# Is there a method to win a decent amount on roulette?

Is there a method to win a decent amount on roulette?

Lets say budget 100\$

All urls found in this thread:

No.

@1593598
Yes, but you would have to be the guy rolling the ball.

some dude told me once do \$5 on black, then \$10 on red, \$20 on black, \$40 on red and so on, and somehow the odds work out in your favor, and then they ask you to leave the casino. don't know if there's any truth to that as I only play slots and video poker.

if you martingale it, here are the probabilities (y) of making x dollars out of 100 dollars on a table where the minimum bet is 1 dollar.

there's an 85% chance you can increase your money by 10%, and a 15% chance of losing everything.

That is another variation of martigale, it sounds like it could work, but in reality it doesn't. Furthermore, casino industry intentionaly spreads these "guaranteed" methods juat to drain money from your pocket

People have been trying methods of winning at roulette for the past 200 years. The only thing that has been proven to work is finding biased wheels, which don't exist anymore due to countermeasures from casinos.

The problem is that you are playing within a system that is designed to take your money and rigged against you through the rules of the game. Even if you were to get lucky and win in the short term, the math guarantees that you will lose in the long term.

Right but as long as the long term is 200 years from now it's all worth it.

My martingale system goes like this. Wait for the roulette to hit the same color 5 times in a row. Then start betting on the other color and keep doubling your bet until it switches colors.

Wait for the roulette to hit the same color 5 times in a row.

What you are describing is known as "the gambler's fallacy", that a color or number is "due" to come out because it hasn't come for so long. The roulette wheel has no memory, each spin of the wheel is completely independent of any previous spins. There is absolutely no reason red is going to come next because black has come out 10 times in a row.

It can just as easily come out for the same color (or 0) another 5 times in a row, and meanwhile you are losing massive amounts of money because you are doubling your bet every time.

What if you start with 0.10. So every roll you win is 0.10 and start all over with 0.10?

You need like a lose streak of 9/10 (assuming we keep betting on 1 color)? If you start with 100\$

Never said it guarantees a win but it improves your chances over what
showed.

I know what you are saying but probabilisticly you greatly improve your chances of winning. It's like what is the chances of getting heads on a fair coin flip? 50%. And what are the chances of getting 20 heads in a row on a fair coin? 2^(-20). Not 50%. You are not accounting for variance. There is a reason casinos have betting limits.

You can't, unless you can physically cheat (modify the wheel, etc). It is a random game and the house still has an edge (0/00).

Gambling is for entertainment only. Do it for the thrill of it, with money you're happy to lose. Don't go in to a casino expecting to win.

yea you can try doing this at a real casino and see how long it takes until they tell you to leave.

I did a hundred at a casino in a bumfuck nowhere town before I got some looks and just left before I caused trouble.

No it actually doesn't

What about 'no memory' do you not understand

I'll do it for 100 bucks

Wow some of you people are complete idiots. The martingale system of doubling after a loss is horrible. It won't take long before you will lose enough in a row to hit the table limit, which every single casino in the world has.

As far as betting against a streak of 5ish reds/blacks in a row, if you go to casinos ever, take a look at the scoreboard that most roulette tables have, that show you the last 12ish spins. You'll see many instances of 8+ reds or blacks in a row. Someone else brought up Gambler's Fallacy, that covers that.

The house has an edge every singe spin on roulette, and as long as there's a max limit bet, you will never have an edge.

I did a hundred at a casino in a bumfuck nowhere town before I got some looks and just left before I caused trouble.
lol no. \$100 is not considered a big bet in any casino by any means.

He meant his base value was 100. And if I saw 8 blacks in a row I'd bet red or alternate black and red.

What about variance existing do you not understand? What about nothing being completely unbiased do you not understand?

fpbp

I did this and won \$60 at the casino but I almost lost it all too. An extended martingale system is better.

Bet on a square of 4 numbers and keep that bet till you lose 8 times in a row. Then double it. You will get more play time that way.

But every system has the casino at 51% win rate so they will always win if you play as a "career" and not just casual fun.

I like to go with \$300 and if I lose it then i lose it if not it pays for my drinks.

being this fucking retarded
have you ever taken a math class in your life you drooling idiot? Never mind basic scientific literacy, can you not simply try your method with a simulator a million times and easily see that it is still exactly a 50% chance? Like this is not a debate we should be having. There are dozens of ways to simulate this scenario ad infinitum and you will invariably see a 50% winrate on a sufficient sample

Playing roulette is always -EV

still exactly a 50% chance
Maybe if there weren't greens...

What does it mean for a machine to be unbiased? It means it follows no patterns. If it follows no patterns and you bet against a perceived pattern you will win. It's very simple.

Actually being a math/ams double major senior with all A's and being questioned if I took a math class. Woo lad.

You can beat roulette like this:

Bet \$100 on red or black continuously until late you get to \$1000. Then quit and never play roulette again.

You need a bankroll of atleast \$2k to deal with downswings. But it's totally possibly to rack it up.

Short term wins are easy. Long term wins are impossible.

You are a complete idiot, and you are blatantly wrong.

