silly roulette system spam

[JoeTheJuggler]

So I've gotten an e-mail something like the following several times now:

Quote:

you know in roulete you can bet on blacks or reds. If you bet $1 on black and it goes black you win $1 but
if it goes red you loose your $1.
So I found a way you win everytime:

bet $1 on black if it goes black you win $1

now again bet $1 on black, if it goes red bet $3 on black, if it goes red again bet $8 on black,
if red again bet $20 on black, red again bet $52 on black (always multiple you previous lost bet around 2.5)
if now is black you win $52 so you have $104 and you bet:

$1 + $3 + $8 + $20 + $52 = $84 So you just won $20

now when you won you start with $1 on blacks again etc etc. its always bound to go black
eventually (it`s 50 / 50) so that way you eventually always win. But there`s a catch. If you
win too much (like $800 a day) casino will finally notice something and can ban
you. I was banned once on red games casino. So don`t be too greedy and don`t win more then $200
a day and you can do it for years. I think bigger casios know that trick so I play for real
money on smaller ones,

followed by a spam ad for a casino website.

So boiled down, this "system" just says "don't quit when you're behind, but quit when you're ahead". (Although instead of "quit" it talks about making a smaller bet, and instead of "don't quit" it recommends making a bet larger than your losings.)

The thing it gets wrong, though, is that the house has an advantage.

If they're actually paying out even money on red/black bets, their advantage is slight, but still there because the 0 is neither red nor black, so the odds of either red or black is slightly less than 1:2. ETA: Some wheels also have a 00 that is neither red or black, so the odds are even lower.

Why would anyone think this "system" is guaranteed to win? Even if the odds were really even (and the house didn't have an advantage), you could still lose more than you can afford to bet.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

followed by a spam ad for a casino website.

So boiled down, this "system" just says "don't quit when you're behind, but quit when you're ahead". (Although instead of "quit" it talks about making a smaller bet, and instead of "don't quit" it recommends making a bet larger than your losings.)

The thing it gets wrong, though, is that the house has an advantage.

If they're actually paying out even money on red/black bets, their advantage is slight, but still there because the 0 is neither red nor black, so the odds of either red or black is slightly less than 1:2. ETA: Some wheels also have a 00 that is neither red or black, so the odds are even lower.

Why would anyone think this "system" is guaranteed to win? Even if the odds were really even (and the house didn't have an advantage), you could still lose more than you can afford to bet.

I think the 0 doesn't play a role in the "even odds" cases, such as red/black and even/odd; you can leave your bet there for the next round. At least around here.

The classical scenario for using these is the doubling strategy. Place a $1 bet on red; if you lose, place $2 on red; then $4, etc. When red turns up, you earn $1. The advantage of the casino stems from another source here: there's a cap on your bet. If that cap is $1000, you can only place 10 bets this way, and when there's a row of 10 blacks, you lose $1023, end of story.

Note that the strategy in the email you got is even worse. It advocates multiplying your previous bet by 2.5, so you run up against the maximum bet even sooner.

Disclaimer: I have an MSc in math. There's a casino in my town. I've promised myself not to enter it until I have a winning strategy. I haven't been inside yet.

[CanadaGlass]

With an infinite bank roll, no table limit, and a house that is not allowed to refuse your bet, it would work. None of those three things are a reality, however.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Why would anyone think this "system" is guaranteed to win? Even if the odds were really even (and the house didn't have an advantage), you could still lose more than you can afford to bet.

Exactly. Not only is this system not guaranteed to win, it's actually guaranteed to lose your entire stake... because if you play long enough, you are certain to hit a string of bad luck that wipes you out.

You can only win (on average) if you have an advantage. But even if you have an advantage there is an optimal betting strategy given your stake and the time you have to play... and it's not this one.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by CanadaGlass

With an infinite bank roll, no table limit, and a house that is not allowed to refuse your bet, it would work. None of those three things are a reality, however.

With an infinite bank roll, I'd suggest investing it instead at 5%/year .

