Spinning the Wheel

(Note: Do not play the bets listed here. They are far too complex to manage in real life at a crowded casino. Instead look at the strategy mentioned in Risk & Reward.)

I do love a good George Michael reference!

So, not that I intend to turn into a professional gambler, but I do love solving riddles. At least that is how I think of games. Chess, in particular, is a favorite of mine (though I cannot claim to be any good at it… I would love to learn to think more than three or four moves in advance). At any rate, in case this information is helpful to anyone, I have found a system that allows 89.47368% of your deals to be winning, neutral, or mitigated losses in Roulette (which is way better than the odds described at Wizard of Odds).

I got to play Roulette in a Casino when I went to the Bahamas with a client for New Year of 2013, and I have never really stopped being fascinated with the fact that something completely random can be so compelling. It really is an intense experience: Very intoxicating when you win, and exhilarating when you lose (but discouraging when you cannot scratch back to where you were). I found RouletteOnline.com to be a simple, concise, helpful site. There you will learn why the house always has the advantage: Betting on red/black, high/low, even/odd do NOT give you a 50-50 chance of winning. There are zeros on the wheel that do not pay out for those “even” bets, so you have only a 47% chance of winning. I was reading about systems, strategies, and learning to watch the mechanics of the ball dropping, and blah blah blah… I read for three hours about the “controversy” of whether or not the croutiers can steer the ball toward a section of the wheel (I do not believe they can, after reading about all the different ways in which the “straightforward” physics of supposed dealer “signatures” can be altered and disrupted).

So, anyway, I decided the best way to bypass physics, steering, systems, and other strategies is to simply cast a wide net with only a few gaping holes in it. I downloaded a free Roulette app to fine tune the bet, then played it 500 times or so yesterday. The game gave me $2500 in chips for free to start with (you can pay to have more, if you want, but I was testing, not actually betting). Anyway, once I honed this bet and played it repeatedly without passion or thought, I was able to get as high as $8,000 and never went below $3,200. I finally got too exhausted to continue, but when I finally proved my point to myself I was at $6,800. The screen cap shows the bet I am discussing.

In case the print in the screen cap is too difficult to read, the total bet on every spin is the table max: $500. I placed $100 on Red, $100 on Odd, $100 on 19-36, $50 on 1st, $50 on 3rd, $50 on 13-24, and $5 on 10 single bets that I happen to like (6/29 = my birthday; 1814 = Rhythm Nation; 5/12, 7/31 and 9/11 are significant dates to me).

Betting the entire outside would just be a neutral pointless mess and does nothing to stop the slow drain from losses on the inside bets on the numbers. Anyway, I like losing some – it keeps the game fun. Okay, with the bet set like this permanently, I just hit Spin over and over and over, taking notes as I went. Here is what this bet yielded: Of the 38 inside bets, 19 are wins, 5 are neutral, and 14 are losses (but 10 of those are mitigated losses, so only four are total losses: As┬álong as I didn’t get 0, 00, 2, or 8 I was okay). With ~90% of the possible deals being better than a total loss, I found a way to more than triple the chips in under two hours. I kept playing in order look at cycles, and I am pretty sure I could have gotten higher than the ~$7,000 where I ended, but honestly 500 deals is enough for one night.

Okay so here is what I found for each individual result (if you were to spread your repetitive, fixed $500 bet across the board exactly as I did):

I just noticed something: Six is one of my inside bets, but it’s a net loss. The same with 11. How’s that for ironic? Also, in the columns I have four bets in 3rd, four bets in 2nd, and only 2 bets in 1st. I should either switch 1st to 2nd or move a bet or two from 2nd to 1st. I should also change 19-36 to 1-18, since I have eight bets in the low numbers and only two in the high. I also have six bets in 1-12, but only two bets in 13-24. Only six of my 10 bets are Red, and six of them are odd (though perhaps those last two don’t matter as much? In fact, since I’m already betting Red and Odd, it kinda frees me up or obliges me to bet on Black and Even individual numbers to fill that gap). Actually, perhaps none of that makes a big difference: I was already “winning” nine times out of 10. I didn’t say this bet was “perfect,” just that I was able to have fun, because I lost enough to keep it interesting, but won enough to not get desperate or discouraged. Obviously it could be tweaked more, but if it’s too “perfect” where is the fun in that? Part of the reason gambling is exciting, is because of the prospect that you MIGHT win, not that you WILL. Much like anything in life, the unknown is an adventure. There’s a time and place for both chaos and order. Anyway, If I mush around with this and make it “better,” I will make the updates below.

Edit (later on 3/19/14):

Okay, so I made the changes I mentioned above, and it was a complete disaster. In trying to concentrate multiple wins into fewer squares I managed to undermine everything that had been so beautiful about my initial instinctive choices. In the bet above I had cast a wide net, but by changing the High/Low bet, the column bet, and the Thirds bets, I created a few numbers that could generate wins in excess of the $900-ceiling shown above; however, I lost neutral squares, lost winning squares, and gained the balance as losing squares. Compound that with the fact that the winning squares tended to generate smaller margins, and the mitigated losses generated less and so became bigger losses. I went from 19 wins, 5 neutrals, and 10 mitigated losses to 16 wins (many of them smaller than before, only a few significantly higher), 2 neutrals, and 10 mitigated losses (many of them of lower value, and thus more draining). I still had four total losses (0, 00, 22, and 28). Thus I went from 24 safe squares to 18 safe squares:

Author: Devon Hunter

Share This Post On

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *