h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Bet three dollars on any one number. If you lose then
you are out
three dollars. If you win then bet one hundred and eight
dollars on
any one number. Proceed in this fashion until you have
won more
than five million dollars on a single bet. As you can see,
you are a
"low roller" until
you become a "high roller". You would
need to
find a casino that will take your higher bet amounts.
It is my
(contention) that
this system maximizes the influence of luck in the
game of
roulette. If one were to bet an equal amount on all
numbers then one would certainly lose. Reducing the
amount of numbers you bet on will mean it is less
certain that you will lose on any given spin. Therefore,
betting on just one number is optimal for beating the
odds on any given spin.
I will never claim that there is a
positive expectation of winning when using this
method. Neither do I (now) believe that any system can
beat the odds consistently.
program showing many experiments with count indicating when you are winning and when you are losing
http://ideone.com/8zBpRt
[zelah, Oct 09 2016, last modified Oct 12 2016]
Martingale_(betting_system)
https://en.wikipedi...le_(betting_system)
[hippo, Oct 10 2016]
Buy_20my_20luck_2ecom
[calum, Oct 11 2016]
[link]
|
| |
Then I'm assuming you are a millionaire by now, having tried
out your idea, me wonders. |
|
| |
Looks like it's only a matter of few days now for the world's
casinos to survive once this gets out. I'm booking my flight
to Las Vegas tonight and bringing my life's savings along
with several children to sell for organ harvesting to raise
even more money to bet on this amazing scheme. |
|
| |
Zelah will show the way. I'll also introduce him to some old
friends who are always keen to make extra money, but who
also get very cross when they loose. This is how spaghetti
was invented. Now they make it out of pasta, but it wasn't
always the main ingredient. |
|
| |
You may laugh but people buy lottery tickets too. I will bet
once and be done at a cost of three dollars. |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] crap |
|
| |
//You may laugh// ok thanks - begins laughing. |
|
| |
//It is my opinion that this system [...]// serves as a demonstration of
the fact that human stupidity is, as Einstein feared, unbounded. |
|
| |
Don't forget your old friends on halfbakery when you win. |
|
| |
//You may laugh but people buy lottery tickets
too.// |
|
| |
That makes sense. Roulette is better odds by far
than any lottery. The returns are far less, of course,
but the expectation (though still negative) is much
less negative than with the lottery. |
|
| |
Have this bun [+] to sustain you during the long hours
at the table. |
|
| |
1. Casinos with roulette wheels continue to operate and indeed thrive. |
|
| |
2. Casinos are expensive to establish and maintain. |
|
| |
3. "You never see a bookie on a bike". |
|
| |
If there was any way for a player to easily and consistently win against the house at roulette, every wheel would vanish overnight. No casino is going to offer a game that they know they're not going to - on the average - make money on. |
|
| |
At a wild guess, buying shares in the company who makes the roulette wheels would be the best bet (no pun intended). |
|
| |
Isn't this just a 'Martingale' system, which doesn't
change the long-term odds of roulette (i.e. you'll
lose) but gives you reasonable odds of a small short-
term win in exchange for also taking on a small risk
of a absolutely massive loss? (see link)
A
properly-designed Martingale-type system can work
(i.e. guarantee that you'll at least break even on a
simple game like coin-tossing) but only if you're
infinitely wealthy. |
|
| |
MaxwellBuchanan is my friend... |
|
| |
You say that as if it's a good thing... |
|
| |
Maybe not "good", just notable. |
|
| |
Stick with it, [zelah]. I've been here ten years, and
I'm optimistic that the next parole board hearing will
go well. |
|
| |
I think I will have a t-shirt made up that reads "amateur
gambler" or "gambling enthusiast" for when I go to the
casino. |
|
| |
"LOSER" is a trifle more succinct ... |
|
| |
//MaxwellBuchanan is my friend.. zelah// It's only a
matter of time before you'll be asking for a refund. |
|
| |
//A properly-designed Martingale-type system can work (i.e.
guarantee that you'll at least break even on a simple game
like coin-tossing) but only if you're infinitely wealthy// |
|
| |
Or you hit up against the house limits. |
|
| |
//"LOSER" is a trifle more succinct ...// |
|
| |
You may be right - I have neither the intellect nor the
class to waste my time reading about and then
commenting on things I disagree with. |
|
| |
Today was my first day at the casino (sans t-shirt so
as to fly under the radar). |
|
| |
I am out $2.50 but I had all the drinks I could want
and some fried mozzarella balls. |
|
| |
Betting for the reason you want money is never a good idea.
