Multiple Number bets in roulette unwise?

I don't play roulette because the 5%+ advantage is too high for me, but when I see people placing bets on many, many numbers, I have to wonder if they are making the house advantage even higher.

Say you bet two numbers. One of them must lose. No matter what, one of your bets is going to lose. My math is terribad, but I have to wonder what happens to the house advantage when you bet two numbers (and I mean two numbers straight up, such that one of them MUST lose), rather than just one at a time.

If I were a roulette player wanting to make multiple bets, I might consider playing a color, a column, a number, odd/even, etc such that every and all bets I place could theoretically win simultaneously. But to place multiple bets where some of them are certain to lose? Does not seem wise.

usually they have odd/even and a red/black then several different 4 corners which is not even money.. Last casino cruise I went with a buddy and he wanted to play roulettte so I watched for a while on a break from craps and there was a guy who bought in for 1000 i think it was but he dropped it all over and......

green 00

didnt cover it so bye bye everything.

Quote: Marteau

I don't play roulette because the 5%+ advantage is too high for me, but when I see people placing bets on many, many numbers, I have to wonder if they are making the house advantage even higher.

Say you bet two numbers. One of them must lose. No matter what, one of your bets is going to lose. My math is terribad, but I have to wonder what happens to the house advantage when you bet two numbers (and I mean two numbers straight up, such that one of them MUST lose), rather than just one at a time.

If I were a roulette player wanting to make multiple bets, I might consider playing a color, a column, a number, odd/even, etc such that every and all bets I place could theoretically win simultaneously. But to place multiple bets where some of them are certain to lose? Does not seem wise.

If you want me to delve into specific scenarios, I can do that later on, as time permits. Suffice it to say that the House Edge on Roulette does not change regardless of how many bets you place, where you are placing them, or how much you are betting. The only exception to this rule is the Basket Bet which actually does have a worse House Edge.

In any event, betting multiple spots and having multiple ways to win (in terms of individual numbers) simply decreases the Variance as opposed to taking the total amount bet and placing it on an individual number.

If you wanted to minimize Variance to the greatest extent, you would put one unit on ever single number thereby locking in a fixed loss of 2 units. 2/38 = .0526 or 5.26% which is the game's house edge. So, if betting every single number (guaranteed loss) does not change the house edge, betting any combination of numbers fewer than that certainly won't.

The other thing about red/black, even/odd, 1-18/19-36 is that there is nothing special about those bets, all of those bets are effectively the same thing as taking the bet, dividing it by 18 and putting the result on 18 individual numbers. It's just a cheaper way to do that, as the table minimum for outside bets/18 probably would be too little to make an individual number bet.

Quote: Mission146

The thing about red/black, even/odd, 1-18/19-36 is that there is nothing special about those bets, all of those bets are effectively the same thing as taking the bet, dividing it by 18 and putting the result on 18 individual numbers. It's just a cheaper way to do that, as the table minimum for outside bets/18 probably would be too little to make an individual number bet.

Somehow I've never seen that so clearly explained. Tnx.

It is the general case: for multiple bets, the EV is the sum of the EV of the individual bets. Simple as that.

The only thing that changes is the variance, this depends on the correlation between the different bets. Bets at the same spin on the very same number are positive correlated (they increase variance), while bets on different numbers are negative correlated (they reduce variance). Bets on different spins are uncorrelated (they do not increas variance)


So should you bet multiple numbers on roulette ? EV-wise, it doesn't matter. But from a gambling point of view, the game is played because there is the possibiltiy of a win despite being a negative EV game. For that gambling purpose you should maximize variance as much as possible (for same EV), because it is the variance which gives the gambler the utility to play. Then no, you should never bet multiple numbers of roulette (as they decrease variance, which you don't want).

Quote: FleaStiff

Somehow I've never seen that so clearly explained. Tnx.

Thanks for the compliment!

Quote: MangoJ

Then no, you should never bet multiple numbers of roulette (as they decrease variance, which you don't want).

Depends on the personal "utility" framework of the player. You might want a reasonable chance of "winning something", and that is what leads a player to bet Red/Black or a dozen, etc. Or you don't care about small wins, then you go for the jackpot and for large variance.

Put differently, I do not think that "maximum variance in negative EV games" is a universal criterion. If it were, then you would have to admit that the more variance in a game, the more negative EV you would be willing to accept? Although this seems to be the case for State lottery players, I do not think it is a general attitude in casino games.

It really depends on the goal of player. If he aims for the eventual big win, then variance is his friend, while the negative EV is not that important. If he aims for small but steady wins, well then he should not play a -EV game in the first place.

