Playing roulette to earn a living...

[Sta]

Sure, the title sounds like a real stupid and ridiculous thing to even consider but some older guy at work keeps asking me "Why don't people do this? It must be banned by casinos!?".
So I searched up his method and it's called "the martingale" It's when you are playing roulette on a table that has no limit on how much you are allowed to place on a single spin and choosing red or black, but each time you lose, you will have to double your money.
I.E: £400 (I'm using this amount because he wants to do it once a week to break even on his weekly wages) on red. Black comes in. double it to £800 on red. Black comes in. double it to £1,600 (repeat until red comes in). Red comes in, grats you are up £1,600. go back to £400 on red. red comes in. Payout of £800 and you take the week off work.

I keep saying to him the casino will see what you are doing and no allow it. and he replies "I know 6 casinos within 1 hour drive from me, i can just move places every week"

I'm not saying he's going to do this, this is all hypothetical and he can't work out why people don't do this, so I said I'd ask on a forum... so here I am :>

[zoobernut]

That method doesn't work because of the 00 which is neither color. That one extra spot throws the odds off so that red/black are not 50% each and the whole thing is tilted in favor of the house. Doesn't your co-worker know that the casinos have math geeks that have worked out all these scenarios already? Casino's make a lot of money for a reason. Now the method might work for a short period of time for one person but on average over an infinite amount of games the odds are in the houses favor.

[tyven]

lots of money lost be people that try this. you would need to have an epic bank roll. i have seen colors go on runs of 5-6 times in a row many many many times and i rarely play roulette. smarter money on blackjack or craps if you ask me and even that is a shitty way to earn a living.

[Alarial]

lots of money lost be people that try this. you would need to have an epic bank roll. i have seen colors go on runs of 5-6 times in a row many many many times and i rarely play roulette. smarter money on blackjack or craps if you ask me and even that is a shitty way to earn a living.

Black Jack is more heavily favored towards the house than Roulette. Roulette (and craps since it's basically the same game) are two of the "least tilted games" at casinos in terms of your chances of winning.

That being said, you still only have a 47% chance of winning every time, so in the long run: You're always going to lose.

[Sta]

That method doesn't work because of the 00 which is neither color. That one extra spot throws the odds off so that red/black are not 50% each and the whole thing is tilted in favor of the house. Doesn't your co-worker know that the casinos have math geeks that have worked out all these scenarios already? Casino's make a lot of money for a reason. Now the method might work for a short period of time for one person but on average over an infinite amount of games the odds are in the houses favor.

Doesn't matter if there are 5 colours on the table if the odds are still 1/2, Zoobernut. Most modern casinos even have 0 and 00. If it lands on either of those all you do it double your bet again. And Tyven, it's hypothetical, so yeah let's say he has over 800k to play with. Sure he may lose 50 in a row, but he can still afford to multiply. It's gotta be an illegal action the odds are against you, but so small that it would be like flipping a coin and it landing on it's edge.

[zoobernut]

Black Jack is more heavily favored towards the house than Roulette. Roulette (and craps since it's basically the same game) are two of the "least tilted games" at casinos in terms of your chances of winning.

That being said, you still only have a 47% chance of winning every time, so in the long run: You're always going to lose.

I have to go back and look again but I am pretty sure that single deck $5 min bet black jack is the most generous table game that you can play in a casino. But it really doesn't matter because in the end all of the games are tilted in favor of the house and by a larger margin than you would ever want to admit.

The bottom line is play in a casino to have fun, don't play to make money. Most of the professional gamblers out there play poker because you are playing against other players not the house.

[aurik]

Gonna borrow this from Not Kuno.

[zoobernut]

Who is that towards aurik?

[aurik]

OP.

[Sta]

Quote from Yahoo answers from a guy that asked a similar question as my co-worker:

it is the WORST system that you could ever use! The Martingale is when you place a bet and double it every time you lose until you win...that is the theory. Reality is that there are table limits at every casino that will not allow you to double your wager more than 5-7 times, and you can easily lose 10 times in a row. So let's say you are at a table that the limits are $25-$1,000 and you begin your 'system' with $25 you lose then $50, $100, $200, $400, $800 and you lose. Now you are in a spot, you cannot double your wager because table limits are $1000 so now what?! Now you're down $1775.00 and you're out of chances. Do you even want to risk thousands to try to win $25?

Casinos absolutely love it when you play the Martingale, you'll probably get a 'free' room, but it will cost you thousands.

