Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
21 Apr 13
10:58
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Jan 02
hi im going to the casino on the weekend and would like to know the odds of winning 1000 playing single zero roulette with the labouchere system using a start line of 100. 100. 100. 100. 100 so i will have to clear this line twice to make a thousand quid.
what are the odds of doing this if i take a bankroll of
1000
2000
3000
4000
or 5000
what are the odds of doing this if i take a bankroll of
1000
2000
3000
4000
or 5000
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 39
|
By:
any maths genius's out there. plaese
|
|
By:
I know that one, the odds of finding a maths genius in chit chat 1000 at least
|
|
By:
yeh thanks
|
|
By:
You need to put a call out for one of the Pro Roulette players on here.
|
|
By:
If you and 999 of your mates send me a quid each, then I'll tell you how to make a grand.
|
|
By:
He hasn't got 999 mates (nap)
|
|
By:
has anyone got some real answers. ive seen the wizards coments but not to this question
|
|
By:
Amadeus, are you sure you understand la boucherre system correctly? If you are using la boucherre with stakes that high you will find that the table limits will stop you in your tracks. To make £1k, especially in one night, i feel is impossible. Think about the consequences if you have say 4 or 5 incorrect calls. I tend to use this system at times and for a little bit of fun at the casino, but beware - the stake can increase dramatically after a few losses. If you are thinking about staking levels of £100 or £200 on the first spin, please take my advice - you will be blown away or the table limit will be reached, and dare i say it - quicker than you anticipate. I would suggest starting levels of possibly gaining £15-£20 per sequence. You may stand a better chance, but even still £1k profit on the night would be difficult.
Hope this helps, and let me know the outcome. |
|
By:
no fkng chance - roulette is for mugs.hth
|
|
By:
I thought (obviously wrongly) that you and your roulette system stuff had gone, amadeus. It's been a while though.
As you've been replied to many many times. There is NO SUCH THING as a system to beat Roulette. It is a mathematically sound game. There are NO pro roulette players, NO consistent winners - just a few liars. If you start with bundles and aim to win a bit, you will do this quite often and then you'll lose. If you start with a small amount and try to win the same amount you'll do it less often, but your total losses will be about the same. The ONLY thing you can do to limit losses is stake sensibly, ie press when winning, reduce when losing, which is the opposite to what most people want to do or actually do. and NEVER chase losses. You'll still lose. There's no system. Give it up. |
|
By:
STUDYFORM i know there is no system i just wanted to know the odds of winning a thousand / with the respective bankrolls of 1.2.3.4.and 5000.
for instance is there a 50/50 % chance of winning 1000 with a bankroll of 2000. knowing ths odds is what i would like to know. and thanks celticlad I am taking 5000 to the casino and wondered if i had a 75% chance of winning a thousand or not or what are the actuelle odds |
|
By:
anyone?
|
|
By:
have you tried your head 'tween your legs, farting, sniffing ... and leaving your thousands in the bank? higher probability of being better off without any extra mathematics required.
|
|
By:
celticlad 1 made 1600 with my biggest stake being 600. using labouchere.
and STUDYFORM in you face |
|
By:
long time no see Amadeus. Still in the optical business?
|
|
By:
optics more like. Has to be plssed if he thinks he can win at roulette
|
|
By:
I know a couple of Roulette Pro Punters. They guard their methods closely.
|
|
By:
I think the odds are you will lose £150 for every £1000 you gamble in the long run. Your best bet it whack it all on an even money bet then walk away win or lose.
|
|
By:
Well, I've just 'Googled' this system and it seems to work great as long as (Surprise! Surprise!)...you pick winners!
Do you really think there is some magical way to spot that there will ba sequence of red or black numbers? Whereas YOU may be very clever and realise that the next spin should be whatever, the same cannot be said for the silly roulette wheel. IT doesn't even know that it should stop spinning black numbers because it has done that for the last 26 spins! Fair comment, you may have made a few quid. But that geezer sitting opposite has lost everything while betting on red!  |
|
By:
Dotchinite 29 Apr 13 13:38
I know a couple of Roulette Pro Punters. They guard their methods closely. Yeh right. Are they allowed coloured crayons where they are ? |
|
By:
Roulette's an easy way to make money.
