Civil Discussion About Religion

This is assuming you're wagering on anything other than red or black. As Schneed pointed out earlier, you're chances of landing on red or black are 47 or 48.xxx (I forget exactly). As far as gambling goes those odds ain't half bad. If you wager on a specific color and use probability to figure out the chances of a specific color being rolled out of say 6 or 7 times then you increase your chance of winning provided that you cover all of your total losses thus far on each subsequent wager until your fixed color (red or black) finally comes up. With this simple method you're gambling that your color will come up 1 out of 6 or 7 times. If you win you start the wagering process all over again. The only times you get screwed is if your color doesn't come up after a 7th roll. Again, you're just playing the odds that your color will come up eventually. Whether you have the financial resources to keep up is another story. Regardless, it's not foolproof and you can get burned if your color doesn't come up (10 straight reds or 6 reds followed by 0 then followed by 3 more reds).

Out of 7 consecutive rolls, you're wagering would look something like this: $5, $10, $20, $40, $80, $160, $320. If you play a fixed color the entire time and finally that color comes up you'll win $5 dollars. It's slow and tedious but fairly effective.

Finally a post I don't have to repeat myself over.

First off, whether you're betting red, black, or a single number on the board, when you weight your payout against the odds of winning, the house will take 5 cents of every dollar you bet.

The doubling your bet concept is a simple one, and often does work. Bet $5 on red, if you win, pocket it and bet $5 again. If you lose, double your bet to $10. If you lose that, double your bet to $20, and so on. But at the same time, eventually you are going to hit a cold streak where you lose 8-10 bets in a row. You have to have really really deep pockets to get 8 losses in a row. The chances of losing by betting red or black for 8 times in a row is 0.25%. But if you're doubling your bet, you need to have pockets holding 5+10+20+40+80+160+320+640. That comes to $1275.

You keep doing this long enough, you're going to encounter one of those 0.25% of the times when you're going to lose $1275. Chances are, that's going to offset whatever you're walking away with by winning on the $5 rolls.

No matter how you cut it, the game eventually bites you. They don't call it a house advantage for nothin.

And all those books someone posted about roulette are like someone else said either written by a moron or by someone who is dishonest.

I am not sure if the authors of the books that I posted are morons or dishonest, but what I do know is that they wrote the book and apparently a publisher felt that the books were good enough to publish.

But to call someone who wrote such a book a "con artist, a moron, or dishonest" simply because you do not agree with it, well, sounds like a defamatory statement that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression of a person, or lible...

Finally a post I don't have to repeat myself over.

First off, whether you're betting red, black, or a single number on the board, when you weight your payout against the odds of winning, the house will take 5 cents of every dollar you bet.

The doubling your bet concept is a simple one, and often does work. Bet $5 on red, if you win, pocket it and bet $5 again. If you lose, double your bet to $10. If you lose that, double your bet to $20, and so on. But at the same time, eventually you are going to hit a cold streak where you lose 8-10 bets in a row. You have to have really really deep pockets to get 8 losses in a row. The chances of losing by betting red or black for 8 times in a row is 0.25%. But if you're doubling your bet, you need to have pockets holding 5+10+20+40+80+160+320+640. That comes to $1275.

You keep doing this long enough, you're going to encounter one of those 0.25% of the times when you're going to lose $1275. Chances are, that's going to offset whatever you're walking away with by winning on the $5 rolls.

No matter how you cut it, the game eventually bites you. They don't call it a house advantage for nothin.

It's still not a terribly ineffective system as far as gambling goes. You're taking a chance of losing only 0.25% of the time. What are the odds of geting into a car wreck on your way home from work? (<---rhetorical)

I am not sure if the authors of the books that I posted are morons or dishonest, but what I do know is that they wrote the book and apparently a publisher felt that the books were good enough to publish.

But to call someone who wrote such a book a "con artist, a moron, or dishonest" simply because you do not agree with it, well, sounds like a defamatory statement that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression of a person, or lible...
You CANNOT win at roulette in a longterm scebario. IT IS A FACT. And a relatively well know one at that. Especially in the gambling book publishing industry I would imagine.

To think that because a publisher published the book it isn't dumb or dishonest is foolish. Publishers publish books because they sell.

Any book that proposes to lay out a system to win at Roulette cannot be anything but either dishonest or moronic because THERE IS NO SYSTEM mathemtically possible. It has nothing to with opinion it has to with fact. If you can come up with a better description of a book that is dead wrong then I would like to hear it. Such a book would be misleading to it's readers.

It's still not a terribly ineffective system as far as gambling goes. You're taking a chance of losing only 0.25% of the time. What are the odds of geting into a car wreck on your way home from work? (<---rhetorical)

Yes but you still have a negative expected value. There are betters odds to be had in a casino.

I do not play roulette but to say that a person who plans on selling a book about their system is a "con-artist", well then the world must be filled with them.

Just about every gambling book ever written tells you how to "win" at what ever game you are playing.

I am not defending a "system to beat roulette", all I am saying is that just because a poster on this web site wants to write a book about something that he/she feels strongly about shouldnt be called a "con artist."

You CANNOT win at roulette in a longterm scebario. IT IS A FACT. And a relatively well know one at that. Especially in the gambling book publishing industry I would imagine.

To think that because a publisher published the book it isn't dumb or dishonest is foolish. Publishers publish books because they sell.

Any book that proposes to lay out a system to win at Roulette cannot be anything but either dishonest or moronic because THERE IS NO SYSTEM mathemtically possible. It has nothing to with opinion it has to with fact. If you can come up with a better description of a book that is dead wrong then I would like to hear it. Such a book would be misleading to it's readers.

It's still not a terribly ineffective system as far as gambling goes. You're taking a chance of losing only 0.25% of the time. What are the odds of geting into a car wreck on your way home from work? (<---rhetorical)

That's assuming the table limit is $640. IIRC, most table limits are well below that, meaning that, after just a few spins, you can no longer bet high enough to recoup your losses.

I am not sure if the authors of the books that I posted are morons or dishonest, but what I do know is that they wrote the book and apparently a publisher felt that the books were good enough to publish.

But to call someone who wrote such a book a "con artist, a moron, or dishonest" simply because you do not agree with it, well, sounds like a defamatory statement that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression of a person, or lible...

Yeah, but someone thought this book (http://www.amazon.com/How-Good-Bye-Depression-Constrict-Everyday/dp/0595094724) was good enough to publish, too. And, to hopefully stave off the bad jokes about how I found it, I simply Googled: worst "how to" book (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=worst+book+%22how+to%22).

That's assuming the table limit is $1275. IIRC, most table limits are well below that, meaning that, after just a few spins, you can no longer bet high enough to recoup your losses.

You're right, $500 seems about right. That's still good for 7 rolls! Whoo-hoo!

I am not defending a "system to beat roulette", all I am saying is that just because a poster on this web site wants to write a book about something that he/she feels strongly about shouldnt be called a "con artist."

Well I didn't call him a con-artist. I think he seems to fall more in the simply foolish category. I tend to think a good amount of the people writing any books purporting a roulette system are in fact con-artists. They're at least modern day snake oil salesmen in most cases.