Cheating at Roulette

[Ladewig]

My total sum knowledge of casino management is based on the TV series ‘Las Vegas’ (the modern bay watch).

The show is full of bunk. One can't go 5 minutes wthout seeing a violation of state laws concerning casino operation or a violation of standard casino policies. One can't go more than 8-10 minutes without the appearance of fictional technology (such as blowing up surveillance tapes by a factor of 300 to look at something).

On the other hand, there is some beautiful clevage in there.

 

[Jekyll]

http://c2000.cc.gatech.edu/classes/cs8113c_99_spring/readings/thorp.pdf

Cool.

 

[rockoon]

The Foxwoods procedure for waving off action on the table isnt very strict. The "goal" for the dealer is to wave off action when the ball has 3 revolutions left before it drops off the edge.

 

[Robin]

While I haven't read these books (which sound fascinating), has anyone read "Bringing Down the House"? That's about counting cards in blackjack, which is a different ball game simply because the game has a memory- if you know that there've been a lot of queens earlier in the six card shuffle, it's more likely they'll show up, and so on...

The trouble is that if you win too much at a game, particularly if you have the slightest suspicious look about you- you're quietly counting to yourself, you're tapping your foot incessantly, you have a hearing aid or keep looking down at a screen or whatever- it's what casino employees are trained to notice.

So, in my opinion, cheating at Roulette is an interesting academic puzzle that seems completely unreasonable to perform in a casino. It would be hard enough in lab conditions with bulky camera equipment and laser timers- trying to do it with concealed gadgets while trying to act natural in a crowded room with surveillance cameras and 400-pound casino employees watching you? Ridiculous.

I began this thread with the idea that it is ridiculous, but am coming round to the idea that it is not, in fact that it would be fairly easy, at least with modern technology.

Imagine yourself watching a roulette wheel with a mobile phone in your pocket. You are sitting there with your hand in your pocket, your hand over the left button. You click it for the rotor passing a certain place twice, and then twice for the ball passing a certain number on the rotor. You then receive feedback, say from a braile output pad or a tone in a tiny earpiece or vibrating a certain number of times, either 1,2,3 or 4. You have previously memorised 4 numbers to go with each of these tones and you bet the appropriate number.

You keep this up for long enough then it seems that you would beat the odds by a significant margin.

I can't see how your behaviour would be at all suspicious in this case. Hands in pockets are not unusual and the movement of hitting a button is almost imperceptible. Going further it would not be difficult to locate switches under your clothing that could be pressed without gaining attention.

The problems I still see are that you might not get enough time to gather data over two complete revolutions of the ball, receive feedback and place a bet before bets are stopped. However with the wave off procedure described by Rockoon this definitely seems a possibility.

The other problem is that I am not sure how many pockets are bounced when the ball falls off onto the rotor. Obviously if it can bounce and miss a complete revolution or the rotor then the thing is impossible.

But you only need to get an accuracy of plus or minus 16 pockets to gain some competitive advantage.

 

[tkingdoll]

Those Black Jack cardcounters are considered cheaters right? Even though they only use their brains. So you are allowed to bet your money, to use your brain betting your money. But not use your full potential while playing. Is this the case anywhere else in life? "I am sorry Sir, you are thinking to much now and that means I can't fool you. Stop thinking or leave my store."


What is the crime? Illegal use of brain?

How would you prove someone is counting cards?

 

[T'ai Chi]

One could make roulette really boring and eliminate the physical wheel and ball entirely (and possible cheating scenarios) and just display a (uniformly) randomly chosen number on a screen.

 

[Timothy]

How would you prove someone is counting cards?

You would suspect it if suddenly a bettor midway through a shoe started making significantly larger bets, especially if correlated with videotapes that showed the remaining cards in the shoe favored the bettor.

Don't need to prove anything. Suspicion is sufficient.

- Timothy

 

[kevin]

One could make roulette really boring and eliminate the physical wheel and ball entirely (and possible cheating scenarios) and just display a (uniformly) randomly chosen number on a screen.

Most states have this in the Lotto. I believe if a casino did this on the floor it would quickly be the least used gambling game around. People like seeing that ball go around and the excitement as it bounces around.

