Playing roulette to earn a living...

[Mytiwar]

How can they find out you're counting card? Simply looking at the way you bet?

Probably from the smoke coming out of your ears.
Seriously, you see that in movies but between the shuffling every now and again I just have a hard time keeping up. Probably not smrt enough.

[Syntex]

How can they find out you're counting card? Simply looking at the way you bet?

The problem with counting cards is when you are playing alone its obvious. They can count cards too and when you suddenly go from minimum bet 58 hands in a row to max bet 2-3 times in a row out of the blue its obvious and quickly stopped.

If any system is to work its the same system they used in 21(movie sucked) which is based on the book "Bringing Down the House"(no relation to the movie of the same name) which is way better then the movie and is based off a true story. Basically someone keeps a steady bet and keeps track of the count, then when its high signals a high roller to come over and do 2-3 hands at the max taking advantage of the count before moving on. This way the casino thinks its some guy table hopping doing big bets and not someone taking advantage of the system.

[Darlantan]

I have seen some people write the cards in a notebook as they come up, lol.

[aurik]

They probably don't care unless you're very proficient and winning a lot.

I'm sure plenty of people go to count cards and do it wrong / do it poorly and end up losing.

[Kuwait-cafe]

could this theory work with the game "Casino War"? The Mirage in Las vegas i remember had this game, and from what i understand it is a straight 50% chance of Win/loss.

[Jememy]

Baccarat is another game that's easy win easy lose. It's not really fun but it's a great game to double triple up your buy in.

[Dimmauk]

Is Figuring Out A Slot Machine Software Glitch & Making Money From It A Crime?
Over the last few years, casinos around the globe have been using increasingly high tech slot machines, but with high tech slot machines come the usual bugs. And that raises some interesting legal questions. In the past, we've noted numerous examples of casinos blaming software glitches for slot machine awards, and refusing to pay them out. And, usually, they're being allowed to do this. That seems a little troubling, but it can get a bit more complex, as in one case a few years ago, where a guy used a slot machine that had faulty software -- and was arrested for doing so. Each time he put in $1, it was credited as $10. Now, once he realizes this is happening, perhaps you can consider that fraud, but it does seem a bit dangerous to blame the guy for what was really a software glitch by the casino or slot machine vendor.

The latest such case, found via Slashdot, might not be quite as troubling. In this case, a guy more or less figured out a software glitch in a variety of slot machines that would enable a series of button presses that would lead to larger awards, and then he used that to win a lot of money. Now, I can definitely see the case for fraud here (and the guy has now been arrested). He didn't just spot a machine with a glitch, but he then actively exploited that glitch, knowing it was a glitch, and took steps to enable that glitch on various machines (to make it work, he apparently had to have casino staff change some settings on the machines, which they would do since he was a "high roller.")

Given that he was knowingly abusing this glitch, the fraud claims seem much more reasonable. However, there is still something worrying about charging someone for a crime for doing what a computer system allows them to do. He didn't technically hack the system -- he just figured out a bug in the software and used that to his advantage. There is at least some gray area, concerning whether or not some of the liability should fall back on the maker of the slot machine for leaving such a glitch in their software.

One time in Vegas, this guy was playing some video poker at the bar. I was buying some drinks for me and my wife, and this guys leans over and says, "Watch this, I'm going to win alot of money in the next three games". I said "huh?!" And he said "I'm going to get a full house and a royal flush after I lose this one" I was like LOL whatever. So I watched him do exactly what he said he would do. So I asked him how he did that. He said he know how to get the game to play out a certain set of games and cards. Once a week he would go to different casinos and do this. He said just makes enough to get by, and not get caught. So I reported him.

Spoiler: show

I didnt really report him. LOL

[Ghost_Wheel22]

The most obvious way to be counting cards is with a notebook or by yourself at a table and doing obvious betting streaks. Although with most Vegas casinos its fairly hard to read a 5-deck boot in time when you're solo and they get shuffled at each dealer change. Learning to count isn't exactly hard to pick up, but not very easy to have when you're at a table with a lot of noise around or if you're getting drinks thrown at you non-stop. Takes a lot of focus and casinos spend a lot of money to have you lose it.

[Ace-o-fire]

The problem with counting cards is when you are playing alone its obvious. They can count cards too and when you suddenly go from minimum bet 58 hands in a row to max bet 2-3 times in a row out of the blue its obvious and quickly stopped.

If any system is to work its the same system they used in 21(movie sucked) which is based on the book "Bringing Down the House"(no relation to the movie of the same name) which is way better then the movie and is based off a true story. Basically someone keeps a steady bet and keeps track of the count, then when its high signals a high roller to come over and do 2-3 hands at the max taking advantage of the count before moving on. This way the casino thinks its some guy table hopping doing big bets and not someone taking advantage of the system.

got kicked out of the trump in Atlantic city by doing this though it was pretty obvious since me and out friends all went together and hung-out.

