I'm a compulsive gambler.

[Buzzer]

Wow, its like you stalk me.
Roulette, I am not the only one who is saying he is talking shite.
Swindon, I asked him a valid question and he started sulking(remind you of anyone)
Palace Pictures, that was tongue in cheek
Drums, not me who started that but it involved Palace so I answered.
For the umpteenth time, you think I am only here to troll. SO you do not have to engage with me, so go and whine to someone else

Stalking? Whining? You asked me a question in your post that I responded to, you plum. If you don't want me to reply then don't ask questions. It's kind of how it works with normal people. I thought you said that you had me on ignore anyway so how are you reading this anyway? (Rhetorical question - I don't need an answer thanks).

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Loving the "amongst other things"...

Finally we have the truth.

You play roulette only occasionally, for "fun", and have lost approximately 2.7% of the total you have staked over the years (which is probably quite a lot of money when added up).

Please stop the gibberish about professional roulette players and "winning systems".

Your last para is correct, however your 2nd MAY be wrong.
The 3% per spin odds are only an average and may only be become true after a million spins or more.
HOWEVER, the roulette wheel is random & does not know what numbers are going down on the baize. Casinos ARE sometimes down on an evenings overall drop
Otherwise I would not be over half a bag up after my last 5 visits, over the space of a year. Now, Suppose I have 1 visit next year and in the first half dozen spins 20 comes in with my tenner on it, which might happen, and I retire to the bar, I'll be £800 up over two years. This MAY happen the year after also, it may not....
Out of a million people that play roulette, say once a month for a year, the luckiest person will not be 2.7% down, that is simply an average, they will be thousands up (and the unluckiest thousands/100% down)

 

[father_and_son]

Apologies. This thread is not really interesting so I have not given it 100% attention. But, I do have an interest in statistics so statements about winning systems do interest/amuse me especially when people try to explain them. The system above is nonsense.

HT, actually its not complete nonsense - only the bet 12 from a previous 21 cr*p.


It is a fact that some croupiers get tired and lazy towards the end of a shift. They are supposed to spin the wheel/ball in alternate directions with different force each time. What actually happens with some of them is that the force becomes closer and closer to consistent and only the direction changes.

By betting on zones and remembering the most likely final position of the ball in relation to the start will be different on alternate spins (so you need two models running mentally), then it is possible to increase your chance of winnings. But you have to be able to accurately gauge the speed of the both the spin and the ball, be very experienced at knowing when the ball is slowing enough to confirm it was spun as expected.

In a casino, I used to use this basic technique to improve my odds. Ultimately I found the most effective "system" was just late calling bets. Just before the croupier calls "no more bets", if the ball has slowed enough that you think you know which third of the wheel it will land in [and it will be opposite zero - easiest to follow because its a different colour], then a late call of "tier" will cover 12 consecutive numbers on the wheel (about a third) and you can increase your odds enough to gain a slight mathematical advantage over the house. However this doesn't last because you need a lazy croupier and they are moved from game to game to break regularly to avoid this and a good pit boss will spot you, warn you once, then ask you to leave if you continue. Plus not all casinos will allow the call bets (where the croupier will place your chips for you or stack the money on the wheel as an accepted bet) as this is the closet to a working "system" I've ever seen.



Just realised that on a post about compulsive gambling, I've just given a realistic, non-bull way of increasing your odds against the house, thus encouraging people to gamble... d'oh!

Don't "gamble to win", gamble to have fun and if you can't, then don't gamble... ultimately both this technique and card counting in blackjack require loads and loads of experience which is ultimately very expensive to gain. To get into a position where I believe I had a slight statistical advantage, I had lost thousands and thousands of pounds and years of my life. I quit, so can you.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

HT, actually its not complete nonsense - only the bet 12 from a previous 21 cr*p.


It is a fact that some croupiers get tired and lazy towards the end of a shift. They are supposed to spin the wheel/ball in alternate directions with different force each time. What actually happens with some of them is that the force becomes closer and closer to consistent and only the direction changes.

By betting on zones and remembering the most likely final position of the ball in relation to the start will be different on alternate spins (so you need two models running mentally), then it is possible to increase your chance of winnings. But you have to be able to accurately gauge the speed of the both the spin and the ball, be very experienced at knowing when the ball is slowing enough to confirm it was spun as expected.

In a casino, I used to use this basic technique to improve my odds. Ultimately I found the most effective "system" was just late calling bets. Just before the croupier calls "no more bets", if the ball has slowed enough that you think you know which third of the wheel it will land in [and it will be opposite zero - easiest to follow because its a different colour], then a late call of "tier" will cover 12 consecutive numbers on the wheel (about a third) and you can increase your odds enough to gain a slight mathematical advantage over the house. However this doesn't last because you need a lazy croupier and they are moved from game to game to break regularly to avoid this and a good pit boss will spot you, warn you once, then ask you to leave if you continue. Plus not all casinos will allow the call bets (where the croupier will place your chips for you or stack the money on the wheel as an accepted bet) as this is the closet to a working "system" I've ever seen.



Just realised that on a post about compulsive gambling, I've just given a realistic, non-bull way of increasing your odds against the house, thus encouraging people to gamble... d'oh!

Don't "gamble to win", gamble to have fun and if you can't, then don't gamble... ultimately both this technique and card counting in blackjack require loads and loads of experience which is ultimately very expensive to gain. To get into a position where I believe I had a slight statistical advantage, I had lost thousands and thousands of pounds and years of my life. I quit, so can you.

