Beating Roulette

[Licentia]

For years now, I have had programs that I wrote in QuickBasic, designed to find a method of beating Roulette.

The way the program was designed, was to increase bets by 1 unit after a winning session, and decrease them by 1 unit after a losing session. I believed - correctly - that if you bet higher while on a winning streak, and lower while on a losing streak, that you should beat the house in the long run.

The program would run and for a time I would make my money back again and again, but eventually a time would come where I would not make my money back. It would spiral hopelessly downward. I was always baffled at this, it simply did not seem logical.

By doubling bets and dividing bets by 2, instead of increasing/decreasing by 1 unit, I would eventually make my money back, but the bets would have to rise far too high for a reasonable bankroll, and far above any casino's table limit. It seemed hopeless...

Last night I found the answer. Sadly I cannot take credit for it. I got the answer from someone else. It is so simple though. How blind I have been!!!

Now I can run that same program over hundreds of millions of spins and come out ahead every single time, my bets never rising higher than table limits allow.

Anyone who can tell me how I do it, I will consider an Einstein.

But please, don't post the response in this thread. Lest the blind should see and the deaf hear. Private Message me.

Now it's time to apply the system to BlackJack...

Think hard, think hard!

Licentia.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by Licentia

The program would run and for a time I would make my money back again and again, but eventually a time would come where I would not make my money back. It would spiral hopelessly downward. I was always baffled at this, it simply did not seem logical.

Not only is that result logical, it should be expected. That is exactly how negative progression systems work. Please read the sticky thread at the top of this forum to see dozens of explanations why this will always be the case and why any progression system will eventually lose.

Originally Posted by Licentia

I believed - correctly - that if you bet higher while on a winning streak, and lower while on a losing streak, that you should beat the house in the long run.

The problem is that you cannot predict when these streaks will happen or how long they will last. We have explained this to you many times. If you do a little research, either by reading the articles I mentioned above or by re-reading the responses to your old posts, you will discover exactly where the flaw in your thinking is. Please don’t turn this into another “magic progression” rant.

-Sonny-

[shadroch]

If you bet two units on the spins you win,and only one on the spins you lose,you'll do pretty well in the long run.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by shadroch

If you bet two units on the spins you win,and only one on the spins you lose,you'll do pretty well in the long run.

Sure, that would work great if the casino lets you make your bets after the ball lands. It wouldn’t be as good as proportional betting, but it would work. Unfortunately that’s not legal. So on to step 2: Predicting where the ball will land. We can’t do that by watching the streaks since every spin is an independent event. We also can’t do it by tracking the results of our sessions for the same reason. Without any reliable information our betting system doesn’t accomplish anything.

-Sonny-

[Dyepaintball12]

Sounds great.

Will you tell me your secret about how you know when your winning streak will start and end?

[Chapel]

If it is so simple why would you consider them an Einstein?

Changing the amount you bet doesn't change the expected value of the bet.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by Licentia

I can run that same program over hundreds of millions of spins and come out ahead every single time, my bets never rising higher than table limits allow.

Anyone who can tell me how I do it, I will consider an Einstein.

Don't place any bets at roulette. Put the money in an interest-bearing account and walk away with positive expectation after 100 million spins.

[shadroch]

Originally Posted by Sonny

Sure, that would work great if the casino lets you make your bets after the ball lands. It wouldn’t be as good as proportional betting, but it would work. Unfortunately that’s not legal. So on to step 2: Predicting where the ball will land. We can’t do that by watching the streaks since every spin is an independent event. We also can’t do it by tracking the results of our sessions for the same reason. Without any reliable information our betting system doesn’t accomplish anything.

-Sonny-

Okay,I admit I don't have all the details ironed out yet,but it is a promising start,no?

[la_dee_daa]

[QUOTE=Licentia;77868] Anyone who can tell me how I do it, I will consider an Einstein.[QUOTE]


i believe einstein said the only way to beat roulette was to steal money from the table.

this is a sure way to come out ahead but is a little risky.

you could work a progression into this.. take one chip from the house if your spin wins take 2 next time if it loses take one less. this will eliminate the suspision of getting more chips when you lose on spins.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by Licentia

For years now, I have had programs that I wrote in QuickBasic, designed to find a method of beating Roulette.

The way the program was designed, was to increase bets by 1 unit after a winning session, and decrease them by 1 unit after a losing session. I believed - correctly - that if you bet higher while on a winning streak, and lower while on a losing streak, that you should beat the house in the long run.

The program would run and for a time I would make my money back again and again, but eventually a time would come where I would not make my money back. It would spiral hopelessly downward. I was always baffled at this, it simply did not seem logical.

By doubling bets and dividing bets by 2, instead of increasing/decreasing by 1 unit, I would eventually make my money back, but the bets would have to rise far too high for a reasonable bankroll, and far above any casino's table limit. It seemed hopeless...

Last night I found the answer. Sadly I cannot take credit for it. I got the answer from someone else. It is so simple though. How blind I have been!!!

Now I can run that same program over hundreds of millions of spins and come out ahead every single time, my bets never rising higher than table limits allow.

Anyone who can tell me how I do it, I will consider an Einstein.

But please, don't post the response in this thread. Lest the blind should see and the deaf hear. Private Message me.

Now it's time to apply the system to BlackJack...

Think hard, think hard!

Licentia.

If you can really do it, you have no need to apply it to blackjack until after you collect millions and millions of dollars at roulette and can afford to waste your time with the piddling game of blackjack. Obviously, your need for attention has far outpaced your need for a sound basis for gambling at roulette or any other game. Your new system, which apparently employs a strategy to slow down the effect of doubling, which reaches house limits in no time, will not work in the long run, no matter what your apparent results seem to say. Don't try it in the real world unless you're prepared for one of the biggest shocks of your lifetime. The math is ironclad. It doesn't and it can't work in the long run. Keep living in the short run and you'll be all right, although you may find that a little paranoia begins to settle in. After that, all bets are off!