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by CanadaGlass

With an infinite bank roll, no table limit, and a house that is not allowed to refuse your bet, it would work. None of those three things are a reality, however.

The joke could yet be on them. Perhaps Obama should concentrate on tweaking the gaming laws rather than health care. No house limit or refusing bets to the President for example.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

With an infinite bank roll, I'd suggest investing it instead at 5%/year .

If you had an infinite stake couldn't you double your money any time you wanted simple by altering the order in which you counted it?

[CanadaGlass]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If you had an infinite stake couldn't you double your money any time you wanted simple by altering the order in which you counted it?

And I was going to ask what 5% of infinity was. I like your thinking better.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If you had an infinite stake couldn't you double your money any time you wanted simple by altering the order in which you counted it?

Good point. Might take a while, though.

Originally Posted by CanadaGlass

And I was going to ask what 5% of infinity was.

To use a technical term: a lot.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by CanadaGlass

And I was going to ask what 5% of infinity was. I like your thinking better.

Maybe I should write me some Financial Secrets THEY Don't Want You To Know type internet spam. No stealing my idea now!

[CanadaGlass]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Maybe I should write me some Financial Secrets THEY Don't Want You To Know type internet spam. No stealing my idea now!

THEY are the ultimate authority on everything, don't you know. I am glad to see it in all capitals, as most folks don't acknowledge THEY are just a legal fiction.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Good point. Might take a while, though.

Nonsense, I can just write "IOME all my money with even serial numbers" on one scrap of paper and "IOME all my money with odd serial numbers" on another scrap of paper. I had thought of paying an infinite number of people to count it for me, but that sounds expensive.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by ddt

I think the 0 doesn't play a role in the "even odds" cases, such as red/black and even/odd; you can leave your bet there for the next round. At least around here.

Yes, the 0 and 00 matter. They're possible results of a spin, meaning the chances of getting a red or a black is just less than 1:2, but the house is paying out even money.

Leaving your bet out there doesn't matter. Your odds of winning are less than 1:2, but the house pays as if it's exactly 1:2.

For example on an American wheel (with 0 and 00), the payout is 1:1, but the odds against winning one of these "even" bets (like red or black or even or odd or 1-18 versus 19-36) is 1.111 to 1.

That's how casinos stay in business.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by CanadaGlass

With an infinite bank roll, no table limit, and a house that is not allowed to refuse your bet, it would work. None of those three things are a reality, however.

It would also require a 4th thing to be a reality: for the house to give up its advantage. (That is, they'd have to pay $1.111 for every dollar bet or get rid of the 0 and 00.)

[CanadaGlass]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It would also require a 4th thing to be a reality: for the house to give up its advantage. (That is, they'd have to pay $1.111 for every dollar bet or get rid of the 0 and 00.)

Being slightly less likely to win does not defeat the betting system. I too have long known of this system with a straight doubling of the bet.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by CanadaGlass

Being slightly less likely to win does not defeat the betting system.

It's not about being slight less likely to win as much as it is that the payoff is never equivalent to the risk. Over time, no matter what "system" you use, the house will come out ahead.

Quote:

I too have long known of this system with a straight doubling of the bet.

And yet the casinos are doing just fine.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by CanadaGlass

Being slightly less likely to win does not defeat the betting system. I too have long known of this system with a straight doubling of the bet.

That's incorrect.

No matter what your betting strategy is, your expected earnings are always your advantage times the total amount of money you bet. Each bet is independent of every other bet, and it makes no difference at all what order you place them in (with an infinite bankroll, that is - with a finite bankroll things are even worse for you). If you play for a finite amount of time and bet a finite amount of money on a game where the house has an advantage, your expected earnings are negative regardless of your bank roll.

