Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Math Help - Roulette Strategy

  1. #16
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by lorenzolama View Post
    doubling up till u win is a pretty good strategy for any gambling game but needs a lot of bank roll i've already witnessed red show up 15 times in a row so that's a lot of double ups. my best tip for u is to find conssistancy and change strategy once in a while. 1 strategy can work for a certain amount of time untill u have to change. also check on other players u are having hot streaks. watch how they play...try to c what kind of math they use or strategy. There is a lot of math involved and a lot of sequencing...if u can calculate 15 numbers inside your head and also using sequencing and organization of numbers then u'll be an awesome player....this is just a tip. try not to get too greedy and also get addicted. $20- $30 a day is good enough. remember attitude is important. it's suppose to be fun..."there's a saying making money doesn't have to be boring" and u can't be a millionaire over night. we should chat sometime
    Roulette is set up so that in the long run you will lose whatever strategy you
    use with probability 1.

    Casino owners are like bookies, they don't like to play games that you have a
    winning strategy for. If they have such games they don't allow players to
    use the winning strategy (they habitually ask card counters to leave).

    Remember a casino is a business, it is set up to make money for the owners
    not to gamble.

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #17
    Senior Member topher0805's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    From
    Vancouver
    Posts
    336
    I'm pretty sure that this strategy not only is risky, it also is not very profitable. The most money you can ever win is the amount of your original bet.

    Bet 1: You bet 20, most you can win is 20.

    Bet 2: You bet 40, and if you win 40 you have already lost 20 so your net gain is 20.

    Bet 3: You bet 80, if you win 80 you have already lost 60 so your net gain is 20.

    Bet 4: You bet 160, if you win 160 you have already lost 140 so your net gain is 20.

    This pattern will continue forever. And since there is usually a max bet at a table, you would be hard pressed to actually make any kind of profit from this strategy.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #18
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by topher0805 View Post
    I'm pretty sure that this strategy not only is risky, it also is not very profitable. The most money you can ever win is the amount of your original bet.

    Bet 1: You bet 20, most you can win is 20.

    Bet 2: You bet 40, and if you win 40 you have already lost 20 so your net gain is 20.

    Bet 3: You bet 80, if you win 80 you have already lost 60 so your net gain is 20.

    Bet 4: You bet 160, if you win 160 you have already lost 140 so your net gain is 20.

    This pattern will continue forever. And since there is usually a max bet at a table, you would be hard pressed to actually make any kind of profit from this strategy.

    This strategy has been proposed a number of times already at least once in
    this thread (I can't be bothered to check).

    It is known to lose, so why play it (In fact why play roulette at all other
    than for entertainment for which you are paying) at all?

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #19
    Newbie
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2
    This is called the martingale strategy:

    Martingale (betting system) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    and it is ultimately not effective because of house limits and because it is a fallacy to assume you have an infinite bankroll
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #20
    Newbie
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1

    I earned money with this

    I earned 300$ in half an hour by betting max on 0 everytime and 5 on all the first 18 small or so same everytime total 100 times and hits 0 3 times and kept my money home on the small diggets and win on the 0
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #21
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by theshark View Post
    I earned 300$ in half an hour by betting max on 0 everytime and 5 on all the first 18 small or so same everytime total 100 times and hits 0 3 times and kept my money home on the small diggets and win on the 0
    Okay now do this strategy again at least 20 more times.
    If you keep on winning then you migh have a strategy.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #22
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by theshark View Post
    I earned 300$ in half an hour by betting max on 0 everytime and 5 on all the first 18 small or so same everytime total 100 times and hits 0 3 times and kept my money home on the small diggets and win on the 0
    Now go back and try this again and let us know how you did.

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #23
    Newbie
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3
    A doubling strategy doesn't work. hpe's post had a pretty good graph illustrating the long term flaw of it.


    But it is possible to win on roulette. But you need to be much smarter than you or me :P.


    On a 0-36 numbered wheel the house has about a 5% winning margin on the condition that the numbers are completely random. But how random are the numbers?

    The wheel, ball, casino worker are all the same. While those things stay the same there will be some sort of correlation about how the numbers change. It doesn't need to be a strong correlation since the house only has about a 5% advantage to beat.

    For example, betting on numbers you statistically hit every 37 spins (on a European wheel). You'd only need to increase it to every 35 spins to draw even.



    After a quick search I found cases where people claim to have taken advantage of this to win. But I am suspicious, unless you have an ultra consistent person working at the table it seems like a task too high.

    Online casinos would be interesting for this, if there was some flaw in their random number generating algorithm so that certain numbers came up slightly more than others people could probably make money from it. Since unlike real casinos the conditions of play never change. (dont change, alter equipment or have workers changing shifts)
    Last edited by IRSISRSRI; September 30th 2008 at 02:17 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #24
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    From
    Earth
    Posts
    1,599
    ^ Sorry my friend but I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

    I see how it's possible to think of "human contact" with the roulette game somehow decreases the randomness of the numbers, but it just isn't so.

    The wheel and ball spin for a long enough time after the dealer starts the spin that there's just no way to control it. Even if the dealer tried to spin the wheel and toss the ball in at the exact same second every time, the wheel is spinning the opposite direction that the ball is tossed and is subject to so many tiny changes.

    I bet if you did a study of roulette numbers over a significant sample size you would find that they fall just about even.

    As for online casinos, RNG technology is amazing these days and I've seen studies done in online poker rooms along with my own statistics I keep on my computer that there's absolutely no reason to believe the RNG will favor certain numbers.
    Last edited by Jameson; September 30th 2008 at 03:42 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #25
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by IRSISRSRI View Post
    A doubling strategy doesn't work. hpe's post had a pretty good graph illustrating the long term flaw of it.


