Poll of the Day > Anyone wanna explain some roulette strategy?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I know the basic odds and payouts, that's easily googlggabable... I am thinking more abstract stuff since my head is uberabstract.

Ok, like, for example:

Lets say you play on R1 and R3 separately. You would just multiply the odds straight across.

Let's say instead of 1 game of R1 and 1 game of R3, you play 1 game of R1+R3? My naive impression is that this would have no impact on payout since R1 and R3 are wholly exclusive from each other. Playing two games of R1 OR R3 is equal to playing a game of R1 AND R3.

But here's the pickle, when the bets aren't exclusive. For example, a bet of R1 and/or Odds (or Red, or Lower Half, or Lower Third, or any other bet that includes partial R1)... I don't know if the bet of an R1 game plus an Odds game is equal to one better of an R1+Odds.

Plus, betting something like R1+Evens seems like you'd be betting against yourself

36 black

everything on red

I loved Passenger 57
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/5/2/AAfGAbAADfmM.jpg

was there a game where I was trapped at a casino and there was a moderately hard boss? and there were progressively higher scale casino machines? and did it have roulette? what the heck was that? (seems like it was Dragon Quest XI).

I don't know if there are odds-based strategies since the odds are pretty even in general.

the one strategy I see makes sense: bet a small amount and then always bet more after losing such that your next win will cover the losses thus far. seems sound but also incredibly dangerous since your hole will grow very quickly.

Sahuagin posted...

I don't know if there are odds-based strategies since the odds are pretty even in general.

They're not. The 0 & 00 are enough to sway the game in the houses favor regardless of strategy. Blackjack is the only game that you actually have better odds than the casino since they're locked into the hit/hold rules.

Ozmose posted...

They're not. The 0 & 00 are enough to sway the game in the houses favor regardless of strategy.

right I just meant even in terms of choices, not vs the house. you can't make decisions to increase odds, or if you can only minimally. whereas other games there can be optimal and suboptimal choices to make.

Sahuagin posted...

right I just meant even in terms of choices, not vs the house. you can't make decisions to increase odds, or if you can only minimally. whereas other games there can be optimal and suboptimal choices to make.

Ya, I mean there's strategy to video poker (sorta) what to hold and whatnot, and blackjack...

But it seems like all bets are equally fair in roulette as long as you don't bet more than 35 numbers

Lokarin posted...

Let's say instead of 1 game of R1 and 1 game of R3, you play 1 game of R1+R3? My naive impression is that this would have no impact on payout since R1 and R3 are wholly exclusive from each other. Playing two games of R1 OR R3 is equal to playing a game of R1 AND R3.

Those are indeed equal long-term. I'll simplify using a d6 model for fewer possibilities:

• Bet on 1 in one game, 3 in a second - You have a 1/6 chance of winning each. That means a 1/36 chance of winning both (1/6*1/6), a 10/36 chance of winning only one (1/6*5/6+5/6*1/6), and a 25/36 (5/6*5/6) chance of winning none. If you bet $1 on each number and receive $6 on each win, that means you're paying $2 in and will receive an average of (12*1/36+6*10/36+0*25/36)=$2
• Bet on 1 and 3 in one game - You have a 0/36 chance of winning both, 12/36 chance of winning one, and a 24/36 chance of winning none (obviously, those fractions could be simplified, but they're easier to compare this way). If you bet $1 on each number and receive $6 on each win, that means you're paying $2 in and will receive an average of (6*12/36+0*24/36)=$2

In that regard, your return is going to be the same either way if you run enough trials to eliminate random variation. In practice, you aren't likely to do that, so betting simultaneously minimizes your chance of losing your money in exchange for passing up the chance to turn a larger profit.

Also in practice, the existence of 0/00 means you aren't going to make back your money on average no matter how many numbers you pick, but picking more numbers still minimizes the chance of losing money at the expense of gaining less overall.

If you want to win lets say $10, bet $10 on black. If it hits, great you just won $10. If it misses, then the very next game bet $20 on black. If that misses, then bet $40 and keep doubling your amount because eventually it will hit and you will win your $10.

Ozmose posted...

Blackjack is the only game that you actually have better odds than the casino since they're locked into the hit/hold rules.

The house still has a very slight advantage over the player, mostly because the player loses if both the player and house bust. The more decks that are used the better the house advantage, because the odds of hitting blackjack get worse with each additional deck. And the house can increase their advantage further by paying less than 3:2 on blackjacks. Any deviation from basic strategy on the part of the player increases the house advantage dramatically.

Single-deck blackjack paying 3:2 on blackjack, double after split allowed, resplit to four hands allowed, no hitting split aces, no surrender, double on any two cards, original bets only lost on dealer blackjack, dealer hits soft 17, cut-card used, and the player strictly adhering to basic strategy, gives a house advantage of 0.17%. But few if any casinos allow those particular options for single-deck games.

Don't gamble is my advice.