AC Roulette Experiment
August 4th, 2011 at 8:00:50 AM
permalink
I am heading to AC, with a mission. Finding a strategy that will let me stay at the roulette table the longest. I am willing to lose $50 at a $5 table to test a theory.
A friend was pleading with me that playing $5 on 1-12 and $5 on 13-24 every time spin, would show me winning s on the long term. I know better.
My pal Excel and I worked through a few scenarios. I learned that I would lose both bets 37% of the time on a double zero wheel, at expected loss of 10.5 cents per dollar bet per spin. Granted this was a lower loss percent than playing one even odds bet, but that was a high expected loss for me. Could I do better?
I noticed on the roulette wheel, there were more red odds than red evens. If I bet $5 on red and $5 on even I reduced my loss percent to 31%. Factoring in AC rules, I was down to 5.3 cents per dollar per spin. If I bet $5 on black and $5 on odd, I get down to losing an expected 26% of the time with a 5.3 cent per dollar per spin expected loss.
I get that if I don't want to lose any money, I shouldn't play, but it's just $50 bucks. My goal is to see how many spins I can last at the table. Sure, winning would be nice, and if I'm up, I'll probably cash in my experiment at the buffet, but has any one else stumbled across this or maybe tried something like this?
I'm not convinced I have the best strategy. Should I just focus on loss percent, or loss per dollar per bet? I have a spreadhseet if anyone wants to check my work.
A friend was pleading with me that playing $5 on 1-12 and $5 on 13-24 every time spin, would show me winning s on the long term. I know better.
My pal Excel and I worked through a few scenarios. I learned that I would lose both bets 37% of the time on a double zero wheel, at expected loss of 10.5 cents per dollar bet per spin. Granted this was a lower loss percent than playing one even odds bet, but that was a high expected loss for me. Could I do better?
I noticed on the roulette wheel, there were more red odds than red evens. If I bet $5 on red and $5 on even I reduced my loss percent to 31%. Factoring in AC rules, I was down to 5.3 cents per dollar per spin. If I bet $5 on black and $5 on odd, I get down to losing an expected 26% of the time with a 5.3 cent per dollar per spin expected loss.
I get that if I don't want to lose any money, I shouldn't play, but it's just $50 bucks. My goal is to see how many spins I can last at the table. Sure, winning would be nice, and if I'm up, I'll probably cash in my experiment at the buffet, but has any one else stumbled across this or maybe tried something like this?
I'm not convinced I have the best strategy. Should I just focus on loss percent, or loss per dollar per bet? I have a spreadhseet if anyone wants to check my work.
August 4th, 2011 at 8:47:38 AM
permalink
Quote: ElCheapoGrandeI am heading to AC, with a mission. Finding a strategy that will let me stay at the roulette table the longest. I am willing to lose $50 at a $5 table to test a theory.
A friend was pleading with me that playing $5 on 1-12 and $5 on 13-24 every time spin, would show me winning s on the long term. I know better.
My pal Excel and I worked through a few scenarios. I learned that I would lose both bets 37% of the time on a double zero wheel, at expected loss of 10.5 cents per dollar bet per spin. Granted this was a lower loss percent than playing one even odds bet, but that was a high expected loss for me. Could I do better?
I noticed on the roulette wheel, there were more red odds than red evens. If I bet $5 on red and $5 on even I reduced my loss percent to 31%. Factoring in AC rules, I was down to 5.3 cents per dollar per spin. If I bet $5 on black and $5 on odd, I get down to losing an expected 26% of the time with a 5.3 cent per dollar per spin expected loss.
I get that if I don't want to lose any money, I shouldn't play, but it's just $50 bucks. My goal is to see how many spins I can last at the table. Sure, winning would be nice, and if I'm up, I'll probably cash in my experiment at the buffet, but has any one else stumbled across this or maybe tried something like this?
I'm not convinced I have the best strategy. Should I just focus on loss percent, or loss per dollar per bet? I have a spreadhseet if anyone wants to check my work.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap10xfZ9prGSdDVHdGNleF9vZVl6TUVGMVcwOUxFV2c&hl=en_US
All bets in roulette have the same house edge. On a double zero wheel, that's 5.26316%. Your expected loss per bet should ALWAYS be 5.26316%. I haven't looked at your spreadsheet, but from your post it looks like you've accidentally doubled something up on the 10.5 cent per dollar line (that's roughly twice the 5.26%). Maybe look at the 5.3 cent losses (they're correct) and double check the 10.5 cent info?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 4th, 2011 at 9:07:22 AM
permalink
Define "Longest".Quote: ElCheapoGrandeI am heading to AC, with a mission. Finding a strategy that will let me stay at the roulette table the longest.
