Thread Rating:

I put $1 on 35 numbers in roulette on an American wheel because that's all that's available in Cleveland. The 3 numbers I choose to leave uncovered will depend on the most recently landed on numbers. If two or more odds, evens, reds, blacks, 1-18's, 19-36's, 1-12's, 13-24's, or 25-36's have been landed on in a row, the three numbers I leave uncovered will reflect that... For example if the last two numbers were odd numbers 1-12, at least two of the uncovered numbers will be odd numbers 1-12 and probably one odd elsewhere on the board... If I lose I double down on everything I just bet. If I win I switch up what 35 numbers I have a dollar on. If I win 1000 hands before I lose 5 in a row I win $1000. If I lose 5 in a row before winning $1000 spins total, I lose $1085.

The odds of winning any given hand are 35/38 or 92.1053%. The odds of losing 5 in a row are (3/38)^5 or 0.000306682% or 1 in 3,066,820.

Assuming best worst case scenario, I lose 4 times each initial bet and then win the 5th spin... This would mean that it would take me 5600 spins to win $1120, bringing my bankroll to $2205 and allowing for an extra double down. With the ability to double down 6 times, the odds of losing become (3/38)^6 or 0.00002421174 or 1 in 24,211,740.

Best worst case scenario = 13,440 more spins (losing 5 before winning 1 every time) to increase bankroll to $4445 to allow for another double down.

Odds of losing with 7 double downs = 0.000001191453% or 1 in 119,145,300.

Continue strategy until you fall asleep and they escort you out a rich man.

Max bet at the Horseshoe Casino in Cleveland is $1000 combining all inside bets. Therefore they only allow for 3 full double downs, odds of losing = .049205% or 49 in 1000, making this strategy impossible to win with. Calling my friend now to see if there's a high stakes section that will allow for more double downs. Or else it looks like I'm going to Atlantic City. Please double check my math and let me know if I'm an idiot or not.

Welcome to the forum. The wheel has no memory, so I don't know what past numbers hit has to do with your system working, but I guess it's as good a start as any. Seems like it would be very hard to keep up with placing all those individual bets, let alone the hundred hours or so it would take to make the $1000, which comes out to paying yourself $10/hour in a grinding manner, plus expenses for a minimum 5 days sitting there, assuming you don't go broke and they manage to resolve a hand 1x/min. But that wasn't your question, and I don't see any logical reason what you're proposing mathematically isn't correct, but I'm also not a mathematician.

Also, I'd request you remove the invitation to "let me know if I'm an idiot or not" and rephrase. If anyone literally takes you up on the former, they'll get popped under the "no personal insults", even though you invited it. Thanks!

Quote:beachbumbabsHi, Bing,

Welcome to the forum. The wheel has no memory, so I don't know what past numbers hit has to do with your system working, but I guess it's as good a start as any. Seems like it would be very hard to keep up with placing all those individual bets, let alone the hundred hours or so it would take to make the $1000, which comes out to paying yourself $10/hour in a grinding manner, plus expenses for a minimum 5 days sitting there, assuming you don't go broke and they manage to resolve a hand 1x/min. But that wasn't your question, and I don't see any logical reason what you're proposing mathematically isn't correct, but I'm also not a mathematician.

Also, I'd request you remove the invitation to "let me know if I'm an idiot or not" and rephrase. If anyone literally takes you up on the former, they'll get popped under the "no personal insults", even though you invited it. Thanks!

I'm not sure when anyone does all these mathematical equations on a game that they would be lucky to beat. You have the math down. Use it for poker or something.

Quote:Thebinginengine(3/38)^5 or 0.000306682% or 1 in 3,066,820.

You might want to check that.

Quote:(3/38)^6 or 0.00002421174 or 1 in 24,211,740.

You might want to check that too.

Quote:0.000001191453% or 1 in 119,145,300.

Is your calculator on the fritz or something?

Quote:Please double check my math

So far off...

Quote:Lemieux66You have the math down.

Not even close.

Sounds like a tremendous waste of time.

Additionally, I think your math might be off...

Bet $35, win $35 + original bet = net $1. Great.

But if you lose...

Bet $35, lose $35 = net -$35.

In order to win $36 on the following spin, you'd need to wager $18 on each number or $630.

$18 x 35 = $630 wagered

Win = $18 x 35 + original bet of $18 or $648.

Subtract the $612 for the wagers you lost for a gain of $36 on the second spin.

Now deduct the $35 from the initial spin and you have a net gain of $1 after two spins.

If you were to lose two in a row, you'd have to exceed the table max to win $1.

Quote:TerribleTomSo, your plan is to win $1 per spin for a little while then get kicked out of the casino?

Kicked out? You must be kidding me.

Quote:TerribleTom

Bet $35, win $35 + original bet = net $1. Great.

But if you lose...

Bet $35, lose $35 = net -$35.

In order to win $36 on the following spin, you'd need to wager $18 on each number or $630.

Disclaimer: in no way condoning any of this, but it seems the OP wants to double up after a loss, so lose $35 as you say but follow by betting $2 on 35 numbers and if hit win 35:1 = $70 so + $2 after two spins as described. Without doing the math this would likely work for a while but inevitably lose so many in a row that hit the point of ruin.

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceNot even close.

Obviously I didn't care enough to see if he's right, but his ATTEMPTS at being right for roulette is time wasted.

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceKicked out? You must be kidding me.

It was his plan...

Quote:ThebinginengineContinue strategy until you fall asleep and they escort you out a rich man.

Quote:chickenmanDisclaimer: in no way condoning any of this, but it seems the OP wants to double up after a loss, so lose $35 as you say but follow by betting $2 on 35 numbers and if hit win 35:1 = $70 so + $2 after two spins as described. Without doing the math this would likely work for a while but inevitably lose so many in a row that hit the point of ruin.

