Some promissing system

[Danger Man]

which means wheel based strategies don't make sense, do they?

Not really, no, unless you use a visual prediction technique. All bets are the same across the board. If you bet a "custom dozen" made up from numbers on the wheel it is indeed exactly the same as betting the first 12, second 12 or third 12 on the table - streaks, chops, fluctuation/deviation will all be identical. If that wasn't the case roulette would be easily beatable and, in fact, to an extent perfectly predictable.

[iggiv]

well, i got your point. I respect your point of view, but totally disagree with it. As a matter of fact, i consider it to be a perfect example of gambler's fallacy.


I can't base my point of view on any theory though. I hope maybe someone from more experienced roulette players will help me with that 

[iggiv]

Danger man, i got a question to u. If there are the same odds for the same quantity of bets (whatever the location is), then why the roulette wheel creators bothered at all with mixing all the numbers on the wheel? why they just did not make it in the order like in a table? if the odds are all the same? They were not smart enough? or their goal was just to trick people like me to believe that u can get better odds by betting on the roulette layout?

[Danger Man]

Iggiv, I'm interested to know why you think it is gambler's fallacy when I already proved with a simple statistical analysis that it isn't...that is, actually, verifiable fact. Am I correct in thinking that you believe bets made up of wheel sectors will behave differently to bets based on the table layout and that one set of bets is more likely to consistently hit above and below it's expected value? This is absolutely impossible, if it were true roulette would have a "flaw" and everyone would be crushing casinos day after day. It would be the easiest game in the world to beat since there would be a very real and permanent state of bias in favour of the player. You are entitled to your own opinions about this subject but I know that you're suffering from a misconception.

[iggiv]

Iggiv, I'm interested to know why you think it is gambler's fallacy when I already proved with a simple statistical analysis that it isn't...that is, actually, verifiable fact. Am I correct in thinking that you believe bets made up of wheel sectors will behave differently to bets based on the table layout and that one set of bets is more likely to consistently hit above it's expected value? This is absolutely impossible, if it were true roulette would have a "flaw" and everyone would be crushing casinos day after day. It would be the easiest game in the world to beat since there would be a very real and permanent state of bias. I suggest you try to read up on distribution models and probability theory.

yes, i believe that certain bets are more likely to win than the others. From practical point of view. I am not in a position to back it up with the theory though. And it doesn't make roulette "the easiest game" to play. There are not only bets involved, but also timing for them (watching certain events happen), also there is a money management involved.

No, it is not an easy game to play. But probability theory is much more complicated than gathering statistics and claiming they prove that all bets are just the same. Of course in a long run low/high, red/black, etc will hit roughly the same quantity of times, but it doesn't mean all respective bets are the same. There are lots of things involved in predicting. Way too complicated to explain for me. Honestly.

And i am sure i am not the only  one here thinking this way.

[iggiv]

And also from historical point of view if the table and wheel based bets meant all the same odds then nobody would bother with creating "mixed up numbers" wheel. The wheel would be all the same as the table. The dozens would be exactly the sectors of 12.

U know why they mixed up the numbers? because if u could put 1 unit on a sector of 12, casinos probably would go out of business.

[Danger Man]

If certain bets are more likely to win than others, hence, for some inexplicable reason, they hit more than their expected value (more than probability dictates), then you have the game beaten hands down and everything beyond discovering such a bet, like money management and timing, is pointless. If what you are saying is true, you would have a reliable and permanent positive edge over the house and the more you play the more you win. When I talk about all bets being the same I'm not comparing outside even money against each other. The test I did compares a pair of wheel-based ECs with the colours and DOES prove that there is no difference, either over 100 outcomes or 10,000. They are more or less identical. It can be, and has been, backed up. It can be applied to any and all variables. In such a test you can run as many trails as you want with numbers that have an acceptable chi score and the results will always be insignificant. That is how the random process works. I look forward to the day when someone can explain to me, and support, why bet x is more likely to hit than bet y when both x and y share the same probability.

