beating the Gamblers fallacy

[preoccupied]

I have an opinion about gambling. Excuse my handwriting, because since I have been using computers for so long my hand writing is a bit handicap.

I want to have a winning betting system and I think D'Alembert system produces good odds. It's flaw though is that it's slow to break even and can lead to a really high unbeatable bet and losses if one is truly unlucky.

The D'Alembert betting system increases the bet when lose is had and decreases the bet when win is had. It is nerve wrecking and actually has no statistical advantage. It only works on the assumption that sequences that end in losses don't exist because you will keep playing until you get enough wins. To win with D'Alembert system you will need about half as many wins as losses. It's good odds but it will not consistently beat the roulette table and when there is loss it is a huge bank roll of playing money.

My Betting System Is similar:

If I were to increase when I lose and only get losses the bet would look like this $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, $60.... -$210... If I were to win at any point such as at $70, it was just as likely to be a loss. So I thought to myself, why not pretend it is a loss potentially by gambling it? I combined the "let it ride" method with the first part of D'Alembert system to try to cover my losses quicker. Let it ride adds a previous win to the next bet.

In this case I am betting $70 again but I added the previous win $70 to it to make $140 bet.

If I win the $140 bet I add it to my previous win of $70 to get $210 bet win. There I have broken even because I was behind -$210. If I had lost my $140 bet I would be -$70, as if I had lost my original first win of $70. So I start over in my sequence of losses at $80 for my next bet... ...$50, $60, $70, $80....

In this example of my betting system that combines the first part of D'Alembert with "let it ride method", 6 losses followed by 2 wins is the last point where I cover all of my losses by winning two bets. However, it's still pretty good even all the way to losing 20 in a row and then getting two wins in a row because in that example 15% of the loss covered while the likeliness of getting 20 losses in a row is a lot less than 15%. (see attached image)

The gamblers fallacy states that the gambler believes previous bets influence future outcomes. I think I beat the gamblers fallacy by saying that I will have better odds for my wins and losses if I force a winning outcome by playing until I win. This might beat any fallacy because I would eliminate the sequences that end in losses, giving me a positive statistic.

Here are all of the sequences for three. If the sequences in red can't exist because I play it out until I force a winning outcome then the sequences that would normally all add up to 0 would have a possible positive +$ outcome instead.
www
wwL
wLw
WLL
LLL
LLw
LwL
Lww

Of course, always cut your losses by reducing back to minimum once you've beaten the odds and gotten 2 wins in a row. Never bet too high because it would throw off the probability and create a hole in your pocket, IMO.

Does anybody else have a betting system? Or does anybody think this betting system is stupid?

Do you think that I have a gamblers fallacy?

[Tarsier79]

I looked into roulette and betting systems. I tried a number of different ways to beat the odds. In the process, I created a random number generator, getting it to autocalc a win/loss and play on. I also played on the free to play sections, testing my theories before trying them with real money.

As you stated, any system does not increase your odds. The odds on the table are against you, and you will eventually lose. "Chaos theory" basically means that if you throw a coin 1000 times, you will most probably get over 10 heads or 10 tails in a row at some point. Try calculating your losses starting with a $1 bet with 10 losses in a row, then calculate your 11th bet amount. What you will find, is that tables allowing real money have a limit on the bet, eg between $1 and $200. Alternatively, try walking into a casino, try your system and see what happens then!

I am also of the opinion after days of study, that online free to play tables have a different number generation engine than the real money tables. There is also the possibility that real money tables might have a failsafe, forcing you to lose more often if you get too far in front.

Online systems you pay for work like this: You pay for the system, which is designed for certain sites.... Mr A. Scammer gets your money.
The system requires you to sign up. You have now been referred by A. Scammer, who gets a bonus when you start feeding money to the site. Once the system gets a large negative online presence, A. Scammer renames it, changes what it looks like, then tells you it has new features, like predicting the number generators next result.

The end result, you lose, and A. Scammer wins twice from you.

[preoccupied]

Hey Tarsier79,
I think online casino gambling is illegal where I am other than competitive poker. I wouldn't mind putting $20 on a chess game online if I could see them with a video live stream the whole game but that would be totally illegal. Want to do it? =-D

In real casinos they are not supposed to rig the tables to use a "fail safe". I don't know about Australia but in America the roulette tables are supposed to be random. The decks aren't shuffled into losing hands by a machine in the casinos. They are lenient to winners but do eventually kick out suspicious winning streaks. You never know when the dealer is in on the wins after all? As much of a bad rap as casinos get I think they are all really securely legitimate and its players who cheat that are the real unscrupulous characters.

