Thebinginengine
• Posts: 3
Joined: Apr 8, 2014
April 8th, 2014 at 8:39:49 AM permalink
Ok so I'm a Wizard of Odds fanatic, I know the main belief is that all betting systems are garbage, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of doing this... But if I walk into the casino with \$1085 thus the ability to double down 5 times on a \$35 bet, I'm wondering what my odds of winning \$1000 before losing all \$1120 would be with the following strategy...

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.
beachbumbabs
• Posts: 14268
Joined: May 21, 2013
April 8th, 2014 at 10:14:20 AM permalink
Hi, 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!
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Lemieux66
• Posts: 1226
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
April 8th, 2014 at 10:20:24 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Hi, 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.
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
AxiomOfChoice
• Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 10:23:26 AM permalink
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:

So far off...
AxiomOfChoice
• Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 10:24:31 AM permalink
Quote: Lemieux66

You have the math down.

Not even close.
TerribleTom
• Posts: 319
Joined: Feb 18, 2014
April 8th, 2014 at 10:27:06 AM permalink
So, your plan is to win \$1 per spin for a little while then get kicked out of the casino?

Sounds like a tremendous waste of time.

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.
AxiomOfChoice
• Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 10:28:37 AM permalink
Quote: TerribleTom

So, 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.
FinsRule
• Posts: 3917
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
April 8th, 2014 at 10:48:25 AM permalink
Question for mods - if someone says "double check my math and let me know if I'm an idiot" and then you call him an idiot because his math was wrong, can you be suspended?
geoff
• Posts: 368
Joined: Feb 19, 2014
April 8th, 2014 at 10:56:19 AM permalink
chickenman
• Posts: 997
Joined: Nov 1, 2009
April 8th, 2014 at 11:08:31 AM permalink
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.
Lemieux66
• Posts: 1226
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
April 8th, 2014 at 11:11:26 AM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Not 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.
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
TerribleTom
• Posts: 319
Joined: Feb 18, 2014
April 8th, 2014 at 11:17:08 AM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Kicked out? You must be kidding me.

It was his plan...

Quote: Thebinginengine

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

Quote: chickenman

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.

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.
FinsRule
• Posts: 3917
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
April 8th, 2014 at 11:22:30 AM permalink
Quote: TerribleTom

It 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...
EdgeLooker
• Posts: 290
Joined: Jan 4, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 11:30:53 AM permalink
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.
TerribleTom
• Posts: 319
Joined: Feb 18, 2014
April 8th, 2014 at 11:38:58 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

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...

Bet \$4 x 35, of course!
TerribleTom
• Posts: 319
Joined: Feb 18, 2014
April 8th, 2014 at 12:07:14 PM permalink
Quote: EdgeLooker

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.

I stand corrected.
AxelWolf
• Posts: 22293
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 12:09:52 PM permalink
Quote: Thebinginengine

Ok so I'm a Wizard of Odds fanatic, I know the main belief is that all betting systems are garbage.

And yet you still can't resist.

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.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
ThatDonGuy
• Posts: 6406
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
April 8th, 2014 at 12:15:12 PM permalink
Quote: Thebinginengine

Assuming 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).
Buzzard
• Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 12:19:13 PM permalink
" 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.
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
Buzzard
• Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 12:21:49 PM permalink
: "let me know if I'm an idiot or not" Does the statute cover PM's? I mean he did issue a request and it seems only fair that we respond. And as long as he does not share that PM, would this not fall under the category of " No Harm, No Foul" ?
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
beachbumbabs
• Posts: 14268
Joined: May 21, 2013
April 8th, 2014 at 12:24:03 PM permalink
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.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Buzzard
• Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 12:26:37 PM permalink
Let me know when you decide for run for political office. That response is worthy of at least a Senate campaign.
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
AxiomOfChoice
• Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 12:34:19 PM permalink
Quote: TerribleTom

It 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.
rdw4potus
• Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
April 8th, 2014 at 1:46:49 PM permalink
Quote: Thebinginengine

0.000306682% 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.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
AxiomOfChoice
• Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 2:32:42 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

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.

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

I guess 100 percent is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000
kmumf
• Posts: 182
Joined: Jul 5, 2011
April 8th, 2014 at 3:05:50 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

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

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

kubikulann
• Posts: 905
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
April 8th, 2014 at 4:15:57 PM permalink
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.

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....
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
Thebinginengine
• Posts: 3
Joined: Apr 8, 2014
April 8th, 2014 at 6:47:13 PM permalink
Haha I wish I could say I was joking when I posted this, glad I posted it before trying it
Buzzard
• Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
April 8th, 2014 at 6:52:45 PM permalink
Quote: kubikulann

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....

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.
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
FinsRule