I Am A Roulette Aficionado Thinking of Sharing My Experience

Ok here’s a doozy for ya. I’ve been here for some time and give a bit of ribbing and take a bit so be playful if you want but not mean ok?

I play Roulette 7 days a week. Not with many thousands of dollars but with a small bank roll to keep it stress free. Most people that know me or watch me are very inquisitive about my game, strategy and my strict adherence to certain shall we say rules I apply to myself which allows me to keep going back and not blow all my money like the average Joe or Josephine.

I’ve shared my skill with one other person, a poker player, but they couldn’t control themselves and after some initial success thought they could go big. It was a disaster - for them and I told them they shouldn’t gamble EVER. It didn’t end well.

With all the crypto investors out there I figure my roulette strategies are no worse than playing the crypto market. So my big question is would anybody pay to be coached in this timeless battle against the house and what would they expect for their money? Hypothetically of course.

EDIT: I did say it was a doozy and OzB’s have delivered pretty much what I expected. I could look up a word in the dictionary to describe what that looks like but I think the replies speak for themselves. Thank you one and all!

Mod: Removed inflammatory edits.

closed Comments

  • +108


    • +21

      The sensible answer.

      • Of course there was one guy who made a lot of money from roulette, Joseph Jagger, but casinos now account for that because of what he did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Jagger

        Everyone else is likely to be a long-term loser though they may break even on comps - though that's less likely in Australia.

        Unless you're not telling us something?

      • +1

        Are you talking about Russian Roulette?

      • +4

        Anyone in Sydney down for an OzBargain poker game in a pub/restaurant/etc? Could be a fun way to meet up.

        • Anyone got a backroom roulette wheel lol

  • +23

    There's no skill in roulette, can't see why anyone would pay. Is this a joke post?

    • +6

      As a 7 day a week player, no it is not a joke post. After reading all of the crypto posts I figured this is as legit as many of them. As a percentage game it’s not that bad compared to the rest of the casino experiences. There are a lot of organised and dedicated players who enjoy Roulette just like say somebody enjoys a round of golf.

      • +89

        Percentage game in that you have a long term return of 35/37 of your money? Unless you have access to the wheel to modify it there is no system that will result in a long term gain of money.

        I'm sorry but you're just a gambling addict. I hope you have no dependents.

        • +11

          The best return on roulette is if you go all in at the beginning.

          • +52

            @ATangk: I see how that works.You still lose all your money, but you've wasted less time - a true life hack.

            • +8

              @iDroid: Statistically in any gamble with house stacked odds, its the best return.

          • @ATangk: well you do get all that time afterwards to spend on other things

        • +5

          At least it's not Vegas where it's a 35/39 return. My eyes popped out when I saw fools playing three zero tables (they added an extra double zero, and a triple zero). There was even a bet that covered all 3 zeroes that only paid 12:1, rather than the usual 35:1 for a single zero.

        • +5

          Someone with better statistics skills, feel free to correct me, but I think the long term return of roulette is 0. The short term, per spin, is 35/37?

          So, return per spin on average: 0.946

          Return after n spins = 0.946^n

          As say n —> 100, the probability of a positive return equals 0.946^100 = 0.00388 or roughly 0.388 percent of players are winning after 100 spins. These are the ones we hear about. The other 99.612 percent, not so much.

          • +1

            @Shleepy: That's players that win every single spin, not players that are up overall

            • @Quantumcat: No it isn't, what they've calculated is meaningless.

              The probability that the player loses every single spin when betting on a single number would be 1-(36/37)^n.

          • +4

            @Shleepy: Hi, here to correct you!

            The long-term return (as n approaches infinity) is 0. Short term for a single-zero wheel is 36/37 (18/37)*2 when playing red/black.

            So P(x>50) for a binom dist of p=18/37, n=100 is 35% of players ahead. That drops down to 19% after 1,000 games.

            As for playing single numbers, the chance of winning is 1/37 with a payout of 35 times the bet.

            So you have P(x>2) for a binom dist of p=1/37, n=100 is 51% of players ahead. That drops down to 38% after 1,000 games P(x>28)

            Even though the 35 times payout is a worse expected return than red/black, the higher variance of the distribution lets more of the upper tail beat the house in the short/medium run.