So if this is true, and if the table has no limit, and you DO have an "epic bankroll" it seems quite solid, from a mathematical point of view. But I guess I'll have to live with the youtube links as an intelligent answer.

[aurik]

Or, you could learn to Basic Math and disprove it for yourself.

[Xajii]

Doesn't matter if there are 5 colours on the table if the odds are still 1/2, Zoobernut.

What part of "colorless," "47%," or "no" do you not understand? How the fuck are the odds still 1/2? lolol

[hey]

If there is truly no limit, the casino doesn't come and tell you to gtfo, and you have an infinite amount of money, then yes, it works, regardless of the odds.

If you start out betting $100, then you win $200 if you win the first try, which is $100 profit.
If you lose once, you bet 100+200=300, and win $400, which is $100 profit.
If you lose twice you bet 100+200+400=700, and win $800, which is $100 profit.

You always win your base bet as profit. You can bet an individual number, lose 100 times in a row, and still make a profit if the payout was 1:2 (and obviously it is higher). Again, assuming there is no limit, you don't get kicked out, or run out of money. If any one of those things happen, you lose whatever you bet since your last win (which could potentially be a ton of money). It does not work, because casinos are not retarded. If there is no limit at all, then the minimum bet will be high enough that doubling your bet potentially 5+ times in a row will bankrupt you. And if by some miracle you find a table with no limit, and a low minimum, you will get kicked out if you try it for too long.


And blackjack is definitely one of the best games. With basic strategy, the house has an edge of .5-1% (meaning you will on average lose .5-1% of your bet, per hand), without even counting cards, which generally gives you an advantage over the house.gl

[zoobernut]

Quote from Yahoo answers from a guy that asked a similar question as my co-worker:



So if this is true, and if the table has no limit, and you DO have an "epic bankroll" it seems quite solid, from a mathematical point of view. But I guess I'll have to live with the youtube links as an intelligent answer.

Statistics doesn't like you. The odds have never been 50% and the math is much more complicated than you make it out to be. Go take a refresher coarse in statistics and you will learn why companies spend millions of dollars and lots of time developing casino games to have very specific odds and payback percentages. Regulations require proof there are no "math" loopholes that people can exploit to win at these games.

[aurik]

Even with an infinite bankroll and no house limits, you will lose money with this strategy because the scale of an epic loss grows faster than the chance of an epic loss diminishes.

By the central limit theorem you'll always be best off in roulette by simply wagering your entire bankroll on a single spin. The more spins you wager on, the more unusual it will be to turn a profit.

[aurik]

If there is truly no limit, the casino doesn't come and tell you to gtfo, and you have an infinite amount of money, then yes, it works, regardless of the odds.

If you start out betting $100, then you win $200 if you win the first try, which is $100 profit.
If you lose once, you bet 100+200=300, and win $400, which is $100 profit.
If you lose twice you bet 100+200+400=700, and win $800, which is $100 profit.

You always win your base bet as profit. Again, assuming there is no limit, you don't get kicked out, or run out of money. If either one of those things happen, you lose whatever you bet since your last win. It does not work, because casinos are not retarded. If there is no limit at all, then the minimum bet will be high enough that doubling your bet potentially 5+ times in a row will bankrupt you. And if by some miracle you find a table with no limit, and a low minimum, you will get kicked out if you try it for too long.

^ this poster does not understand infinity.

[Ferion]

The only way the system "works" is if you have an infinite amount of time, bets, and money. So no it will never work. And typically Yahoo answers isn't the greatest place to get math advice.

[zoobernut]

The only way the system "works" is if you have an infinite amount of time, bets, and money. So no it will never work. And typically Yahoo answers isn't the greatest place to get math advice.

facepalm.jpg

No it won't, all casino games have a payback percentage based on an infinite amount of bets and even on a scale of infinity you will win less than you bet. Auriks last post is correct.

[Sta]

The only way the system "works" is if you have an infinite amount of time, bets, and money. So no it will never work. And typically Yahoo answers isn't the greatest place to get math advice.

Right answer, according to wiki. It's called the "Optional stopping theorem"

In probability theory, the optional stopping theorem (or optional sampling theorem) says that, under certain conditions, the expected value of a martingale at a stopping time is equal to its initial value (and also expected value at any deterministic time).

I should of just went to wiki in the first place and avoided some closed-minded spam forum users.

[Xajii]

I should of just went to wiki in the first place and avoided some closed-minded spam forum users.

oh no he di in't
(tyven and I are the only ones in this thread who frequent spam, and we barely had a hand in this conversation lol)