Card counters BTFO

and the times when it comes up 0 thirty times in a row because each spin is an individual event that doesn't affect the next or previous?

I do know what those words mean. What I mean is that the 22-black detail is completely redundant. Choose any fucking number and you will win on average every 19 plays.

And what I mean by choose any number is that it doesn't make a difference choosing a different number every play.

So why dont people get rich playing roulette?

Because there's an obvious flaw in the reasoning and it has to be either the average of 19 plays or the amount you win is 35X times the amount of money you bet to get there.

because 1/38 chance of 35x payoff is not a good deal

If that guy isn't meme-ing you're basically encouraging him to kill his hamster.

Don't spend a red cent gambling to save your hamster, save up and don't listen to advice on Veeky Forums

If I understand this right, you're saying that if I bet on 22-black every time, then I'll win on average after 19 rolls.

Well, the probability that my first win is on the jth roll is

[math] P(win on roll j, lose on all previous rolls)=
(37/38)^{j-1}(1/38) [\math]

since there is a 37/38 chance of losing on any given roll

So my expected first win time is

[math] \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} j*(37/38)^{j-1}*1/38 [\math]

Plug this into wolfram alpha (or solve by hand) to get 38

But you're not playing to infinity, by the time you've played 20 games you're already ahead of the game most of the time on average.

Care to elaborate?

Also

>The average player needs to play 19 times before he hits the average?

How would you interpret this if not the way I did above?

Real average number of tries to win is
[eqn]
\sum_{n=1}^\infty n
\left( \frac{37}{38} \right)^{n-1}
\left( \frac{1}{38} \right)
= \sum_{n=1}^\infty
\sum_{k=1}^n
\left( \frac{37}{38} \right)^{n-1}
\left( \frac{1}{38} \right)
= \sum_{k=1}^\infty
\sum_{n=k}^\infty
\left( \frac{37}{38} \right)^{n-1}
\left( \frac{1}{38} \right)
= \sum_{k=1}^\infty
\left( \frac{37}{38} \right)^{k-1}
= 38.
[/eqn]

>Pulling an N out of your ass up front

Sure is summer mathematics in here

bro.. do you even calculus?

Actually, since every spin is (supposedly) independent it is 50% likely you would lose 26x in a row (37/38)^26=0.50 and 25% likely you would lose 52x (37/38)^50 = 0.25

Card counters only make roughly 100k a year if they have a team and sufficient capital. That is a lot of money, no doubt, but hardly worth it considering you can be blacklisted very quickly and without any stable income.

Poor hamster

>tfw you only make money at craps

>tfw win you only make money from craps because people tip you, because you're fucking lucky.

>tfw you are too scared to place anything above the minimum wage and never make any real money.

At least I got a 120 dollars out of it.

lmao at all these autistic high schoolers who took their first calculus class.

gambling is random you can't apply mathematical principles to it, smarter people that you have tried and failed. hell i've tried every strategy i could find and some i made up on multiple games. in the end it's all about luck. you can lose every bet or you can win every bet. i has happened to me multiple times.

>gambling is random you can't apply mathematical principles to it
Yeah, if only there were some form of mathematics that dealt with random results... Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait for another Yokizuna of Mathematics to figure that one out.

The only way to win in gambling is for a casino to make a mistake. But even if they do you probably aren't smart enough to find it.

that's what i'm saying, applying any rules involving randoms won't work. sure it might give you slightly higher margin of success in theory, but in practice you won't win shit unless you are lucky that day or not.

stop speaking out of your ass from your mom's basement and go out in the world and experience it for yourself.

there chance of either winning on either color in the roulette game is about 48% so logic and common sense would have you believe that the actual results should be close to 48%. but i've seen roulette's that keep on hitting black after 10-15 spins. and roulettes with overall lifetime averages of 60% reds to about 40% blacks.

you can't really successfully involve mathematics in gambling if you don't have luck

Google the law of large numbers. Over a large enough sample of trials, variance approaches zero.

This means luck becomes less and less relevant the longer one plays and only the expected rate of return matters.

You can win more than you lose short run, but long run, on the order of hundreds or thousands of games, luck is irrelevant. This is why a card counter ultimately makes money and roulette players ultimately lose money, and why you'll hear of no men who consistently make 100k a year playing roulette while in Blackjack and Poker, one may sustain these payouts over years.

>average

There's your mistake bro. In fact, you can't win with roulette, no matter what strategy you employ, because in every single roll you're at a disadvantage.

Lay odds mayne
also consider playing dont pass so that people hate you and key your car

Actually it seems to me the best response is to play a mixed strategy of playing each bet exactly 1/38 of the time. It seems to me that gambler's fallacy is at play here, the system does not remember that what you played last time, unless the dealer is cheating - in which case you have bigger fish to fry.

Not OP but it seems like a plausible strategy. Just do a martingale except instead of doubling it every time you lose double it after every 36 loss.

You think the house will let you win like that? The house always wins.

>applying any rules involving randoms won't work
god shut the fuck up

Why not bet $1 on every spot except for three?

You wouldnt get any profit that way and I think it might be against the rules

Okay legit answer here.
My uncle is a professional gambler, meaning he earns a majority of his wage at a casino. Roulette is his favourite game for a number of reasons.
1. Is has the lowest casino profit margin (1.0X% I can't remember it exactly).
2. After a few hours, the numbers become predictable.

His plan, and a I've seen it in action, he goes to the table at the START of the hosts shift, sits down, and writes down every number that comes up. A shift is 4 hours, he records for two. What happens is after that two hours the person gets into a rhythm where, even though they change directions every "roll", they do it in the same way. Thus, by recording where the numbers are relative to the person's usually roll "style" you can reasonably guess down to 10-16 numbers. This is when he starts making his money.

