Who cares about the odds?

[Kav]

Hi guys,

I don't post often here and probably I won't be able to reply to any replies. But I just want to attempt to give an answer/explanation to Steve's logical argument, posted on the Turbo topic. Steve's main point is this:

THE PROBLEM IS YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BEAT ROULETTE WITHOUT CHANGING THE ODDS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

I don't want to be argumentative and I already know that none will change the mind of anyone. And like I said above I probably won't be here to defend my position. I just want to present the opposite way of thinking and you are free to do what you want with it: ridicule it, dismiss it or think about it. I also want to make clear that I speak only for myself. I don't represent Turbo or any other system player. Their opinions may differ from mine.

It is not only Steve who believes this. Many players, experts (in or without quotes) and the majority of mathematicians would agree with this claim.  They say: "Since the payout isn't fair, if you can't change the odds in your favour, you can't possibly win"

I disagree. Two points:
1. Most people who claim this, have not studied roulette strategies enough. It's natural, why would you invest time in something you believe it's ineffective. Therefore they get the idea that a roulette strategy is a concept that can work on autopilot. It is not. It's work. It's a fight. And you can not avoid losses. But still, by clever choice of bets and wise and disciplined money management, you can be in profit overall. When someone asks a question about "changing the odds" or "negating the house edge" or things like these, it's obvious to me that he expects a method that will produce wins on autopilot by flat betting. I do not flat bet and there is no way to win blindfolded. There is no such method I know of.

2. What is this fixation with the odds? When someone finds it strange to see only 1 black in 10 spins, because the odds are 50%-50%, we underestimate him and call him a victim of gambler's fallacy. Now suddenly the odds are the be all and end all of roulette. The odds are theoretical odds. In practice they are being refuted and disproved each and every spin. Each number has 1/37 odds or appearing, yet some numbers will go missing and other will repeat themselves shamelessly. I'm not arguing the basics of roulette here. What I'm saying is two things:

• You don't need to change the odds of a bet for the bet to be successful
• One must decide if odds are important or if believing in odds to materialize is gambler's fallacy. You can't have it both ways. If you believe with such conviction in odds then you believe that something is due.

Like I said, I just wanted to present my way of thinking. I don't want to dismiss any other opinion, I don't expect to change anyone's mind and I don't plan to reply, defending my approach. Everyone is free to think as he prefers.

[Madi]

“The odds are theoretical odds. In practice they are being refuted and disproved each and every spin”


Totally agree. But no one cares.

[Tinsoldiers]

I am in agreement with what is written here.  Beating odds every spin is not possible and it is a very constrained view to assume beating odds is the only way to win in roulette. Every spin is part of a larger set of spins.

[Steve]

Hey Kav, See below:

Most people who claim this, have not studied roulette strategies enough

Quite the opposite. People who make the claims have done a lot of testing, and are aware of many other tests. The tests are generally far more extensive than what most system players do. More extensive means more trustworthy, and more indicative of reality.

In my case, one thing I've done is used automated software to check billions of spins for patterns (I published part of the software free so anyone can test, but RX can do the same too). All imaginable patterns. For example, Turbo claims hot numbers are more likely to spin again soon. This has been tested exhaustively by so many people. You could have a repeater like 32,32. Or 32 spinning 3 times in 10 spins. Or whatever other sequence with "hot numbers". The result is betting hot numbers is no different to betting cold or even random numbers.

But still, by clever choice of bets and wise and disciplined money management, you can be in profit overall

Yes you can win by being careful, but this is still just luck.

You might increase your bets after winnings and get lucky with some big wins. You'd think that's playing smart... because there was a "winning streak". OR, you could lose on those big bets and be back to square one.

My point is money management, and being wise is actually just illusion. Because if the winning number is random, you don't know if your "wise choices" will cost or make you money.

When someone asks a question about "changing the odds" or "negating the house edge" or things like these, it's obvious to me that he expects a method that will produce wins on autopilot by flat betting. I do not flat bet and there is no way to win blindfolded. There is no such method I know of.

It sounds like you're differentiating between a system that can win, to a system that changes the odds. Everyone knows any system can win (with luck). But a system that has a long term advantage is completely different.

Take for example a "wise choice". When the spin is completely unpredictable, how can it be a wise choice? If there was a repeater like 32,32, is it wise to bet 32 again? Or wise to not bet 32 again because it would be unlikely to spin again? But actually if you test enough spins, you'll know undoubtedly that either situation happens exactly as often as the other. So there is no "wise choice". It's just random.

