Hello.
I'm going to try and keep this thread as informative as possible. Any additions or simplications to the fact that you won't better your odds by waiting for "7 reds to hit in a row" or *** lines/streets/splits/whatever before you bet.
Redundant information or meaningless remarks due to the fact that the person doesn't understand basic probability will be deleted in order to keep this thread as easy to read and informative as possible.
Please, don't take a deleted post as something personal. This is not discussion, this is information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're never going to make a long-term progression system. It's just not possible

Please oh please never wait for a bet if you're GOING to use progressions.

What you do when you "wait until red hasn't come up for 5 times" is that you just spread out your bets, but the losses are equally spread out... PROPORTIONALLY

what you will achieve is that you will win less often and lose less often... But if you compare the amounts of progressions started to the amounts of losses, you'll still be at the same relative amounts...

Example:
You bet right away and start progression at 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256
For laziness sake... let's say you have 50% chance of hitting your target... This means that you'll hit as follows:

1st: 50%
2nd: 25%
3rd: 12,5%
4th: 6,25%
5th: 3,125%
6th: 1,5625%
7th: 0,78125%
8th: 0,390625%
9th: 0,1953125%

It doesn't matter where you start... the next chance will be 50% of the chance you have WHEN you start...

Sure, a 10 times streak won't come often... and an 11 times streak will come even half as often...
HOWEVER, if you start betting at 2 instead of 1 or 10 instead of 9, you'll go through the same amounts of progressions, only bet half as often and losing half as often.

Bottom line is that eventually YOU WILL LOSE and you should stop wasting your time.

There are two ways to make a constant profit at live casinos. Predict roulette or count cards in Blackjack.
There are advanced ways to get an advantage in Slots and other Gambling Machines as well.
Everything else is a complete waste of your time and you should spend it learning how to become an actual advantage player instead.

Maybe this was a confusing description?
Let me try to simplify it further... It aches me that people waste their time instead of putting it to good use!
I'm not trying to destroy your dreams, I'm just trying to help. I'm one of the good guys!

Let's compare starting the progression directly compared to starting it after waiting for 1 spin (example: "Red hasn't come up for 1 spin")

The only difference is that you will bet half as often... You'll also lose half as often...
AAargh, I don't know how to simplify this more... Maybe I'm not good at explaining.

1st: 50% <--- You start here if you don't wait and you have a 50% chance of winning
2nd: 25% <--- You start here if you DO wait and you have a 50% chance of winning (12,5% is half of 25%)
3rd: 12,5%
4th: 6,25%
5th: 3,125%
6th: 1,5625%
7th: 0,78125%
8th: 0,390625%
9th: 0,1953125%

Additional Information

Quote from: mistarlupo on February 12, 2009, 11:00:21 PM
Spike,

We have something similar here (Author: Kon-Fu-Sed):
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/the-dark-side/progressions-why/

I've read some interesting stuff & tests on WizardOfOdds.com...
Anyone interested may check it out.

Regards,
m

over all i agree.. but what you fail to address is automated systems. Take for instance lines, in 12 million spins a line repeated max umm i think it was 8, just say 8 for now its around that figure. On an automated bot, waiting for say 6 hits then doing a 4 or 5 stage progression will give you profit. You WONT win less and lose less like your saying. You will in a sense, but when the probabilities get to the stage of once in a life time events, a loss is a fascinating event and not painful, its fascinating to see such an event of say 10 lines hitting in a row (same line) like witnessing a comet fly past your house or a politician that tells the truth.

Poit,

With all due respect, you just did not get the poit, sorry the POINT he is making.   You wait for a line to repeat six times and you start betting NOW. (the now is important and that is the the whole point of his argument.)  At this juncture, you ALREADY have come a long way towards that extremely improbable event of ten times in a row.   All you need now is four times in row.  This is not so improbable.

Anyway a lot of people just cannot see this.  What can I say???   If your argument was valid Roulette wheels would cease to exist or they would just change the rules.

Just my two bits.

The Insider

Great addition inside...

Chance a line will hit 6 times in a row = (6/37)^6 which is once in every 55000 spins (1 in 54992...

Now, the chance a line will hit 8 times in a row = (6/37)^8 which is once in every 2100000 spins (1 in 2091239...)

