Random Thoughts on Roulette

[fergus lee]

So you think you cannot forecast the next winning number from prior spns ! So would you give me even-money if I said that the next winning number is in either the same dozen or column as the last winning number ? Unlikely, as I would have an advantage of 20/17.So, the problem is not the "forecasting" but the odds on offer.This applies in all betting situations whether the Stockmarket,horse racing etc..
It is said that every bet in roulette relates to 36/37 so they all have a disadvantage of 2.7%
But do they ? Consider the three pairs of even- money bets Red/Black-High/LOW-Odd/Even.Taking one from each pair involves 8 trebles ,each being a 7/1 shot.Classing them as ROBES (Red Odd/Black/Even) and BORES(BlackOdd/Red Even ) the Robes each have 5 numbers while the Bores have four. So, if we bet only the Bores BUT INSIDE ON THE LAYOUT with four chips WE GET ODDS OF 8/1- which means that we get 8/1 for a 7/1 shot !?
This seems to justify an earlier posting (-by Danny C ?)- which quoted someone betting mainly Bores after doing a "Monte Carlo Simulation on over three million spins.
The question remains ,of course,WHEN do we bet or refrain from betting?
Any suggestions ? Or am I BORE-ing you ?
Fergus Lee

[croup]

You cannot forecast the next winning number on roulette from previous spins. Unless something is funky.

The house edge in roulette, as you say, comes from the payout structure. There are 37 numbers and you get 35 plus your stake for a winning chip on a straight up. This gives the casino an edge of 2.7%. The inside bets are scaled so that shoud you wish to cover two numbers you can put two chips on a split and receive (2x17 + your 2 chip stake) giving you the same 36 chips you would have if you put a chip straight up on both numbers. The difference is the outside even money propositions. Here you only lose half your stake when 0 comes in. This exactly halves the casino's 1 number advantage giving a house edge of 1.35%.

Consider the three pairs of even- money bets Red/Black-High/LOW-Odd/Even.Taking one from each pair involves 8 trebles ,each being a 7/1 shot.Classing them as ROBES (Red Odd/Black/Even) and BORES(BlackOdd/Red Even ) the Robes each have 5 numbers while the Bores have four. So, if we bet only the Bores BUT INSIDE ON THE LAYOUT with four chips WE GET ODDS OF 8/1- which means that we get 8/1 for a 7/1 shot !?

I have to be honest and say i didnt understand that but i can still confidently say that if you are talking about betting the even money outside propositions inside on the layout you are in fact doubling the house edge not decreasing it.

1.35% on the outside, 2.7% on the inside. As to when to bet, thats easy, when you have the money and can comfortably afford to lose it.

[fergus lee]

Hi Croup
I suppose I owe you an apology.My post was intended for those who know a bit more about roulette than your unthinking, unalterable 1 in 37 scenario.
I think it may be possible to create an edge in roulette, you don't.Gambling wouldn't exist without differences of opinion.Just how do you come to translate "mathematical expectation"as mathemaical certainty? Probability Theory deals with uncertainty not certainty as you and peope like you seem to think.So just who is the delusionist ,Croup, me with my doubts or you with your unprovable certanty?
Why don't you ask Richard Epstein to get his arse off that fence he sits on and tell us how long his "long run" is?
And why do people finish their posts with amateurish putdowns posing as" words of wisdom'?
Why not do a proper job like Georges Salas who wrote " I look upon Vizelly's system as perhaps the most idiotic of the innumerable imbecile sustems evolved from the distempered brains of gamblers " Now that is what I call a putdown. EXQUISITE !

[croup]

My post was intended for those who know a bit more about roulette than your unthinking, unalterable 1 in 37 scenario.

As a professional croupier and casino inspector of many years standing i can safely say i have seen and conducted hundreds of thousands of spins of roulette. I am trained in wheel maintenance and inspection, have overseen the implementation and testing of new roulette balls and have been trained in many ways of cheating at roulette. I have also the seen the results of millions of spins through the electronic roulette terminals broken down into daily, monthly and yearly figures. As such my post was intended for someone who knows a little more about roulette than your unthinking shangri-la, dance with the fairies while the leprechaun gives me his pot of gold scenario.

However. With the aid of my roulette layout and a stack of chips i think have worked out what you are talking about. You mean only play the black and odd numbers and the red and even numbers (BORES as you put it) in either the high or low section? ie 29-36 or 11-18.

However you cannot evenly cover either bet with four chips.

28 29 30
31 32 33
34 35 36

10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18

Any combination of bets you put on those numbers subjects you to the house edge. This edge is 2.7%. And yes, that is unthinking. Yes, that is unalterable. Yes, it is because there are 37 numbers on the layout and you are paid 35-1. All your system does is double the house edge over playing the outsides. There is no point even going into your maths because your theoretical solution does not match the reality of the game.

If i am wrong or have misinterpreted your system please feel free to correct me but you already had the chance to outline your system in a more thorough way and didn't so i dont hold out much hope. You were correct in one part of your first post, it is the odds on offer that are the problem. You have outlined no way around this. This also means you are wrong when you say you can forecast the next winning number from previous spins unless there is mechanical failure of some kind. This is exactly how i come to translate "mathematical expectation" as mathematical certainty. One spin does not relate to the next. You are betting at a disadvantage. You will lose eventually.

