Äߧý∩†H♠H䎀, you are exactly right.
it beggars believe that anyone would bet 310 dollars to try to win $10!! it just doesn't make sense.
And the odds aren't even 50/50 in roulette, there is a zero, so in fact it doesn't even make sense to bet $10 for a possible return of $20, since the odds aren't 50/50 they are less!
statistically you should never bet a greater ratio of what you have and what you'll win when your odds of winning don't support your ratio of failure.
basically, if the odds are truly 2:1 then a bet of $10 to win $20 makes sense
if the odds are 3:1 then a bet of $10 to win $30 makes sense, your odds are the same as your stake, so at the end of the night statistically you should walk away even. (with no more and no less than you came in with).
if the odds of you winning are 3:1 (you're likely to loose 2 out of every 3 bets) then betting 10$ to win $20 means that you will expect to come out at the end of the night with less money than you put in.
this is the problem with the martingale theory, you're constantly on the back foot, increasing your bet against the odds of winning, effectively throwing (large amounts of) good money after bad, all in the hopes that you'll win back a tiny first bet.
and since the odds of either a black or a red are aren't 18:36 they are 18:37 (or 18:38 in American roulette where there is 0 and 00).
which means that you're strictly never likely to see all of your money returned.
your odds of winning are 1 in 2.05, meaning that your stake should have a value of 1 in 2.05 to make sense.
if you bet $10 to make $20.50 then that's brilliant, but it's not your stake will only get you $20, and the odds don't support this as a good bet at all.
Basically, the house wins, (read the section called house edge on the roulette article on wikipedia).
However, Regarding the counting of cards, essentially that is what happens, if you know that in the time that you've sat at the table, that there are 7 decks, and you've seen 28 4's that if you're on 17 the odds of hitting a 4 to make up 21 is not just unlikely, it's impossible!
if you can remember the past 200 cards that have been played (and the deck hasn't been shuffled) then you're reducing your odds of busting out by more than half, or at least you're reducing the chances of making a silly play -by remembering more information about the game.
fundamentally there are of course different systems of counting cards, having a 100% reliable photographic memory is one method, but that would also mean that you have to site through several hundred hands to see the whole shoe.
Assigning cards groups of values, (so remembering how many cards valued 2 - 5, 6 - 9 10 or picture cards) will enable you to make more informed bets. (whilst only having to remember three numbers).
There is no law against counting cards, however all casinos have a right of refusal and could throw you out at any time!
Regarding poker, personally -and it might be because I perhaps can't pick up tells, I find that purely playing the maths is the most successful route to winning hands.
for myself I'd say that the psychology only comes into play when you know the maths dictates you're likely to win, then you can play psychological games, trying to invent ticks or tells and perhaps playing some obviously poor betting choices to lure your opponents into a false sense of security to try to maximise the pot that you're winning.
it beggars believe that anyone would bet 310 dollars to try to win $10!! it just doesn't make sense.
And the odds aren't even 50/50 in roulette, there is a zero, so in fact it doesn't even make sense to bet $10 for a possible return of $20, since the odds aren't 50/50 they are less!
statistically you should never bet a greater ratio of what you have and what you'll win when your odds of winning don't support your ratio of failure.
basically, if the odds are truly 2:1 then a bet of $10 to win $20 makes sense
if the odds are 3:1 then a bet of $10 to win $30 makes sense, your odds are the same as your stake, so at the end of the night statistically you should walk away even. (with no more and no less than you came in with).
if the odds of you winning are 3:1 (you're likely to loose 2 out of every 3 bets) then betting 10$ to win $20 means that you will expect to come out at the end of the night with less money than you put in.
this is the problem with the martingale theory, you're constantly on the back foot, increasing your bet against the odds of winning, effectively throwing (large amounts of) good money after bad, all in the hopes that you'll win back a tiny first bet.
and since the odds of either a black or a red are aren't 18:36 they are 18:37 (or 18:38 in American roulette where there is 0 and 00).
which means that you're strictly never likely to see all of your money returned.
your odds of winning are 1 in 2.05, meaning that your stake should have a value of 1 in 2.05 to make sense.
if you bet $10 to make $20.50 then that's brilliant, but it's not your stake will only get you $20, and the odds don't support this as a good bet at all.
Basically, the house wins, (read the section called house edge on the roulette article on wikipedia).
However, Regarding the counting of cards, essentially that is what happens, if you know that in the time that you've sat at the table, that there are 7 decks, and you've seen 28 4's that if you're on 17 the odds of hitting a 4 to make up 21 is not just unlikely, it's impossible!
if you can remember the past 200 cards that have been played (and the deck hasn't been shuffled) then you're reducing your odds of busting out by more than half, or at least you're reducing the chances of making a silly play -by remembering more information about the game.
fundamentally there are of course different systems of counting cards, having a 100% reliable photographic memory is one method, but that would also mean that you have to site through several hundred hands to see the whole shoe.
Assigning cards groups of values, (so remembering how many cards valued 2 - 5, 6 - 9 10 or picture cards) will enable you to make more informed bets. (whilst only having to remember three numbers).
There is no law against counting cards, however all casinos have a right of refusal and could throw you out at any time!
Regarding poker, personally -and it might be because I perhaps can't pick up tells, I find that purely playing the maths is the most successful route to winning hands.
for myself I'd say that the psychology only comes into play when you know the maths dictates you're likely to win, then you can play psychological games, trying to invent ticks or tells and perhaps playing some obviously poor betting choices to lure your opponents into a false sense of security to try to maximise the pot that you're winning.