Now compare a system that changes the odds, which might determine that #16 is most likely to spin next. So then of course you would bet #16.

What is this fixation with the odds?

It's not specifically the ODDS. It is the combination of ODDS AND PAYOUT.

The problem is the PAYOUT is lower than the ODDS.

For example, consider a coin toss. The ODDS are 50/50 and payout 1:1. If you play for a while, you can expect to break even.

Now imagine every 10th win you have, you need to pay back that win like a tax. So no matter what you do, you are eventually going to lose. It doesn't matter what system you have, or how wise your choices are. You are still going to lose.

Roulette's house edge is a lot like this. The difference is you can change the ODDS, so that although you still have the annoying tax, you can win more than you lose.

Edge has nothing to do with money management or wise choices. It has to do with improving the odds so the unfair payout is overcome.

When someone finds it strange to see only 1 black in 10 spins, because the odds are 50%-50%, we underestimate him and call him a victim of gambler's fallacy. Now suddenly the odds are the be all and end all of roulette. The odds are theoretical odds. In practice they are being refuted and disproved each and every spin.

If he thinks he can bet black is due, or if red is on a streak, it is gamblers fallacy. Because red and black are just as likely to spin next. The proof is tests over billions (and more) spins that prove after 1 black in 10 spins, the next spin being black or red will occur the same amount of times. So it isn't mere theoretical odds. It is reality. The only exception is if there is an underlying physical reason why one color may win over the other (like a bias).

I have an open mind. Maybe there are other reasons. But it has been tested exhaustively, and there is no evidence at all to support one color is more likely to spin over the other.

I'm a logical person. So when there is no evidence to support something, I'm skeptical. And when the evidence we do have clearly suggests and demonstrates something, it's only reasonable to come to the conclusion.

In this case, with 1 black in 10 spins. Besides bias and such physical conditions, I know of no reason why one color is more likely to spin over another. But what information I do have to make up my mind is extensive test results that show red/black are just as likely as each other to spin next. We cannot ignore extensive testing. It is not a matter of opinion. It is just what the tests show. It has nothing to do with what we want or hope for. Nothing to do with wisdom. It's plain do the tests and see.

The odds are theoretical odds. In practice they are being refuted and disproved each and every spin

But they aren't being refuted. The tests show the odds are actually correct. Of course there is short term variance. For example, after 10 spins there might be 1 red, 10 blacks. There might be 4 blacks, 6 reds. Might be 5 blacks, 5 reds. But every combination of reds/blacks will happen the same amount of times. You cant bet for or against any combination because it's all just "random".

NOTE: Nothing is ever actually random. It's all just cause and effect. But when you cannot realistically predict things, they can be called "random".

Each number has 1/37 odds or appearing, yet some numbers will go missing and other will repeat themselves shamelessly

This is just simple statistics and variance. You can never know which of those numbers they'll be. And you can never know even if this will happen.

Its like how Turbo says in 37 spins there will never be 37 unique numbers. Actually if you test enough spins, it will happen. And if you test enough spins, it clearly happens the same amount of times as any other combination of spins.

You don't need to change the odds of a bet for the bet to be successful

No you don't. But then that would be success from luck, not from a real long term advantage.

One must decide if odds are important or if believing in odds to materialize is gambler's fallacy. You can't have it both ways. If you believe with such conviction in odds then you believe that something is due.

The odds are real. Extensive testing makes this very clear. You are talking about variance (anything being possible).

Understanding odds is nothing like believing something is due. It's actually the opposite. It is understanding that nothing is due. It is understanding that after any combination of consecutive spins, that nothing is due, and any number spinning next is equally likely.

Where's the proof? Testing billions of spins. Again we cant just ignore what the history and extensive testing shows.

It seems like you're saying players can still be successful without worrying about odds. And yes that's true, but again that would be from luck - not wisdom or smart choices.

In the end, all professional play is ODDS VS PAYOUT. Its the same for any investment - risk vs return.

If you are "gambling" then the risks outweigh the returns. If you are an advantage player, then you are rigging the game to be in your favor, so the returns outweigh the risks.

[Steve]

I understand that responses about math, odds, payouts etc can seem arrogant. But really it's just math is not a matter of opinion. It is simply what is. And if you do extensive testing, the truth is clear.

Also keep in mind the entire gaming industry is built on odds vs payout. It is the foundation of gambling.

The experts are not wrong. It's why gamblers lose money while casinos make billions.

The occasional winning gambler does not mean they have beaten the casino. It just means some players win once in a while. I even won for around a year with a losing system, and thought I had it figured out. But beating 5000 or so spins with a losing system is not difficult.

