Welcome Guest
You last visited August 23, 2017, 12:02 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Do some number combinations have better odds?

Topic closed. 5280 replies. Last post 4 years ago by rdgrnr.

 Page 233 of 353
Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7548 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 10, 2013, 11:23 pm - IP Logged

Wow, thats THREE very-s Stack. Someone here is quite FLAWED............

I'll have to ask Boney which parts were flawed because he did say I can't prove the odds can change.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7548 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 1:08 am - IP Logged

The logic in the first two paragraphs is very, very, very flawed.  You can't assume that your odds reduced (per bet) b/c only one will win.  That's simply wrong because the ball only lands once, and then stops.  If it was such that there were multiple, non repeatable results, then your logic would be fine.

I really don't feel like I can explain it any clearer.  The odds of you winning are 5/38 with your example.  That's the same as 33 to 5, not 33 to 1.  There is no difference between putting a chip on 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 or putting 6 chips on the 6way.  No difference at all.

There's the execption for 0,00,1,2 and 3 getting shor paid, so then it'd be better off for you to bet them individually, but that's the only exception.

How can you possibly claim that a 3 dollar bet on 1st Street is any different than 3 1 dollar bets on 1,2 and 3?  (I realize you didn't use those specific details, but mathemtically it's all the same, just smaller numers)

But I'll repeat the point one more time.  It's 33 to 5 because there are 33 ways to lose and 5 to win.  In my example, it is 35 to 3.  I don't see how you could possibly dispute that at all.  And I don't see how you can tell me that I misunderstand the game, when quite clearly 5/38 is 33 to 5 not 33 to 1.

1) "you're now saying if I make two bets, the odds are lowered to 18 to 1 as if 18 of the possible losing outcomes magically disappeared."

You said the odds of betting five numbers is 33:5 so two bets must be 36 to 2 and the same percentage as 18 to 1 and the same odds. Jimmy's favorite gambling expert is the Wizard of Odds and he always reduces the odds to the lowest common denominator; is his logic flawed too?

2) "It's an accumulative effect because the odds against any of the five numbers winning is still 37 to 1. The reduction can only be on the number of losing outcomes because only one number can win. Five players individually won't get better odds making the same five \$1 bets."

From the house's point of view, one player betting \$1 on five different numbers is the same as five players betting \$1 on the same five different numbers. If the five number bettor hits the same number as one of the five \$1 bettors and after all the bets are taken off the layout, are you saying my logic is flawed because the house gives them both the same payoff?

The \$1 bettor wins \$35 and the \$5 bettor wins \$31. The only relevance of the other four bets is the \$4 deduction from the winnings. For someone ragging on Ronnie because his bets are conditional, you're going over the top to prove his point.

3) "By making that type of bet, four of those bets will always lose"

If that's flawed, you must be taking about a different roulette game because where I played, the losing bets are removed from the table before the winnings are paid.

4) "The odds against the first bet winning are 37 to 1 and the odds against the second bet becomes 36 to 1 because even though the first bet eliminated one of the losing outcomes, there is still only one way the second bet can win."

I agreed the accumulative effect gives overall odds of 33 to 5, but that doesn't reduce the odds of any of those five numbers winning to 6.6 to 1. Players bet more Roulette numbers for the same reason Ronnie uses 28 numbers playing MM. You said playing more numbers won't reduce Ronnie's odds unless his conditions are met, but now you're saying it will reduce a Roulette players odds much more than the slight edge I gave to Ronnie's bet with the same type of conditional betting.

"It's 33 to 5 because there are 33 ways to lose and 5 to win."

Then Ronnie's odds must be 39 to 1 because he has 98,280 ways to win.

"How can you possibly claim that a 3 dollar bet on 1st Street is any different than 3 1 dollar bets on 1,2 and 3?  (I realize you didn't use those specific details, but mathemtically it's all the same, just smaller numers)"

Mathematically, it's the same betting \$12 on a row as betting \$1 on each of the 12 numbers in the row, just larger numbers. I know the odds so I'd never make that claim.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7548 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 1:17 am - IP Logged

If I give up my chances of winning on some draws to get BETTER ODDS on others, is it still BETTER ODDS?

