![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ages ago I read a little bit on this forum about roulette, and In seem to recall a strategy where one bets on all-black or all-red and then raises tehir bet everytime they lose, eventually winning the 50-50 chance, and making up for their lower bets, then going back down and startign again.
I dismissed this since roulette is regarded as a -ev game, no matter the strategy it can't be profitable I figured. Recently I've been thinking about this alot, and I can't seem to figure out why that strategy doesn't work. It can't possibly work or everyone would use it. Can anyone enlighten me? Sorry if this has been discussed, didn't see anything bout it on the first page. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It doesnt work because you dont have unlimited money to double the bet forever when you lose.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Betting on red or black is not a 50-50 proposition because there are one or two green spots on the wheel. Your true odds are something like 48% (red) - 48% (black) - 4% (green), so the house would need to pay you 52-1 on red or black to make the bet even odds.
This is the same as someone who bets the same number every time. There are 38 spots, but you only get 35 to 1 on your money, so if you hit 1 time out of 38, you will only have 36 to show for it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes but you don't need an infinite bankroll, a 48% chance will come up pretty darn quick.
Bet $10 on black, lose $10 Bet $30 on black, lose $40 Bet $90 on black, win total of about $80 (not sure what the payout is on a colour bet, never actually played, see the question at the end) Other than the fact that variance might eventually lose you 5 or 6 in a row it seems bullet-proof even though coming an expect value view point it just can't be. I want the to see the flaw in the system clearly. Whats the pay put on black or red? 1-1? Or worse? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This has been dicussed many, many times on here and lots of other places. Do a search for "martingale" either on here or on google.
The short answer is that even though intuitively it seems really "unlikely" that you will hit a long enough losing streak to wipe you out, eventually you will. With a simple bet on black, you have a medium chance of winning a bit, and a slightly larger chance of losing a bit. Employing a martingale strategy gives you a large chance of winning a small amount, and a small chance of losing a very large amount. In the end, you still get the exact same EV. The fallacy of the martingale is essentially that we humans have a hard time understanding very small numbers - in our mind, a 0.0001% chance of losing seems "impossible", but its not and it will happen. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks, that's excactly the reply i needed, will be googling around on this for a few hours now. Do casino's mind use of this strategy? Is it more profitable that regular roulette play?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
Ages ago I read a little bit on this forum about roulette, and In seem to recall a strategy where one bets on all-black or all-red and then raises tehir bet everytime they lose, eventually winning the 50-50 chance, and making up for their lower bets, then going back down and startign again. I dismissed this since roulette is regarded as a -ev game, no matter the strategy it can't be profitable I figured. Recently I've been thinking about this alot, and I can't seem to figure out why that strategy doesn't work. It can't possibly work or everyone would use it. Can anyone enlighten me? Sorry if this has been discussed, didn't see anything bout it on the first page. [/ QUOTE ] you would just be extending the varience on each bet, the ev just as bad. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
Yes but you don't need an infinite bankroll, a 48% chance will come up pretty darn quick. Bet $10 on black, lose $10 Bet $30 on black, lose $40 Bet $90 on black, win total of about $80 (not sure what the payout is on a colour bet, never actually played, see the question at the end) Other than the fact that variance might eventually lose you 5 or 6 in a row it seems bullet-proof even though coming an expect value view point it just can't be. I want the to see the flaw in the system clearly. Whats the pay put on black or red? 1-1? Or worse? [/ QUOTE ] eventually you will see 10 striaght blacks or reds, and your bankroll is gone, simple ev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, that's excactly the reply i needed, will be googling around on this for a few hours now. Do casino's mind use of this strategy? Is it more profitable that regular roulette play? [/ QUOTE ] ....uh???? did you read his post or not? EVERY BET ON A COLOR IN ROULETE HAS THE SAME EV. all you are doing is changing varience. Even after reading his post your brain still couldnt understand that eventually thar 0.00001 percent chance will happen. AND NO CASINOS DONT CARE THEY LIKE YOUR MONEY |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
Do casino's mind use of this strategy? [/ QUOTE ] Absolutely not. They will welcome it and may even give you better comps if you seem comitted to it. [ QUOTE ] Is it more profitable that regular roulette play? [/ QUOTE ] No, you will lose more money simply because you will be betting more than if you simply played the min bet every time. The most "profitable" roulette strategy is to simply not play at all. The second best strategy (the one that loses the minimum) is to play the smallest bet possible and play as infrequently as possible. |
![]() |
|
|