By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
You don't sit there all day, I told you that before, some say there is never a bad time to take a profit, the odds are you will win if you know how to win and how to do it.
You don't have to sit there all day as I told you before.
If you sit there for 1 minute, 1 hour or 1 year - the odds are still the same.
Sitting there for a short amount of time CAN bring luck into play and you could walk away with a profit, but again that would be lucky.
Best way of explaining length of time at the table being a factor is if I gave you 1/2 odds on tails and you stupidly accepting and sticking £1 on. You may get lucky and the flip is tails and you walk away with 50p profit - but if I do that to 100 people - I lose 50 times (paying out 1/2 so £25) and I win 50 times (keeping the £50).
That in a nutshell is edge. You cannot win, if you do then you have been very lucky.
You don't have to sit there all day as I told you before.
If you sit there for 1 minute, 1 hour or 1 year - the odds are still the same.
Sitting there for a short amount of time CAN bring luck into play and you could walk away with a profit, but again that would be lucky.
Best way of explaining length of time at the table being a factor is if I gave you 1/2 odds on tails and you stupidly accepting and sticking £1 on. You may get lucky and the flip is tails and you walk away with 50p profit - but if I do that to 100 people - I lose 50 times (paying out 1/2 so £25) and I win 50 times (keeping the £50).
That in a nutshell is edge. You cannot win, if you do then you have been very lucky.
1 in 3 or 1 in 4 is not a good strike rate yet you still win, the punter has the edge and not the house, that is why they try to stop it, if the house knew they would win over time they would allow it but they don't, that is why you need to know how to pull it off and not just stay at the same table doubling up.
Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
1 in 3 or 1 in 4 is not a good strike rate yet you still win, the punter has the edge and not the house, that is why they try to stop it, if the house knew they would win over time they would allow it but they don't, that is why you need to know how to pull it off and not just stay at the same table doubling up.
What do you mean it is not a good strike rate? Strike rate is determined good or bad by the odds, not the frequency. The strike rate is simply the odds. 47% and your strike rate is 47/100. Considering the market pay out is evens then that strike rate is a losing one. Trampie this is pre school stuff.
You are allowed to do it in Casinos. Who told you that you aren't.
Do it on one table, two tables, ten tables, hundred tables - makes no difference.
What do you mean it is not a good strike rate? Strike rate is determined good or bad by the odds, not the frequency. The strike rate is simply the odds. 47% and your strike rate is 47/100. Considering the market pay out is evens then that strike rate is a losing one. Trampie this is pre school stuff.
You are allowed to do it in Casinos. Who told you that you aren't.
Do it on one table, two tables, ten tables, hundred tables - makes no difference.
[Post edited 3 Feb 2018 13:48]
They ask you to leave, the strike rate is such that a staking plan means you make a profit when you win, you are not placing the same amount down and winning 47 times out of 100, you are progressively placing larger stakes so when you do win you make a profit.
Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
They ask you to leave, the strike rate is such that a staking plan means you make a profit when you win, you are not placing the same amount down and winning 47 times out of 100, you are progressively placing larger stakes so when you do win you make a profit.
They would never ask you to leave by applying the martingale system. Never. Not in a million years.
Trampie please understand the basics, we will end up going around in circles.
The martingale system cannot and does not change the odds.
So do a mathematical sum for us now that shows the % odds swinging into the favour of the punter and you will be the most famous mathematician of the modern era. Fail to prove that you can do that, and I am right by definition.
They would never ask you to leave by applying the martingale system. Never. Not in a million years.
Trampie please understand the basics, we will end up going around in circles.
The martingale system cannot and does not change the odds.
So do a mathematical sum for us now that shows the % odds swinging into the favour of the punter and you will be the most famous mathematician of the modern era. Fail to prove that you can do that, and I am right by definition.
Over to you.
You are not placing the same stake all the time on a near 50-50 you are placing progressively larger stakes until the near 50-50 wins and then you make a profit.
Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
You are not placing the same stake all the time on a near 50-50 you are placing progressively larger stakes until the near 50-50 wins and then you make a profit.
It makes no difference, that does not change the odds or edge. It changes the distribution of pay. It will seem like you win more frequently, but the odds are not in your favour so when the loss comes you will lose more than you have won up to that point. It is essentially covering 34 of the 36 numbers and getting paid 35-1 everytime you win. You will win most of the time creating the illusion you are winning but in 36 spins you would have won 34 times and lost 2 times - but the losses in monetary value are greater than the total sum of previous wins, meaning you are down even though you win the spin the majority of the time.