Only arguments please, no air talk.

college must be easy as fuck in the US

Idk I'm from EU but would love to be a cheerleader

Yeh before any flips occur, the probability of getting 20 heads in a row is 2^(-20).
But after 19 heads in a row, some dumb schmuck think 'holy shit the odds of 20 heads in a row is so low,I have to bet on tails'. This is incorrect, after 19 heads, the probability of the 20th flip also being heads is 50%. So the '5 blacks switch to red' idea from earlier in this thread is idiotic for the same reason.

I'm honestly a little sad that biz is arguing over this. It is highschool level probability.

the method is called being lucky

math major

If you didn't lie, maybe you should take some statistics classes again.

No memory = no memory

This is a bait thread to shill for a 'method' of making money.

Historically it's been done by finding a biased wheel and exploiting that, but casinos got wise to that trick and all use better balanced wheels nowadays. It's also been done by cheats using shoe computers, but casinos got wise to that too.

The only remaining remotely reliable method is to buy shares in the casino, but even then there's significant risk.

Then start betting on the other color and keep doubling your bet until it switches colors.

This (ie Martingale) limits your profits to one time your initial bet. Your potential profit is completely gimped while your potential loss is infinite. I'll never get why so many people think so highly of Martingale.

Just a quick example:
bet: 10. losses so far: 0. potential bet profit: 10
bet: 20. losses so far: 10. bet profit: 40-30=10
bet: 40. losses so far: 30. bet profit: 80-70=10
bet: 80. losses so far: 70. bet profit: 160-150=10
bet: 160. losses so far: 150. bet profit: 320-310=10

At this point you're 310 deep and would have to fork over an additional 320 next round just to get a chance at winning a measly 10 bucks of profit. why would anyone think this is a good idea? if at this point you want to cut your losses you'd have to win the next 31 Matingale streaks just to break even. So essentially Martingale locks you into the system until you hit either your bankroll or the betting limit - both for an absolutely catastrophic result. All that for the chance of doubling your initial bet....

Yes, and his maximum profit was 100 as well for each series. And the looks he got were probably pity from the dealers who have seen far too many people ruin their life with Martingale.

Gambling is for entertainment only. Do it for the thrill of it, with money you're happy to lose. Don't go in to a casino expecting to win.
This is the only way to gamble. *Never* play for profit.

ex croupier here , first thing they teach you is that the ball has no memory of where it landed last. also, the pit boss looks for dealers that always release the ball with the same speed/force and get them to constantly change the speed/force of release.
Stay away from roulette for getting rich.
1 more thing op.
Best bet on a roulette wheel is "even", simply because if the ball lands on zero then you get half your stake back.
That brought back memories.

Well after 19 heads in a row id say "well fuck thats a rigged coin" and bet heads

you wouldn't have to win 31 martingale streaks to break even if you just lost \$310, you'd only have to win the next bet to go from -\$310 to +\$10.

if at this point you want to cut your losses you'd have to win the next 31 Matingale streaks just to break even
if at this point you want to cut your losses
Meaning if at this point you want to stop. You're right. You wouldn't stop. You'd fork over another 320. That's the point of that paragraph. Martingale locks you in. It forces you to take higher and higher risks for a capped profit.

Initially betting on 47% win \$10 and 53% lose \$10 is somewhat acceptable. But at this point you're betting 47% win \$10 and 53% lose \$630. In a vacuum - would you honestly take that bet? In Martingale every subsequent bet becomes more and more unreasonable, but you're desperate to regain your losses.

if you cut your losses you'd no longer be using the martingale system.

we all know it's a minus ev system unless you have unlimited money and unlimited betting, but your example was ridiculous.

implying betting red/black has a 50% winrate
Yep you're retarded

and as long as there's a max limit bet, you will never have an edge.

what happens if there is no max limit bet?

quality of school systems right here

the probability of getting 20 heads is exactly the same as the probability of any other specific combination of heads and tails after 20 flips

Here's an easy way to win moneyz, 100% chance of success every time

Dude what the fuck? Did you bet \$1.000 on Donald Trump?

you'd no longer be using the martingale system.
Yeah, no fucking shit. You do know how conditional sentences work, right? The part lead by "if" is hypothetical.

mfw no swing state parlay

i have a system

find a dealer with a steady hand. each time they throw the ball it circles the table 4 or 5 times or 5 and 1/2.

memorize where they released the ball from quickly bet the 5 numbers in the area opposite area, realease area or next quater of the wheel.

it works until the dealer catches on and throws wild. but at well run casinos they may pull the dealer after a few wins. its crazy how fast they catch on. and you have to watch the wheel for awhile to attempt it.

You must be going to some backwater-ass motherfucking casino. Roulette wheels are supposed to have little metal spurs that make the ball go wild when it hits them. It's virtually impossible to predict if the wheel has them.

Yes
Bet on red first. Then black. Then red again. If you lose a roll double it to cover the previous roll. Keep increasing until recover any loss. Will take time and eventually you will be kicked out of the casino, but definitely works.

Bet on red first. Then black. Then red again.
definitely works.

Jesus christ, did you learn ANYTHING from this thread?