM
Don't forget the fellow that just left the Forum, Ken aka Mr. J.  He says he has a $18,000 bankroll he keeps with him and plays $100 on a number, often leaving the casino with $7,000 or more per visit (also after about 10 hours of play.)

There was a reporter on 60 Minutes that said you have to have $5000 to make $5000.  I'm inclined to think that very large bankroll is necessary to even think about making a living gambling.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Nathan Detroit on March 02, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
It`s  Ok if it works  . But the drawdowns  can be  atrocious  to the bankroll.

I know of  a cat who lost 2.3 million Euro  within 3 months covering 17 numbers  ( average 2000 EURO  per spin).

Just  attempt this   feat once with  only a minimum $ 5  or 5 EURO . on 1  or 2  numbers and then report back what is left of the  900 Dollar/Euro bankroll  which is equivalent to the  18,000.

What makes this  reporter on 60 minutes such an "Expert" on gambling ? Its  stupidity by proclaiming expected winnnigs   of  $ 5, 000 - with a relatively anemic $ 5, 000 bankroll.  Lucky if you  go home  with a net of $ 500. in excess of the  $5000 bankroll

............and the suckers are lapping it up.

Nathan Detroit







Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: mogul397 on March 02, 2012, 12:53:27 PM
Well how did he play?  So we call can do it?

I didn't know him.

I believe that you have to have money to grease the wheels to get any out.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Nathan Detroit on March 02, 2012, 01:10:55 PM


Mr J created his method  and he  is comfortable  with it . A copycat  might not be  so lucky.Being comfortable  with a method , win or lose , is also what matters.

N.D.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: pins on March 02, 2012, 06:40:06 PM
what you do is play on the one dollar roulette. if you win increase your bets  till you join the big league.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Proofreaders2K on March 02, 2012, 07:14:32 PM
"What makes this  reporter on 60 minutes such an "Expert" on gambling ?"--Nathan Detroit

I was in a hurry and misspoke.  The reporter on 60 Minutes was speaking with a guy who made a very, very good living on sports betting (reference: he said he maid 7 million on the Super Bowl betting on the Saints).  The bettor also said you need $5000 bankroll to make $5000.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Nathan Detroit on March 02, 2012, 08:13:54 PM
Thanks  for  your correction . Sportsbetting   differs   from casino gambling .I know  of a professional gambler who has sportsbetting on top of his list. That`s where the money is to keep him afloat
N.D.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: superman on March 03, 2012, 04:54:49 AM
QuoteThat`s where the money is to keep him afloat

I have met a few people on the internet who play betting exchanges as it's player against player rather than fighting a casino, they make a living from it, I too gamble at betfair and make money using principles I have found to almost work with roulette, house advantage clips them, but at the exchange there is no house edge. If you know what to play at the exchanges and how to recover from the inevitable loss your good to go.

Roulette is still on my mind and I still build the bots to battle it, but as I need to make money I go to betfair for that currently. Didn't have enough luck/skill on sports betting at betfair but have found the exchange games are much better.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Nathan Detroit on March 03, 2012, 07:38:03 AM
What`s  an exchange game ?  Please give  examples.
To me  an exchange game  would  be the New York stock exchange LOL. That`s really high roller stuff there.

Thanks.

Nathan Detroit
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: superman on March 03, 2012, 09:35:03 AM
QuoteWhat`s  an exchange game ?

Holdem, Bacc, BJ, HiLo etc you can back or lay the selection of your choice.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Nathan Detroit on March 03, 2012, 12:55:36 PM
Thanks for  enlighten me. Well, I always make  use of 3 games  during any casino visit. Roulette, Baccarat, and Video Poker.

This is diue to the fact that  all my sessions are of limited duration due to  Loss limits and  3 Losses in a row  at  table games.

Video Poker is  just to pick up points for eventual comps like overnite stays. It`s tough to get  those points  at the tables. But with my M.O.  at the table  I am glad I could get the privilege to go to the bathroom  there.(   L.O.L. )Playing within  the range of $ 5 to $ 25.

Hey man I am going there for relaxation , not wanting to lose  any money and being made a sucker by the casino whose suits  think  that people entertain the notion to make a living from gambling or  trying to win back their losses.

They are barking up the  wrong  tree with this cat. Casinos are a branch of the entertainment industry and  it  shall always be that way.



Nathan Detroit

.

Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: marvin on March 04, 2012, 02:29:47 AM
Quote from: Proofreaders2K on March 02, 2012, 09:57:46 AM
I'm inclined to think that very large bankroll is necessary to even think about making a living gambling.

i am also inclined to this one.

we all kind of agree that 20% profit of you session bankroll is doable.
lets say you have 1000units bankroll so 200units profit i think we will be satisfied with it.
but if you only have 100units bankroll and you already have 20units profit. do you think you will leave the casino?

1unit=1usd

just sharing my thoughts.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: Nathan Detroit on March 04, 2012, 07:43:11 AM
Like  the man  says :" If you wanna win more , bring more"  .


N.d.

Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: hoper35 on March 05, 2012, 12:23:30 AM
It is so much easier to be +5 in bets of $50 than +50 in bets of $5.   :laugh:

Ron.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: schoenpoetser on March 13, 2012, 08:11:01 AM
Can you play a living with roulette? I think that is very difficult. At a double zero roulette I think it is impossible. The advantage of the French roulette is between 1.35 and 2.7. If you are a very good and lucky player perhaps you will win 1 to 2% of your bets. So to win 100 euro you must bet  at least 10000 euro.

There is no winning system. I believe in my knowledge  of the randomrows of the different chances and my strategy.

In the past I have given some  demos on a internet roulette. I never ended a session with a lost.
Title: Re: Discussion about the methodology of winning.
Post by: gavind on October 20, 2013, 04:07:54 PM
I don't think anybody could make it as a living at all. The random factor is just too huge. Maybe like a part time job will suffice. (https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinkss%3A%2F%2Fimagicon.info%2Fcat%2F10-3%2Fsmile2.png&hash=471c4bfde9a8eaaecc106f26429c893406565ad6)