By limiting stakes and prizes its not roulette.
Still its the fairest and best rtp bet there have ever been on the highstreet and everyone moans like fuck.
Same as alcohol in the supermarket. If your for £2 stake caps on gambling on the highstreet then you have to be for min £10 per unit alcohol pricing.... You know to keep everyone safe and all that.
FOBT spins to be capped at £2 Spins. Decision is expected today in Commons.
Roll_With_It_Russ wrote:By limiting stakes and prizes its not roulette.
How so? Every casino in the world has an upper betting limit, otherwise all the tycoons would martingale the casino out of business.
Still its the fairest and best rtp bet there have ever been on the highstreet and everyone moans like fuck.
??? You'll have to elaborate on that statement because it makes no sense whatsoever
Same as alcohol in the supermarket. If your for £2 stake caps on gambling on the highstreet then you have to be for min £10 per unit alcohol pricing.... You know to keep everyone safe and all that.
I don't "have to be for" £10 min per alcohol unit at all. I don't drink, personally I couldn't give a toss how much alcohol costs.
....
You put a lemon to shame, you bitter cunt.
Martingale is never profitable. Even if you brought a million 20 reds in a row would lose you the whole lot from a £1 starting stake.
You have to do the system a million times to make a million on it.
Chance of losing a million is 1/1000000.(actually it's a bit less than that as there's 0) Therefore chances are one of the times out the million you make the quid it does 20 reds in a row.
You can extrapolate this to any number ie. A billion! 1/a billion chance of loss but to make a billion you have to do it a billion times in which you lose an expected once.
Might I also suggest millionaires would have better things to do than try and consistantly make a quid.
The reason they have table limits is it reduces their variance as one big punter betting silly massive could wipe out their profits for the week it's just a case of risk aversion. Look how much trouble that bloke who wanted to put his life savings on red/black on channel 4 had getting a casino to agree to it... even with a double 0 roulette.... they just don't want to take the risk when he's doing one bet so they only have a very small edge.
If however you are known as a big time whale player then they will up the stakes as they know if you are a long term player you will nigh on always lose eventually as you are playing percentages. Recycling money on House edge games will always kill you long run.
You have to do the system a million times to make a million on it.
Chance of losing a million is 1/1000000.(actually it's a bit less than that as there's 0) Therefore chances are one of the times out the million you make the quid it does 20 reds in a row.
You can extrapolate this to any number ie. A billion! 1/a billion chance of loss but to make a billion you have to do it a billion times in which you lose an expected once.
Might I also suggest millionaires would have better things to do than try and consistantly make a quid.
The reason they have table limits is it reduces their variance as one big punter betting silly massive could wipe out their profits for the week it's just a case of risk aversion. Look how much trouble that bloke who wanted to put his life savings on red/black on channel 4 had getting a casino to agree to it... even with a double 0 roulette.... they just don't want to take the risk when he's doing one bet so they only have a very small edge.
If however you are known as a big time whale player then they will up the stakes as they know if you are a long term player you will nigh on always lose eventually as you are playing percentages. Recycling money on House edge games will always kill you long run.
-
Roll_With_It_Russ
- Senior Member
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:51 pm
When I said the best bet on the highstreet its the lowest margin gamble you can make... Every bet in the bookies is higher house edge.
The result is always random... You can back blind with out opinion and still get a fair result.
There was exactly that, one big punter who thought his millions would martingale him profits he lost millions.
When I said the ratios make the game not roulette is that as soon as you start betting more than 13/14 quid you cant get 36 to 1 about your stake.
If your allowed to stake 100 then you should be able to win 3500 for it.
To make myself clear a game with out stakes and prizes limits is less profitable. The jackpot game at 100/500 was kerching for the bookies since the liabilities dropped enormously and encouraged chasing losses since multiple wins are required once the player is in a large negative posistion.
Quite simply I fail to see why they needed and restriction in the first place. The average stake is 7quid on b2 games. Means that plenty enjoy them on low stakes. And high staking players play because they can afford to or untill the money is gone... Which happens wherever they gamble.
Also to note one persons 20p is anothers £2 is another £200... Surely the range of 20p to £100 stakes is fair and justified... So long as the odds are correct most bookies will take 200 on a event to uknown customers, granted 2few restrictions... What would be unfair is if theu said you can bet what you like but you cant win.
The result is always random... You can back blind with out opinion and still get a fair result.
There was exactly that, one big punter who thought his millions would martingale him profits he lost millions.
When I said the ratios make the game not roulette is that as soon as you start betting more than 13/14 quid you cant get 36 to 1 about your stake.
If your allowed to stake 100 then you should be able to win 3500 for it.
To make myself clear a game with out stakes and prizes limits is less profitable. The jackpot game at 100/500 was kerching for the bookies since the liabilities dropped enormously and encouraged chasing losses since multiple wins are required once the player is in a large negative posistion.
Quite simply I fail to see why they needed and restriction in the first place. The average stake is 7quid on b2 games. Means that plenty enjoy them on low stakes. And high staking players play because they can afford to or untill the money is gone... Which happens wherever they gamble.
Also to note one persons 20p is anothers £2 is another £200... Surely the range of 20p to £100 stakes is fair and justified... So long as the odds are correct most bookies will take 200 on a event to uknown customers, granted 2few restrictions... What would be unfair is if theu said you can bet what you like but you cant win.
-
betchrider
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4417
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:01 pm
-
Roll_With_It_Russ
- Senior Member
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:51 pm
Yes if you win or get on at better odds than true chances it make perfect sense to turn this busines away.
Essentially if yoir beating they are getting the market wrong.
You can't get the market wrong with fixed odds so long as the liabilities are managed.
sure you can go bust pretty quick just by opening a shop sticking 4 machines in and offer attractive promotions.... Its just that simple which if you ask any independant shop owner. The big operators just have the security of a larger pool to offset the risk.
Essentially if yoir beating they are getting the market wrong.
You can't get the market wrong with fixed odds so long as the liabilities are managed.
sure you can go bust pretty quick just by opening a shop sticking 4 machines in and offer attractive promotions.... Its just that simple which if you ask any independant shop owner. The big operators just have the security of a larger pool to offset the risk.