So, suppose you follow a strategy closely related to the one in the OP, except with an additional rule: quit when you're up by some pre-determined amount. Given an infinite bankroll, you might think you'd always achieve that amount eventually with a string of luck. But I think that's actually not the case - it looks to me like your probability of achieving that fixed amount is finite, and goes to zero very rapidly when the house's edge gets large. Plugging in numbers, if the house's edge is 1% and you're betting 1$, your odds of ever being up by more than $100 are very small, even if you play for an infinite amount of time.

[CanadaGlass]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And yet the casinos are doing just fine.

I assume you mean financially, and not morally.

On a side note, it is illegal to have an honest slot machine, since they must have a prescribed percentage payout. Furthermore, the way they work the math is different from how most players work theirs. The players count how much money they put in, not how many times they hit the spin button. Having eaten up their "payout" with extra spins, they think a payout should be "due" when it isn't.

[Dunstan]

Yeah, this is another variant of the Martingale betting system. One good description of it (and why it doesn't "work") is here

[ddt]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Yes, the 0 and 00 matter. They're possible results of a spin, meaning the chances of getting a red or a black is just less than 1:2, but the house is paying out even money.

Leaving your bet out there doesn't matter. Your odds of winning are less than 1:2, but the house pays as if it's exactly 1:2.

For example on an American wheel (with 0 and 00), the payout is 1:1, but the odds against winning one of these "even" bets (like red or black or even or odd or 1-18 versus 19-36) is 1.111 to 1.

That's how casinos stay in business.

You're right about American roulette, yes. French roulette (which is also the usual style in my country - note the "at least around here") has other rules. I checked with "Holland Casino" what their rules are. When you bet on 'red' and the outcome is 0, your bet is placed "en prison". When it's 'red' again, you get your bet back. Or you can ask the croupier to give back half your bet on the 0, which statistically amounts to the same.

So, the house has indeed a slight advantage on the 0, though a lot less than with American roulette. And they earn on the drinks and on the tips to the croupier.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by CanadaGlass

I assume you mean financially, and not morally.

On a side note, it is illegal to have an honest slot machine, since they must have a prescribed percentage payout. Furthermore, the way they work the math is different from how most players work theirs. The players count how much money they put in, not how many times they hit the spin button. Having eaten up their "payout" with extra spins, they think a payout should be "due" when it isn't.

I think it depends on your definition of "honest". The casinos even advertise their payoff rates on the slot machines. (And they're all less than 1.0! That is, the one with the "loosest slots" pays out something like 98 cents for every dollar put in.)

You can't blame the fact that some people think there's a system whereby they can somehow magically defeat the house advantage on the casinos.

The games are all honest in the sense we talk about an "honest die"--just that the house has an advantage. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist (or they'd have to charge a LOT for drinks!)

By your definition of honest, the casinos would lose money. If they had to pay out as much or more than they took in, there would be no money to pay for the games, the lights, the rent, etc. Anyone who thinks that's the state of affairs is a fool.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by ddt

You're right about American roulette, yes. French roulette (which is also the usual style in my country - note the "at least around here") has other rules. I checked with "Holland Casino" what their rules are. When you bet on 'red' and the outcome is 0, your bet is placed "en prison". When it's 'red' again, you get your bet back. Or you can ask the croupier to give back half your bet on the 0, which statistically amounts to the same.

So, the house has indeed a slight advantage on the 0, though a lot less than with American roulette. And they earn on the drinks and on the tips to the croupier.

And a slight advantage, in some games, is all it takes. The slot machines here are an example of that. Their advantage is very slight, but with high volume, the house is guaranteed to come out ahead.
_____

Dunstan, thanks for the link!

[Starthinker]

I always thought you were better off just taking your whole bankroll and just placing one bet with the whole amount on one color. You either double your money or walk away with nothing and you waste a lot less time.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Starthinker

I always thought you were better off just taking your whole bankroll and just placing one bet with the whole amount on one color. You either double your money or walk away with nothing and you waste a lot less time.

