Winning Strategy For American Roulette, "The Buddy System".

[Norman Bates]

THIS STRATEGY DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!
Exercise everyday, so that everyday isn't an exercise. 

One of the things that I've always wanted to do is find a winning strategy for the game of Roulette.   It's more fun to play if you know that you are getting the best possible odds for a win.   So, keep in mind that it's to be played for entertainment purposes only.    That being said, I'd still like to have a little fun utilizing a strategy that I feel comfortable with.   One where I know that I'm getting the best possible odds for a win. 

So my strategy is to start by betting seventy two chips.   They can be of any denomination, but the denomination must remain the same for all seventy two chips.   

So let's get started on the outside bets by betting five chips on the first twelve, seven chips on the second twelve, and three chips on the third twelve.   Continuing on betting seven chips on the first column of twelve, five chips on the second column of twelve, and finally with three chips bet on the third column of twelve.   For a total of thirty chips bet on the outside. 

Now that you've done that, let's move on to the inside bets betting forty two chips across the inside of the layout.   Starting with placing bets of two chips each on the one, four, seven, and ten spots.    Four chips on the fourteen, seventeen, twenty, and twenty three spots, and finally, three chips on the twenty seven, thirty, thirty three, and thirty six spots.    Then you want to bet three chips on both the zero, and double zero spots.    For a grand total of seventy two chips bet. 

Now, if the ball lands on either the zero, or the double zero spots, with three chips bet on the number, you will win one hundred, and five chips.    Add the three chips spared, and it comes to one hundred, and eight chips all together.   Subtract the original seventy two chips bet, and it comes to thirty six chips.    For a loss of thirty six chips. 

If the ball lands on even the smallest winning bet, (like the two chips bet on the number one spot) with two chips bet, you will win ninety four chips, plus the fourteen chips that were spared it comes to one hundred and eight chips.    Subtract the original seventy two chips bet, and you get thirty six chips.     A loss of thirty six chips. 

If the ball lands on the largest bet on the layout, (like number fourteen spot) with an original bet of four chips on the  number, it will be a win of one hundred and sixty four chips.    Plus the sixteen chips that were spared, it comes to a total of one hundred, and eighty chips.    Subtract the original seventy two chips from that, and it comes to one hundred and eight chips.   A win of thirty six chips. 

Then, if the ball lands on the second to largest bets, (like the one on number twenty seven spot) with the original bet of three chips on the number, it will be a win of one hundred seventeen chips, plus the nine chips that were spared, for a grand total of one hundred and twenty six chips.   Then by subtracting the original bet of seventy two chips, we come to a grand total of fifty four chips.    A loss of eighteen chips. 

So, when you add up the thirty six chip win, and the ninety chips lost, it comes to a loss of fifty four chips on average with every spin of the wheel.    So, you imagine the seventy two chips originally bet on each spin of the wheel as, " the break even point".    Then you imagine that these fifty four chips that were lost go below the break even point leaving twenty five percent, (eighteen chips) above the break even point.    For an average of eighteen chips being won on each spin of the wheel.    Another easy way to figure this out is to take the fifty four chip loss, and divide it by the seventy two chips bet.    Which comes out to be somewhere around the seventy five percent mark.     That means that by using this strategy, the house only holds seventy five percent. 

So when you brake it down is sounds a little something like this: Seventy two chips bet, with six chips bet on the zero's, and sixty six chips bet strategically across the layout for maximum winning odds. 

The only problem with this strategy, is that by yourself, you would probably never be able to set this betting strategy up at a live roulette table, because you only have a certain amount of time before the ball drops.   Also, you really can't reach across other people at the table to place all of these bets.   There are also betting limits as to how much you can bet on outside, or inside bets.   Because of that, you would need to have a team of three, or more people setting up these bets on all the different betting locations on the lay out.    So, that's why I call this strategy, "The Buddy System".   

Have fun, and good luck.   

[Mr J]

I have a couple points. "you would probably never be able to set this betting strategy up at a live roulette table, because you only have a certain amount of time before the ball drops" >>> You may be correct on this. I have done several posts in the past regarding this issue. I would usually call this 'a good method but unplayable'.

