You can't lose!
I can't wait till I'm old enough to go to Vegas!
My friend showed me this strategy for winning at Roulette. It looks pretty good but can anyone tell me if it actually works?
Bet on Black, if you win then that is good, if you lose double your bet.
You just keep doubling your bet if you lose and eventually when you win you always make money.
Hi guys sorry to be the bearer of bad news but there is a problem with always doubling your bet when you lose.
It is quite possible that you could lose 4 or 5 time in a row, in fact there is a better than 6% chance that you will lose 4 times in a row and better than 3% chance you will lose 5 times in a row. And of course it is entirely possible to lose 10 times in a row.
Let us tart out with a minimum bet of $20 and keep doublig 10 times
Bet #1 $20
Bet #2 $40
Bet #3 $80
Bet #4 $160
Bet #5 $320 <--it grows quickly doesn't it?
Bet #6 $640
Bet #7 $1280
Bet #8 $2560
Bet #9 $5120
Bet #10 $10240
On your 10th Bet you will have to bet $10,240 and don't forget you have already spent $10,220 so even if you win your net gain is only $20 and you have risked over $20,000! Not worth the payout.
The problem is that when you go to Las Vegas they have minimum of $20 bets on red or black. Also don't forget that the chances are not 50% because of zero and double zero. Lastly, Roulette tables always have table mins and maxs that stop you from being able to double your bet many times.
This is not a good strategy.
You would be surprised. The pattern of doubling you've started is comprised of the powers of two.
Continuing from $128 (7th round or 2^6):
Admittedly, the odds of losing that many times consecutively is minute, as MathMan pointed out. Of course, if you do win, you only win 100 pennies for you trouble (another thing MathMan observed).
There are three things that keep you from succeeding:Originally Posted by Math Wiz
1. House limits or table limits will keep you from doubling up indefinitely.
2. Even if there were no table limits, you might go broke before you recovered your last loss.
3. Even if you had infinitely deep pockets and there were no house limits, you would not be able to change the odds (which are in favor of the house, due to the 0 and/or 00) with any strategy that uses past information, because any roulette strategy results in a sequence of random results that is still a martingale, after adding back the expected loss.
A typical game play is shown in the picture below. We did fine for about 400 bets and then went broke before recovering our loss.
So forget about this particular strategy for getting rich. It does allow you to play for a long time, though.
If I had a casino, I would arrange roulette game without zero, i.e. with fair odds for the players! My profit would come only from the fact that gamblers have limited budgets and are forced to quit gambling when their losses are at the maximum. Assuming that my pockets as casino are deeper than my gamblers!
a better strategy would be to double after every loss but instead of betting on red/black bet on 1-12 (1:3) odds this way u win more than just a marginal amount
or u could do what i did and cover 34 out of the 38 #s on the table (89% success) i ended up winning 14 times straight.
$18 on 1-18 (1:2 odds)
$13 on 25-36 (1:3odds)
$4 on 20/21/23/24 (1:9odds)
the big catch is though if u lose u lose $35!!
unfortuntely w table max $1000: $28.571 win using this strategy
still if one goes to the casino w this strategy EVERYDAY and wins an average of 2 hands per day --> $50.00profit per day --> Apprx $18,000 per year!!
of course the big downside is a possible $1000 loss if u lose!!
Here's why this method doesn't work:
I believe hpe covered this in his 3rd point (I just thought I'd elaborate).
Say if you had $100 and you wanted to double that money, you would have a better chance of doing so by simply putting it all on Red at the start rather then repeating this process with $1 at a time because every time you bet, you have a slightly larger chance of loosing due to the Green Zero (Some casinos have a double zero in addition) and so the more times you bet the greater your chance becomes of loosing overall. Concluding that the best way to make money (even though it is not a good way) would be to do it in as few plays as possible as the odds are not in your favour.
Just to cover from another perspective; say that you only wanted to double $1 with this method, this would also not be worth doing as your having to pay every turn you loose for the chance to play again and your having to make up for the odds by doubling the money (which is more money then you should be paying anyway because of the uneven odds). I know it sounds good but if you work it out, you’re really not bettering your chances of winning any amount of money. The fact of the matter is, gambling is never worth it because the odds are against you (If you have to play, do it in as little bets as possible).
One of the myths about the origin of chess tells the story of King Sjeram of India. He was not a good king and one of the Court nobles created a game in order to send a message to the king. The game should demonstrate that the king was of no avail without his officers and his people. King Sjeram took in the meaning, and he was so pleased with the new game that he promised the inventive genius to gratify his greatest wish. The wise man turned out to be very modest. He only asked for some wheat from the royal storerooms: one grain of wheat on the first square of the chessboard, two times one = two grains on the second square, two times two = four grains on the third square, two times four = eight grains on the fourth square etc. on the 64 squares of the board. The king agreed thinking that he was let off cheaply, but the amount of wheat for the reward proved impossible to deliver: 922.337.203.685 metric tons. To amass that huge quantity you would have to put the whole world under wheat eight times and harvest the same number of crops! The power of the innocently looking 64 squares is illustrated by André Vlaanderen in his bookplate for the English collector Reginald G. E. Stainforth
PS. Don't underestimate the power of doubling