Strange question about roulette
April 19th, 2015 at 10:14:02 AM
permalink
Hi,
I posted this question in my site's forum and got all sorts of unrelated answers. It was overwhelming. I took it as evidence that our minds are so fixed on a very specific approach to roulette, that we can't think out of the box.
So I will post the same question here, to see what answers I will get from this forum's members.
Question:
What money management/progression would you use in order to keep your winnings/profits LOW even if your bet wins often.
If you need an example of a winning session take this: WWWWLLWWWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWLWWWWWLLWL
So, can you devise a reliable money management method that will guarantee that in a winning session your profit will be as low as possible?
I posted this question in my site's forum and got all sorts of unrelated answers. It was overwhelming. I took it as evidence that our minds are so fixed on a very specific approach to roulette, that we can't think out of the box.
So I will post the same question here, to see what answers I will get from this forum's members.
Question:
What money management/progression would you use in order to keep your winnings/profits LOW even if your bet wins often.
If you need an example of a winning session take this: WWWWLLWWWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWLWWWWWLLWL
So, can you devise a reliable money management method that will guarantee that in a winning session your profit will be as low as possible?
http://www.Roulette30.com
April 19th, 2015 at 10:41:54 AM
permalink
I'll go for the obvious one; something along the lines of a reverse Martingale.
First bet: $2
Second bet, if the first one wins: $1
After that, double the previous bet after each win.
Every run of one or more wins nets you $1 after the loss that ends the run.
Using your example:
WWWWL - up $1
L - lost $2 on that bet; now down $1
WWWL - back to even
WWWL - up $1
WWWWWL - up $2
WWWL - up $3
WWWWWL - up $4
L - lost $2; still up $2 overall
WL - up $3
First bet: $2
Second bet, if the first one wins: $1
After that, double the previous bet after each win.
Every run of one or more wins nets you $1 after the loss that ends the run.
Using your example:
WWWWL - up $1
L - lost $2 on that bet; now down $1
WWWL - back to even
WWWL - up $1
WWWWWL - up $2
WWWL - up $3
WWWWWL - up $4
L - lost $2; still up $2 overall
WL - up $3
April 19th, 2015 at 10:50:33 AM
permalink
Hi,
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. Technically this is a good answer.
The only "problem" is that before the eventual loss the profits get too high. So let me put another parameter to the problem:
Would there be a money management that would guarantee a low as possible profit if the game stopped abruptly/suddenly?
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. Technically this is a good answer.
The only "problem" is that before the eventual loss the profits get too high. So let me put another parameter to the problem:
Would there be a money management that would guarantee a low as possible profit if the game stopped abruptly/suddenly?
http://www.Roulette30.com
April 19th, 2015 at 11:28:36 AM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyI'll go for the obvious one; something along the lines of a reverse Martingale.
First bet: $2
Second bet, if the first one wins: $1
After that, double the previous bet after each win.
Every run of one or more wins nets you $1 after the loss that ends the run.
Using your example:
WWWWL - up $1
L - lost $2 on that bet; now down $1
WWWL - back to even
WWWL - up $1
WWWWWL - up $2
WWWL - up $3
WWWWWL - up $4
L - lost $2; still up $2 overall
WL - up $3
Are you kidding me? In your series of examples, here, you won 24 and lost 9. That nearly 3:1 win ratio and you are up $3? What's going to happen when the win/loss ration drops down to 50% or below where it SHOULD be. Lol.
April 19th, 2015 at 11:29:28 AM
permalink
Quote: KavourasWould there be a money management that would guarantee a low as possible profit if the game stopped abruptly/suddenly?
Flat betting the minimum. Otherwise, it's possible that any of your bets can be "the last one", and if it's more than the minimum and you win, your profit would be higher than had it been a minimum bet.
April 19th, 2015 at 11:37:42 AM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: KavourasWould there be a money management that would guarantee a low as possible profit if the game stopped abruptly/suddenly?
