Roulette is Unbeatable, but let's change the payout

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Roll With It
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Change
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the game of roulette, specifically examining how changing the payout structure could potentially alter the house edge and provide players with an advantage. Participants explore the implications of payout adjustments in both American and European roulette, considering theoretical scenarios and the nature of gambling odds.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that changing the payout could allow players to overcome the house edge, questioning what payout would be necessary for a 1% or 5% player edge.
  • Another participant argues that adjusting payouts to compensate for the house edge may not be practical, suggesting that the true odds should dictate payouts.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that the randomness and independence of each spin mean that changing payouts alone does not guarantee a player advantage in the long run.
  • One participant proposes that if American roulette paid 38:1 instead of 35:1, the house edge would be eliminated, suggesting that even small adjustments could yield a player edge.
  • Concerns are raised about the financial implications of waiting for payoffs in games with long odds, highlighting the risk of significant losses before breaking even.
  • Another participant notes that in a fair game, players can only expect to break even at best, while others gamble with the hope of beating the odds.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on whether changing the payout can effectively provide a player edge. While some believe that it can, others maintain that the inherent nature of the game and the independence of spins limit this possibility. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of gambling odds and the assumptions underlying payout structures. Participants reference various models of roulette and the implications of changing payouts without reaching a consensus on the effectiveness of such changes.

Roll With It
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey all, long time reader/lurker!

I was having a nice get together with friends and one of the friendly discussions we had during our feast involved casino games. One of which was roulette. All of us agreed it's a sucker's game.
Out of curiosity, what would it take for any of us to sit down and play American or European Roulette? Would changing the payout for every time you WIN on your bet be enough to overcome the house’s edge? If so, what kind of payout is necessary to have a 1% edge over the house? What about a big 5% player edge?
We went back and forth on this for a few minutes, but it’s still driving me nuts because I know it should be simple to figure out, yet I can't.

FACTS:
American roulette (00) – 38 numbers, 35:1 – House edge 5.26% - probability to win 47.3%
Single Zero roulette (0) – 37 numbers, 35:1 – House edge 2.70% - probability to win 48.6%
European roulette (0) – 37 numbers, (1/2 money return on 1:1 bets when it lands on 0) 35:1 – House edge 1.36% - probability to win 49.3%?


My simple math and most likely incorrect:
On the American roulette, l bet $10 on RED (1:1 bet). I win $10 +$0.63.
10 + 5.26% (house edge) + 1.00% (my edge) = $10.63
So as long as I get 6.26% on top of my original bet I have a long term 1% edge? It doesn’t look or sound right to me.
On the American roulette wheel I am expected to lose about $0.53 per $10 in the long run, but if the casino gives me an additional $0.63 for every time I win, will beat them in the long term correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Of course, the bigger the house pays over the odds the more people will want to play the game so I'm not sure what the point is. Are you trying to fix the payout to compensate for the house edge built-in to the equipment? Then the usual approach is to fix the payout to the true odds. Compare with simpler games.

There are lots of ways to make biased equipment fair just by changing the way the game is played. Respin every time the house wins for eg.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, like a special weekend the casino changes the payout in "favor" for the player. I don't know why, maybe to increase foot traffic?

Never mind that, the point was/is I wanted to know whether changing the payout without changing the game itself can actually give the player and edge in the long run. My friend said no no it doesn't matter because of the probability to win and independent events, blah blah. At first I passively agreed about what he said, but then I thought about it for a minute and flat out rejected what he was saying because it didn't make sense.

The spin is random, independent and has no memory, fact. What makes the game unbeatable in the long run is the payout, not only the probability of winning on your number or color.

So I said think about it! On American roulette, there are 38 numbers and if they paid you 38:1, the house edge = 0%. So, if they changed it to 39:1, the player has an edge, albeit very small, but nevertheless an edge.

Sorry if this seems so trivial and silly, but I want to be right! You know it's just one of those kind of conversations that started out as nothing, but now it's a battle to be right. ;)

I looked at roulette math on the internet, but I needed someone here to flat out say hey you're right.
 
Well, yes, changing the payout changes the game. That's why you get odds offered in various sports betting.

If the odds are long though there can be a wait before you'd expect to see a payoff - and each turn of the wheel is independent... so you can end up spending quite a lot of money before you break even.
 
Simon Bridge said:
Well, yes, changing the payout changes the game. That's why you get odds offered in various sports betting.

If the odds are long though there can be a wait before you'd expect to see a payoff - and each turn of the wheel is independent... so you can end up spending quite a lot of money before you break even.

Well that goes back to one of my original questions. You end up spending money before you break even, but what's the magic number? What kind of return is it necessary to make your sit down worthwhile?
 
In a fair game you can, at best, expect to break even.
People gamble because they think they can beat the odds.

The best bets are those where the odds are in your favor but don't look like that ... as in face-up draw poker.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Roulette system -- which optimization is better?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Undergrad What is the impact of preprogrammed velocities on roulette probabilities?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Average profits and losses on a roulette table
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
8K
Undergrad Whats wrong with this? breaking chance
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Undergrad Is the House Edge on Craps C and E Bets Higher Than Reported?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
MHB Help with Probability, Roulette, and Population Statistics
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Can Excel's BINOMDIST function accurately calculate roulette probabilities?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Martingale Betting System- expected value
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
10K
Graduate Gambling and the law of large numbers
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
Undergrad Beat the roulette wheel with this?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K