Dirty Cheating Betfred Terminals...

Electrocoinist · Post by **Electrocoinist** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:28 am

Went in a Betfred the other day, was having a "spin" on the old 25p roulette - the one where the position on the wheel at the beginning tells u where the ball will land and the fucking thing kept lying!!!! I had a £13 on 0, 26, 3, 35, 32 and 15 and it went as follows...

12, 12, 12, 19, 12, 28, 4, 12, 19, 23, 23, 23, 23, 23, 4, 19, 12, 12 then finally 3, 32, 35, 35, 26, 0, 12, 12, 35, 15, 24, 23, 26 and then I stopped.... SURELY if anything proves these are fruits and not random then nothing does!!!

I find the Ladbrokes "Original" roulette to be the filthiest, prefer the very poorly presented Barcrest version now

Matt Vinyl · Post by **Matt Vinyl** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:41 am

You managed to fit in a BetFred between the 2,000 Laddies?

ob · Post by ob » Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:07 am

All the same rubbish just a long run loss for whoever plays it. All your numbers prove is that you were lucky in the end!

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:39 am

you did quite well to remember 30 numbers in a row...

afterall, the average human mind can only remember around 7 numbers in a sequence.

blackmogu · Post by **blackmogu** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:25 am

Calculate the odds of the standard roullette wheel generating the following sequence :-

12, 12, 12, 19, 12, 28, 4, 12, 19, 23, 23, 23, 23, 23, 4, 19, 12, 12, 3, 32, 35, 35, 26, 0, 12, 12, 35, 15, 24, 23, 26

And the odds of the following sequence :-

0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,6 , 7, 8 ,9 ,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

Which sequence is more unlikely ?

That's correct - the previous outcome doesn't affect the future outcome. Human minds like to scream "fixed" when they recognise patterns.

Matt Vinyl · Post by **Matt Vinyl** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:51 am

Absolutely correct. Here's the link I post from time to time: Gambler's Fallacy

Like with the National Lottery, 1,2,3,4,5,6 has as much chance as 6 apparently non-sequential numbers, but it just doesn't 'feel' as it does.

It annoys me when people say, "Oh, I would've won the lottery last night, but 4 of my numbers were all out by 1...!" There is essentially no difference there, than if the numbers had been out by however much - it's just the human brain forms patterns / relations that mathematically are irrelevant...

Cf · Post by Cf » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:04 pm

Matt Vinyl wrote:Absolutely correct. Here's the link I post from time to time: Gambler's Fallacy

Like with the National Lottery, 1,2,3,4,5,6 has as much chance as 6 apparently non-sequential numbers, but it just doesn't 'feel' as it does.

It annoys me when people say, "Oh, I would've won the lottery last night, but 4 of my numbers were all out by 1...!" There is essentially no difference there, than if the numbers had been out by however much - it's just the human brain forms patterns / relations that mathematically are irrelevant...

One interesting point on the lottery though is that some random sequence such as 9 15 2 40 19 27 has a greater EV than 1 2 3 4 5 6

streakseims · Post by **streakseims** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:09 pm

or the classic line

"I never win anything on the lottery, So i dont even bother buying a ticket"

Classic Number 2

"how much you won m8?"

reply

"35/70/140/500"

their reply

"you jammy bastard, I never win a jackpot out of a machine so i dont even bother playin them"

your reply
"geek/pleb/how do YOU feel m8/"

or the honest answer

"its a dond m8 i was £3,464,823.50p in to get that was Hoping for a £140 but dont think its had enuff play and i should not of Cobd for £2 over £500,000 ago else it might of give £85 or £140"

betchrider · Post by **betchrider** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:55 pm

Think I read somewhere about a thousand people play 1 to 6 and if that sequence comes out they will win about 2k! Not hundred per cent sure of figures tho

mr lugsy · Post by **mr lugsy** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:17 pm

bloody hell,i'd better change mine to..2,3,4,5,6,7 now.

blackmogu · Post by **blackmogu** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:38 pm

mr lugsy wrote:bloody hell,i'd better change mine to..2,3,4,5,6,7 now.

The best strategy is to go for high numbers over 31. This avoids the glut of people choosing birthdays as one of their numbers, and decreases the odds of you having to share your prize if you win.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:13 pm

betchrider wrote:Think I read somewhere about a thousand people play 1 to 6 and if that sequence comes out they will win about 2k! Not hundred per cent sure of figures tho

Must be some truth in it, i've heard something along those lines.

trayhop123 · Post by **trayhop123** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:58 pm

the reason why it doesn't matter which 6 you pick ,,,,,,,, and the reason why no number system will EVER EVER work when applied to the lottery is simple .

there are no numbers used in the lottery .

just 49 individual splashes of paint on plastic balls.

may as well be squares triangles or chinese symbols .

49 individual symbols ,,,,,,,,,,,,, no numerical analysis can be applied

messiah · Post by **messiah** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:09 pm

trayhop123 wrote:the reason why it doesn't matter which 6 you pick ,,,,,,,, and the reason why no number system will EVER EVER work when applied to the lottery is simple .

there are no numbers used in the lottery .

just 49 individual splashes of paint on plastic balls.

may as well be squares triangles or chinese symbols .

49 individual symbols ,,,,,,,,,,,,, no numerical analysis can be applied

It sounds like sense. But is actually rubbish. You can equally apply numerical analysis as to how often balls with different splashes of paint on are likely to be selected as to an actual series of numbers.

The argument against this should be that the numbers are drawn at random.

Now, in actual fact, practically nothing in the universe is genuinely random, however to all intents and purposes the lottery machine is intended to simulate a "random" distribution.

In terms of the number of times that the lottery is actually run, (twice a week) then the results that we (the public) see will only represent a statistically insignificant sample.

Now if you had access to the test rig/balls or even better sets of the actual machines and actual balls used, you could run it all day every day and develop a statistically significant sample, and see if there are any patterns due to innate bias (e.g. some balls aren't round, some balls are heavier than others - we're talking fractions here)

NB This is much more useful for something like "real" roulette (as opposed to online) where you could play hundreds/thousands of spins in a row, and get some sort of statistical analysis for the small differences in e.g. bed size.

trayhop123 · Post by **trayhop123** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:51 pm

It sounds like sense. But is actually rubbish. You can equally apply numerical analysis as to how often balls with different splashes of paint on are likely to be selected as to an actual series of numbers. ,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,, erm yeah ,,,,,,but thats not what i meant by no numerical analysis you loon,,,,, lol , i meant no numerical analysis ie a viable system for financial advance is possible ,,,,,,,,,,, so i'll stick with what i said m8 ,,,,,,,,, they still are just individual splashes of paint with no numerical values whatsoever ,,,,,,,,,, so not rubbish m8 , and if you think otherwise your deluded like the masses of people that play it thinking they have a edge with their numerical based system lol.