            • +4

              @iseeyou1312: I was told to look at it this way… (and I am no math genuis by any stretch)

              You have 37 players, each with $1,000 (a total player pool of $37,000).
              They each play their own number, $1 each time for 1,000 spins.
              Every time the ball is spun and a result is made, the casino collects all the losing bets (36 of them), keeps a $1 chip and uses the rest (35 chips) to pay the winning player.
              After 1,000 spins, the casino has taken $1,000 out of the $37,000 initial pool.
              Essentially, they have already bankrupted one players worth of the pool.
              From here out, it is the quickening, as some players will be unable to cover their number due to having no more chips, that means, 1 less number is covered, with this, the casino now takes 2 chips.
              As more players lose their bank, the casino takes a larger and larger cut, as less and less numbers are able to be covered, the risk of everyone left missing their number increases.

              Think Ill go make an Excel bot to play with this a bit…

              • +2

                @pegaxs: That doesn't really make sense, as if the total losses are $1,000 - they would be shared amongst the 37 players (some would've lost more, some would be ahead).
                Also, the fact that players start with less cash than the casino ensures the casino's solvency, it doesn't exponentially increase their takings per game, which remain constant for a given cashflow.
                Anyway, that's a very complicated way to think about it. The way I calculated it is far simpler:
                If there's 1000 spins, of $1 each, with a $35 payout and a 1/37 chance to win, then you need to win 29 times or more to beat the house (total winnings to be >$1000, less the $1000 you've gambled). Then the entire problem becomes very easy to model with a binomial distribution.

                • @iseeyou1312: It was a way of showing how house edge works and how the house will always win at the end of the day. How roulette cant be beaten by any system. (Was shows this whole power point presentation when I was a casino dealer on how the games worked for the casino.)

                  as if the total losses are $1,000

                  Correct, but the total pool is decreased in favor of the casino. $1 is retained by the casino every spin. Eventually, players will be knocked out of the game and this increases the casinos chance at not having to pay out at all for each player from that pool is bankrupted.

                  the fact that players start with less cash than the casino ensures the casino's solvency

                  In this scenario, the casino didn't have to start with any money. Of the 36 bets they clear off, they keep one, and only pay 35 back to the player pool. After 1000 games, there is the equivalent of one whole player missing "from the pool". Until the first player gets removed fully, the casino is only banking money and using the players own money to payout.

                  By the time the first player loses all their $1,000 bank, the casino will have collected at a minimum $1,000.

                  And I cant remember the math that goes with it, but it would not take 37,000 spins to collect all the money off the table. As players get knocked out, the risk massively shifts away from the casino even further and onto the remaining players and remaining player pool.

                  The way I calculated it is far simpler:

                  I agree. As I said, I'm no math genius. Only remembering what I was taught back in about 2005ish…

                  • +1


                    his increases the casinos chance at not having to pay out at all for each player from that pool is bankrupted

                    Yes, the payout chance is lower because the betting amount is less - so they're not paying out as much but also not collecting as much revenue or profit either. This is also presuming the players are in fact losing, it takes a large amount of spins until this becomes certain.

                    As players get knocked out, the risk massively shifts away from the casino even further and onto the remaining players and remaining player pool.

                    This just doesn't happen, the risk stays exactly the same.

                    it would not take 37,000 spins to collect all the money off the table

                    After 37,000 spins there's still a 3.1% chance that the players are ahead of the casino (they've won more than they've lost). It would take substantially more than 37,000 spins to clear the actual starting capital.

                    Even after 74,000 spins (double the amount) the probability the players have lost their $37,000 is ~0%.

                    Either you haven't understood the presentation, or the presenters didn't understand the maths behind it. Given the convoluted way they chose to represent the roulette problem statistically, I think the later is more likely.

                    As you need to lose $37,000 below a breakeven return to go insolvent, the binomial distribution simply changes to x = (n-37,000)/35. So, in the case of 1 million spins, x = (1,000,000-37,000)/35. Win 27,514 times or less, and the casino takes everything.

      • +14

        As a percentage game it’s not that bad compared to the rest of the casino experiences.

        It's still bad… mathematically there is no profitable strategy to play roulette. House has the edge every single spin.

        • +7

          Martingale bro


          • +1

            @djkelly69: /waves fist full of cash at you

            TEACH ME SENPAI

          • +2

            @djkelly69: Yes that works in the universe where there is no table bet limits and you have infinite money.

        • The only tables where it's possible to beat the house is where the house takes a rake and does not enter the bet. They know the odds are not stacked in their favour (so just random chance or skill play is involved). But that means you're playing by chance or you really know your sh!t.

      • I have a mate who knows how to play Table games keeps doing well out of it. show mate skills or idea or set of rules like this can never end well. I know I am a watcher drinker in his table games weekend fun.

      • ?With all the crypto investors out there I figure my roulette strategies are no worse than playing the crypto market. So my big question is would anybody pay to be coached in this timeless battle against the house and what would they expect for their money? Hypothetically of course.

        LOL if you dont know what is price action, technical analysis, block sequence, sl, pt, resistance, support, trend, dark pool. Then yes it would be likes you gambling with roulette …

        • The big difference here is on roulette, the pay outs and the odds never change and the richest guy at the table can't influence the outcome of any spin by buying up all the numbers or by taking their bets back down to sell spots to other players.

    • +13

      There's no skill in roulette, can't see why anyone would pay. Is this a joke post?

      Have you never met a problem gambler?

      This thread is an insight into delusion, innumeracy and poor self awareness.

      • +1

        I Am A Roulette Aficionado Addict.

  • +9

    id like to hear more about this disaster you speak of

    • +1

      They lost control as many problem gamblers do, in fact the same can be said of day traders in crypto and shares. The rush of winning for a period can build a false sense of security and confidence which leads to more risk being taken and higher stakes played to a point where you are “all in” as it were. Being all in can be ok in some circumstances if you are within a fixed budget for it but when it comes to you choosing being all in and not being able to buy food and pay rent it’s time to walk away - FOREVER. The casinos and stock markets are full of everyday people who like a little risk and challenge in their life and handle it just fine but some people get intoxicated on the endorphins and being intoxicated on anything is no way to risk your hard earned disposable income.

      • +2

        I've been a roulette player since 30+ years. I have developed a strategy too. And sometimes it happens that I don't play. Last 5 times I went to the casino I plaid 3 times and won the three times ( about $150-$200). I'm happy to divulge the strategy here if anyone interested. FREE !!!!

        • +5

          Sure, let us know, so we can tear your system apart as well. :)

          • +3

            @pegaxs: Very simple: Drink ! And then some more. Tillyou "feel the vibes". Choose a table that isnt too slow, not to fast. Not to crowded, not empty.
            Wait and look what the croupier does, the one that launches that little white ball.
            Then let the subconscious do the work, see if you get inspiration to put the chips down. If you do play, but play only till they get the croupier exchanged.

          • @pegaxs: Luke 23:34

        • all ears…!

          or eyes, in this case.. pm if you like

          • +7

            @Fizzydrink: take $25 and swap for 5x $5 chips…

            go to any roulette table and pick your 5 favourite numbers.

            and if by any stroke of luck you win… that's $175. you get smashed on 4 top shelf spirits and go home a hero.

            and if you lose. you've just lost the equivalent of 3 beers. so you get to go home and have sex with your wife sober.

            • @Archi: I like it!

              lend me $25?

            • @Archi: Can I go straight to turn to the other side ( after sex ) and go to sleep ?

            • @Archi: I too would like to skip straight to the part about:

              have sex with your wife sober.

      • The number 1 cause of problem gamblers is an initial relatively large win. This never rarely ends well.

    • Lost control of the random numbers.

  • +31

    If your strategy was successful enough you wouldn't need to make a buck coaching right?

    • -15

      Who said I want to make a buck? I don’t believe giving away 30 years of playing experience would be considered anything of value and would most likely just encourage stupid people to go in half assed and lose their shirts. If you pay for something you value it. I am more a coaching type of person who likes to share and help people. Playing has its rewards but a lot of people have asked me to teach them and I’ve refused up to now because they were all losers that approached me in the casinos and had already formed bad habits that would be hard to escape.

      • +44

        Who said I want to make a buck?

        would anybody pay to be coached

        • +6

          Maybe the English language is not his strong suit.

          • +20

            @Montyjpm: Funny you should mention that, I do English lessons for Roulette experts.

          • @Montyjpm: Suit, suit, did you say suit? What game we play'n? I bet on spades… $500, lets go.

      • +32

        Lol so you’re in the cas 7 days a week for what I assume to be a few hours each day low rolling roulette, and somehow everyone else there except you are “losers”.

        • +3

          This is seriously just too funny. I had a parent that worked in the cas their entire life and some of the stories they told us about the regular no lifers - not even funny, it's just seriously pitiful stuff.

  • +8

    I want to know the percentage you win roulette, vs the average odds over x amount of games.

      • +29

        I don't think it's unreasonable to know the expected return/your success rate if you're seriously proposing to teach people. It certainly doesn't reveal your technique - only how successful it is.

        It would be like "Want to undertake a paid course to get a positive return on X?" "How much would I make on X?" "Buy the course and find out!"

          • +21

            @MontyMacaw: If you enjoy 'playing the game' of roulette and the small dopamine of whether wins come off or not, and do so under the understanding the odds are always stacked against you, I don't see the immediate harm in treating it like 'golf' or '$80 for a AAA Playstation game I'll only play for 6 hours' way to spend your money doing something you enjoy. You do you.

            Comparisons to any sort of investment [even speculative ones like crypto] are frivolous however. It's not an investment, it's an (expensive? potentially risky?) hobby.

            People talking math at you are telling you the hard truth. They're not wrong, but it doesn't mean you have stop doing your hobby. I know the math and I still by my cat a Scratch lottery ticket every now and then. But my cat doesn't buy its own cat food.

            • +1


              Comparisons to any sort of investment [even speculative ones like crypto] are frivolous however.

              A big aspect the comparison misses is that if you speculate on crypto and say buy 10 BTC only to have it tank, you at least still have your (currently less-valuable) 10 BTC. That 10 BTC could recoup it's value, could end up gaining, or could end up losing… who knows. In every case, you still have your 10 BTC; at least until the point you realise your gains/losses.

              You "speculate" on the roulette table and lose, you've lost your money with nothing gained except for the pleasure of the experience.

              • @Chandler: That's really a quantitative argument based on the assumption somebody is holding Bitcoin to zero. It doesn’t matter fundamentally.

                • +1

                  @CommuterPolluter: BTC is probably the worst example since it's essentially worthless: you can't eat BTC, drink BTC or use BTC for shelter - unless someone else values that BTC and is willing to trade it for those things. But the same could apply to any monetary system, even FIAT.

                  Property would probably be the best example. The value could tank, but you at least still have a house.

                  • +1

                    @Chandler: Unless the tank literally drove through it.

                  • @Chandler: That’s what I mean. As I understand it, according to this logic the difference between speculation on a crypto asset, or a penny stock, and gambling on roulette is that speculation on these assets allows ‘extra spins’ as it were. It’s not really fundamentally different if you end up with a worthless paper asset.

                    You could even make a similar argument about any direct investment in physical goods if those goods have no subjective value to you. E.g speculating on legos as somebody who doesn’t enjoy lego isn’t much safer than speculating on paper assets, because lego has a low value to you.

            • +1

              @CrowReally: It might one day if it wins big.

              No more crap brand then!

  • +71

    Hahaha… As an ex-roulette dealer, you're full of shit. I have seen every system ever thought up and have seen those system sellers do their arse on the roulette wheel.

    • -23

      I have known many dealers over the years and they would agree with you when it comes to nearly all players but now and then they admit there is someone like me and they are very respectful of what I do, especially when I cash out and walk away without any real emotion other than I’m finished for now. I’ve also seen hundreds of thousands of suckers who think they are the shit and fall on their asses in a relatively short period of time.

      • +55

        If your system worked, it would already be known and utilised and if it worked, the casino would change the rules to make your system worthless. Roulette has basically remained unchanged for hundreds of years, so I can categorically say your system is bullshit.

        The only way you could get an edge on roulette is by cheating.

        So, you are either full of shit or are cheating. Pick one.

        And trust me, dealers are not respectful of players like you, we generally either don't give a (fropanity) about players or we think you are just another tool who thinks they have cracked the roulette secrets.

        • -19

          I’ve been given many a hard time by casinos over the years as they try and rattle me. I have developed a mantra of staying under the radar and keeping things small enough not to attract attention.

          • +54

            @MontyMacaw: No you haven't. Casinos don't give a flying rats arse about "system players" on roulette unless you are cheating.

            You are such small fry for the casino, you are treated as a joke. For your $5 bet, there is a guy upstairs betting your years wages in a single roll of the ball.

            You're not flying under the radar, it's just the amount you are betting is not attracting attention because you are just not important.

            Like most system designers for roulette, you are delusional in a: how well your system works and b: how much a casino gives a shit about you winning your $20

        • -10

          It’s not a system btw.

          • +17

            @MontyMacaw: If you are claiming you can win consistently and or minimise losses, it's a system.

            If you are claiming that "the casino is onto me" it's a system.

            If you are claiming it's not a system so others don't think you're a nut bag… It's a system.

            • -4

              @pegaxs: If you want to call being disciplined at what you do in any part of life then you could call anything a system of that suits your way of thinking.

              • +27

                @MontyMacaw: Are you claiming that you can get consistent wins, always leave the casino with a profit and that you adhere to a disciplined regime to make a profit?

                It's a system. Calling it anything else is you trying to convince yourself and your way of thinking.

                I'm just here to assure people who may be gullible to this type of bullshit, that it is just that, bullshit.

                The only way to not lose at roulette is to not play.

                • -1

                  @pegaxs: I respect and applaude your warnings. I feel the same way. The last thing I would want to do is take some over hormoned fool down a road of destruction. However you don’t know me so I’ll forgive you for your put downs and not take them personally. Most regular gamblers are just fools to themselves.

                  • +37

                    @MontyMacaw: I don't know you personally, but I do know your "type".

                    These are not put downs, they are reality checks. This is for you and for anyone suckered in by the "I can help you make a profit/minimise your losses" bullshit.

                    The fact that you think this is personal shows just how delusional you are with your "system" that any attack on it is an attack on you personally.

                    You have a gamble addiction and you need to seek help. This thread is more about convincing yourself and seeking confirmation bias than it is about anything else.

                    • -5

                      @pegaxs: Nah, it’s not. But thanks for your diagnosis where do I send your fee? The idea for the post came from all the hyped up crypto posts on here which I have regularly participated in from almost the exact position you have taken here. Are we alike? Is that the problem here?

                      • +44

                        @MontyMacaw: Crypto and roulette are not the same thing. One has fixed odds that cannot be overcome, the other is a randomised shit storm that large whales can manipulate the outcome of.

                        Hell one tweet from Elon "EJ" Musk can have a profound affect on a crypto currency's value. Elon can tweet all he likes about roulette, but it doesn't change the odds.

                        And you can donate my fee to your local or state gamblers help line.

                      • +1

                        @MontyMacaw: This is the stupidest comparison I think I’ve ever seen. Crypto and share investing is exactly that, INVESTMENT. No one is investing in roulette except casinos and it only pays THEM well.

                    • @pegaxs: Only system I know of is double your bet each time until you make a profit…..but has its limitations of course…

                      • +2

                        @Calam05: A youtube video made by numberphile proved with maths that this is worse than just betting the same amount normally: https://youtu.be/zTsRGQj6VT4

                        Basically, to sum the video up, you have a 36% chance to double your money (not the initial bet, but your whole pool of money you have to play with)

              • @MontyMacaw: Why fight on this point? Its a system. Discipline is a system. What is discipline without rules?

                If its not a system, what am I paying you to teach me?

        • +1

          I understand you talk from experience, however, let me offer you a counterpoint example.

          Card counting in Blackjack wasn't as prevalent and well known until the late 1980s and 1990s. People were cleaning out casinos and casinos were none the wiser. So, let's admit dealers and casinos are not always the smartest in the room.

          • +6

            @valleyrain: Every fair spin of the Roulette wheel is a unique event uninfluenced by past spins. The probability of choosing a winning bet does not change per spin and is never in your favour in a casino.

            You can use techniques like card counting to reduce the house edge in Black Jack but you cannot reduce the house edge in Roulette. Roulette house edge is dictated by the number of zeros on the wheel. European wheels = 1 zero with ~2.7% house edge. US wheels = 2 zeros with ~5.4% house edge. Three zero tables would have a house edge of about 7.6%.

            • @airtime:

              Every fair spin of the Roulette wheel is a unique event uninfluenced by past spins.

              Why is it not stochastic?

              • +1

                @frugalftw: Because past results have no influence on future events.

                You cant use the history of a roulette table to predict how it will produce numbers in the future.

        • Just saying you dont have to respect them for real, but during work you have to be seen as respecting them

        • +2

          Today we have software and means of testing if there is any possible way of beating the house, we can run millions, billions, trillions of simulations of all possible bet combinations.

          All lose. All.

          If they didn't, casinos would close the tables as anyone with a half decent ability to program and could find the winning betting strategy and clean up every day.

          This does not happen. The game is manufactured to be a tool of income for the casino. It's not by chance they do well out of it, it's simply impossible for them not to given their bank roll vs yours.

          • @iDroid: Do you know of anybody having done the simulations of which your speak? Also what if they put in the human factor and not just the mathematical one? You are making assumptions you cannot back up.

    • +13

      (profanity). The amount of truth bombs in this thread alone exposing the OP's "all-knowing, emotion-immune" self proclaimed expert (but in reality, likely a desperate single 40-50yo balding delusional sad man) is real.

      • +2

        Huh? I didn't say anything.. why bring me into the conversation?

        /rubs Ashley & Martin hair loss cream on head.

      • More wrong but somewhat comical assumptions. Hell I’m really setting myself up here aren’t I? Can I prove my post is genuine after all maybe? Time will tell possibly with the help of @pegaxs…

    • My system work, but it doesn't always work, and that's when I don't play. Roulette dealers are human, and that can be exploited. That's why they have Maitre De Table, to check on the croupiers ( the one throwing the ball ) and if necessary swap them. Been there seen it all.

Login or Join to leave a comment