Forums-->General game forum-->
1|2|3|4|5|6
| Author | Roulette Mathematics |
|---|
So since I have some free time I thought I will write a bit about probabilities in roulette. I will start off by saying that no matter what or how you bet by probability you will lose, also I am not going to talk about any "strategy", but only bets that are mathematically inferior.
So in general there are two ways to bet, bets that give you higher odds to win than to lose, and bets that give you lower odds to win than to lose. Ideally you might think that no matter what you bet, the win:chance ratio should always be the same, which would have been true if there were only 36 numbers on the roulette table, however, with 38 that's not true. For example what's better, trying to win two sixlines in a row or one straight up? The win % would be exactly the same, so for example let's say your maximum bet is 6k, you can try two of the following:
1) Keep betting 1k on a straight up, if you win you will get 36k.
2) Keep betting 1k on a sixline, if you win you will get 6k, then bet on another sixline right away with this 6k, if you win you will get 36k, effectively turning 1k into 36 just like the first option.
Now as you can see, the win % is exactly the same, thus it is natural to assume that it doesn't make any difference on which of the two ways you bet. This combined with the false knowledge that roulette always has a 5.26% house advantage makes many to not imagine that option 2 is mathematically inferior to option 2. However, why is it so? Let's say there were no 0's in roulette, then what would be the chance of winning in option 1 or 2? Option 1: 1/36 = 2.78% and option 2: (6/36)(6/36) = 1/36 = 2.78%. However, if we perform the same calculations taking into account that roulette has 0 and 00, thus 38 numbers, we get the following values, option 1: 1/38 = 2.63% and option 2: (6/38)(6/38) = 2.49%, thus option 1 is 2.63/2.49 = 1.056 or 5.6% more likely to win than option 2, which is actually a huge difference given that the entire house advantage of roulette is only 5.26%.
So in this example betting once was better than betting twice, but is this always the case? No, here's an example:
1) You bet 1k on odd, even, red, black, 1-18 or 19-36(doesn't matter which one), if you win you have a profit of 1k, however if you lose you double the bet, and this time you bet 2k. So if you win the first time, your profit is 1k, and even if you win the second time your profit is still 1k(bet 3k and win 4k), however if you lose you have lost a total of 3k, so your bet:profit is 3:1.
2) You bet 3k on the first 27 numbers, if you win you will win 4k and thus have a profit of 1k, and if you lose you will lose 3k, thus again your bet:profit will be 3:1.
So as we already know from the previous example, due to roulette having 38 numbers one of these two options must be better than the other, so which one is it? Let's calculate the chance to win for both of them, option 1: 1-(20/38)^2 = 72.3%, and option 2: 27/38 = 71.05%, thus option one is clearly better. In the first example the choice that involved betting once instead of multiple time was better, however this time it is the other way, is this a coincidence? No, the logic is very simple actually, if your chance to win is more than 50% than it is better to choose the option that involves betting more than once and if it is less than 50% then it is better to choose the option that involves betting only once. So why is it so? I will try to give a short explanation by giving an example. Let's take an extreme example, when your win% is as high as possible, therefore let's say you bet on 35 numbers(I am not considering betting on 36,37 or 38 numbers because then it is impossible to get a profit). So in this case as you can see, if there were only 36 numbers(36 because that's what wins depend on, the win rate is always 36/number of numbers you have bet on) on a roulette table the chance to lose would be only 1/36 = 2.78%, however with 38 numbers it will be 3/38 = 7.89%, almost 3 times more! Whereas | Whereas the other extreme, betting only one number is not that bad, if there were 36 numbers the chance to lose would have been 35/36 = 97.22% and taking into account there are 38 numbers, the chance to lose is actually 97.37%, which is just VERY slightly more than 97.22%, therefore it proves that when your chance to win is over 50%(i.e. you are betting on more than 19 numbers) it is better to choose methods that involve betting multiple times, and if your chance win is less than 50%(i.e. you are betting on less than 19 numbers) it is better to choose a method that involves betting only ones.
And of course all of this is mathematical, so the above is not an opinion but fact.
Please feel free to comment and share your thoughts on this ^^ | option 2 is mathematically inferior to option 2
to option 1* | 2) Keep betting 1k on a sixline, if you win you will get 6k, then bet on another sixline right away with this 6k.
Honestly Random Boy, you are good guy, but I stopped reading in this very sentence.
1. This Roulette is identical to the IRL Roullete (There are two kinds of Roulettes depending on the number of Zeroes, but you get my point I guess).
There is NO TRICK to it.
2. Casinos always win, meaning players are more likely to lose, because of the Zeroes.
3. Please, go and search players that have a positive Balance in Roulette. I know there are, but many less than the amount of players that lose Golds in Roulette.
Do not try to find any trick/debate about this because it will only ENCOURAGE newer players to lose their Golds in it.
PS: If you hypotetically happen to win on the Sixline with your 1K as you say on example 2, AND THEN play the 6K on another Sixline, the odds of winning AGAIN on a Sixline are super low.
It would be way smarter to save a part of the income and keep playing (If you feel like it) with the other part of the benefits maybe.