There could be 10 people all using the same system for a year... and 6 may lose, 4 may win. The 6 losers are back to the drawing board. The 4 winners brag to their family and friends and are convinced their system works. But they fail to see the larger picture.

[sentinel3]

Hey Kav, See below:

Quite the opposite. People who make the claims have done a lot of testing, and are aware of many other tests. The tests are generally far more extensive than what most system players do. More extensive means more trustworthy, and more indicative of reality.

In my case, one thing I've done is used automated software to check billions of spins for patterns (I published part of the software free so anyone can test, but RX can do the same too). All imaginable patterns. For example, Turbo claims hot numbers are more likely to spin again soon. This has been tested exhaustively by so many people. You could have a repeater like 32,32. Or 32 spinning 3 times in 10 spins. Or whatever other sequence with "hot numbers". The result is betting hot numbers is no different to betting cold or even random numbers.

Yes you can win by being careful, but this is still just luck.

You might increase your bets after winnings and get lucky with some big wins. You'd think that's playing smart... because there was a "winning streak". OR, you could lose on those big bets and be back to square one.

My point is money management, and being wise is actually just illusion. Because if the winning number is random, you don't know if your "wise choices" will cost or make you money.

It sounds like you're differentiating between a system that can win, to a system that changes the odds. Everyone knows any system can win (with luck). But a system that has a long term advantage is completely different.

Take for example a "wise choice". When the spin is completely unpredictable, how can it be a wise choice? If there was a repeater like 32,32, is it wise to bet 32 again? Or wise to not bet 32 again because it would be unlikely to spin again? But actually if you test enough spins, you'll know undoubtedly that either situation happens exactly as often as the other. So there is no "wise choice". It's just random.

Now compare a system that changes the odds, which might determine that #16 is most likely to spin next. So then of course you would bet #16.

It's not specifically the ODDS. It is the combination of ODDS AND PAYOUT.

The problem is the PAYOUT is lower than the ODDS.

For example, consider a coin toss. The ODDS are 50/50 and payout 1:1. If you play for a while, you can expect to break even.

Now imagine every 10th win you have, you need to pay back that win like a tax. So no matter what you do, you are eventually going to lose. It doesn't matter what system you have, or how wise your choices are. You are still going to lose.

Roulette's house edge is a lot like this. The difference is you can change the ODDS, so that although you still have the annoying tax, you can win more than you lose.

Edge has nothing to do with money management or wise choices. It has to do with improving the odds so the unfair payout is overcome.

If he thinks he can bet black is due, or if red is on a streak, it is gamblers fallacy. Because red and black are just as likely to spin next. The proof is tests over billions (and more) spins that prove after 1 black in 10 spins, the next spin being black or red will occur the same amount of times. So it isn't mere theoretical odds. It is reality. The only exception is if there is an underlying physical reason why one color may win over the other (like a bias).

I have an open mind. Maybe there are other reasons. But it has been tested exhaustively, and there is no evidence at all to support one color is more likely to spin over the other.

I'm a logical person. So when there is no evidence to support something, I'm skeptical. And when the evidence we do have clearly suggests and demonstrates something, it's only reasonable to come to the conclusion.

In this case, with 1 black in 10 spins. Besides bias and such physical conditions, I know of no reason why one color is more likely to spin over another. But what information I do have to make up my mind is extensive test results that show red/black are just as likely as each other to spin next. We cannot ignore extensive testing. It is not a matter of opinion. It is just what the tests show. It has nothing to do with what we want or hope for. Nothing to do with wisdom. It's plain do the tests and see.

But they aren't being refuted. The tests show the odds are actually correct. Of course there is short term variance. For example, after 10 spins there might be 1 red, 10 blacks. There might be 4 blacks, 6 reds. Might be 5 blacks, 5 reds. But every combination of reds/blacks will happen the same amount of times. You cant bet for or against any combination because it's all just "random".

NOTE: Nothing is ever actually random. It's all just cause and effect. But when you cannot realistically predict things, they can be called "random".

This is just simple statistics and variance. You can never know which of those numbers they'll be. And you can never know even if this will happen.

Its like how Turbo says in 37 spins there will never be 37 unique numbers. Actually if you test enough spins, it will happen. And if you test enough spins, it clearly happens the same amount of times as any other combination of spins.

No you don't. But then that would be success from luck, not from a real long term advantage.

The odds are real. Extensive testing makes this very clear. You are talking about variance (anything being possible).