"you really can't reach across other people at the table to place all of these bets" >>> Thats NO issue at all or shouldn't be. The dealer will (be pushy if necessary) help you with this.

"three chips on the third twelve" >>> I agree, you would have a problem on a $5 min. table BUT you also could double up on ALL the bets. My other issue, if I really looked this over, you could probably achieve your same goal (or close) and place fewer bets.  Ken

[Norman Bates]

Thanks again for your candor.   I appreciate your time, and this response. 

[simon]

where there's a will, there's a way.  I thought it doesn't matter how many chips you bet or where you place them, the odds don't change and you will always come out with the same -5.26 negative expectation every time.  are you saying that if you could make this bet as you have described on every spin of the wheel, you would have an edge against the house and somehow turn the negative expectation into a positive one?

[Davey-Jones]

Just for the hell of it I decided to test this thing in RX for 15 sessions. Starting with a 1000 unit BR, the longest session was 1217 spins and the shortest was 38 spins before the 1000 buy in was lost. I understand 15 sessions isn't much, but here are my results anyway. 2 sessions never were profitable and lost the 1000 buy in right out of the gate. 7 of the 15 never made more than 300 units at the high point. 1 made 500 at high point, 1 made 650 at high point. 2 made around 800 at the high point. 1 session made 974 at high point. 1 session made 3092 units profit at the highest point. In the end, they all tanked. By all means test it for yourself. I did a little rounding as I was rushing through it, so that is why some of the smaller profits are round numbers. By the way, I saved you the luxury of curve fitting the results yourselves. Assuming you are psychic and walked away at the highest point in profit during the session, this is the profit you would have made. Majority of the spins during most of the sessions were spent below the 1000 unit mark. Have fun and good luck!

249 spins  +300 at high point

94 spins  no profit

398 spins +650 at high point

724 spins +974 at high point

152 spins +250 at high point

136 spins +200 at high point

393 spins +500 at high point

293 spins +300 at high point

289 spins +800 at high point

1217 spins +3092 at high point

130 spins +200 at high point

192 spins +200 at high point

148 spins +800 at high point

38 spins no profit

126 spins +100 at high point

[simongae]

Just for the hell of it I decided to test this thing in RX for 15 sessions. Starting with a 1000 unit BR, the longest session was 1217 spins and the shortest was 38 spins before the 1000 buy in was lost. I understand 15 sessions isn't much, but here are my results anyway. 2 sessions never were profitable and lost the 1000 buy in right out of the gate. 7 of the 15 never made more than 300 units at the high point. 1 made 500 at high point, 1 made 650 at high point. 2 made around 800 at the high point. 1 session made 974 at high point. 1 session made 3092 units profit at the highest point. In the end, they all tanked. By all means test it for yourself. I did a little rounding as I was rushing through it, so that is why some of the smaller profits are round numbers. By the way, I saved you the luxury of curve fitting the results yourselves. Assuming you are psychic and walked away at the highest point in profit during the session, this is the profit you would have made. Majority of the spins during most of the sessions were spent below the 1000 unit mark. Have fun and good luck!

249 spins  +300 at high point

94 spins  no profit

398 spins +650 at high point

724 spins +974 at high point

152 spins +250 at high point

136 spins +200 at high point

393 spins +500 at high point

293 spins +300 at high point

289 spins +800 at high point

1217 spins +3092 at high point

130 spins +200 at high point

192 spins +200 at high point

148 spins +800 at high point

38 spins no profit

126 spins +100 at high point

hi..
is possible dowload RX code for this system ?

in order to test it well....

[Davey-Jones]

I did each test manually. No coding. Google Roulette Extreme if you don't have it. You can test it into the ground. It wins as fast as it tanks, it just happens to tank more often then it wins. But please don't take my word for it. I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I think the fact that the author says you need more than one person to put 72 chips on the layout in the spin should say enough. Considering some gamblers bet 100+ chips pers spin with no trouble at all, I hardly see why it is difficult to get this many chips out there.

