Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #583103 > unrolled thread

An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 08:30 -0500
    Re: An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette xxein1@att.net - 2016-06-05 07:14 -0700
    Re: An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-05 10:52 -0500
    Re: An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-05 17:44 +0000
    Re: An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-05 12:06 -0700

#583103 — An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette

An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette
> http://qz.com/692805/an-ingenious-physics-based-strategy-to-outsmart-roulette/


> A colleague of mine built a device that enabled him to beat the
> roulette table. Impossible you may think, but no; it was based on
> physics.
>
> It worked as follows: to encourage people to bet at roulette, it has
> been traditional to allow bets to be made after the wheel is spun and
> the ball is flung, but only before it begins to drop. In that second
> or two, there is enough information to allow a measurement and
> computation that will, for example, double your odds of winning. If
> the computation simply rules out half of the wheel as unlikely, then
> the odds jump up highly in your favor. Whereas before, your odds of
> winning might be 98:100 (so you lose); if you exclude half of the
> numbers, your odds become 196:100—you win big!


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#583105

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 9:30:42 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette
> > http://qz.com/692805/an-ingenious-physics-based-strategy-to-outsmart-roulette/
> 
> 
> > A colleague of mine built a device that enabled him to beat the
> > roulette table. Impossible you may think, but no; it was based on
> > physics.
> >
> > It worked as follows: to encourage people to bet at roulette, it has
> > been traditional to allow bets to be made after the wheel is spun and
> > the ball is flung, but only before it begins to drop. In that second
> > or two, there is enough information to allow a measurement and
> > computation that will, for example, double your odds of winning. If
> > the computation simply rules out half of the wheel as unlikely, then
> > the odds jump up highly in your favor. Whereas before, your odds of
> > winning might be 98:100 (so you lose); if you exclude half of the
> > numbers, your odds become 196:100—you win big!
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

xxein:  So let's pick this apart.  The word "unlikely" does not mean "nil" so you cannot exclude half the numbers.

What casino would allow the necessary apparatus?

Would you bet an appreciable amount at my private wheel if I allowed you?

A roulette wheel would have the same normal odds if the slots were doubled and the entries were simply repeated twice in the same order.  Each half of the wheel would be identical so...?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583110

On 6/5/2016 8:30 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette
>> http://qz.com/692805/an-ingenious-physics-based-strategy-to-outsmart-roulette/
>>
>
>
>> A colleague of mine built a device that enabled him to beat the
>> roulette table. Impossible you may think, but no; it was based on
>> physics.
>>
>> It worked as follows: to encourage people to bet at roulette, it has
>> been traditional to allow bets to be made after the wheel is spun and
>> the ball is flung, but only before it begins to drop. In that second
>> or two, there is enough information to allow a measurement and
>> computation that will, for example, double your odds of winning.

Wrong.

NEVER PLAY ROULETTE - the odds are the worst in the house.


Sample Roulette Payouts

Roulette Bets
	

Odds/Pays
	

Probability

Red number
	

1:1
	

46.37%

Black number
	

1:1
	

46.37%

Even number
	

1:1
	

46.37%

Odd number
	

1:1
	

46.37%

1 to 18
	

1:1
	

46.37%

19 to 36
	

1:1
	

46.37%

1 to 12
	

2:1
	

31.58%

13 to 24
	

2:1
	

31.58%

25 to 36
	

2:1
	

31.58%

Any one number
	

35:1
	

2.63%

Two-number combination
	

17:1
	

5.26%

Three-number combination
	

11:1
	

7.89%

Four-number combination
	

8:1
	

10.53%

Six-number combination
	

5:1
	

15.79%

0, 00, 1, 2, 3 combination
	

6:1
	

13.16%

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583143

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette
>> http://qz.com/692805/an-ingenious-physics-based-strategy-to-outsmart-roulette/
> 
> 
>> A colleague of mine built a device that enabled him to beat the
>> roulette table. Impossible you may think, but no; it was based on
>> physics.
>>
>> It worked as follows: to encourage people to bet at roulette, it has
>> been traditional to allow bets to be made after the wheel is spun and
>> the ball is flung, but only before it begins to drop. In that second
>> or two, there is enough information to allow a measurement and
>> computation that will, for example, double your odds of winning. If
>> the computation simply rules out half of the wheel as unlikely, then
>> the odds jump up highly in your favor. Whereas before, your odds of
>> winning might be 98:100 (so you lose); if you exclude half of the
>> numbers, your odds become 196:100?you win big!
 
All of which has been well known for decades, spamming shit head.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583159

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 6:30:42 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> An ingenious, physics-based strategy to outsmart roulette
> > http://qz.com/692805/an-ingenious-physics-based-strategy-to-outsmart-roulette/
> 
> 
> > A colleague of mine built a device that enabled him to beat the
> > roulette table. Impossible you may think, but no; it was based on
> > physics.
> >
> > It worked as follows: to encourage people to bet at roulette, it has
> > been traditional to allow bets to be made after the wheel is spun and
> > the ball is flung, but only before it begins to drop. In that second
> > or two, there is enough information to allow a measurement and
> > computation that will, for example, double your odds of winning. If
> > the computation simply rules out half of the wheel as unlikely, then
> > the odds jump up highly in your favor. Whereas before, your odds of
> > winning might be 98:100 (so you lose); if you exclude half of the
> > numbers, your odds become 196:100—you win big!


I tried to work this out years ago, trying to use communication wit a remote computer to calculate the likely sector the ball would land in based on were the ball was thrown and it's estimated speed.  Trouble is that the casinos I went in would say "No more bets" before the ball was thrown.  I think that is the usual practice.  Another problem is that there are obstructions for the ball to hit once it drops off the rim.  This insures random hops that make the final landing spot more unpredictable.  When you play in a casino, you are constantly being watched.  Even if the casino employees cannot tell how you are doing it, if you persist in having better luck than the odds would allow, they will assume you are cheating somehow, and will eventually ask you to leave.  Despite all the hype about "lucky winners", winners are not welcome in a casino.  Losers are their bread and butter.  As the saying goes, "Las Vegas was not built by winners, it was built by losers!"


Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web