Blocked

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lustring

  • Member
  • *
  • 15
  • VLSroulette.com Member
I am new here, this is my first post.  I have been adopted one strategy which is only bet one and only number each spin, it's the best risk management strategy.  I don't know if anyone use same way as I do.  I didn't expect win everytime walk out of casino, so , but I didn't lose much, most of the day, my goal is no lose no win.   
But today I discover this forum.  I think it might be make out a good career.  I never thought roulette is beatable.  Maybe I should change my mindset a bit. 

kingsroulette

  • Member
  • *
  • 4
  • VLSroulette.com Member
It is the worst way to play in a real casino.

*

nullified

  • Member
  • *
  • 62
  • Gender: Male
Actually, it's a good place to start.  Of course a single number can sleep over 200 spins, so don't expect to win all your sessions.  If you can snag a few wins and move on, you'll be okay.

You may be interested in this method by Turbo Genius though -

Code: [Select]
http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/possibleholygrail.htm

ausguy

  • Perseverant Member
  • ***
  • 236
One chance in 37 numbers is bad odds. 97.3% chance to lose & only 2.7% chance to win.

I'd rather play 35 of 37 numbers.  This gives 5.4% chance to lose & 94.6% chance to win. A win gives 1 unit profit.

Test play it at live real casino as 1 bet hit & run on many tables. If tests show it wins then play for real money.

Even 20 wins @ $5 each bet gives $100 profit. Yes at risk is 35 x $5 = $175. Testing 1st only costs you time not money, surely worth looking at ?

*

insidebet

  • Medium Member
  • ****
  • 331
  • VLSroulette.com Member
Ausguy,

You better stick to world order...

Wether you play 1 or 35 numbers, the odds don t change.   You will just lose a lot more on the long run if you play 35.  Only because you risk more on each spin, and you will lose 2,7% of 35 units instead of 2,7% of 1 unit.

As I said, stick to politics.

Insider

ausguy

  • Perseverant Member
  • ***
  • 236
Insidebet - Best you stick to just putting your opinion forward (as per forum rules) rather than telling me what I should be doing, "World order, Stick to politics" I've zero idea what your on about with all that & maybe you have no idea either ?

The odds of winning or losing do change in proportion to the number of bets bets placed per spin as does the amounts that can be won, everybody knows that.
Your 2.7% of 35 & 2.7% of 1 is all "MUMBO JUMBO" ?

The key point I made was TEST the idea. If it wins with virtual bets, then use it. If it fails then dump it. So nil money risked.

I haven't studied the single number bet strike rate so I can only recall some forum discussions a couple of years ago about the average numbers that don't spin up in 37 spins. I think it was 12 numbers ? I just did a random check of some live dealer same table spins I have from March this year & 13 numbers in 37 spins didn't show.
So only one off the 12.

All this equates to about 1/3 of the wheels numbers will not show up in any 37 spin set.  Some numbers are well documented (just checked on CC) not to show for hundreds of spins. How do you work your betting if your single number doesn't show for say 100 spins or 350 ?

I'll back 35/37 numbers played at 1 bet per table x 37, (the 2 unbet numbers randomly chosen for each bet) as hit & run, H & R, on multiple B & M live dealer tables will consistantly earn more PROFIT than 1 number bet up to 37 times on the same table.

The hit & run testing would only be valid with POINT IN TIME spin results recorded at each table visit. Normal spin results don't fit hit & run testing.
 I know 100% this aspect as I was multi table betting hit & run using a double dozens idea about 6 months ago. I won $150 in about 2 hours, OK but a tiring way to bet as lots of distance between tables adds up over time (& I ain't young no more).

As to losing "more in the long run if you play 35" ? The operative words here are LONG RUN. I have the opposite view on this with only 1 bet per table & that's the shortest possible roulette run a player can have.

If 1/37 betting was a consistant winner then "every man & his dog" would be in on it ? I see no evidence on the forums that this is the case ?

How about you Insider, are you a member of the 1/37 consistant winners circle?



 

 

*

insidebet

  • Medium Member
  • ****
  • 331
  • VLSroulette.com Member
Ausguy,

For your info, I am one the very few here who is a big winner at the game of roulette.  I have mentionned this on several occasions here and won t say how I won again.  Certainly not to you.

Regarding you betting 35 numbers instead of one, well!  Talking about MUMBO JUMBO!

The odds in favor of the casino is always 2,7%, regardless of the bet you are making.  Now if the casino makes 2,7% out of, say 35$ instead of 2,7% out of 1 $, which one do you think <<they>> prefer?  It does not a great intellect to comprehend this one.  If you still cannot, then stick to world order.

This talk about one third of the numbers not coming up within 37 spins is as old as the game of Roulette.  If you are still at this level, that is ok, we ALL went through this phase.

Insider


john88

  • Member
  • *
  • 1
  • VLSroulette.com Member
I prefer color bets or odd/even bets. You have 18/37 chances of winning.
I think what matters is to module your bets in function of your previous results. This opens the doors to martingale theories.
I found an interesting website which shows the evolution of a random portfolio. Impressive to observe how you evolve if you bet 1 vs 2 bucks per game. Better you bet 1 buck...
it's on forexroadmap, they have a page named game theory.