Understanding odds is nothing like believing something is due. It's actually the opposite. It is understanding that nothing is due. It is understanding that after any combination of consecutive spins, that nothing is due, and any number spinning next is equally likely.

Where's the proof? Testing billions of spins. Again we cant just ignore what the history and extensive testing shows.

It seems like you're saying players can still be successful without worrying about odds. And yes that's true, but again that would be from luck - not wisdom or smart choices.

In the end, all professional play is ODDS VS PAYOUT. Its the same for any investment - risk vs return.

If you are "gambling" then the risks outweigh the returns. If you are an advantage player, then you are rigging the game to be in your favor, so the returns outweigh the risks.

Roulette is a percentage game Steve. If you know you will win a minumum number of times in a set number of games. It doesnt matter if you are risking 3 to win 1 or whatever.

You then factor in money management to put the balance of return in your favour. House edge is negated once you have a winning minumum expectancy. If I play ten games of whatever. And know im always winning at least 5 of them no matter what configuration those 5 wins come in. I am now in control.

This is a thought process that few are able to run with. But its a reality that beats this game. Putting a system in an artificial bot and watching it fail is not reality. Its far too mechanical and sterile.

All any player of this game needs. Is to come out on top in their lifetime. We will all be dust before we play a billion spins. We dont just sit around playing like robots. We use judgement and money managment to put things in our favour.

This i learnt from a book by Brett Morton called playing to win. Read it sometime. You will get another perspective on beating the game.

[Steve]

If you know you will win a minumum number of times in a set number of games

Yes, but you don't know with enough certainty to overcome the house edge. In fact the certainty you know gives you a -2.7% edge, which is exactly the same as the house edge. In other words, with all the complex bet selection, nothing at all has changed.

What you are saying is like saying after 100 spins, you know there will be about 50 reds, 50 blacks (ignoring 0). So then you bet on the "percentage" knowing you will win half the time. It just doesn't work like that.

All any player of this game needs. Is to come out on top in their lifetime

Thats not too hard. But how long is a lifetime? And if 10 players all use the same system for a "lifetime", they will probably all lose. Maybe there will be 1 winner if a lifetime is 5000 spins. So whos' the lucky winner then? They are all using the same system, so its all just luck. that's not bearting roulette. That's gambling.

Brett Morton has no idea what he's talking about. Or maybe you misunderstood him. If you are looking to win just over your lifetime of spins, then try betting low in losing streaks, and betting high in winning streaks. That's ultimately what any such system tries to do. Sounds ok right? Well actually it's not, because how do you know you arent missing big wins when betting low, and vice versa?

This is all really old news. I'm sorry to say this is all just what every professional in the industry takes for granted. It is just known fact. And anyone wjho wants to prove it to themselves can easily do some testing.

An easy way to end a debate about all this, like what works and what doesnt work, is DO LOTS OF TESTING. It's really simple. It will end any debate easily.

[sentinel3]

Yes, but you don't know with enough certainty to overcome the house edge. In fact the certainty you know gives you a -2.7% edge, which is exactly the same as the house edge. In other words, with all the complex bet selection, nothing at all has changed.

What you are saying is like saying after 100 spins, you know there will be about 50 reds, 50 blacks (ignoring 0). So then you bet on the "percentage" knowing you will win half the time. It just doesn't work like that.

Thats not too hard. But how long is a lifetime? And if 10 players all use the same system for a "lifetime", they will probably all lose. Maybe there will be 1 winner if a lifetime is 5000 spins. So whos' the lucky winner then? They are all using the same system, so its all just luck. that's not bearting roulette. That's gambling.

Brett Morton has no idea what he's talking about. Or maybe you misunderstood him. If you are looking to win just over your lifetime of spins, then try betting low in losing streaks, and betting high in winning streaks. That's ultimately what any such system tries to do. Sounds ok right? Well actually it's not, because how do you know you arent missing big wins when betting low, and vice versa?

This is all really old news. I'm sorry to say this is all just what every professional in the industry takes for granted. It is just known fact. And anyone wjho wants to prove it to themselves can easily do some testing.

An easy way to end a debate about all this, like what works and what doesnt work, is DO LOTS OF TESTING. It's really simple. It will end any debate easily.

No Steve, im not taking about betting over such a large number as 100. Im saying this. You play 10 games and know the vast majority of the time you win AT LEAST 5 of them. But you usually win more. 70% being a more common breakdown.

You have to divorce yourself from thinking as the casinos want you to think. House edge exists. Table limits exist. And of course variance exists. But they cannot overcome precise judgement and money management.