If you mean the longest duration in time, find a table with a lot of players and no chip sorting machine.
If you mean the most spins for your money, find Rapid Roulette. It usually has lower minimum as well as lower units.
As far as your theory goes, the mere fact that there are more red odd than red even is irrelevant. Compared to betting two on red, if you bet one on red and one on odd, you increase your chance of a double win as well as increase your chance of a double loss. Over time, the net result is the same.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 4th, 2011 at 9:56:13 AM
permalink
By "longest" I mean most spins. Sounds like Rapid Roulette might be worth looking into. I assume all payouts are the same as traditional?
August 4th, 2011 at 12:41:03 PM
permalink
My first thought was, "Bet $5 on red and $5 on black; you will last until green comes up five times."
My second thought was, "Except for 0-00-1-2-3, all bets have the same EV, so bet the minimum on, say, red; you will last until black and green combined come up 10 more times than red."
I did a Monte Carlo simulation on both; the first one lasted about 95 spins on average, and the second one about 190. (Not entirely surprising, since you are betting twice as much per spin with the first one.)
My second thought was, "Except for 0-00-1-2-3, all bets have the same EV, so bet the minimum on, say, red; you will last until black and green combined come up 10 more times than red."
I did a Monte Carlo simulation on both; the first one lasted about 95 spins on average, and the second one about 190. (Not entirely surprising, since you are betting twice as much per spin with the first one.)
August 4th, 2011 at 2:33:35 PM
permalink
Quote: ElCheapoGrandeI am heading to AC, with a mission. Finding a strategy that will let me stay at the roulette table the longest.
My goal is to see how many spins I can last at the table. Sure, winning would be nice, and if I'm up, I'll probably cash in my experiment at the buffet,
Your idea #1 (betting red and black) has NO chance of EVER winning. There is a SUPER thrill that comes from winning...even $1.
I see it all the time in Vegas. Players wanting to play for the longest time but as soon as they have a profit they can lock up...they do. That is the thrill of gambling. Let me throw some numbers at you for winning and how many spins on average that would take.
Just betting red. Your idea #2.
It is actually a simple risk or ruin problem and you can find a few threads here about that.
You have better than a 5 out of 6 chance that in 11 spins you will be up $5 profit.
Not enough???
How about almost a 5 out of 9 chance of being up $20 at 43 spins.
Still not enough cash profit.
How about a 1 in 4 shot at doubling your $50 bank to $100 taking, on average, 92 spins!
Now we are talking.
I say, Go for the wins and the spins will take care of themselves.
Let us know your final outcome! Good Luck!
| win goal | success | ruin | spins |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5 | 85.427% | 14.573% | 11.45806286 |
| $10 | 73.522% | 26.478% | 22.37037783 |
| $15 | 63.664% | 36.336% | 32.75032959 |
| $20 | 55.409% | 44.591% | 42.61202732 |
| $25 | 48.432% | 51.568% | 51.97021368 |
| $30 | 42.487% | 57.513% | 60.84017305 |
| $35 | 37.388% | 62.612% | 69.23763999 |
| $40 | 32.989% | 67.011% | 77.17870891 |
| $45 | 29.175% | 70.825% | 84.67974586 |
| $50 | 25.853% | 74.147% | 91.75730308 |
| $75 | 14.447% | 85.553% | 121.3753143 |
| $100 | 8.269% | 91.731% | 142.8662112 |
August 4th, 2011 at 8:27:06 PM
permalink
Thanks Don and Guido. I think focusing on minimizing the overall bet may be the way to go. I don't know if I'll have the opportunity to play a full table to slow things down, as I'll have to play early to be cheap. However, Rapid Roulette may let me drop my minimum even lower...I heard about a $2 table somewhere in AC. An even money bet is also advantageous, as in AC I'll only lose half of my wager if zeros hit.
Keep your theories coming!
Keep your theories coming!
August 4th, 2011 at 9:54:26 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusAll bets in roulette have the same house edge. On a double zero wheel, that's 5.26316%.
There are no 'better' bets on a roulette layout. All bets are equal. But if
you tell somebody that, they look at you like you have a huge dog turd
stuck on the bottom of your shoe and you're stinking up the whole place.
