Roulette Winnings

Voyager2002

dealer_wins wrote: »

I guess this thread is absolute proof lol as what he is stating is literally impossible, unlike the other loads of BS that had a 0.00000001% chance of being true :rotfl::rotfl:

It is just possible that he has been lucky for a couple of weeks.

firestone

Doubling down on a loss has been around for years as a theory with dog & horse racing (misspent youth) and maybe still is.You set a win target for the day i.e £200 and only bet the favorite at a stake & odds to get the target.If you win you walk away if you lose the next bet must cover the loss & the target and so on.People soon find the effect of compounding after a bad run means you need to be worth a fortune to start with in the first place.As per the OP £0.50 compounded after a hand full of losing bets and your £10 is gone
Also once seen in an episode of Minder with Arthur Daley which should tell you a lot!

WaywardDriver

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Better still read 'Thirteen against the bank'; they used the reverse Labouchere if I recall correctly. Its a good read and you won't lose any money if you borrow it from the library. Unlike the OP if he ever put his fantasies into practice.

To expand on this, the full title is "Thirteen Against the Bank: The True Story of a Man who Broke the Bank at the Roulette Table with an Infallible System" by Norman Leigh in 1976.
A recent article in a statistics magazine, carried out 1.5 billion computer simulations of his strategy resulting in average 2.7% and 5.3% losses on European and US wheels respectively. The article points out that later versions of the book dropped the word "true" from the title.

laurababs

Speaking as somebody who had a gambling problem for almost ten years, there are no winners especially with Roulette. I'd cut your losses now if I were you. To answer your question, no you don't need to pay tax on gambling winnings.

Malthusian

Voyager2002 wrote: »

It is just possible that he has been lucky for a couple of weeks.

Nope. An eight year old child can do the maths. If we ignore the house edge for a moment to keep the maths simple (the "0" and, if applicable, "00" squares), to make £1,200 from 50p bets you need to win 2,400 times. Remember that in the Martingale method, if you end up betting £256 and winning, you may get £512 from the dealer but you have bet £511.50 so far, so you only win 50p. So you need 1,200 / 0.5 = 2,400 wins to win £1,200 using initial 50p stakes.

On average, ignoring the 0 and 00 squares, 2,400 wins using the Martingale strategy will require 4,800 bets. (There is a 50% chance of only needing 1 bet, a 25% chance you'll need 2, a 12.5% chance you'll need 3, 0.1% chance you'll need 10, and so on for infinity - the weighted average number of bets needed is infinitely close to 2.)

It's unclear whether the OP is using online roulette or a physical casino (he refers to 1,000 people in the room which suggests online, but refers to a real dealer who might notice or not notice him, which suggests physical). Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume online roulette which could bring the time required per spin to, say, 1 minute. (In a real casino it would take 3-5 times as long.)

That means an average of 4,800 minutes per week to win £1,200. Or 800 minutes per day to win £200. That's 13 hours a day of doing nothing but playing roulette.

Now, you could say that technically it's possible to play roulette for 13 hours a day, or, indeed, to set up a bot to do it (although JohnLock didn't mention one). But the problem is the house edge which we've ignored so far. In reality, every time you place an evens bet on a roulette wheel with a "0" square (no "00") you lose 2.7p. The 4,800 spins required to win £1,200 via 50p Martingale bets is more than enough to reduce a £10 starting fund to zero. This will happen in reality when you have a long enough losing streak to either exhaust your initial fund or make you lose your nerve.

The Martingale strategy is an absolute guaranteed winner and has only one single flaw - to make it work you need to start with an infinite amount of money. And why you would bother gambling when you own an infinite amount of money is anyone's guess. As Aegis said.

Temrael

Malthusian wrote: »

The Martingale strategy is an absolute guaranteed winner and has only one single flaw - to make it work you need to start with an infinite amount of money.

The other thing that'll get you is the table maximum. Most games will have a maximum bet, hit that and you're doomed too. :T

firestone

the OP says he is betting colours with the opportunity to double if a loss but the chain soon breaks and he wins (or extracts as he puts it) which sounds like betting double the losing stake to cover the loss and hopefully a win but Five losing bets in a row at the start would stuff that idea and probably later on as well
Otherwise betting at 50/50 assuming no green colours or it will be less then 50/50 will only revert to an average over time not £10 into £200 every day

Malthusian

Temrael wrote: »

The other thing that'll get you is the table maximum.

No, you just move to a different table. Different casino if necessary.

You can even do it without moving tables. If you've bet £256 at a table with a £300 maximum and lost, all you have to do is bet £512 on red or black in two separate spins of £256 each. If Spin 1 wins and Spin 2 loses, or the other way round, then you're back where you started and you just repeat step 1. If both spins lose then you've lost your bet of £512 and move on to £1,024. If both spins won then the Martingale has paid off, congratulations and enjoy spending your 50p.

This is of course very inefficient because you are paying the house edge twice whereas if you bet £512 in one go you'd pay it once. So you should just move to another table. I'm just illustrating that it's a myth that table limits will prove a problem. This idea is part of the myth that casinos will try to stop you using the Martingale system to "beat them". They will not. Casinos don't get rich by turning down free money. There is nothing any casino or bookmaker loves more than a system.

System

Thank goodness I have never been tempted to try my hand at roulette (or any other games of chance involving money). To be fair, I don't think we have any rouletteries round these parts.

Having read through that lot I am totally lost, and I am reasonably good at maths (don't tell anyone in the Year 6 maths class that I volunteer in that I have just gone fuzzy headed when reading posts about probabilities!!!!)

TBC15

Your talents are wasted, have you considered Bitcoin?