Will the online casino's ban me for this?
Discussion
.Ayahuasca said:
In theory also, if you had a sensitive enough sensor to detect the precise velocity and position of the ball and roulette wheel, and a fast enough computer, you could build a predicting machine too.
In theory... however predicting the angles of the bounces off the number dividers would be exceptionally difficult.
I used to gamble pretty heavily, other than blind luck when punting for a laugh the only thing I ever won big on was horses, betting on the big stakes races where everyone was trying and the nags weren't beig held back like lots are for the owners to get higher odds when the big stakes races came about.
The only casino bet with zero house edge is taking the odds in craps. Because of this, the amount is limited by the size of your bet on the come out roll.
I think craps is the "fairest" (i.e. lowest house edge) casino game if you avoid the sucker bets. It's certainly the most fun. But even there your money can disappear alarmingly quickly if you're unlucky.
So your best chance of winning (or losing most slowly) is to play craps...
I think craps is the "fairest" (i.e. lowest house edge) casino game if you avoid the sucker bets. It's certainly the most fun. But even there your money can disappear alarmingly quickly if you're unlucky.
So your best chance of winning (or losing most slowly) is to play craps...
funinhounslow said:
The only casino bet with zero house edge is taking the odds in craps. Because of this, the amount is limited by the size of your bet on the come out roll.
I think craps is the "fairest" (i.e. lowest house edge) casino game if you avoid the sucker bets. It's certainly the most fun. But even there your money can disappear alarmingly quickly if you're unlucky.
So your best chance of winning (or losing most slowly) is to play craps...
This maybe true, but as no one knows how to play craps or what the feck is going on (including the croupier) I think it's a moot point.I think craps is the "fairest" (i.e. lowest house edge) casino game if you avoid the sucker bets. It's certainly the most fun. But even there your money can disappear alarmingly quickly if you're unlucky.
So your best chance of winning (or losing most slowly) is to play craps...
Fruit machines give the impression of being crackable as the money spent trying to crack them keeps some people going.
I have an alternative method of beating the casino. It needs to be one that gives free drinks (one in Prague was great many years ago). I recall played Blackjack all evening, ended up down probably £50, but drank so much free Malt Whisky they were giving out I must have been up, I just took my profits a different way
Anyone walking into a casino to make a profit and not to have a good time is mistaken. Even those counting cards or trying to find the edge are in a way taking pleasure from the challenge rather than the profit they won't make.
I have an alternative method of beating the casino. It needs to be one that gives free drinks (one in Prague was great many years ago). I recall played Blackjack all evening, ended up down probably £50, but drank so much free Malt Whisky they were giving out I must have been up, I just took my profits a different way
Anyone walking into a casino to make a profit and not to have a good time is mistaken. Even those counting cards or trying to find the edge are in a way taking pleasure from the challenge rather than the profit they won't make.
SpeckledJim said:
thegreenhell said:
SpeckledJim said:
Nom de ploom said:
moleamol said:
Vaud said:
You need to research random.
RRRRRRRRR is as random as RBRBRBRBRB, etc.
You might want to research probability.RRRRRRRRR is as random as RBRBRBRBRB, etc.
the red or black sequence method still puts the odds slightly in favour of the house because of the Zero.
Whether the next one in the sequence is to be a red OR a black, the odds are identical for each.
Moleamol and nom de ploom were saying that changing your bet between red and black each spin is a better strategy than sitting on red all night. I am saying it is no better or worse.
Whether you are on red or black, you lose the same (100%) if it comes up green.
Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 3rd March 22:20
Edit again. I see what you are saying, and agree. But it is not related to moleamols contention that repeating red RRRRRRRRRRR.....is less random than evenly alternating red and black RBRBRBRBRBR.....
Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 3rd March 22:23
Busterhighmen said:
I'm up around £2000 on online Blackjack in the last few months, this is using the live dealers rather than the automatic method (100% believe it's a fix on there) Though at times I was staking £150-300 per hand. Which I would never do in a casino normally. Dangerous game, and I only play occasionally nowadays.
You could theoretically if you were a coder, programme a card counting system and use it on an online live dealer.. just to marginally increase your odds. Though I imagine this will swiftly get you banned if caught out, and they may have systems in place to spot these programmes.
Counting cards only gives you a marginal edge in games with low numbers of decks being used (less than 6) and low shuffling (going at least halfway into the total number of decks before shuffling).You could theoretically if you were a coder, programme a card counting system and use it on an online live dealer.. just to marginally increase your odds. Though I imagine this will swiftly get you banned if caught out, and they may have systems in place to spot these programmes.
You would then vary your bet to place a higher stake when the cards are in your favour - this is how counting cards gives you the advantage.
