This F***ing sucks

satansteve666 · 09-13-2009, 07:07 AM

Roullete systems are depressing -_-

**cillia** · 09-13-2009, 07:13 AM

its all luck... o.o and you can probably just buy another bow from the store right? and what lvl are you? if it's a low lvl bow then enhancing it wont do much... thought if its like a lvl30+ bow that's a different story... >.o

**Belaslav** · 09-13-2009, 11:38 AM

Here's a helpful tip: Always bet on the same spot, but every time you lose, double the stakes.

Ie. You bet 10 SC on square 1. If you lose, bet 20. Next time 40. Then 80, 160 320 etc. According to laws of probability, "luck" cannot evade Square 1 all the time, so sooner or later you will get all the SC you lost and some profit too. It's only a question of patience and SC funds.

**Ralath** · 09-13-2009, 05:38 PM

^Um. Which law of probability is that??? That method sounds pretty sketchy to me.

Let's use a die as an example.

If the trials are independent of each other (which a roulette system should be), then your probability doesn't depend on your past results. So if you roll a 1 the first time you roll a die, the next time you roll the die, the chance of you getting a 1 is still 1/6. The probability hasn't changed.

If the trials were dependent on each other, then yes, I think that would be correct.

**Hraesvelg** · 09-13-2009, 05:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marting...ette_system%29

**Belaslav** · 09-14-2009, 02:52 AM

You don't believe me? Find a flash roulette game, and try this strategy out.

**Hraesvelg** · 09-14-2009, 02:54 AM

It works if you have an infinite bank, otherwise the edge is still with the house.

**Ralath** · 09-14-2009, 07:22 AM

There's no mathematical proof behind your method.... :/

(I'm not even dealing with money amounts at this point, just the outcome.)

**Belaslav** · 09-14-2009, 03:40 PM

Hrae posted the Math proof of the method. But like William Blake said:

Quote:

The true method of knowledge is experiment.

Try it.

**Ralath** · 09-14-2009, 09:52 PM

I don't think you read Hrae's link...

Let me pick out some highlights:

Quote:

Since a gambler with infinite wealth will with probability 1 eventually flip heads, the Martingale betting strategy was seen as a sure thing by those who practised it. Of course, none of these practitioners in fact possessed infinite wealth, and the exponential growth of the bets would eventually bankrupt those who choose to use the Martingale. It is widely believed that casinos instituted betting limits specifically to stop Martingale players, but in reality the assumptions behind the strategy are unsound. Players using the Martingale system do not have any long term mathematical advantage over any other betting system or even randomly placed bets.

Quote:

The impossibility of winning over the long run, given a limit of the size of bets or a limit in the size of one's bankroll or line of credit, is proven by the optional stopping theorem.

The only way to come out ahead is to have an infinite amount of resources--time, money, etc. Hrae posted this as well.

Another way to think about it is if the probability was something extraordinarily small. Let's say... picking a number between 1 and 1,000,000,000.

You can pick the number 1 for as long as you like but the number 1 has the same probability of being picked as any other number.

And no, I don't need to test this out because this is just a game of probability and there are mathematical rules in probability. If you win in the flash roulette game, then you got lucky (the standard probability worked in your favor).