Odds/Probability question - Roulette

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobbo7410
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on comparing two betting strategies in Roulette, each with different probabilities and payouts. Method 1 offers a 50% chance to win back the full bet of $20, while Method 2 provides a 66% chance to win back half, or $10. Calculations reveal that both methods yield an expected value of zero, indicating they are statistically equal in terms of risk and reward. However, Method 1 is identified as riskier due to its higher standard deviation compared to Method 2, which suggests it has more volatility. Ultimately, both methods are considered "fair bets," but they differ in risk profiles.
bobbo7410
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Alright, my brains a little shot right now so I need some help. I've been studying the Casino game of Roulette and I was curious how this idea would work out.Lets say you put in $20 each time and there are 2 different systems.

1st way: 50% chance to win back what you put in. So your original $20 + $20.

2nd way: 66% chance to win back half what you put in. So your original $20 + $10.

Either way the max you could lose is $20 yet the 2nd way you would be risking more for less. Over the course of let's say 10 turns doing the same way each time, which system would provide the best results??From what I've gathered:
[edit: Revised the work below in post #3.]

Method 1 would give roughly 5 wins. 5 wins = $40 per win = $200
5 loses = $-20 per loss = $-100 In this method, you win $100 roughly.

Method two, you'd expect around 6.66 wins. 6.66 wins = $30 per win = $199.8
3.34 losses = $66.8
210 - 60 = $133

Yet there has to be a flaw somewhere, that would increase the odds of winning to over 50% for method two..
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
bobbo7410 said:
Method 1 would give roughly 5 wins. 5 wins = $40 per win = $200
5 loses = $-20 per loss = $-100 In this method, you win $100 roughly.

Method two, you'd expect around 6.66 wins. 6.66 wins = $30 per win = $199.8
3.34 losses = $66.8
210 - 60 = $133

Yet there has to be a flaw somewhere, that would increase the odds of winning to over 50% for method two..

Your numbers are wrong, because you're including your original money as 'winnings'. It should be clear that the first method has an expected value of $0 per turn, not $10.
 
Yeah I was simply going along with a helping answer from someone else, I'm not sure why I followed it and included the bet money.So to re-do the work:

Lets say you put in $20 each time and there are 2 different systems. (10 times each)

Method 1 would give 5 wins/5 losses.
5 wins at $20 per win = $100 won
5 losses at $20 per loss = $100 lost
aka 50%

Method 2, would give around 6.66 wins/3.34 losses.
6.66 wins at $10 per win = $66.66 won
3.33 losses at $20 per loss = $66.66 lost
aka 50%

So both methods are equal?? Or did I mess this up again.
 
bobbo7410 said:
Lets say you put in $20 each time and there are 2 different systems.

1st way: 50% chance to win back what you put in. So your original $20 + $20.

2nd way: 66% chance to win back half what you put in. So your original $20 + $10.
1st way: .5 chance of winning $20, .5 chance of losing $20: expected value .5(20)+ .5(-20)= 0.

2nd way: .66 chance of winning $10, .34 chance of losing $20: expected value .66(10)+ .34(-20)= -.02.

If you meant 2/3 chance of winning $10, 1/3 chance of losing $20 then: expected value (2/3)(10)- (1/3)(20)= 0.

They are both "fair bets". If you look at the standard deviation, however:
\sqrt{.5(20)^2+ .5(-20)^2}= 20 and \sqrt{(2/3)(10)^2+ (1/3)(20)^2}= \sqrt{200}= 14.14. The first is a "riskier" bet than the second.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top