Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Steam Log In with Google Sign In
  • Create Account
Photo

WIN easily @ roulette

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1
krAzy :)

krAzy :)

    L8: Grand Teacher

  • ET Trial
  • 1,550 posts
70
On the road to fame
  • Admin:11
  • Server:Silent #1
  • Alias:krAzy:]
Contributor
i saw i video on youtube. a man explains (in german) how to win at roulette with no special skill
example:
1.round: bet 1€ red
---> u loose
2.round: bet 2€ red
---> u loose
3.round: bet 4€ red
---> u loose
4.round: bet 8€ red
---> u WIN

ok...before u lost: 1+2+4= 7€
at last game u won 8€
u got the lost money back and also won 1€!!!! ------>OWNED

if u dont belief me tried it out on this game:
http://www.miniclip-...games/3005.html
(btw its free)
and it really works

the guy in the vid said when u do this trick in real casino, they would !kick u out
but they dont in online game

im really thinking about "gambling" online with money

what do u guys think???


Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!

#2
leiburi

leiburi

    L3: Novice

  • User
  • 168 posts
9
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:7
Contributor
cant be true, and even that i didnt believe it at begin i tried that online game and did what you said and red came in 3third spin...
well i still won 1$ overall but imo you cant guess those even with some tactic ;)

well gambling is fine in internet if you just play for fun with small amounts...
you can easily lose much money if you think too much of yourself ;)

good luck if you start gambling :D

#3
milli vanilli

milli vanilli

    L8: Grand Teacher

  • Honored Veteran
  • 1,564 posts
116
On the road to fame
  • Admin:20
  • Server:None
Contributor
there is no guarantee you'll win on the 4th bet. every game you have a 50/50 chance of winning/loosing

#4
Aigle

Aigle

    L6: Expert

  • Honored Veteran
  • 899 posts
87
On the road to fame
  • Admin:19
  • Server:Silent #1
  • Alias:=F|A=$c00p
  • T-M:ET: 1-0

there is no guarantee you'll win on the 4th bet. every game you have a 50/50 chance of winning/loosing


Not 50/50, the 0 (and 00 depending on the roulette) exist. No game gives you 50/50, it's always less then 50 else the casino wouldn't make money.

#5
hobbit

hobbit

    L10: Grand Master

  • Regular User
  • 3,246 posts
286
Will become famous
  • Admin:0
  • Server:None
  • Steam ID:pvtforrestgump
Contributor
Lol won on 1st try :P

#6
Connection

Connection

    L3: Novice

  • User
  • 345 posts
2
Unknown at this point
it's 18/38 ~ 47% in roulette if you bet even/odd or red/black. there is a green '0' ( which isn't counted as even, even though 0/2 is an integer. go figure )

the trick is to double your bet each round, and to quit as soona s you win ( or start over with a 1 $ bet )

there is no guarantee that you will win any round, but as long as you double your bet, when you win you will make more than what you have bet so far:

round 1 bet x = x*2^0
round 2 bet 2x = x*2^1
round 3 bet 2(2x)=4x = x*2^2
round 4 bet 2(4x)=8x = x*2^3
...
round n bet x*2^(n-1)

suppose you win on the kth round after losing rounds 1... k-1
then you have lost x*[2^0 + 2^1 + ... + 2^(k-2)] = x*[1 + 2 + 4 + ... + 2^(k-2)]
and you have won x*2^(k-1)

your profit is (win)-(lose), or:
x*2^(k-1) - x*[2^0 + 2^1 + ... + 2^(k-2)]
and we hope that this is > 0. lets check.

how the heck do we check?

well first lets set up the inequality we want, and see if it's true or not:
x*2^(k-1) - x*[2^0 + 2^1 + ... + 2^(k-2)] > 0 ??

now what?
ooh i know. let's divide everything by x*2^(k-2)
then we have:

2^(k-1)/2^(k-2)-[ (2^0)/2^(k-2) + (2^1)/2^(k-2) + (2^2)/2^(k-2) + ... + (2^(k-2))/2^(k-2) ] > 0/2^(k-2) > 0 ?
2 - [1/2^(k-2) + 1/2^(k-3) + ... + 1/2^3 + 1/2^2 + 1/2^1 + 1] > 0 ?
2 - [1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^(k-2)] > 0?