"And I don't see how you can tell me that I misunderstand the game, when quite clearly 5/38 is 33 to 5 not 33 to 1."

Yep, 33 to 5 is better odds than 33 to 1 even when you give it up when one of the other 33 numbers hit.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 2:47 am - IP Logged

I guess I have to take your word for it on this one boney........ 3 in 54 sound BETTER than 46 in 306.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 10:14 am - IP Logged

Jimmy Jimmy bo Jimmy, Jimmy Jimmy lo Jimmy, Jimmy Jimmy moe Jimmy.... Jimmy.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 10:16 am - IP Logged

I'll have to ask Boney which parts were flawed because he did say I can't prove the odds can change.

Any buffoon knows the odds can and do change. That's why the lottery calls them "overall odds".

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 10:47 am - IP Logged

12 elimination numbers for MM. Fri. Jan. 11, 2013.

03 05 17 26 28 44 49 50 51 54 55 56

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 10:49 am - IP Logged

Set of 28 for MM. Fri. Jan. 11, 2013.

01 02 04 06 07 10 11 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 32 33 34 38 39 40 41 42 43 48 52

bonus ball 10

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 1:12 pm - IP Logged

1) "you're now saying if I make two bets, the odds are lowered to 18 to 1 as if 18 of the possible losing outcomes magically disappeared."

You said the odds of betting five numbers is 33:5 so two bets must be 36 to 2 and the same percentage as 18 to 1 and the same odds. Jimmy's favorite gambling expert is the Wizard of Odds and he always reduces the odds to the lowest common denominator; is his logic flawed too?

2) "It's an accumulative effect because the odds against any of the five numbers winning is still 37 to 1. The reduction can only be on the number of losing outcomes because only one number can win. Five players individually won't get better odds making the same five \$1 bets."

From the house's point of view, one player betting \$1 on five different numbers is the same as five players betting \$1 on the same five different numbers. If the five number bettor hits the same number as one of the five \$1 bettors and after all the bets are taken off the layout, are you saying my logic is flawed because the house gives them both the same payoff?

The \$1 bettor wins \$35 and the \$5 bettor wins \$31. The only relevance of the other four bets is the \$4 deduction from the winnings. For someone ragging on Ronnie because his bets are conditional, you're going over the top to prove his point.

3) "By making that type of bet, four of those bets will always lose"

If that's flawed, you must be taking about a different roulette game because where I played, the losing bets are removed from the table before the winnings are paid.

4) "The odds against the first bet winning are 37 to 1 and the odds against the second bet becomes 36 to 1 because even though the first bet eliminated one of the losing outcomes, there is still only one way the second bet can win."

I agreed the accumulative effect gives overall odds of 33 to 5, but that doesn't reduce the odds of any of those five numbers winning to 6.6 to 1. Players bet more Roulette numbers for the same reason Ronnie uses 28 numbers playing MM. You said playing more numbers won't reduce Ronnie's odds unless his conditions are met, but now you're saying it will reduce a Roulette players odds much more than the slight edge I gave to Ronnie's bet with the same type of conditional betting.

"It's 33 to 5 because there are 33 ways to lose and 5 to win."

Then Ronnie's odds must be 39 to 1 because he has 98,280 ways to win.

"How can you possibly claim that a 3 dollar bet on 1st Street is any different than 3 1 dollar bets on 1,2 and 3?  (I realize you didn't use those specific details, but mathemtically it's all the same, just smaller numers)"

Mathematically, it's the same betting \$12 on a row as betting \$1 on each of the 12 numbers in the row, just larger numbers. I know the odds so I'd never make that claim.

You're completely misinterpreting my statement.  You CAN reduce your odds by buying more tickets for the lottery, or bettin more numbers on roulette.  You CANNOT reduce your odds PER TICKET by doing that.  There is a huge difference between those two statements.

