# Winning system in Roulette **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 1, 2004, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122 "2004-06-01T19:36:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/101 "2004-06-04T00:44:27Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > One thing that never got answered to my satisfaction on this boards. > > Assume you have an infinite bankroll and you play a modified roulette in which there is a 50% chance of gaining $1 and a 50% chance of loosing $2. Given an infinite amount of plays, will you always reach +$1000 at some point in your play? As I just wrote, given an infinite bankroll and no house limit, you would eventually win at any game, even if the house edge is 95% instead of 5%. Doesn’t matter. Someday (perhaps one billion year later), you will be ahead of 1000 $. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/102 "2004-06-04T00:46:49Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Fine. I have no idea where I would find a list of Vegas casino roulette table limits. Any ideas on how I could find out if there isn’t one table in Vegas with a $100,000 limit? A 100 000 $ limit is still a limit. It doesn’t change a thing re the OP 's question. ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/103 "2004-06-04T01:06:10Z")
**Clairobscur and Mathochist** Wow you folks take some postings much too seriously. Couldn’t you tell by the way I phrased that posting that it was incredibly facetious and sarcastic? I thought by using a generous amount of quote marks, I was showing everyone I was NOT in the least bit serious that this was a “sure-fire” system. You should read some of my other postings. I even quoted Dean Martin from Ocean’s 11 - \*“The odds are always with the house”. \* That is probably the best gambling advice of all. Also, **Clarobscur** , did you notice that Mathochist had already “corrected” me on this and I responded that his posting was totally unnecessary because I was not serious? Wow - the next time I make a less-than-serious posting, I should qualify it with a generous use of disclaimers, as they do in those ads for automobiles or pharmaceuticals. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/104 "2004-06-04T06:21:28Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > [The field is] not _precisely_ the same, but close enough statistically as to be indistinguishable. […] for a net $20 loss. Same damn bet.(Though roulette had $20 more action.) […] so the brutality of a 5.26% house advantage is easier to see on the field. (Okay, technically, 5.56% on the field. But anything over 2% is terrible.) > [@Mathochist](#): > > No. The one is a $20 loss over 38 trials and the other is a $20 loss over 36 trials. That’s far from “statistically indistinguishable”… Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? IMO, there is no statistical difference between a house advantage of 5.26% and 5.56% because **anything over 2.00% is a sucker bet**. Does that explain my wording to your satisfaction? I understand math guys needing to nitpick, but I included the correct information, complete with both a cite of the $20 differential **and** the actual differences in house advantage, in the same paragraph you quoted. (Your main point, about the $20 difference in action, was pointed out in my very next sentence, which you snipped.) I can only wonder why you felt the need for your “correction.” ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/105 "2004-06-04T13:59:40Z")
**EllisDee** I agree with you 100% about being “corrected” by someone who has not read a person’s entire posting (OR has not read later postings that refer to those “corrections”). You may have noticed I have also had similar experiences in this very thread. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/106 "2004-06-04T14:13:09Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > A 100 000 $ limit is still a limit. It doesn’t change a thing re the OP 's question. 1. I NEVER said it did change anything about the OP’s question. 2. Who cares if a $100,000 limit is still a limit? The point of my post was to point out that you could take the proposed Martingale a few steps further (yes, it still remains a losing proposition - a stance I haven’t wavered from in this thread you haven’t read). 3. Read all the posts in a thread before you respond next time. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/107 "2004-06-04T15:16:52Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > I can only wonder why you felt the need for your “correction.” I’m being pedantic about the term “statistically indistinguishable” because though _you_ may know what you’re talking about, I guarantee there are many who _don’t_, and will take your statement at face value. “Statistically indistinguishable” is a much tighter relation than the one you’re indicating, and letting it go just spreads ignorance about statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/108 "2004-06-04T15:58:19Z")
> [@Mathochist](#): > > “Statistically indistinguishable” is a much tighter relation than the one you’re indicating… That is probably true. You’re the expert. But to us non-mathematicians/statisticians, we understood the comment to mean “indistinguishable for all _practical_ purposes.” ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/109 "2004-06-04T17:51:10Z")
> [@Algernon](#): > > That is probably true. You’re the expert. But to us non-mathematicians/statisticians, we understood the comment to mean “indistinguishable for all _practical_ purposes.” And then someone uses the term accurately and the common interpretation is weakened by misuse. Sloppy thinking is the first circle of ignorance hell, and last I checked there was still this banner up at the top of the screen… ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122/110 "2004-06-05T11:57:54Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > As I just wrote, given an infinite bankroll and no house limit, you would eventually win at any game, even if the house edge is 95% instead of 5%. Doesn’t matter. Someday (perhaps one billion year later), you will be ahead of 1000 $. No. At least, it’s not always the case. Consider the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8… While it is an infinite sum, it has a finite limit. So, even though you always have a non-zero chance of getting to +$1000, the fact that you are getting farther and farther away means that it could quite well mean there is only a finite possibility that you will reach +$1000 and it is not guarenteed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/winning-system-in-roulette/248122.md?page=5)