Hey guys. Roulette is obviously an -EV game no matter how you play it. But, is is possible to turn it into +EV with the bonuses casinos offer?

I've found one with a 48x wagering requirement and a 150% deposit bonus. So let's say the numbers are:

Deposit: $60
Play with: $150
Wagering requirements: $7200

Since the $90 bonus is deducted after the wagering requirements are complete, there's no point in doing things like flat $1 bets. My math isn't very good but I'm guessing the strategy here is to make big, risky bets at first to maximize the use of the bonus and therefore EV. However using maximum EV methods in this case means extremely high standard deviation and either you are going to walk away broke most of the times, and a huge profit other times. It should go without saying but if you can pass the early stage with a big profit then the later stages are always obviously going to be spread-out bets aimed at finishing the wagering requirements as fast as possible.

Any thoughts/comments are appreciated. I'd love for someone to calculate the math behind this if it were even possible.

5.26% HE * $7200 WR = $378.72 expected loss
$90 bonus - $378.72 = $288.72 net expected loss

GG l2math

You will never find an instance where this is true except in rare cases where a casino makes a mistake on a promo. Those get corrected fast.

Pretty novice bonus calculations there. Stay out of conversations involving online casino bonuses. You're out of your league.

For the OP, online casinos are well aware of the effect of huge bets followed by grinding out WR. Most have explicit rules preventing this. Other's have broad catchall clauses that they'll use to confiscate any winnings. Unless you can time warp back to 2006, then I'd avoid online casino AP.

Yep, calculations are completely wrong, it's much more complicated than EV of wagering requirements or else every bonus is -EV.

As for the grinding out the wagering requirements, it's true that a lot of casinos have rules about "abusive" bets. While some give clear rules such as no covering more than 80% of the board, others make it vague so they can cheat you out of your money if/when you win. I always make sure to ask live chat about this before I deposit any money. Don't most casinos want people using their deposit bonus, since people go broke trying to finish the playthrough anyway. Do you think casinos have the math behind all of this figured out to ensure nothing is ever +EV, or do you think it is just a gut feeling?

Genius.

Or, perhaps, casinos don't enjoy giving out free money, so things that look like free money are usually carefully engineered not to be?

Please explain what's wrong with the calculation that was shown. I think it really is just that simple, and the condescending replies to that poster don't seem called for.

Sure there are ways to play around with the variance and change outcome distributions (e.g. win over half the time but losses still have greater $ sum) that's the whole idea of betting systems. But nothing you can do changes the simple math shown. EV is the average outcome, period, and in roulette that is controlled by the rules of the game, not by how you play it.

Hey Newoldguy

I don't know the math behind it but I can give you an example:

If you're given X amount of money for roulette, the percentage of you being able to double that money and complete the wagering requirements (x times the amount of money) are the same. Numbers might change a bit with the amount of betting units you're given as well as the table limits, I'm not sure, but doesn't affect the big picture.

So the probability of success is a fixed number. Let's say that number is 1%. So if the casino offers you an $100 bonus to your original 100, you'll walk away with $300 - the bonus = $200 once every 100 times. Similarly, if the bonus offers you an $1000 to your 1$, then you will walk away with $2002 - bonus = $1002 every 100 times (and only lose $99)

If the calculation was simply house edge * amount wagered, then the you're gonna be looking at -EV every time, even if it's $1 million bonus for $1 deposit.

That is true but this is simply a special case. Say you deposit 300 and get a 700 bonus totaling 1000. Since this is bonus money, there's no difference between loosing 300, or loosing 1000. Either way you go broke. Yes, the EV for the total number of you have is the same, but by placing bets with higher standard deviation you increase your chance of all the money going into one account rather than split between many. So let's say using the example above you have 2 accounts with $1000 each and EV after wagering requirements is 75% of original money. You could have 2 accounts with 750 each and your net is -$500, or you could have a broke account with $1500 and net +200. Technically EV doesn't change, but bonuses make calculating EV a lot more complicated.

I hope that cleared things up a little.

$500 bonus for $500 deposit, WR 10x
5.26% * $5000 = $263 expected loss
$500 bonus - $263 = $237 net win

Uh oh

Obviously.