Besides truly random numbers from a computer are hard to do right, not sure gamblers would trust that as much. Might as well hookup a ball to a spinning wheel to generate them....

As someone else pointed out on roulette the house makes it's money on the green slots. A uniformly chosen random number would even the house with the customers. The house doesn't like that.

 

[Earthborn]

This thread reminds me of The Honeymoon Machine.

 

[T'ai Chi]

As someone else pointed out on roulette the house makes it's money on the green slots. A uniformly chosen random number would even the house with the customers. The house doesn't like that.

You;re right, it wouldn't be strictly uniform.

 

[Ladewig]

As someone else pointed out on roulette the house makes it's money on the green slots. A uniformly chosen random number would even the house with the customers. The house doesn't like that.

I don't understand your position. The house makes it money by offering 36-to-1 payouts on 38 different outcomes (Europen style = 37 outcomes). As long as there is that difference between the true odds and the payout odds, a uniformly chosen random number generator (that generates 38 possible outcomes) would not affect the house's take at all.

 

[Admiral]

Is this the case anywhere else in life? "I am sorry Sir, you are thinking to much now and that means I can't fool you. Stop thinking or leave my store."

Actually, that sounds to me like something John Edward would say if someone pointed out all his guesses were vague.

More importantly- you don't have to be committing a crime for a casino to kick you out. Heck, they don't have to see you counting cards- if you're winning too much, they can throw you out just based on suspicion.

Nothing in Las Vegas is fair. The point is to have fun, and get some free drinks while you're at it.

 

[kevin]

I don't understand your position. The house makes it money by offering 36-to-1 payouts on 38 different outcomes (Europen style = 37 outcomes). As long as there is that difference between the true odds and the payout odds, a uniformly chosen random number generator (that generates 38 possible outcomes) would not affect the house's take at all.

I'm far from a roulette expert, but those are odds/payouts on the straight numbers. There are also bets on red/black (but no green so the house advantage is the number of green slots). I'm not sure if the zeros count in an odd/even bet either but i doubt it. These pay 1:1 so the house cut isn't in the payback like the straight numbers betting.

 

[Rasmus]

I'm far from a roulette expert, but those are odds/payouts on the straight numbers. There are also bets on red/black (but no green so the house advantage is the number of green slots). I'm not sure if the zeros count in an odd/even bet either but i doubt it. These pay 1:1 so the house cut isn't in the payback like the straight numbers betting.

Same difference: As long as you get 37 or 38 numbers and as long as the payout scheme is what it is, it doesn't matter how the numbers are generated: It could be a roulette wheel, an electronic random number generator, etc.

Rasmus.

 

[kevin]

Same difference: As long as you get 37 or 38 numbers and as long as the payout scheme is what it is, it doesn't matter how the numbers are generated: It could be a roulette wheel, an electronic random number generator, etc.

Rasmus.

Roulette has color and number based bets, a pure random number would eliminate some of the bets. Also the house percentage in the payback is only on pure numbers, the other bet types the house percentage is in the rules (no bets on green, zero's aren't odd or even, etc...) You would have to match those too.

This is not to say it couldn't be done with an electronic number generator, I think the mistake I made was assuming the reference to a uniform random number generator meant a uniform payout which is a false assumption on my part. However I stand by my other assertions that an electronic version would be unpopular because people a) wouldn't trust it, b) like to see the ball go round-and-round. If you want the electronic version, play slots or the lotto.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm far from a roulette expert, but those are odds/payouts on the straight numbers. There are also bets on red/black (but no green so the house advantage is the number of green slots). I'm not sure if the zeros count in an odd/even bet either but i doubt it. These pay 1:1 so the house cut isn't in the payback like the straight numbers betting.

No. The house advantage in roulette is 2.7% on every bet on a single zero wheel and 5.26% on every bet on a double zero wheel (there is one obscure bet that has a house advantage around 7.9% but that is beyond the scope of this discussion). The H.A. applies even to odd/even bets. If someone bets on odd, then there are 16 ways to win and 18 ways to lose. It is the difference between these two outcomes coupled with the payout of 1:1 that creates the 5.26% house advantage. Similarly, while betting on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd dozen pays 2:1, the house advantage arises from each of those bets having 12 ways to win and 26 ways to lose.