Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Discussion about the methodology of winning.

Started by mogul397, February 26, 2012, 03:11:06 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mogul397

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.



crackers

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.

bombus

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.

mogul397

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.

Proofreaders2K

"...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.

mogul397

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)

Ulysses

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.

mogul397

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.

pins

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.

mogul397

All I can say is that I have known two people that made their living
gambling.

One craps and the other roulette.

Nathan Detroit

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

mogul397

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.

Nathan Detroit

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>


pins

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:

Proofreaders2K

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.

Proofreaders2K

-