best way to play and win roulette?
Play a table with ONE zero. Do hit and runs. A few months ago went to a indian casino played roulette they had one zero tables. walked up threw $10 on zero, boom zero hits up $350. Left the $10 added $20 more so now i have $30 on the zero, zero again up $1050 and the first $350. lost the next try, fastest $1300 something i've ever won.
Play a table with ONE zero. Do hit and runs. A few months ago went to a indian casino played roulette they had one zero tables. walked up threw $10 on zero, boom zero hits up $350. Left the $10 added $20 more so now i have $30 on the zero, zero again up $1050 and the first $350. lost the next try, fastest $1300 something i've ever won.
Nice hit Judgelee..tough to find a Euro single 0 wheel,but I love playing the 0/00...Probably selective memory but it seems when a full seated table has the board absolutly covered in chips,and out comes the 0's...I am ALWAYS on them and play a couple other numbers and splits,corners,just to stay alive for the next spin..
Just want repeaters and press numbers..and/or GTFO asap.
Nice hit Judgelee..tough to find a Euro single 0 wheel,but I love playing the 0/00...Probably selective memory but it seems when a full seated table has the board absolutly covered in chips,and out comes the 0's...I am ALWAYS on them and play a couple other numbers and splits,corners,just to stay alive for the next spin..
Just want repeaters and press numbers..and/or GTFO asap.
Stuff like this amazes me...this is a sports wagering forum, and like most sports bettors, we generally gamble on other things, such as table games in a vegas casino. At 23, I don't have near the knowledge some others have on this site. I've been at this game only since I started college 4 years ago, so in relation to the big picture, you'll never hear me deny my 'novice' status. But it amazes me that people will put their hard earned, or not so hard earned cash, on events without a certain level of knowledge about them. We still have guys who cap games based on trends like team x is 12-5 ATS over the last 20 years on the last game of the season when said game falls on a Wednesday against a team below .500. The next time the Cowboys get to the SB (if ever), mark this thread down, because SOMEONE is gonna post their ATS and overall SB record in some thread as though games with Emmit and Troy, and games from the 70s are relevant at all. PROMISE.
And by the post above, clearly some people wager their money with possibly the most incorrect theory you could find. What he described is the DEFINITION of the gambler's fallacy man, you can't be that ill-informed. Your theory works if the tables show bias, which any major casino is going to avoid because they already have the house edge, a detectible bias is only going to help the players. In your explanation you said you looked for streaks of 8 and no longer, which indicates that you weren't searching for bias, just what was running hot. Since your system clearly indicates you have no idea what it means, the gambler's fallacy is that when some result happens it dictates the result that follow it. What you¡¯re basically saying is that if I flip a coin 9 times in a row and it lands on heads, its more likely to land on heads if flipped a 10th time, which could be no more incorrect. A wheel which results in turning up a certain sector 7 times in a row has ZERO bearing on the spin of the wheel the 8th time. NONE. Please commit to understanding real statistics before you attempt to help someone out next time man, seriously. The last thing this board needs is someone giving advice like you gave above.
Stuff like this amazes me...this is a sports wagering forum, and like most sports bettors, we generally gamble on other things, such as table games in a vegas casino. At 23, I don't have near the knowledge some others have on this site. I've been at this game only since I started college 4 years ago, so in relation to the big picture, you'll never hear me deny my 'novice' status. But it amazes me that people will put their hard earned, or not so hard earned cash, on events without a certain level of knowledge about them. We still have guys who cap games based on trends like team x is 12-5 ATS over the last 20 years on the last game of the season when said game falls on a Wednesday against a team below .500. The next time the Cowboys get to the SB (if ever), mark this thread down, because SOMEONE is gonna post their ATS and overall SB record in some thread as though games with Emmit and Troy, and games from the 70s are relevant at all. PROMISE.
And by the post above, clearly some people wager their money with possibly the most incorrect theory you could find. What he described is the DEFINITION of the gambler's fallacy man, you can't be that ill-informed. Your theory works if the tables show bias, which any major casino is going to avoid because they already have the house edge, a detectible bias is only going to help the players. In your explanation you said you looked for streaks of 8 and no longer, which indicates that you weren't searching for bias, just what was running hot. Since your system clearly indicates you have no idea what it means, the gambler's fallacy is that when some result happens it dictates the result that follow it. What you¡¯re basically saying is that if I flip a coin 9 times in a row and it lands on heads, its more likely to land on heads if flipped a 10th time, which could be no more incorrect. A wheel which results in turning up a certain sector 7 times in a row has ZERO bearing on the spin of the wheel the 8th time. NONE. Please commit to understanding real statistics before you attempt to help someone out next time man, seriously. The last thing this board needs is someone giving advice like you gave above.
