Betting Systems?

OutlawPete wrote: »

You thought it happened, it didn't - as I showed.

Which you confirmed with you reply, so going back and suggesting the same again, is amusing.

Lol what? Like seriously? Are you for real? Is this the lengths you generally go to rather admitting being wrong?

OutlawPete wrote: »

Casinos will give Odds on events that are not the true 'odds' at all for instance.

When it comes to probability, I am refering to it as such, because they are events which are improbable based on human observation - so a very apt word as it goes.

Odds don't change, you've already admitted that yourself. I don't know where you came up with this new definition for probabilty but it's pure nonsense. And using human observation for determining "odds" is horrific. Human are so terrible at that sort of thing and have so many fallacies that they're so highly inaccurate. I mean just look at the content of your posts for example!

OutlawPete wrote: »

If you believe me wrong, prove it.

I did. It wasn't even in doubt in the first place. At least not to any sensible person.

OutlawPete wrote: »

If you believe me wrong, prove it.

So, if I see a sequence of 10 Tails and I think it a good point to employ the Martingale system, as it is inevitable that Heads will be on it's way very very soon.

After a sequence of ten, heads is just as likely to come out as it ever was.

but yet if I tell you that starting the Martingale when the sequence hits around 15, you will tell me that it makes no difference when you start, because the past should not be taken into consideration when predicting the future.

Of course it shouldn't. The expectation for the next 100 flips is still going to be 50 of each. It doesn't change to a new number based on the previous history. There's no new odds created. There's no obligation on the coin to be perfectly balanced over any short range of flips.

It's mind boggling you can't grasp this.

OutlawPete wrote: »

I believe so, yes.

Obviously, the longer time passes, the more 'chance' that you will have of your numbers coming up.

The mathematical 'probability' of the numbers coming out does not change but the likelihood / probable / chance of them coming out is increasing.

Again, I am using a word now that will be picked apart and asked if that means that someone doing six numbers for the first time has less chance than you, just because it's their first time using those numbers

Let's say there are only ten balls in the Lotto and you had just one number (7) and each week one number was drawn out.

Ten weeks go by and 7 is not the number -well, the more weeks that go by, the chances of 7 coming out increase as far as I am concerned, eventually it will come out - it's inevitable.

Mathematicians will tell us that no number is more likely to come out than another, and they would be correct.

However, over a period of time the chances that 7 will come out are increasing and as time passes - the more those chances increase.

What I find laughable, is how people can argue that one of the numbers could come out each and every week for years, theoretically and have no problem with that argument because mathematics backs it up.

But then dare to suggest that one number will eventually come out and they will have a nervous breakdown saying that you can't say that as all numbers have the same mathematical probability.

Some people just can't see the wood for the trees I guess.

phantom_lord wrote:

And using human observation for determining "odds" is horrific. Human are so terrible at that sort of thing and have so many fallacies that they're so highly inaccurate. I mean just look at the content of your posts for example!

Thanks for illustrating my point for me :pac:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representativeness_heuristic

So instead of my €4 lotto plus i should slowly build it up, say €6 next week? :pac:

Lol. Someones BanStick is broken :-D

Edit: And fixed quickly! Didnt have time to report.

OutlawPete, what you are suggesting is absolutely mind boggling. There is so much wrong with youir idea I don't know where to start. I also thought you were trolling until I seen you were a HMod.

I multi-quoted a few posts, to highlight some of the more glaring errors.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Mathematics tells us that it is not impossible for a coin to infinitely land heads up, observation tells us otherwise.

no. Matamathic tells us that its very very unlikely that a coin will continue to land on heads (or tells) for a long period.
Observation backs this up.

Your assumption that because is not impossible that it should happen is a bit bizarre.

OutlawPete wrote: »

It means that it is highly improbable that the same six numbers will come out in the Lottery, two weeks running - yet the mathematical odds of it happening are the same.

The mathematical odds of it happening show that it is highly improbable.
Observation would agree with this. I have no idea what sort of point you are trying to make here.

If you were to take a large enough sample of lottery draws, I can guarantee that the same set of numbers would come out two draws in a row. It inevitiable, but the same needed would be quite large.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Card counting is an effort at working out 'true odds' based on probability - in a situation where 'fixed odds' are only available.

In blackjack the odds are dynamic. From the shuffle they are easily quantified and could be considered known. As is the houses edge. As the odds change, counting cards tracks these changes (if done correctly/accurately). Because the payouts don't vary, at certain points, the player gains an edge over the house due to these changes.

Just want to cottect what you said. It's not an effort to do anything

OutlawPete wrote: »

If you believe me wrong, prove it.

Prove to me that a coin flipped 100 times will land on Heads or Tails 40 times in a row.

Here is that assumption again. That because something is not impossible that it will happen. I hoenstly have no idea how a sane person would even suggest that notion.
It's incredibably unlikely that it would happen, this is no way "proves" you right. Nobody who disagreed with you suggested the above would happen.

It's not a new definition.

Probability is another way of saying "likelihood".

You are talking about the mathematical term 'probability' - I am not.

Call it 'statistical likelihood' if you wish, either way - my point is an obvious one.

