Betting Systems?

JONJO THE MISER

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

Can someone tell me if there are any casino games that are not naturally losing games for punters? In theory you can break even at roulette.
Does the house always win at blackjack?

Over the past 4 years im up over €18,000 playing blackjack on land based casinos, never play online (once a few week ago on a live dealer website) or n irish private casinos.
Have not played since March this year when i was in Aus and over there played a total of 69 days with only 12 losing days but with the system i use i got all that back.
How do i play?
1. I never drink when i play.
2. I play perfect stratgey.
3. More inportant that perfect strategy is having a stop loss and a win and leave level. For example i bring in €500 and play at the 5 Eur tables and play until i make 200 EUR or stop when i loose 500 EUR, there is no point in playing blackjack if you dont have a stop loss or you dont have a set limit on the amount you want to win, for example what is the point in playing if you don't have any idea how much you want to win before you quit, somedays i made my 200 in a hour others after 12 hours, i used to go 3 days a week and if i lost 500 i would keep going every day winning 200 until i got back my 500, i played it nice and slow and had lots of patience, if i thought i should of lost a hand for 5 i would put 15 on the following hand as if i had lost the hand that i was odds on to loose and then i would go back to 5 reguardless of win or loose.
Would i increase my bets since my system seems to work, the answer is no because i enjoy playing it and i would be under intense pressure if i was risking say a few thousand every time i went in, my bankroll for blackjack was such that i could sustain 500 losses a number of days in row, but that has never happened, my longest losing run was 2 days.
Hope all this make sense.

JONJO THE MISER

kincsem wrote: »

Get rich slowly schemes are better.
).

Spot on, ive met many otherwise sucessful poker players and gamblers destroyed by tilt, it happens us all but over the last few years i have been able to reduce mine by a few simple rules i obey.
Take a look at Pyro's log over on the gambling form, now that is how a true professional operates.

Sharkey 10

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Over the past 4 years im up over €18,000 playing blackjack on land based casinos, never play online (once a few week ago on a live dealer website) or n irish private casinos.
Have not played since March this year when i was in Aus and over there played a total of 69 days with only 12 losing days but with the system i use i got all that back.
How do i play?
1. I never drink when i play.
2. I play perfect stratgey.
3. More inportant that perfect strategy is having a stop loss and a win and leave level. For example i bring in €500 and play at the 5 Eur tables and play until i make 200 EUR or stop when i loose 500 EUR, there is no point in playing blackjack if you dont have a stop loss or you dont have a set limit on the amount you want to win, for example what is the point in playing if you don't have any idea how much you want to win before you quit, somedays i made my 200 in a hour others after 12 hours, i used to go 3 days a week and if i lost 500 i would keep going every day winning 200 until i got back my 500, i played it nice and slow and had lots of patience, if i thought i should of lost a hand for 5 i would put 15 on the following hand as if i had lost the hand that i was odds on to loose and then i would go back to 5 reguardless of win or loose.
Would i increase my bets since my system seems to work, the answer is no because i enjoy playing it and i would be under intense pressure if i was risking say a few thousand every time i went in, my bankroll for blackjack was such that i could sustain 500 losses a number of days in row, but that has never happened, my longest losing run was 2 days.
Hope all this make sense.

I get what your saying . So its the opposite of poker where you stay at a good table but i guess thats because of opponents.
Can you explain to me whether or not the house have the edge in a game of blackjack or is it a level playing field ? I assume all the dealers have been told how to play? When you play optimal strategy ( which i dont understand) what can you expect? ie are you an exception to the rule?

JONJO THE MISER

The house has a very low edge on blackjack, playing perfect strategy along with the way i play means i have a edge, as i said i only play abroad, haven't played since March but planning a trip to vegas where i will be more than happy to make my $200 per day.
Basically its up and down each blacjack shoe but i often played for more than 12 hours straight, i just love the buzz and the people you have the craic with, with the profit being a bonus.
Also if im at $200 winning's i usually trow one more $5 bet on if it wins i keep playing with the other $5 and keep going until i lose a $5, then i take my winnings.

adamski8

OutlawPete wrote: »

Let's say that Ronnie O'Sullivan could pot the black of it's spot on average, seven times out of ten.
So he backs himself to do it for €10,000 at Evens.
He misses ..
So he doubles his stake, as chances are, he is now closer to potting it.
He misses again, well now there is even more chance of him doing it.
So again he doubles his stake.

