Is this an unbeatable Roulette strategy?

Yeah, the chance of you NOT rolling black 10 times in a row (on a wheel with a 0 and a 00) is (20/38)^10, or approximately once every 613 times.

So if your goal is to win $10 each time, once you are up$6120 ($10 times 612) or so you should walk.

Good luck and don't spend it all in one place.

knower of all things worldly wrote:

The only winning strategy in roulette is to open your own casino.

Ah, not so:

Gambling Master wrote:

I'm not sure how to do this math, can someone tell me what the probability is that I will hit black in 10 rolls at a 47.37% chance each roll?

Probability of 10 consecutive wins with 47.3% win probability is 0.473^10=.00056 which is 0.056%. If you won 10 times at a $10 bet, you'd have $100.

Probability of 10 losses in a row is .00165. 10 losses in a row means you lose ~$10000 dollars.

If you walk in with $10000 and bet until you hit 10 wins or 10 losses in a row, you are 3 times more likely to walk out broke than up $100, which means you are betting 1/4 odds for a 1/100 payout.

Granted, you'll likely be gambling for a long, long time before you hit 10 in a row of either kind. Plus the casino will stop you rather quickly. And the infinite betting pool rule doesn't really apply. Why would you care what the initial bet was if you had an infinite pile of chips?

unreasonable asshole wrote:

Ah, not so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv-8nVSUUt4

Interesting. I wonder if an extreme genius could do that roulette scam without the device.

2 of the 38 possibilities are green, therefore in the long run, you will always lose. Your strategy is not unbeatable. Statistically, it is always beaten.

Certain video poker machines you can get a VERY slight advantage against the house, but it's mind numbingly boring to play for 8 straight hours and barely be ahead. Basically you are just trying to keep even and hope you luck out for a Straight Flush. It's fun though, and beats buying lottery tickets I guess.

If you keep on playing this strategy your will 100% for sure lose all your money so I dont think that it is unbeatable.

Here you go dude:

http://classic-roulette.software.informer.com/

Test out your theory and report back to us.

Actually, I've played about 3 different games for about an hour using the strategy I mentioned in the increments I mentioned. After an hour, I was up 230 in one game, 170 in another game, and 240 in the third game.

It's legit.

However, anyone know, would the casino kick me out for anything like this?

What was the largest stake you played in those three games.

Gambling Master wrote:And malmo they DON'T build it from people like me . . . in case you misread the first post, I came out AHEAD last night. Right now "people, like yourself" are people who WIN each night. Now, if I actually start doing this and lose, THEN I will be the "People, like yourself" in the sense you are talking about. But right now, I'm a winner, idiot.

You are not a winner, you merely came out ahead one day.

This is a losing bet. period.

I view casino gambling as a tax on stupidity. Use whatever strategy you like.

Until you understand how it works, you guys talking about the odds always being against the gambler need to keep your mouths shut. There is nothing wrong with this approach and for gaining small sums it is perfectly feasible and safe. It is not, however, a way to make a large sum. In fact, it's sort of an inverse lottery ticket.

Bet some amount on slightly less than 50% chance and double the amount you bid each round that you lose. When you do eventually win and walk away, you will have made a gain equal to the original amount. If you start with a small amount, you will be able to cover the doubled bet more times, doubling your odds of coming out ahead for each time that you can do so.

Given a 53% chance to lose each round, the odds that you will lose 10 rounds in a row are .17% or slightly less than 2/1000. Losing twenty in a row is .0003% or 3 in a million. Now, the feasibility of covering those bets... less promising.

With a $100 initial bet, you would need over 100,000 dollars to get those first odds and well over a million to get the latter. But the odds of getting that far are astronomically small.

So, if you happen to have 100,000 dollars lying around, you could go out to a casino now and make 100 with 99.8% certainty. But, obviously, it's probably not worth it.

What I toyed with was the possibility of playing a game where you could bet on odds well over 50% at increasingly reduced gains. In such a scenario, the exponential decay is extremely rapid, so you can start off with much larger initial bets while needing a smaller bankroll to get those same odds. Unfortunately roulette does not work that way.

For the detractors... of COURSE roulette has a negative expected value. Hell, it probably has the worst expected value in a casino. That does not mean that the above will "eventually fail to work". It absolutely works; it just is not particularly feasible.

So you're making $10 initial bets? How much is your max risk? Have you kept track of any stats like longest winning streak, longest losing, max drawdown? These aren't meant to be "gotcha" questions, I'm just curious.

It WILL eventually fail to work. There is the chance you will be wiped out. It is NOT unbeatable.

I was one of the naysayers, but I have to admit, the more I thought about it the more I became convinced that it actually could work. My skeptical scientific background at work. But as you said, it's a lot of risk for a low expected payout. However, if you're someone who enjoys gambling and has $1,000 you can afford to lose if the black swan appears, this would be a good and potentially mildly profitable system to use.

Gambling Master wrote:

Actually, I've played about 3 different games for about an hour using the strategy I mentioned in the increments I mentioned. After an hour, I was up 230 in one game, 170 in another game, and 240 in the third game.

It's legit.

However, anyone know, would the casino kick me out for anything like this?

Just the opposite. Increase the amounts an order of magnitude or two and they'll bend over backwards to keep you coming back.

I don't think it's a guaranteed winner, but I also don't think it's a guaranteed loser. He definitely could hit a losing streak long enough to wipe out previous winners. But the odds of this are very small, as long as he can risk a large amount. If he is willing to walk away from the table with a small gain, it is possible to come out ahead. Personally I don't think the small gain is worth the large risk, but someone with little risk aversion might.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I was one of the naysayers, but I have to admit, the more I thought about it the more I became convinced that it actually could work. My skeptical scientific background at work. But as you said, it's a lot of risk for a low expected payout. However, if you're someone who enjoys gambling and has $1,000 you can afford to lose if the black swan appears, this would be a good and potentially mildly profitable system to use.

If you're going for a $10 profit, $1000 cash only allows you to lose 7 times. 53% loss rate yields a 1.2% chance of hitting 7 losers in a row.

To make $1000 profit and even out one loser, you have to win 100 times. Odds are you're going to see the 7 losses at least once in 100 games. It's a losing bet.