Best roulette methods 2024 -- What is best? Reading the table or reading the wheel ??

[RouletteTools]

What is best? Reading the table or reading the wheel ??

Or is just based on luck and chance, or none of it matters ???



Me personally can't take my eyes off the dolly, not even bothered with the ball lands, so Imho it doesn't matter, a section of the wheel is exactly the same as a section of the table.

 

[SYPlayer95]

None, it's all irrelevant. A game of luck, there's no methods or tools to any of it. If you're lucky, you will win some.

 

[slaman29]

Whatever is relevant (the way the dealer spins, for example, or the speed) is not going to last long enough for you to make use of so yeah. Nothing is relevant. No streak is important, the wheel doesn't remember anything

 

[Guntis]

It's a game of chance where the outcome is determined by physical factors. Consequently the autcome is always based on something. There is no random number generator used in land-based roulette. So picking and reading an experienced croupier, plus using visual ballistics combined with call bets, i reckon, is the best. For me, (croupier + ball + wheel), matter more than the table.

I bet on the numbers, so columns, odd/even, low/high, and colors, don't matter to me. I bet every other spin, watching the croupier's actions, and only see something like this in my mind:

But i'll try watching the dolly next time i go to a casino with my GF and tell her to guess which of the 3 sections the croupier will place it in. It's already sounds interesting

 

[geordiecolin]

I tip is to get aquainted with the guy who controls the magnet

 

[slaman29]

It's a game of chance where the outcome is determined by physical factors. Consequently the autcome is always based on something. There is no random number generator used in land-based roulette. So picking and reading an experienced croupier, plus using visual ballistics combined with call bets, i reckon, is the best. For me, (croupier + ball + wheel), matter more than the table.

But like I said above, these physical factors won't last long enough for it to matter.

I only base this off the providers I use but>

Croupier: Shift lasts around 30 minutes before switching. Usually less. That's max 30 spins.

Ball: Gets cleaned or changed also I think around 10 shifts which is max 300 spins.

So anyone who works on statistics know this is a really small sample size. Not possible to make any accurate judgment.

But guess what? Casinos already monitor this. So if there is tendency for certain outcomes, they will notice it before you, and maintain the wheel/ball/equipment.

 

[mulven]

But guess what? Casinos already monitor this. So if there is tendency for certain outcomes, they will notice it before you, and maintain the wheel/ball/equipment.

Exactly and if a particular croupier's results were found to deviate from the expected outcomes over a statistically significant number of spins this would also get sorted out. Faulty Equipment or "Faulty" operators will be fixed or replaced.

Casinos are all about data. They will be tracking everything and if there is anything that could potentially come in between them and their profit, they will act swiftly to rectify it.

This is relevant for current day. In the past imperfect roulette wheels/environments have been exploited both live and online. This was in a time of less surveillance, less data, less analytics.

Online live casino has had various evolutions - heh pun - in combating any form of predictability. This can be in the form of RNG, Random Rotor Speed or other methods.

For real life establishments, as covered in this post already, they analyse everything and will root out any imperfection in croupier, equipment or environment.

The only way to beat roulette would be to:

• find an establishment that does not properly track their analytics (nigh-on impossible) and provably confirm a weak point in a particular dealer, environment or equipment. This would require a lot of time and data for statistically significant proof.
• "cheat" by being aided with technology

Some in this thread would argue that it can be beat with visual ballistics but I would disagree. Even if was possible to gain an intuitive ability to guess where the ball will land from thousands of hours of practice and watching roulette spins, the environments in casino will not be exactly the same and you would need a very large number of real spins under your belt to figure out if you were actually beating the house edge or just seemingly like you were in the short-medium term. Those who have tried to do visual ballistics and have had some success undoubtedly haven't done enough spins and also are probably victims of survivorship bias.

Others may mention Niko Tosa as a successful visual ballistics player. However his famous winnings from the ritz would have been gained through use of technology that was not uncovered or more realistically targeting a specific wheel he found to be predictable RATHER than visual ballistics. The time in which this event happened is in line with less data oversight.