That's what I am saying, if you find something that has more than a fifty fifty chance, or just something that can only go two ways and never the same way ten times in a row, then you're laughing.

that makes zero sense.
1st you wouldnt get evens on it to begin with and you think the odds would stay the same as the shot gets easier.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Just because the chances of something becomes statistically more probable, does not mean the event before has to have directly effected the event after.

If I flip a coin and get heads seven times in a row, that has NO effect on what the next flip will be, NONE!! NADA!! ZIP!!

However, the statistical probability that the coin will land on tails within the next few flips is now statistically increasing.

If that wasn't the case, then roulette wheels would regularly roll red, a thirty or forty times in a row.

>what? probabilty is statistics!
>no it isnt one bit! god i thought you were having a laugh when i saw this thread on after hours.

OutlawPete wrote: »

If you were to bring a bookie into a casino and got him make a book on just the Red and Black market all night, do you think his odds would not fluctuate?

Take Deal or No Deal.

Someone has the £250,000 the previous day and the player picks that users box and says:

"I'll go with you, as the chances of you having it two days in a row are slim"

You don't think that is common sense?

Even though the previous day's boxes have ZERO effect on todays?

no the bookie would not change the odds. oh god can i be that bookie!

no thats the opposite of common sense. it makes zero difference what box they pick. it has the same chance of being £250,000 as any other of the boxes!

OutlawPete wrote: »

I know.

And I am choosing to refer to that as 'statistically probable', I know I don't "need" to.

Nothing I have said, contradicts it self either.

You see it that way as you don't believe that with percentage bets, the law of averages can and very often is, the smart wager.

When I am in a Casino and I see a roulette wheel hit either five reds or blacks in a row, I will employ the Martingale system for five or six chances and I have never lost yet.

The chances of either red or black not coming out for nine or ten spins, is very very rare - happens, but's it's rare enough to have a punt.

According to you, it wouldn't matter when I employed the Martingale system, as the chances would be the same no matter how many times one colour has come out in a row.

I call that naive.

yet being the most important word. losing 7 times in a row has a ~1 in 100 chance. How many times have you done it? you will lose if you keep it up!
just learn some basic probability maths and you'd see how your wrong:
http://www.onlinecasinosystem.com/martingale/:
To determine the Martingale European roulette odds the first thing we needed was the probability of losing each bet placed on a single color. In European roulette (one Zero) a color bet will lose 19 out of 37 times (19/37 = 0.5135). To calculate further we need to take probability of winning decimal and power it to the number of times we can afford to bet. In a 9 bet system on European roulette on a single color the formula would be 0.5135^9. To make this clear, ^9 is the proper way of writing to the ninth power. When we calculate this out we see 0.5135^9 equals 0.00248. We then divide: 1/0.00248 = 403. This means our odds of losing 9 color bets in a row at European roulette is 1 in 403.

OutlawPete

adamski8 wrote: »

that makes zero sense.
1st you wouldnt get evens on it to begin with and you think the odds would stay the same as the shot gets easier.

Obviously nobody is going to get Evens on Ronnie O'Sullivan potting a ball.

It was used as an example, hence the: "Let's say.." preceding it.

adamski8 wrote: »

>what? probabilty is statistics!
>no it isnt one bit!

And you say you thought that I was having a laugh?

Where did I say: "probability is statistics", what are you on about?

adamski8 wrote: »

no thats the opposite of common sense. it makes zero difference what box they pick. it has the same chance of being £250,000 as any other of the boxes!

The "chance" of someone picking the £250,000 box twice in a row is not the "same" - not in the way I mean the word at least.

Technically, you could say that a player that picks the £250,000 box four times in a row has as much "chance" of picking it a fifth time, but the probability (the true odds) of them doing so, are very slim indeed.

Bookmakers will give you the same odds though and professional gamblers regularly exploit the difference between "fixed odds" and "true odds".

adamski8 wrote: »

just learn some basic probability maths and you'd see how your wrong:
http://www.onlinecasinosystem.com/martingale/:
To determine the Martingale European roulette odds the first thing we needed was the probability of losing each bet placed on a single color. In European roulette (one Zero) a color bet will lose 19 out of 37 times (19/37 = 0.5135). To calculate further we need to take probability of winning decimal and power it to the number of times we can afford to bet. In a 9 bet system on European roulette on a single color the formula would be 0.5135^9. To make this clear, ^9 is the proper way of writing to the ninth power. When we calculate this out we see 0.5135^9 equals 0.00248. We then divide: 1/0.00248 = 403. This means our odds of losing 9 color bets in a row at European roulette is 1 in 403.

