Philosophical question about roulette

One of the laws of life it seems is that different actions bring different outcomes. Yet that doesn't seem to hold true in roulette; or so want us to believe the mathematicians. There is no winning system they insist. No matter what you do you will end up losing. And they (the math guys) even know how much you will lose: a percentage of your total bets near the house advantage (2,7% or 5,6% of your total bets).
I won't try to debate that point mathematically (though it is possible) but philosophically. Do you believe that in a specific aspect of life, called roulette, your choices and decisions play no role in the long run? Do you believe that throwing randomly chips on the roulette table has the same outcome as following a well thought strategy and that bet selection and/or money management can offer no advantage at all against blindly throwing chips on the table again and again?

Quote: Kavouras

One of the laws of life it seems is that different actions bring different outcomes. Yet that doesn't seem to hold true in rouletteq or so want us to believe the mathematicians. There is no winning system they insist. No matter what you do you will end up losing. And they (the math guys) even know how much you will lose: a percentage of your total bets near the house advantage (2,7% or 5,6% of your total bets.
I won't try to debate that point mathematically (though it is possible) but philosophically. Do you believe that in a specific aspect of life, called roulette, your choices and decisions play no role in the long run? Do you believe that throwing randomly chips on the roulette table has the same outcome as following a well thought strategy and that bet selection and/or money management can offer no advantage at all against blindly throwing chips on the table again and again?

There can be no well thought out strategy that changes the odds on a completely random game with a house advantage on every bet on the table.

ZCore13

It doesn't change the theoretical odds, but can it change the long term outcome?
I think your answer is based on mathematics more than philosophy....

Quote: Kavouras

It doesn't change the theoretical odds, but can it change the long term outcome?
I think your answer is based on mathematics more than philosophy....

No.

And there's no way of testing for it either.

Your poll choices do not support your argument. There should be a BOTH option (and neither). I would have said both.

Choices certainly DO have consequences. You can chose a number that happens to win. Or vice versa.

Different systems will absolutely have different outcomes. On any given day, either can win or lose. Or both can win or both lose. And in differing amounts.

The problem is, no matter what you do, there's no way to predict anything.

So, over the long run, the player will lose.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Your poll choices do not support your argument. There should be a BOTH option (and neither). I would have said both.

Choices certainly DO have consequences. You can chose a number that happens to win. Or vice versa.

Different systems will absolutely have different outcomes. On any given day, either can win or lose. Or both can win or both lose. And in differing amounts.

The problem is, no matter what you do, there's no way to predict anything.

So, over the long run, the player will lose.

Thank you for a thought provoking answer. You make a great point talking about prediction. This is indeed another unknown X of the equation.
But I guess you talk only about a very short term prediction, if you are sure that all systems will fail based on the house advantage.

Quote: thecesspit

No.

And there's no way of testing for it either.

I agree on that. There is not absolute way of testing.

Quote: Kavouras

Do you believe that throwing randomly chips on the roulette table has the same outcome as following a well thought strategy and that bet selection and/or money management can offer no advantage at all against blindly throwing chips on the table again and again?

Story time (I both love and hate roulette)

Years ago I was dealing high-limit, single-zero roulette in the VIP pit (near Toronto).
My only player was a nice gentleman wagering on two columns and/or dozens, winning or losing as much as $2,000 or so per spin. Other than my supervisor, the only other person in sight was the man's wife. She looked bored. I asked her why she wasn't playing and she told me she didn't know how to play roulette. I told her to take a hundred dollar chip from her husband and we'd have some fun.

Surprisingly, she obeyed my command and held the chip out, saying, "Now what?". I made her put it on the table and changed it for a stack of value reds. "Now what?" became a repeat question from the woman. I told her to throw the chips in the air and play them where they landed. First spin, she hit for 69 nickles.

"Now what?"...Second spin was even better.

Ten minutes later she was up about $1,000, people were watching the table, and everyone was having fun. The husband would eventually end his day up or down twenty times the amount she won; I can't for the life of me remember how he did that day, but it didn't matter compared to how much fun everyone had watching or flinging chips around the layout.

She could have easily lost in just one spin; roulette is like that sometimes :)
It just struck me (and I did this many times, especially when asked for betting advice) as a way of both enjoying the game AND pointing out its mindlessness and bad math.

Roulette is a crappy game that is difficult to deal elegantly and in an entertaining fashion. I may have leaned too far from elegant sometimes, but I always prided myself on dealing a little Ionescu-like Theater of the Absurd into my game with the airborne chips.

I will occasionally buy 20 singles at a roulette table and thrown them down (literally), but I don't play roulette any other way or for any length of time.

Great story! That's the way to play roulette. For FUN, not for money.

The OP's question is wrongly stated, not because of him but because some (so-called) mathematicians are unconsciously obfuscating the subject.
Of course the ODDS are against the player, and no system exists that can guarantee success. The only "system" is that of the house who, like an insurance company, is exchanging risk for expected value.

But in the meantime it would be silly to say that the player's actions have no consequence. They do, particularly in the short run. Simply, the player does not know in advance the consequences of his actions.

And betting schemes DO affect house edge, variance, skewness, etc. Just remember they do not give you a positive expectation game.

How about 150 bets on 1 table compared to 2 bets at 75 tables. I think I would Rather play the 75 tables thinking some might be biased against and some for, but a biased table with 150 bets might be painful. Point being more than the actual number of spins, you want a small amount of spins to be fair as much as lucky. Do biases tend to pool in any sectors? I don't know but it would make sense a casino could ignore a wheel biased near green and kick out those betting the numbers.

Quote: Kavouras

I agree on that. There is not absolute way of testing.

Purely because each result is independent of the last, in a truly random system. However, that doesn't mean that longer term trends can't emerge.

(Trends, not patterns. The trends are in your bankroll, not the results of the spins).

Quote: Kavouras

I agree on that. There is not absolute way of testing.

There aren't any great philosophers anymore. Western scientific-based thought has wiped them out. But the fold's gold rush is no less over zealous than that of the long forgot Klondike.

Philosophy goes hand in hand with science. Nothing need be tested. A different faith. Certainly not random.

Whether you lift a finger against your enemy, the foolish will wipe each other out. You can change the circumstances through your involvement, but then you too will be wiped out.

Quote: Kavouras

I agree on that. There is not absolute way of testing.

You don't need to test it. That's why we have mathematics.

In the long run, there's no way to beat the random game of roulette. However, people have made fortunes by exploiting the non random defective gaming device via bias, and visual ballistics.

There are some great articles on the history of the game.

As a general rule, is it a worse bet to play the columns rather than colors/odds-evens because you don't get half back on green?