Flat betting the minimum. Otherwise, it's possible that any of your bets can be "the last one", and if it's more than the minimum and you win, your profit would be higher than had it been a minimum bet.
Do you see the interesting paradox?
If the game stops at a loss, the "ideal" system would be to increase as you win (and reach quite a high betting amount). On the other hand if the game stops abruptly, the "ideal" system would be to bet as low as possible.
["ideal" here means offering the less profit]
http://www.Roulette30.com
April 19th, 2015 at 11:39:34 AM
permalink
This seems like an exercise in over-thinking. The more you bet, the more you can win or lose.
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett on risk/return
April 19th, 2015 at 11:58:31 AM
permalink
Quote: surrender88sThis seems like an exercise in over-thinking. The more you bet, the more you can win or lose.
Is this an elaborate way to say you just don't want to think about it? :-)
http://www.Roulette30.com
April 19th, 2015 at 12:02:45 PM
permalink
The original question makes it a "paradox". What system will make me win the least if I win often? But practically, you would want to win more, not less. Roulette outside bets are very simple. When you win, you win 1:1. So yeah, i auppose I don't want to think about it.
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett on risk/return
April 19th, 2015 at 1:38:17 PM
permalink
If, no matter what your actual bet is, your bets always win at the same rate, the way to make money the slowest would be flat bet table minimum.
If you can't help but make money, and don't want a whole lot of profit in front of you, when you need to reduce your profit put it all on a single number. Sometimes you will get unlucky and win, in which case let it ride so you have another good chance of losing it all. If the game ends during this "letting it ride" phase then you are really unlucky, but no system is perfect.
If you can't help but make money, and don't want a whole lot of profit in front of you, when you need to reduce your profit put it all on a single number. Sometimes you will get unlucky and win, in which case let it ride so you have another good chance of losing it all. If the game ends during this "letting it ride" phase then you are really unlucky, but no system is perfect.
April 20th, 2015 at 2:09:37 AM
permalink
Quote: KavourasHi,
What money management/progression would you use in order to keep your winnings/profits LOW even if your bet wins often.
You can bet 34 single numbers on roulette. And play short sessions.
Maybe you will win 90% of the sessions and the wins will be small. In the 10% other sessions, you will lose big. Is this what you are after?
Over many sessions, whether you are a net winner or loser depend on if the casino has an house edge over you. Money Management/progression usually does not change the house edge.
April 20th, 2015 at 2:36:53 AM
permalink
Quote: supergrassQuote: KavourasHi,
You can bet 34 single numbers on roulette. And play short sessions.
Maybe you will win 90% of the sessions and the wins will be small. In the 10% other sessions, you will lose big. Is this what you are after?
Over many sessions, whether you are a net winner or loser depend on if the casino has an house edge over you. Money Management/progression usually does not change the house edge.
Hi,
No this is not what I am after.
Now let me put in in a different way:
There are you and another guy on a roulette table. That day the Black has a higher hit rate than Red, something like a 60% hit rate, in every 100 spins, 60 are Black.
Now there comes a guy with a gun in his hand and tells you that you all should keep betting on Black and after 100 spins he will kill the guy the most chips.
What method would you use?http://www.Roulette30.com
April 20th, 2015 at 2:42:57 AM
permalink
Quote: Kavouras
There are you and another guy on a roulette table. That day the Black has a higher hit rate than Red, something like a 60% hit rate, in every 100 spins, 60 are Black.
Now there comes a guy with a gun in his hand and tells you that you all should keep betting on Black and after 100 spins he will kill the guy the most chips.
What method would you use?
bet all your money on black every round until you lose. Once you lose all, you have 0 chip.
April 20th, 2015 at 2:55:57 AM
permalink
Quote: supergrass
bet all your money on black every round until you lose. Once you lose all, you have 0 chip.
Good idea.
However you run the danger of your winnings exceeding the table maximum. Any other more sophisticated plan?
http://www.Roulette30.com
April 20th, 2015 at 3:23:25 AM
permalink
Quote: KavourasGood idea.