My words are clearly not getting through to you. There is a youtube video I have found (there are many) of a person who was a million steps behind, like you. They have since understood where they were going wrong and presented their findings, they calculated correctly that the projected returns for the martingale system is.... Zero.
Come back and tell us which part you are stuck on.
Answer this E20 if you walk in a casino off the street have up to 4 spins on red or black playing Martingale starting with the minimum stake and then doubling up if you don't win are you more likely to win than lose, yes or no ? [leaving the casino if your spin wins].
[Post edited 3 Feb 2018 14:24]
Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
Answer this E20 if you walk in a casino off the street have up to 4 spins on red or black playing Martingale starting with the minimum stake and then doubling up if you don't win are you more likely to win than lose, yes or no ? [leaving the casino if your spin wins].
[Post edited 3 Feb 2018 14:24]
So you have ignored that detailed explanation based on mathematical fact then?
You will need to clarify the question. Are you asking that if you are only allowed 4 spins of the wheel in your life and you adopt the martingale system, are you more likely to win or lose?
So just to confirm. This is not your situation or the situation in general. But you want me to answer a question not based on reality, yes?
Wouldn't it be better for the debate to answer a question based on the actual scenario? You know, In order to get an actual answer...
So to clarity, the type of question you have asked me there is similar to the following.
* before I ask this I hope to God we both understand that a system of covering 34 of the 36 numbers is ridiculous yes?*
Ok so it is like you saying "E20, if you go into a casino off the street and put £1 on all of the numbers leaving 2 uncovered, are you more likely to win or lose".
So the answer is you are more likely to win on that single spin. But the value is not in your favour and neither are the odds. You are confused by strike rate and profitability. The are massively different.
My time was particularly profitable in famous casinos around the World, I liked going from table to table in Melbourne and from casino to casino on the strip in Vegas. Monte Carlo was on a different level for class mind.
Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
My time was particularly profitable in famous casinos around the World, I liked going from table to table in Melbourne and from casino to casino on the strip in Vegas. Monte Carlo was on a different level for class mind.
If you play virtual 50-50s and you only win 1 in 3 or 4 spins and walk away profitable that is not being lucky, that is having a plan and being able to execute it.
Plus back in the day having a good memory for cards puts the odds in your favour and not the house favour.
Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
If you play virtual 50-50s and you only win 1 in 3 or 4 spins and walk away profitable that is not being lucky, that is having a plan and being able to execute it.
Plus back in the day having a good memory for cards puts the odds in your favour and not the house favour.
Jesus, Trampie you are not making sense.
For a start you are claiming to play multiple tables and multiple casinos. So you are not demonstrating this 4 spin and walk away theory (which is rubbish anyway).
Secondly strike rate is irrelevant. Again, is it having a plan and executing it to walk into a casion and cover every number from 1-34 leaving 35 and 36 blank? They will laugh in your face. Yet the chances are on that spin you will win. So why is that?
Please, this is utterly cringeworthy. You need to put forward your mathematical theory, to prove this (it is impossible btw, which is why you cant and have not)... otherwise you are just saying words that mean nothing.
My time was particularly profitable in famous casinos around the World, I liked going from table to table in Melbourne and from casino to casino on the strip in Vegas. Monte Carlo was on a different level for class mind.
I suspect I may be taking (yourself!) to a professional gambler bearing elite-mathematical-ability because I'm getting the vibe you enter high-class gambling establishments with a tried and tested system-formula that gets winning results.
I get the vibe you're definitely telling the truth because of one particular thing written in your post you forgot to elaborate on that was so telling and profound! That one particular thing? The way you deliberately go from table to table to casino to casino knowing it's necessary i.e. because betting establishments do not like to see people bearing 'expertise' that repeatedly keeps on winning cos it's bad for business. I knew a guy who was banned from a betting shop in Gorseinon i.e. his winning suggested an 'ability' that was bad for business!
Argus!
0
The yanks extra 10M on 15:10 - Feb 3 with 1047 views
The yanks extra 10M on 15:08 - Feb 3 by Wingstandwood
I suspect I may be taking (yourself!) to a professional gambler bearing elite-mathematical-ability because I'm getting the vibe you enter high-class gambling establishments with a tried and tested system-formula that gets winning results.