I think it's very valuable for gamblers to properly understand gambler's fallacy and the various forms it can come in, below are a few:

• thinking that black is a more likely result after a long streak of reds.
• thinking you've identified a pattern or a trend in results, a biased wheel or operator, when in fact any apparent trend is purely random. You need a lot more data and a high standard deviation to prove something like this.

When someone thinks they've identified a pattern, confirmation bias can lead to further steadfast belief in their system if they've had short term results that vindicate their postulation.

It's important to understand past results do not affect future outcomes for an event whose occurrences are independent and identically distributed.

 

[RouletteTools]

thinking that black is a more likely result after a long streak of reds.

This is actually true, this is why no one has seen 30 reds in a row, eventually it'll go Black meaning there is such thing as a due bet, in fact the longer a streak of reds go the rarer it is, meaning the shorter the streaks the more often they end and go to Black.

Pure facts

 

[RouletteTools]

It's important to understand past results do not affect future outcomes for an event whose occurrences are independent and identically distributed.

Totally disagree with this

 

[mulven]

This is actually true, this is why no one has seen 30 reds in a row, eventually it'll go Black meaning there is such thing as a due bet, in fact the longer a streak of reds go the rarer it is, meaning the shorter the streaks the more often they end and go to Black.

Pure facts

This is the fallacy. The action is independent from the result. It's got the same 48.65% chance of hitting black as it did the last spin.

Please actually take some time to read through the Gambler's Fallacy wikipedia page and do some introspective thinking. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of probability.

With the number of roulette wheels spinning since the game was invented, 30 in a row has definitely happened some time some where. The chances of it happening are 1 in 1,180,000,000.

The most famous example of gambler's fallacy was the so called "monte carlo fallacy". The roulette wheel spun black 26 times in a row. Gamblers lost millions of francs betting on red because they reasoned that the streak was causing an imbalance in their perceived odds so this streak of black had to be followed by a streak of red. This had a chance of 1 in 66,600,000 or just under 18 times more likely than 30 in a row.

Totally disagree with this

If you have a 50% chance for a coin to be land on heads from a perfectly random coin flip, it's still got 50% chance to land on heads after five tails in a row. The action itself is unaware of any patterns and is the same every time.

Casinos love people who fail to understand basic probability. One of the reasons they put up history boards is to encourage peoples brains to see patterns that aren't there.

Any countering of short term streaks with martingale variants will eventually fail. If it hasn't failed yet, this is survivorship bias. Martingale only works with infinite money and infinite table limits. People have been able to make a small amount of passive income on crypto casinos using extremely small stakes and martingaling. The size of their initial stake almost makes their bankroll/table limits effectively infinite but the upside is also quite small.

 

[RouletteTools]

If you have a 50% chance for a coin to be land on heads from a perfectly random coin flip, it's still got 50% chance to land on heads after five tails in a row. The action itself is unaware of any patterns and is the same every time.

If this is true then why has no one ever seen 40 reds in a row ? if this was true we would be seeing 80 100 1000 reds in a row but this doesn't happen.

why ?

 

[mulven]

If this is true then why has no one ever seen 40 reds in a row ? if this was true we would be seeing 80 100 1000 reds in a row but this doesn't happen.

why ?

You are still failing to grasp anything that I have explained. The probability of a certain kind of streak has nothing to do with the individual chance of a single isolated spin..

Streaks of 30 or 40 can happen because although it's incredibly rare but still statistically probable. A streak of 100 is improbable and a streak of 1000 isn't just improbable but is only possible within the concept of infinity. The odds of streaks like this happening grow into increasingly, literally incomprehensible numbers.

• 40 in a row - 1 in 1.6 trillion (twelve zeroes)
• 80 in a row - 1 in 5.34 septillion (twenty-four zeroes)
• 100 in a row - 1 in 9.55 nonillion (thirty zeroes)
• 1000 in a row - 1 in 4.13 centretillion (three-hundred and twelve zeroes)

4.13 centretillion looks like this

4,130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

For context Earth only has around ten sexdecillion (fifty-two zeroes) atoms and the observable universe is estimated to have ten sexvigintillion (eighty-two zeroes) atoms.

