Is Roulette Sniper the real deal?

Mellor wrote: »

Have to laugh at this, just because you don't know me hardly means i'm hiding behind a pc screen. theres plenty of people here who know me "in the real world". Most of them know me from the casino:eek:
Although, I prefer to play a game were I have an constant edge, call me old fashioned.

What edge ?

Even most poker pros inc big names make a loss and rely on sponsorship.

With roulette I need to win one in a 50/50 game.

hotspur wrote: »

The reason why us poker players have an edge is that people like cherrypicker exist in the world. With roulette it really doesn't matter how retarded the croupier is does it? (not that I believe for one second that cherrypicker is anything other than a troll)

Is that why world no 1 Gus Hansen made 20 million playing poker last yr but lost 21 million ?

But unlike the worlds top pros you have the edge :rolleyes:

Dodge wrote: »

You realise he lost the money on other gambling activities apart from Poker, don't you?

Nearly every top hold em pro makes a loss, its sponsorship, that gives them the edge against other pros.

holdemfoldem wrote: »

ok i may be wrong here but im pretty sure you have somehow merged two branches of mathematics.. or just don't understand either.

Probability deals with predicting the likelihood of future events, while statistics involves the analysis of the frequency of past events.

the probability of 8 reds hitting will be alot larger than that of 2 reds hitting but as the line above says probability is the study of future events. its not probable that you will hit RRRRRRRRRR but its not a fact that you won't.

statistically the odds are 50/50 ie there are only two outcomes red or black. if you flip a coin a million times it will be heads around 500,000 times and tails the other 500,000 times

No matter how many times the wheel is spun whether that be 10 straight reds or a million straight reds the next time the wheel is spun it will hit black 50% of the time and red the other 50%. and that my friend is a statistical fact.

nough said.

True, but the Martingale propability theory is a stochastic process, or sometimes random process, is the counterpart to a deterministic process (or deterministic system) in probability theory. Instead of dealing with only one possible 'reality' of how the process might evolve under time (as is the case, for example, for solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a stochastic or random process there is some indeterminacy in its future evolution described by probability distributions. This means that even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are many possibilities the process might go to, but some paths are more probable and others less.



.............Stockbrokers use the same principle,in the casino the house protects itself by having a limit on how much you can bet on an evens bet.


Examples of submartingales and supermartingales

• Every martingale is also a submartingale and a supermartingale. Conversely, any stochastic process that is both a submartingale and a supermartingale is a martingale.
• Consider again the gambler who wins $1 when a coin comes up heads and loses $1 when the coin comes up tails. Suppose now that the coin may be biased, so that it comes up heads with probability p.
  • If p is equal to 1/2, the gambler on average neither wins nor loses money, and the gambler's fortune over time is a martingale.
  • If p is less than 1/2, the gambler loses money on average, and the gambler's fortune over time is a supermartingale.
  • If p is greater than 1/2, the gambler wins money on average, and the gambler's fortune over time is a submartingale.
• A convex function of a martingale is a submartingale, by Jensen's inequality. For example, the square of the gambler's fortune in the fair coin game is a submartingale (which also follows from the fact that Xn2 − n is a martingale). Similarly, a concave function of a martingale is a supermartingale.

Einstein stated roulette could not be mathamatically defeated and the guy who invented it shot himself, saything that the house advantage on an evens bet is onlt 1.30 % lower then other casino games or the bookies.

As stated the casino protects itself from the martingale by setting a limit, but some claim waiting for the wheel to spin bbbbb, as an example then following it, is v profitable, but potentially very expensive.

This thread is nonsense. I was wondering why a thread on Roulette had grown to this many posts and took a look. It's simply an arguement that's going around in circles with someone who is either taking the piss or simply too stubborn to listen to logic. It also contains a lot of needless personal abuse.

I vote it gets locked. Any mods willing to agree?

JUST BECAUSE BLACK HAS COME UP 9 TIMES BEFORE DOES NOT MEAN NEXT NUMBER WILL BE RED!!!!!

And anyway ever heard of table limits, most in dublin have a limit of €330
minimum of €5:

€5, €10, €20, €40, €80. €160, €320 at this point your down €365 and cannot double any more.

Just pick a number and random and stay on it for 20 spins at same chip value then increase from there but don`t double, just increase by one chip, much better return odds and much lower cost overall.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Only because you can't chase your losses beyond a £500 bet on one colour, (not sure about in the US, expect if you did play this they would ban you) , Roulette can be beaten but no casino would allow you to consistantly win and you need a massive bankroll.

Example :


1.Bet 20 red lose

2 Bet 40 red lose

3 Bet 80 red lose

4 Bet 160 red lose

5 Bet 300 red lose.

6 Bet 620 red lose.


7 Bet 1240 red lose.


8 Bet 2500 red lose.

9 Bet 5020 red....Win....Profit 20.


When tested at home the system makes around £ 500 an hour profit, then a huge amount of spinds go the other way, as stated, I once spun 9 black in a row.

Saying that the house advantage of Roulette over the punter is less then that of the high st bookmaker.

So I happened to stumble on a torrent of this thing the other day and decided to give it a whack... I am after losing my balls! Thankfully I didn't have a significant amount in the account though, $45.

Anyway this is less about the Roulette Sniper yokey, and more a question of roulette odds if anybody knows them. After 34 spins, I was told to go for a 15/12 line (e.g. all numbers from 10-15, inclusive), which has a 16.2% chance of hitting (6/37). I then proceeded to go 37 more spins without hitting it once (well, 34 spins... I just kept doing 'free spins' after to see if/when it ever would hit). In total that is 71 spins in a row at a 16.2% chance of hitting on any one of them - and they all missed up until #72.

I am fairly useless at maths though, so I need somebody to help me out on something small. Would the odds of missing all of these bets be worked out by:

- 16.2(%) ÷ 71
or
- 16.2(%) ÷ 2, then ÷ 2 again, then ÷ 2 again, and so on seventy times over?

I'm not angry... I'm almost proud at this rate ! If the second way (x2, x2, x2, etc) is how you work it out I might have just got the worst beat/run in the history of gambling! The first one would be about a 1-in-440 (00.228%) chance of happening, but if it is the second one it would be roughly 1-in-2 thousand, trillion, trillion (00.0000000000000000000000524%) chance. Yes, two-thousand, trillion, trillion!

I know I know, it's obviously got to be the first one. But 'The Mush' in me is really just praying somebody who knows better chimes in that it's the second one!

Sorry I didn't read through all of the thread, but just had to comment on how laughable that man's youtube video is.

If you fall for that, you seriously need to take a look at the Cop On book.

The man (in the video) is on commission (75% of each sale!!).
You can sell it yourself, here's the link: http://www.roulettesniper.com/affiliates/
They even supply the articles for fooling people.


(sorry if this was already said)