T-Rav while you are 100% correct in everything you posted above, You forgot the one thing that can not be handicaped, the one thing that goes aganst all logic, the one thing that is spell binding, that thing my friend is called Luck.
When I was dealing cards at a casino in San Diego CA
A young dude walked into the high limit room
He pulled out two black chips out of his pocket and said, Green Please.
I said this is highlimit
200 dollar minimim, we have 25 dollar tables and as I proceeded to tell him he said okay just let me bet it and go.
He gets a Blackjack
he bets the 500
Wins
Bets the 1000
Wins
Bets 2000
Another Blackjack
Bets the table limit 5000
Wins
Bets another 5000
Wins
He won every hand that I dealt for 19 minutes
I leave to go on break
Come back do my other two tables
Come back to his table and is up 135,000 dollars
This guy for that night couldnt lose
He ended up by the time my shift was over, He was up 540,000
What he did was not only what I thought was impossible or improbable but it was flat out incredible.
He tipped out over 30k total
said he was moving back to Illinios to buy up as many houses as he can and rent them out as rental properties.
I never saw him again, Now Back to topic
You are still correct but you have to understand the power of luck
T-Rav while you are 100% correct in everything you posted above, You forgot the one thing that can not be handicaped, the one thing that goes aganst all logic, the one thing that is spell binding, that thing my friend is called Luck.
When I was dealing cards at a casino in San Diego CA
A young dude walked into the high limit room
He pulled out two black chips out of his pocket and said, Green Please.
I said this is highlimit
200 dollar minimim, we have 25 dollar tables and as I proceeded to tell him he said okay just let me bet it and go.
He gets a Blackjack
he bets the 500
Wins
Bets the 1000
Wins
Bets 2000
Another Blackjack
Bets the table limit 5000
Wins
Bets another 5000
Wins
He won every hand that I dealt for 19 minutes
I leave to go on break
Come back do my other two tables
Come back to his table and is up 135,000 dollars
This guy for that night couldnt lose
He ended up by the time my shift was over, He was up 540,000
What he did was not only what I thought was impossible or improbable but it was flat out incredible.
He tipped out over 30k total
said he was moving back to Illinios to buy up as many houses as he can and rent them out as rental properties.
I never saw him again, Now Back to topic
You are still correct but you have to understand the power of luck
Stuff like this amazes me...this is a sports wagering forum, and like most sports bettors, we generally gamble on other things, such as table games in a vegas casino. At 23, I don't have near the knowledge some others have on this site. I've been at this game only since I started college 4 years ago, so in relation to the big picture, you'll never hear me deny my 'novice' status. But it amazes me that people will put their hard earned, or not so hard earned cash, on events without a certain level of knowledge about them. We still have guys who cap games based on trends like team x is 12-5 ATS over the last 20 years on the last game of the season when said game falls on a Wednesday against a team below .500. The next time the Cowboys get to the SB (if ever), mark this thread down, because SOMEONE is gonna post their ATS and overall SB record in some thread as though games with Emmit and Troy, and games from the 70s are relevant at all. PROMISE.
And by the post above, clearly some people wager their money with possibly the most incorrect theory you could find. What he described is the DEFINITION of the gambler's fallacy man, you can't be that ill-informed. Your theory works if the tables show bias, which any major casino is going to avoid because they already have the house edge, a detectible bias is only going to help the players. In your explanation you said you looked for streaks of 8 and no longer, which indicates that you weren't searching for bias, just what was running hot. Since your system clearly indicates you have no idea what it means, the gambler's fallacy is that when some result happens it dictates the result that follow it. What you¡¯re basically saying is that if I flip a coin 9 times in a row and it lands on heads, its more likely to land on heads if flipped a 10th time, which could be no more incorrect. A wheel which results in turning up a certain sector 7 times in a row has ZERO bearing on the spin of the wheel the 8th time. NONE. Please commit to understanding real statistics before you attempt to help someone out next time man, seriously. The last thing this board needs is someone giving advice like you gave above.
