Can anyone tell me whats going on here

[Big EZ]

Has anyone heard of this yet?  And can any of the math guys around here explain whats going on because I have no idea 

link:://mathematicalrouletterobber.com/web_documents/roulette.pdf

if me posting this link is not allowed I apologize in advance

[F_LAT_INO]

You aren't alone.

[chrisbis]

I can see what he's on about,
just a theory about what is the best fraction of a BR to bet on gives the best outcome in winning a definite amount of casino winnings. (assuming the casino had a limited Cashier)

No bet is offered except betting even-ODD and/OR 1st Dozen- To show the ROI.

Its just a paper on Roulette maths.  

[Big EZ]

Chris,

This is the theory to his betting strategy. He actually has a method that he sells. But I was just interested in seeing if the Math that he presents is indeed correct.

[iggiv]

it is no special bet selection involved. it is all about how much you should bet to keep on afloat and win finally.  Based on some math calculations.

[Big EZ]

iggiv,

do you have any idea of how it works? if you do I would be very interested in hearing about it

[chrisbis]

Chris,

This is the theory to his betting strategy. He actually has a method that he sells. But I was just interested in seeing if the Math that he presents is indeed correct.

Not sure.
Need Bayes or mr,ore look at this one- bit to "PURE" maths for me.

[mr.ore]

I personally do not approve of that. I have prooved myself(mathematically) that negative expectation game cannot be beaten. What is in that pdf seems nonsense to me, they suppose that a casino have FIXED SIZE capital, and compute a condition how how much you must win in order to beat that FIXED size capital. The condition absolutely does not consider table limits. Because what is written there is complicated, it seems that the author of that is clever => he have something. I know he CAN'T have something mathematically proven. Therefore, the method is a SCAM.

Why? Because in negative expectation game, the optimal way of play is like this:

Suppose you have a game with payouts 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, ..., M:1. All possible payouts, no one is missing. The probability of x:1 is p(x:1) = K/(x+1) for all x=1...M. If K=1, game is fair, if 0<K<1, it is unfair. Suppose, that you will play once in a life and your bankroll is B, and you want to maximize your chance, that you will win fixed target T=B+N, N<=M. The best way how to do that is to bet one unit on N:1, and if you win, you reach that target with one hit. If you lose, next time you bet N+1:1, because you need to win one more unit you just lost, and so on, you play until you either win or lose. So you alway play (T-B):1. Suppose that M is alway big enough before you lose your bankroll so that you can do the bet and the house edge is same for all chances. Nothing can do better than this. Remember that.

In roulette, there are no options with all possible payouts. So the player cannot play at real odds, and the house edge is slightly worse in it's effect. How to play? Just select minimal and maximal target, and try to get into this interval with as few units as possible in one hit. This leads to parachutes. Therefore, the best thing you can play is a parachute. Compute how much money will you spend on roulette in your life, how much do you want to win, prepare a parachute, and play it, even if the betsize were so big that you would have to wait 2-3 months before you could do that. Suppose you are willing to lose 100$ a month for upcoming ten years on roulette. Then your lifetime capital is 100*12*10=12000$. You make a lifetime target, like 25% of that, 12000*0.25=3000$. Your target is 15000$. You bet so that with one hit you are there or above that(minimal above that possible), and with minimal units needed(expose minimal bankroll to house edge). If you win before you lose 12000$, it's done, and you never ever play roulette again. It is prooved system for winning at roulette, hardly ever can any other do better under all theoretically possible circumstances. Now I can't say for sure if that this is true if you somehow "know", that "something" will "never" happen, like 45 reds in a row...

[chrisbis]

Thanx mr.ore

I knew U would shed more light on it that I. 

Cheers. 

[Bayes]

Yep, ditto mr.ore. Stay clear.