1. Welcome to VegasMessageBoard
    It appears you are visiting our community as a guest.
    In order to view full-size images, participate in discussions, vote in polls, etc, you will need to Log in or Register.

Table Games Roulette CAN be beat

Discussion in 'Table Games' started by Ruark, Apr 13, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ruark

    Ruark Low-Roller

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    149
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    100
    Recently I started the thread called "Advanced Roulette Strategy," which looked at a graduated-bet method (no, NOT a Martingale) taken from some web site. Of course, it was easily broken, as I expected.

    The killer was that while you would consistently make small gains, eventually you would have the inevitable "big loss" that would wipe it all out.

    But I took the approach and re-built it in Excel, with different numbers. What you have to do is carefully calculate the bet size increment to PREVENT the Big Loss from happening, or at least make it statistically improbable to the point of insignificance.

    This was not difficult to do, if you're a decent Excel hacker. Instead of the original 20 games, I ran to 30 games. Since you're betting on 7 numbers, the odds of one of them winning is about 1 in 5. Going 30 spins without hitting one of them is extremely unlikely. I did it one single time in 5,000 simulated spins. Of course, going that far (30 spins) requires a bigger bankroll, a little over $15K, even if you're just starting with $1 per number.

    I also calculated a table going up to 46 spins. Going 46 spins without hitting 1 of 7 numbers is virtually impossible. And again, if you have the initial bankroll, you can prevent the Big Loss from happening.

    Of course, I'm using some common sense math here. It's statistically possible to have 1,000 spins without hitting one of those 7 numbers, in which case to survive, your bankroll would have to be equal to the entire United States GNP, but I can live with that improbability...:beer:

    It goes without saying that to use this approach, you'd be playing in the Whale Room.

    Of course there may be some limits on initial bankroll, or maybe the willingness of some casinos to give you $100,000 plaques, but these are logistical factors that have nothing to do with the system's statistical viability. It's quite obvious, though, that if you had a sufficient bankroll (probably in 7 figures), you could make a very nice 6-figure annual income playing roulette.

    There are no approaches to roulette that will enable a low-stakes player (e.g. $1 chips) to beat it and get rich off of it without self-destroying. That is not to say that roulette can't be beat, however. It can, if you have the resources to get your foot in the door.

    I'd be happy to share the Excel file with anybody who wants to discuss it. Send me a PM.
     
  2. Kickin

    Kickin Flea

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,414
    Roulette can be beat? Seriously? Holy crap!

    PM sent. This should be fun :)
     
  3. Frankr163

    Frankr163 Low-Roller

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    385
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    40
    But wait!!
    There's more!!!!!!
    I can also give you the surefire, beat the slots every time spreadsheet for a small donation.
     
  4. tringlomane

    tringlomane STP Addicted Beer Snob

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    9,918
    Location:
    Missouri
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    15
    LOL...the probability is still significant. Trust me.
     
  5. MikeOPensacola

    MikeOPensacola VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,965
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    55
    Anything can, and will, happen in the short run. Play long enough and you will get eaten up by the 5.26% house edge. There is no system to beat a negative expectation game. Period.

    Hope this brutal and honest advice keeps you and your bankroll together.:peace:
     
    Annual Summer Bliss in the Land of Milk and Honey!!!
  6. BeeeJay

    BeeeJay President of The Red Lobster Hostess Satisfaction

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    7,725
    Location:
    Chicago & Jersey City
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    85
    :popcorn

    :evillaugh:evillaugh:evillaugh:evillaugh
     
  7. BeeeJay

    BeeeJay President of The Red Lobster Hostess Satisfaction

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    7,725
    Location:
    Chicago & Jersey City
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    85
    It comforts me when I see a thread like this and realize my worries about my pharma stocks ever tanking are even more insignificant....
     
  8. C0usineddie

    C0usineddie VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    San Diego
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    12
    I would be willing to bet that this technique does not work.

    There is no way to factor the human element in of the ball speed and where it enters the wheel, the angle of the wheel, weight of the ball, depth of the little slots, speed of the wheel, etc.

    I think there is an easier solution out there that is mathmatical and invovles somehow simply adding up the numbers that have hit already or something along those lines. I have tried fiddling with it a bit but cant find a repeating pattern but i bet there is one out there. There basically has to be because randomness is never really random.
     
  9. Auggie

    Auggie Dovahkiin

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,749
    Location:
    Burnaby, BC
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    14
    It depends what you consider "extremely unlikely"

    If betting 7 numbers on a 00 wheel the odds of going 30 spins without one of those 7 numbers coming up is only about 450 to 1.

    And because each spin is an independent event the wheel doesn't remember or feels it "owes" you.

    So you could look at it and say "the odds that none of these 7 numbers comes up in 10 spins is 7.6 to 1"

    But the odds that one of your 7 numbers doesn't come up in the first spin is 1.23 to 1

    If one of your numbers doesn't come up in the first spin you can't still cling to the "odds that one of the 7 doesn't come up in the first 10 spins is 7.6 to 1" because one event has already passed... so after the first spin doesn't hit one of the 7 numbers the odds that none of the 7 is hit in the first 10 spins is now 6.25 to 1

    The next spin still has a 1.23 to 1 chance that one of your numbers doesn't come up... and if they don't then its only a 5 to 1 chance that one of your 7 numbers doesn't hit in the first 10 spins...


