Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Roulette Machines In Betting Shops
41 Answers
On Anglia TV tonight an 70 year old man said he has lost his garage business ,his home and his marriage partner and has been living in a shed. He was not a gambler but won £30 the first time he played, and then got hooked The government are now debating that the maximum bet on then should be reduced for £100 down to £50, £10 or even £2.00. They should be banned completely. Is there anybody in favour of them?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gollob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hymie’s mathematical model is near enough correct. Assuming these machines follow the European roulette model (with just zero and not zero and double zero as the US game has) then the House Advantage or “edge” is 2.7%. This edge is achieved because the odds paid for any single number is 35-1 (when in fact the true probability of any one number being spun is 36-1). A similar edge exists on the “even money” bets (payout is evens when the probability is 18/37). All the other group bets show a similar edge. This means that over a period, provided the spin is not fixed in any way, it should pay out £97.30 for every £100 staked. Staking £1 on single numbers on 111 spins should see three wins (111/37). This would see a return (including stakes) of £108. The £3 loss is the casino’s edge (3/111 = 2.7%).
But life ain’t like that as Woofgang has touched on. An individual punter would be quite fortunate to gain three wins in 111 spins. (Some might achieve three or more, but most would achieve less than three). So it is not quite so straightforward to suggest that for every £100 staked the punter should expect to lose only £2.30. If he placed £1,000 in bets (at the same value each) he might get closer to the average loss, £10,000 closer still and so on. To use a simple analogy imagine tossing a coin. On average you should win 50% of the time. But you might lose three times in a row (which nobody would deem unusual). But you’d be very unlucky to lose ten times in a row and even unluckier still to lose 100 times in a row.
But life ain’t like that as Woofgang has touched on. An individual punter would be quite fortunate to gain three wins in 111 spins. (Some might achieve three or more, but most would achieve less than three). So it is not quite so straightforward to suggest that for every £100 staked the punter should expect to lose only £2.30. If he placed £1,000 in bets (at the same value each) he might get closer to the average loss, £10,000 closer still and so on. To use a simple analogy imagine tossing a coin. On average you should win 50% of the time. But you might lose three times in a row (which nobody would deem unusual). But you’d be very unlucky to lose ten times in a row and even unluckier still to lose 100 times in a row.
Although my quoted odds might be slightly in error – the main point being that they supposedly have around a 97% pay-out.
Many, many stories are reported in the press where punters have lost many thousands on these machines – I’ve never read one in which a punter won many thousands. Although anecdotal, this suggests to me that the actual odds are nowhere near 97%.
It would be interesting to me if some organisation investigated the actual pay-out from a machine, or perhaps an insider spilled the beans on the software code used to control the pay outs. After all, the machine knows the numbers on which money has been staked, before ‘randomly’ selecting the winning number.
Many, many stories are reported in the press where punters have lost many thousands on these machines – I’ve never read one in which a punter won many thousands. Although anecdotal, this suggests to me that the actual odds are nowhere near 97%.
It would be interesting to me if some organisation investigated the actual pay-out from a machine, or perhaps an insider spilled the beans on the software code used to control the pay outs. After all, the machine knows the numbers on which money has been staked, before ‘randomly’ selecting the winning number.
Yes there's certainly greater scope to fix an electronic machine than there is to do so with a roulette wheel and as you say the machine "knows" which numbers have been selected.
But if a punter is placing £100 bets on single numbers (or even on the 18-1 or 12-1 chances) he could quickly accumulate large losses before achieving a win. I've no idea how these machines work and don't know whether they are "true" or not. I've done quite a bit of study on roulette and looked into some of the supposed "systems" which some say could maximise winnings (in fact most of them simply minimise their inevitable losses). I can easily see how large losses could accumulate even on a true roulette wheel and I think it's a bit presumptuous to accuse the owners of rigging them because, quite simply, they don't need to.
But if a punter is placing £100 bets on single numbers (or even on the 18-1 or 12-1 chances) he could quickly accumulate large losses before achieving a win. I've no idea how these machines work and don't know whether they are "true" or not. I've done quite a bit of study on roulette and looked into some of the supposed "systems" which some say could maximise winnings (in fact most of them simply minimise their inevitable losses). I can easily see how large losses could accumulate even on a true roulette wheel and I think it's a bit presumptuous to accuse the owners of rigging them because, quite simply, they don't need to.
Whilst I would agree that it is possible to loose significant amounts of money on a non fixed roulette game – it would actually be quite easy to confirm the randomness by statistical analysis.
There are a number is well known techniques whereby a sequence of numbers can be tested for randomness.
The tests do not prove definitively that a sequence is not random – but give a probability figure in relation to the randomness.
If my suspions are correct, in that the machines take into consideration placed bets, such non-randomness would easily be detected by statistical analysis.
There are a number is well known techniques whereby a sequence of numbers can be tested for randomness.
The tests do not prove definitively that a sequence is not random – but give a probability figure in relation to the randomness.
If my suspions are correct, in that the machines take into consideration placed bets, such non-randomness would easily be detected by statistical analysis.
No - if I was able to achieve it and though this is impossible - I would ban gambling altogether.
But from learning from experience - Gambling is extremely in the "blood" - probably inherited too. Worse curse of the lot, Alcohol, Drugs - a person could not drink or drug say £1,000 in seconds but you can lose everything you possess in the same time. Horrendous!!!
But from learning from experience - Gambling is extremely in the "blood" - probably inherited too. Worse curse of the lot, Alcohol, Drugs - a person could not drink or drug say £1,000 in seconds but you can lose everything you possess in the same time. Horrendous!!!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.