Quote:
Originally Posted by Daikie
Table limit on his table is 25k
He made $40 in the last hour, the chance that he has to double till 25k from $1 is like what?
%0.0000000001?
A $1 to $25k table is quite weird, but let's assume it's right.
If he constantly loses, his bets have to go :
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, and if he loses that last one, it's over, he can't double that bet ( would be over the $25k limit ).
So, he can bet 15 times before busting.
The odds of losing a single roll is 19/37 (18-18 colors, and the 0 = loss), so a bit more than 50%.
The odds of losing 15 rolls in a row are :
1 / ((19/37) ^15 )
= 1 : 21964.5265662
If you do lose, you'll lose $32767 (sum of all the bets)
On average, by the time you lose that $32767, you will win about 21964 cycles, so $21964.
You lost $10803 overall.
You say
your friend won $40 so far with that strat? Big surprise.
This is the only thing this strat can do well. Win people small amount of money with relatively little risk.
If somehow you have $32767 in your pockets and some gangster threatens to break your legs unless you can pay back a debt of $327
77 you owe him, this is a decent strategy if you have no other way to find 10 bucks somewhere else.
Your odds of losing are ridiculously low.
But the investment is massive for very little profit.
If he follows the strat correctly, he needs to have over $32k with him, and then he'll play for $1 pots that takes him 1.5 minute each ( 40 cycles an hour )? Seems like a horrible way to make money starting from $32k... even WITHOUT the risk of losing.
So let's play a bit more with the stats.
He plays 40 cycles, i.e. approximately 1 hour.
His odds of winning $40 are (1-(1/21964.5265662))^40, or 99.81804976%
Seems quite acceptable!
His odds of losing are 0.181950239%, but these are the odds to lose $32767.
On average, he loses $59.6196349362
Yikes, he loses $19 more than he wins on average! But so far so good, it's still just a very small chance of losing, so the 'average' isn't relevant I guess?
So he decides to try it for a full week!
He does the same thing for 40 hours.
1600 cycles.
His odds of winning $1600 are (1-(1/21964.5265662))^1600, or 92.974363887%
Still seems good, but the risk of losing it all are now more present.
His odds of losing are 7.025636112%, but these are the odds to lose $32767.
On average, he loses $2302.09018482
But hey, it's just 7%!
So the guy decides to make it a full time job. This is obviously a gold mine, how come no one ever thought about this before?
So he does it for a full year. 40 hours a week, 50 weeks, 2000 hours, so 80000 cycles.
His odds of winning $80000 are (1-(1/21964.5265662))^80000, or 2.619152489%
He is almost guaranteed to lose. Note that this is the odds of losing AT LEAST once, not just once.
On average, he will lose 3.64223648341 times over the 80000.
3.64223648341 * $32767 = 119345.162852
And he will win 79997 * $1, or $79997
For an overall loss of (119345.162852 - 79997) = $39348.162852 for a good year of work.
So, how come so many people think this is a good idea? How come people come up with these stories about how they won this much or that much? Well, scroll back up. It's easy to win small amounts with very little risk with that method. But if the odds are against you, and the longer you play the more obvious it becomes.
That guy who plays a week just has 7% to lose it all, and after a full week of grinding, he'll think that his method is a sure case... Then he'll lose $32k.
And the money he won before that lost won't nearly make up for the loss.
This is kind of the same result of, say, if a lottery company would give 2x more money than they get, on a big prize pool with 1 out of 100m odds to get.
They'd sell tickets after tickets and just look WOAH, it's basically free money, we've made 50m already!
But then someone wins the jackpot and they lose $100m.
This is more or less the same logic, only, your earnings are not even that great for the investment.
Even if there was no risk of losing ( and over the long run, again, it's more than a risk, it's basically a certainty )... You'd go to the casino with over $32,000 then come out 2 hours later with $32,080?
BEFORE expenses?
Seems to me that if you have $32k to gamble, you should not do it for pennies.
Especially not if, as demonstrated in this post and this thread and millions of times everywhere on the internet, it's not even a winning strategy anyway.
Casinos should probably give a couple millions to the first guy who came up with that idea. He certainly made them a fortune by having countless people going to the casino and losing that $32k... But at the same time, 100 other players went in and won $80 each, so there's just 1 guy who'll trash the strategy and a hundred who'll praise it and say it works, so it just keeps going, making 1 big loser, a few very small winners who'll end up going into the "big loser" category if they keep going, but most of all, one HUGE winner, the casino.
It doesn't matter how you bet and what strat you have. There's no way to beat the casino at that game unless you bet so much they can't afford the variance, but unless you're Bill Gates or something, it's not happening because we're talking 8-9-10 digits $ a roll.