Your post screams of someone that has read just a few posts in the thread and then jumped in with both feet.

I have already pointed out the flaws in the Martingale system and gave an example of how someone with a bank of €30,000 and a starting bet of just €1,000, would only need to lose five bets in order for them to go broke, so quite why you are addressing me with the above, I don't know.

mink_man

for the martingale system why do you need to start with a fortune. if you start with say a tenner in your account then bet 10 cent to start, then if you lose you're betting 20 next time, 40 next time and so on. of course you would only win 10 cent. Would take a long time to make a decent bit of money but it's better then losing money.

OutlawPete

mink_man wrote: »

for the martingale system why do you need to start with a fortune. if you start with say a tenner in your account then bet 10 cent to start, then if you lose you're betting 20 next time, 40 next time and so on. of course you would only win 10 cent. Would take a long time to make a decent bit of money but it's better then losing money.

Exactly and as long as you have the stake to keep going, it is fool proof.

Had a mate in the UK who used to sit at the Roulette table in a casino and wait of successions of fours. Four blacks, four reds, four 1-18s, four 19-36s, four odds, four evens etc - start with a stake of £5 and play the Martingale.

He had a cut and loss limit and was well in profit and still is as far as I know.

One day he was called aside by the Casino management and told that they would prefer if he didn't return as "progressive betting" was not within the "spirit" of the casino.

mink_man

OutlawPete wrote: »

Exactly and as long as you have the stake to keep going, it is fool proof.

Had a mate in the UK who used to sit at the Roulette table in a casino and wait of successions of fours. Four blacks, four reds, four 1-18s, four 19-36s, four odds, four evens etc - start with a stake of £5 and play the Martingale.

He had a cut and loss limit and was well in profit and still is as far as I know.

One day he was called aside by the Casino management and told that they would prefer if he didn't return as "progressive betting" was not within the "spirit" of the casino.

ya I was thinking that could work aswell, few people here think that the op wanted to use the system as a quick way of making money. Martingale could be used to make small amounts over a long time. but you would male money, it is guaranteed, more or less.

the groutch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-eak9Jz3_k

phantom_lord

Reminds me of a story of a son heading off to vegas to test out his new betting system with a stake from his father.

Several weeks later his father received a telegram.

"System working great, send more money"

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

Technically, you could say that a player that picks the £250,000 box four times in a row has as much "chance" of picking it a fifth time, but the probability (the true odds) of them doing so, are very slim indeed.

How do you work out the true odds though?

I mean if I flip a coin ten times and it comes up heads every time what are the true odds of tails now?

And what about following the rush? Could you not say it's on a rush of heads you should bet heads?

gondorff

OutlawPete wrote: »

Technically, you could say that a player that picks the £250,000 box four times in a row has as much "chance" of picking it a fifth time, but the probability (the true odds) of them doing so, are very slim indeed.

I don't watch the show, I think there are 15 boxes to begin with?

Then granted, the "true odds" of picking this box five times in a row are prohibitive (1/759375) but...

Let's say a player has been lucky enough to have made the right selection four times in a row... Are you making him a worse than 1/15 chance to choose correctly a 5th time?

If so, your neural pathways are fundamentally hardwired to misunderstand mathematical logic.

Any amount of persuasive discussion will not convince you.

OutlawPete

phantom_lord wrote: »

How do you work out the true odds though?

Well, first if all - we are using words where the meanings are objective to some degree and so I think it's more important to try and see each other's points.

Let's take a horse race of 10 runners, if you just used mathematics, each horse would be 9/1. They are not though as they fluctuate as other factors that are taken into consideration other than statistical probability. So odds are not always based on just mathematics.

There are bets such as Blackjack where there the "fixed odds" do not always reflect the "true odds".

You say how can they be worked out, well - that's the million dollar question. Some players card count, some attempt to use instinct and some use probability and play the percentages.

phantom_lord wrote: »

I mean if I flip a coin ten times and it comes up heads every time what are the true odds of tails now?

Well, the true odds of Heads coming up another ten times in a row, are a hell of lot less than they were to begin with as obviousily, the chances/probability of 10 Heads coming up in a row is less than the chances of 20 Heads coming out.

phantom_lord wrote: »

And what about following the rush? Could you not say it's on a rush of heads you should bet heads?