However you run the danger of your winnings exceeding the table maximum. Any other more sophisticated plan?
hmm, still the chance of the working is pretty high, like 98%.
Alternative strategy:
start betting small on black, and let the other player bet big. As soon as other player has more money than you, then you copy his bet. So in the end, he will guaranteed to have more money than you.
When the rounds is approaching the end, and you still have more money then starting go all in on black.
I assumed the outcome of each round is independent and not predictable. ie 60% black, 40% red/zero.
You can do better if the outcome of each round is not independent, or predictable in some manner.
April 20th, 2015 at 5:56:15 AM
permalink
Quote: supergrassQuote: KavourasHi,
What money management/progression would you use in order to keep your winnings/profits LOW even if your bet wins often.
You can bet 34 single numbers on roulette. And play short sessions.
Maybe you will win 90% of the sessions and the wins will be small. In the 10% other sessions, you will lose big. Is this what you are after?
Over many sessions, whether you are a net winner or loser depend on if the casino has an house edge over you. Money Management/progression usually does not change the house edge.
This seems to fit your parameters best.
My real experience the few times I played, not what your asking but similar idea was two column bets at $30 and $15 on five red.
April 20th, 2015 at 6:18:05 AM
permalink
If you were allowed to bet on what you want, when your profits started to get too high you could bet on Red AND Black or Odd AND Even at the same time and wait for green/0/00.
April 20th, 2015 at 9:03:12 AM
permalink
Flat bet the table maximum on all 38 numbers.
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
April 20th, 2015 at 9:06:24 AM
permalink
Quote: teliotFlat bet the table maximum on all 38 numbers.
Lol could you imagine this in a casino? And then yelling and rejoicing when you hit a number?
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett on risk/return
April 20th, 2015 at 9:33:48 AM
permalink
If the goal is to both (1) win and (2) minimize that win (without going negative), then my answer is to do a Martingale.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
April 20th, 2015 at 9:35:21 AM
permalink
The original question was how do you vary your bet, when you can only bet on black, and want to win the least over X spins (X=100, I think). Also, the OP stated that black comes up 60% of the time. The aim is to have the lowest bankroll possible at the end.
IF bankroll is finite, you want a bet series that had the highest risk of ruin. I would guess maxbet would do this, if maxbet was a large enough percentage of the bankroll.
IF bankroll is infinite (looking to post the largest loss possible) that might not be true, as each bet has +EV, so 100 bets at +EV would, of course, be a postive expectation. So betting minimum each time would be the best result.
At a guess.
IF bankroll is finite, you want a bet series that had the highest risk of ruin. I would guess maxbet would do this, if maxbet was a large enough percentage of the bankroll.
IF bankroll is infinite (looking to post the largest loss possible) that might not be true, as each bet has +EV, so 100 bets at +EV would, of course, be a postive expectation. So betting minimum each time would be the best result.
At a guess.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 20th, 2015 at 9:47:41 AM
permalink
Positive or parlay betting progression would keep profit to zero.
All 38 aren't black.
Quote: teliotFlat bet the table maximum on all 38 numbers.
All 38 aren't black.
Nonsense is a very hard thing to keep up. Just ask the Wizard and company.
April 20th, 2015 at 11:06:45 AM
permalink
Hi, thank you very much for the replies.
The bankroll is limited.
I think the best answer is that you divide your bankroll in say 30 banks and start parlaying (reverse Martingale) with one bank as initial bet. When on a loss you lose this bank, then you use the next bank etc.
The original question might have not been very clear. The point is to end with the least possible money after 100 spins, by betting Black, and we consider Black (hypothesis) to hit 60 times in those 100 spins.
The bankroll is limited.
I think the best answer is that you divide your bankroll in say 30 banks and start parlaying (reverse Martingale) with one bank as initial bet. When on a loss you lose this bank, then you use the next bank etc.