Obviously the inside numbers are better, they pay 35/1, duh. There is
a worse bet, however. The 12300 bet. But you rarely see anybody make it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 4th, 2011 at 11:01:17 PM
permalink
If your goal is to stay at the table the longest, sit down and order a cocktail. I figure the wait for your drink will be longer than anything else you can do with 50 bucks. :)
August 4th, 2011 at 11:07:03 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThere are no 'better' bets on a roulette layout. All bets are equal. But if
you tell somebody that, they look at you like you have a huge dog turd
stuck on the bottom of your shoe and you're stinking up the whole place.
Obviously the inside numbers are better, they pay 35/1, duh. There is
a worse bet, however. The 12300 bet. But you rarely see anybody make it.
All bets are equal in EV.
All bets are not equal in variance.
Therefore there ARE better bets if your aim is win X or go home.
"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
August 4th, 2011 at 11:07:25 PM
permalink
Decide on a strategy, then only play every second spin. You've just doubled your time at the table for that strategy.
If nothing will change then I am nothing.
August 5th, 2011 at 12:20:38 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspit
Therefore there ARE better bets if your aim is win X or go home.
Name a few.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 5th, 2011 at 3:59:50 AM
permalink
I really appreciate the responses, especially those who have significantly improved my playing time by involving booze and monitoring the eye candy every other spin. With the 92 spin projection in an earlier post, I may be able to make an entire afternoon of this.
I understand that with an unlimited bankroll and infinte spins, I would eventually lose everything, this being the goal of the house. But I thank the posters that considered with just $50, perhaps the house edge wouldn't be of greatest concern, rather the likelihood of NOT losing the bet and getting another chance to spin with that money. 24 hours until I hit the road.
I understand that with an unlimited bankroll and infinte spins, I would eventually lose everything, this being the goal of the house. But I thank the posters that considered with just $50, perhaps the house edge wouldn't be of greatest concern, rather the likelihood of NOT losing the bet and getting another chance to spin with that money. 24 hours until I hit the road.
August 5th, 2011 at 4:35:19 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitTherefore there ARE better bets if your aim is win X or go home.
Quote: EvenBobName a few.
Any number bet.
thecesspit is right. If your goal is X or nothing, you need proper variance.
If a special zero-variance bet were invented for roulette, the dealer would simply return 95% of your stake regardless of the result of the spin. With zero variance bets, you will never reach X and always go broke. Hence you need variance to have a non-zero probability of reaching X.
There are two ways to control variance: odds and betsize. Increasing betsize is very weak, since it also increases (negative) EV, So keep betsize at minimum.
Increasing odds is simple on roulette. The best ratio of variance vs. EV is the numbers bet, since it has the highest payout while having the same EV as every other bet.
Example: If your goal is "double up or nothing", you should play number bets with a betsize small enough to reach your double up if you win that single spin.
Of course you will lose more money than you win in the long run, that is out of question. But the goal was not "make money" - it was "double up or nothing".
August 5th, 2011 at 6:26:08 AM
permalink
Thank you.
People get too tied up in EV without considering variance.
People get too tied up in EV without considering variance.
"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
August 5th, 2011 at 8:43:08 AM
permalink
So are you advocating a bet on 7 and then just leaving it there or are you advocating a bet on Red and then just leaving it there spin after spin?
If it hits on 7 once in his first spins he will very well, but it is more likely to hit multiple times on Red and give him 1:1 payouts.
If it hits on 7 once in his first spins he will very well, but it is more likely to hit multiple times on Red and give him 1:1 payouts.
August 5th, 2011 at 9:52:32 AM
permalink
Quote: MangoJIf a special zero-variance bet were invented for roulette, the dealer would simply return 95% of your stake regardless of the result of the spin. With zero variance bets, you will never reach X and always go broke. Hence you need variance to have a non-zero probability of reaching X.
"Put $1 on every inside number" is a zero-variance bet for roulette. Bet $38, always lose $2 = zero variance.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
August 5th, 2011 at 11:00:01 AM
permalink
Neither.
All I'm saying is if you goal is a particular win or bust, then different bets give you a different variance, and different chance of making them. The Outsides and the straight up numbers are NOT the same, even though the EV (which is a long term expectation) is the same.
If your goal is to spend a long time betting, then indeed, the outside bets are lower variance, so you'll spend longer betting (in general). Better yet would covering two columns.
It also depends on what the OP's win goal would be (what point will he walk away going "well I didn't lose all my money").