    Yes you can add all those odds up and say "its only a 58 to 1 chance that one of my 7 numbers doesn't come up in the first 20 spins" but as you get closer and closer to those 20 spins being completed if you don't hit the chance keeps getting better and better that one of your 7 numbers doesn't get hit.


    From my own personal experience I've played a lot of roulette over the years and have seen some pretty unlikely events come up from time to time.
     
  10. VegasBJ

    VegasBJ VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,473
    Location:
    rolling hardways
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    229
    And yet again, in scenario # 1, you would be risking $15k to win $1. Why would a whale with a 7 figure bankroll play a negative progression to win back the base bet?
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2013
  11. PunterGoop

    PunterGoop Newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    7
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    20
    This is a misleading way to describe a negative progression. The player would be risking $15k to win $15k back, plain and simple. This is not to defend Ruark's idea but describing a bet by its effect on the net profit it might generate without accounting for the losses it might recuperate doesn't make sense.

    As an interesting aside on a previous Vegas board there was this member named luvs2winalot who lived in Las Vegas and was obsessed with trying to beat roulette. He would go to the casinos and track numbers for hours and hours every day. Every month or so he would post a description of a system he believed was foolproof and we would all tear it apart.

    A few years ago he murdered his wife and buried her in his backyard. He tried to flee and hideout in the Philippines [where his wife was originally from] but he was caught and extradited. Here is a link to the article: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/05/man-nabbed-philippines-wifes-death-after-backyard-/

    Moral is don't mess with people who become obsessed with trying to beat roulette - they may be very tightly wound. :wink2:
     
  12. ttom

    ttom Low-Roller

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    461
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    12
    If you order within the next 15 minutes we will give you a free copy of how to never roll a 7 on the craps table - yours for just trying us out.
     
  13. Ruark

    Ruark Low-Roller

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    149
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    100
    Your responses are welcome, although very predictable. What I'm referring to is probably not something I would do in real life. It's just a recreational mental exercise showing mathematically that you CAN play roulette almost indefinitely by manipulating the bids to prevent the Big Loss from occurring. It's not some silly get-rich-quick scheme. Sorry to disappoint you, if you were expecting a blatant display of idiocy. :peace:

    Obviously most people wouldn't care to use a 15K bankroll to win a maximum of 28 dollars. If you had the dough, though, for that to be 2800 dollars instead of 28 dollars, you could make a pretty nice living just from doing it a couple of times a month.

    It's also interesting that of all the people who shot off their mouths, only one asked to see the spreadsheet.
     
  14. Ruark

    Ruark Low-Roller

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    149
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    100
    You're absolutely right. Even though the risk to your $15K is very small (your odds of losing it are 1 in 450, even smaller on a European wheel) it would hardly be worth it, unless you were doing it just to kill time at the roulette table. But if you had a 6 or 7 figure bankroll, instead of winning, say, $28, you'd be playing plaques and winning $2,800 or $28,000. Do that every couple of months and you could easily live on it.
     
  15. Nevyn

    Nevyn VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,202
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    9
    There's not much point in looking at the spreadsheet, because the determining factor is simply what odds are low enough that you consider them insignificant.

    And of course the problem (other than budgets, limits, and the fact that the casino can decide to cut you off whenever they want) is that the losses move in perfect inverse proportion to the odds. So even if its a 1 in a million chance you hit the max loss, the max loss would be more than a million, so that one loss is enough to get it done.
     
  16. earth-3

    earth-3 High-Roller

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Messages:
    997
    Location:
    Lisle
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    18
    If I had the 6 to 7 figures to bet every month, I would just live on that and not worry about another $2,800. :>)
     
  17. topcard

    topcard Older than the Stardust!

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,673
    Location:
    Fort Worth
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    82
    ...or...

    ...you could just bet $10 each on 30 of the numbers (-$300).

    Your odds of winning a net of $50 on that spin (assuming a 0-0 wheel) are 30/38, or roughly 75%.
    :beer:
     
    Finally have the room booked! Look for me Feb 21-23
  18. Ruark

    Ruark Low-Roller

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    149
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    100
    That is correct. It comes down to a personal decision. If I were playing 3 or 4 times a month to make enough money to live well on, and the chances of ruin were 1 in a million, I would not consider those chances high enough to prevent me from playing. You may feel differently.
     
  19. Ruark

    Ruark Low-Roller

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    149
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    100
    Heh. That would be a tough decision, wouldn't it? :beer:

    But actually the idea is that your 6 or 7 figures would not be spent: you would live off the winnings.
     
  20. MikeOPensacola

    MikeOPensacola VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,965
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    55
    Quite simply if there were any system that worked the game of roulette in casinos would cease to exist. All these negative progression systems look good at first until you take into account that the improbable will happen eventually and you will go broke without your number coming up before your bankroll is gone. In the end these negative progression systems have you risk more and more to win the same profit that you would have made had you won at the beginning of your progression. Roulette, in the long run, can not be beat. Take a portion of your roulette stake and invest the $$$ in some credible books on BJ and casino money management and you'll do much better. Playing perfect basic strategy in BJ gives the house a very small edge and will result in the player having a lot of winning sessions. Roulette is fun to play once in a while, but I'll only put $50 at risk in a session and if I hit a couple of numbers I'll walk away with a profit and add it to my BJ bankroll or treat myself to a great dinner.:peace:
     
    Annual Summer Bliss in the Land of Milk and Honey!!!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.