Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Gambling > Probability
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old 10-19-2004, 03:28 PM
young nut young nut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 157
Default Question on Roulette probability/strategy

Recently I had a discussion with one of my buddies about gambling in casinos. We got into the argument of what games are best to play, as in which games have the highest EV. I kept arguing that poker was had the highest +EV for me because I felt I had an edge because of my poker knowledge and strategy. He said that craps or black jack would be the best bet, simply because they have the least house advantage.

He then began to tell me a story about one of his friends father who took trips to vegas constantly. According to my buddy, he was told by his friends father about a roulette strategy that was a garunteed winner every time. I told him that this was statistically impossible, but he explained anyways:

He said the strategy goes like this:

Place the minimum bet that you want to gamble with on RED.
if you lose, double that bet and play RED again.
Keep doubling your bet until red hits, and then go back down to your minimum bet.

He explained that no matter how often you won loss, each time the wheel struck red, you would be exactly +1 more minimum bet.

I thought about this strategy and began to think he was right, but my instincts kept telling me that there had to be a flaw somewhere in this strategy. But the only two flaws I could come up with are these:

1. You would need a very very large bankroll to play this strategy to its fullest. Because given that your bets are doubling each failure, after 10 or so failures you are placing a very large bet on the table.

2. There will be a time where the wheel hits BLACK thirty times straight (although statiscially very rare, it will happen eventually) And by the 30th losing bet, you will be placing an enourmous amount of money on the table just to win back your initial small bet.

does anyone see other flaws in this strategy. I keep thinking to myself, if I had an enourmous bankroll to play with, this strategy would work every time. Because it seems to me that the only constraint on continued success would be to run out of money to bet with. I wish I could write a simple program to test this theory, but I am not very good with computers. Any thoughts / comments appreciated.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.