Roulette systems - do they work?

[lotus guardian]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I'm fond of hyperbole. There are lots good jobs that don't require more than rudimentary math skills. But come on: roulette? Single numbers: 38 slots, 35:1 payout. Even money bets: 18/38 slots win. It ain't rocket science. The math is fairly complex for poker, blackjack and many other card games (I don't consider Three card poker, Let it Ride, Carribean Stud, etc. to be poker. They are carnival games that use poker hands.) The math is pretty easy for craps, but not quite as obvious as it is for roulette. Casino war is pretty simple mathematically, but they do that little bit of misdirection where the dealer takes the chips out of the tray and appears to (but really doesn't) match your extra bet when you go to war. I confess, I played Casino War once and it took me about half an hour before I spotted the con. Don't get me wrong: I knew there had to be a house edge somewhere, but it took me awhile to figure it out. But it mystifies me how anybody who is beyond counting on their fingers can fail see the house edge in roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that people don't try to calculate EV or house edge when playing a casino game. Yes, the math is very simple and probably most of them would be able to figure it out, but they don't approach the problem like that. They just see that sometimes they win and sometimes they lose so they think "hey, I just need to get lucky and I'll win". It's not obvious for those people that after a certain number of bets your standard deviation will decrease in relation to your negative EV and you'll certainly be a loser in the long run.

[MicroBob]

yeah, that all makes sense. Interesting stuff and the pencil vs. pen and other stuff.

Although I disagree with your idea that a counter who uses chips would not be a +EV player.

I still use my foot for the side-count of aces. And I've used chips or other things (straw in drink, etc) before to keep 3 or even 4 different side-counts before.

Now i don't worry about it as much and just have fun and drink and keep the count and try to play even EV or so.

[CORed]

I have used my fingers to side-count aces in a single deck game (I never bothered with side counts in multi-deck games). This may have been illegal, but I always used one hand kept on top of my thigh, under the table and out of site of dealer, pit posses and cameras.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Roulette is the gayest and most boring of all the sucker casino games out there. I'd rather get killed playing 3 card poker, casino war, or some other -EV game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roulette is the only casino game I actually enjoy playing. I sit there, get drunk out of my mind throw chips on random numbers and get excited when my ball hits one of them. Doesnt matter how drunk you get you arent going to lose anymore money than the sober guy next to you who has some retarded system. I also dont have to wait for my turn, or put up with retarded people trying to figure out "what play" to make or anyof that stuff.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, this system does work:
Let's say you have a million dollar bankroll.

Bet $1 on Black. If you lose, then double the bet to $2. If you lose that, double the bet to $4, etc, and eventually you will win. After you win, reset the bet to $1. You will end up winning a dollar every time you win.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would work if they didn't have caps on how much you could bet. But the odds of losing enough hands in a row outweigh how much your risking to win $1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even without a cap it wouldn't be +EV.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
No, a Martingale wouldn't really work with no betting limit. The bigger your bankroll, the lower your proabability of hitting a bad enough streak to bust you. But the probability of busting never reaches zero and it's still -EV, no matter how big your bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
If your bankroll were literally infinite (as opposed to arbitrarily large but still finite), the probability of busting would be zero. But if your bankroll were literally infinite, you still couldn't profit by using the Martingale system because your bet sizes would be finite, and infinity plus any finite number is still just infinity.

[MicroBob]

Additionally, it would be extremely difficult to push an infinite number of chips onto the table, much less fit in on one of those little squares..

And all that effort to win back the initial $1 would be especially silly when you already have an infinite amount of money in the first place.
If you have an infinite amount of money, why would you need any more than that?


I'm kind of with alobar on roulette though because it's such a stupid game that it actually becomes fun.

It's about the only game that my GF enjoys playing so she studies the previous numbers on the board and determines whether red or black is 'due' with her super-psychic powers and I go with it.

She knows it's dumb and doesn't REALLY believe she can figure it out.
But we have fun and we actually win more often than we lose oddly enough.

If she hits a bad streak then I suggest she can get back in the whole 'feel' of the roulette-groove with more alcohol (usually works).

I also like really focusing on the wheel to try to use mind-control to get the ball to fall on 29. This works much better with odd eyebrow contortions and/or strange sound-effects.

Sometimes tends to annoy some of the other players if they are taking the whole roulette thing WAY too seriously.
But if they're actually taking roulette seriously then I reason that they deserve to be annoyed.

[Jeff_B]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, it would be extremely difficult to push an infinite number of chips onto the table, much less fit in on one of those little squares..

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a very often over looked point when examing the martingale system

[metsandfinsfan]

why was the OP's post deleted?

[CORed]

I actually feel much the same about craps. And I'm usually losing less than the (bigger)suckers becuase I pretty much stick to minimum pass/come bets and odds while lots of folks are betting hardways, one roll bets and such junk.