Bet 35 x $1, win. Net gain = $1.

Bet 35 x $1, lose. Net loss of $35

Bet 35 x $2, win. Gain on that spin is $2. Net after two spins is -$33.

With a system like that, the casino will probably end up comping you a room.

Quote:TerribleTomIt was his plan...

Bet 35 x $1, win. Net gain = $1.

Bet 35 x $1, lose. Net loss of $35

Bet 35 x $2, win. Gain on that spin is $2. Net after two spins is -$33.

With a system like that, the casino will probably end up comping you a room.

Exactly. Winning $1000 using this system would be very close to impossible. I'm not even sure what the plan is after being down $33...

Quote:TerribleTom

In order to win $36 on the following spin, you'd need to wager $18 on each number or $630.

$18 x 35 = $630 wagered

Win = $18 x 35 + original bet of $18 or $648.

Subtract the $612 for the wagers you lost for a gain of $36 on the second spin.

Now deduct the $35 from the initial spin and you have a net gain of $1 after two spins.

.

This is wrong.

If I bet $18 on 35 different numbers, you are correct in that I have $630 in chips wagered on the table.

But when I win, I get paid $630 (35 x 17) plus I retrieve the original bet of $18 thats on the winning number on the layout, thats $648, for a total profit of $18 on that specific spin.

If you deduct the $35 from the initial spin, you are still down $17.

Quote:FinsRuleExactly. Winning $1000 using this system would be very close to impossible. I'm not even sure what the plan is after being down $33...

Bet $4 x 35, of course!

Quote:EdgeLookerThis is wrong.

If I bet $18 on 35 different numbers, you are correct in that I have $630 in chips wagered on the table.

But when I win, I get paid $630 (35 x 17) plus I retrieve the original bet of $18 thats on the winning number on the layout, thats $648, for a total profit of $18 on that specific spin.

If you deduct the $35 from the initial spin, you are still down $17.

I stand corrected.

And yet you still can't resist.Quote:ThebinginengineOk so I'm a Wizard of Odds fanatic, I know the main belief is that all betting systems are garbage.

I assume you mean fanatic in a good way, and you like and respect the wizard including the members and all things WOV.

IMO: It seems obvious that the Wizard despises betting systems and wants no part of anyone who advocates or continually discuses them.

I think... *cough "NEW MEMBERS" get a pass and a few freebies asking about such things.

It seems you got the answer to your question(probably not the one you were looking for). Like it or not betting systems don't work for many reasons. If you cant except that fine, but I suggest you bury it deep, deep down inside and move on to REAL gambling or some other get rich quick scheme. Don't spit on the Wizards religion If your such a fanatic of this site or you may be considered a heathen. Heathens tend to get ostracized around here.

Quote:ThebinginengineAssuming best worst case scenario, I lose 4 times each initial bet and then win the 5th spin.

So here's what happens:

First bet: you lose $35

Second bet: you lose $70 more

Third bet: you lose $140 more

Fourth bet: you lose $280 more

You now have lost a total of $525, and have $16 bet on each of 35 numbers

If you win, your one winning bet profits $16 x 35 = $560; however, your other 34 $16 bets lost, so you lose $544 on those, and you are still behind $509 (525 - 560 + 544).

As others have pointed out, the flaw in the system is, if you lose, a subsequent win will not make up for your losses. (Even if you win after your first loss, your first loss cost you $35, and you only gained $2 on your win (one winning $2 bet, 34 losing $2 bets), so you are behind $33).

Quote:Buzzard" If anyone literally takes you up on the former, they'll get popped under the "no personal insults", " Well then, I will not say he is an idiot. I definitely will refrain from calling him an idiot. If someone else calls him an idiot, well I have no control over that. Babs, thanks for reminding me not to call him an idiot.

FWIW, I didn't make the rule, nor did I enforce it the first time it occurred (someone else agreeing with something derogatory a person said about themselves); I wasn't even green, I don't think, though it was this year. It did set a precedent, though, and a standard. It's almost baiting by the OP, between acknowledging systems don't get respected here but proposing one anyway, and inviting the name-calling. He's new, so I mentioned it rather than letting people get themselves in a protest situation. Carry on.

Quote:TerribleTomIt was his plan...

His plan also seems to hinge on the hope that (3/38) ^ 5 = 1 / 3,066,820. There are many, many flaws with this plan.

Quote:Thebinginengine0.000306682% or 1 in 3,066,820.

Whaaaaat? Do you think that 0.5% is 1 in 500? I think it's 1 in 200. The formula for that is 1/0.005=200.

Quote:rdw4potusWhaaaaat? Do you think that 0.5% is 1 in 500? I think it's 1 in 200. The formula for that is 1/0.005=200.

Oh, THAT is where he got the number from! That is funny.

I guess 100 percent is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceOh, THAT is where he got the number from! That is funny.

I guess 100 percent is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000

Does a quote of the original OP message bring a suspension? Clearly, quoting him might be viewed as intention of making him look like an i....Quote:Buzzard" If anyone literally takes you up on the former, they'll get popped under the "no personal insults", " Well then, I will not say he is an idiot. I definitely will refrain from calling him an idiot. If someone else calls him an idiot, well I have no control over that. Babs, thanks for reminding me not to call him an idiot.

Quote:kubikulannDoes a quote of the original OP message bring a suspension? Clearly, quoting him might be viewed as intention of making him look like an i....

I tried to get a ruling from Babs on this. I never understood her logic when we were married in a parallel universe. I always thought the O as her middle initial was for Othelia. But seems it is for Obfuscation.