Trying To Game The Roulette Wheel.

originally posted by: oikos
a reply to: Degradation33

The problem is, in a real roulette wheel each spin has the same probability of landing on any particular number as the previous spin, and the next spin (outside things like environmental variables or interference) so although the results will tend to make a nice distribution, an outlier condition is still nevertheless not preventable. You would need deep pockets and a long timeline.

Exactly. And you miss 4 times in a row and the house takes it all back. I can't make it yet though. And this is with the same 38:1 chance each spin. Deep pockets and time seems to slowly beat the house.

I've lost 3 times in a row but recovered on the 4th. Stepped back, lost again. Went back to the maximum. Won. Won after stepping back. And then won again. Which reset it in positive territory.

It's this weird counterintuitive thing where losing 2 or 3 times in a row is beneficial because you more often than not win on the higher bets as you step back down.

Yeah the odds say what they say but it bizarrely keeps working. Like there's causal odds and chaotic odds.

And I'm going to pick this up later and see how long it takes until I give it back. This shouldn't be working.

a reply to: Degradation33

It has to happen. You just hope you make that much before the inevitable 4 times in a row so it doesn't hit that hard. That or increase it to 625. In the end it looks you'd need a lot of money to pull this off.

I have seen it go a good 7 or 8 times, heard it getting up to 15. Gonna need a lot of cash for that, limits on table bets is also going to be an issue.

A long time ago someone realized you can beat this game if you have enough resources.

You start with a $1 bet on any 12 number group; 1-12, 13-24, 25-36. If you win, great. Start over. If you lose, double the bet. Continue doubling the bet until you win, then start over. Its guaranteed to pay every time

However, if you try this don't be surprised if you find yourself inside-out in an alley behind a casino.

There's a 1 in 300 something chance of hitting the pick 3 lotto with 1 pair in any order. I play 337 sometimes. There's 2 drawings per day, afternoon and night. This number hasn't hit since February of 2021 and only hit three times total since 1/1/2019 (just checked). In 2021 it was drawn in January and February, not a single time in 2020, and once in 2019. Hasn't come up in 2022 yet either, but the odds say it should be drawn roughly twice per year.

Several pick 3 combinations with 1 pair have hit up to 8 or 9 times in any order during the same timeframe.

I played twice last week. I try not to play because its $1.50 to win $250. If you play both everyday, that's $90 a month and considering it hasn't come up in a year and a half, you can do the math as to how much money would've been lost up to now. I do play it very occasionally if I have $3 cash on me which is rare, I try not to hold cash and I check the database first to see if it recently came up which it hasn't to this very day.

Ironically, the first day I played 333 was drawn and the next day 377 was drawn, but nothing since. I was 1 number off two days in a row on the only 2 days I played that month and back to back none the less.

If I were to dwell on it and try to analyze it, it'd drive me bonkers and I'd have lost more money by now but thats why I don't play very often. It has proven to me that the odds are meaningless and don't apply.

a reply to: Thrumbo

2/12/2021 7 3 3 - - - $160
1/2/2021 7 3 3 - - - $160
3/8/2019 3 7 3 - - - $160

compared to:

8/1/2022 - - - 6 1 1 $160
7/16/2022 - - - 1 1 6 $160
7/6/2022 1 1 6 - - - $160
5/21/2022 6 1 1 - - - $160
11/8/2021 - - - 1 1 6 $160
10/30/2021 6 1 1 - - - $160
10/27/2021 - - - 6 1 1 $160
6/26/2021 - - - 1 1 6 $160
3/20/2021 1 6 1 - - - $160
2/24/2021 1 6 1 - - - $160
1/29/2021 1 1 6 - - - $160
10/5/2020 6 1 1 - - - $160
1/22/2020 6 1 1 - - - $160
12/19/2019 1 1 6 - - - $160
11/21/2019 - - - 1 6 1 $160

Can anyone help me understand this? 15 wins vs 3 wins same timeframe.😅

a reply to: Degradation33

There are various systems I've seen promoted, but as another poster talked about doing the most viable way of doing this is to scrape by on small wins at multiple places. If you live in an area with lots of options you may be able to keep it together for a while before getting the boot. I believe "structured betting" may be on the list of things probibited, but I'm not super familiar with casino operations. There may even be a threshold where it becomes illegal, but I'm honestly not sure.