"The \$1 bettor wins \$35 and the \$5 bettor wins \$31. The only relevance of the other four bets is the \$4 deduction from the winnings. For someone ragging on Ronnie because his bets are conditional, you're going over the top to prove his point."

The 1 dollar bettor wins 35 against his 1 dollar bet.  The 5 dollar better wins 31 against his 5 dollar bet.  I don't see how that's hard to understand.  You're not getting 35 minus 4 paid against your 1 dollar, you are getting 35 to 1 and getting 4 dollars taken away.  They are seperate.  Even though mathemetically, the answer is the same, the logic is not sound and cannot be transfered to other similar problems.

As for your assertion that Ronnie's odds of winning (and I'm assuming you mean 5/5) I didn't do math, but that seems about right.  The odds of winning are slightly under 1 in 4 million, and he's playing slightly under 100 thousand.  That's not better than anyone else who could play that many lines, though, by any other method.

As for your last point, they are the same, assuming American rules.  Call it what you want.  If you win any of your 1 dollar bets, you will be paid 35, keep your 1 and have 11 taken from you, leaving you with a profit of 24 dollars.  If you win on a 12 dollar bet on that row, you also win 24 dollars.  If you lose on either bet you lose 12 dollars.

There the same.  If you win, you win 24 if you lose you lose 12.  Sounds the same to me, unless you play with some La' Partage rule or whatever they call it.

New Jersey
United States
Member #99032
October 18, 2010
1439 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 1:16 pm - IP Logged

Any buffoon knows the odds can and do change. That's why the lottery calls them "overall odds".

Only a buffoon thinks the odds can and do change. They think that's why the lottery calls them "overall odds".

I hope you don't mind, I edited your post to reflect reality.  Please proofread nextime, especially when you only post a couple sentences.

United States
Member #48046
December 7, 2006
1699 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 3:03 pm - IP Logged

Ronnie,   that  thingy,  is kinda back

last test draw  1-8-13 (last draw)

test:       11    17    21    38    47  -(44)

DRAW:    3      38    20    21    42  -(19)

the  21's     almost touching  but not quite, exactly,

so I'mm giving  20  or  21  a chance to  repeat  for tonight 1/11/13

United States
Member #48046
December 7, 2006
1699 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 3:05 pm - IP Logged

also  since this   seems to be one of the  most active  Jackpot  discussions,

regardless of the name of the thread,

there's something I was  wondering about

United States
Member #48046
December 7, 2006
1699 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 3:33 pm - IP Logged

I was wondering,  if, ...

When  you were doing   "Numbers Deep"

or

How many Draws  Back   the numbers came from

did you at any time, or any point , come to a conclusion , or mabey  a little bit of a concensus,

as Far as    something like,  you would say,  or  Think  to yourself,

"Hey, ... look at that,   There always seems to be a Number that ...

comes from   5  Draws back".

or   3 Draws back

or  20 Draws back

Did you ever get  an overall   Theme  or conclusion,  that  made you feel  you were

on to anything?   Those were just  examples

United States
Member #124493
March 14, 2012
7023 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 4:08 pm - IP Logged

I was wondering,  if, ...

When  you were doing   "Numbers Deep"

or

How many Draws  Back   the numbers came from

did you at any time, or any point , come to a conclusion , or mabey  a little bit of a concensus,

as Far as    something like,  you would say,  or  Think  to yourself,

"Hey, ... look at that,   There always seems to be a Number that ...

comes from   5  Draws back".

or   3 Draws back

or  20 Draws back

Did you ever get  an overall   Theme  or conclusion,  that  made you feel  you were

on to anything?   Those were just  examples

Good question kosmic.  Curious as what the "boss" has to say.

United States
Member #116268
September 7, 2011
20244 Posts
Offline
 Posted: January 11, 2013, 6:46 pm - IP Logged

Good question kosmic.  Curious as what the "boss" has to say.

lol. Thats "The boss of LP" to all those jimmy and boney type "minders" out there......

 Page 233 of 353