However, if you find someone asking about how to bet on roulette, then he already has acknowledged the negative EV. Since he is playing regardless -EV, he must be the type of player aiming for thebig win. In that case, he should indeed aim for single numbers...

Alright. But then, that player should enter the casino, go right to the roulette table, bet all his/her bankroll on one number and leave. For variance increases with wager size, and splitting on several events reduces variance.
Better still: he/she should not go several times to the casinos, but bet a once in a lifetime huge wager.

Is that really what you think is the optimal way to play?

Quote: kubikulann

Is that really what you think is the optimal way to play?

If your (lifetime) goal is to increase your bankroll 35-fold or nothing, and only roulette is available, then yes this is the optimal play.

Quote: Mission146

If you wanted to minimize Variance to the greatest extent, you would put one unit on ever single number thereby locking in a fixed loss of 2 units. 2/38 = .0526 or 5.26% which is the game's house edge.

Which of course is an utterly absurd thing to do, although some Countess somewhere is supposed to have done it all night long, every night at Monte Carlo. Of course if you do your gambling on the French Rivieria or something, it doesn't matter what personality quirks you have because you are ultra rich.

So leaving aside the nutcases who want to lock in a loss, we acknowledge that a casino has a house edge and that is how they pay for the "free drinks" we get from the half naked woman with sore feet.

It then becomes a gambling game like any other gambling game: bet on the correct numbers and do it often enough to be able to push back your chair, tip the dealer and waitress and say thank you as you leave with your winnings. Each and every spin pits that dreaded House Edge against your bankroll. So optimal math would be The Whole Wad as your first and only bet. This gets dangerous and sort of makes the long drive/long flight a waste of time if you lose.

Sitting their doing table minimum would make the bankroll last longer than betting the Whole Wad but each spin takes a bite.

Since it is all at 5.26 percent, a straight up bet is for the brave an outside bet is for the meek. It seems a compromise is the 2:1 payoff on outside column or Section bets.

Still best overall strategy remains: Whole Wad, Straight up ... and be right!

Nobody talks about the wheel tracking now days, but some time ago the idea was very popular. The idea is to spot the starting point, figure ball's and wheel speed and try to figure the landing sector. And it works. That really pisses the house off, that's why I stopped playing the wheel. I have no idea how can someone beat the rullette, looks like ball has eyes, it never hits the numbers you need.

Quote: FleaStiff

Which of course is an utterly absurd thing to do, although some Countess somewhere is supposed to have done it all night long, every night at Monte Carlo. Of course if you do your gambling on the French Rivieria or something, it doesn't matter what personality quirks you have because you are ultra rich.

So leaving aside the nutcases who want to lock in a loss, we acknowledge that a casino has a house edge and that is how they pay for the "free drinks" we get from the half naked woman with sore feet.

It then becomes a gambling game like any other gambling game: bet on the correct numbers and do it often enough to be able to push back your chair, tip the dealer and waitress and say thank you as you leave with your winnings. Each and every spin pits that dreaded House Edge against your bankroll. So optimal math would be The Whole Wad as your first and only bet. This gets dangerous and sort of makes the long drive/long flight a waste of time if you lose.

Sitting their doing table minimum would make the bankroll last longer than betting the Whole Wad but each spin takes a bite.

Since it is all at 5.26 percent, a straight up bet is for the brave an outside bet is for the meek. It seems a compromise is the 2:1 payoff on outside column or Section bets.

Still best overall strategy remains: Whole Wad, Straight up ... and be right!

I agree with everything you have said, and agree with your points on the way to achieve Variance Maximization and exposing less overall money to the House Edge. The former, of course, is simply based on how much you want to win, of course. If one would be satisfied with merely doubling one's bankroll, then that individual should clearly select one of the Even Money bets.

In any case, the game of Roulette, and any other game in which there are multiple ways to bet and/or multiple potential pays/plays is all about the player understanding the game and knowing what he wants out of the game. Personally, I want a chance for a little bit of time-at-table, but I really don't feel like grinding up to the desired win goal with Even Money bets. My personal solution is to bet one unit on Black-29 and one unit on each corner of Black-29. You clearly lose some of the Variance, but even if you ultimately lose your buy-in, it's still possible that you had a chance to fight it out for a few spins. Either that, or you could lose every single spin, which is more likely than an equal amount in even money bets, but less likely than with 5 units just on Black-29.

The bets, the bankroll, the percentages, probability of success and probability of failure. The main thing is just to be an educated player, ultimately, there's nothing wrong with playing a -EV game as long as one understands the game for what it is and is willing to accept the implications of -EV...and most importantly...that one is only playing with money he can afford to lose.