As a way of contextualising large numbers like this is to look at the number of ways to arrange a deck of playing cards (52!, 80 unvigintillion, sixty-seven zeroes). A quick contextualisation is to compare the number to the number of seconds since the big bang.

• 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 ways to arrange a deck of cards
• 436,117,076,600,000,000 seconds since the big bang

It is worth mentioning that the number for 1000 in a row is incomprehensibly bigger than 52! (fifty-one octagintillion or 5.1E+244 times bigger)

For a longer contextualisation of 52!, I'll steal this famous one:

Set a timer for 52! Seconds and then pick your favorite spot on the equator. You're going to walk around the world along the equator, but take a very leisurely pace of one step every billion years.The equatorial circumference of the Earth is 40,075,017 meters. Make sure to pack a deck of playing cards, so you can get in a few trillion hands of solitaire between steps. After you complete your round the world trip, remove one drop of water from the Pacific Ocean. Now do the same thing again: walk around the world at one billion years per step, removing one drop of water from the Pacific Ocean each time you circle the globe. The Pacific Ocean contains 707.6 million cubic kilometers of water. Continue until the ocean is empty. When it is, take one sheet of paper and place it flat on the ground. Now, fill the ocean back up and start the entire process all over again, adding a sheet of paper to the stack each time you’ve emptied the ocean.

Do this until the stack of paper reaches from the Earth to the Sun. Take a glance at the timer, you will see that the three left-most digits haven’t even changed. You still have 8.063e67 more seconds to go. 1 Astronomical Unit, the distance from the Earth to the Sun, is defined as 149,597,870.691 kilometers.So, take the stack of papers down and do it all over again. One thousand times more. Unfortunately, that still won’t do it. There are still more than 5.385e67 seconds remaining. You’re just about a third of the way done.

To pass the remaining time, start shuffling your deck of cards. Every billion years deal yourself a 5-card poker hand. Each time you get a royal flush, buy yourself a lottery ticket. A royal flush occurs in one out of every 649,740 hands.If that ticket wins the jackpot, throw a grain of sand into the Grand Canyon. Keep going and when you’ve filled up the canyon with sand, remove one ounce of rock from Mt. Everest. Now empty the canyon and start all over again. When you’ve levelled Mt. Everest, look at the timer, you still have 5.364e67 seconds remaining. Mt. Everest weighs about 357 trillion pounds.You barely made a dent. If you were to repeat this 255 times, you would still be looking at 3.024e64 seconds. The timer would finally reach zero sometime during your 256th attempt.

I'm not sure how saying something will always have a 50% chance of happening leads you to suggest 100 or 1000 in a row streaks can happen but I hope this post helps you understand. If you still cannot grasp this I fear this may be futile.

 

[Reefer]

If this is true then why has no one ever seen 40 reds in a row ? if this was true we would be seeing 80 100 1000 reds in a row but this doesn't happen.

why ?

You are still failing to grasp anything that I have explained. The probability of a certain kind of streak has nothing to do with the individual chance of a single isolated spin..

Streaks of 30 or 40 can happen because although it's incredibly rare but still statistically probable. A streak of 100 is improbable and a streak of 1000 isn't just improbable but is only possible within the concept of infinity. The odds of streaks like this happening grow into increasingly, literally incomprehensible numbers.

• 40 in a row - 1 in 1.6 trillion (twelve zeroes)
• 80 in a row - 1 in 5.34 septillion (twenty-four zeroes)
• 100 in a row - 1 in 9.55 nonillion (thirty zeroes)
• 1000 in a row - 1 in 4.13 centretillion (three-hundred and twelve zeroes)

4.13 centretillion looks like this

For context Earth only has around ten sexdecillion (fifty-two zeroes) atoms and the observable universe is estimated to have ten sexvigintillion (eighty-two zeroes) atoms.