And also from historical point of view if the table and wheel based bets meant all the same odds then nobody would bother with creating "mixed up numbers" wheel. The wheel would be all the same as the table. The dozens would be exactly the sectors of 12.

U know why they mixed up the numbers? because if u could put 1 unit on a sector of 12, casinos probably would go out of business.

The odds versus the actual payout is exactly the same. There is no difference whatsoever. Sorry, but these are the very basics that you're failing to grasp. I hope that in time you'll understand what I'm talking about.

[iggiv]

OK then, how do u explain mixed up numbers on a wheel. If the bets of the same value have always the same chance to hit, why would anyone bother with arranging the roulette wheel the way it is. Why u can put 1 unit on a dozen with
12 separated numbers with different distances between them(we are lookin at the wheel layout now), why would not they allow to make a dozen like a sector to bet on?

there should be some reason for this. I say that's because if u had this possibility u would have high chances of winning with low drawdown. Or u think it was just out of the blue -- to confuse the players?

[cheese]

iggiv, think of it this way. Imagine the wheel with no numbers at all, just 37 blank pockets. No way to identify them. The wheel is balanced and fair. In your opinion, is the ball more likely to go in one pocket over another pocket? If so, why woud it do that?

Please condider this, its a very important question.

[iggiv]

Cheese:

it is possible for a few times, but unlikely that it will happen frequently.


if all the bets with the same value had the same odds, we would easily see one number hit 20, 30 or 100 times in a row. It doesn't happen, does it? it means that after hitting lets say 3-4 times in a row in one pocket, it is very unlikely to appear again in a row (though it may happen once in a blue moon). Which means that there are some probability laws, which can be used for betting certain numbers.

according to a Danger Man if a ball hits #10  5 times in a row, betting number 10 still has the same probability as betting all other numbers. I say if u bet after this all other numbers but number 10, it is very likely that u win 1 chip.

Of course u can not build any serious strategy on this small example, but u can use it to compare the odds of hitting certain numbers after certain events.

[cheese]

if a ball hits #10  5 times in a row, betting number 10 still has the same probability as betting all other numbers. >>

This is true. How would the ball know not to fall into the #10 pocket again? If you can't understand this, you have no hope of ever beating the game.

[iggiv]

if a ball hits #10  5 times in a row, betting number 10 still has the same probability as betting all other numbers. >>

This is true. How would the ball know not to fall into the #10 pocket again? If you can't understand this, you have no hope of ever beating the game.

The ball does know anything, there are some probability laws. According to them the ball will unlikely fall there again right after it hit it 5 times in a row. That's how i understand it.

Do u have some other explanation? Would love to read it.

[cheese]

the ball will unlikely fall there again right after it hit it 5 times in a row.>>

What would stop the ball from falling there again? How would the ball know not to fall there again? That pocket still looks like all the other pockets, nothing has changed.

[bombus]

the ball will unlikely fall there again right after it hit it 5 times in a row.>>

What would stop the ball from falling there again? How would the ball know not to fall there again? That pocket still looks like all the other pockets, nothing has changed.

What would stop the ball from falling there again?

37-1 against for starters.


How would the ball know not to fall there again?

How do sub-atomic particles know how fast they should move, and in what direction?


That pocket still looks like all the other pockets, nothing has changed.

Everything has changed, it is a new spin – and the ball cannot see any pockets as such.

[Danger Man]

Iggiv, what you believe in is classical gamber's fallacy. If red hits 150 times in a row, then you bet black you still only have 18 chances to win and 19 chances to lose on that spin. The odds are never any better since the odds never change and you're never more likely to win than the probability dictates. Think about it, or at least try to do some research into normal distribution and probability theory. The layout of the wheel means absolutely squat. It might as well be arranged numerically, nothing would change.

[Danger Man]

-