Red or Black theory

[Tummy Burger]

That's because it *is* different, profoundly so. It's the difference between pure, mechanical gambling like roulette, which has a fixed margin you cannot beat, and betting, in which the margin (the over-round on the book) varies, and you can decide whether it suits you or not.

"Betting" and "gambling" are used so often in the media etc as if the two words are interchangeable that it's understandable many people don't appreciate the difference. There is also the obvious example of FOBT machines, which masquerade as "betting terminals" but are actually hard gambling. If you gamble, you have no more chance of success, and will do no better, than a chimpanzee that has been taught to play the same game. When you bet, you use your brain to make decisions about what to back. You will still probably lose in the end, because of the over-round, but the more you think about it, the less you will lose, and there are those who spend enough time applying thought to it to make a profit in the long term. (Then they face the problem of being restricted, of course...)

Indeed , all of that. Funny, seeing your avatar reminds me how horrendous I am at the horses. This is one of the things that makes me adamant that it is possible to win on the football. My long term Betfair account for greyhounds is down lots, for horses even worse. But the football is the only thing, I have any knowledge of and thus am in profit albeit using low stakes. You need to put the time in to see the rewards IMO. Time I haven't got.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Could you cover this by say, putting a smaller amount on zero on every red or black spin ? You would need to be fairly comfortable to consider having a go at this though.

This used to be a way of making money with online sites. Some of the programming of the old sites was a bit dodgy and would throw in zeros more often than it should do. Some punters worked this out and started putting bets on both red,black and zero.

Set at the right levels this made some modest amounts of money over pretty long periods.

Long since been changed though.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yeah, in the film it was 'simple' mental agility they used, no artificial means at all. Mind you it was a movie so it could have taken the standard Hollywood approach to the truth. "Winner winner chicken dinner!"

The documentary wasn't sensationalist, it explained how it worked. At a guess from memory, for low cards deduct 5, for high cards add 5. After a while if you've got enough of a positive score the cards are weighted in your favour (chance of the house going bust etc). When the cards are in your favour, you/a team member starts betting big.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

The "double if you lose" is the most basic way of guaranteeing a win in a casino... unfortunately you need very deep pockets and balls of steel.

Bet £1.
Lose = bet £2 (you'll win the £1 you lost, plus be up a £1)
Lose again = bet £4 (you've lost £3 so far, so if you win you're up £1)
...
Every time you win, your next bet is £1.

Your bet sequence runs.... £1, £2, £4, £8, £16, £32, £64, £128, £256 (run out of bottle yet?), £512 (how about now), £1,024 (ok let's bet a grand to win a pound), £2,048, £4,096?, £8,192 (ballsy f**ker), £16,384 (cost of a small new car to win a £1), £32,768 (how about a nice family car?), £65,336 (a luxury car?), c'mon, who's got the balls to bet a small 1-bed flat on the next game?

Theoretically you can't fail, but reality is, house limits and the size of your budget will kill you, even on a perfectly fair game.

Time isn't your friend either. Let's assume that you can win every other game on average... it would take 2,000 games to win £1,000 (every time you win you're up another £1, but you only win half the games).

Let's say you're playing blackjack on a 6-deck shoe, 1 hand vs bank, that's about 40-50 hands per shoe say 1 min per hand plus say 3 mins for a shuffle. So something of the order of 8 hours non-stop playing time to get a grand from the house. But hit a bad run and you've lost that amount in 11 hands or just over 10mins.


I've a degree in Maths, I work as a practical statistician and I used to gamble (too much) and this was the basic strategy that I played blackjack to. Playing to certain rules and with a little card-counting going on, I believe that I got up to a 6% advantage on the house (I'd will win 6% more games than I'd lose - small computer program to play 1000's of hands), but in the long run I'd lose because I couldn't continue betting past a certain point either because I hadn't got the cash or I'd hit the table limit.

Your post is muddled & flawed
IF you are card counting then your bets size needs to change as the shoe progresses & solely depend on the cards that have gone before. Doubling up strategy is not relevant to counting strategy where bet size will always vary up or down as you progress through the deck

 

[matthew]

Hmmm, mixed responses. It seems the chances of winning with the the triple bet theorem are dubious at best.

However if there comes a time when i'm in the money i'll try it up to £81 and see what happens

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Hmmm, mixed responses. It seems the chances of winning with the the triple bet theorem are dubious at best.

However if there comes a time when i'm in the money i'll try it up to £81 and see what happens

If it were possible, everone would do it.

Seriously mate, save your money. Voice of experience, trust me.

 

[Hans Kraay]

The roulette wheel has been beaten in Monte Carlo and it was a simple formula that succeeded in the end. The wheels were run on bearings and in time they wore down making 6-7 numbers much more frequent than others, this was first discovered by Joseph jagger in the 1800 then copied very recently. The most recent cost the casino 6m over a year using a team of players. It was so simple that the casinos could not work out how they were losing until someone suggested the wheel was changed! Now changing the wheel is common practice as is changing the croupier more often.

 

[Hugo Rune]

YouTube

 

[Brovion]

Hmmm, mixed responses. It seems the chances of winning with the the triple bet theorem are dubious at best.

However if there comes a time when i'm in the money i'll try it up to £81 and see what happens

Not to your original red/black system. Everybody who's commented on it has said it is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Silkster365]

I did this with an online casino a couple of years back placing 25p stake, 50p, £1 and so on. Made about £300 over the weekend before realising what COULD happen and never did it again. I only ever got up to having to lay down £32 - but a couple more losses at that point and it would have been game over. Don't do it!

 

[Papak]

With infinite money and an infinite house limit, I must win a hand eventually and therefore be [another] £1 up and have "won". Therefore I am guaranteed to win.

So, you have infinite money and you want to gamble to win £1?

OP - Do not do this, you will lose.

The casino operators must love it when people have these crazy schemes.

 

[Silkster365]

It could easily get to the stage where you are laying down hundreds of pounds, just to effectively win £1

 

[matthew]

It could easily get to the stage where you are laying down hundreds of pounds, just to effectively win £1

You a mathamatician? How did you work that one out

 

[Brovion]

You a mathamatician? How did you work that one out

,,,

 

[Camicus]

The ONLY people to make money out of gambling are bookies

 

[Kumquat]

Red or Black? - Betting your whole life on one roulette spin - YouTube

Cheers fella.