Since your odds don't change this should be viable moving tables and with more than one person doing it. So, four or five people operating out of a single kitty, spread over multiple tables and multiple casinos, should be able to net a little if your system works. Most systems I've heard of operate the same way and are best run like a small side business. I do think that you run into tax implications fairly quickly though as the bets increase. Over time I suspect you'd find the margins are terrible if you keep it low key enough to evade the ire of the casino.

Slightly off topic follows, but I'm guessing by your avatar it's not outside your wheelhouse.

If you learn to rapidly calculate odds and have an apptitude for it, horse and dog racing offer both larger pools to hide in and a wide variety of odds across many tracks. If you're good at picking real odds then you can exploit errors in the pools. The house is still getting their cut so as long as you're not going overboard it shouldn't be notable, they also have cash terminals. It's not without a time investment as going deeper on the history of each entry should be thorough, beyond what the program will give you is best. If you follow certain tracks long enough you eventually pick up on names and jockeys. Using this snowball effect on bets has to be calculated for each race you find to exploit and because odds change it's a little fuzzy on the payouts heading into post time. If you're good and hit one in five on average it's viable. There's a range and outliers happen, some days you may lose.

This is only really viable in real time, you can't place the bets without knowing the odds heading into post time. The kind of spread between real odds and book odds rarely deviate enough to exploit. This is real time analysis of errors made by others in properly allocating based on the real odds (real odd being the odds as determined by a skilled handicapper).

Rather than bet every race you simply bet races where the odds on the pools pay higher than the real odds and you place your wager based on the daily goal. Start with a reasonable goal of $50. Each bet is placed with the goal of a return of $50, plus whatever you've lost on previous wagers. You win $50 plus prior losses and you're done for the day. If it's a hobby then you have your $50 to play with for the rest of the day. Obviously the higher the payout odds the less each wager must be and the slower the wagers snowball until you win. The tighter the spread between real odds and book odds the more you risk for each attempt at $50.

To be honest it's not a lot of fun and sometimes you may only have a couple races that are viable to beat the odds in a given day. If you enjoy the atmosphere and hanging at the track or OTB it's not so bad, but you may have days with only a few viable bets depending on how many tracks you are prepared to monitor. It also depends on skill, both yours and the net skill of the betting pool, and probably isn't terribly viable for somebody without some familiarity with it. Tourist tracks are good and tracks with large pools of regulars not so much. I had been a hobbyist for years and read a few books on handicapping before attempting it. It works, but it's not for me. I figured out a viable method and kinda grew bored with it. You could probably scale it to $500 a day over time given a staking pool of 5k-10k assuming you're picky about races, again partially depending on skill and discipline.

It's one of those things I keep in my back pocket should I find myself ever needing some cash flow, but it's boring and if you're not disciplined it quickly becomes a money loser. It's not for those that like the thrill, but those that just love the game and have the discipline to grind. It's a niche few fall into.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: Degradation33

My question is, how many times do you think you'll get away with doing this in a real casino?

OP How is it that you would be "Getting away" with anything?
Aren't you making a legal bet everytime?
What am I missing?

What systems like this do is change the odds from the house to you. If the security of a casino believes you are using any mathematical system to change the odds from their favor (which they are by default), then they will sooner or later, probably sooner than later, not allow you to gamble at that casino.

So you only use these systems very sparingly at different casinos.

ETA: The only bet a casino views as a "legal" bet, is the bet where any poor sap comes in and just randomly throws money at a game.

a reply to: 19Bones79


Oh jeez nevermind, that was a terrible mistake.