5000 spins is not a life time. But one billion spins is 20 lifetimes. If I play one game a day. And that game is over in a maximum of 3 spins. And I win at least 345 of those 365 games. Where I am risking 7 to win 1

Am I winning or not?. You will of couse say thats not enough. It has to survive a billion spin bot test. Or my money stays in the bank.

If i am winning 100 units each day. At least 345 days out of the year. And losing 700 units 20 days out of the year. Anyway you spin it ( no pun intended) I am winning.

If I do that for 30 years. How many spins have I played? Not even 20,000. But I have made money. I am a winner. This is REALITY. Not lets put said system in a mechanical bot and see how long it takes to tank.

We are dealing in the real world. Not inside a computer. And as long as i end a calendar year in profit. Nothing else matters.

[Steve]

No Steve, im not taking about betting over such a large number as 100. Im saying this. You play 10 games and know the vast majority of the time you win AT LEAST 5 of them. But you usually win more. 70% being a more common breakdown.

Its very easy to win MOST of the time.

For example, play just 10 spins and bet on red. Double your bet after losses and walk away when you profit. You will win MOST of the time. But when you lose, you lose all your winnings and more.

You have to divorce yourself from thinking as the casinos want you to think

The casino wants you to think the way you are thinking.

But they cannot overcome precise judgement and money management.

Judgement of what? Is your judgement making you win more often than you would with random bets?

But one billion spins is 20 lifetimes

That's 50m spins per person. Seeing around 100,000 spins is probably the most any player would see in their lifetime.

If I play one game a day. And that game is over in a maximum of 3 spins. And I win at least 345 of those 365 games. Where I am risking 7 to win 1

How much do you lose when you lose?

And would this strategy work for 100 players if they all used it too? What would be the combined profit/loss? How would you know which players won or lost?

We are dealing in the real world. Not inside a computer. And as long as i end a calendar year in profit. Nothing else matters.

If I have 2 apples in a basket, and eat 1, how many apples do I have left?
2 - 1 = 1 apple left.
That's the math. It IS real life.

What you are doing is incorrectly calculating, then calling math irrelevant because it's just numbers.

I'm sorry but you're quite wrong, and only looking at one side of the equation.

[cht]

I won't go into details. This is my stand.

If you don't somehow change the odds by whatever means, your win is based on luck. Math dictates that you will lose itlr.

Who knows when this itlr is applicable to YOU ? It could be your next series of bets although I won't wish it upon you.

[Steve]

If you don't somehow change the odds by whatever means, your win is based on luck. Math dictates that you will lose itlr.

That's correct. So if you are changing the odds in your favor, you will win in the long run.

What I'm jumping up and down about is how odds can and cannot be changed. You can check every possible combination of spins for roulette and cross check for patterns that can be used to change odds. That would take a very long and unfeasible amount time. Or you can check the combinations of a wheel with just 10 numbers. It's the same thing, different scale.

[cht]

This is my general observation.

Most people try to use progressive bet sizing to circumvent variance.

Not totally wrong BUT you have to do the math correctly. Based on what I read on forums, tbh they all are a joke. No offence.

I have posted on Andre Chass thread a progression table based on his progressive bet sizing. I have yet to provide the math implication yet. It's simple, really.

The summary about progression is this - place your largest bet on the highest probability of occurence vice versa. If it's net negative probability it makes no sense to place a bet. It's that simple. If you can't determine the probability your progression is nonsensical math wise. 

[Andre Chass]

This is my general observation.

I have posted on Andre Chass thread a progression table based on his progressive bet sizing. I have yet to provide the math implication yet. It's simple, really.

I said on my thread to forget long progression. It's a big mistake use it.
I use a "positive progression". I call it positive because it's a short progression and I win more fast. If your strategy is a winner  the progression will be a winner. It rarely will fail.
My strategy works flatbet, but it takes too much time.

[cht]

It's not specifically the ODDS. It is the combination of ODDS AND PAYOUT.

The problem is the PAYOUT is lower than the ODDS.

Exactly.

And that's where the casino's Achilles heals lie - it's a fixed unfair payout unlike .....

[cht]

I said on my thread to forget long progression. It's a big mistake use it.
I use a "positive progression". I call it positive because it's a short progression and I win more fast. If your strategy is a winner  the progression will be a winner. It rarely will fail.
My strategy works flatbet, but it takes too much time.

The same math rules apply to all progressions, positive and negative.

Progressive bet sizing has to make math sense. It's got nothing to do with winning faster.  Simply put, we bet more because we have more chance to win vv. No offence pls.