Is this an unbeatable Roulette strategy?

Gambling Master wrote: Can anyone calculate what the odds are of losing 10 rolls in a row at a 47.37% chance each roll?

Although attempting to paraphrase Malmo is always a dangerous game, I'd say that the statement that casinos are built off people like you wasn't meant to imply that you have already lost the millions of dollars it takes to build a casino. Rather, he meant that casinos are built off people who -- like you, as demonstrated above -- don't have even a basic grasp of ninth grade math, and believe they've "discovered" a "system."

In terms of the actual, practical discussion of how this system plays out in real life, you have to factor in psychology as well as math. Picture someone who takes a trip to the casino armed with this exciting "system." They bet $10, lose, bet $20, lose, bet $30, win. Hooray! Now, do they head back to the parking lot and drive home with their $30, or do they start again? We all know the answer to that. Effectively, they play until they lose.

Wow, you are just so wrong it is unbelievable. The whole point of the Martingale is that you STOP after you win once. Of course if you simulate 100 rounds of betting you will come out behind. That's obvious, because roulette has a negative expected value, which everyone already knew was true of gambling.

Try again.

straight to voicemail wrote:

Wow, you are just so wrong it is unbelievable. The whole point of the Martingale is that you STOP after you win once. Of course if you simulate 100 rounds of betting you will come out behind. That's obvious, because roulette has a negative expected value, which everyone already knew was true of gambling.

Mushhead this isn't even debatable.

I brainstormed up this idea, Of course I understand it's not "Unbeatable" the title of the thread is just a little tongue in cheek and used to draw attention. I'm not so naive to really believe I thought up something no one had ever thought of. It was original in my mind, but not in reality . . . then again, nothing is really original when you get down to it anymore. I will continue to maintain, the casinos DO NOT build off of people like me. They may build them off people who use the train of thought we're discussing, but they DO NOT build them off people like me, because I have done nothing but ask about this system and take their money. Malmo and all other who keep saying casinos build off people like me are an idiot. I have taken more money than they have given me at this point and that is all that matters.

Second, you're telling me that you know for a fact that people implementing this system, will be physically incapable of leaving after making a profit? I believe I demonstrated last night that I was able to walk away with a profit and not fall prey to the very thing you say everyone does. And I will maintain that not only can I walk away, but I can STAY away as well. Just because I had this idea for Roulette betting doesn't mean I have any intention of using it OR going back to play it.

I don't understand how people read so much into things and draw so many assumptions.

Losing is the price of admission.

straight to voicemail wrote:

Wow, you are just so wrong it is unbelievable. The whole point of the Martingale is that you STOP after you win once. Of course if you simulate 100 rounds of betting you will come out behind. That's obvious, because roulette has a negative expected value, which everyone already knew was true of gambling.

Try again.

I hope this is a troll.

If not...

Why can't you just stop after you win once. Then do that a hundred times?

Obviously there's a chance that you lose all your money on the first cycle and never make it back. The expected loss won't change; it's up to you to decide if you want your losses to be small or catastrophic.

Your system will usually result in you making a small profit. These small profits will be wiped out by occasional massive losses. This is because of limits imposed by the casino to stop people from "beating" roulette, like table limits.

There aren't any legal methods for beating roulette. This doesn't mean you can't sometimes win, but it is a losing bet. If you really want to do this, go ahead but set a limit that you wouldn't reasonably want to lose and don't spend more. What are you going to do if you hit a losing streak and need to bet $5000 to break even with a 47% of winning?

Anarchy! wrote:

Your system will usually result in you making a small profit. These small profits will be wiped out by occasional massive losses. This is because of limits imposed by the casino to stop people from "beating" roulette, like table limits.

There aren't any legal methods for beating roulette. This doesn't mean you can't sometimes win, but it is a losing bet. If you really want to do this, go ahead but set a limit that you wouldn't reasonably want to lose and don't spend more. What are you going to do if you hit a losing streak and need to bet $5000 to break even with a 47% of winning?

Your first two sentences are correct. Your second sentence is false. Even if there were no limit besides the accumulated resources of the entire planet, you still would be more likely to lose more than you make after a session at the table. The only real reason the casino sets limits is to ensure they have the cash on hand to cover their losses (well, also to entice you to spend more at a table with higher limits). If someone walks in and puts a billion dollars on black, the odds are greater than 50% that they lose but if they win the casino is screwed.

straight to voicemail wrote:

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.

I think this sums it up best.

If you want to be ALMOST guaranteed to win $100 then bring $100,000 to the casino and walk away the moment you are up $100. And never play again.

But if you do that every day for a year you may have $36K in winnings but there is just as good a chance that you will bust before the year is over.

If you keep doing that year after year you will most certainly lose your $100K and will have to raise the stakes to get it back.

The problem with this approach, is the probability that you bet $1,000,000, to win back your initial $1 bet, is higher than most people's comfort zone will allow. There are much safer ways to win $1, with much less capital.

In Europe, roulette only has one "0", so better to try this in Monte Carlo.

For a full mathematical analysis, why go any further than Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_

(roulette_system)

Black Jack suffers a similar flaw, in that the probability of an unaffordable losing streak is higher than most can afford.

But standard Black Jack strategies suggest altering your bets when probabilities are higher, such as splitting or doubling your bets, when it looks like you can beat the dealer. If done properly, these puts things slightly in your favor. If you are really observant, you can count cards, but casinos look out for that.

Side story: In Las Vegas they give you free drinks while you gamble. Once a free drink cost me $50, because I didn't leave the table because I had ordered a drink.

Another side story: Once I was upset because I was following standard Black Jack strategies, and still losing my shirt. So I played a few "unorthodox" hands, going against the rules, and it actually paid off, not only for me, but in one case for the whole table, as I took small cards away from the dealer, and he busted. Nevertheless, the others at the table were "not pleased", to say the least.

My buddies and I came up with the same system one night in Vegas. We were drunk and casino hopping, decided we would play roulette, make bets in $20 increments, and leave a casino as soon as we were up, or as soon as we broke even if we had been way down.

Worked like a charm. Made about $300? At one point we had to bet $120 just to break even (lost at $20, $40, and $60) but we did it. Of course sometimes we let our winnings ride, which violated the rules we set, but we got lucky.

It was kind of thrilling. Walk into a casino, place one wager, win, and leave. Yes, it was just a lucky night...

This is either a great troll attempt or an example of the sorry state of education in this country. Based on many of the posts on this site, I'm betting on the latter.

No. I work in a casino.

One of two things will happen.

1) The Casino Manager will kick you out.

2) If you are not kicked out (no one seems to notice you are doing this), you are vulnerable to risk of ruin because of the maximum bet. i.e. maximum bet on a table is 2k or 4k or whatever. Since each game is independent from the prior, this strategy could lose all this bankroll (high risk).

Roulette strategy for spending money..?

OP you're not the first person to think of this. Casinos frown upon this strategy and will likely "invite you to leave" the establishment. If not, you're up against 1) your bankroll and 2) the table limits.

People like you who think they aren't like the people that the casinos are built on, are the people casinos are built on.

Poor troll, 3/10.

Casino's don't hate this strategy, they love it. It's a guaranteed win for them. Eventually you'll end up on a losing streak and hit the betting limit, then you are SOL.

In a theoretical casino where there are no betting limits and everyone has an unlimited amount of funds available, the house still ends up on top. At any point in time the amount lost by gamblers on losing streaks will be greater than the earnings of those that are ahead.