I occasionally follow the inverse of the "strategy" proposed in the OP: double every time you win, with a cutoff where you take your winnings and reset the bet. That way you gradually lose money - which means you stay a while and (hopefully) have fun - punctuated with rare moments where you win a lot.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I occasionally follow the inverse of the "strategy" proposed in the OP: double every time you win, with a cutoff where you take your winnings and reset the bet. That way you gradually lose money - which means you stay a while and (hopefully) have fun - punctuated with rare moments where you win a lot.

I think the strategy I follow is even better for my wallet. From a previous post:

Originally Posted by ddt

Disclaimer: I have an MSc in math. There's a casino in my town. I've promised myself not to enter it until I have a winning strategy. I haven't been inside yet.

[Yoink]

I suspect that casinos do better than the mere odds of the game would suggest: that is, while it is true that, say, roulette is set up to ensure that--all things being equal--the house comes out marginally ahead in any sufficiently long series of bets; in actual practice I suspect that the house does much better than that slight margin on the odds would suggest. I think the real advantage for the house is that when people win money they are likely to stay until they lose it again.

I wonder if anyone's done any studies on what percentage of the money that walks in to a casino walks out with the customers again? I'll bet its far more than the 2 or 3% that the odds would suggest.

[marting]

Originally Posted by ddt

I think the 0 doesn't play a role in the "even odds" cases, such as red/black and even/odd; you can leave your bet there for the next round. At least around here.
...
Disclaimer: I have an MSc in math. There's a casino in my town. I've promised myself not to enter it until I have a winning strategy. I haven't been inside yet.

i don't believe that is correct. If your bet was left on the red or black when a 0 came up and the next spin was treated de novo then there would be neither a player nor house advantage.

[marting]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Yes, the 0 and 00 matter. They're possible results of a spin, meaning the chances of getting a red or a black is just less than 1:2, but the house is paying out even money.

Leaving your bet out there doesn't matter. Your odds of winning are less than 1:2, but the house pays as if it's exactly 1:2.

For example on an American wheel (with 0 and 00), the payout is 1:1, but the odds against winning one of these "even" bets (like red or black or even or odd or 1-18 versus 19-36) is 1.111 to 1.

That's how casinos stay in business.

Not true. If a player's bet was left on red (or black) whenever 0 (or 00) came up the house percentage take would be zero. What you did not consider was that while the odds of winning are less than 1:2, so are the odds of losing as both are reduced equally.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by marting

i don't believe that is correct. If your bet was left on the red or black when a 0 came up and the next spin was treated de novo then there would be neither a player nor house advantage.

You're right. I didn't state it clearly, but I gave the actual rules for French roulette in post #20, and they differ from my recollection. They are better for the player than in American roulette, but which still give a house advantage.

[marting]

Originally Posted by ddt

... I gave the actual rules for French roulette in post #20, and they differ from my recollection. They are better for the player than in American roulette, but which still give a house advantage.

They sure are. What's worse, most Casinos here use both 0 and 00.

[drzeus99]

Quote:

I think the 0 doesn't play a role in the "even odds" cases, such as red/black and even/odd; you can leave your bet there for the next round. At least around here.
...
Disclaimer: I have an MSc in math. There's a casino in my town. I've promised myself not to enter it until I have a winning strategy. I haven't been inside yet.

Originally Posted by marting

i don't believe that is correct. If your bet was left on the red or black when a 0 came up and the next spin was treated de novo then there would be neither a player nor house advantage.

Problem is....if a 0 or 00 comes up, and you bet on red or black, you lose the bet (in American casinos, that is). That's the built in advantage they have.
Same with ODD or EVEN bets. You lose on 0 or 00

Same with betting on the numbers. There are 36 numbers, and they pay out 36-1 odds on hitting any of them. But there are 2 extra spaces on the wheel..the green 0 and 00, making for 38 total spots.

[Wowbagger]

If it were that easy, the casinos would have shut down roulette wheels a long time ago.


(That's how I usually respond to these sorts of claims, when I'm too lazy to work out the math, at first.)