I understand your theory but to me it just seems to be just theory. There are so many factors involved in the ball's motion and journey that to feel you can successfully judge it's speed and call the right area it will fall in (more often than not) is fanciful. A microscopic difference could cause the ball to ping up and completely change the expected journey.

And out of interest why did you quit just as you got yourself into a position where you felt you had the slight statistical advantage? Surely this was the moment to go large? I appreciate you had a bad experience so please do not feel compelled to answer this if I'm being too nosey; I will understand.

And on this topic of advantage would you not have to have a relatively large advantage to overcome the inherent bias of a roulette wheel (i.e. the zeros)?

As an aside I find roulette quite fascinating to watch and play. I tend to play with the odds though, to get myself into a position of probably not winning much, probably not losing much. Not very exciting but it entertains me.

 

[Justice]

A person who buys and sells used cars trades, so what?

If you are implying that you work in the City of London doing deals I find that hard to believe. Whatever their shortcomings (of which there are many), at least they are mathematically competent.

Well I am currently 1500 pts up on the S&P 500 if that helps and yes I did used to trade for a city firm thanks please don't try and belittle me.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Your last para is correct, however your 2nd MAY be wrong.
The 3% per spin odds are only an average and may only be become true after a million spins or more.
HOWEVER, the roulette wheel is random & does not know what numbers are going down on the baize. Casinos ARE sometimes down on an evenings overall drop
Otherwise I would not be over half a bag up after my last 5 visits, over the space of a year. Now, Suppose I have 1 visit next year and in the first half dozen spins 20 comes in with my tenner on it, which might happen, and I retire to the bar, I'll be £800 up over two years. This MAY happen the year after also, it may not....
Out of a million people that play roulette, say once a month for a year, the luckiest person will not be 2.7% down, that is simply an average, they will be thousands up (and the unluckiest thousands/100% down)

I agree that it is quite possible for someone to play roulette only a few times and be "up".

It is, however, more extremely dangerous talk on a thread about compulsive gambling that has included a whole crock of bullshit about winning roulette systems..!!!

 

[father_and_son]

I understand your theory but to me it just seems to be just theory. There are so many factors involved in the ball's motion and journey that to feel you can successfully judge it's speed and call the right area it will fall in (more often than not) is fanciful. A microscopic difference could cause the ball to ping up and completely change the expected journey.

And out of interest why did you quit just as you got yourself into a position where you felt you had the slight statistical advantage? Surely this was the moment to go large? I appreciate you had a bad experience so please do not feel compelled to answer this if I'm being too nosey; I will understand.

And on this topic of advantage would you not have to have a relatively large advantage to overcome the inherent bias of a roulette wheel (i.e. the zeros)?

As an aside I find roulette quite fascinating to watch and play. I tend to play with the odds though, to get myself into a position of probably not winning much, probably not losing much. Not very exciting but it entertains me.

Ultimately because gambling has been a destructive influence in my life. If it doesn't eat money then it eats time. Since moving in together with gf, getting a new house and acquiring a second family (step daughter) I have neither the time nor the ability to carry any losses.
Much as I believe I gained an advantage, it is by no means a guaranteed income and I had nights where I lost as well as nights when I won - overall the latter were more common but the ups and downs to get there ran into hundreds a month - even when I had it fairly under control - thousands back when I didn't. Responsibilities now mean I can't be that casual with my money - too many people dependent on me.

I think I got to being able to call tier right slightly better than 1 in 3, so the advantage was minimal but enough to overcome the house's inherent advantage. 1 & 6 became the bane of my life (as the two numbers either side of my bet). Ultimately I don't have the discipline to make it a pro gambler - too emotional an experience for me.

 

[The Spanish]

Many years ago I was taught by a pro roulette player so I have to disagree.

this pro roulette player didnt own the casino you went to as well did he

 

[Mtoto]

Explain to me why betting on a horse running round a track is any different to betting on a ball rolling round a track, how in any way is this dangerous? there is no difference. I have no reason to lie a few on here know that I trade for a living amongst other things, roulette for me is fun and over the years has been quite good to me of course I lose which I have already mentioned but overall I am up that my friend is a fact. In my eyes betting on animal being rode by a human is or on a football match is absolutely crazy I guess its down to personal choice but I don't spend my time abusing these people.

You are confusing betting - in which the odds, and therefore the margins, are fluid, and "hard" gambling, in which the margin is fixed. I can't blame you for that, it happens all the time these days and the bookmakers themselves - who used to deal exclusively with betting - are often busily blurring the boundary themselves in an attempt to depict their roulette machines as "just another product".

You need to use your brain to bet. Gambling, on the other hand, is an entirely mechanical process. You could teach a chimp to play roulette and it would stand no less - or more - of a chance against the house than you do.

The malign brilliance of roulette, and the reason is has proved to be so disastrously addictive to so many people over the last 250 or so year, is that the fixed margin is so small that it is easy not to notice it is there. If you play single numbers, you will have long losing runs and the size of the stack of chips in front of you will fluctuate significantly as a result. Play the evens or 2-1 chances, however, and the fluctuations will be far less dramatic, so much so that players can convince themselves that they are "pretty much breaking even", or perhaps that they are even winning over time. They remember the ups and overlook the downs.

As Vegas Seagull points out, it is of course possible to win during an individual session. However, it should also be noted that the fixed margin means that the more you play, the more certain you are to lose in the long run. The basic rules which underpin this certainty belong to the same set which hold the universe together, and I simply refuse to believe that you are the only sentient being anywhere in the cosmos who can defy them.