It's a long and brain straining process that -usually- wins overall, but it also depends if the casino let's you watch and write for hours on end.

Imagine being the croupier and having some jackass noting all the numbers you pull, putting pressure on you to be as random as possible.

>gambler's fallacy

>What is variance

Black 22 doesn't have to come the first 38 numbers. Hell it doesn't even have to come during the first 100 numbers

You can theoretically win by raising your bet everytime you lose to compensate for the previous loss, and keep playing until you win. In practice, casinos impose minimum and maximum bets and no player has access to an infinite amount of money anyway, which would be required to make this work.

Even if you do that, you still have to wait an average of 38 games to win, since at each game your probability is winning is still 1/38.

it sounds nice but mathematically it's a shit strategy, and that's not the reason that their are max/min bets, casinos would love for people to use that strategy because all wins for the player are tiny (every sequence of loss, loss, loss, ....... loss, win only nets a gain of the base bet for the player) and then all of a sudden they lose it all.

>that's what i'm saying, applying any rules involving randoms won't work. sure it might give you slightly higher margin of success in theory, but in practice you won't win shit unless you are lucky that day or not.
My god you are retarded. The only way people make money by gambling is by applying statistics and probability theory. "Lucky" is just random chance, which is governed entirely by mathematical logic.

>stop speaking out of your ass from your mom's basement and go out in the world and experience it for yourself.
The irony being that you have obviously lost large amounts of money gambling in order to "experience it for yourself" when a few minutes spent learning probability theory would have saved you such an embarrassment. But you are so delusional that you don't even want to try to understand why you lose, and instead blame "luck". Idiots like you are the reason casinos exist.

>there chance of either winning on either color in the roulette game is about 48% so logic and common sense would have you believe that the actual results should be close to 48%.
LOL, you are confusing your flawed gambler's intuition with logic and common sense. When I say that the chance of winning is 48%, this does not mean you will win 48% of the time in any specific run. It means that as you play the percentage of wins will approach 0.48. It is not only possible that you will get runs of several blacks in a row under that condition, it is expected by probability theory! The chance of you getting any specific combination of reds and blacks increases with the number of games you attempt to get that combination.

>but i've seen roulette's that keep on hitting black after 10-15 spins. and roulettes with overall lifetime averages of 60% reds to about 40% blacks.
You mean close to 50%? What a shocker. I suggest you go and bet your life savings on red if you actually think this means anything.

Not sure if trolling or just retarded.

Can someone explain to me how counting cards is considered cheating? Isn't it just thinking? How can that be against the rules?

The casino is a private entity and can set any rules it wants

>20 yo undergrads in charge of the philosophy of formal systems

kys fagget

They don't give a shit. They're paid to roll, not care.

It's not considered cheating.

Depends where you are. But the casino can still choose to remove you if they think you're winning too much.

How about this.

You go and bet black 22 every time
However. Every time you bet and lose you have a table with all the numbers/colours written down and you take note of the order they came up from first spin to 19th spin assuming you do get your bet on the 19th. As soon as you get that 22 black wouldn't it be a good idea to move to the number that has the longest off streak going rather than waiting another 19 for 22 black?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

>being his retarded

It is. At least almost everywhere, where you can win something

There are no streaks

Your chances of winning are always 50/50. There's no math needed for that. You win or you don't win. Everything else is called, "Gambler's Fallacy".

If the odds are sufficiently low enough for an event, the best chance you can have on repeated attempts is 67% (1-1/e)

Ask the vet to work out a payment plan

this

Lone card counter here. I did it more as a hobby. But yes. Its a real pain in the ass to get down and once you do you are riding a 1-2% long-term edge. Once you know the game this well, theres no more fun involved. You play like a literal robot and are surrounded by gambling degenerates for hours, many complain at you for "playing bad", you are engulfed in smoke and some might be drunk. Not to mention the noise, but you get used to that. I never had an issue with casino staff since I was red chipping it $5-$50 bet spread. Not much money to be made at those stakes, higher stakes I would find poker or a job job a better alternative if you really want a primary income from it. Rules are also going down the tubes steadily and automatic shufflers becoming all the more common. It's simply not glamorous and is getting less so.

Its not cheating. If you are caught cheating at a casino it's a crime. Counting cards is just something casinos don't like, and being a business can kick you out or not allow you to play blackjack anymore. You wont be arrested for doing it, unless you are given a trespass and go back.

exactly, but what does it matter? If this were cards, we could say that the number of cards is finite therefore one's single guess improves in odds every try by removing cards from play. Just because this is the optimal strategy doesn't mean one will win. That's why I don't play roulette.

>the expected number of roles of a 38 spot roullete wheel needed to get a particular spot is 19

>the first 20 posts ITT nobody challenging this
> multiple people saying "this sounds correct"
>"what's wrong with this"

Are you people really this fucking stupid and uneducated?

>Choose any fucking number and you will win on average every 19 plays.
Since there are 38 spots, you'll win once every 38 plays.

>the average player needs to play 19 times before he hits the jackpot

not true, you need to play 36 times in average

>Are you people really this fucking stupid and uneducated?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

According to conservapedia, Poes law is "an attempt at effective liberal internet satire", and apples to religious fundamentalism in particular.
Oh the fucking irony... I think... not really sure.

Pretty sure this is called a gambling fallacy

you need to be able robustly use telekinetic on the entropy source user. only then can you make millions out of ten bucks.

False. 0 exists for that reason.
0 is how the casino makes money.