As to when, that is a question more of philosophy. Im sure there is someone, somewhere in the world who has never lost a single chip on roulette just as i am sure there is some poor soul somewhere who has never won one. But that is what makes you a true believer, it would be too disrespectful to call you a delusionist and my response to your offensive post has softened over the time it has taken me to write this. You may think i am a delusionist but i base my opinion on mathematics. Vegas, Baden-Baden and the Grand Casino are billion pound monuments to my certainty. I have yet to see either from a legitimate system.

And why do people finish their posts with amateurish putdowns posing as" words of wisdom'?Why not do a proper job like Georges Salas who wrote " I look upon Vizelly's system as perhaps the most idiotic of the innumerable imbecile sustems evolved from the distempered brains of gamblers " Now that is what I call a putdown. EXQUISITE !

Well i hoped that it might stop the impressionable, the greedy, the naive and the desperate from losing money they cannot afford and destroying their lives. If i really wanted to put you down id tell you to sell all your personal possessions and start playing your system.

[croup]

Having read some of your other posts and now being unable to edit my original post, I think maybe your antagonistic post was because you interpreted mine as somehow demeaning you. This was never meant to be the case. I take a hard line on these systems because they lure people into the false expectation that they can get free money. Yes, sometimes they do win, but people win money in casinos without systems. However the deck is quite literally stacked against you.

If you think of me as a delusionist thats fine, but i truly believe gambling for profit is an incredibly dangerous thing. I believe it is a form of entertainment, the price you are charged for this entertainment is the house edge. I have no problem in people searching for a system that will win, i have no problem in you believing it can be beat. I was not saying you should stop looking. I would be quite happy to continue this discussion about whether this would work if you provide more details. But please, please, please do not bet any life changing sums on this. Please read everything i have written and interpret it as trying to help not demean.

The harshness is merely a function of potential damage.

[DannyC]

Amen Croup. Croup is actually in a good position to answer your posts dude, but again as I have said many, many and many a time and getting a bit tired of saying it and it being ignored, roulette cannot be beaten in the long run...

And yes, it IS down to Mathematics and Science too... I have studied these cases years ago, and went through them like bringing up a child... from scratch! I have created and altered different algorithms for random procedures, and let me tell you the only thing you could put a system on, is computerized roulette which could contain a software bug or a crap algorithm.

I would love to comment more on the game, and define the possibility and probability theories but it would just be a repetition...

[Scott]

why do people still debate this?

It is impossible to beat roulette with any crazy math...

the only way to beat roulette is cheating but thats a whole different matter than the math behind the game.

You CANNOT overcome the house edge, it is not possible.

[croup]

Better posted here than played on the felt.

I must say i have the same sort of wonder that there is such an obsession with roulette though. I would have thought it would be blackjack. That is a game which does have a memory and that maths can turn in your favour and presents numerous opportunities to legally get an edge. Fair enough the golden age of counting is over yet i can see only a couple of blackjack threads compared to how many roulette threads? I can only put it down to the fact that counting, tracking etc takes time to master rather than being a money tree.

[fergus lee]

Hi Croup
Yes,I did interpret your post as having a go at me and responded in kind.Suggesting that someone is delusionist is hardly a compliment, is it ? However, lets get down to meaningful discussion.
If Blaise Pascal can establish an edge in another area ( a die ) which is also random and has a fixed 5/1 Fair Odds is it really delusional to think that this might be possible in roulette? .
I acknowledge that you have expertise in roulette but that doesn't necessarily make you an expert.No offence intended ,just a statement of fact. I have discussed roulette with croupiers who did not kow that 2 guys , betting the same numbers , could be offered different odds. I could also make a reasonable case that the odds on an even-money bet are not as you say.Further I could pose a question on roulette that you quite possibly cannot answer.But I'll leave that for another time as you haven't yet cottoned on to my four chip bet.My fault for not going into detail . Incidentally, Croup,you could bet on the HIGH BORES by using four splits.The 28 in your post is an even number. Since this post may be read by others less knowledgeable of roulette than you and I'll try and keep it as simple as possible. So, here goes.
Consider only the even- money bets .Low / High, Red / Black and Odd / Even.Betting three of them, hoping that we win a treble, we need to choose from eight variations,these are,
Black, Odd, Low Black,Even, LOw
Black ,Odd,High Black, Even ,High
Red ,Even,LOw Red,Odd, LOw
Red, Even ,HIgh Red, Odd, High

Choosing, say, Red, Even ;High, we would seek Fair Odds of 7/1 because this is only one of the eight variations.For the treble to win we need any one of the numbers ,30-32- 34- or 36 to win.
If we bet only those four numbers on the layout and one of them win we get odds of 8/1 which is -allowing for zero- an advantage of about 11% .Which I agree, seems nonsense but is dictated by Probability maths.( I think )
Crucial to my argument is that the Wheel is truly random, but since mathematicians constantly tell us this is true I take this as a Given.
Not being a mathematician I could be wrong ,Croup, but I don't think so.What do you think ?
Regards, Fergus

[fergus lee]

OOps, For some reason the four other Trebles did not appear in my last post.These are;

Red/ Odd/ Low
Red / Odd / HIgh
Black /Even / Low
Balck / Even /High

REALLY not my fault Lads !

Regards Fergus