GG A standard US roulette wheel with zero and double-zero has a house advantage of 1/19 or 5.26%. In some casinos like the Monte Carlo, or high-roller rooms of others, you can find single-zero roulette which carries a house advantage of 1/37 or 2.70%. Some roulette tables have a house advantage as low as 1.35% which is about as good as playing perfect basic strategy on blackjack, but you have to know where to look. The house advantage is the same no matter how you bet. Keep in mind the house advantage is based on total money wagered. This means that, by doubling up after every losing bet, you will lose more money over the long run than the person next to you flat betting the same amount over and over. Can you make $100 by doubling up over and over until you win? Sure. If you're lucky, have a big bankroll, and don't bump into the house limit. Just don't expect to be playing at any greater advantage than the guy next to you who's flat betting the same number over and over.
Gordon, What you are suggesting is doable in my opinion. Here's the catch. Statistics generally works out over a long series of events. The law of "large numbers" suggests that if you were to flip a quarter one quadrillion times, you would get heads 50% of the time. However, if you take a smaller sample, statistics will begin to break down and become more "vague." Now, if you go into a casino with $2,000 and you're looking to make $100 on a game that gives the Casino a 2-3% edge, you could walk out with your $100 quite easily. The catch to this is that, if you expect to do this on a continuing basis, you will eventually blow out your entire $2,000. If you were to go into a casino *ONCE* and play this game, you'd statistically have a greater chance to walk out with your $100 if you had a much larger bankroll. It is sort of like playing russian roulette or screwing a chick without a condom. You might get away with not getting her pregnant if you have sex with her once, but if you keep it up, eventually you're going to be buying diapers in 9 months or so. What you are doing, in essence, is compounding your money on a negative expectancy system in order to turn it into a *SHORT-TERM* positive expectancy system. A negative expectancy system is negative over the LONG-TERM, but could very easily be a positive expectancy system over the short term. This happens all the time in casinos to select lucky few people. You "could" be that guy ..... however, most of the time you are not. You'll never make a living from a negative expectancy system, though. However, you could easily pay for your dinner with one. I'm going to Atlantic City in a few weeks. See you there Gordon!
just so everyone knows, i'm not at all planning on trying to make a living out of this or anything. i have been someone who doesn't want to gamble at a casino EVER. but i was thinking, if i did it less than 5 times in my life, maybe it wouldn't kill me to try a technique like that with small money.
Great idea, tell that the the alcoholics, drug addicts, and gamblers......."heck, I know when to quit"...lol Welcome to Las Vegas..... (Just joshin' with ya).... Don
Don, you are getting cooler by the day. How about you and I go to Vegas for a few days and get some strippers sent to our room? You're not married, are you? "Whatever happens in Vegas STAYS in Vegas"
I've been married since 1971 (3 different women, 4 ceremonies)......Come on to town, I'll show you around!! I "happen in Vegas" so I "stay in Vegas". Back to you... Don
I was going to say something here but I just noticed someone else already did it in what I believe a much better and more precise way. So the word is with aphexcoild now : OK so the 1st keypoint is to extent the number of plays as much as you can in order to get such desirable statistic benefits. keeping it rolling... Thats where I differ from my quoted friend (other than the fact the there is kinda of a contradiction between those two quotes): In my opinion (I don't believe I own the truth, I'm always starving for someone who proves every now and then that I'm wrong) the dorsal factor that will turn a negative expectancy into positive results is *bankroll* (second keypoint). It doesn't matter if we are talking about short or long term here. The rule is simple - the higher the amount of stored cash, the longer you will be capable of enduring eventual losses until the statistical magic kicks in. (I'm not considering table limits since its not necessary and even less helpful for me to explain the essence of my theory). And the beautiful thing here is that, in a restricted definition, it doesn't matter how high the negative edge is (as long as, of course, the number doesn't reach three figures), taking into consideration again that the more money you have, the more you can handle the unfavored situation. Now, going further on the dissection of my theorys thinking line (OK, its not really MY theory, I bet there are a lot of mofos who thought about it before myself) I wanna show you how the *exit point* (third keypoint) is almost ultimate thing that will make our strategy a winner: -> Important: negative/positive expectation and short/long term strategy (well not too short to the point that, using aphexcoils own words, would make statistic properties vague) is irrelevant data. See, taking into consideration all above mentioned facts, you will win. Even if the negative edge is 99.999%, sooner or later you will win. What you would have to bear in mind in order do don't fail is: 1- have enough money to back you up for the necessary time. 2- the exit point: The only thing that will make your, lets say, negative expectation system a loser system is if you exit the game when you are losing. Considering the fact that eventually you WILL win, what you gotta do is place your exit point right after a winner play. Seems obvious and I'm sure it is. But lets take a look over this example: Lets say we are in a situation where the negative edge is 99%. Of course it means that on each 100 plays we would lose 90. And of course it seems like in the long run you will get screwed in a bad bad way. But how long are we talking about here ? Lets get deep into it and say we are talking about as long as possible, which would be infinite. OK, so in a negative expectation infinitely long term strategy we would have a infinite number of loses and a... infinite number of wins, and last time I checked infinite was equal to infinite. Nice... So since you can make the odds equal for you the catch is to know when to quit and re-start it all. 3- yea, it feels like I'm getting too far from reality, but the concept behind those ideas are very valid when all numbers and factors are architected with the help of the fourth keypoint, which happens to be *strategy*. Well, I just realized what I have said in this post is basically the same thing as GGs theory. Sorry man, it wasn't on purpose, I really hope a plaggio suit is not on the way, considering you americans are all hungry for court originated dinero . Anyways... bottom line is this theory could be greatly useful in several situations -not only in gambling (hint)- when the right strategy takes place, specially considering the bankroll limit is a bitch for all of us I believe, and that the potential gains are very limited compared to the total that is put on risk, making it all interesting only when organized in a way that allows you to efficiently repeat it innumerous times, always rebuilding the strategy everytime you win. Damn, writing more than one paragraph in english is a pain in the ass for me, sorry if it got a little confusing... I think I need some Playboytv now. I will leave with the quote of the year : "Whatever happens in Vegas STAYS in Vegas" Later.