Roulette Question
Thread Rating:
Don't the unfair payouts give the house an edge? 36 numbers and a 35/1 payout, 3/1 bets on the dozens and columns that only pay 2/1, 12 streets that pay 11/1, double street bets on 6 numbers that pay 5/1, etc. If it was a fair game, a 1 in 6 chance on a double street should pay 6/1, not 5/1.
You COULD pick them up - nobody does.
FYI
That's the difference between "X FOR 1" and "X TO 1" terminology.
Most table game bets, even those where the felt printing indicates "for" payouts, are actually using "to" procedures.
Side bets such as the FireBet, and progressives like Caribbean Stud and Let It Ride work where the casino takes your bet immediately, and you are paid with "for" procedures.
Slot machines are also "for" payouts.
Quote: DJTeddyBearYou're forgetting about the chips still on the table after a win.
.
A bet on the dozens gives me 3 choices, the fair payout should be 3/1, not 2/1. You can't count the money I invested in the bet as part of the payout. That money is mine until the bet is over, it never belongs to the casino until the winner is determined.
Quote: EvenBobA bet on the dozens gives me 3 choices, the fair payout should be 3/1, not 2/1. You can't count the money I invested in the bet as part of the payout. That money is mine until the bet is over, it never belongs to the casino until the winner is determined.
Bob, a dozens bet that paid 3 to 1 would have something like a 42% advantage for the player. There are 26 ways to lose, and 12 ways to win, a dozens bet. That's 13 to 6, for which 3 to 1 would be a heck of a payout.
Quote: mkl654321Bob, a dozens bet that paid 3 to 1 would have something like a 42% advantage for the player. There are 26 ways to lose, and 12 ways to win, a dozens bet. That's 13 to 6, for which 3 to 1 would be a heck of a payout.
If you bet 3 times on a dozen, on average you'll win once and the casino will win twice. If you're betting $1, the casino wins $2 and you win $3 with a 3/1 payout. Thats the fair payout. The casino has it so all you can do is break even. How is that fair? If you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning, the payout should be 3/1.
If you still disagree, you're either incredibly retarded or a troll. If it's the former I apologize, if it's the latter nobody feed him anymore.
Quote: ahiromuBy your logic even money bets should pay 2 to 1.
Of course. Point is, even without the edge the casino gets from the zeros, its impossible to get ahead in the long run because no bets are in your favor.
Quote: EvenBobIf you bet 3 times on a dozen, on average you'll win once and the casino will win twice. If you're betting $1, the casino wins $2 and you win $3 with a 3/1 payout. Thats the fair payout. The casino has it so all you can do is break even. How is that fair? If you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning, the payout should be 3/1.
Uhhhhhhh...NO. If you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning, the payoff should be 2:1. Two losses for every one win.
Quote: mkl654321Uhhhhhhh...NO. If you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning, the payoff should be 2:1. Two losses for every one win.
Uhhhhh, no, a 2/1 payoff means its like tic tac toe, its always a tie if you play long enough, its pointless. The payout should be 3/1 and then include the zeros.
Evens (which is what the outside pays) is one unit winnings for every unit bet. You always get your stake back.
A 2-1 pay off on a 50/50 bet is not what you think it means. Or at least how bets are expressed in every bookmakers and betting document I've seen written, everywhere.
If you got a 2 unit WIN (plus your stake back) everytime red hit, but only lost 1 unit every time black or green hit, the casino's would close tomorrow.
2/1 = 2-1 = +200 = 3.000 = 2 to 1 = 3 for 1.
Quote: thecesspitIf you got a 2 unit WIN (plus your stake back) everytime red hit, but only lost 1 unit every time black or green hit, the casino's would close tomorrow..
Of course it wouldn't work, my point is the way its set up now you can't win even with no zeros. You can't gain an advantage.
Quote: thecesspitSorry Bob, but 3 to 1 is not the same a 3 for 1. 3 to 1 is 3 units of PROFIT for every one unit bet. 3 for 1 is giving you 3 units back (2 unit profit) for every unit bet.
Evens (which is what the outside pays) is one unit winnings for every unit bet. You always get your stake back.
A 2-1 pay off on a 50/50 bet is not what you think it means. Or at least how bets are expressed in every bookmakers and betting document I've seen written, everywhere.
If you got a 2 unit WIN (plus your stake back) everytime red hit, but only lost 1 unit every time black or green hit, the casino's would close tomorrow.
