Civil Discussion About Religion

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

Warren Buffett is probably bad example as he does his homework before doing anything but the point I was making is that he too had luck on his side. When he was younger he took a lot of risk. Even with experience and analysis you're still taking a chance when you're buying stocks. I mean, how many businesses that exist today do you think will exist 100 years from now? Then of course you have market crashes (1929 ring a bell?). You just have to hope that when you retire we'll have a bull market. You can off course mitigate your risk by transitioning your money into safer investments as you near retirement age.

I personally don't believe in systems, but just maybe, jsarno's "system" is based on not risking with too much money. Playing now and then. Perhaps system is a bad word. How does strategy sound?

When someone says that their system (or strategy, whatever, it's all semantics to me) ALWAYS works (in other words, NEVER FAILS), that means they think it provides a foolproof way to make money. And yet amazingly, he's not using it. It is the very definition of a sham.

Ever hear the expression "if it sounds too good to be true, it is"? This is a perfect example, and in my mind, this behavior is indefensible.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

When someone says that their system (or strategy, whatever, it's all semantics to me) ALWAYS works (in other words, NEVER FAILS), that means they think it provides a foolproof way to make money. And yet amazingly, he's not using it. It is the very definition of a sham.

Ever hear the expression "if it sounds too good to be true, it is"? This is a perfect example, and in my mind, this behavior is indefensible.

Schneed... I think your right... and I agree...but

I think you've made that point like 4 times (its all good)...

Some people choose to ignore reason, and using reason won't budge them. I'd let it go just cause it's not going anywhere...

[FRPLG]

Roulette is regarded as one of the worst odds in a casino. In other words it is a game that keeps the casino open because the odds are so stacked against the player as to gurantee that the player cannot win. To assert that there are any patterns in a clearly random game is foolish. Every spin is independent of all other spins and therefore logical and reasonable statistics can be used to show how it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to play roulette for the long term and make money at it. It is VERY POSSIBLE to play roulette on a very short term basis and make money simply due to luck but eventually that luck will wear out. Everything evens out in the end. The stats do not lie. To assert that there is a system that can predict what number or color or whatever is coming is simply dumb. I am sorry but your system sounds like you have just been fantastically lucky if it has 'worked' for you.

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

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Roulette is regarded as one of the worst odds in a casino. In other words it is a game that keeps the casino open because the odds are so stacked against the player as to gurantee that the player cannot win. To assert that there are any patterns in a clearly random game is foolish. Every spin is independent of all other spins and therefore logical and reasonable statistics can be used to show how it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to play roulette for the long term and make money at it. It is VERY POSSIBLE to play roulette on a very short term basis and make money simply due to luck but eventually that luck will wear out. Everything evens out in the end. The stats do not lie. To assert that there is a system that can predict what number or color or whatever is coming is simply dumb. I am sorry but your system sounds like you have just been fantastically lucky if it has 'worked' for you.

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

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

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.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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)

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

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.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

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)

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.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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...

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

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.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

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 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.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Yeah, but someone thought this book 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.

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

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

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

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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

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...

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.