[marting]

Originally Posted by drzeus99

Problem is....if a 0 or 00 comes up, and you bet on red or black, you lose the bet (in American casinos, that is). That's the built in advantage they have.
Same with ODD or EVEN bets. You lose on 0 or 00

Same with betting on the numbers. There are 36 numbers, and they pay out 36-1 odds on hitting any of them. But there are 2 extra spaces on the wheel..the green 0 and 00, making for 38 total spots.

You mean 35 to 1. A straight up win on a number pays $35 for each 1$ bet.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by marting

Not true. If a player's bet was left on red (or black) whenever 0 (or 00) came up the house percentage take would be zero.

I don't follow this. In an American casino, if you put $100 on red, and red doesn't come up (either black or 0 or 00), you lose your $100, right?

Quote:

What you did not consider was that while the odds of winning are less than 1:2, so are the odds of losing as both are reduced equally.

What? The odds of winning are slightly less than 1:2 (actually 18:38), which means that the odds of losing are slightly more than 1:2 (actually 20:38).
_______

Originally Posted by drzeus99

Problem is....if a 0 or 00 comes up, and you bet on red or black, you lose the bet (in American casinos, that is). That's the built in advantage they have.
Same with ODD or EVEN bets. You lose on 0 or 00

That's what I thought.

If you bet on any of these "even money" bets, there are 18 outcomes (of the possible 38) that are wins and 20 that are losses.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by marting

You mean 35 to 1. A straight up win on a number pays $35 for each 1$ bet.

That's right. The house pays out 35 to 1, but the odds against winning are 37 to 1. (1:38 probability of winning and 37:38 probability of losing.)

[marting]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I don't follow this.

Please review your response #13 to ddt's suggestion that bets were left on the red/black in the event 0 came up. You then stated:

Quote:

Leaving your bet out there doesn't matter.

Did you really mean to agree with ddt?

EDTA:
It appears you interpretted and ddt meant that bets "left there" were played according to French rules. I didn't pick up on this because of the comment 0 didn't matter.

[marting]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

That's right. The house pays out 35 to 1, but the odds against winning are 37 to 1. (1:38 probability of winning and 37:38 probability of losing.)

Right. For the 00/0 wheels at least.

[CardZeus]

In all the European casinos I've played in if you bet red or black and zero comes up, you lose half your stake. Not sure about American wheels with a double zero.

My strategy for roulette; pick a number (usually 0 for me) and just bet on it every spin. make sure you have enough for 37 bets and hope it appears more than once. Continue until broke

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by marting

It appears you interpretted and ddt meant that bets "left there" were played according to French rules. I didn't pick up on this because of the comment 0 didn't matter.

In either system, though, if you bet red or black and it comes up 0, the house's take is not zero. It's either the entire bet or half the bet. Making the same bet again doesn't remove the house's advantage. Your chance of winning is still slightly less than 1:2 (and your chance of losing is slightly more than 1:2).

Again, from the odds table (American roulette), while the house pays 1 to 1 on these "even money" bets, your odds against winning is actually 1.111 to 1.

I'm still not sure if you lose all or just half of your bet if you hit 0 or 00 (in the American game), but you still lose.

[Ambrosia]

while there might well be some system out there in math land to beat a roulette table, lets say we define "beat" to mean have a positive bankroll after some large number of spins e.g. a million, noones found it yet, if it does exist at all it will be *very* complex, and is unlikely to win all that much in the long run.

Human beings just don't understand random. Our brains are wired to find patterns in things and there are no patterns in random. IIRC casinos vastly increased the roulette takings by adding the board that shows the previous few results.

In a casino the only game offered where you can make a profit is poker. Playing vs other human players and not against the house. Though depending on how high the rake is it might not be possible to make a profit there either.

The house *always* wins in the end. They setup the odds in the games offered so that the house has a positive expectation. Even a very small edge in the houses favour will break any size of bankroll given enough time (aside from an infinite one of couirse)

Roulette is second only to slots in games that give the casinos the highest return, the edge the house has at even a European Roulette table is *huge*.