All I'm saying is if you goal is a particular win or bust, then different bets give you a different variance, and different chance of making them. The Outsides and the straight up numbers are NOT the same, even though the EV (which is a long term expectation) is the same.
If your goal is to spend a long time betting, then indeed, the outside bets are lower variance, so you'll spend longer betting (in general). Better yet would covering two columns.
It also depends on what the OP's win goal would be (what point will he walk away going "well I didn't lose all my money").
"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
August 5th, 2011 at 11:19:07 AM
permalink
thecesspit is right. If your goal is X or nothing>>
I didn't get that this was the question. Hell, if
its X or nothing just throw a handful of chips
on the table and they land where they land.
I still don't see the point. I never think think
or play this way, I always look at the long term
or I don't bet.
I didn't get that this was the question. Hell, if
its X or nothing just throw a handful of chips
on the table and they land where they land.
I still don't see the point. I never think think
or play this way, I always look at the long term
or I don't bet.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 5th, 2011 at 11:26:45 AM
permalink
I am willing to lose all $50, but would be satisifed with doubling my money if I have a good run.
I can certainly see how at Rapid Roulette, with a low minimum, I might be able to get in more spins for my bankroll and potentially hit a specific number.
Covering two columns means I have a probability of losing money at 37% each spin.
However, I come back to my original strategy of betting on blacks and odds to cut my probability of losing money to 26% each spin. If I stay on even odds, I qualify for losing only half of my wager if 0 or 00 hits in AC casinos. I think this gives me an edge over covering columns, in terms of having the opportunity to add to my total number of spins in my session.
Thanks again for this discussion.
I can certainly see how at Rapid Roulette, with a low minimum, I might be able to get in more spins for my bankroll and potentially hit a specific number.
Covering two columns means I have a probability of losing money at 37% each spin.
However, I come back to my original strategy of betting on blacks and odds to cut my probability of losing money to 26% each spin. If I stay on even odds, I qualify for losing only half of my wager if 0 or 00 hits in AC casinos. I think this gives me an edge over covering columns, in terms of having the opportunity to add to my total number of spins in my session.
Thanks again for this discussion.
August 5th, 2011 at 11:57:34 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobthecesspit is right. If your goal is X or nothing>>
I didn't get that this was the question. Hell, if
its X or nothing just throw a handful of chips
on the table and they land where they land.
I still don't see the point. I never think think
or play this way, I always look at the long term
or I don't bet.
I was saying that all the bets on the roulette table ARE NOT the same, as EV is only one of the two things you should look at. Not answering a specific question.
It doesn't matter if you'd play that way or look at the long term. Immaterial. The fact remains an outside evens bet IS DIFFERENT to your variance on your bank roll to making a bet on a single number straight up.
You yourself have said you have a win goal cos you aren't greedy. Get in, get out, right? If all the bets are the same, would it matter if you bet odds/evens or 35 or 4-5-6. I'm assuming from other posts (and I could be wrong) you tend to play the outside bets, so in your very own case, the bets on the roulette table are different (of course, I may have misunderstood from the very small amount of detail you have said about playing roulette here, so that's fine... but I'm sure you have a strategy when you walk in and all the bets are not the same to your strategy).
(editted for manners)
"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
August 5th, 2011 at 12:01:47 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobHell, if
its X or nothing just throw a handful of chips
on the table and they land where they land.
I still don't see the point. I never think think
or play this way, I always look at the long term
or I don't bet.
I'm not questioning your "long term" view. This is the right thing to do if you play for profit. Then the strategy for maximum profit is simple: don't play.
But if you are not concerned with profit, but with playing time on a fixed budget, any other strategy than "don't play" will obviously give you more playing time (more than nothing). So pure EV considerations aren't helping here.
Again, optimum strategy depends on your defined goal. For a goal is "win X or nothing" there IS an optimum strategy (which depends on your budget and table minimums ), and it most surely involves careful sized number bets (unless table minimums are a concern). Surviving maximum number of spins again is a different goal, and has a different optimal strategy. Placing random bets just because all bets have same EV is pretty ignorant...
August 6th, 2011 at 8:53:40 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitIf all the bets are the same, would it matter if you bet odds/evens or 35 or 4-5-6. I'm assuming from other posts (and I could be wrong) you tend to play the outside bets,
I have a strategy for the outside bets. It can be transferred to the inside numbers,
but its a slower game and the outcome monetarily is exactly the same. If you beat
the outside, you've beaten the whole game, there's no part of it you can't win on.