Now what do you get if you divide 2091239 with 54992 ?? You get 38... so FROM THE MOMENT YOU'VE REACHED 6 SPINS... THE CHANCE YOU'LL GO ON TO 8 IS ONE IN 38

What's the chance a line will hit 2 times in a row? (from 6 to
Well that's once in 38 spins... so you can see it's the exact same result from 1 to 3 as from 6 to 8

so it doesn't matter when you start betting... GAMBLERS FALLACY

after you've waited for 6 hits you're well on your way toward a not so probable EVENT... But from this point... 8 times in a row IS NOT as improbable as from the start... IT'S JUST 2 MORE IN A ROW!!!!

Please understand... get out of the shell and stop wasting time on gambler's fallacy

How about the six point divisor plan? Lanky is doing extremely well with it I think.

alarian,

I agree with yours math ........ it is simple to understand to me.

But there is theory wany to win with progression:
Only way to make profit is to find NOT proportionally acting bet, than we could take advantage with  progression 

Years ago on GG Mark Howy had some excellent posts, with math proof, that if you're in a negative expectation game you're never going to win long term using a progression of any kind. If its a positive expectation game you can win flat betting, so a progression is never needed.

As you already know I totally agree on your position on progressions.  But then, why are 90% of the people here obsessed with it?
Insider

The Subject is more to draw attention than to state a fact or a matter of strong opinion.

I'm not alltogether against progressions, but those who are new to roulette are also usually fooled by the Gambler's Fallacy as well as using Martingale Progression or something similar...

I usually use a few step progression myself, but no 140 step progression on singles or 90 step on splits or anything like that...
The subject I really want to draw attention to is the fact that many people wait for an event to increase their chances when that's really just a waste of time.

I can't stress this enough and I feel so infinitely sorry for those who waste their time doing that.

This is also sort of a contradiction since I'm "studying" the G.U.T. but that's somewhat based on a theory of certainties and I find I'm learning alot about other stuff checking it out aswell...

Quote from: Adriatik on February 12, 2009, 06:12:42 PM
alarian,

I agree with yours math ........ it is simple to understand to me.

But there is theory wany to win with progression:
Only way to make profit is to find NOT proportionally acting bet, than we could take advantage with  progression 

Give me an example of one such bet :/

Hi Alarian,
Yes the gambler's fallacy is just ... that a fallacy BUT if I see 10 reds on the trot I take this as a great opportunity to risk a few bets on a three or four step progression. Real life and maths are two different things. Mathematically speaking it is certain that we will always lose on roulette because of the negative expectation, however this is NOT always the case as most of us know. So knowing the maths theoretical odds helps in deciding how much risk to take with a bet.
That's my experience.

Quote from: purple on February 19, 2009, 06:11:41 AM
Hi Alarian,
Yes the gambler's fallacy is just ... that a fallacy BUT if I see 10 reds on the trot I take this as a great opportunity to risk a few bets on a three or four step progression. Real life and maths are two different things. Mathematically speaking it is certain that we will always lose on roulette because of the negative expectation, however this is NOT always the case as most of us know. So knowing the maths theoretical odds helps in deciding how much risk to take with a bet.
That's my experience.

You're just not getting the point.
There's no difference whether you do your three or four step progression after 1 reds has hit, 10 reds has hit or 20 reds has hit.
There's no opportunity, you need to understand this.
10 reds in a row is an incredibly rare event, but 11 reds in a row in relation to 10 reds already hit is just as spectacular as red hitting 1 time, which isn't all that spectacular now is it?
You're hurting me by hurting yourself in this way. Please understand I am your friend, you are imagining an opportunity that isn't there.
It's not about maths, it's about real life.

Let's say you divide a room into 4 sections. Spin around with a blindfold and throw a ball in the room and log which section it lands in.
The next time you throw the ball, none of the previous throws matter at all. If the ball landed in one section 10 times in a row, this does NOT present an opportunity that the ball is less likely to land in this section again.

This is the exact same thing as the roulette wheel...

There's no touch of any god and the wheel doesn't care at all what happened before...


Let's take your example again...
10 reds hit in a row, this doesn't happen very often....

But let's say it happens to you 10000 times at separate occations... and you play on this each time a 4 step progression as you have suggested.

The results will be as disastrous as if you don't wait at all and use the same 4 step progression 10000 times in a row.