I haven't made anything that calculates like that since I had a scientific calculator. Would you please post your betting system and maybe your software?

[rlortie]

It is best, just to say;"I do not gamble and I bet you five dollars that I don't"

You can look at a roulette table and calculate the odds, you know how many cards are in a deck, legal slot machines are set by law to return a certain percentage.

My question is, does this apply to Native American reservation casinos? With the luck I have been having, I do not think so!

Ralph

[preoccupied]

I'll take that bet but you have to agree to let me double it on the next bet. Then I am sure to win. rlortie are you good at Chess? $2 says I am better.

I remember being in the entertainment room next to the Casino in Oregon and playing pool. I was gambling there with the other players and I was maybe 14 years old. I won. My parents lost everything they came with and Jerry's "system" didn't work. Some betting systems have incredibly large statistical disadvantages.

For example:
Decrease your bet and then try doubling it later to cover losses. The statistics are literally twice as unlikely for you to come ahead. So if Jerry were playing an insurance system where you decrease your bet based on a previous outcome, he might have been playing a system that is more likely to lose statistically.

[rlortie]

No! I am not a chess player, do not know the first thing about the game.

While downsizing personal belongs of my late wife's, I donated two chess sets to "Goodwill" thrift center.

I use to be a pretty avid '21' or blackjack player visiting Reno and Lake Tahoe. But that was back in the days when only a single deck was used. Yes I was a card counter, but with multiple decks now being used, forget it!

I now stick to Dollar slot machines, they seem to give a better return than the nickle, dime and quarter machines.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

The house always wins if they can keep you playing at the roulette table long enough. Therefore, your best chance at a roulette table is to make one bet with all your money on one number, and then leave for good and never go back. You will either leave broke or rich.

At least then you have a chance of winning, even if the odds are 37:1 against you. That's better odds than to keep playing because your chances of beating the house in the longer term falls to virtually zero.

[Tarsier79]

Preoccupied, in Casinos, if they catch you using a system, you will probably be kicked out pretty quickly.

Unfortunately, I had a HDD crash last year and lost that program. I wrote it in basic, so it wasn't too difficult to write.

I put together one in excell below for you.

[preoccupied]

The house always wins if they can keep you playing at the roulette table long enough. Therefore, your best chance at a roulette table is to make one bet with all your money on one number, and then leave for good and never go back. You will either leave broke or rich.

At least then you have a chance of winning, even if the odds are 37:1 against you. That's better odds than to keep playing because your chances of beating the house in the longer term falls to virtually zero.

Would you explain your probability, please? What do you think the odds on a roulette wheel are if you play it on black or red ten times?

[ovyyus]

Hitting Red 10 times in a row is 1 in 1758. Missing Black 10 times in a row is 1 in 613.

[preoccupied]

http://wizardofodds.com/games/roulette/
47.37% probability to win
so 52.63 probability to lose
I didn't study probability so I'm not sure how to reverse calculate how you got your answer ovyyus. Did you use this win probability that is on wizardofodds?

[Tarsier79]

Oops, sorry to mention Preocc. The spreadsheet I posted has a random number generator, so will give you a different result everytime you open it.

Hitting Red 10 times in a row is 1 in 1758. Missing Black 10 times in a row is 1 in 613.

That sounds right. Also depends what table you are using, 0 or 0+00. Also remember, that there is a possibility this could happen in your first 20 or 30 bets. As soon as this happens, you are throwing away big bucks.

[preoccupied]

(1/613)/(1/4?)=0.65%? likely to get 10 losses and then two wins on the roulette wheel. Winning two after losing ten covers 60% of my losses. There I'm about 100x ahead in probability using my system if I have ten loses followed by two wins. Gamblers fallacy?

[Tarsier79]

What if you get 11 losses?

[preoccupied]

Tarsier79, my calculation pits loss vs wins such that there are two outcomes. If it were 50:50 actual odds then the same amount of odds such as 1/4 and 1/4 would be (1/4) / (1/4) = 100% likely. So 11 losses plus two wins would be still by percentage of loss recovered doing pretty good after the next bets are two wins in a row. Follow my system, and see that it asks for me to either get consecutive losses that increase by a fixed amount or two wins in a row. There is no one win by itself in my system.