Can you beat Roulette using maths?

  • #76
10
0
"Then stop trying to go against the math. "
i have already given a method using math.so don't tell me i am wrong, tell me WHERE it is wrong.You haven't so far which is surprising.Note that .I did not. and do not claim that it would be profitable only that it gives the bettor an "Edge " And if the casinos' Edge of 2.6% means that they will win in the long run then so must a bettor's Edge.

" the long run comes sooner than you think "

If that's logic then I'm a banana and I ain't a banana

Your answers reveal desperation to justify your fundamentalism.
 
  • #77
441
0
Your answers reveal desperation to justify your fundamentalism.
No, his answers are factual and based on actual math and research.

Your questions are horribly written, and you demonstrate no mathematical understanding.

You want to know WHERE your method is wrong. How about everywhere. You use phrases like "unknowable until" .

Furtheremore you CLAIM things like:
"If we choose to bet only RED/ODD numbers plus BLACK/EVEN numbers we bet 20 numbers which means that we should win 20 times in every 37 spins.

You do not justify this claim. There is no math to back it up. If you want to know where your math is wrong, then SHOW US SOME DAMN MATH FIRST!

Great you bet 20 numbers out of a total 37 numbers.

That means your chances of winning one spin are 20/37 or ~54%.

So say you bet 1 dollar on each number each spin. That means you bet 20 bucks each time with a 54% chance of winning 37 dollars. 20 dollars each time for 37s times mean you will bet $740

I ran a simulation of doing this 100,000 times That is betting 20 dollars, having a 54% chance of winning 37 dollars for 37 spins. The average amount won in 37 spins came to be ~$618

That means on average you lose 122.

I fail to see how that is winning.

You are wrong and your math wrong because you haven't done any.

Edit: I made one mistake in my simulation the average should be ~$629.39 Still the point stands you lose $110.61
 
Last edited:
  • #78
pwsnafu
Science Advisor
1,080
85
"Then stop trying to go against the math. "
i have already given a method using math.so don't tell me i am wrong, tell me WHERE it is wrong.You haven't so far which is surprising.
That is not how we do things here. Hurkly has already did so in post #65. You then change your stance rather than addressing the criticism. Hurkyl then asks you to do redo the calculation post #70. You have not done so. You need to do the math.

Note that .I did not. and do not claim that it would be profitable only that it gives the bettor an "Edge " And if the casinos' Edge of 2.6% means that they will win in the long run then so must a bettor's Edge.
Goal post shifting. To "beat" roulette you must create a strategy and prove said strategy gives a positive expectation. That is what the phrase means mathematically. You wrote in post #50
The answer to the question as put is YES.
You seem to have misunderstood the question. So be it.

" the long run comes sooner than you think "

If that's logic then I'm a banana and I ain't a banana

Your answers reveal desperation to justify your fundamentalism.
Statements like this do not help.
 
  • #79
22,097
3,277
This thread has gone on for long enough.
 

Related Threads for: Can you beat Roulette using maths?

  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
10K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Top