The original question might have not been very clear. The point is to end with the least possible money after 100 spins, by betting Black, and we consider Black (hypothesis) to hit 60 times in those 100 spins.
http://www.Roulette30.com
April 20th, 2015 at 11:35:14 AM
permalink
If we know that for sure that it will be 60 black and 40 white which is what I believe you are saying then the following will minimize the win.
Keep track of the number of times red hits.
Start with 1 unit on black and parlay until it loses and then start at 1 unit again.
You can do this until red hits its maximum 40 times.
Minimum bet 1 unit on black with no parlay for remaining spins since they will all be black until you reach the specified 100 spins.
The win will be determined by when the last red number hits and would vary by trials depending upon the distribution of red/black results.
Keep track of the number of times red hits.
Start with 1 unit on black and parlay until it loses and then start at 1 unit again.
You can do this until red hits its maximum 40 times.
Minimum bet 1 unit on black with no parlay for remaining spins since they will all be black until you reach the specified 100 spins.
The win will be determined by when the last red number hits and would vary by trials depending upon the distribution of red/black results.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
April 20th, 2015 at 12:28:44 PM
permalink
Quote: KavourasHi, thank you very much for the replies.
The bankroll is limited.
I think the best answer is that you divide your bankroll in say 30 banks and start parlaying (reverse Martingale) with one bank as initial bet. When on a loss you lose this bank, then you use the next bank etc.
The original question might have not been very clear. The point is to end with the least possible money after 100 spins, by betting Black, and we consider Black (hypothesis) to hit 60 times in those 100 spins.
If maxbet is higher than bankroll, bet max.
http://www.bjstrat.net/ror.html
Gives you risk of ruin... stick in a massive number for the target. 1 unit being the maxbet, RoR = 66.67%. bankroll being 2 units at max bet, RoR = 44.44%
And so on.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 21st, 2015 at 4:39:47 AM
permalink
I want to point out the OP has so far started 4 threads and 44 posts. Based on them I feel the OP has no real interest in the topic. The main purpose is promote his web site link at the bottom. Of course I could be wrong, it is plausible he/she is genuinely interested.
April 21st, 2015 at 6:34:09 AM
permalink
Quote: supergrassI want to point out the OP has so far started 4 threads and 44 posts. Based on them I feel the OP has no real interest in the topic. The main purpose is promote his web site link at the bottom. Of course I could be wrong, it is plausible he/she is genuinely interested.
1. I do not understand your reasoning. How many threads and posts should i have in order to be "accepted" by you without questioning my motives?
2. My replies and follow ups show if I am genuinely interested or not.
3. Even the administrator replied to this thread.
4. Does it bother you that I have a site about roulette? Why?
5. Please refrain from personal attacks in the future
PS: You have 7 threads and 25 posts. What does this mean according to your reasoning?
http://www.Roulette30.com
April 21st, 2015 at 9:28:56 AM
permalink
Quote: KavourasPS: You have 7 threads and 25 posts. What does this mean according to your reasoning?
Gentlemen, Kav's question is grievously ingenious... also as applied to the practical sense of limits and play.
At the point of which one requires only a transformation of its specific nature (obviously known to both him and myself at least) into a counterexample to, "It seems you need no house limits both to lose with a reverse marty when you do have an edge and also to win with a standard one when you don't."
The "math guys" are ever circling but, in my opinion, don't know how to "go in for the kill (dead)". I don't know, but could that be a constant source of irritation? ThatDonGuy was near it one day, and I let it slide... didn't want to "start something" before I had the free time to fully explain. A lot of the "math guys" around here seem to not take the forum seriously. Perhaps, they think a bit like Alan at his? (But, let me tell you, Alan gives it 100%.) I think it was Face who said something like, "It's a business for a few persons around here." [Face, please don't take offense because this is what I recall. In the middle of another "brain fart", feel free to simply correct me.]
