Roulette

Remove this Banner Ad

Oaksnaf said:
I know what your saying. But it has absolutely no relevance to playing roulette. So I don't understand why you would want to go down that path.
Click to expand...
It has direct relevance for anyone who uses the double when you lose strategy in Roulette. It also has relevance to this thread, as per the quotes below:

Jimmy_the_Gent said:
The second theory I liked was were you bet on either red or black/odd or even/0-18 or 19-36. Once again you just back in the same bet every time, for example, you always bet on Red.
With this each bet has a 47% chance of winning but you should always chase your losses with this stratergy.
For example, you if place 1 unit on red and that loses, you should bet 2 units on red.
If that wins, you made 1 unit profit. If it loses, you need to bet 4 units on red.
If the 4 unit bet wins, you make 1 unit profit. If it loses you need to bet 8 units...
Obviously, you need deep pockets for the second idea and hypothetically it would have you at a statistical advantage to the house, if you had infinate funds.
Click to expand...
tazlgnd said:
my mate puts ten on red if he wins he puts ten on again then if he lsoes he doubles it each time
so say he loses 5 times in a row he will be putting 160 on to get back up
Click to expand...
Juddtastic said:
Myself and a couple of mates have used the doubling and sequence strategy many times. At the start we were walking away with something like %300-700 profit of what we originally laid down but as of late we've been brought back to earth and have had a few nights of big losses...

From my experience it all comes down to luck and how many rolls in a row end up on the 2 to 1 were betting against like red over black for instance.

The most consecutive rolls of the same 2 to 1 odd i've ever seen is 10 which by then we'd lost as much as any1 would be willing to lose for a night.
Click to expand...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Patrick Bullet said:
The odds of getting a 10 (or any other specific number) at least once over the course of 35 spins are equal to 1 minus the odds of a 10 NOT coming up 35 successive times.
The odds of a 10 NOT coming up on ONE spin are 37/38 (assuming a double-zero wheel). We would need this to happen 35 times in a row. Thus, the odds of a 10 NOT coming up 35 times in a row =
(37/38)^35 = 0.39218.
The odds of 10 coming up at least once over the course of 35 spins are therefore
1 - 0.39218 = 0.60678

So for each time you attempt your 35-spin bet, you have a 60.7% chance of winning from the outset. The amount you win will depend on how many spins it takes, but if you lose, you lose a total of 35 x $2.50 = $87.50

_________

The bet red-black and then double when you lose strategy is quite similar to this. Say you decide to bet on Black. With a table min of $5 and a max of $500, you can double as per the following:
spin 1 - $5
spin 2 - $10
spin 3 - $20
spin 4 - $40
spin 5 - $80
spin 6 - $160
spin 7 - $320
spin 8 - $640 - this is more than the table max, so you can't make this bet.

You can therefore only bet on the outcome of up to 7 spins, and the total amount you may have to risk is:
$5 + $10 + $20 + $40 + $80 + $160 + $320 = $635

So, what you are effectively doing when you play this strategy is betting $635 that black will come up once over the course of the next 7 spins. When it does come up, your profit is $5 irrespective of which of the 7 spins turns up black. When it comes up, you start again, betting $5 and doubling when you lose.

Is this a good way of betting?
The odds of black NOT coming up on a single spin are 20 / 38.
The odds of black NOT coming up 7 times in a row are:
(20/38)^7 = 0.011187.
This means the odds of black coming up at least once in 7 spins:
1 - .011187 = 0.988812.

So you have a 98.9 percent chance of winning, but remember, you are risking $635 to win $5; only a 0.787% profit (you'd want at least 1.11% profit for a win to make it worthwhile).
So it's not a good bet in the long run, although at least you'll probably get to spend a long time at the casino!
Click to expand...

Good post.

In real terms you are therefore taking $1.00787 about a $1.011187 chance.
That is terribe value.

You cannot make money at roulette.
 
Patrick Bullet said:
So for each time you attempt your 35-spin bet, you have a 60.7% chance of winning from the outset. The amount you win will depend on how many spins it takes, but if you lose, you lose a total of 35 x $2.50 = $87.50
Click to expand...

all spins are independent. previous results have no bearing on the next. you could go 300 spins without seeing a certain number

single # is always 1/37, or 1/38 chance, regardless of how many times you play or how often it comes up, easiest way to look at it
 
scottyjc said:
all spins are independent. previous results have no bearing on the next. you could go 300 spins without seeing a certain number

single # is always 1/37, or 1/38 chance, regardless of how many times you play or how often it comes up, easiest way to look at it
Click to expand...
That's correct. As you say, if 10 has not come up at all in 34 spins, the odds of it coming up on the 35th are 1/38.
 
The martingale system is often used in horse racing, sometimes to success.

