According to Albert Einstein “You cannot beat a roulette table unless you steal money from it.” Obviously Albert never played roulette topless and beside a generous high-rolling Asian gentleman who will fork over $2,000 to you for “good karma.” (This actually worked for said gentleman as he bet $80 on red 36 and won)
This was the scene for radio host Captain Scotty earlier this morning on the Jeff O’Neil show on CFOX as he tried to turn $500 into $1,000 for the BC Children’s hospital. While unsuccessful at their betting, an anonymous gambler who caught wind of what he was trying to accomplish donated $2,000 and then another $2,100 (after hitting his number). With that donation and the $1,000 added by the River Rock Casino, he succeeded in raising $5,100.
Scotty’s betting strategy (betting on single number) though apparently resulted in some phone calls from professional gamblers who said to basically put the money on red or black. Now i in no way consider myself to be a professional gambler… at least not yet, but I believe I can give some insight as to why this was suggested.
At the poker table, good cash players will frequently and quickly be able to calculate the “expected value” to determine whether or not a move is profitable. Expected value is simply the money you would gain by winning minus the money you would lose by losing.
In the case of betting on a single number, we can break down the expected value of a $100 bet like this: (Note that there is no positive expected value bet possible in roulette and also note that I am not factoring in karma donations, or toplessness 
)
We will lose $100 for 37 out of the 38 possible places the ball could land
(-$100 X 37 / 38) = $(-97.37)
We will gain $3,500 for 1 out of the 38 possible places the ball could land
($3,500 x 1 / 38) = $92.11
We can now determine our expected value of the $100 bet on a single number over a long period of time
$(-97.37) + $92.11= $(-5.26)
Now, lets analyze the same $100 bet on red, black, even or odd… all of which have the same winning probability.
We will lose $100 for 20 out of the 38 possible places the ball could land
(-$100 X 20 / 38) = $(-52.63)
We will gain $100 for 18 out of the 38 possible places the ball could land
($100 x 18 / 38) = $47.37
We can now determine our expected value of the $100 bet on a red, black, even or odd over a long period of time
$(-52.63) + $47.37= $(-5.26)
Low and behold with each $100 bet, Scotty is expecting to lose $5.26 no matter where he places it! You would think that either of the two choices would be equally as good, however Scotty is only looking to double up to $1000. With the specific goal of only going from $500 to $1000, the choice here should now become a bit easier to make.
Why?
Here are our options from a more simple perspective:
A 47.37% chance to turn $500 into $1000
A 13.16% chance to turn $500 into $3500
Easy choice here. That was until Jeff had said to “Go for $3,500″
Given that our goal has now change, which is the correct choice?
Betting on a single number, or on a red/black/even/odd?
Well as it turns out, either has same probability of occurring so really there is no better choice. One choice we get it all at once @13.16%, the other we have to double up several times @47.37% each try (this essentially requires three wins in a row, I’m about 99% sure that this will work out to 13.16% too).
Anyways, props to the Jeff O’Neil Show for making this a heck of a lot more interesting than my roulette sessions, for raising money for a good cause, and for giving me inspiration to do a detailed mathematical overview of roulette on a friday afternoon =)
Cheers,
~Addict