Stuff like this amazes me...this is a sports wagering forum, and like most sports bettors, we generally gamble on other things, such as table games in a vegas casino. At 23, I don't have near the knowledge some others have on this site. I've been at this game only since I started college 4 years ago, so in relation to the big picture, you'll never hear me deny my 'novice' status. But it amazes me that people will put their hard earned, or not so hard earned cash, on events without a certain level of knowledge about them. We still have guys who cap games based on trends like team x is 12-5 ATS over the last 20 years on the last game of the season when said game falls on a Wednesday against a team below .500. The next time the Cowboys get to the SB (if ever), mark this thread down, because SOMEONE is gonna post their ATS and overall SB record in some thread as though games with Emmit and Troy, and games from the 70s are relevant at all. PROMISE.
And by the post above, clearly some people wager their money with possibly the most incorrect theory you could find. What he described is the DEFINITION of the gambler's fallacy man, you can't be that ill-informed. Your theory works if the tables show bias, which any major casino is going to avoid because they already have the house edge, a detectible bias is only going to help the players. In your explanation you said you looked for streaks of 8 and no longer, which indicates that you weren't searching for bias, just what was running hot. Since your system clearly indicates you have no idea what it means, the gambler's fallacy is that when some result happens it dictates the result that follow it. What you¡¯re basically saying is that if I flip a coin 9 times in a row and it lands on heads, its more likely to land on heads if flipped a 10th time, which could be no more incorrect. A wheel which results in turning up a certain sector 7 times in a row has ZERO bearing on the spin of the wheel the 8th time. NONE. Please commit to understanding real statistics before you attempt to help someone out next time man, seriously. The last thing this board needs is someone giving advice like you gave above.
Idk why gambler's fallacy is in quotes, look it up. What you described is the definition of...
As for me thinking I'm wiser. I don't pretend to have a strategy that works at "winning roulette" because one doesn't exist. If someone found a legal way to shift the odds away from the house to the player, the game would be pulled or said strategy would be banned. I'm not questioning your intelligence, I'm pointing out that a streak of whatever you want it to be does not determine the odds of the next spin, its fact, statistics, there's no debating it. Its NOT an opinion.
Your end paragraph is half right, I can make the numbers say whatever I want for any given matchup, but if you're equating picking winners in sports and numbers on a roulette wheel, you're nuts. Its not an exact science, and the importance of certain variables can't be measured, but previous games do have a determining factor on the following result. A team gets housed, next week, you don't know if they'll come out pissed and win, or come out demoralized and lose, but the previous result DOES often factor into it. The wheel isn't a thinking object, it doesn't get in a rhythm like a jumpshot and start spitting out sectors because it's in a groove...
I'm nowhere close to some pro, I win some, I lose some, but if you're seriously equating your roulette strategy as no different than randomly taking a shot in the dark in handicapping games, you're probably entertaining the wrong hobby.
I'm glad you didn't rebuttal with this two paragraph response though. I'd just point out in your close, idk what you're defining as "gambler's fallacies" when capping games, or if in your use of the phrase you even understand its meaning at all. Unless you can statistically prove to me what elements matter and what don't, they're all relevant. The way I use said statistics might be wrong and ultimately result in a loss, but it can all give indications about the upcoming game. What can't be an indication about an upcoming result? What the roulette wheel showed on its last roll
Idk why gambler's fallacy is in quotes, look it up. What you described is the definition of...
As for me thinking I'm wiser. I don't pretend to have a strategy that works at "winning roulette" because one doesn't exist. If someone found a legal way to shift the odds away from the house to the player, the game would be pulled or said strategy would be banned. I'm not questioning your intelligence, I'm pointing out that a streak of whatever you want it to be does not determine the odds of the next spin, its fact, statistics, there's no debating it. Its NOT an opinion.
Your end paragraph is half right, I can make the numbers say whatever I want for any given matchup, but if you're equating picking winners in sports and numbers on a roulette wheel, you're nuts. Its not an exact science, and the importance of certain variables can't be measured, but previous games do have a determining factor on the following result. A team gets housed, next week, you don't know if they'll come out pissed and win, or come out demoralized and lose, but the previous result DOES often factor into it. The wheel isn't a thinking object, it doesn't get in a rhythm like a jumpshot and start spitting out sectors because it's in a groove...
I'm nowhere close to some pro, I win some, I lose some, but if you're seriously equating your roulette strategy as no different than randomly taking a shot in the dark in handicapping games, you're probably entertaining the wrong hobby.