Also divisor betting - if you know of it Patrick Bullet, that would be something that would interest you mathamatically.

But as far the casino betting goes. You have to find an edge.
 
Jimmy_the_Gent said:
Wouldn't the same problem arise, with the maximum bet amount being too low after a sequence of losses?
Click to expand...
The maximum bet? And it all depends on what odds you are betting at.

Or you could use the FIBBO system (Fibonachi or something)

1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 and so on.
 
Daytripper;13475475 [U said:
You cannot make money at roulette.[/U]
Click to expand...

lol, the casino makes plenty of money at roulette ! :p

Only a moron with no understanding of mathematics could honestly think they could make money on a "long" term basis playing roulette.

roulette = gamblers ruin :thumbsdown:
 
I believe you can make money off roulette long term.

You just have to find an edge.

So does this make me a 'moron' Ferris_rules?

And if it doesn't make me a moron, then what is the purpose of your statement as it certainly doesn't do anything to discuss what the original post entailed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jimmy_the_Gent said:
Is there no such thing as a maximum bet when gambling on sports/horses?

I'm a newb to all of this so you have to forgive me.
Click to expand...

Well unless you have a $10 million dollar bank then you won't have to worry about the maximum bet.

Someone can correct me. But from the knowledge the largest bet placed with a bookmaker in Australia was on Lonhro and that was to the value of $2million dollars (LOST). It was the second bet on Lonhro after successfully winning a $1million wager.

And as far as the casino goes. Kerry Packer holds the record for most amount of money lost in one night.
 
Oaksnaf said:
Have to correct myself as googled it. $5 million dollar bet. Not $2 million is the biggest bet.
Click to expand...

Sportingbet hype up their bets. Don't believe anthing thye say in the press. Its all a PR stunt and it works too.

Basic rule of thumb is to divide the bet by 10 and you will get the correct amount.

I know guys who have backed horses to win 20K with them and been knocked back.
 
Oaksnaf said:
I believe you can make money off roulette long term.

You just have to find an edge.

So does this make me a 'moron' Ferris_rules?

And if it doesn't make me a moron, then what is the purpose of your statement as it certainly doesn't do anything to discuss what the original post entailed.
Click to expand...

There is no edge in roulette.

Ever heard of a successful professional roulette player ?
Neither have I.
 
Daytripper said:
There is no edge in roulette.

Ever heard of a successful professional roulette player ?
Neither have I.
Click to expand...

Just because you haven't, doesn't mean there hasn' been.

There have been many documented cases in the world of roulette where punters have won large amounts on roulette over a period of time. And these cases have been reported in the press.

Here, just one off the top of my head.

Madrid
June 24, 2004


Spain's Supreme Court has ruled against a casino that sought to bar a fabulously successful roulette player who used a number-crunching system to predict where the ball would land.

Ending 10 years of litigation, the court ruled that Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo, a mathematician and record producer, had not cheated and that the Casino de Madrid could not deny him entry.

Working with a group of colleagues, Pelayo's trick was to write down the winning numbers of myriad roulette games, then have a computer digest them. The idea was that roulette wheels had tiny construction flaws, such as tilts, that favour certain numbers over others.

The casino, which denied entry to Garcia-Pelayo in 1992, was overruled by the government in 1994 and had been seeking ever since to reimpose the ban.

Garcia-Pelayo's crew won more than one million euros ($A1.77 million) from the Madrid casino, including 600,000 euros ($A1.06 million) in one day, the newspaper El Pais reported.
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy_the_Gent said:
I could imagine that.

Apparently they can also freeze your account if you go on an improbable winning streak, or they can set a bet max for you, if you keep killing them with huge wins.

Shifty stuff, I wonder if it's true.
Click to expand...

Its true.
Guaranteed.
 
Oaksnaf said:
Just because you haven't, doesn't mean there hasn' been.

There have been many documented cases in the world of roulette where punters have won large amounts on roulette over a period of time. And these cases have been reported in the press.

Here, just one off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

I would classify that as cheating (good luck to him if you can get away with it though) - not playing the numbers..
 
Many would classify card counting as cheating. Well the casino's do anyway.

But they were able to find an edge.

In the 80s some wheels were found to have flaws and favoured a certain section of the wheel. A group of punters there made a huge amount of money and they had to close the table.

You could probably create a good enough computer program to play against the pokie roulette machines as all they are, is an inbuilt random number generator.


Fact remains. You can beat roulette.
 
Oaksnaf said:
Fact remains. You can beat roulette.
Click to expand...
You can beat Roulette only if:
a) the probabilities of the ball landing in the numbers are non-uniform, and
b) you manage to work out which numbers are more likely to come up.

Even if both occur, the disproportionate odds still need to be disproportionate enough to overcome the edge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top