You could, but after a streak of Ten heads, my money is going to be on Tails coming out at some point in the next ten spins.

gondorff wrote: »

Let's say a player has been lucky enough to have made the right selection four times in a row... Are you making him a worse than 1/15 chance to choose correctly a 5th time?

Yes.

gondorff wrote: »

If so, your neural pathways are fundamentally hardwired to misunderstand mathematical logic.

No sir, if you think the chances or probability of someone picking the £250,000 box four times in a row, is precisely the same as them picking it 5 times in a row, then it is your mathematical logic that is flawed not mine.

gondorff wrote: »

Any amount of persuasive discussion will not convince you.

Ditto.

The fixed mathematical odds of last week's six numbers coming out again in this weeks Lottery are the precisily as they were.

Do you think the chances / probability of those same six numbers coming out again are the same??

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

Well, the true odds of Heads coming up another ten times in a row, are a hell of lot less than they were to begin with as obviousily, the chances/probability of 10 Heads coming up in a row is less than the chances of 20 Heads coming out.

but what about before the 10 in a row. What about if it was 10 in a row tails, are we back to 50/50 then?

Really, you're saying, it's only 50/50 when it's straight out of the mint. Or does the 50/50 start just when you begin to observe the object?

Anyway, since you mentioned them, I'm off to find some racehorses that haven't won in a long time, they're obviously due to come up.

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

Look, we are ALWAYS at 50/50, please stop suggesting that what I am saying goes against the mathematical odds.

What I am talking about is probability and that changes, whether you want to accept it or not.

I thought the probability was 50/50?

please stop suggesting that what I am saying goes against the mathematical odds.

I have to say I'm confused. You're saying it's still 50/50, but at the same time it's not? When does it stop being 50% chance?

OutlawPete wrote: »

But hey, why let what I actually said get in the way of you wanting to be trite.

Hmm, can horses not be due to come up too? Or is it just roulette?

OutlawPete

phantom_lord wrote: »

I have to say I'm confused. You're saying it's still 50/50, but at the same time it's not?

It is ALWAYS 50/50 because there are only two possible outcomes!

If you go into Paddy Power tomorrow and tell him you are going flip a coin and you want odds on it landing Heads 5th times in a row, you will get different odds than if you asked him to quote you on it landing Heads 10 times in a row.

Why, when according to you - they should be the same.

When a gambler interjects at the 6th flip and intends to keep placing bets (possible ten) right through to the 15th flip, he is still using the same difference in proabilty/chance that Paddy Power used when giving different quotes when the two scenarios were presented to him.

The only difference is, that one bet is placed before the action commences and the other, in running.

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

It is ALWAYS 50/50 because there are only two possible outcomes!

If you go into Paddy Power tomorrow and tell him you are going flip a coin and you want odds on it landing Heads 5th times in a row, you will get different odds than if you asked him to quote you on it landing Heads 10 times in a row.

Why, when according to you - they should be the same.

When a gambler interjects at the 6th flip and intends to keep placing bets (possible ten) right through to the 15th flip, he is still using the same difference in proabilty/chance that Paddy Power used when giving different quotes when the two scenarios were presented to him.

The only difference is, that one bet is placed before the action commences and the other, in running.

I have to say you've lost me.

OutlawPete

phantom_lord wrote: »

Hmm, can horses not be due to come up too? Or is it just roulette?

There are far to many factors involved in horse racing to just say that one horse has to win eventually.

phantom_lord wrote: »

but what about before the 10 in a row. What about if it was 10 in a row tails, are we back to 50/50 then?

Look, we are ALWAYS at 50/50, please stop suggesting that what I am saying goes against the mathematical odds.

What I am talking about is probability and that changes, whether you want to accept it or not.

phantom_lord wrote: »

Anyway, since you mentioned them, I'm off to find some racehorses that haven't won in a long time, they're obviously due to come up.

That is in direct contradiction to what I said above, did you miss:

OutlawPete wrote: »

Let's take a horse race of 10 runners, if you just used mathematics, each horse would be 9/1. They are not though as they fluctuate as other factors that are taken into consideration other than statistical probability. So odds are not always based on just mathematics.

But hey, why let what I actually said get in the way of you wanting to be trite.

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

Look, we are ALWAYS at 50/50, please stop suggesting that what I am saying goes against the mathematical odds.