2/1 = 2-1 = +200 = 3.000 = 2 to 1 = 3 for 1.
Amazingly, since this is second grade arithmetic, you (and I) appear to be beating a dead horse in getting Bob to understand it.
I thought you were saying without the zeroes, the pay outs are still unfair. A single number on a 36 slot wheel should be 35/1. The casino offers that, then adds in two extra slots. Fair now would be 37/1.
(I assume the crazy American 00 wheel).
You can look it either way... either the extra holes make it unfair, or the pay outs on a win are 5.26% too low to be fair (I prefer the second way of looking at it, for sure).
Quote: mkl654321Amazingly, since this is second grade arithmetic, you (and I) appear to be beating a dead horse in getting Bob to understand it.
The whole thread is to make the point that its a game that can't be won even if you take out the zeros. Of course if they paid 3/1 on dozens, the player would have the advantage. The way it is now, nobody has the advantage without the zeros, its a ridiculous game.
>>I thought you were saying without the zeroes, the pay outs are still unfair. >>
Unfair because there is no way to gain an advantage. When roulette first started, there were no zeros, they aren't needed for the house to win. The player will eventually give up his BR by constantly reinvesting his winnings in a game he can't win.
You didn't state that earlier... hence confusion...
Roulette is a silly game, no argument from me on that score.
Quote: thecesspitEvenBob said on a previous page "A bet on the dozens gives me 3 choices, the fair payout should be 3/1 ...."
.
It would be fair if they only let you bet once.
Quote: EvenBobThe whole thread is to make the point that its a game that can't be won even if you take out the zeros. Of course if they paid 3/1 on dozens, the player would have the advantage. The way it is now, nobody has the advantage without the zeros, its a ridiculous game.
>>I thought you were saying without the zeroes, the pay outs are still unfair. >>
Unfair because there is no way to gain an advantage. When roulette first started, there were no zeros, they aren't needed for the house to win. The player will eventually give up his BR by constantly reinvesting his winnings in a game he can't win.
ORIGINAL POST:
The Wiz states in the roulette section: "all the numbers from 1 to 36, a zero, and a double-zero. If it were not for the zero and double-zero numbers, the game would have no house edge."
Don't the unfair payouts give the house an edge? 36 numbers and a 35/1 payout, 3/1 bets on the dozens and columns that only pay 2/1, 12 streets that pay 11/1, double street bets on 6 numbers that pay 5/1, etc. If it was a fair game, a 1 in 6 chance on a double street should pay 6/1, not 5/1.
End quote.
First of all, if the Wiz says a basic fact about a gambling game is true, then it's probably a good idea to assume that it IS true.
If there are 36 numbers, then a 35:1 payout is indeed perfectly fair, as in zero house edge, +0 EV, etc. The same goes for the other bets you mentioned.
Dead horse!
By "fair" I mean the game is 0 EV. Not that you have an advantage.
Quote: thecesspit!!!! ????? why does the frequency matter? .
If they only allowed you to bet once on the dozens, the odds are against you being right.
Quote: EvenBobIf they only allowed you to bet once on the dozens, the odds are against you being right.
Which is why the payoff is greater than even money.
Quote: EvenBobIf they only allowed you to bet once on the dozens, the odds are against you being right.
But the payment would be in my favour. I'd take this bet, so would many others. The casino would lose, even if they only gave me one shot, as they'd lose to the people who got it right.
This is NOT a fair game.
Quote: thecesspitBut the payment would be in my favour. I'd take this bet, so would many others. The casino would lose, even if they only gave me one shot
Not if you were only allowed one bet.
It doesn't matter if it's a limited one per player shot... the bet is a losing proposition for the casino. If 3,000 people walked in and made it for $100 each, 2,000 would lose (casino gains 200,000) and 1,000 would win (casino pays out 300,000). Casino is out $100,000.
Now if you tell me they use it as an incentive to get people into play, why, sure. I can see the casino say "here's a coupon, we'll pay your first dozens bet at 3-1, for a bet up to $100). The casino is using it as a loss leader.
It is not a "fair" game you are proposing, and I'm not clear what point you are trying to make.
Quote: ahiromuSTOP FEEDING THE GOD DAMN TROLL
Why not? Maybe I get my own enjoyment out of it.
I don't think he's trolling anyways, doesn't seem Bob's style. Ex-astronauts don't troll that often in my experience.
