Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;270689]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;270686]And all those books someone posted about roulette are like someone else said either written by a moron or by someone who is dishonest.[/QUOTE]

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...

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;270691]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.[/quote]

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)

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588;270692]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...[/QUOTE]
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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;270698]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)[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588;270599]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.[/QUOTE]

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."

[quote=FRPLG]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.[/QUOTE]

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;270698]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)[/quote]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Redskins8588;270692]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...[/quote]

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

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=onlydarksets;270738]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.[/quote]

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

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588;270716]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."[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;270528]#1) I work at a bar/restaurant called "Hard Times Cafe"... I get out of there around 3:00/3:30 so Im usually up for a good hour after I get off. My schedule varies greatly, so some Im always on at awkward times.

#2) You just irked every 311 fan in the world on that one. I'll clear the air for ya:[/QUOTE]

I understand the working at a restaurant part...I often post at those hours due to my wierd restaurant work schedule.

About #2, I actually did not know that...311 was never one of my favorite bands...they weren't that good IMO...so I never had any reason to doubt that "rumor".

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=GhettoDogAllStars;270541]By that logic, the Bible and/or religion is a set of lies to "scare us straight" -- albeit with honorable intentions. Yet, isn't lying a sin? That is a contradiction.

EDIT: you did say "kind of like when your parents...", so I guess it was just a bad example.[/QUOTE]

haha, yeah.
I also keep in mind that the bible has been translated by humans over the years, I take the bible for it's value.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Back to religion.
So what would you do if you God is real, and he is upset at you for spreading word that He doesn't exist?
That is not to say that it will happen, but what if.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;270755]Back to religion.
So what would you do if you God is real, and he is upset at you for spreading word that He doesn't exist?
That is not to say that it will happen, but what if.[/quote]

I think this is a fairly simple answer, actually. What would you do if your young child was spreading word that you don't exist? Shake your head and laugh saying "kids will say the darndest things".

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;270756]I think this is a fairly simple answer, actually. What would you do if your young child was spreading word that you don't exist? Shake your head and laugh saying "kids will say the darndest things".[/QUOTE]

That's a very interesting take on that question.
Like I said before, I find it hard to believe that an all loving God would purposely send his children to hell. Grace is good.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Redskins8588;270692]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...[/quote]

Publishers don't publish books because they're "good" or legitimate or anything of the sort. They publish them for one reason alone: they will sell.

So if they happen to appeal to enough gullible morons out there in today's world, and there are plenty, then they'll publish it.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;270698]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)[/quote]

First off, you'll hit the table limit before you get to that point, so you'll bottom out more often than .25% of the time.

But there will be times when you'll win, but you can't win big by betting $5 at a time on either red or black. The only way to win big that way is to play long enough. But if you play long enough, the chances increase that you're going to run into one of those bad streaks, hit the table limit as you try to double your bets, and take a HUGE loss.

There's no way to beat the system over the long haul. It's mathematically impossible.

It doesn't mean playing roulette isn't fun. But if you play, you should realize the odds are stacked against you.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;270755]Back to religion.
So what would you do if you God is real, and he is upset at you for spreading word that He doesn't exist?
That is not to say that it will happen, but what if.[/quote]

Good idea. Stick to religion. It's something you actually know something about.

Why are we assuming that God would be mad at spreading the word that He doesn't exist? If I tell my friend that God doesn't exist, you think God's going to be mad at me? Why?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;270772]First off, you'll hit the table limit before you get to that point, so you'll bottom out more often than .25% of the time.

But there will be times when you'll win, but you can't win big by betting $5 at a time on either red or black. The only way to win big that way is to play long enough. But if you play long enough, the chances increase that you're going to run into one of those bad streaks, hit the table limit as you try to double your bets, and take a HUGE loss.

There's no way to beat the system over the long haul. It's mathematically impossible.

[B]It doesn't mean playing roulette isn't fun.[/B] But if you play, you should realize the odds are stacked against you.[/quote]

And that should be the only reason to gamble. I think people who gamble to strike it rich are exactly the people that "Vegas" thrives off of. Gambling can be fun recreation as long as you're conscious of how easy it is to get caught up in the illusion of easy money.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;270774]And that should be the only reason to gamble. I think people who gamble to strike it rich are exactly the people that "Vegas" thrives off of. Gambling can be fun recreation as long as you're conscious of how easy it is to get caught up in the illusion of easy money.[/quote]

Truer words have never been spoken.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;270744]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.[/QUOTE]

Ok, you didnt call him a con artist, but you still state as if it were fact that anyone who writes such a thing as how to beat roulette to be a "modern day snake oil salesmen". Which is still only YOUR opinion...

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;270739]Yeah, but someone thought [URL="http://www.amazon.com/How-Good-Bye-Depression-Constrict-Everyday/dp/0595094724"]this book[/URL] was good enough to publish, too. And, to hopefully stave off the bad jokes about how I found it, I simply Googled: [URL="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=worst+book+%22how+to%22"]worst "how to" book[/URL].[/QUOTE]

Hey until you try the system I wouldnt knock it there could be something to it!!!

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588;270805]Hey until you try the system I wouldnt knock it there could be something to it!!![/QUOTE]

And keep in mind, no one tried my full blown system. It's a lot of PAGES of instructions, not the blurp I left here. But it doesn't matter what I say to certain people, they won't listen anyway.
There are systems to things, people figure these loop holes out every day.

Scneed
ps- not EVERY table has a limit. I am sure you heard of the guy that sold all his possessions and took the money to vegas, and put it all on black...right?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;271420]And keep in mind, no one tried my full blown system. It's a lot of PAGES of instructions, not the blurp I left here. But it doesn't matter what I say to certain people, they won't listen anyway.
There are systems to things, people figure these loop holes out every day.

Scneed
ps- not EVERY table has a limit. I am sure you heard of the guy that sold all his possessions and took the money to vegas, and put it all on black...right?[/quote]

Yes I did hear about that. If you remember the story, the Casino decided to waive the table limit for him in order to get the publicity; because he brought TV crews along with him. That's free advertising for the casino. They'd never tell that guy "no, you can't play one hand for that amount of money here, it's above our table limit". Not when news crews were following him. If you're going to walk into a casino, or especially a cruise boat like you tend to do, you're going to bump up against the table limit if you're just there betting a system. Unless of course you're willing to bet everything on one spin and bring news crews with you. But I didn't see that as part of your system.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Speaking of taking a foolish risk with regards to gambling. BAck in 1996 at Cripple Creek in Colorado, a friend of mine won $15,000 in a $.25 slot machine pull. He goes out a few days later and pays for a brand new....Kia Sephia! We were all like what the f*ck were you thinking? Afterwards the Sephia spent more time in the shop than he did in the car. Whatever could go wrong with that car, did go wrong.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;271441]Speaking of taking a foolish risk with regards to gambling. BAck in 1996 at Cripple Creek in Colorado, a friend of mine won $15,000 in a $.25 slot machine pull. He goes out a few days later and pays for a brand new....Kia Sephia! We were all like what the f*ck were you thinking? Afterwards the Sephia spent more time in the shop than he did in the car. Whatever could go wrong with that car, did go wrong.[/quote]

LOL! Kia stands for:

[B]K[/B]eep
[B]I[/B]t
[B]A[/B]sshole

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;271442]LOL! Kia stands for:

[B]K[/B]eep
[B]I[/B]t
[B]A[/B]sshole[/quote]

or...

[B]K[/B]illed
[B]I[/B]n
[B]A[/B]ction