[SnickySnacks]

There is a 53% chance it won't land on the chosen color so after several rolls these are the odds.
1) 53%
2) 28%
3) 14.89%
4) 7.89%
5) 4.18%
6) 2.22%
7) 1.17%
0.62%
9) 0.33%
10) 0.17%

So after doubling up 7 times on the chosen color you have a ~1% chance that it will not land on your chosen color.

Surprised nobody has pointed out that those are only the *starting* odds for a losing streak across X rolls.

Sure, your odds of hitting 7 losses in a row is only 1%, but at your 6th loss the odds of losing on the next roll is 53%, not 1%.

/loves me some craps when I'm in Vegas

[aurik]

Lots of people in this thread still don't understand "infinite".

I should start the old 0.999... equals 1 argument again.

[Cadsuane]

It does, doesn't it?

Edit: obviously it does

[scrockstar]

One time in Vegas, this guy was playing some video poker at the bar. I was buying some drinks for me and my wife, and this guys leans over and says, "Watch this, I'm going to win alot of money in the next three games". I said "huh?!" And he said "I'm going to get a full house and a royal flush after I lose this one" I was like LOL whatever. So I watched him do exactly what he said he would do. So I asked him how he did that. He said he know how to get the game to play out a certain set of games and cards. Once a week he would go to different casinos and do this. He said just makes enough to get by, and not get caught. So I reported him.

Spoiler: show

I didnt really report him. LOL

Unless this is some other "glitch" than the one that is semi-well-known you actually can't swing the odds to a full 50-50 but you can get very close. If you have the bankroll for it and play at the higher stakes bar-top machines you can "grind out" pretty decent comps via your player's reward card and then sell the comps on web forums or to local people. You just have to switch around casinos if you are trying to get continuous stream of rooms to live in. Not the biggest money maker but degens are gonna degen

[Khamsin]

Surprised nobody has pointed out that those are only the *starting* odds for a losing streak across X rolls.

Sure, your odds of hitting 7 losses in a row is only 1%, but at your 6th loss the odds of losing on the next roll is 53%, not 1%.

/loves me some craps when I'm in Vegas

True, but there's only a 2% chance of getting 6 losses in order to be worried about your 7th! Though, of course, once you're on your 5th loss, the chance of getting a 6th is still 53%. But then there's only a 4% chance of getting 5 losses in order to be worried about your 6th. Though, of course, once you're on your 4th loss, the chance of getting a 5th is still 53%. But then there's only a 8% chance... aw screw it.

The gambler's fallacy is mostly to caution you against assuming the next spin is a sure thing based on past results, so you don't go throwing down all your money because you see the past 7 spins were red. But if you're planning ahead how you will bet, and plan to play long enough for there to be a decent sample size, there is some statistical legitimacy to it. You just have to accept you will have intermittent wins and losses, and have faith that things will average out if you play long enough... rather than assuming everything has to average out on the next spin.

Also, I bet most people who would try this would always bet the same color, though you can choose a different color each time and the statistics still apply. There's a 1% chance you'll be wrong for 7 spins in a row, whether you always pick black, or alternate, or pick randomly each time. Of course, there's probably some psychological aspect that makes you feel better if you pick the same color each time because if you do black 6 times in a row (and it's red each time), then switch to red on the 7th and lose, you'll be kicking yourself.

[aurik]

It does, doesn't it?

Edit: obviously it does

Absolutely, but the key to the logical argument is the concept of infinity--since infinity isn't actually a number, you have to state the problem in terms of precision and show that at any amount of precision, 0.999... is indistinguishable from 1.

Similarly, you can't have an "infinite bankroll" and "infinite number" of spins on a roulette wheel to guarantee that eventually you will earn back your stake plus your initial bet. But you can state the problem in terms of maximum iterations and show that any amount of maximum iterations, your expected return is negative.

[Demosthenes11]

theoretically, at one "time," you will lose an infinite number of times in a row if you are playing with an infinite bankroll with infinite spins. hitchhikers guide to the galaxy there

[Ferion]

Absolutely, but the key to the logical argument is the concept of infinity--since infinity isn't actually a number, you have to state the problem in terms of precision and show that at any amount of precision, 0.999... is indistinguishable from 1.

Love those epsilon-delta proofs.

[Cadsuane]

Absolutely, but the key to the logical argument is the concept of infinity--since infinity isn't actually a number, you have to state the problem in terms of precision and show that at any amount of precision, 0.999... is indistinguishable from 1.

Similarly, you can't have an "infinite bankroll" and "infinite number" of spins on a roulette wheel to guarantee that eventually you will earn back your stake plus your initial bet. But you can state the problem in terms of maximum iterations and show that any amount of maximum iterations, your expected return is negative.

Yes, specifically you find a series expansion for 0.9999... and show that it converges to one (for all positive n there exists positive k such that etc. etc.) which you can do with the boundedness axiom of the real numbers. I saw it quickly enough to be embarassed about asking.

[Ikith]

Odds are always tilted to the house.

Casino's are businesses.

Stop being dumb.

[Mjd]

Stop. I have heard a 1,000,000 theories on how there is a system . It's a game of luck.

Luck as in I was drunk in AC put $500 down on black, won and walked away from the table.