Matamatical probability and "likeihood" are identical.
In closed systems like flipping coins and roulette it is very easy to put a figure on the likeihood. If the game is "fair" the likeihood exactly matches this figure.

My point, which it has been since this thread started, is that in a 50/50 situation such as a coin toss, it is improbable, unlikely, slim chance etc etc etc - that a sequence of of either heads, tales, black, red etc - will happen infinitely.

Mathematics tells us that it is not impossible, based on the fact that the past does not predict the future and each flip is independent to the last.

However, there have been many many experiments with coin flipping and regularly they produce no more than 18 or 19 sequences of Heads or Tails from 100 flips - but yet if I tell you that starting the Martingale when the sequence hits around 15, you will tell me that it makes no difference when you start, because the past should not be taken into consideration when predicting the future.

And again.
Why are you why are you making this statement as some sort of "however". Are you trying to suggest this is some sort of proof?

I don't think past flips of a coin have any "effect" on future coin tosses, but human observation tells us that sequences don't last very long in scenarios where there are only two possible outcomes, with the same mathematical probability / true odds,

So, if I see a sequence of 10 Tails and I think it a good point to employ the Martingale system, as it is inevitable that Heads will be on it's way very very soon.

Yes it is inevitable that heads is on the way soon. What are you suggestion that this proves??
It's always inevitable.
It's always on the way soon as there are only 2 outcomes.

After 5 in a row, there is a 50% chance it will end on the next spin, after 10 in a row there is a 50% chance it will end on the next spin. The chances of heads coming along soon are never going to changes. There is no advantage to starting your bets after zero, 5 or 10 in a row. At no point does the likeihood (matamathical or otherwise) change and therefore it makes no difference to your bet. It is just as likely to win as before.

Again, prove me wrong by showing me a sequence of 40 or more out of 100, in a scenario such as a coin toss and you can consider my mind changed and totally proven wrong.

Again, why are you even mentioning that? We know is unlikely to happen. the chances are so small* that is pretty safe to say its never going to happen unless somebody repeated it ad nauseum for the sole purpose of making it happen.

*It's about 1 in 18,024,780,783 to happen

OutlawPete wrote: »

I believe so, yes.

Obviously, the longer time passes, the more 'chance' that you will have of your numbers coming up.

The mathematical 'probability' of the numbers coming out does not change but the likelihood / probable / chance of them coming out is increasing.

No it isn't.

How are you confusing the chances of it happening a single draw with the compounded chances of it happening over a series of draws.
This is incredibably simple.

Let's say there are only ten balls in the Lotto and you had just one number (7) and each week one number was drawn out.

Ten weeks go by and 7 is not the number -well, the more weeks that go by, the chances of 7 coming out increase as far as I am concerned, eventually it will come out - it's inevitable.

Mathematicians will tell us that no number is more likely to come out than another, and they would be correct.

However, over a period of time the chances that 7 will come out are increasing and as time passes - the more those chances increase.

Yes it is inevitable as there are only 10 balls. But this in no way proves, or even suggests that the odds are increasing.

Each time there is a 10% chances that it will come out, or 90% that it won't. If you keep repeating the draw, it will eventually come out, as the chances that it will continue to not get picked are infinitesimal.

The chance of it coming out in one draw is 10%
Over two draws its 19%
Over 10 draws its 65%

What I find lauhable is that you regard this as likeihood increasing. Its not, you are simply takign a bigger sample. It's more likely to come out over 10 draws than 2 draws, this is obvious. But the chances on any individual draw don't change. Even after 9 misses, the tenth draw isn't more likely to be a winner. The 10 draws as a whole are 65% not the tenth draw. Can you understand why?

What I find laughable, is how people can argue that one of the numbers could come out each and every week for years, theoretically and have no problem with that argument because mathematics backs it up.

But then dare to suggest that one number will eventually come out and they will have a nervous breakdown saying that you can't say that as all numbers have the same mathematical probability.

Are you serious?
Mathematics doesn't back it up, the opposite in fact. Mathemathics suggests that its so unlikely to happen that it probably never will. Observation suggests mathematic is right.

One individual ball will come out, eventually, as adding up all the chances that it comes out will obviously get bigger and bigger. This is not the same as the chances of it increasing on a single draw. I have no idea how you would even think that?

ColHol wrote: »

I just like to say that I get where OutlawPete is coming from.

If you pare it back to just a coin toss (true 50/50 odds) and your betting on just tails, and you are constantly doubling your bets, well your gonna get paid whenever tails comes up. So whether the run is HHT or HHHHHHT or HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHT you are still making money.

And tails will come up eventually. You can say whatever about the odds of each event, but it will come up eventually. Having the money to stick it out til then is the bigger problem

Obviously it will eventually come up. That's not really an issue. As mentioned above runs of 10 or so are not uncommon. If your first bet was $10 then after 10 losses the next bet would need to be $10k (you'd need a 20k roll to even get that far)

Firstly the bankroll is obviously an issue, as is having the balls to stick on your last bet. Then there is also the obvious problem of table stakes. Most tables have stakes that restrict you to very few spins.

Basically, anybody who thinks this is a viable system doesn't know what they are talking about. A small sample will show profit, obviously. A adequet sample will go bust.