well, the sum in the line above is a geometric series with ratio - 1/2 ( every term is 1/2 the term before it ). as k approaches infinity, a bit of calculus II ( actually analysis, but nvm ) tells us that the limit of this series is 1/(1-r) = 1/(1-1/2) = 2

which would mean our winnings equation becomes
2 - 2 = 0

bummer. if it takes you infinite number of plays to win, your going to end up doing no more than break even.
the good news is that you won't ever be able to play infinite times; you're going to win after some less-than-infinite number of plays.
now some actual analysis that i won't confuse you with tells us that the geometric series that approaches 2 approaches it from the lower side of 2, so for a non-infinite k, the series will sum to something less than 2. that's really good news, because then for some arbitrarily small, positive number e ( for epsilon =p ), we have

2 - ( 2 - e ) = e > 0

i know you are probably not following this anymore, dear reader, but it means that you will get positive winnings. unless you play an infinite number of times before you win lol.


this strategy works for any game with a 1-1 payout.

the problem with using this strategy is that you have to keep doubling your bet! At some point, you either won't be able to cover your bet, or the house won't take your bet because it's too large. say you start with $100. you don't want to waste your time trying to win $1 at a time, so you bet $10. lets say you lose. now you have $90. well, you've got this great strategy, so double your bet ( $20 ) and play again. and lose. dang. you now have $70, and a great strategy to win, so double your bet again. $40. crap. you lose. now you are down to $30 - if you lose, you can't double your bet! after only 3 losses in a row, you got pwned! statistically, you're going to see 5, 6, 7 losses in a row sometimes on a fair table on the 1-1 bets. that means you have to walk in and bet ( and stand to win ) small change in order to make sure you have enough of a reserve to keep doubling on a losing streak. this in turn means you aren't going to stand to win very much $$ compared to what you need to have in your pocket.

all in all though, it's a sound strategy that WILL win, even if it won't win much, but to be sure you're going to come out ahead, you need a big bankroll, and you need to bet small.

if you were going to play with real money, i would keep my bets at like 1% of your bankroll. even at 1% you will bankrupt yourself if you lose 6 times in a row - you won't be able to double your bet a 7th time. the chances of losing 6 times in a row? 1/64 for coin tosses - a little higher for a roulette wheel with a '0' and higher still for one with a '00' - not entirely unlikely.

it's 18/38 ~ 47% in roulette if you bet even/odd or red/black. there is a green '0' ( which isn't counted as even, even though 0/2 is an integer. go figure )

the trick is to double your bet each round, and to quit as soona s you win ( or start over with a 1 $ bet )

there is no guarantee that you will win any round, but as long as you double your bet, when you win you will make more than what you have bet so far:

round 1 bet x = x*2^0
round 2 bet 2x = x*2^1
round 3 bet 2(2x)=4x = x*2^2
round 4 bet 2(4x)=8x = x*2^3
...
round n bet x*2^(n-1)

suppose you win on the kth round after losing rounds 1... k-1
then you have lost x*[2^0 + 2^1 + ... + 2^(k-2)] = x*[1 + 2 + 4 + ... + 2^(k-2)]
and you have won x*2^(k-1)

your profit is (win)-(lose), or:
x*2^(k-1) - x*[2^0 + 2^1 + ... + 2^(k-2)]
and we hope that this is > 0. lets check.

how the heck do we check?

well first lets set up the inequality we want, and see if it's true or not:
x*2^(k-1) - x*[2^0 + 2^1 + ... + 2^(k-2)] > 0 ??

now what?
ooh i know. let's divide everything by x*2^(k-2)
then we have:

2^(k-1)/2^(k-2)-[ (2^0)/2^(k-2) + (2^1)/2^(k-2) + (2^2)/2^(k-2) + ... + (2^(k-2))/2^(k-2) ] > 0/2^(k-2) > 0 ?
2 - [1/2^(k-2) + 1/2^(k-3) + ... + 1/2^3 + 1/2^2 + 1/2^1 + 1] > 0 ?
2 - [1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^(k-2)] > 0?