I'll get back to you on this one.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I agree with the dogs or horses. I would also suggest focusing on the quinella bet. Back i the day I would have a thousand results from one track. Then work out the frequency of the quinellas generated, there are twenty-eight possible combinations since they pay out either way. Like the dog from box 1 1nd 2 come together about one in thirteen times. Then looking at the results if that combination had not come in for say twenty-four times. A dollar bet on the next few races seemed to do the trick. If the fav. comes in the first two 75% of the time, you can do a lot better at systematic betting than at the casino.You also get a multiplication of the odds with the quinella. I remember one night just for a laugh putting a 1 and2 quinella on a hundred races on the dogs in Australia. I came back out with about two hundred bucks.
This was more an exercise in fun as there are ten dogs per race. So if a random number generator gives you five numbers, There is a fifty percent chance, that one of the numbers will come in first or second. and roughly another fifty percent chance that of the remaining four they will have the first and second runner in them. So you have a one-four chance of getting the quinella with a random number generator. If one of those random numbers is the favorite he will be in the money 75 %of the time. So anchoring the fav. with the other four costs four bucks but since you get a multiplication of the odds with the bet, it works out a better bet than roulette, and you can martingale bet till you get a result. So if the five random numbers generated, have the first or second fav. use that as the anchor, simply because its cheaper than boxing the bet.

a reply to: anonentity

I would find it difficult to bet more than mostly straight win. The key is being able to have a reasonable expectation that you can accurately gauge real odds to exploit deviations in the odds at post. Once you add more factors the uncertainty starts to eat into your margins. It's also hard to find a single horse/dog that fits the criteria in any single race, so finding two is improbable. If you had realtime access to pool data and a computer it might be viable. In incredibly rare cases there may be races where the punters overlook key details, but the wisdom of the crowd is often pretty close.

There are plenty of guys I've known that do okay betting exotics, but it's less a system then and more straight talent. One thing that seems fairly uniform across the board is that the guys that aren't counting their money over time and the guys that bet every race all end up losing. It's not possible to pick the winner every race, so you compensate by picking horses that pay much better than they should. If you can keep in that window of risk vs reward you can make money. It's really boring though.

It's much more enjoyable to go once in a while and bet some long shots without having to study hard and track the odds to the last minute.

a reply to: Ksihkehe


I just like to know the probabilities and then use them to predict an outcome. Like there are ten dogs running. Two of them have to come first or second. If I get a random five to concentrate on. There are three possible outcomes. I could have the quinella in my five, the quinella could be in the other five that I haven't picked, or I could have one in the ones I picked and the other one in the ones I haven't picked. So over time, I should get the quinella once in every three bets. If I use a favorite to anchor the other four, the odds fall more in my favor. The bet cost four bucks. Then dummy bet the races till I go down say six times. From then on there is a high probability that I will get a result. It's weird how probabilities work. I calculated that a certain trifecta came out once in an average of a hundred races when it didn't come out in two hundred races. I started to look for it, and it came out twice within five races so it was back to its average. It is fun a bit like insurance assessors same thing really.

a reply to: anonentity

There are some weird patterns, some even seem to only exist at certain tracks. I always figured it had to do with either some difference in the position of the gates or something. I've tried coming up with ways of using probabilities, but I never did anything with big number sets. I wonder if the sports books in Vegas have in house data crunchers using years of data on track results. Never thought about it before and big data algorithms have come a long way.

originally posted by: Degradation33
This is something I've repeated in testing at least 20 times.

20 is a very small sample size for a test.
You can write this strategy into computer code (or hire someone to do it), and have the computer execute the strategy against a similar programmed testing algorithm automatically and rapidly. It can run the test hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of times, to give you a more accurate statistical picture of how it works over the long term.

Though I'm guessing it may be an anomaly I made it 20 times without busting out.

That would be my guess too.

This isn't exactly counting. But it does tread into similar statistical territory. If anything it's playing to the belief you won't lose two or three times in a row. And If you do, it's unlikely to bust you out.