I'm glad you didn't rebuttal with this two paragraph response though. I'd just point out in your close, idk what you're defining as "gambler's fallacies" when capping games, or if in your use of the phrase you even understand its meaning at all. Unless you can statistically prove to me what elements matter and what don't, they're all relevant. The way I use said statistics might be wrong and ultimately result in a loss, but it can all give indications about the upcoming game. What can't be an indication about an upcoming result? What the roulette wheel showed on its last roll
Stuff like this amazes me...this is a sports wagering forum, and like most sports bettors, we generally gamble on other things, such as table games in a vegas casino. At 23, I don't have near the knowledge some others have on this site. I've been at this game only since I started college 4 years ago, so in relation to the big picture, you'll never hear me deny my 'novice' status. But it amazes me that people will put their hard earned, or not so hard earned cash, on events without a certain level of knowledge about them. We still have guys who cap games based on trends like team x is 12-5 ATS over the last 20 years on the last game of the season when said game falls on a Wednesday against a team below .500. The next time the Cowboys get to the SB (if ever), mark this thread down, because SOMEONE is gonna post their ATS and overall SB record in some thread as though games with Emmit and Troy, and games from the 70s are relevant at all. PROMISE.
And by the post above, clearly some people wager their money with possibly the most incorrect theory you could find. What he described is the DEFINITION of the gambler's fallacy man, you can't be that ill-informed. Your theory works if the tables show bias, which any major casino is going to avoid because they already have the house edge, a detectible bias is only going to help the players. In your explanation you said you looked for streaks of 8 and no longer, which indicates that you weren't searching for bias, just what was running hot. Since your system clearly indicates you have no idea what it means, the gambler's fallacy is that when some result happens it dictates the result that follow it. What you¡¯re basically saying is that if I flip a coin 9 times in a row and it lands on heads, its more likely to land on heads if flipped a 10th time, which could be no more incorrect. A wheel which results in turning up a certain sector 7 times in a row has ZERO bearing on the spin of the wheel the 8th time. NONE. Please commit to understanding real statistics before you attempt to help someone out next time man, seriously. The last thing this board needs is someone giving advice like you gave above.
Thank god you posted here mate i was seriously starting to question the average IQ of this place
Stuff like this amazes me...this is a sports wagering forum, and like most sports bettors, we generally gamble on other things, such as table games in a vegas casino. At 23, I don't have near the knowledge some others have on this site. I've been at this game only since I started college 4 years ago, so in relation to the big picture, you'll never hear me deny my 'novice' status. But it amazes me that people will put their hard earned, or not so hard earned cash, on events without a certain level of knowledge about them. We still have guys who cap games based on trends like team x is 12-5 ATS over the last 20 years on the last game of the season when said game falls on a Wednesday against a team below .500. The next time the Cowboys get to the SB (if ever), mark this thread down, because SOMEONE is gonna post their ATS and overall SB record in some thread as though games with Emmit and Troy, and games from the 70s are relevant at all. PROMISE.
And by the post above, clearly some people wager their money with possibly the most incorrect theory you could find. What he described is the DEFINITION of the gambler's fallacy man, you can't be that ill-informed. Your theory works if the tables show bias, which any major casino is going to avoid because they already have the house edge, a detectible bias is only going to help the players. In your explanation you said you looked for streaks of 8 and no longer, which indicates that you weren't searching for bias, just what was running hot. Since your system clearly indicates you have no idea what it means, the gambler's fallacy is that when some result happens it dictates the result that follow it. What you¡¯re basically saying is that if I flip a coin 9 times in a row and it lands on heads, its more likely to land on heads if flipped a 10th time, which could be no more incorrect. A wheel which results in turning up a certain sector 7 times in a row has ZERO bearing on the spin of the wheel the 8th time. NONE. Please commit to understanding real statistics before you attempt to help someone out next time man, seriously. The last thing this board needs is someone giving advice like you gave above.
Thank god you posted here mate i was seriously starting to question the average IQ of this place
Yes, the correct answer is dont play, but Black/Red or Odd/Even are the best bets. Try Craps. It's better odds.
I only play poker now because it takes away the house edge...
Yes, the correct answer is dont play, but Black/Red or Odd/Even are the best bets. Try Craps. It's better odds.
I only play poker now because it takes away the house edge...
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.