All of what Mr. J has written on the issue of roulette is true - it's a negative game and therefore can not be beaten in the long term by any system or staking plan, although it might be possible to have some sort-term success, eg. having a single bet by placing your whole bank on an evens payout and walk away a winner if successful or walk away broke if not.

Don't laugh, it's probably the best chance of success that roulette offers.

Rock Steady it's not so simple to work out your advantage, this has to be taken on a bet-by-bet basis, eg. if you think you have a genuine 2/1 chance of winning and you can get odds of 4/1 then you should bet 13.3% of your bank: if you think you have a genuine 1/1 chance of winning and can get odds of 2/1 then you should bet 16.7% of your bank etc.

Now betting to such levels of your bank is normally too much for most people so a lesser amount should be bet, eg, 25% of the advantage which in the two examples above would be 3.3% and 4.2%, but if your prices are 100% spot on then to maximise your returns your stake should be equal to your advantage.

The problem is of course in non-casino games (in most other cases) the price is nothing more than an opinion and therein lies the problem. It all comes down to being very, very accurate with your assessment/opinion.



[ This Message was edited by: La Mer on 2004-10-08 11:47 ]

[ This Message was edited by: La Mer on 2004-10-08 11:48 ]