Because I don't really enjoy playing, I like to play and leave as soon as possible.
I can't sit in a casino for six hours like I did when I played BJ, I'd lose my mind.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 29th, 2011 at 4:25:50 PM
permalink
All bets on the roulette table do not carry the same house edge, at least not in Atlantic City, where the OP is going.
Outside bets in AC return half the bet back if 0 or 00 hit. So outside bets have a lower house edge.
I would recommend betting the minimum on your preference of red/black, odd/even, or high/low.
Outside bets in AC return half the bet back if 0 or 00 hit. So outside bets have a lower house edge.
I would recommend betting the minimum on your preference of red/black, odd/even, or high/low.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:43:30 PM
permalink
I have the perfect system for you. you can stay at the table almost forever with a 50 dollar bank on a 5 dollar min table. if you loose, you loose 1 dollar. if you win, you win 17 gauranteed. by doubling a bet it changes to 2 loss or 30 win.
September 1st, 2011 at 12:24:43 AM
permalink
huh? What is this about "perfect system"? I'm getting worried.
September 1st, 2011 at 12:48:22 AM
permalink
Quote: BOBAFREAKI have the perfect system for you. you can stay at the table almost forever with a 50 dollar bank on a 5 dollar min table. if you loose, you loose 1 dollar. if you win, you win 17 gauranteed. by doubling a bet it changes to 2 loss or 30 win.
You lose.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:01:11 PM
permalink
really? what happens if you play each six line and split the zeros?
you bet 7 and either win 6 or 18, which means you only risk the one on the zeros, and when the zeros hit you win, bypassing table minimum.
as long as a green hits once every 17 times you are up. if it doesnt, your only loosing 1 dollar at a time.
he said he wanted to stay and play a long time, making the table minimum 1 is the best way i can think of.
you bet 7 and either win 6 or 18, which means you only risk the one on the zeros, and when the zeros hit you win, bypassing table minimum.
as long as a green hits once every 17 times you are up. if it doesnt, your only loosing 1 dollar at a time.
he said he wanted to stay and play a long time, making the table minimum 1 is the best way i can think of.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:37:56 PM
permalink
Quote: BOBAFREAKreally? what happens if you play each six line and split the zeros?
Actually, he's right. If you want to play very slowly and get free
drinks, this is the perfect method. A zero comes on average every
17 spins, but that doesn't mean you won't go 150 spins without
seeing one. Or more. For $100 you can play for at least 3-5 hours,
thats a lot of free drinks.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:42:20 PM
permalink
yep i am cheap and i love roulette lol. i watch the table and when i get "the feel" i do pretty well. this move keeps me at the table until my RESP kicks in.
roulette extrasensory perception
roulette extrasensory perception
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:51:10 PM
permalink
.....
September 3rd, 2011 at 2:26:57 AM
permalink
Quote: BOBAFREAKyep i am cheap and i love roulette lol. i watch the table and when i get "the feel" i do pretty well. this move keeps me at the table until my RESP kicks in.
roulette extrasensory perception
I play roulette as well, perhaps a bit more than I care to admit (am slowly weaning myself to a diet of craps, blackjack, and poker). I enjoy the slow pace of the game and can satisfy the demands of two of my addictions at the same time: 1) gambling; and 2) watching sporting events on the roulette monitors. BTW, a roulette monitor is a cruel invention indeed. Otherwise rational human beings who, upon staring at a board that's landed on black nine straight times, think 'A red number is due.'
Unfortunately, I lack roulette ESP and usually just hope (a futile hope on most occasions) that Lady Variance is on my side. If you are anywhere near the Shreveport/ Bossier City area casinos, I would happily bet alongside you. Your guess is as good as mine!
September 3rd, 2011 at 11:43:03 AM
permalink
Quote: imperialpalace2) watching sporting events on the roulette monitors.
I know that this isn't what you meant, but I had this vision of somebody walking up to a roulette table, reaching up to the monitor, flipping the channel over to a ballgame, and sitting down to play roulette. And then maybe asking to spin the wheel yourself every other spin or so. I've always wished they'd let me spin the wheel. Cheating crooks always gotta spin it themselves. My system would work great if they'd just let me spin once in a while. Oh, and block off the zeros, Ashley Revell-style. Then we'd really be talking.
September 7th, 2011 at 5:32:13 PM
permalink
Ashley didn't actually get the zeros blocked off did he? I know he asked at the Hard Rock, but was denied...
"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