I get the vibe you're definitely telling the truth because of one particular thing written in your post you forgot to elaborate on that was so telling and profound! That one particular thing? The way you deliberately go from table to table to casino to casino knowing it's necessary i.e. because betting establishments do not like to see people bearing 'expertise' that repeatedly keeps on winning cos it's bad for business. I knew a guy who was banned from a betting shop in Gorseinon i.e. his winning suggested an 'ability' that was bad for business!
For a start you are claiming to play multiple tables and multiple casinos. So you are not demonstrating this 4 spin and walk away theory (which is rubbish anyway).
Secondly strike rate is irrelevant. Again, is it having a plan and executing it to walk into a casion and cover every number from 1-34 leaving 35 and 36 blank? They will laugh in your face. Yet the chances are on that spin you will win. So why is that?
Please, this is utterly cringeworthy. You need to put forward your mathematical theory, to prove this (it is impossible btw, which is why you cant and have not)... otherwise you are just saying words that mean nothing.
You don't understand and you clearly not going to understand.
Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
You don't understand and you clearly not going to understand.
You do realise you are accusing me of "not understanding" how you propose that every mathematical notion we understand today is wrong, you have no rhyme or reason but instead just say "coz it is innit".
Maybe this person can explain better than I can, it really is not even complex.
Why Martingale is a Losing System? The Martingale System is one trading system that many people have heard of, but may not know the name. It was originally proposed as a gambling system, has been used a lot in Forex circles where sometimes it has been coded into Forex robots or expert advisors, and it is fundamentally flawed but still attracts an audience.
The system was made famous by an eighteenth century French mathematician. It can be summarized as a system of “doubling down” when you lose. Often explained in the context of roulette, where you would randomly bet on either red or black, it requires that each time you lose you double your next bet.
If you bet one on the first spin, and you won, you would be up one.
If you bet one on the first spin and lost, you would bet two on the second spin. If this wins, then the increased bet means that you would be up one overall.
Say the second bet above loses, you have lost three so far. Your third bet would double the second, so you gamble four. If you win this time, you again are one up overall.
It’s easy to see that the amount you have to bet increases rapidly, so you need large cash reserves to continue gambling — and each time after a winning bet, you finish with an overall profit of one. In fact, you will never have a series of bets, finishing with a win, where you profit more than one.
If you start with an infinite amount of money, you will always be able to place the next bet, so in simple terms you are “guaranteed” to win one, in the end. As no-one actually has an infinite amount of money, there is bound to be a losing streak, sooner or later, which is long enough to wipe you out. You can see that the risk to reward ratio is heavily weighted against you too, considering the system as a whole.
Even on the roulette table, it does not work out favourably. Recall that there are 37 slots, and only 18 reds and 18 blacks, so there is a bias in favour of the bank which is bound to make even an infinitely funded gambler lose in the end.
When you apply this type of system to trading, whether it is betting on Forex to go up or down, or using Contracts for Difference on any financial security choosing randomly to go long or short, you might think that if the price goes up as often as it goes down, the Martingale System could work, subject to having sufficient funding. That idea ignores the simple reality that trading costs money (remember brokers do make a living), and that money is often taken via spreads, interest charges, or sometimes commissions. Just like the double zero on the roulette wheel, even with an enormous amount of funds you are still bound to come out a loser.
I'm not trolling and I'm not Trampie either, the moderator can confirm a different I.P. There are people who possess technique and have a thinking process that goes beyond normal human capability and comprehension.
I know for a fact, that is why there are leveraged-traders that do exactly the same thing albeit not in a casino environment. And yes psychology may have something to do with it!
Argus!
0
The yanks extra 10M on 15:17 - Feb 3 with 1028 views
The yanks extra 10M on 15:15 - Feb 3 by Wingstandwood
I'm not trolling and I'm not Trampie either, the moderator can confirm a different I.P. There are people who possess technique and have a thinking process that goes beyond normal human capability and comprehension.
I know for a fact, that is why there are leveraged-traders that do exactly the same thing albeit not in a casino environment. And yes psychology may have something to do with it!
Then you are a wonderfully creative indiviual, you should write childrens books.
Then you are a wonderfully creative indiviual, you should write childrens books.
[Post edited 3 Feb 2018 15:18]
REALTY! There is a guy who turned himself into a multi-millionaire out of mathematical analysis on probability, research, discipline and psychology! His name Vince Stanzione! You get other remarkable stuff like primary school proteges doing Rubik Cubes in a few seconds etc. Unique ability should not be overlooked?
I cannot be 100% certain Trampie is telling the truth but nevertheless I suspect he very well could i.e. only he can confirm/verify it by saying so.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
