sporting bet is an easy way to earn money

[JohnnyC4ge]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your friend isn't a "clever fella" if he honestly thinks he can beat roulette. All that happened is he got lucky that evening, which he has the same chance of doing as absolutely anyone else playing that game.

Martingale doesn't work, because nobody has an infinite bankroll or access to a table with an unlimited maximum bet. It'll get you back to even or a small win a lot of the time, but the times you lose you're going to lose huge.

Martingale on dozens is no different to Martingale on red/black or odd/even, it's still Martingale with the same flaw.

There's no such thing as hot or cold numbers because every spin is independent. If two numbers in the same dozen come up twice in a row, they're just as likely to come up on the next spin as any other number. It's like thinking you're less likely to be dealt AA this hand because you got AA last hand.

Every spin of roulette is independent from the last. Every single bet you make on roulette is -EV.

First of all, my fella is clever That's a fact on which your opinion or mine or anyone else has no effect.

Second, Martingale with dozens is different.

Red/Black & Odd/Even are 48,61% chances of win.
When you place a bet on 2 dozen = 64,86 % chances of win.

I just checked in Monte-Carlo's Casino, min. bet and max. bet are 1£ and 5000£. Concerning this Martingale with those amounts, you have to fail 12 times in a row to be broke, and a number from the wrong Dozen as to be picked 14 times in a row.

If you convert this into poker langage, it's as if player 1 with 6s6d on a flop 6c 7h 9h must loose 14 times in a row vs Jh10h
I'm not saying that is impossible, but it is unlikely. And if you actually have the bankroll to do it over and over and over, well, long term speaking you're winning money.

If two numbers in the same dozen come up twice in a row, they may be just as likely to come up on the next spin as any other number, but a bit less the next spin, and the next and the next... ; that's what we call long term. This is not about two spins and the next.

 

[OzExorcist]

First of all, my fella is clever That's a fact on which your opinion or mine or anyone else has no effect.

Second, Martingale with dozens is different.

Red/Black & Odd/Even are 48,61% chances of win.
When you place a bet on 2 dozen = 64,86 % chances of win.

I just checked in Monte-Carlo's Casino, min. bet and max. bet are 1£ and 5000£. Concerning this Martingale with those amounts, you have to fail 12 times in a row to be broke, and a number from the wrong Dozen as to be picked 14 times in a row.

If you convert this into poker langage, it's as if player 1 with 6s6d on a flop 6c 7h 9h must loose 14 times in a row vs Jh10h
I'm not saying that is impossible, but it is unlikely. And if you actually have the bankroll to do it over and over and over, well, long term speaking you're winning money.

If two numbers in the same dozen come up twice in a row, they may be just as likely to come up on the next spin as any other number, but a bit less the next spin, and the next and the next... ; that's what we call long term. This is not about two spins and the next.

Lulwut?!?

You don't have infinite money. You don't have access to a game with an unlimited maximum bet. While it's not likely, it's absolutely possible to lose 10, 15, hell even 20 bets in a row. When you win, you win small. When you lose, you lose MASSIVE compared to your original stake. Martingale. Doesn't. Work.

Chances of red/black or odd/even hitting on any given spin are actually 48.65% (assuming a single-zero wheel) but let's not split hairs. It's the next one that's interesting.

Yes, there's a 64.86% chance of getting a number in one of the two selected dozen ranges. To cover those two dozen though, you have two place TWO bets (say one on 1-12, one on 13-24). 64.86% of the time one bet will win at 2:1, and the other will lose. You started with two units, you end up with three units. The other 35.14% of the time both bets lose.

You profit one unit 64.86% of the time. You lose TWO units 35.14% of the time. This is bad, DUCY? It also works out, surprise surprise, to losing at exactly the rate of the house edge.

As for your last paragraph, are you able to explain what you mean by "they may be just as likely to come up on the next spin as any other number, but a bit less the next spin, and the next and the next"? Because it sounds like you really don't understand that every single spin is an independent event. On any given spin, the chances of any given number coming up are 1/37. The chances of a number in any given dozen coming up are 12/37. The chances of odd/even or red/black or high/low coming up are 18/37. That's always going to be true, regardless of what was spun up last time. Numbers don't go hot or cold, they don't become overdue, that's not a real thing.

 

[JohnnyC4ge]

Oh hell my bad ; as I was aware that you double up if you hit red/black even/odd , I just thought you'd earn more than a double up with dozens, as it is not a "coinflip" situation... my bad man, my ENTIRE bad

I don't believe in hot or cold numbers, they just randomly get one or the other.
And I see your point, roulette has no fairness and no memory, but what I meant is with a sufficient quantity of spins, both black and red are balanced. You can't predict exactly when the color will change, but every next spin is getting you closer to it.