If you can find a game that has both the low number of decks and low shuffling frequency, then there's a good chance the casino is using a dealer who is also counting the cards and will notice when you start varying your bets as the cards move in your favour and surprise surprise, you will probably be asked to leave.
The trick then is to vary your betting to mask your strategy, but this reduces your edge. So, bottom line, it's not really worth it.
This is an interesting read from someone who used to make a living out of it:
http://www.amazon.com/Blackjack-Blood-Card-Counter...
Nom de ploom said:
SpeckledJim said:
thegreenhell said:
SpeckledJim said:
Nom de ploom said:
moleamol said:
Vaud said:
You need to research random.
RRRRRRRRR is as random as RBRBRBRBRB, etc.
You might want to research probability.RRRRRRRRR is as random as RBRBRBRBRB, etc.
the red or black sequence method still puts the odds slightly in favour of the house because of the Zero.
Whether the next one in the sequence is to be a red OR a black, the odds are identical for each.
Moleamol and nom de ploom were saying that changing your bet between red and black each spin is a better strategy than sitting on red all night. I am saying it is no better or worse.
Whether you are on red or black, you lose the same (100%) if it comes up green.
Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 3rd March 22:20
Edit again. I see what you are saying, and agree. But it is not related to moleamols contention that repeating red RRRRRRRRRRR.....is less random than evenly alternating red and black RBRBRBRBRBR.....
Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 3rd March 22:23
Ayahuasca said:
A spinning mechanical wheel or ping pong balls tumbling in a lotto machine are random.
A 'random' number generated by a computer is not random. How can it be? Someone told the computer how to pick the number, so in theory you could find out what they told the computer to do and ca-ching!
In theory also, if you had a sensitive enough sensor to detect the precise velocity and position of the ball and roulette wheel, and a fast enough computer, you could build a predicting machine too.
A good computer or machine driven random number generator may not truly be random, but to all intents and purposes it is because it would require quantum computing to spot a pattern. A 'random' number generated by a computer is not random. How can it be? Someone told the computer how to pick the number, so in theory you could find out what they told the computer to do and ca-ching!
In theory also, if you had a sensitive enough sensor to detect the precise velocity and position of the ball and roulette wheel, and a fast enough computer, you could build a predicting machine too.
Enigma was basic in comparison, and that wasn't broken by cracking the algorithm directly - that was virtually impossible. It required a crib. In a random number game there is no crib (as there is no message in the "code") so it would be practically impossible...especially if it used modern functions
Edited by Inertiatic on Thursday 5th March 21:35
SpeckledJim said:
Nom de ploom said:
SpeckledJim said:
thegreenhell said:
SpeckledJim said:
Nom de ploom said:
moleamol said:
Vaud said:
You need to research random.
RRRRRRRRR is as random as RBRBRBRBRB, etc.
You might want to research probability.RRRRRRRRR is as random as RBRBRBRBRB, etc.
the red or black sequence method still puts the odds slightly in favour of the house because of the Zero.
Whether the next one in the sequence is to be a red OR a black, the odds are identical for each.
Moleamol and nom de ploom were saying that changing your bet between red and black each spin is a better strategy than sitting on red all night. I am saying it is no better or worse.
Whether you are on red or black, you lose the same (100%) if it comes up green.
Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 3rd March 22:20
Edit again. I see what you are saying, and agree. But it is not related to moleamols contention that repeating red RRRRRRRRRRR.....is less random than evenly alternating red and black RBRBRBRBRBR.....
Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 3rd March 22:23
Especially online roulette, where its just a randomiser and the croupier is out of the equation (in theory you could try and build a statistical data set for a given croupier...in practice though...)
I'm spamming this a bit, but I find it very interesting...
Either way you are wrong. The probability of RRRRRRRRR is identical to RBRBRBRBRB.I think I know where the argument is here.
Lets simplify this and ignore the 0's and assume there is only R & B. On a truely random table, If you spin enough times you should end up very close to 50:50.
So, on the face of it ten spins giving RRRRRRRRRR seems to be less likely than ten spins giving RBRBRBRBRB. But at this tiny number of spins the frequency of R to B is next to meaningless as the 50:50 ratio does not start to appear until a HUGE number of spins has taken place. The actual distribution of R & B throughout this is random.
However, this does not mean that after ten spins of RRRRRRRRRR it is more likely the next spin will be B. Each spin is an independent event.
The 0 (and 00) don't change this - they just push the odds in the way of the house if you are betting on R or B.
The odds on you winning on a R/B bet are always slightly in the houses favour. However, its only SLIGHTLY in the houses favour so you have a reasonable chance of winning in a single spin.