I think what that larger data set will show you is that it's not as impossible as you think to lose many times in a row even if you have "deep pockets". The most famous example of gambler's fallacy occurred in 1913 when people didn't believe the wheel could keep turning up black after landing on black 12 times in a row or so, so they bet on red thinking the black streak had to break:

The opposite superstition is to bet that a streak has to end, in the false belief that independent events of chance must somehow even out. This is known as the gambler's fallacy, and achieved notoriety at the Casino de Monte-Carlo on 18 August 1913. The ball fell on black 26 times in a row, and as the streak lengthened gamblers lost millions betting on red, believing that the chances changed with the length of the run of blacks.

The guys who were betting on red probably thought they couldn't possibly lose 15 times in a row and probably never dreamed they could lose 26 times in a row.

originally posted by: Degradation33
...a few more times knowing the odds in aggregate favor you most of the time.

False.

The odds for winning do not rise because you lost before. The odds for black after you had ten times red in a streak is exactly 50% every time. No matter if you had 100x red in a row, the odds are 50%. That is, if there's no 0/green.

Just the odds for you catching such a streak are very low. That's the difference.

a reply to: TDDAgain

I had forgot all about this. Kept winning using this weird strategy. I was bored this test killed time.

But to what you say.

Statistically and logically you are right. Nothing is absolute ever. Odds never really build up. But there is an idea here.

The best analogy to the idea of this is like plotting any random statistic. If a city averages 100 murders a year it's never consistent. One thing you can always count on is the emergence of a bunch happening in a short period of time at some point. Like 2 in a month and then 7 in 5 days. No rhyme or reason. At the end of the year there were 93.

Like on a roulette wheel. You'll go 300 spins without a number and then see it 5 times in 50. At the end of the day it will be closer 3% of total spins.

This tactic is recognizing when that grouping of certain results may be happening and trying to capitalize on it. Like when there's 3 murders in 2 days betting there will be 4 more in the next five.

Wait that was the wrong explanation. I gotta read this again. I have a bunch of ideas using roullette.

Same idea. This one was trying to game the odds of losing with near 5/6 Odds.

I have another one where you try to bet 6 numbers (like 31-36, or an area of the board) at a time when those numbers start hitting a bunch. (Hit their statistical peak) Like when it keeps hitting a certain spot keep betting that area a few times. That's the one I thought this was at first.

All of this is an attempt to predict when chaotic things are occurring and profitting off it. Trying to bet when statistics will group together. Pseudoscience at best.

Another pseudoscience idea to game chaos is betting the last 4 numbers and hoping you have close repeats more than 1 out of every 9 times. Those seem to happen regularly too.

a reply to: [post=26813277]Degradation33[/posL

How about this one, there are twenty horses in a race, and each one is represented by a number, Only one can win. you put all the counters with the twenty numbers in a shaker and give them a good shake. The chances of pulling the winning number out with the first counter removed are twenty to one. Not good odds and so on till you have removed ten counters. From then on it's a ten-to-one shot. So probabilities should suggest that the winning horse should always be in the last ten in the shaker most of the time. I often wondered if this is like the Monty Hall effect where how you make the decision has an effect on the outcome.

a reply to: Degradation33

Your trick is the same as betting 1€ on black or red and then doubling as long as you loose, when you win, you will gain 1€.

1 2 4 8 16

you win 32€
you bet 31€

I used it once and worked myself up from twenty € to a couple hundred and then ran out of cash when I got 8x red and kept staying on black. It was unfathomable stupid, same as your idea because you risk a lot of money for little gain.

I conclude it's a strategy, as well as yours, that is actually promoted by the casino secretly, because they will eventually win with the odds on 0/green and the gamblers fallacy.

originally posted by: myselfaswell

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: myselfaswell

I can't even begin to imagine the alarm bells you'd set off in Vegas, as well as the risk of getting measured up for a pair of size 25 concrete boots.

I thought winning was okay? Is this cheating some how?

I would imagine that if you can consistently beat the house, you're cheating as far as they're concerned.

So basically Vegas is for chumps and if you find a way to win youre committing suicide. My questions is then why go to Vegas at all if winning is a life threatening idea?