 

[OzExorcist]

Oh hell my bad ; as I was aware that you double up if you hit red/black even/odd , I just thought you'd earn more than a double up with dozens, as it is not a "coinflip" situation... my bad man, my ENTIRE bad

I don't believe in hot or cold numbers, they just randomly get one or the other.
And I see your point, roulette has no fairness and no memory, but what I meant is with a sufficient quantity of spins, both black and red are balanced. You can't predict exactly when the color will change, but every next spin is getting you closer to it.

No you were right about that, you do get paid more for a win on dozens than you do on red/black etc.

Red/black, odd/even and high/low all pay 1:1 (ie: you double your money).

Dozens pay 2:1 (ie: you triple your money).

Your problem is you're talking about betting on TWO dozens at a time, which means making two bets not one, at least one of which is guaranteed to lose. Maybe I misunderstood and you're only betting one dozen at a time, which is fine - but then your loss percentage goes up, and the overall EV of the play doesn't change. Because nothing you do changes the EV of a bet on roulette.

As far as "You can't predict exactly when the color will change, but every next spin is getting you closer to it" goes though... you're still thinking about it wrong. Each consecutive spin doesn't take you anywhere. You don't get closer to anything, you don't get further from anything. It doesn't matter if the past 100 spins were all black, there's still a 48.65% chance of black and a 48.65% chance of red and a 2.7% chance of neither on the next spin, and the one after that, and the one after that.

 

[JohnnyC4ge]

Each consecutive spin doesn't take you anywhere. You don't get closer to anything, you don't get further from anything. It doesn't matter if the past 100 spins were all black, there's still a 48.65% chance of black and a 48.65% chance of red and a 2.7% chance of neither on the next spin, and the one after that, and the one after that.

Again, I got your point ; roulette has no memory, and the prob that a BBBBBBBBBB or a BRBRBRBRBR or a BBRRRBBRBR serie happens is exactly the same.

Theoretically you are right, but in the facts, there is an unbeaten record from 1913 when the number picked happened to be black 26 times in a row. I think that if hundreds of thousands of millions spins done from that day haven't beaten that record, there is a reason for it ; some statistical threshold (?)(not sure about translation)

If you try to simulate draws, you'll see that series between 5 and 9 in a row often happens, but a bit less for 10 in a row, and less for 11 etc etc. We were talking about long term at the beginning

 

[OzExorcist]

Again, I got your point ; roulette has no memory, and the prob that a BBBBBBBBBB or a BRBRBRBRBR or a BBRRRBBRBR serie happens is exactly the same.

Theoretically you are right, but in the facts, there is an unbeaten record from 1913 when the number picked happened to be black 26 times in a row. I think that if hundreds of thousands of millions spins done from that day haven't beaten that record, there is a reason for it ; some statistical threshold (?)(not sure about translation)

If you try to simulate draws, you'll see that series between 5 and 9 in a row often happens, but a bit less for 10 in a row, and less for 11 etc etc. We were talking about long term at the beginning

Absolutely none of that is relevant though.

You're not betting on whether there will be 2 or 5 or 9 or 26 or 27 blacks in a row. You're betting on whether there will be one black, on the very next spin. And on that next spin, there's a 48.65% chance of black and a 48.65% chance of red and a 2.7% chance of neither. Full stop, end of discussion.

Of course five blacks in a row is more likely than nine blacks in a row, which is more likely than ten blacks in a row and so on. But that's not what you're betting on with roulette, and it doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of the next spin, which is what you are betting on.

 

[JohnnyC4ge]

Absolutely none of that is relevant though.

You're not betting on whether there will be 2 or 5 or 9 or 26 or 27 blacks in a row.

? I don't think I said that, that is irrelevant. You are not under the gun when you play roulette, you are free to observe and, if you got time to loose, wait for anormal series. Heard about "unfair roulettes"?

You're betting on whether there will be one black, on the very next spin.

Without a second though? THAT is -for sure- the safest way to be EV- in roulette.

And on that next spin, there's a 48.65% chance of black and a 48.65% chance of red and a 2.7% chance of neither.

For the third time, I agree.

Full stop, end of discussion.

Never.

Of course five blacks in a row is more likely than nine blacks in a row, which is more likely than ten blacks in a row and so on. But that's not what you're betting on with roulette, and it doesn't have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of the next spin, which is what you are betting on.

Let's assume there is a fella convinced by Martingale, when will he have the most chance not to be broke betting thousands :
- just sit and YOLO?
- wait for a 12-same-color serie in a row each time and YOLO?

 

[OzExorcist]

Let's assume there is a fella convinced by Martingale, when will he have the most chance not to be broke betting thousands :
- just sit and YOLO?
- wait for a 12-same-color serie in a row each time and YOLO?

It. Does. Not. Matter.