As a way of contextualising large numbers like this is to look at the number of ways to arrange a deck of playing cards (52!, 80 unvigintillion, sixty-seven zeroes). A quick contextualisation is to compare the number to the number of seconds since the big bang.

• 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 ways to arrange a deck of cards
• 436,117,076,600,000,000 seconds since the big bang

It is worth mentioning that the number for 1000 in a row is incomprehensibly bigger than 52! (fifty-one octagintillion or 5.1E+244 times bigger)

For a longer contextualisation of 52!, I'll steal this famous one:

I'm not sure how saying something will always have a 50% chance of happening leads you to suggest 100 or 1000 in a row streaks can happen but I hope this post helps you understand. If you still cannot grasp this I fear this may be futile.

So your saying there's a chance then?

 

[Guntis]

But like I said above, these physical factors won't last long enough for it to matter.

I only base this off the providers I use but>

Croupier: Shift lasts around 30 minutes before switching. Usually less. That's max 30 spins.

Ball: Gets cleaned or changed also I think around 10 shifts which is max 300 spins.

So anyone who works on statistics know this is a really small sample size. Not possible to make any accurate judgment.

But guess what? Casinos already monitor this. So if there is tendency for certain outcomes, they will notice it before you, and maintain the wheel/ball/equipment.

Yeah, it won't matter for long. But it doesn't need to. Croupiers with the signature typically land the ball in one of the wheel's 18 consecutive numbers. It could be clockwise or anticlockwise. And they can sometimes do this throughout their shift, e.g., 30 minutes.

Zero can be used as an indicator to see the whole picture in mind. Colors and special bets can be ignored to keep proper focus on either clockwise or anticlockwise drops.

For best chances, the bet should cover no more than 18 numbers and be more or less even across them so it doubles the total. For example, around £30 for each number if you bet £500 across all 18.

In London's casinos, there are around 10 roulette tables in each. So you can have a beer, walk around, and pick the right one. Usually, i play 1-3 spins. If i decide to start from the biggest bet based on my budget, and hit something like below, i leave.

As you say, casinos monitor things for certain outcomes and notice them before me. Yes, it's possible. But it makes no point for them to target me.

1) There is a guaranteed 2.7% house edge for them in the long run anyway.

2) Usually, i bet up to £1k a spin, which is nothing compared to some other players.

3) Even if the croupier throws the ball 20 times in a row in Voisins, so what? There will always be a ton of players at the same table and across the casino who play through machines and heavily bet on Tiers. So for the casino, even if they could easily make the croupier to stop throwing in Voisins, it would make no sense.

They can re-level the wheels and wipe the balls as much as they want, but there will always be a table and croupier whom i'll pick for my bet.

The only time they can become suspicious is when you stay right next to the wheel, bet big covering like 6-10 numbers, and one of them always hits. But such players never stay long at the same table. Plus from experience, casinos want big winners back so they potentially lose that money.

 

[RouletteTools]

4.13 centretillion

I would never sit at the table for 4.13 cenrtrillion spins tho.


Laws of large numbers comes to mind right now, So the laws of smaller numbers still shines true on my side, the more reds you get, the closer it'll be to a black.

"The law of large numbers has a very central role in probability and statistics. It states that if you repeat an experiment independently a large number of times and average the result, what you obtain should be close to the expected value."


I myself have never seen 21 reds(or any 1/1) more than 4 times in 30yrs, I've only seen it go to 18 twice this year !! if that !!!


It's a phenomena to some.





Let's start a scenario:
If we had 10 reds which was also 10 odds and also 10 highs in a row ... What would u bet ? the trend or the not the trend ??

 

[mulven]

I would never sit at the table for 4.13 cenrtrillion spins tho.


Laws of large numbers comes to mind right now, So the laws of smaller numbers still shines true on my side, the more reds you get, the closer it'll be to a black.

"The law of large numbers has a very central role in probability and statistics. It states that if you repeat an experiment independently a large number of times and average the result, what you obtain should be close to the expected value."


I myself have never seen 21 reds(or any 1/1) more than 4 times in 30yrs, I've only seen it go to 18 twice this year !! if that !!!


It's a phenomena to some.





Let's start a scenario:
If we had 10 reds which was also 10 odds and also 10 highs in a row ... What would u bet ? the trend or the not the trend ??

I give up, I won't be able to get through to you. Enjoy your hobby I guess.

 

[RouletteTools]

I give up, I won't be able to get through to you. Enjoy your hobby I guess.

I've broke roulette

 

[mulven]

I've broke roulette

And the earth is flat

 

[Guntis]

I would never sit at the table for 4.13 cenrtrillion spins tho.

If we had 10 reds which was also 10 odds and also 10 highs in a row ... What would u bet ? the trend or the not the trend ??

4.13 centrillion spins even that Evolution Gaming's quick spin dealer won't make in 300 years .

But if you asked me, "What would you bet? The trend or against the trend?" I would bet "against the trend" and cover the low 1-18 numbers. Why? Because it's just like in real life - trends don't last long.

In your example, those last 10 hits (red-odd-high) are essentially all high numbers.

 

[mulven]

4.13 centrillion spins even that Evolution Gaming's quick spin dealer won't make in 300 years .

But if you asked me, "What would you bet? The trend or against the trend?" I would bet "against the trend" and cover the low 1-18 numbers. Why? Because it's just like in real life - trends don't last long.

In your example, those last 10 hits (red-odd-high) are essentially all high numbers.

Just to be pedantic, Joe Croupier typo'd centretillion as cenrtrillion which is 10^312 whilst centillion (no r) is 10^303

 

[RouletteTools]

Just to be pedantic, Joe Croupier typo'd centretillion as cenrtrillion which is 10^312 whilst centillion (no r) is 10^303

I see ha ha !! so this is where i'm going wrong on roulette


I better go back to how you guys do it then lol

 

[RouletteTools]

None, it's all irrelevant. A game of luck, there's no methods or tools to any of it. If you're lucky, you will win some.

So you believe some people are luckier than others around the roulette table ?

 

[mulven]

I see ha ha !! so this is where i'm going wrong on roulette


I better go back to how you guys do it then lol

Where you are going wrong on roulette is thinking you have figured something out when you martingale short term patterns and then try to sell tools and teach people how to do it too.

How I do it is not playing it

 

[RouletteTools]

Where you are going wrong on roulette is thinking you have figured something out when you martingale short term patterns and then try to sell tools and teach people how to do it too.

How I do it is not playing it

"Where you are going wrong on roulette"

now you're just been silly, don't go down that road dude, you seem smart.

 

[RouletteTools]

Where you are going wrong on roulette is thinking you have figured something out when you martingale short term patterns and then try to sell tools and teach people how to do it too.

How I do it is not playing it

absolutely totally wrong sorry, i think you have me mixed up with someone else like chris mitchell ha ha !!

 

[Guntis]

If this is true then why has no one ever seen 40 reds in a row ? if this was true we would be seeing 80 100 1000 reds in a row but this doesn't happen.

why ?

Because this is theory, not practice. In theory a coin flip could infinitely fall on one side which is BS in practice.

 

[slaman29]

Really need to emphasize what mulven said in many posts and what I have to remind anyone who thinks they use data. Statistics only matter as a predictor of outcomes, but based on very very very large amount of data, that is impossible to collect for the player. And the environment keeps changing (ball.croupier/wheel/equipment) so the data sample size keeps getting wiped.

Yeah, it won't matter for long. But it doesn't need to. Croupiers with the signature typically land the ball in one of the wheel's 18 consecutive numbers. It could be clockwise or anticlockwise. And they can sometimes do this throughout their shift, e.g., 30 minutes.
<>
As you say, casinos monitor things for certain outcomes and notice them before me. Yes, it's possible. But it makes no point for them to target me.

1) There is a guaranteed 2.7% house edge for them in the long run anyway.

2) Usually, i bet up to £1k a spin, which is nothing compared to some other players.

3) Even if the croupier throws the ball 20 times in a row in Voisins, so what? There will always be a ton of players at the same table and across the casino who play through machines and heavily bet on Tiers. So for the casino, even if they could easily make the croupier to stop throwing in Voisins, it would make no sense.

They can re-level the wheels and wipe the balls as much as they want, but there will always be a table and croupier whom i'll pick for my bet.

The only time they can become suspicious is when you stay right next to the wheel, bet big covering like 6-10 numbers, and one of them always hits. But such players never stay long at the same table. Plus from experience, casinos want big winners back so they potentially lose that money.

I'm still not sure this can happen, if you change table, or change equipment, shouldn't outcomes be altered? But if it works for you, that's great I have not noticed this behavior on Evolution dealers/croupiers, I definitely know some of them now as they work on same shifts!

The 2.7% house edge guarantee only works if everything else is in the correct probability. So a variance in the way a wheel spins, ball lands, or croupier throws... affects that 2.7% so casinos WILL want to correct this. BTW curious do you only play in London? I would feel uncomfortable if casino people recognize me at tables

 

[Guntis]

Really need to emphasize what mulven said in many posts and what I have to remind anyone who thinks they use data. Statistics only matter as a predictor of outcomes, but based on very very very large amount of data, that is impossible to collect for the player. And the environment keeps changing (ball.croupier/wheel/equipment) so the data sample size keeps getting wiped.


I'm still not sure this can happen, if you change table, or change equipment, shouldn't outcomes be altered? But if it works for you, that's great I have not noticed this behavior on Evolution dealers/croupiers, I definitely know some of them now as they work on same shifts!

The 2.7% house edge guarantee only works if everything else is in the correct probability. So a variance in the way a wheel spins, ball lands, or croupier throws... affects that 2.7% so casinos WILL want to correct this. BTW curious do you only play in London? I would feel uncomfortable if casino people recognize me at tables

Once again for you, in short but with an image This is how the action looks in my mind:

I cut out colors, odd/even, low/high, etc. completely - they don't exist in my mind (e.g there are no red and black numbers, they're all just numbers). The table is just for placing bets, it doesn't matter what's drawn there. Large data and variance are irrelevant to me, they're just theory. I typically play 1-3 spins at a table that i specifically pick, and base everything on physical actions and events.

---

I've been talking here about brick-and-mortar casinos, not Evolution Gaming. Many of their tables don't even follow proper roulette rules. They spin the ball in one direction only. The best for online play are those with real tables and people around. It takes longer between spins but it's pretty similar to playing at a casino on the machine.

Yeah, i play in London around once a month, and had a pretty good year with around £70K up, but this bastid "stole" all of it.....

 

[slaman29]

I've been talking here about brick-and-mortar casinos, not Evolution Gaming. Many of their tables don't even follow proper roulette rules. They spin the ball in one direction only. The best for online play are those with real tables and people around. It takes longer between spins but it's pretty similar to playing at a casino on the machine.

Yeah, i play in London around once a month, and had a pretty good year with around £70K up, but this bastid "stole" all of it.....

Thanks for the explanation, and I THINK I am closer to understanding what you do. I only do Evolution real people (the wheels also change direction, or is stopped for maintenance pr someone cleans the ball and wheel every few hours I notice). I only seen small casinos in my little side of world and not once I ever saw the wheel getting cleaned (when they do it they close the section entirely).

Try save some wins for Christmas!!

 

[Guntis]

Thanks for the explanation, and I THINK I am closer to understanding what you do. I only do Evolution real people (the wheels also change direction, or is stopped for maintenance pr someone cleans the ball and wheel every few hours I notice). I only seen small casinos in my little side of world and not once I ever saw the wheel getting cleaned (when they do it they close the section entirely).

Try save some wins for Christmas!!

Here in London's casinos, they usually clean the roulette tables in the morning during the general cleaning schedule when they hoover the carpets, etc. They also check the level of the wheels, but as far as i remember, they use a regular Stanley level. Maybe that's good enough, i don't know. Once it's done, some of them cover the wheels so they stay clean for the game and nobody spits or something in there. Other casinos just keep them open. I think everywhere it's different, likely based on how busy their casino is.