Wait till someone starts a Roulette system thread and bet that he'll later claim to have won. Been on Betfair 13 years and above has a 100% strike rate. Only works in theory because I've been unable to find someone to take the bet. |
|
By:
I'll stand your roulette bets any time, whether you're using Labouchere, Martingale, Tarot, WMD, ipdip dogsh1t or any other 'system' you like.
There is NO such thing as a winning formula. There are NO professional roulette punters - only liars. What you won, you'll lose back if you play often enough. |
|
By:
^ spot on
|
|
By:
This is similar to what you want although maybe not to your "system". Have a play with the numbers.
I started with 1 to represent your £100 starting stake and changed the odds to 51.5% to represent the slight house edge in roulette. Ran it over 5 hands then ran it again and again. I lost most of the time and very rarely ended up with more than my starting stake. http://math.ucsd.edu/~anistat/gamblers_ruin.html |
|
By:
kenny man.
yep stil making specs in queensland australia |
|
By:
if you lot looked at the question i first posted {it is only about odds} of this happening for a win with the stake i took.
im not stupid enough to think any system will win in the long run anyone who thaught i was saying that is retarded |
|
By:
Fair enough, my retardation aside.....
Roulette has a house edge of approximately 2.8% (less if bets are just on even chances) That's just on 1 spin. So for many spins that %age is compounded. However you play it that edge is constant, whatever 'system' or method you use, the house edge never changes. Therefore the odds (chances) of you winning a given amount are the same whether you put 1 chip on 1 number or plaster the table with chips. |
|
By:
I thought the house edge was about 15%?
|
|
By:
The overall expectation of house profit on a day's roulette activity is between 22 and 28%, on a European wheel (1 zero) it's 2.8% per spin.
35/1 paid on a 36/1 chance and derivatives. The reduction in %age on the even chances comes from the fact that if zero comes up only 1/2 the bet is lost. Which doesn't apply to FOBTs. This is hugely increased on the American wheel (zero and double zero added). |
|
By:
Study, would you agree that is it fair to say that playing blackjack against the house would give you the best chance of winning/not losing in the long term? A few dealers in America said that to me. I'm not talking fobt's here by the way
 |
|
By:
I think card counting is over-rated, also I'm not sure that most of the 'strategies' connected to blackjack are awfully good either.
The %age in favour of the house is a more or less the same as for roulette. Casinos are a bit like warehouses for betting and now online casinos/slots are the same too, in that they have large turnover and small margins. I have always wondered, but never tried it, if blackjack would be profitable if you played just 1 hand against the dealer to the same rules as the dealer; ie, draw to 16, stand on 17+, never split, never double, and level stakes. I reckon this could work because you get paid time and a half for a BJ, thus possibly providing a slight edge. It would be incredibly boring though and not a massive money spinner. |
|
By:
the house edge in blackjack is only around 1% if you play the optimum strategy. Card counters say that it actually goes into -% if you do it correctly.
|
|
By:
I refer the honourable gentleman to my 1st sentence on the previous post
 |
|
By:
I must say I do agree with B_B with regards to blackjack. I got booted out of two hotels in Vegas a couple of years ago for having the absolute cheek to know what the percentages were.
I also deliberately played the anchor leg on 6 seaters. The house did not like that one bit. |
|
By:
playing the maths on BJ will lose in the long run...as will every other casino game - card counting, where and when possible, is/was the only way to beat the house
|
|
By:
not sure if it is still the same but some players used a basic card counting element when it came to blackjack in the casinos.
No picture cards on the previous 6 or 7 cards pre new hand - then double up (at least) on the next hand. The higher the probability of picture cards or aces left in the shoe, the more level the playing field will be against the house. And 2 or 3 double ups after a winner was also a popular strategy. Hit and run is the only way to win in the short term. Never gonna win long term. |
|
By:
keep it up lads
|
|
By:
keep it up lads
|
|
By:
intresting
|