Thoughts for a "System" for Roulette...

Let me begin by saying I know very well that there is no "System" that can beat the Casino. You can only try and reduce the House Edge by playing with correct strategy. Normally I play craps or blackjack but I have come across a little bit of an interesting situation with Roulette.

Lets say there is a hypothetical casino with no table games manned by dealers (everything is electronic). And in this hypothetical Casino, they happen to have around 12 "Organic" Roulette Wheels (Meaning it's electronic stations around an automated Real Ball and Wheel) - 6 to 8 are American Wheels and the rest are European. And lets say that in this casino, there are no chips - only tickets that are printed out by the machines instantly when you cash out and accepted by all the other machines instantly when you cash in, and you are free to go from game to game as much and as quickly as you please.

Would it be possible to play the probabilities by placing flat bets one game at a time on outside numbers depending on their history (which is displayed at every table). A few examples:
-A table is choppy - back and forth between Odds and Evens. Four Odds in a row. You place a single bet on Evens. You win and walk away.
-A table is trending hard on Black (5+ current in a row a red and then 4+ more before that). You place a single bet on Black. You win and walkaway.
This system would take some discipline, you can't chase a trend. You place your bet - if you win, you cash out. If you lose, one more flat bet (to buck or embrace the trend), win or lose, you walk away.

You patiently walk around, look for trends, play conservatively. NO CHASING BAD BEATS! NO HEDGING!

Obviously, this is playing into the idea of Gamblers Fallacy - the idea that the history of the table will effect it's future. BUT, is it possible with patience and playing the probabilities one table at a time across many tables that you could actually win more bets than lose? Or at the very least, lower the House Edge on one of the worst best in the casino? Probability still comes in as a factor - at the end of every day a Roulette table still has hit around 50% Red, 50% Black, 50% Even and 50% odd (give or take 3-7% for 0 & 00).

I'm eager to hear peoples thoughts on this hypothetical situation. I understand the can of worms I'm opening here - please take it easy on me as it is only a thought in a hypothetical situation..

Quote: seadragon

is it possible with patience and playing the probabilities one table at a time across many tables that you could actually win more bets than lose? .

You're dealing with random outcomes,
one table or 20 tables doesn't change
the probability. What you suggest is
one of the oldest systems there is.
You'll lose at exactly the house edge
playing this way.

You're absolutely right. I guess I just needed someone to say it. Thank you!

Lol that's funny

Part of your wish has already come true.

The hypothetical casino situation you've described can be found at Resorts World in Queens and Empire City in Yonkers. New York.

Good luck on testing your system.

Ha ha-you got me. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

I've tested it 3 times so far.
$25 into $150
$50 into $200
$100 into $500

Each session for an hour or two. Kind of been waiting for the other shoe to drop and have a strong feeling I've been nothing but lucky. I'll keep updating.

Quote: seadragon

I've tested it 3 times so far.
.

Typical testing for a roulette system
involves 10,000 spins. But you usually
know long before all the spins are
used up. Some use simulators and
test for a million spins. But that's
overkill, IMO.

Quote: seadragon

Obviously, this is playing into the idea of Gamblers Fallacy - the idea that the history of the table will effect it's future. BUT, is it possible with patience and playing the probabilities one table at a time across many tables that you could actually win more bets than lose?

The answer is right in front of your eyes. You already know the answer. The only way to win long term is if you place bets when you have an advantage. What would make you think placing wagers when you're at a disadvantage could possibly lead you to winning more money than you lose?


There are, of course, plenty of bets you can make where you are more likely to win than you are to lose. Unfortunately, you get paid out a lesser amount of money than your bet. These bets have a house advantage and you will lose more money than you win, even though you'll win more bets than you lose. For example, laying the 4 or 10 in craps (or laying any number, actually), or betting on banker in bacarrat.

The new trend at this site for fallacy thinking seems to be to say the OP has accepted that no gambling system can beat the house edge, but "hey how about some of these [clearly screwy*] ideas lowering the house edge?"

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. We love to gamble, but we know that constantly gambling is up against that house edge and it means we can't do that ... but wait a minute! What if some system can keep us alive?

*IMO - sorry

Quote: seadragon

Let me begin by saying I know very well that there is no "System" that can beat the Casino. You can only try and reduce the House Edge by playing with correct strategy ...

I don't know why you write this and then bother to go through the trouble of writing all the rest.

Or is it the other way around, it's just like "once upon a time", you just have to write it before every fairy tales.

Quote: odiousgambit

The new trend at this site for fallacy thinking seems to be to say the OP has accepted that no gambling system can beat the house edge, but "hey how about some of these [clearly screwy*] ideas lowering the house edge?"

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. We love to gamble, but we know that constantly gambling is up against that house edge and it means we can't do that ... but wait a minute! What if some system can keep us alive?

*IMO - sorry

There's nothing wrong with his system as long as he knows it can't and wont work. It may, or may not have positive results short term.
Have you ever lost a bet and bet more the next time? I certainly have. Sometimes its just fun to guess correctly. Some people like to press winnings some people like to get back a loss +.

I played many online with +ev bonuses using variations of martingale with good results. Would've flat betting worked just as well? Probably, but I would've been board as hell.

If you're seeking this stuff out and trying to profit from it, God bless you, you're going to need it.

Quote: seadragon

Would it be possible to play the probabilities by placing flat bets one game at a time on outside numbers depending on their history (which is displayed at every table).

You patiently walk around, look for trends, play conservatively. NO CHASING BAD BEATS! NO HEDGING!

Obviously, this is playing into the idea of Gamblers Fallacy - the idea that the history of the table will effect it's future. BUT, is it possible with patience and playing the probabilities one table at a time across many tables that you could actually win more bets than lose? Or at the very least, lower the House Edge on one of the worst best in the casino?

Is it possible to win more bets than lose? Absolutely - for example, if you win one bet and cash out. Of course, you can do that with any strategy - for example, the "Passenger 57" strategy ("always bet on black").

Does it lower the house edge? No. Nothing short of a rigged or unbalanced wheel does that.

Besides, even if history did play a part in future numbers, the few numbers that you can see in a game's history wouldn't do you much good. Sure, you see that there have been four Odds in a row, but in a universe where things "balance out," how do you know that wasn't just because, in the previous (insert some number here - say, 100) spins, there were four more Evens than Odds?