Kav, to tell you the truth, I'm divided between trying to enlighten the group here on this one, sigh... and sailing casually along into the next great adventure out of the "gambling box". Up to you.
I'm not going to start with the "Shhh stuff, don't discuss it on an open forum."
Nonsense is a very hard thing to keep up. Just ask the Wizard and company.
April 21st, 2015 at 11:54:03 AM
permalink
Quote: KerkebetKav, to tell you the truth, I'm divided between trying to enlighten the group here on this one, sigh... and sailing casually along into the next great adventure out of the "gambling box". Up to you
No, that's ok. Please don't try to enlighten us.
April 21st, 2015 at 1:15:45 PM
permalink
Quote: KavourasHi, thank you very much for the replies.
The bankroll is limited.
I think the best answer is that you divide your bankroll in say 30 banks and start parlaying (reverse Martingale) with one bank as initial bet. When on a loss you lose this bank, then you use the next bank etc.
The original question might have not been very clear. The point is to end with the least possible money after 100 spins, by betting Black, and we consider Black (hypothesis) to hit 60 times in those 100 spins.
Definitely hit 60 times, or be 60% chance of hitting in each of those 100 spins?
I've assumed the latter.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 22nd, 2015 at 8:46:07 AM
permalink
Quote: KeyserNo, that's ok. Please don't try to enlighten us.
No problem. I will copy another response which I made to Kav elsewhere a moment ago.
Kav,
Your question is the inverse of your earlier question (elsewhere) about guaranteeing any profit when given a set of 2/3 L's, and 1/3 W's. Not per se about the general probability of each win at 1/3.
Thanks for the question. And, for not trying to find some way to be rude.
The Wizard guys can't begin to thus think, in my opinion. As for how to generalize this, it's another "out of the box" surprise. Ultimately, like the 100-year old boring "loves me, loves me not" math approach to the as boring execution of the gambling, itself, one must arrive at an accepted level of risk, the ROR. (Nothing is ever new, the result either, like the same old blackjack stuff for the last 30 years.) I could quickly give the rather long inverted, non-intuitive solution to your inverted question here - despite everyone having out of hand concluded it doesn't exist - but then everyone would simply go on to say that it can't be generalized to solve real play conditions. Where would it end? With me typing away day and night for nothing. People would still find a way to be rude to compensate for their own dysfunctionality. So, I just wait for someone to "throw a ball into the ballpark" to say, hey, you're on the right track.
sqzbox,
Zero profit is no profit, hence not an oxymoron; but a profit of or at zero is. In the case of a specially tailored parlay to solve Kav's inverted question, I would put it as to "keep profit to zero". To indicate that small unavoidable profits are methodically knocked away within the "predetermined" set of L/W's.
Modify message
Nonsense is a very hard thing to keep up. Just ask the Wizard and company.
April 22nd, 2015 at 10:15:53 AM
permalink
What makes you think that tracking "Ls and "Ws" matters one bit?
Why do you beleive whether you've won or lost on the previous spins affects whether or not you will win on the next spin or series of spins?
Why do you beleive whether you've won or lost on the previous spins affects whether or not you will win on the next spin or series of spins?
April 22nd, 2015 at 10:57:17 AM
permalink
What makes you think I wrote or implied that? Kav's question involves a set number of L/W's. I could show how parlay betting would meet the requirement of zero profit here. From there, I might show how to overcome the general condition of no "set number of L/W's" under normal playing conditions. Still not a matter of, "What makes you think that tracking "Ls and "Ws" matters one bit?"Quote: KeyserWhat makes you think that tracking "Ls and "Ws" matters one bit?
Nonsense is a very hard thing to keep up. Just ask the Wizard and company.
April 22nd, 2015 at 1:11:40 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserWhat makes you think that tracking "Ls and "Ws" matters one bit?
Why do you beleive whether you've won or lost on the previous spins affects whether or not you will win on the next spin or series of spins?
Why do you have to take all the fun
out of threads like this. I enjoy all
the flailing around.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
