Roulette

[mal]

im thinking that this could end up as a challenge at the casino, to find out who has the best system on roulette.

It would be a boring challenge as all "systems" would converge to an expected return of 36/37 = 97.3% of the amount you outlay, provided that you played for long enough.

ECKY + MAL ARE 2 VERY CLEVER PEOPLE
AS I SAID FOR EVERY 111 SPINS = A RATIO OF ABOUT 103% ON NUMBERS WINNING [casino]
OR 97.3 % AS ECKY STATES.

Lunchcutter is not entirely wrong with her/he post
Roulette is the best % for punters
But is the best moneyspinner for the casino as its played the most.

[RustyCage]

well my SYSTEM is more like the law of averages, if you have 20 or so spins in 2 thirds of the table surely the average says that the next spin or the ones in the very near future will be in the third that hasnt been touched for a while

That is a complete myth, MT79! Refer to previous posts on the subject - the ball has NO MEMORY so where it will land next has nothing to do with where it landed previously!!! The chance the ball lands in that other third is always the same.

The bigger myth is that everything that has happened previously has no bearing on what will happen in the future. True, the ball has no memory, and the next spin has 1/3 chance of landing in that third, BUT, if you use MT79s system, mathematically, it does change, because the odds are only a guide to one event, but we chose what that event is. In one off spins, that spin is the event. In MTs system, 21 or so spins is the event. If, after 17 spins, the first third has only occured 4 times, mathematically, you could say that 3 of the next four should land in that third. Will this happen? Probably not.

What you say is not correct PAFC. You say that 21 spins is your event, but if you are considering what has happened after 17 spins, then you are changing the event and hence the probability distribution of what will occur after 21 spins will change.

i.e. P(X times in first third after 21 spins) DOES NOT EQUAL P(X times in first third after 21 spins GIVEN it has appeared Y times in the first third after 17 spins)

If you walk up to the table and intend to have 5 spins, and hope the first third comes up once to win money (by increasing each bet after a loss), and third hasn't come up after 4 spins, is the next spin still 1/3 odds? Yes and no

The answer to this is emphatically YES!
I suggest you go and read a first year university statistics textbook.

Statistics are boring. And very unreliable. I have "Exploring Research" by Salkind. Interesting, but irrelevent to anything anyone will ever need in any situation ever. As I wrote on my Research exam, statistical research is just people making themselves seem inportant, ala my lecturer who marked my exam. Sure, the raw data is important, but any interpretation done is only useful to the person who did the interpretation, such is the nature of bias and background empirical knowledge.

And no, the event is still 21, not 17. I didn't change the event, I merely looked at three outcomes, 21 spins, each one mathematically occurs 7 times, and looked at them after 17 spins. Im not looking at what happened after 17 to work out what will happen next, looking at what should happen after 21 and what hasn't happened yet. I didn't word it too well, but I knew what I meant!!!

And if you read that I said, the next spin is still 1/3 chance of occurring, but thats not what that event is. The event is one in that third of the table in 5 spins. You go from needing 1/3 to break even, to needing 1/5 to be ahead.

[RustyCage]

im thinking that this could end up as a challenge at the casino, to find out who has the best system on roulette.

It would be a boring challenge as all "systems" would converge to an expected return of 36/37 = 97.3% of the amount you outlay, provided that you played for long enough.

You do some statistical stuff at uni? The uni would love you. You're very technical in your explinations, regurgitating facts. And you're right in theory, but thats all probability is, theory. Practice is very different. I assume you've had tutors tell you theory is what happens. They want to keep their jobs!!! Its a case of people who work for a university are useless to everyone. UniSA?

In theory, the 97.3% figure is correct. In practice, we could all test each system for 10 years each, and no one will ever get 97.3%. Average everyone out and it may get to about 97.3%, individually it would be different.

[RustyCage]

my dh was a croupier at the cas for 5 years about 15 years ago... he reckons it's absolute BS for anyone to think they can "beat" a casino and he also said that the worst odds are found on the routlette wheel

Not including Poker (which depends on your skill vs that of the other players) Roulette has the second best odds of any of the games after Blackjack. It even has better odds than Blackjack if you are not playing Blackjack with the optimal strategy.

So if you walk into the Casino totally pissed one night, Roulette is the best game to play if you want to minimize your losses.

Also the best game to watch! People frantically putting chips everywhere, and seeing the HUGE amount of chips that get put down that hole every spin. I love roulette, best casino game there is.

If anyone has a system and wants to practice it to see if it works, go to http://www.bet365.com, click on casino, European Roulette, and play for free. Wont go broke on dodgy systems that way!!

[mighty_tiger_79]

there is one game at the CASINO that always invariably repeats itself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you know how to play the game and have the correct strategies you cant lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rushby Hinds]

Tony Grieg on the TV just announced that wining the toss is a 50/50 thing

[Ecky]

Tony Grieg on the TV just announced that wining the toss is a 50/50 thing

Really? Surely it would depend on what system you use?

And the technique of the coin tosser?

[Ecky]

Statistics are boring.

Then why are you using them in your argument?

And very unreliable. .

Not surprising at all when there are many people (such as yourself) who use them without understanding what they really mean.

[mighty_tiger_79]

so what do they mean???????????????

[Ecky]

im thinking that this could end up as a challenge at the casino, to find out who has the best system on roulette.

It would be a boring challenge as all "systems" would converge to an expected return of 36/37 = 97.3% of the amount you outlay, provided that you played for long enough.

You do some statistical stuff at uni? The uni would love you. You're very technical in your explinations, regurgitating facts. And you're right in theory, but thats all probability is, theory. Practice is very different. I assume you've had tutors tell you theory is what happens. They want to keep their jobs!!! Its a case of people who work for a university are useless to everyone. UniSA?

What I am doing here is applying statistics to a real-life problem. i.e. Roulette, which is similar to my work role as a statistical consultant at Adelaide Uni - applying statistics to real-life problems. It is my background knowledge of stats theory which enables me to do this (well most of the time!)

[RustyCage]

Statistics are boring.

Then why are you using them in your argument?

And very unreliable. .

Not surprising at all when there are many people (such as yourself) who use them without understanding what they really mean.

My knowledge of statistics isn't great, thats for sure, but I know that for my argument the stats I used were ok for the point I was making. And yeah, anything other than the raw data is unreliable.

[RustyCage]

im thinking that this could end up as a challenge at the casino, to find out who has the best system on roulette.

It would be a boring challenge as all "systems" would converge to an expected return of 36/37 = 97.3% of the amount you outlay, provided that you played for long enough.

You do some statistical stuff at uni? The uni would love you. You're very technical in your explinations, regurgitating facts. And you're right in theory, but thats all probability is, theory. Practice is very different. I assume you've had tutors tell you theory is what happens. They want to keep their jobs!!! Its a case of people who work for a university are useless to everyone. UniSA?

What I am doing here is applying statistics to a real-life problem. i.e. Roulette, which is similar to my work role as a statistical consultant at Adelaide Uni - applying statistics to real-life problems. It is my background knowledge of stats theory which enables me to do this (well most of the time!)

At least you don't have to put up with some of the hacks at UniSA. The statistics we did they tried to make relevant to people doing teaching, so yeah, a waste of time.

Just with the 97.3% thing, that would be for the casino overall, only returning about 97.3%, or for the hardcore punter who is there 15 hours a day. For the average joe who only spends a few hours there, it doesn't apply.