The problem with people who have issues with Roulette (IRL) is that they throw ALL the benefits again into the Roulette with the expectations of winning more
---
We play a lot together so hopefully you dont find this Post as an offense, just try to understand what I mean, this thread is totally nonsense IMHO. It encourages playing Roulette as I mentioned.
Your Roulette Balance is a proof of all I said Tbh. | 3. Please, go and search players that have a positive Balance in Roulette. I know there are, but many less than the amount of players that lose Golds in Roulette.
+1
there will always be players with positive balance. It's not because they know how to play, it's just because there will always be someone that lucky | 3. Please, go and search players that have a positive Balance in Roulette. I know there are, but many less than the amount of players that lose Golds in Roulette.
This is more to the fact that most roulette addicts keep rouletting until they're broke, so they'll only stop when they happen to be unlucky. When they're lucky, they just keep betting again until they got unlucky and lost their money.
If the roulette addicts only bet a small percentage amount of their money, there will be a lot more people with positive balance
(Although there will still be slightly more people with negative balance) | What on earth are you two talking about? When did I say that this is q strategy?? Guess you guys didn't read anything I said.
I am not going to talk about any "strategy", but only bets that are mathematically inferior.
This post was meant to be an informative analysis on probabilities in roulette, when did I say you are going to win, or when did I suggest you to bet? | | Someone please delete post 4, it is absolutely irrelevant and ignorant and will only mislead other readers. | lol. i like roulette. im currently using the double if u lose method.
found some great successs with it :)
currently 800k gold down only lol | currently 800k gold down only lol
880k lol xD
I was thinking on comparing betting methods like martingale or simply betting on dozens, sixlines, etc. However seems like some people are not understanding what I'm trying to write so I'll pass for now. | hey man, they all said dnt rouulette
look, i have double my gold hahahaha | If you hypotetically happen to win on the Sixline with your 1K as you say on example 2, AND THEN play the 6K on another Sixline, the odds of winning AGAIN on a Sixline are super low.
Nope, they are exactly the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)
It is as randomr1 said a probabilistic analysis of roulette.
Also read the entire post before posting a comment.
Honestly Random Boy, you are good guy, but I stopped reading in this very sentence.
This shows your ignorance rather than your knowledge!
--
I'd suggest not to play roulette since it is totally dependent on luck! There are no shortcuts to being rich, sure you may gain a profit from gambling but that is only short term. In the long run, you are always going to lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
--
One strategy I liked in roulette was that if your intuition says some number say for example 18 is to fall then just bet straight up on 18 and few numbers around 18. That way you won't be pissed if the ball falls on 17 or 19 :P | for MarineBiologist:
Thank god somebody finally understands me.
I'd suggest not to play roulette since it is totally dependent on luck! There are no shortcuts to being rich, sure you may gain a profit from gambling but that is only short term. In the long run, you are always going to lose.
Yes absolutely, gambling is not a way to earn, which is why I have never gambled in real life, I bet in this game for time pass not to win gold. Note how all the probabilities give you AT LEAST a 5.26% disadvantage, some just make it worse, but that's the minimum, so it cannot be profitable in the long term.
One strategy I liked in roulette was that if your intuition says some number say for example 18 is to fall then just bet straight up on 18 and few numbers around 18. That way you won't be pissed if the ball falls on 17 or 19 :P
And then the ball drops on 16 or 20 lol xD | | I would also like to add that there is no point on wasting time and effort analyzing spin history. | for Lady sofiouta:
Yes absolutely :) As pointed out by Marine Biologist, independence in probability theory renders such spin history analysis completely useless, in fact it only acts to bias our thought, however even something like a bias in our minds does not affect our chance to win, so spin history is neither good nor bad. | I would also like to add that there is no point on wasting time and effort analyzing spin history.
Not really, if you are analysing a large sample size and a number hasn't appeared in say 100+ spins, the likelihood of that number appearing is more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers | for MarineBiologist:
Is it so? I believe the independence factor of a random number generator would overrule that. As for proof there are many people who keep betting on number that have not shown up for a long time and have no success with it. | Just an interesting question:
Imagine that there are no 0's, only numbers 1-36 in roulette.
Then imagine I already know which dozen will come, and ask you to guess a dozen. Let's say you guess first dozen, then, since there must be at least one dozen out of the remaining two, I point out one of the doors which is wrong, for example 2nd dozen. Then, I offer you the option to either switch your choice to 3rd dozen or remain with your initial choice of 1st dozen, will you switch? More importantly, does switching under such circumstances make a difference at all?
Congrats to those who got the Monty Hall reference xD | I would also like to add that there is no point on wasting time and effort analyzing spin history.
In an ideal world maybe, but computers aren't perfect and neither are (pseudo)random number generators.
for Ipsen:
He stated clearly he's not trying to discover a winning strategy...
for randomr1:
this problem's been discussed on some other topic, either in Offtopic or Creative Works :D | Is it so?
Yup.
According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed. The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of some random events.
Nothing is random. There is order in the chaos.
https://www.quora.com/Can-we-be-sure-that-true-randomness-exists-Can-it-be-proven-that-anything-is-truly-random |
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
1|2|3|4|5|6Back to topics list
|