What I am talking about is probability and that changes, whether you want to accept it or not.

So probability isn't about mathematical odds?

Sorry if it seems like I'm being obtuse. I'm just trying to grasp how this works before implementing my martingale system.

OutlawPete

phantom_lord wrote: »

Sorry if it seems like I'm being obtuse. I'm just trying to grasp how this works before implementing my martingale system.

More triteness.

I am NOT recommending the Matingale system and have given examples of how it can bankrupt someone.

I said it is mathematically foolproof though when it comes to 50/50 betting scenarios, which it is.

phantom_lord wrote: »

I have to say you've lost me.

Christ man.

Let say I am going to flip a coin.

I want you to give me odds on it coming out 'Heads up' 5 times in a row.

I also want you to give me odds of it coming out 'Heads up' 10 times in a row.

You are going to give me two different odds, right.

Now tell me why.

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

Christ man.

Let say I am going to flip a coin.

I want you to give me odds on it coming out 'Heads up' 5 times in a row.

I also want you to give me odds of it coming out 'Heads up' 10 times in a row.

You are going to give me two different odds, right.

Now tell me why.

1/2^5
1/2^10

it's 50% of heads each time?

BQQ

OutlawPete wrote: »

It is ALWAYS 50/50 because there are only two possible outcomes!

If you go into Paddy Power tomorrow and tell him you are going flip a coin and you want odds on it landing Heads 5th times in a row, you will get different odds than if you asked him to quote you on it landing Heads 10 times in a row.

Why, when according to you - they should be the same.

No, he's not saying they should be the same. obviously a 10 bet accumulator will be bigger odds than a 5-bet accumulator.

He's saying paddypower would give the same odds on 10 heads in a row as they would give on 5 heads in a row and any specific combination of 5 heads/tails.

OutlawPete

phantom_lord wrote: »

1/2^5
1/2^10

it's 50% of heads each time?

Precisely.

And interjecting when the coin has landed 'Heads Up' 5 times in a row and placing bets until the 15th flip (if needs be) plays on the fact the odds of each scenario happening, are different.

This is why, when you are at a Blackjack table.

The higher the maximum bet, the higher the minimum is also, as it stifles progressive betting systems.

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

And interjecting when the coin has landed 'Heads Up' 5 times in a row and placing bets until the 15th flip (if needs be) plays on the fact the odds of each scenario happening, are different.

Yeah but what happens if some other guy at the table has bet on it going HHHHHTHHHH, which is also 1/2^10, now we're back to 50/50 again?

BQQ

OutlawPete wrote: »

Precisely.

And interjecting when the coin has landed 'Heads Up' 5 times in a row and placing bets until the 15th flip (if needs be) plays on the fact the odds of each scenario happening, are different.

Again its the different number of events that make the odds different.
HHHHHHHHHH has the same odds as HHHHHTTTTT which has the same odds as HHHHHHTTHT and so on.

OutlawPete

phantom_lord wrote: »

Yeah but what happens if some other guy at the table has bet on it going HHHHHTHHHH, which is also 1/2^10, now we're back to 50/50 again?

You keep on saying that we are "back at 50/50".

We are ALWAYS at 50/50.

What progressive systems are betting on is WHEN the 50/50 will go the opposite way to which it is currently, with regards to roulette.

American roulette wheels have 00 and 0 to give the house the edge and so gamblers are NEVER getting true odds there anyway on any bet.

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

You keep on saying that we are "back at 50/50".

We are ALWAYS at 50/50.

What progressive systems are betting on is WHEN the 50/50 will go the opposite way to which it is currently, with regards to roulette.

American roulette wheels have 00 and 0 to give the house the edge and so gamblers are NEVER getting true odds there anyway on any bet.

how can 50/50 go in any way other than 50/50?

OutlawPete

BQQ wrote: »

Again its the different number of events that make the odds different.
HHHHHHHHHH has the same odds as HHHHHTTTTT which has the same odds as HHHHHHTTHT and so on.

Of course, but it is completely different to what I am talking about.

The odds of predicting that any set of outcomes (with coin flips) will be the same, if the number of flips are the same.

We are specifically talking about the same side of a 50/50 bet coming up consecutively.

The mathematical odds are the same, but the 'chances' are not.

As in my example of lottery numbers.

The odds of the same six numbers coming out two weeks in a row are the same, the probability is not.

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

The odds of the same six numbers coming out two weeks in a row are the same, the probability is not.

:pac: