<div class="bbWrapper"><blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="Clayman" data-source=""
class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">
<div class="bbCodeBlock-title">
Clayman said:
</div>
<div class="bbCodeBlock-content">
<div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent ">
Well I gotta give the guy some credit. I mean if you're going to bet on red or black and want to maximize your EV and profit, the mathematically correct play is to play once and then quit, isn't it? Or, isn't it? GM? Freebie? Sam?
</div>
<div class="bbCodeBlock-expandLink js-expandLink"><a role="button" tabindex="0">Click to expand...</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>The mathematically correct play is NOT to play.<br />
If he has to bet, then he should choose european roulette in europe, not the killer double zero american roulette.<br />
Unless he place the bet on 0-00-1-2-3, the house edge is all the same. The only difference is the variance. Placing bet on Red/Black has lower variance than betting on single number. Placing bet covering 18 numbers offer the same variance as betting on red/black. The "no risk" betting is to cover all numbers, that way you will always loose 2 of your bet out of 38 for a house edge of 5.28% (variance = STD = 0).<br />
If there is a side bet. I am more than glad to bank he will loose. If there are more silly gambers trying to do this stunt again, I'll bet $50 to anyone's $49 that he will loose. <br />
Not only the odds were against him, the money he bet means much more than the money he won. That's called marginal effect.<br />
Imagine if I have 10k in the bank, $5 means nothing to me. To a homeless who has nothing, $5 means he can have 2 meals for the day. <br />
No one with the right mind should do that.<br />
ps: Because of the marginal effect, if I MUST play the best bet is the "no risk" bet.</div>