You will only really care about the spins you win on, and you will cash out whilst you are up (which there is a reasonable chance you may be for a lowish number of spins). Because its quite close to 50:50 it gives you a good impression that you are doing well - and a just under 50% hit rate for a book isn't bad - the people who lose aren't going to moan about it significantly. However, if you keep playing long enough you WILL lose.
On a related note...The one I find fascinating is Deal or No Deal (not the show itself - the concept). I wonder if you analysed the games you would be able to highlight the amount of money (or number of boxes) that, on average, was the best time to cash out, and still take home, say £15,000...after a certain number of boxes, or when certain cash amounts have gone. There is no system, but you could play statistically. Somehow I don't think they would let you though :-)
Alex said:
moleamol said:
That only works if each spin is independent. Obviously every spin is .50 probability, however you stated that RRRRRRRRR is the same as a more random sequence, that is simply not true.
When you say "more random", I think you mean more evenly distributed.Either way you are wrong. The probability of RRRRRRRRR is identical to RBRBRBRBRB.
Lets simplify this and ignore the 0's and assume there is only R & B. On a truely random table, If you spin enough times you should end up very close to 50:50.
So, on the face of it ten spins giving RRRRRRRRRR seems to be less likely than ten spins giving RBRBRBRBRB. But at this tiny number of spins the frequency of R to B is next to meaningless as the 50:50 ratio does not start to appear until a HUGE number of spins has taken place. The actual distribution of R & B throughout this is random.
However, this does not mean that after ten spins of RRRRRRRRRR it is more likely the next spin will be B. Each spin is an independent event.
The 0 (and 00) don't change this - they just push the odds in the way of the house if you are betting on R or B.
AB said:
Maybe 10 years ago, I bought an e book from eBay promising to make a fortune in a certain casino online playing roulette.
There WAS a method and I made about £2k in a day.
You spun with no money and noted the sequence... if it went BRBR at any point then the next was ALWAYS a R, without fail.
There isn't a method unless the online roulette uses a terrible algorithm and is nowhere near random - as above there isn't any way that sequence could work. The books system works on peoples perception of chance and positive bias.There WAS a method and I made about £2k in a day.
You spun with no money and noted the sequence... if it went BRBR at any point then the next was ALWAYS a R, without fail.
The odds on you winning on a R/B bet are always slightly in the houses favour. However, its only SLIGHTLY in the houses favour so you have a reasonable chance of winning in a single spin.
You will only really care about the spins you win on, and you will cash out whilst you are up (which there is a reasonable chance you may be for a lowish number of spins). Because its quite close to 50:50 it gives you a good impression that you are doing well - and a just under 50% hit rate for a book isn't bad - the people who lose aren't going to moan about it significantly. However, if you keep playing long enough you WILL lose.
On a related note...The one I find fascinating is Deal or No Deal (not the show itself - the concept). I wonder if you analysed the games you would be able to highlight the amount of money (or number of boxes) that, on average, was the best time to cash out, and still take home, say £15,000...after a certain number of boxes, or when certain cash amounts have gone. There is no system, but you could play statistically. Somehow I don't think they would let you though :-)
GregK2 said:
So was this some kind of glitch in their RNG? What did forcing the green involve?
No idea was around 2006 ish when I did this. I was quite sceptical when a friend showed me the theory. Had nothing to do all weekend so thought I'd give it a go, worse I could lose was £100.Basically every spin you put £2 on red and black, also £2 on green. Do 10 spins, you get the money you gambled on red or black back every time. No green within them 10 spins meant you upped the amount on green to £4 and do another 10 spins, upping the amount on green every 10 spins by £2. When green did come in (and it did nearly all the time within 30 spins) I would get my money back plus a small increase in the fighting fund.
I'll see if I still have the tally sheet and where it went wrong, something/someone obviously clocked me and I went around 80+ spins without green coming up. By that time I was losing £20+ a spin, it was pretty horrible feeling knowing the winnings were bleeding away.
That's when I bailed and the emails started. Never done online casinos since.
Inertiatic said:
So, on the face of it ten spins giving RRRRRRRRRR seems to be less likely than ten spins giving RBRBRBRBRB.
Not to me it isn't. The chances of predicting 10 results on the trot are identical regardless of what pattern you choose. That seems obvious to me, unless I'm missing something.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Inertiatic said:
So, on the face of it ten spins giving RRRRRRRRRR seems to be less likely than ten spins giving RBRBRBRBRB.
Not to me it isn't. The chances of predicting 10 results on the trot are identical regardless of what pattern you choose. That seems obvious to me, unless I'm missing something.I said it wasn't the case in the very next line:
Inertiatic said:
But at this tiny number of spins the frequency of R to B is next to meaningless as the 50:50 ratio does not start to appear until a HUGE number of spins has taken place. The actual distribution of R & B throughout this is random.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff