roulette

say there is like 36 numbers or whatever and i bet on 34 numbers and if you hit one of the numbers you get paid 35 to 1 so i would be up one unit and my edge over the house is in the 85-90 percent roughly? the roullet at the casino closest to my house takes a minimum of 25 cent bets on a number and i think 300 max its like a big round table a real roulette wheel in t he middle and computer screens for the betting theres no dealer or anything.

what did you just say?

How did you calculate that fantastic advantage?

This dribble-babble is in the wrong forum. zg

You forgot to add in the "0" and "00" which eats into your "advantage".

If you don't hit the number then you take a massive hit. You are down 34 units which would be 34 straight wins over NO LOSSES just to break even. Do you really think you can consistently hit 34 straight wins?

You do not have an 85-90 edge over the house. A number has a 1-in-38 chance of hitting but you are only getting paid 34 (or whatever) so you are playing a losing game.

hmm

what if i bet 1 hundred on each number for 34 numbers and just win once and be up a hundred bux haha? what are my chances for a bad loss?

You know what's really cool about roulette? No matter what number combination you bet on (single, box, line, even, first third, red, black), the house has the exact same house edge. The culprit is the 0 and 00 spots, they mess up everything. If you want to risk it all, bet your lucky number, if you want to play it safe, play red and black. Either way, the house advantage is the same.

The only bet that's an exception to this is one on the edge that bets on 0, 00, and the three lowest numbers. Normally this should be a six-number bet, but since you have only five, it has worse odds of hitting for the same payout.

In conclusion, roulette is fun to bet, but stupid to play.

Oh hell, why did I bother writing this, the Wizard has a great page:
http://wizardofodds.com/roulette

Actually Roulette can be beaten. Obviously not with any progression or patterns. The interesting think about Roulette is that it is the only casino game that allows you to bet after the game has started. Kind of like betting on a horse after it has left the gate. The advantage can be huge compared to BJ. But, it is more difficult than card counting IMO.

Disclaimer: I have also developed Roulette software.

Norm, I think that is great. My the Casino Gods continue to look favorable upon you. You never know, maybe they will be kind enough to teach you how to develop software that deals cards randomly. God Bless

Are you talking about something that clocks the wheel/ball and outputs a quadrant the ball is likely to land in? I've read some stuff about that and it looks really neat. Do you have any links?

The problem with that is that is blatant cheating if you get caught (unlike card counting).

See below

Why would you think otherwise?

-Sonny-

Not exactly "clocking." But yes, determining an arc where the ball is more probable to land in certain circumstances. If you can get the right quadrant one out of three times, you have an enormous advantage. But as I said it is not easy. Link is http://advantageplayer.com/roulette/index.html

Not if the device you use is your brain But casinos do bar Roulette players.

God I would love to be able to do AP on roulette! The advantage would have to be enormous, and there's really only one technique you have to master, unlike with BJ.

But how easy is it to know when you are doing it right, and in corollary, how many people who believe they can AP roulette actually can?

Good questions. Of course most people that call themselves card counters can't.

I respect your opinion, so I should ask you if you think the system is worth the 600 dollars (for both courses)?

And how would you compare the difficulty of being able to beat roullette vs being able to shuffletrack. I am trying to expand my AP repetoir beyond straight card counting, so this could be useful if it is worth the cost and not impossible to do.

Thanks!

I too am interested, but I would need proof that it is both TRUELY plausable and also feasable before taking the plunge.

I agree. That's why you would want to buy course 1 before buying the second, which is more expensive.

I have a feeling this is kind of like dice control or maybe even that stock market time traveler guy.

I'm afraid I really don't know. We have no data on how successful people are at either in general. And I hate anecdotal evidence.

I have never been convinced dice control works. I don't know for certain - but nothing I've read has convinced me of any advantage and much I've read by those that claim dice control looks very suspicious.

However, I am working on that time travel stock market thingy (Actually, that's not entirely a joke.)