Roulette - Anyone play?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I enjoy it when at a casino, play a few rounds, mostly low bets, then get the free drinks that accompanies sitting at a table. I love Vegas lol.

I was there a few years ago mind, and I was only putting on small amounts when a guy came over and put around $1000/spin on, lost close to $7000 in 10 minutes then just walked away. I was astounded.
 
shootersam said:
Mathematically yes, but the amount of money you would need to minimize the risk and the small winnings isn't worth it. 15 loses in a row just doubling from a pound and you're already up to over £15000 I think, it would be unlucky, but it can happen.. My maths isn't great though. :p
Click to expand...

Doubling strategies (i.e. Martingale as you are talking about) don't minimise any risk, the odds are exactly the same. All they do is allow you to play for longer giving an illusion that you are being more careful.

15 losses in a row in a nigh on 50/50 is unlikely as a single event, it is certain if you play for long enough.

Maccy said:
I never stated how they were programmed did I? Don't go making assumptions about what I said.
Click to expand...

You said they were programmed 'much in the casino's favour' and I'm saying they're not. The odds of the games offered already stack the game in the online casino's favor using a truly random game. Now, I'm not saying there are no bad companies out there, but you'll find that every major one (the type you see advertised on TV) don't and can't "program" the game to swing the odds further than what is stated. The use true randomisation services like "random.org" to provide seeds and after that it;s the rules of the game which dictate who wins.
 
Last edited:
kcon1 said:
The best are the people who say things like "red has come up ten times in a row, I'm going to put my money on black".
Click to expand...

This is where it becomes a mind**** IMO. Ignoring 0, black or red is 50:50, therefore in 100 rolls on average you should get 50 red, 50 black. So if the first 10 are red, on average black should come up more often in the next 90 rolls to maintain the average - yet each roll is 50:50.

Either way, no I know roulette favours the house too much. Only game I play in a casino is poker or blackjack. There is still luck involved in them but at least there is some skill and can influence the games.
 
Maccy said:
Let's just say it's not entirely random. I've seen people try the double up or the thirds method before and time and time again the system realised what's happening and will not return a winning hand if the process is repeated.
Click to expand...

Let's just say your mate is an idiot. Perhaps he's referring to some dodgy offshore casino, in which case fine... As far as register casinos go - v.unlikely - aside from it being utterly pointless - their edge is built in already, they don't want punters to lose too quickly (it's is less optimal overall)... Aside from the reasons why it's a silly idea to begin with they're also regulated and are potentially jeopardising their license with a pointless unnecessary tweak which isn't even required or beneficial in the first place.
 
Greboth said:
Either way, no I know roulette favours the house too much. Only game I play in a casino is poker or blackjack. There is still luck involved in them but at least there is some skill and can influence the games.
Click to expand...

European Roulette has one of the lowest house edges at around 2.8%. Blackjack is much worse. Poker against other people hasn't got a house edge other than any ante. I can't remember the stats for 3-card.
 
DRZ said:
European Roulette has one of the lowest house edges at around 2.8%. Blackjack is much worse. Poker against other people hasn't got a house edge other than any ante. I can't remember the stats for 3-card.
Click to expand...

Not really - assuming you know how to play... rule variations vary it and the decisions you take affect the house edge... In roulette the house edge is the same. Playing basic strategy in blackjack leaves a rather small edge to the house.
 
dowie said:
Not really - assuming you know how to play... rule variations vary it and the decisions you take affect the house edge... In roulette the house edge is the same. Playing basic strategy in blackjack leaves a rather small edge to the house.
Click to expand...

Yup. Rule variations mean blackjack CAN be worse returns than Roulette. Usually it's a little better, though, if you play perfect strategy (which is easy enough to learn)
 
Greboth said:
This is where it becomes a mind**** IMO. Ignoring 0, black or red is 50:50, therefore in 100 rolls on average you should get 50 red, 50 black. So if the first 10 are red, on average black should come up more often in the next 90 rolls to maintain the average - yet each roll is 50:50.
Click to expand...

Your problem is trying to extrapolate over a sample of 100, it doesn't work. The only way you will get a 50/50 distribution (ignoring 0) is over an infinite number of spins.

Maccy said:
Let's just say it's not entirely random. I've seen people try the double up or the thirds method before and time and time again the system realised what's happening and will not return a winning hand if the process is repeated.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely not true, your friend is talking rubbish unfortunately.
 
Greboth said:
This is where it becomes a mind**** IMO. Ignoring 0, black or red is 50:50, therefore in 100 rolls on average you should get 50 red, 50 black. So if the first 10 are red, on average black should come up more often in the next 90 rolls to maintain the average - yet each roll is 50:50.
Click to expand...

No - that's a fallacy... there is no 'mind ****' just an incorrect assumption there. Each roll is 50:50 (if we're ignoring green). If you get 10 reds it doesn't affect the next 90 rolls... at that point you now expect to see 45 red and 45 black... so a total of 55 red and 45 black over that sample of 100. Each roll is an independent event, there is no memory in the game, it doesn't matter what rolls happens a prior to the current roll.
 
You've got about a 92% win-rate with the best possible game on standard roulette, which means you're going to always lose in the long run.

You will only ever be a winner if you happen to chuck in a quid, win the jackpot and never ever play again.

Most gamblers are ****ing idiots and don't know when to stop.

As for the "it's been 10 blacks, it HAS to be red next" nonsense:

1. Your brain is looking for patterns where there are none.
2. You don't understand statistics properly. We are not dealing with a finite time-frame but an unlimited one. It could be 100,000 reds in a row, it still doesn't mean that it will be black for the 100,001st spin. It doesn't mean that the game is fixed.

As dowie has pointed out, each spin is an independent event.
 
Nix said:
You've got about a 92% win-rate with the best possible game on standard roulette, which means you're going to always lose in the long run.
Click to expand...

You've got 97.3% pay back on standard European Blackjack (36/37), 94.7% on a US table (36/38).

Your sentiment is entirely correct though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom