mrjjj
mrjjj
Joined: Sep 4, 2010
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 1579
September 23rd, 2010 at 6:53:17 PM permalink
So which one is the better roulette player? Ken
ElectricDreams
ElectricDreams
Joined: Sep 8, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 194
September 23rd, 2010 at 7:25:29 PM permalink
Neither, because both would realize roulette is a horrible HE game :-P

I'll admit, mostly the reason why I avoid roulette not because of the house edge but because I don't find much entertainment in it.
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
September 23rd, 2010 at 7:28:39 PM permalink
Doesn't matter, the game is random. Anyone can get lucky at anytime.

As far as knowing the math, a University degree in mathematics helps. One can play a game for a thousand years without knowing or learning its math. You learn math by studying it as a discpline, not by playing games.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 23rd, 2010 at 7:44:27 PM permalink
I'm both, but you can't be a "better" roulette player than someone else. (How would one judge "better"? Won more? That's easy, just bet bigger...)

Fair roulette is an unskilled game, in contrast with blackjack, poker, VP, etc. Knowing the math won't increase your odds of winning any given roulette bet, so to that extent it doesn't help. Math knowledge is useful in other ways, but those have little to do with roulette per se and more with general probabilities. There are rules of thumb like "don't make the 5-number bet because the EV is worse" or, on a single-zero roulette wheel with partage, "only make outside bets". But you don't need math knowledge to learn those rules. I suppose knowing probabilities might help you understand why the streak of numbers on the readerboard gives you no useful information about where to bet, and thus disabuse you of the Gambler's Fallacy, but believing in the Gambler's Fallacy doesn't actually hurt you relative to your overall handle. The only time it's a problem is when you bet more under false assumptions (like "black is due"). Then you're increasing your handle and therefore your theoretical dollar loss.
"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
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1248
  • Posts: 20591
September 23rd, 2010 at 7:48:06 PM permalink
Given an unbiased single-zero wheel, every player on earth would be equally bad, as measured by the ratio of expected money lost to money bet. A Ph.D. statistics professor, or any system player, would do no better than a monkey betting randomly. Same on a double-zero wheel, as long as the 0-00-1-2-3 bet was avoided.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Triplell
Triplell
Joined: Aug 13, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 342
September 23rd, 2010 at 7:59:55 PM permalink
I'm going to say the mathematician. He doesn't have 15 years of losing money under his belt, only 4 ;)
mrjjj
mrjjj
Joined: Sep 4, 2010
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 1579
September 23rd, 2010 at 8:12:57 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

I'm both, but you can't be a "better" roulette player than someone else. (How would one judge "better"? Won more? That's easy, just bet bigger...)

Fair roulette is an unskilled game, in contrast with blackjack, poker, VP, etc. Knowing the math won't increase your odds of winning any given roulette bet, so to that extent it doesn't help. Math knowledge is useful in other ways, but those have little to do with roulette per se and more with general probabilities. There are rules of thumb like "don't make the 5-number bet because the EV is worse" or, on a single-zero roulette wheel with partage, "only make outside bets". But you don't need math knowledge to learn those rules. I suppose knowing probabilities might help you understand why the streak of numbers on the readerboard gives you no useful information about where to bet, and thus disabuse you of the Gambler's Fallacy, but believing in the Gambler's Fallacy doesn't actually hurt you relative to your overall handle. The only time it's a problem is when you bet more under false assumptions (like "black is due"). Then you're increasing your handle and therefore your theoretical dollar loss.



Hey man, if you dont like the word 'better', use whatever word makes you feel most comfortable. The question ITSELF, does not change. Ken
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
September 23rd, 2010 at 8:43:46 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

There are rules of thumb like "don't make the 5-number bet because the EV is worse"



? Why?

((36-N)*N/38 - (38-N)*N)/38)/N = -2/38

What's special about N=5?

Or is "5-number bet" not what I think it is (betting on five numbers at once)?

Quote:

or, on a single-zero roulette wheel with partage, "only make outside bets".



What is "partage"?

I actually thought I knew everything about roulette before I found this side :) I mean what's there to know, right? :D
The only way my math degree is helping here is making sure I will never actually play roulette.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 23rd, 2010 at 8:50:22 PM permalink
Quote: Triplell

I'm going to say the mathematician. He doesn't have 15 years of losing money under his belt, only 4 ;)


Well met!
"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
Calder
Calder
Joined: Mar 26, 2010
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 446
September 23rd, 2010 at 8:56:53 PM permalink
I don't play, but that "5-number bet" I believe refers to the "First Five", i.e., 00-0-1-2-3.

See the Wizard's House Edge chart.

  • Jump to: