TOPIC: The Problem with the Common Distribution...

I remember seeing a documentary where the theory was placed that typical roulette "dealers" have habits of where and how they start the ball.  Based on that, observation of the habits can lead to higher probability of hitting numbers on half of the wheel.<br /><br />Regardless, it does seem that roulette is purely a money making engine for the house.  It's only appeal seems to be that it requires little strategy for the novice gambler, making them feel like they are playing more than slots, but not something as complicated as blackjack or poker.  <br /><br />Roulette only seems to pay off if you are willing to walk away on a win, something most people are not likely to do.<br />

<br />I remember seeing a documentary where the theory was placed that typical roulette "dealers" have habits of where and how they start the ball.  Based on that, observation of the habits can lead to higher probability of hitting numbers on half of the wheel.<br />

<br /><br />Now that is an interesting theory. You'd need hundreds of hours of observation to sort that out though.

Well from what you are talking about it doesnt sound like the Martingale or cancellation system for betting roulette.  Both of which dont work in the long run which is all a casino cares about.

<br />

<br />I'd tell ya - but I'm sure that would just open a can of worms...<br /><br />Can ya trust me that we practiced it, studied it, and went to Vegas to try it, and the guy at the table said we had to stop it...<br />

<br /><br />Gary, was your system grabbing the marble and putting it on your number?  Yeah, they frown in that in Vegas.  Go figure.   =)<br />

<br /><br />Funny - no - it was a system...

<br />Well from what you are talking about it doesnt sound like the Martingale or cancellation system for betting roulette.  Both of which dont work in the long run which is all a casino cares about.<br />

<br /><br />Getting warm...betting is the key....

Can you think of a way to MAKE Martingale work...?<br /><br />Even when 0 or 00 comes up?

The most common Roulette "system" I've heard is to always bet on the same color, and double your bet and add a dollar each time you lose.  Since the color bet pays 2:1, when your color is finally hit, you'll turn a profit (although, not much of one).  The problem that makes that system fail is the long streak of the wrong color.  Since your bet increases geometrically, there's a fair chance that you'll exceed the table limit before you get a payout.  Even at a no-limit table, you can still exceed your bankroll.  And then you're screwed.  Imagine betting on Red twelve times in a row, and seeing the wheel hit Black all twelve times.  Unlikely event?  Sure.  But that's where statistics and randomness will hand you your lunch.  I've actually seen a roulette wheel come up Black seven times in a row.  Then Green.  Makes you really glad you weren't betting on Red, just knowing that the streak had to end.  I don't know much about Roulette, though, and never played it for money.  <br /><br />They say the guy who broke the bank at Monte Carlo figured out that the wheel was imbalanced, which allowed him to calculate odds that were to his advantage.  Maybe that's just a legend, but like Dave says, exploiting the mechanics of the game is about the only way I've ever heard of to beat Roulette over the long term. <br /><br />I once wrote a short statistics article for a Mensa publication where I started off with a hand of cards:  Ace of Clubs, King of Clubs, Queen of Clubs, Jack of Clubs, Two of Clubs.  You might think it's typical of the sort of crappy losing hand you'd get playing poker, but that exact hand is rarer than a Royal Flush.  <br />

That is Martingale...but the trick we used was one more step.<br /><br />

<br />The most common Roulette "system" I've heard is to always bet on the same color, and double your bet and add a dollar each time you lose.  Since the color bet pays 2:1, when your color is finally hit, you'll turn a profit (although, not much of one).  The problem that makes that system fail is the long streak of the wrong color.  Since your bet increases geometrically, there's a fair chance that you'll exceed the table limit before you get a payout.  Even at a no-limit table, you can still exceed your bankroll.  And then you're screwed.  Imagine betting on Red twelve times in a row, and seeing the wheel hit Black all twelve times.  Unlikely event?  Sure.  But that's where statistics and randomness will hand you your lunch.  I've actually seen a roulette wheel come up Black seven times in a row.  Then Green.  Makes you really glad you weren't betting on Red, just knowing that the streak had to end.  I don't know much about Roulette, though, and never played it for money.  <br /><br />They say the guy who broke the bank at Monte Carlo figured out that the wheel was imbalanced, which allowed him to calculate odds that were to his advantage.  Maybe that's just a legend, but like Dave says, exploiting the mechanics of the game is about the only way I've ever heard of to beat Roulette over the long term. <br /><br />I once wrote a short statistics article for a Mensa publication where I started off with a hand of cards:  Ace of Clubs, King of Clubs, Queen of Clubs, Jack of Clubs, Two of Clubs.  You might think it's typical of the sort of crappy losing hand you'd get playing poker, but that exact hand is rarer than a Royal Flush.  <br /><br />

Well with the martingale system you dont profit much from the bets unless you start with a decent sized amount as your base bet.  It is a good system but 19% (assuming 100 bets that you can cover) of the time you will blow your capital and be broke so figuring that over a large number of people doing it makes the house win.  <br /><br />Playing on a single 0 table greatly increases your odds. But those are few and far between.<br /><br />If you bet the 0, 00, 1, 2, 3 combo it pays 6:1 so if you cover yourself with a bet there if it comes up you will still lose (over the long run) 98.5% of your money.

Don't tell me you bet both colors...<br />

<br />I once wrote a short statistics article for a Mensa publication where I started off with a hand of cards:  Ace of Clubs, King of Clubs, Queen of Clubs, Jack of Clubs, Two of Clubs.  You might think it's typical of the sort of crappy losing hand you'd get playing poker, but that exact hand is rarer than a Royal Flush.  <br /><br />

<br /><br />That hand would win a vast majority of the time since a flush is damn good.

<br />Don't tell me you bet both colors...<br /><br />

<br /><br />maybe...