Only way to beat the house - Page 2

placidcasual345 · #11 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-O

Asked a former roulette dealer (not sure dealer is the right term but whatever)

see 2 posts up

andrthx_me · #12 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-O

Asked a former roulette dealer (not sure dealer is the right term but whatever) how many times a certain color came up in a row. His response, "37. Right after a guy had just finished giving his interpratation of the martingale system".

Martingale doesn't work mainly because of the roll needed and as someone pointed out the max bet rule. Although at the old horseshoe you could do it.

also remember, you are only winning your original bet. the system is designed to start out low, so you may end up risking millions to win a $1 bet!?!?!?!?!?!!?

if you start with a $1 bet and it comes up black 20 times in a row your next bet would have to be $1,048,576 to win your $1 back, yeah good system

I think this clears up this matter...shortly, never try the martingale system

Pinguaq · #13 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gavin

The only sure fire way I have come up with that wins in gambling against the house ...

perhaps you should do some research before the next time you hit the casino. If you thought this was original, you have no clue what you are doing there.

OrionPro · #14 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by placidcasual345

i have a friend who worked as a croupier. he swore blind that the good ones could get the ball to land in certain areas. i dismissed it til we went to a casino one night. we stood up above a roulette table where there was one guy playing solo. when my mate saw the patterns the guy was betting he was telling me roughly where the ball would be landing, taking into account sections on the wheel. he was calling it pretty acurately. no more roulette for me.

That's the only way to beat Roulette, yes.

andrthx_me · #15 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 01:40 PM

Anyway I don't really enjoy this kind of games... you have no possible way to improve you winnings or to control the game ... it's pure luck. You just stand there like a dummy and hope to win.. I don't see why people like it.

lairyboy · #16 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 01:50 PM

Bet on the 2 of the 3 sets of 12 for a 3-1 payout. If you bet the 1st and 2nd 12, then every time one of them hits you win one bet. odds are ~63%.

Steve-O · #17 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 01:56 PM

do any of you think someone sees an angle the casino hasn't explored?????? Really, if one person found a profitable bet at the smallest casino it would take 3 nanoseconds for word to get around to every casino in the world and the game would be instantly altered.

DeeYakaBaka · #18 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 02:06 PM

would this work if i was betting on a 3/1 shot, for example on a football match?

dopemope223 · #19 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alchera

You haven't factored in the good ol' 0 in your roulette scenario.

You could bet x, then x2, then x4 and so on and so forth - but the house wins in the long run due to the little green zero.

On a side note - Crown Casino here in Melbourne, Australia has just changed the house rules for Black Jack. They no longer stand on a soft 17 in the main gaming area (VIP/High rollers stays as is).

Now I'm not a BJ player - but many are up in arms (especially card counters and maths freaks). I know it favors the house, but am not sure how?? Can anyone enlighten me on what this will do??

when the house hits a soft 17 there is no risk of the house busting so it give the house another chance to improve its hand. That means every player which stood on a 17 and would have gotten a push may lose the hand.
The only game in the casino that you can beat is blackjack, baccrat is actually 50/50, but they make there money on the commision fee when you bet the dealer to win. Roulette is the worst game to play especially if there is a 0 and a 00 on the wheel. Everyother game can be played perfectly mathematically to some extent but you will still lose in the long run. Recently some casino's have warped the rules of blackjack so much that its nearly impossible to beat even when counting. Good casino management knows that having better rules attracts more players and ther profits will still be substantially more even if the rules attract card counters. Mathematically improving the odds in the casino's favor will increase the expected return for the casino, but drive away more players for three reasons. 1. the players who do play will lose there money faster 2. Savy Blackjack players will stay away losing customer base 3. Less people will have bigger wins giving the casino bad reputation.

Steve-O · #20 (**permalink**) 05-15-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

would this work if i was betting on a 3/1 shot, for example on a football match?

I remember that thread! I think our argument was the 3 to 1 allows you to win more than the original bet.

$50 for crouch to score a goal at 3 to 1. He gets stymied 4 games in a row and your bet is up to 400. he scores and you win 1,200. therefore you lost 50, 100, 200 (350) to win 1,200.

It's the 3 to 1 and the variance of the prop bet that could make that system profitable, I wouldn't do it on a 50 to 1 shot because you're more likely to get stoned: still need a good roll for it in any event.