well, the sum in the line above is a geometric series with ratio - 1/2 ( every term is 1/2 the term before it ). as k approaches infinity, a bit of calculus II ( actually analysis, but nvm ) tells us that the limit of this series is 1/(1-r) = 1/(1-1/2) = 2

which would mean our winnings equation becomes
2 - 2 = 0

bummer. if it takes you infinite number of plays to win, your going to end up doing no more than break even.
the good news is that you won't ever be able to play infinite times; you're going to win after some less-than-infinite number of plays.
now some actual analysis that i won't confuse you with tells us that the geometric series that approaches 2 approaches it from the lower side of 2, so for a non-infinite k, the series will sum to something less than 2. that's really good news, because then for some arbitrarily small, positive number e ( for epsilon =p ), we have

2 - ( 2 - e ) = e > 0

i know you are probably not following this anymore, dear reader, but it means that you will get positive winnings. unless you play an infinite number of times before you win lol.


this strategy works for any game with a 1-1 payout.

the problem with using this strategy is that you have to keep doubling your bet! At some point, you either won't be able to cover your bet, or the house won't take your bet because it's too large. say you start with $100. you don't want to waste your time trying to win $1 at a time, so you bet $10. lets say you lose. now you have $90. well, you've got this great strategy, so double your bet ( $20 ) and play again. and lose. dang. you now have $70, and a great strategy to win, so double your bet again. $40. crap. you lose. now you are down to $30 - if you lose, you can't double your bet! after only 3 losses in a row, you got pwned! statistically, you're going to see 5, 6, 7 losses in a row sometimes on a fair table on the 1-1 bets. that means you have to walk in and bet ( and stand to win ) small change in order to make sure you have enough of a reserve to keep doubling on a losing streak. this in turn means you aren't going to stand to win very much $$ compared to what you need to have in your pocket.

all in all though, it's a sound strategy that WILL win, even if it won't win much, but to be sure you're going to come out ahead, you need a big bankroll, and you need to bet small.

if you were going to play with real money, i would keep my bets at like 1% of your bankroll. even at 1% you will bankrupt yourself if you lose 6 times in a row - you won't be able to double your bet a 7th time. the chances of losing 6 times in a row? 1/64 for coin tosses - a little higher for a roulette wheel with a '0' and higher still for one with a '00' - not entirely unlikely.

#7
aarop2

aarop2

    L6: Expert

  • Regular User
  • 967 posts
3
Unknown at this point
  • Admin:12
Contributor
i wouldent bet online. it would keep you away from FA and ET :P

#8
krAzy :)

krAzy :)

    L8: Grand Teacher

  • ET Trial
  • 1,550 posts
70
On the road to fame
  • Admin:11
  • Server:Silent #1
  • Alias:krAzy:]
Contributor
omg connection . . . . ur a math-genius ;)
didnt read all of it....some parts i understood...other i didnt

and....the "trick" i wrote isnt much about 50/50 chance.....its just 100% of Win....;)
but u need big bankroll (as connection wrote) and the max bet has to be high enough....

i just figured out: betting 1€ at beginning is crap...
start with 2€

with the example i made (start with 1€) u just win 1€
if u start with 2€ its better : u win 2€ and its the same thing

example:
2€ red
-->loose
4€ red
--->loose
8€ red
--->win: lost 6€ and won 8€=WIN of 2€

only thing is: amount of betting gets faster .. bigger

#9
Connection

Connection

    L3: Novice

  • User
  • 345 posts
2
Unknown at this point
lol sorry i couldn't help myself. maybe later i'll prove that you win exactly the amount of your first bet =D

yeah the biggest problem is like you say:

only thing is: amount of betting gets faster .. bigger


doubling your bet every round adds up quick! so you need to start with a SMALL amount compared to the total of what you have.

#10
Fb!N!nJa

Fb!N!nJa

    L7: Teacher

  • Regular User
  • 1,141 posts
9
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:3
  • Server:None
holy sht connection, you are the roulette pro master




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users