The difference is that playing 10000 times waiting for 10 reds to hit takes a WHOLE BUNCH of years, but the fact remains. There will be absolutely NO difference.

If you all want, we can prove this with permanenzes from live wheels. We can log 10000 games after waiting for an event of YOUR choice and I will prove to you that there's no difference whether you wait or bet right away.

Instead of wasting time on this Fallacy... Please spend it on learning real advantage strategies! Stop giving away money to the casinos.... TAKE THEM BACK

Hi again Alarian, I appreciate that you're offering friendly advice I'm not out to knock you or anything.
As you say 10 reds in a row is a rare event and 11 reds in a row is even rarer. The longest I 've heard of is close to 35. Roulette is a random generator as you say and the odds are always 18/37 for any even chance irrespective of previous spins BUT in the Real world you'd have to be incredibly unlucky to be in the casino at the exact time and place when you'll be beaten by such rare events time and time again, that's what I'm saying.
If my number hits twice on the trot I Never leave all my winnings on the table because I know that it's very rare for a number to hit three times in a row even though this has happened to me and  I made a tidy profit from it! If that were not the case we'd keep hearing  about  50 reds on the trot and the same number repeating ten times in a row which never happens even though one day it may happen.
Now as far as the real advantage strategies you mention I'd love to know more about these because apart from visual ballistics players who claim that they can win consistently and dealer signature players who also know how to play the man and not the wheel I don't know of anything else to beat this game.
I don't believe ANY mechanical system can beat this game and so roulette IS gambling, it will always carry risk and that's why money management is so important.

Quote from: purple on February 19, 2009, 07:01:11 AM
As you say 10 reds in a row is a rare event and 11 reds in a row is even rarer. The longest I 've heard of is close to 35. Roulette is a random generator as you say

The main focus here is that 11 reds in a row starting from spin 0 is a very rare event. But 11 reds in a row in RELATION to 10 reds in a row... As in 10 reds in a row just happened and we're looking at the chance that yet another red will get hit... THIS event is NOT rare and it's exactly the same as red hitting when you're at 0 spins... 18/37

It's not an opportunity to bet on black more than it is an opportunity to bet on black right when you reach the table or at any other given time.

Purple,

You don't have to be beaten "time and time again", as you put it.
Just 52,7% of the time will make you lose enough.

I have seen the same number hit five times in a row on five different occasions and red hit 32 times once.

I have tested on RX (why the hell nobody uses that anymore?)  millions of spins to see if there would be any advantage if you wait X spins before putting such and such a bet.  Now this is contrary to my beliefs but I just wanted to check it out anyway.  Well if the result had not been what I suspected all along, I would be a very rich man by now!   And so would be several million other players...  If you have a kick when you see ten reds... by all means!  We get so few kicks anyway.

You say you know of two proven methods to win at Roulette.  I mentionned a third one a while ago but I won't mention it again.

Money management is very often discussed.  With all due respect, I think it is another fallacy.  Everything has to do with your expectancy, beit positive or negative. The way you manage your money is irrelevant.  Streaks, as everybody knows can be short or incredibly long.  Trying to `time`the duration of any streak, ( and, to me, that is  money management ) is relying on luck since the duration of any streak in unknown.
Having said that, I used stop-losses quite often in the past.  I seldom use a win-stop.  Why do I use a stop-loss on occasions?  So I can sleep better that particular night.  Simple as that!  On many, many occasions, had I stayed at the table I would have made all the money back very quickly... but that is another matter.

I tested way too many `systems`that use  either a "wait x spins" or/and "use this progression"  and I am yet to see one that wins on the long term.  Most of them win for a while but fail miserably later.  All fail on the long term.  But then again you know this already.

Alarian.  You say you use a "mild progression" at times.  May I ask what you play and do you use the progr.
I have tested GUT manually, the best I could understand it.  The 1K spins I have tested yielded a negative result and I stopped.  Doesn't mean it is not good.

I always said that if a winning system existed, it would have to be fairly complex.  Otherwise any Dick, Joe and Harry would walk into any casino and make plenty of cash.  It really is not the case, right?

If patterns exists, maybe a human brain just is not capable of seeing it.  Or conceiving it.  Which brings me to Neural Networks...  Did you ever think of applying this to Roulette???  If there is order somewhere in the chaos, I more and more think that only a computer could bring it to light.

The Insider.

-