Quote: ahiromuTrolls, even ones that are laughed at, hurt the integrity of a forum. The more you feed them, the more they seep into other conversations you don't want them in.
We have a much bigger troll problem in JerryLogan. He makes EvenBob seem like Mother Theresa by comparison.
Also, EvenBob lapses into being human fairly often. He stakes out goofy positions, and then tries to defend them LONG after they should be abandoned, but people tend to do that on internet forums. A lot of his misunderstandings stem from simple confusion, or not understanding what someone is saying. He gets caustic and resentful when you try to explain to him what's faulty about his thinking (as in this thread), but he's not the worst offender. That would be JerryLogan, who fortunately is not long for this board; he will do something very soon to earn himself a permanent barring, if he hasn't already.
Quote: EvenBobOf course. Point is, even without the edge the casino gets from the zeros, its impossible to get ahead in the long run because no bets are in your favor.
Forgetting your lack of understanding of the math, simple as it may be, do you think that the casinos are trying to install games so that you can be ahead in the long run?
Quote: EvenBobThe Wiz states in the roulette section: "all the numbers from 1 to 36, a zero, and a double-zero. If it were not for the zero and double-zero numbers, the game would have no house edge."
Don't the unfair payouts give the house an edge? 36 numbers and a 35/1 payout, 3/1 bets on the dozens and columns that only pay 2/1, 12 streets that pay 11/1, double street bets on 6 numbers that pay 5/1, etc. If it was a fair game, a 1 in 6 chance on a double street should pay 6/1, not 5/1.
"Don't the unfair payouts give the house an edge?" >>> This is 100% correct. The zero(s) are meaningless. Are they meaningless for the outside bets? No, but the overall of the game?....YES.
Ken
Quote: EvenBobDon't the unfair payouts give the house an edge? 36 numbers and a 35/1 payout
If there were 36 numbers (no zeros) and the house offered a 36-to-1 payout, you could bet $1 on all 36 numbers. One number would hit, paying you 36-to-1, netting you $37. Bet $36, get back $37, guaranteed. I like that game.
This thread is silly.
Ken
Quote: EvenBobOf course it wouldn't work, my point is the way its set up now you can't win even with no zeros. You can't gain an advantage.
Exactly. Without the zeros, you and the casino would tie over the long run (if it truly exists;-) ). But, since the casino has a giant building, free booze, dealers, oodles of worthless management types, and cocktail waitresses to pay for, they add a house edge by including the zeroes. The 5.56% house edge in double zero roulette, along with the house edge in the other games, is what pays the casino's bills for them.
Quote: RPToroIf there were 36 numbers (no zeros) and the house offered a 36/1 payout, you could bet $1 on all 36 numbers. One number would hit, paying you 36:1, netting you a $37 return. Bet $36, get back $37, guaranteed. I like that game.
This thread is silly.
I think the problem is that shortcut notation like 36/1 or 36:1 or even 36-1 make assumptions that aren't always clear. If you're dealing with any ambiguity at all, I think it's preferable to spell it out: 36-for-1 or 36-to-1.
EvenBob, the quick-and-dirty shortcut is this: if the odds of a win are 1 in N, the zero-EV payout is N-for-1. That same zero-EV payout can also be stated as (N-1)-to-1. In roulette, the odds of hitting an inside number are 1 in 38, so the fair house payout would be 38-for-1, which is the same as 37-to-1. The real payout is 35-to-1 (or 36-for-1), which would be zero-EV only if the single/double zeros were gone. The cool thing about roulette is that the odds are all based on covering some number of 36 outcomes, and 36 has many different factors: 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 36. All of the payouts (with the exception of the 5-number bet in American roulette) pay one of those amounts "for-1". However, you're probably used to thinking about it in terms of "to-1" terminology, so that's why you see numbers like 35, 17, 11, 8, 5, etc.
"To-1" terminology is appropriate for roulette because your chips are not first taken by the house and then given back to you (as they are in slots or VP). Instead, when the dealer pays you on an inside number, he pays you 35 chips *to* each of your one chip on the layout. It would be the same if he had taken your chip and, in exchange *for* it, gave you 36 chips in return.
Quote: RPToroIf there were 36 numbers (no zeros) and the house offered a 36-to-1 payout, you could bet $1 on all 36 numbers. One number would hit, paying you 36-to-1, netting you $37. Bet $36, get back $37, guaranteed. I like that game.
This thread is silly.
Point taken. I modified my prior post.