There are other more sociable reasons to flutter. |
|
| |
//Today was my first day at the casino// |
|
| |
Wow - a practical 'baker! More power to you... |
|
| |
Hope we hear from zelah again. The gambling proprietors
don't need anymore trapped souls. |
|
| |
Bah, 2.50$ what am I worried about. |
|
| |
[AusCan531] you're right - to guarantee a break-even
you need infinite money, infinite time and no house
limits |
|
| |
Additional leverage roulette would mean betting on the future winnings of players of roulette by agreeing the figure and then working out payouts based on the spread. A margin could be placed as collateral, and winnings (and losses) paid out to some schedule until such time as the position was closed. |
|
| |
You could further leverage that by betting on the amounts that were being won or lost by those people playing the spread. Then again by betting on those playing the spread on the spread - and so on. I think after that, it might be worth constructing some kind of scheme to collateralise the risk by pooling groups of spread-players into chunks, waving some magic wand and announcing they're solid. These collateralised gambling obligations (CGOs) could then be sold on around the world as highly prized (and priced) secure investments. Everyone wins, poverty is solved and what could possibly go wrong? |
|
| |
ooh, securitisation of luck - I like it! |
|
| |
re luck securitisation see link |
|
| |
I think if you look on roulette as a form of
entertainment (and, potentially, a source of free
drinks and nibbles courtesy of the house), it's
probably good value for money. Certainly, if you're
reasonably careful, you can get away with a steady
but small loss and get lots of fun out of your money. |
|
| |
Thanks [calum], - yes, "luck accountancy" too |
|
| |
A variation: pocket half
of any winnings. |
|
| |
[zelah], it all comes down to odds. You can prove,
using real
actual mathematics with real actual numbers, that
no betting
system whatsoeveratall will allow you to win
overall on a non-
rigged game of roulette. |
|
| |
Thousands of people have lost billions of pounds by
using instinct
rather than mathematics. |
|
| |
By choosing a betting strategy, you can: |
|
| |
(a) Maximise the length of time you can play on a
given amount
of money
(b) Go for a small chance of winning a large
amount of money, or
a larger chance of winning a small amount of
money (but never
winning over a long run of games)
(c) Go for steady, gradual attrition of your stake,
or wild swings
from high to low (but again, never winning over a
long run of
games) |
|
| |
In case anyone is interested (which I doubt), my
own strategy is
to walk in, say nothing, and put a thousand on red.
If I lose
(19/37ths of the time), I walk away as if it doesn't
bother me. If
I win (18/37ths of the time), I pick up my two
thousand without
cracking a smile and walk away. That's it for the
night. On
average I lose slightly, but by now at least I get
offered a drink
and snack as soon as I walk in the door. And <half
the time I
leave very happy, whereas the other >half the time
I leave with
a re-envigorated faith in mathematics. |
|
| |
Bet less than $2.50 a visit. I don't see the problem
[MaxwellBuchanan]. |
|
| |
Would not the mathematical expectation be the same
between any two strategies so long as the total
amount bet is
the same? I could walk in and put $500 on red and
$500 on black for the same spin of the roulette wheel
and do just as well
as you in the long run. |
|
| |
That was my technique in the Zamalek Marriott casino, they handed out free fags, food and a drink...so either way I got most of my £12 quid back one way or another. |
|
| |
PS zelah, I bet you that you can't stop gambling.. |
|
| |
I once ran some computer simulations involving a
system of
bets versus random numbers. If the numbers are
random
enough, they can represent any normal gambling
situation,
like a roulette wheel. |
|
| |
The results of the simulation were very clear: No
matter
how much "seed money" you start with, a sequence of
losing gambles will wipe you out before your money can
double. You can temporarily get ahead of your initial
seed
total by a modest percentage, but if you persist in your
"system", you will always be wiped out. |
|
| |
That's nearly true - a Martingale system on a gamble
with no 'house' advantage (like the 00 in roulette)
can be guaranteed to get you back to a 'break even'
point, given infinite funds, no bet limit and no time
limit. |
|
| |