give up

[simon]

I have corresponded with a Professor of Mathematics at a University near me who was kind enough to answer some probability questions I had which related to a system I was working on.  Below is part of his email to me....

"Before I get to the problem discussed below, let me note again: since the expected value is negative *each time* one puts a dollar on the table, it does not matter when, where, or according to what method the bets are placed, it does not matter what results have just occurred, and so on – the total expected value is the sum of the individual expected values and will therefore be negative. Period.  This is a long-ago proven theorem of applied mathematics."

If this is true, if you agree with this, then there can be no system, can there...

[Shorty]

Yes, there is no system that can beat roulette. I'm sure I've said at least ten times throughout the forum.

[simon]

then why do you spend time here?

[Marven]

Of course it's true. If it wasn't true then why would casinos put roulette tables and invite you to play?

You can't attack roulette with maths and expect to win in the long haul. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool.

Regards,
Marven

[Shorty]

I come here to educate, and speak to friends mostly. Surely you must know there are much (MUCH) better ways to approach the game other than playing systems.

[Marven]

then why do you spend time here?

First for the fun, it's a hobby.
Second, to meet people who are experienced in the proper ways of attacking the game and learn from them.
Third, to maintain the voice of commonsense and help those who are new and less informed.

[simon]

the only other way I can think of is visual prediction (very difficult to impossible, for me anyway.)  I am curious to see if anyone can agree with the professor's statement, but still see a way to get an advantage play over the game.

[rjeaton1]

What is stated above is absolutely true when applying the thought process of "there is no way to consistently predict the next outcome or group of outcomes".

What I mean is, if there really is no way of consistently winning more bets than losing ones, than yes, it's true.  

But, if the system isn't based on trying to "trick" math (using money management, applying negative or positive progressions, etc. all in hopes to beat the math) but is rather based on consistently winning more bets placed than losing bets placed then I think a system would work.

What I mean is, if out of 100 spins, the wheel held true to what it should do mathematically speaking, and (roughly) black came out 49 times and red came out 49 times and zero came out twice and you had your one unit bet placed on black for all 100 spins, you'd be down 2 units...right where math says you should be.

But, if your system had a way of consistently predicting either the next outcome or (what I think is more likely) predicting the next group of outcomes, then the system would be a success.

To be honest, I've almost stopped trying...here is what's kept me looking...


In regards to a no-zero roulette wheel, those mathematicians will say "in the long run, you'll break even...perfectly even"  just like they say "on a single zero roulette wheel you'll lose exactly 2.70 % in the long run"


But, we all know that casinos still somehow make a profit from those no-zero roulette wheels despite the (mathematical) fact that they shouldn't.

The reason for this (amongst many) is randoms "dispersion" of numbers and how strange it can be...strange because it doesn't always stick to what "math" says it should.

Things happen in streaks...or don't happen...but also in streaks.

So, if the house can consistently win even when there is no mathematical edge based on the fact that "random" produces favorable results for them...then why can't I find a favorable result for me in the dispersion "random" is producing?

Now, if I can find that "favorable" area (whatever it is)  if it is favorable enough to place more winning bets than losing bets at a rate of 3.00%, then I could use that same system on a single zero roulette wheel and enjoy a .30% edge over the house...

[Mr Chips]

The so called maths relating to roulette is incorrect. The results which I am producing using the Signum system, EC, R & B, show that it
is possible to make consistent long term profits. This system has been thoroughly tested over a number of years and not just on paper
but in a number of casino's.
 
You should not be fooled into believing that mathematicians have all the answers, they don't, as far as roulette systems are concerned.
 
Do you think for one moment I would have spent years developing systems, if there was the slightest chance that they would eventually
fail.
 
In order for the Signum system to fail there would have to be a great number of -3 to -4 losses, as the there is incorporated into the system
a minimum loss strategy. I have never experienced such a number of losses on the scale necessary to lose long term. There is also the
interesting aspect of the Signum system, which is not present in any other type of system is the use of symbols. If the symbols are showing
a consistent failure, then I would use that knowledge, so as a positive expectation would be negative and a negative expectation would now
be positive, thus turning losses into wins!
 
I know for certain the maths relating to roulette is a nonsense.
 
Mr Chips

[Davey-Jones]

I personally believe that although the math is against you, there are much bigger reasons why a player loses. Math does play it's part to an extent but I think a player's own ego combined with the psychological ploys that the casinos introduce have a much more devistating effect to one's bankroll. Considering a game that only has 2.5-5% house edge, you see the table take in significantly more than what they should. In my opinon, the majority of players should spend less time trying to overcome the mathematics of the game and more time trying to overcome the "nature" of the game.

[pins]

luck is the only thing .i take a couple of hundred dollars and play single numbers somedays i win and some days i lose. but i have a good time. you can not make a living playing. do not play if you can not afford to lose.

[Jakkalsdraai]

Where can one look at the Signum system?

[Marven]

Where can one look at the Signum system?

By reading Mr Chips' mind, or convincing him to let other people test it (preferably code it) other than himself.

Excuse the sarcasm Mr Chips, but your continues praise of this Signum system had us righteously skeptical.

[lucky_strike]

I have corresponded with a Professor of Mathematics at a University near me who was kind enough to answer some probability questions I had which related to a system I was working on.  Below is part of his email to me....

"Before I get to the problem discussed below, let me note again: since the expected value is negative *each time* one puts a dollar on the table, it does not matter when, where, or according to what method the bets are placed, it does not matter what results have just occurred, and so on – the total expected value is the sum of the individual expected values and will therefore be negative. Period.  This is a long-ago proven theorem of applied mathematics."

If this is true, if you agree with this, then there can be no system, can there...

Simon that is the truth no roulette system will make you buy a new car or house.
Simon it is not hard to gain an real edge with andvantage play.
You can learn how to gain 5 to 10% if you use some basic advance play but you still need a large BR because even if you have an edge there will be fluctation.
Come to the chat when I am around I will help you out and give you the direction to go with some things or you can send me a PM.

Cheers

[Tangram]

Simon,

If you take to heart the professor's words then you might be better off attacking the gaming device, and not the game (as per Herb's advice). The assumption underlying the "long-ago proven theorem of applied mathematics" is that outcomes are random (whatever that means) and independent. The theorem does not incorporate or interpret the outcomes of the wheel as a time series, but only as sets of equally likely outcomes, so when you add them all up and take into account the house edge of course the result is negative. In other words, the maths does not take any account the order of the outcomes, because they are assumed to be independent of each other and any perceived patterns are deemed meaningless.

The apparent paradox is that the outcomes are predictable in the sense that we can calculate their occurrence by using probability (the binomial distribution, standard deviations, etc) but the maths dogmatists are always quick to point out that these are useless because they can not tell you when any outcome or series of outcomes will occur, only that they will occur at some point. The interpretation of a stream of outcomes as a time series (which the dogmatists insist is nothing more than the gambler's fallacy), is the key - in my opinion. 

[Tangram]

-