You really don't know what you're talking about do you.

These bonuses are not like matchplay coupons. Your win/loss outcome has zero impact on how much bonus $ you get. With matchplay coupons you want to play the most high variance bets regardless of HE (for the most part) but with a straight $ bonus with waging requirement, you want to play the lowest house edge game regardless of the variance involved.

No it doesn't. The bonus does change the EV, and toker included it in his example calculation both times. But it's still always net negative unless the casino makes a mistake (which has happened a time or two for very short terms until they catch it).

The mistake I made was not noticing that the deposit bonus is non-cashable (funny chips). I'd refer to Grosjean on it but I also am obviously clueless so I'll let my betters do that.

FYP

Save your explanations for a better thread.

the issue with roulette is that it is too random....if one think that the person can be a pro roulette player so be it....as its evident that i have built up a roulette bankroll....for me i am staying away from this game....as i am already tiedup with poker and baccarat......

to me in the world of gambling its way better to specialise in one or two games....for me in this case its card games....

so i am staying off roulette or should i say i am not playing it forever....

No. The issue, and the reason there are no pro players, is because it is a negative expectation game.

The stupidity from nearly every poster in this thread is monumental. The OP is by far one of the smarter ones.

Hi, Toker forgot that bonus money was taken away after you finish wagering requirements. EV doesn't change means the EV of the total chips you have doesn't change, but having more chips in one account is more profitable.

Basically
- EV chips doesn't change, it never changes, house edge is house edge.
- EV of money you walk away with does.

So the question is, does anybody know how to calculate the 2nd EV?

You're probably right when you say the casinos would never allow something like that to happen, but the math for the 2nd EV seems way to complicated to be solved (for me anyway). So I'd really like to know the math behind it.

Nearly everyone here is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG. And those who are right aren't explaining things clearly.

Here is the correct strategy for online casino bonus abuse. Suppose you deposit $100 and get a $200 bonus with a 20x rollover that must be used on roulette. For simplicity we'll assume it's a cashable bonus. If you just grind it out with small bets EV is bonus minus wagering, or
$200 - ($300 * 20 * 0.0526) = -$115.6.

Instead, you should bet aggressively and try to run up your bankroll as much as you can. Let's say you bet it all on 23 (this is very aggressive). 37 of 38 times, you lose everything. 1 in 38 times, your bankroll is at $10800. Then you grind it out as above, with an expected loss of $300 for a total of $10500 or a net gain of $10400. So your total EV is
(37/38 * -$100) + (1/38 * $10400) = +$179

However. Online casinos are well aware of this tactic, and will likely ban you and return your deposit if you play it as obviously as I just explained. There really hasn't been much money to be made doing this since 2005 or so.

Thank you for that explanation.

I come up a few dollars off, but it's irrelevant.
(-$100 * 37/38) + ($10,400/38) = $176.31

But there's a big problem with this. On average it takes 38 spins to hit a single number. Do the rules ever allow one to get the deposit bonus over and over on every deposit of $100? In the same day? And then there's the matter of needing $3800 in your pocket to start, to make this work.

@parttimepro

Casinos won't mind if you bet it all on one number, what they don't like is you covering the whole board with a bet, like betting on both red and black. Also, you will never find a site that gives you cashable bonus, ever. This guy put it best.



@NewOldGuy, this bonus is usually for the first deposit, but a lot of sites give it for more than one deposit, or a bonus over 100%. They just want you to deposit as much as possible. You can always sign up for more than 1 site because the bonus is pretty standard. I know it's a long shot but I'm really just interested in the math behind it.

Well, if you can't do it repeatedly an unlimited number of times then the system in that example doesn't really work. 37 of 38 times you just lose your stake. If your bankroll can take it, you expect to win ~1.7x your deposit (or roughly half the bonus) 1 time in 38 attempts. So in the example shown, you have to put up $3800 (on average) to win $176. And if you can't do it 38 times in a row without restriction, nobody would (should) bother.

Also note that your scenario in the first post, is much worse than this example as far as stake$/win$ needed.

You don't have to do it 38 times. If it's +EV, it's +EV.