Beating the Casino Edge with a Solid Betting Strategy?

[DoomSlice]

I havn't thought the math out on this one, and I really just want to get it down on "paper" while it is fresh in my mind. So feel free to tear me apart if this is totally wrong. Ok here goes.

Let's say you are playing a Casino game where the House has an inherent edge, like a roulette table. I start by placing a $1 bet on Black. If I win, I take my profit and on the next hand I bet $1 again. Now let's say I lose this time. Instead of betting $1 on Black, this time I double my bet and place $2 on black. Now if I win this time, I start at $1 again. If I lose again, the next time I bet $4, and so on and so on.

Now it would seem that if you found a game that had a small enough House edge, you'd be able to play this as a winning strategy since EVENTUALLY you'd be gauranteed to win your exponentially expanding bet and net a profit of $1 per "series". No?

This seems to go against all common sense, so someone prove me wrong with some math!

[AaronBrown]

If you really could double forever, it would be a great strategy. You'd just tell the house to keep spinning and giving you credit until you won, then you'd go out and enjoy yourself.

But you will hit a limit due either to the table limit or lack of funds. Suppose you start with $1,023. You bet $1 on red using this system. The list below shows the probability that the indicated spin will be your first red, 47% chance of red on the first, 25% chance of black on the first and red on the second, 13% chance of two blacks and then a red; and so on.

1 0.4737
2 0.2493
3 0.1312
4 0.0691
5 0.0363
6 0.0191
7 0.0101
8 0.0053
9 0.0028
10 0.0015
More 0.0016

As long as a red comes up on the first 10 spins, you make $1. But 0.16% of the time, you get 10 blacks in a row and lose $1,023. Your last bet was $512, you can't bet $1,024 either because it's above the table limit or you're out of money (by the way, you'll have trouble finding even a 1,000:1 bet range at a table).

Your expected loss is $0.67. You'll average 613 wins in between losses, but when you lose $1,023, it wipes out the $613 and more.

[DoomSlice]

Those darn casinos thought of everything, didn't they?

Thanks for clearing this up for me, I'll just have to keep looking for other loopholes in other games... Keno? Bingo?

[Rolen]

"If you can suppose an infinate bankroll, I can suppose infinate losses" - Someone

[KKbluff]

Google "martingale theory"

[SheetWise]

Here's some solid wagering advice -

"Don't bet more than you want to win."

[octop]

keno
lmfao

A buddy of mine and I tried this out with roulette back in college . . . it didn't work. Its not just a question of infinite backroll to cover your swings, the casinos also put a max bet on the table in proportion to the minimum bet allowed. With incremental betting, you will only have about 10 spins until you hit the table max. This happened to my friend and I twice in one session.

[winky51]

What if the bets were minimalized for profit and extent of time. For example:

bet $1 lose TOTAL LOSS $1
bet $1.25 lose TOTAL LOSS $2,25
bet $2.50 lose TOTAL LOSS $3.75
bet $4 lose TOTAL LOSS $7.75
bet $8 lose TOTAL LOSS $15.75

So on. Your betting and winning less but you can extend the streak longer. I figure its the same results.

[Gabe]

works like a charm.

ps let's keep this to ourselves, so don't tell anybody.