    But it is possible to win on roulette. But you need to be much smarter than you or me :P.


    On a 0-36 numbered wheel the house has about a 5% winning margin on the condition that the numbers are completely random. But how random are the numbers?

    The wheel, ball, casino worker are all the same. While those things stay the same there will be some sort of correlation about how the numbers change. It doesn't need to be a strong correlation since the house only has about a 5% advantage to beat.

    For example, betting on numbers you statistically hit every 37 spins (on a European wheel). You'd only need to increase it to every 35 spins to draw even.



    After a quick search I found cases where people claim to have taken advantage of this to win. But I am suspicious, unless you have an ultra consistent person working at the table it seems like a task too high.

    Online casinos would be interesting for this, if there was some flaw in their random number generating algorithm so that certain numbers came up slightly more than others people could probably make money from it. Since unlike real casinos the conditions of play never change. (dont change, alter equipment or have workers changing shifts)
    Ask yourself this question: "How large a sample of spins do I have to observe to determine with any confidence that the distribution of results differs usably from uniform".

    Now the "Newtonian Casino" claims it is possible to track the ball/wheel in real time sufficiently accurately to increase you chance of winning, but when I read the book it seemed to me that the only real money they made out of this was from sales of the book (and I believe that the equipment they used means that what they did is construed as cheating and is seriously frowned upon by casino operators).

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #26
    Newbie
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson View Post
    ^ Sorry my friend but I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

    I see how it's possible to think of "human contact" with the roulette game somehow decreases the randomness of the numbers, but it just isn't so.

    The wheel and ball spin for a long enough time after the dealer starts the spin that there's just no way to control it. Even if the dealer tried to spin the wheel and toss the ball in at the exact same second every time, the wheel is spinning the opposite direction that the ball is tossed and is subject to so many tiny changes.

    I bet if you did a study of roulette numbers over a significant sample size you would find that they fall just about even.

    As for online casinos, RNG technology is amazing these days and I've seen studies done in online poker rooms along with my own statistics I keep on my computer that there's absolutely no reason to believe the RNG will favor certain numbers.
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainBlack View Post
    Ask yourself this question: "How large a sample of spins do I have to observe to determine with any confidence that the distribution of results differs usably from uniform".

    Now the "Newtonian Casino" claims it is possible to track the ball/wheel in real time sufficiently accurately to increase you chance of winning, but when I read the book it seemed to me that the only real money they made out of this was from sales of the book (and I believe that the equipment they used means that what they did is construed as cheating and is seriously frowned upon by casino operators).

    RonL

    I'll pitch a simpler example. But I think you both understood what I meant. I just probably should have put it in my initial post.


    Say you bet on the flip of a coin, but I only pay you 90% of your risk per win. Statistically you win 90% of your investment.

    But what if 60% of the time I flip the coin it lands the same side up as when I tossed it because of the action I use, and you know what side I am flipping it from. You should statistically win 108% your investment.

    I agree with you both. That firstly any correlation will be weak, and it will take a large sample to produce predictions. I said myself I was suspicious of claims that people can get it working.

    It's simply approaching the problem from a different perspective. It is unlikely to use it successfully, and if so for so little profit margin maybe you should have spent that time getting a job, you'd make much more >_>

    About online Casinos. I agree they RNG are far too sophisticated to be cracked, maybe if we went back in time to the beginnings of online casinos it would be a better argument. But anyone who has programed before should know random numbers are never truly random.

    But it's still mathematically interesting (well not really because there's no sample of results to analyze <_<)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #27
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    From
    Earth
    Posts
    1,599
    I'll just speak for myself when I saw I "get" the idea of using small details to gain a slight edge, but what I was saying is that you have no real reason to believe that a roulette wheel has skewed output at ALL, even if you are trying to only gain 5%. How do you justify that it's not a random sample over a significant sample size?

    As for online RNG's, the good ones now use unpredictable physical processes to generate numbers, not line of code. You are correct that the latter way isn't truly random.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #28
    Grand Panjandrum
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    someplace
    Posts
    14,972
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson View Post
    I'll just speak for myself when I saw I "get" the idea of using small details to gain a slight edge, but what I was saying is that you have no real reason to believe that a roulette wheel has skewed output at ALL, even if you are trying to only gain 5%. How do you justify that it's not a random sample over a significant sample size?
    I beleive this is the gist of what I was trying to say

    (also, if this had any chance of working the Casino can eliminate it by changing croupiers, balls, or whatever at regular or irregular intervals)

    RonL
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #29
    Newbie
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jameson View Post
    but what I was saying is that you have no real reason to believe that a roulette wheel has skewed output at ALL
    Well it's impossible for a system to ever be truly random, especially a system with user input. Using the coin example, mathematically random, but not random in the real world.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #30
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    From
    Earth
    Posts
    1,599
    Ok, point taken. Still, there are too many variables that decide the output of the roulette wheel. Even if you were able to list them all and somehow come up with a PERFECT set of equations that govern the whole system from start to finish, there's no way to calculate them in your head while in a casino and take notice of an extremely small difference the wheel was outputting versus a perfectly random output.

    Card counting has so many less variables and is still incredibly hard.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

LinkBacks (?)


Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Problem-Solving Strategy
    Posted in the Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 20th 2012, 08:19 AM
  2. Strategy games
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 24th 2011, 12:56 AM
  3. sampling strategy
    Posted in the Advanced Statistics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 6th 2010, 12:45 AM
  4. expected value strategy
    Posted in the Advanced Statistics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 10th 2010, 09:12 AM
  5. pure strategy
    Posted in the Advanced Applied Math Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 16th 2008, 01:24 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum