Thread: Another Roulette probability

So say i bet $200 when red comes up. If i win i will quit, if I lose I will bet a second time of $400. Regardless the outcome, I will quit after 2nd time. Assume I have a probability of 1/2 wining each bet. What is the probabilty I go home as a winner? Why is this system not in use?

Originally Posted by weakmath

So say i bet $200 when red comes up. If i win i will quit, if I lose I will bet a second time of $400. Regardless the outcome, I will quit after 2nd time. Assume I have a probability of 1/2 wining each bet. What is the probabilty I go home as a winner? Why is this system not in use?

The probability that you go home a winner is .

But consider the following .....

Let X be the random variable amount of winnings. The possible values of X are $200 and -$600.

1. Calculate E(X).

2. The probability of winning on red is not 1/2 in any casino I've ever visited.

There are 37 unique values on a roulette wheel
18 are coloured Red, 18 are coloured Black & 1 Green (Zero)
The house edge is 2.7% (of every $100 wagered the Casino can expect to keep $2.70)

The Table Limit (maximum wager by a single player) is typically much less than 36 x minimum wager.
Typical payback is 35:1, so even if you could cover 36 spots your pay back is always -1

A RED / BLACK strategy will never work in the long run (18/37)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Casino's know there are no fool proof systems for winning, but love fools who prove it

Since I am new to math, I won't try to describe mathematically why you can't win at roulette, but I can describe a little experiment I tried. I used a computer program and ran all kinds of betting strategies. I found that with a decent stake up front, say 10,000 and a conservative betting strategy, I could consistently make money playing the odds on red or black. So, I decided to check out a local casino (I live right by some very large casinos). I went to the roulette wheel and watched for a while.

Guess what? It doesn't matter what the computer simulation showed me. It left out the fact that I would have to sit for hours around a bunch of grungy losers who are all smoking huge quantities of cigarrettes and losing their rent money. It's certainly possible to make a respectable dollar/hr average, but the working conditions in that particular occupation are horrible.

And if you try to beat your system, win fast and get out? You end up a grungy loser gambling your rent money and smoking huge quantities of cigarrettes.

This direct observation of the game really needs to be in any math formula related to roulette.

Originally Posted by Berkeley

Since I am new to math, I won't try to describe mathematically why you can't win at roulette, but I can describe a little experiment I tried. I used a computer program and ran all kinds of betting strategies. I found that with a decent stake up front, say 10,000 and a conservative betting strategy, I could consistently make money playing the odds on red or black. So, I decided to check out a local casino (I live right by some very large casinos). I went to the roulette wheel and watched for a while.

Guess what? It doesn't matter what the computer simulation showed me. It left out the fact that I would have to sit for hours around a bunch of grungy losers who are all smoking huge quantities of cigarrettes and losing their rent money. It's certainly possible to make a respectable dollar/hr average, but the working conditions in that particular occupation are horrible.

And if you try to beat your system, win fast and get out? You end up a grungy loser gambling your rent money and smoking huge quantities of cigarrettes.

This direct observation of the game really needs to be in any math formula related to roulette.

Go and check:

1. You simulation to make sure it is simulating the game as played

2. You psuedo-random number generator

(Casino owners are pretty confident you cannot do what you claim for your simulations, in fact they are prepared to bet on it, and they don't gamble!)

CB

Originally Posted by CaptainBlack

Go and check:

1. You simulation to make sure it is simulating the game as played

2. You psuedo-random number generator

(Casino owners are pretty confident you cannot do what you claim for your simulations, in fact they are prepared to bet on it, and they don't gamble!)

CB

I think you're missing the point.

Originally Posted by Berkeley

I think you're missing the point.

I'd say CaptainBlack has scored a direct bullseye hitting the point. The point being that it's very doubtful that your simulation is correctly simulating the real life situation.

Originally Posted by Berkeley

Since I am new to math, I won't try to describe mathematically why you can't win at roulette, but I can describe a little experiment I tried. I used a computer program and ran all kinds of betting strategies. I found that with a decent stake up front, say 10,000 and a conservative betting strategy, I could consistently make money playing the odds on red or black. So, I decided to check out a local casino (I live right by some very large casinos). I went to the roulette wheel and watched for a while.

[snip]
It's certainly possible to make a respectable dollar/hr average [snip] Mr F says: If you mean making it by betting on the roulette wheel (which is what this thread is discussing) then you are wrong. Period.
[snip]

Try www.wizardofodds.com

Originally Posted by mr fantastic

I'd say CaptainBlack has scored a direct bullseye hitting the point. The point being that it's very doubtful that your simulation is correctly simulating the real life situation.

It's assumed that one is playing either red or black or odd or even. The wheel in either a computer simulation with random generation or the actual roulette wheel in the casino is still going to hit one of those 50% of the time minus the two greens (0 or 00) on an American wheel.

I said he was missing the point, because the point was that in reality, sitting in the casino using a betting strategy that's making say $40/h is not a pleasant experience, and it's not going to make a person rich. In fact, to play roulette with a strategy that works may be one of the worst jobs in the world, unless one is a complete dolt who doesn't mind literally wasting their life away in a casino. And that kind of person is not the kind of person who posesses the risk-taking personality to gamble in the first place. People gamble to get rich quick.

Originally Posted by Berkeley

It's assumed that one is playing either red or black or odd or even. The wheel in either a computer simulation with random generation or the actual roulette wheel in the casino is still going to hit one of those 50% of the time minus the two greens (0 or 00) on an American wheel.

I said he was missing the point, because the point was that in reality, sitting in the casino using a betting strategy that's making say $40/h is not a pleasant experience, and it's not going to make a person rich. In fact, to play roulette with a strategy that works may be one of the worst jobs in the world, unless one is a complete dolt who doesn't mind literally wasting their life away in a casino. And that kind of person is not the kind of person who posesses the risk-taking personality to gamble in the first place. People gamble to get rich quick.

There is no betting strategy on roulette in a casino such that your expected winnings is greater than or equal to zero. Period. Finito. Your simulation is wrong.

Originally Posted by mr fantastic

There is no betting strategy on roulette in a casino such that your expected winnings is greater than or equal to zero. Period. Finito. Your simulation is wrong.

Yep mr. fantastic right. There is no system to winning in roulette. I should know I'm in gambling anonymous classes lol. I have lost 4 thousand in 30 minutes and many more thousands. The only advice I can give for roulette is that numbers tend to repeat and if you play lets say 27 and 3 is above and 35 is below 27 on the wheel play those numbers as well because the ball tends to jump out and may land on those numbers. Just to repeat again, there is no system that helps wins in roulette.

Originally Posted by Berkeley

I think you're missing the point.

Which point would that be? You make a mathematical claim in your post; that you have a valid simulation of roulette and a "system" that consistently wins in that simulation.

As we know that it is impossible for you to have a winning system for roulette, we conclude that either your simulation is invalid, or that you have not run the experiment properly and are just seeing the effects of the enormous variability that you can get with the simulation or you are not telling the truth.

And that is the point of my post!

CB

Originally Posted by Berkeley

I said he was missing the point, because the point was that in reality, sitting in the casino using a betting strategy that's making say $40/h is not a pleasant experience, and it's not going to make a person rich. In fact, to play roulette with a strategy that works may be one of the worst jobs in the world, unless one is a complete dolt who doesn't mind literally wasting their life away in a casino. And that kind of person is not the kind of person who posesses the risk-taking personality to gamble in the first place. People gamble to get rich quick.

The same argument would apply to working in MacDonnalds, or teaching high school or almost all "normal" jobs.

CB