The Kirbster Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Hey man, this trick is awesome. Nice find. Winning cash just got a lot easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Crook Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Also, was it really necessary for you to double post? You should know better. I never did see why some of you on this board have this thing about "double posting". I didn't see anything in the forum guidelines about it. I can understand you (plural, not just you personally) objecting when someone posts exactly the same thing multiple times. But in this case I was responding to two different people about two totally different issues that arose out of the same question. If I tried to combine them all into a single post it would make it much harder to understand Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickstemoeilijk Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Hey man, this trick is awesome. Nice find. Winning cash just got a lot easier. Thank you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashon. Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Yeah, I see what Steve Crook is saying. You're only covering roughly 23-26 numbers out of 36. Which means you're only winning about 70% of the time. You might have won 90% of the time, but that's not the real probability. I've tested this plenty times and ended up losing money (only portion of the bet), when it came out to be a high number and found myself losing all of the bet on the numbers uncovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickstemoeilijk Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 Yeah, I see what Steve Crook is saying. You're only covering roughly 23-26 numbers out of 36. Which means you're only winning about 70% of the time. You might have won 90% of the time, but that's not the real probability. I've tested this plenty times and ended up losing money (only portion of the bet), when it came out to be a high number and found myself losing all of the bet on the numbers uncovered. What I'd like to know is, if you do my method and start 2 games at number 1 and after 2 games on number 36... Would this increase your chances of winning? Because this is what I usually tend to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Crook Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Yeah, I see what Steve Crook is saying. You're only covering roughly 23-26 numbers out of 36. Which means you're only winning about 70% of the time. You might have won 90% of the time, but that's not the real probability. I've tested this plenty times and ended up losing money (only portion of the bet), when it came out to be a high number and found myself losing all of the bet on the numbers uncovered. What I'd like to know is, if you do my method and start 2 games at number 1 and after 2 games on number 36... Would this increase your chances of winning? Because this is what I usually tend to do. No, each spin of the wheel is a discrete event with no relationship to any previous or subsequent spins Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashon. Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Yeah, I see what Steve Crook is saying. You're only covering roughly 23-26 numbers out of 36. Which means you're only winning about 70% of the time. You might have won 90% of the time, but that's not the real probability. I've tested this plenty times and ended up losing money (only portion of the bet), when it came out to be a high number and found myself losing all of the bet on the numbers uncovered. What I'd like to know is, if you do my method and start 2 games at number 1 and after 2 games on number 36... Would this increase your chances of winning? Because this is what I usually tend to do. Well, the same, actually. If you cover all 36 spaces (37 with 0 without putting chips in-between spaces), I'm sure you won't lose all of your million in any game but I believe they're no guarantee you'll end up making a profit if it hits on one number or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickstemoeilijk Posted June 3, 2008 Author Share Posted June 3, 2008 OK, it's just that in the game this really does work 9 out of 10 times . Like I've said before, I think the game gives you slightly higher winning chances than in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashon. Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 OK, it's just that in the game this really does work 9 out of 10 times . Not for me it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickstemoeilijk Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 OK, it's just that in the game this really does work 9 out of 10 times . Not for me it doesn't. Well, some people said they found it useful. I'm glad I could help a few . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satchboogie Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 It could work in the game sure, but just stick with blackjack. In real life, it is absolutely impossible to beat roulette. There are 38 number slots, 1-36, zero, and double zero. If you place a bet on a number, you're getting 35-1 payout for 37-1 odds. No matter what combination of numbers you use (groups, etc), you will still end up with the same odds. If you bet on the color or odd/even, you are getting 1-1 (or 18-18) payout for 1-1.111 (or 20-18) odds. Because the 1-3 column, first half/second half, 1-3 dozen, etc etc, don't include the zero and double zero, you are getting worse odds than payouts. It is simply mathematically impossible to win in the long run. Sure, if you had an infinite money supply you might be able to hit a big win using the "double loss" method... but good luck with that. It also isn't considered beating a game since you are just trying to get above even once and never play again. "No one can possibly win at rolette unless he steals money from the table while the croupier isn't looking." — Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Struff Bunstridge Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 It could work in the game sure, but just stick with blackjack. In real life, it is absolutely impossible to beat roulette. There are 38 number slots, 1-36, zero, and double zero. If you place a bet on a number, you're getting 35-1 payout for 37-1 odds. No matter what combination of numbers you use (groups, etc), you will still end up with the same odds. If you bet on the color or odd/even, you are getting 1-1 (or 18-18) payout for 1-1.111 (or 20-18) odds. Because the 1-3 column, first half/second half, 1-3 dozen, etc etc, don't include the zero and double zero, you are getting worse odds than payouts. It is simply mathematically impossible to win in the long run. Sure, if you had an infinite money supply you might be able to hit a big win using the "double loss" method... but good luck with that. It also isn't considered beating a game since you are just trying to get above even once and never play again. "No one can possibly win at rolette unless he steals money from the table while the croupier isn't looking." — Albert Einstein Agreed. I've found the closest I've ever got to a system, trying various tactics, to be this. It's by no means foolproof, but do try it out and let me know what you think. Oh, and obviously this "works" in real life as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now