Question on Roulette probability/strategy

[magiluke]

I mean, reduce how much we lose according to the expected value. We tried systems that used the thirds, systems that used the 50/50s, streets, different incrementing systems; we couldn't get a positive expected value, just increase it depending on where we stopped and how we bet...

[jason1990]

I think what MicroBob was getting at is this: (1) the net EV of any two bets is always the sum of the EV's of the individual bets, and (2) the EV of any bet on the roulette table is -1/19 times the amount bet. (Well, actually the quint bet has a worse EV, but it's the only exception. Let's just assume you never play the quint bet, which is a bet on 0-00-1-2-3.) So, no matter how you place your chips on the table, your EV is -1/19 times the amount you have on the table. You cannot change this no matter what you do.

As for stopping strategies, the situation is similar. The total amount you bet in a session, call it N, is determined by your strategy and is based on the outcome of the spins of the wheel. So it's random and it has an EV, call it E[N]. Then the EV of your net winnings in the session is simply (-1/19)*E[N].

What you can change, though, is your variance. And there are many ways to do this by playing various different combinations of bets.

[young nut]

So, in actuality, the max bet on a roulette table is what gives the house the statistical odds? (Would that be a correct assumption)

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
different incrementing systems; we couldn't get a positive expected value, just increase it depending on where we stopped and how we bet...


[/ QUOTE ]



Different Incrementing Systems will not change ANYTHING.

Stopping where and when you bet doesn't change ANYTHING.

The more you bet, the more you lose. Varying the size of your bets does not change this.

If you think you were changing the amount that you could win or lose by doubling-up on one bet and cutting it in half the next bet, etc etc then you are very mistaken and your calculations were wrong.

[MicroBob]

The max-bet and your inability to ever hold an infinite-bankroll makes your particular system ineffective.


But the house's statistical odds just comes from paying out less than the odds of the occurance happening.
If you bet an inside-number on double-0 roulette it will have a 1 in 38 chance of hitting yet it only pays 35:1.
If this 1 in 38 occurance paid-out 40:1 then the advantage would be for the player.


Some people look at the 0 and 00 as the reason the house has such an edge. Without the green zero's then many of the roulette bets are essentially even-money.
But really it's not the fault of the green zeros. You could keep the zero's and remove number 17 and 25 and accomplish the same result.


If we were flipping a coin and you paid me $2 every time it landed heads and I paid you $1.50 every time it landed tails then eventually I would do pretty well because your paying more and than you are going to take in on this 50-50 occurance.
Roulette is little more than the same coin-flipping bit just using a few more numbers.

[TomCollins]

There was a professional roulette player on the board here a few months back. But he could watch the wheel and figure out where the ball would stop. I think hes selling the NL Party Poker strategy now.

[MrBlini]

No, the house has excellent odds on every single bet. It makes money statistically no matter what the wager. That there are 38 possible outcomes and that the house pays as if there were 36 is what gives the house the advantage in roulette.

The maximum bet is a tool to manage variance, not expectation. It is designed to minimize the house's day-to-day variance and to protect it from ruin. (With no maximum bet, a doubling system could be used in reverse to try to break the house, and most gambling houses want a 0% risk of ruin, even if they would make more money statistically by taking a greater risk.)