My fathers addiction with roulette. How can I disprove his belief?

[TStoneMBD]

My father has a bit of a gambling problem. He believes that he can beat the game of roulette and was trying to convince me of it. He has 2 strategies that he believes combined allows for him to beat the game. Of course, life time he has lost tons and has built credit card debt through gambling. I have tried extremely hard to try and explain to him on a mathematical level that he cannot in fact beat the game of roulette. I have also tried to explain to him winning tactics for texas holdem as he plays that game as well, but he does not understand terms such as pot odds. He has difficulties restraining himself from playing hands like Q7o UTG, and apparently is on tilt at all times. It's difficult to sum up his psychological makeup as far as gambling is concerned, because I have been studying him all my life. Regardless, his strategies for beating roulette are as follows; He believes in the Martingale system even though he doesnt have an appropriate bankroll to use it properly. He is inclined to bet $1, then $2, then $4 but not 8. He also believes that he can predict which side of the wheel the ball will drop on by timing the balls rotations. He bets 18 numbers on each roll, all 18 being on one side of the wheel. He swears that sometimes a dealer will throw the ball and it will land 4 numbers ahead every spin, and therefore he rotates his 18bets 4 at a time in order of the side of the wheel he is on. I obviously cannot mathetmatically disprove his belief that he can predict the side of the wheel, as its like trying to disprove the belief in God or evolution. Is there anything I can do to help his addiction? I hate seeing him throw money out the window like this. He doesnt play craps or blackjack as he is aware that those are losing games, but he believes stubbornly that roulette is profitable. I have shown him articles on the internet discreditting the Martingale system, showing that does not turn roulette into a profitable game, yet he still doesnt believe it is a losing situation due to his belief that he can predict the side of the wheel.

Any help?

[cbfair]

I don't say this lightly; perhaps there is no way to convince him against what he's chosen to believe and the only answer is Gambler's Anonymous (or other counseling). I'm no expert, but its my understanding that a person with an addiction will say almost anything to justify the continuation of their habit. All this about systems and timed rotations and groupier's 4-space offsets are perhaps just elaborate justifications for why he is going to continue doing what he enjoys doing, no matter how disasterous the consequences. I'd seek professional help before explanations of odds and probablities.

[BusterStacks]

some people are addicted to gambling, and that's really the bottom line. Try convincing an alcoholic that alcohol is bad for them and will kill them. It doesn't matter.

[RydenStoompala]

Seek professional help. See if he'll spend an hour with a pro, as favor to you. Forget arguing the logic of his strategy. He's "talking to dogs." Good luck. You'll need it.

[tek]

TStone, you and your family clearly need to do an INTERVENTION ON HIM NOW!

By that I mean, tie him to a chair (either a Herman Miller or LazyBoy). Then take turn reading passages from Dostoyevski's The Gambler. Maybe read it to him twice.

Then splash a glass of cold water in his face.

Let me know how it works out.

[coffeecrazy1]

I agree that if it truly is an addiction(i.e. he is losing money he needs for luxuries like, say, food), then yes, professional help is an absolute at this point.

But...if we're talking about $100 every couple of months of disposable income, then maybe it's not worth the trouble. Of course, most addicts don't get the buzz they want unless they are putting themselves at risk...be it physically or financially.

That said, if your father is insistent on playing roulette, have him try this: place equal sized bets on two of the columns(or sections), which yield 3 units for every 2 bet(balancing out the risk except for zero). Try to get him on a European-style wheel(with one zero). Although he won't be getting a winning proportion, he'll be covering the percentage except for the zero...which is about the best you can do on a roulette wheel(~2.5% house advantage or so). It will still be a losing proposition, but maybe it will stretch that gambling dollar a bit farther.

But...as I said before...if the gambling dollar used to be a food dollar, get the man some help before he hurts himself.

[AviD]

Interestingly a dealer in Vegas once told me you could predict where the ball would land based on where the dealer releases the ball. He claims the ball will land within 4 on each side of the number from where the dealer releases, but the catch is you will be placing your bets AFTER the ball is released, so you cannot do this over and over or you will get tossed.

I never tried it, and it seems pretty ridiculous to me...but it doesn't sound too distant from what your father "believes".

How is your father doing with his claims? Is he winning ANYTHING? Or is he just losing constantly? I can claim the world is flat but when I keep going in circles reaching my starting point over and over, I have to eventually believe its round or I just suck at directions! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Does he not believe his losing is evidence enough that the strategies are incorrect?

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]
He also believes that he can predict which side of the wheel the ball will drop on by timing the balls rotations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probally something you don't want to hear, but this is one way to beat roulette. You use physics to determine where the ball is most likely to land, and cover that part of the wheel. Most people who do this use roulette computers, but some are able to do it with eye-brain. I doubt he uses this method effectively though.

The other methods are:
Exploiting a flawed wheel (good luck)
Rigging the game (w/ dealer)
Cheating (moving your bet after a number hits)
Dealer (whether you are working together or not. They often try to hit parts of the wheel but unless you are working with them this is dangerous).

[coffeecrazy1]

The casinos have already thought of this one...that's why they have the "canoes" and other little bumps on the bowl...to jar loose the absolute physical progression of the ball.

[fnord_too]

Your father's beliefs are irrational, and I have never had any luck arguing against irrational beliefs. Professional help is probably the best, but I doubt he will go willingly (because he "doesn't have a problem.") Still, this is most likely your best shot.

If I had to pick a tact, I would go with something like the following:

Tact 1: Have him read Scarne's works.

Tact 2: Approach him with something like...

Ok, let's assume you are correct and do an experiment. Before we begin, we both need to understand statistics well enough to evaluate the results.

[Go through painful statistics teaching until he understands them and acknowledges their value. This will probably be neither easy nor fun. Then teach him about the scientific method, this should be easier than the first part.]

Now let's make predictions based on your theory and test them in a lab environment (aka casino).

I think the easiest one to attack is the predicting which half of the wheel the ball will land on. He has to predict what, 19/35 to break even? Take your observations (it will be easy to determine how many events you need to observe to get an acceptable confidence level).

Any arguments you get about not wanting to waste time not betting or spending all the time when he "knows" the answer you can counter with things like "The best scientific minds test their theories with experiments, and they often fail to get results to support their hypotheses" and "Not wanting to do rigorous testing of your theory suggests that you are just rationalizing an addiction." Who knows, maybe they will work, but again, trying to convince someone that their irrational beliefs are irrational is just inviting failure and resentment.

At any rate, if you can get to the experiment phase, you will be able to resolve the issue to an arbitrary level of confidence. (Of course if you show that he cannot predict with enough accuracy to beat the game, be prepared for myriad arguments of why it failed. The rational counter argument is that it does not matter why he failed, since the experiment is set in the environment he hopes to apply it in. The rational argument here, also, does not stand much of a chance to succeed.)