Without a second though? THAT is -for sure- the safest way to be EV- in roulette.

*shrugs*

I was just using betting black on the next spin as an example but sure, I guess so. There's literally no point in thinking about any bet you make on a roulette table, because all bets in roulette are equally -EV. Which is why I never play the game.

Heard about "unfair roulettes"?

LOL this is something new at least

Interesting point, we've been working on the assumption that we're playing on a "fair" table (and that you're not cheating the game in some other way).

That said, you're a lot less likely to find an "unfair" table than you probably think you are. It's in the casino's best interests to maintain a "fair" table because that's where their edge in the game comes from. If they identified a wheel / table / croupier that was in some way "unfair" over a reasonable sample they'd address the issue and/or close the table. And yes, that is something they monitor.

Just out of interest BTW, how exactly would you go about identifying an "unfair" table? What are the signs? How long do you think you'd need to spend watching a table to decide if it was fair or not?

 

[JohnnyC4ge]

Just out of interest BTW, how exactly would you go about identifying an "unfair" table? What are the signs? How long do you think you'd need to spend watching a table to decide if it was fair or not?

Actually, I'm just like you man, I just stay away from that game (except as a drink-game with some friends, in which your earns are sips to distribute )

But if it really would be me,hmm... maybe I'd just fake to collapse on the table, and then I'd take precise notes on how roulette behaves the days after

I read that Joseph Jagger did it with some guys he hired

 

[NoPlace4U]

Let me just say this right out of the gate, sports betting is in no way easy or stress free, i have many years of experience to back that up. Bankroll management is as important as knowing the sport you are betting on, a proper bet should be around 1-2% of your max bankroll, many people fail because they win some bets at the beginning and increase their bet size without taking BR into account. For sports like NBA, MLB an average of 2-3 bets a day is fine, also YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BET EVERYDAY, if you dont like any games that particular day just dont bet just to have action, thats a sure way to drain you BR fast, lastly avoid playing parlays.

 

[JohnnyC4ge]

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BET EVERYDAY

100% agreed.That's a proper golden rule

lastly avoid playing parlays.

I may agree with that too, but most particularly as concern bets over ; I just ruined a combo (a 4game combo, that's too much I know... ) cause of a bet on Irving making over 2,5 shots from the parking against Boston...and he was injured at the very beginning of the game. And beyond fitness of a player, that's the main issue as concern over bets.
Unders are safer this way, and safer generally speaking (I ruined it with a france win vs. Wales, a 0-3 handicap for mexico vs Belgium, and... an under bet of Westbrook's rebs, pts and assist (-41,5) )

 

[OzExorcist]

I may agree with that too, but most particularly as concern bets over ; I just ruined a combo (a 4game combo, that's too much I know... ) cause of a bet on Irving making over 2,5 shots from the parking against Boston...and he was injured at the very beginning of the game. And beyond fitness of a player, that's the main issue as concern over bets.
Unders are safer this way, and safer generally speaking (I ruined it with a France win vs. Wales, a 0-3 handicap for Mexico vs Belgium, and... an under bet of Westbrook's rebs, pts and assist (-41,5) )

"Players can get injured playing sports" is something that's public knowledge (and blatantly obvious) though, so the possibility is already baked into the lines by the sportsbooks and the market...

 

[JohnnyC4ge]

"Players can get injured playing sports" is something that's public knowledge (and blatantly obvious) though, so the possibility is already baked into the lines by the sportsbooks and the market...

So you better make under bet to counteract their diabolic plans, don't you? What's wrong to say it ?
Public knowledge certainly Captain Obvious, I don't know if you have already been to a pub or a bar listening to people talking about sports betting, but for some of them, the ability to make impulsive bets can turn their minds very soft... And by the way it's one the most classic mistake done by sports betters, so it seems important to recall about obvious things what they are. Sadly, everybody is not as brillant as you are Captain

 

[OzExorcist]

So you better make under bet to counteract their diabolic plans, don't you? What's wrong to say it ?

I'm just saying: if you're always leaning under because you're worried about player injuries, when the books have already factored the chance of injury into their lines (and believe me, they have) then you're making a mistake.

I'm not having a go at you, I'm just trying to help.

 

[x2526pav]

I was betting on tennis but failed

 

[TudorPithon]

yes, it seems quite easy but you have to have a serious tactic, first of all not to combine more than 2 matches, to study the teams and to be in the phase, and when you win you try not to force a match and to be greedy. Good luck

 

[ssi8]

In fact, I think that it's harder to earn on betting than on poker, that to make money on betting you have to do expressives, if you bet on the top team, then with a low coefficient you have to bet unjustifiably that the winnings would be more solid, but this is a big risk, because often top clubs bring in a draw, it's better to bet on a little, but carefully picking the team in your express ticket.