PS. I tried betting 72 chips to these exact guidelines on my roulette layout with actual chips. After 1/2 a dozen tries my time was between 34-44 seconds. Not hard at all. 3-4 people to get it done? Give me a break. Besides, considering this is a fixed bet, you can start placing before the release. I'm sure you could also shave a few seconds off by betting 4, 6, and 8 chips split instead of 2,3, and 4 chips straight up.

[Davey-Jones]

Using splits and stacks pre arranged in the correct amount instead of stacks of 20 I could get the betting time down to 11 seconds to place bets. One person can do this easily even at a crowded table as long as they have middle position.

[Norman Bates]

More than likely that would just give them more ammunition to shame me with.    I'm just a regular guy wanting to share his idea's with other people.    Mostly, I just thought that somebody might want to have a good time risking a little cash for a fun night out on the town playing American Roulette with some friends.    Maybe even have a little fun interacting.    Maybe even a double date situation.   You guys are never going to be happy with your outcome because there is no fool proof,"holy grail" that is talked so much about.    You have to be able to have a good time.    You guys spend so much time crunching the numbers that you've lost count of what you started to play the game for in the first place.    No body can quit their jobs, and play roulette.   When I talk about roulette being a flawed game I'm referring to the x factor.    The human factor.    I would also like to say that I'm fully aware that people can't share the same color of chips.    With a little positive thinking, that obstacle  can easily be overcome too.    You just have to be able to trust someone.    Like your spouse for instance.    Maybe even on your anniversary. 

[simon]

this would not be hard to play at roulette machines that wait for you to bet and repeat your bets, but is there any advantage to this bet over any other bet?

[Norman Bates]

Basically most gamblers I know are superstitious.   They've played long enough to have developed a system that works well for them.   It may not have any rhyme or reason to it.  Then there is a certain amount of etiquette that comes into play.   Gamblers have rules that they play by.   Like an unspoken respect for how you should play the game.   Which to me is far more important.   They do what they feel comfortable doing.   So as to take a loss, and feel like they did their best, and that the odds just weren't in their favor that day.   But, they where able to leave happy knowing that they had a shot at it is all in a days work.   Everybody knows that you don't have to beat the odds to win at roulette.   

[NS]

but is there any advantage to this bet over any other bet?

Yes, if you're happy, have fun, and trust someone.

Norman Bates,

Roulette is scientifically beatable (physics), but it's not for the lazy or the fainthearted. It's a lot of work and you'd probably have to be taught by a real pro, not stuff on the internet. Once you have the knowledge, you'd still need the balls to go out and actually apply it and survive the heat casinos put on advantage players.

[Mr J]

"Roulette is scientifically beatable (physics)" >>> On paper, yes and 80 years ago, yes. Not today, IN GENERAL. Ken

[Davey-Jones]

I'm just a regular guy wanting to share his idea's with other people.    Mostly, I just thought that somebody might want to have a good time risking a little cash for a fun night out on the town playing American Roulette with some friends.    Maybe even have a little fun interacting.    Maybe even a double date situation.   You guys are never going to be happy with your outcome because there is no fool proof,"holy grail" that is talked so much about.    You have to be able to have a good time.    You guys spend so much time crunching the numbers that you've lost count of what you started to play the game for in the first place.    No body can quit their jobs, and play roulette. 

I'm all for having a good time. But you are also aware that betting just one chip has the same house edge of betting two chips. You hit everytime you bet, but you still lose big to the house edge. If fun is what you are looking for then 72 chips per spin might not be the best approach.

Anyone can quit their job and play roulette, but only an extreme few can live off roulette as their primary source of income. Playing roulette and beating roulette consistently are two entirely diferent things.

[Davey-Jones]

"Roulette is scientifically beatable (physics)" >>> On paper, yes and 80 years ago, yes. Not today, IN GENERAL. Ken

I actually agree with you Ken. In the broad GENERAL sense, roulette is not beatable. In the small minority of very specific situations, I am inclined to say the contrary.

[Davey-Jones]

-