h a l f b a k e r y
Assume a hemispherical cow.

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# maximum leverage roulette

turn single zero roulette into a lottery
 (+1) [vote for, against]

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.

 — zelah, Oct 09 2016

program showing many experiments with count indicating when you are winning and when you are losing http://ideone.com/8zBpRt

Martingale_(betting_system) https://en.wikipedi...le_(betting_system)
[hippo, Oct 10 2016]

Then I'm assuming you are a millionaire by now, having tried out your idea, me wonders.
 — blissmiss, Oct 09 2016

*sigh*
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 09 2016

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.
 — xenzag, Oct 09 2016

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.
 — xenzag, Oct 09 2016

You may laugh but people buy lottery tickets too. I will bet once and be done at a cost of three dollars.
 — zelah, Oct 09 2016

[marked-for-deletion] crap
 — FlyingToaster, Oct 09 2016

//You may laugh// ok thanks - begins laughing.
 — xenzag, Oct 09 2016

//It is my opinion that this system [...]// serves as a demonstration of the fact that human stupidity is, as Einstein feared, unbounded.
 — lurch, Oct 09 2016

I like you people too!
 — zelah, Oct 09 2016

Don't forget your old friends on halfbakery when you win.
 — not_morrison_rm, Oct 09 2016

 //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.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 10 2016

 Consider the evidence:

 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.
 — 8th of 7, Oct 10 2016

At a wild guess, buying shares in the company who makes the roulette wheels would be the best bet (no pun intended).
 — not_morrison_rm, Oct 10 2016

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.
 — hippo, Oct 10 2016

MaxwellBuchanan is my friend...
 — zelah, Oct 10 2016

You say that as if it's a good thing...
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 10 2016

Maybe not "good", just notable.
 — zelah, Oct 10 2016

 Fair point.

Stick with it, [zelah]. I've been here ten years, and I'm optimistic that the next parole board hearing will go well.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 10 2016

I think I will have a t-shirt made up that reads "amateur gambler" or "gambling enthusiast" for when I go to the casino.
 — zelah, Oct 10 2016

"LOSER" is a trifle more succinct ...
 — 8th of 7, Oct 10 2016

//MaxwellBuchanan is my friend.. zelah// It's only a matter of time before you'll be asking for a refund.
 — xenzag, Oct 10 2016

 //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.
 — AusCan531, Oct 10 2016

 //"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.
 — zelah, Oct 11 2016

 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.
 — zelah, Oct 11 2016

Betting for the reason you want money is never a good idea. There are other more sociable reasons to flutter.
 — wjt, Oct 11 2016

 //Today was my first day at the casino//

Wow - a practical 'baker! More power to you...
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 11 2016

 Hope we hear from zelah again. The gambling proprietors don't need anymore trapped souls.

Bah, 2.50\$ what am I worried about.
 — wjt, Oct 11 2016

[AusCan531] you're right - to guarantee a break-even you need infinite money, infinite time and no house limits
 — hippo, Oct 11 2016

 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?
 — zen_tom, Oct 11 2016

ooh, securitisation of luck - I like it!
 — hippo, Oct 11 2016

 — calum, Oct 11 2016

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.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 11 2016

Thanks [calum], - yes, "luck accountancy" too
 — hippo, Oct 11 2016

A variation: pocket half of any winnings.
 — zelah, Oct 11 2016

 [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)

 etc. etc.

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.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 11 2016

 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.
 — zelah, Oct 12 2016

 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..
 — not_morrison_rm, Oct 12 2016

That is very tricky!
 — zelah, Oct 12 2016

 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.
 — Vernon, Oct 12 2016

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.
 — hippo, Oct 12 2016

 [annotate]

back: main index