Science Forums 2

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Simon

Ok Erik, here is my answer: NONE.

I agree with Ronthepon.

By my calculation, you are more likely to spin a zero straight away than achieve ANY chosen number of consecutive non-zero spins. (This answer applies to both to a single-zero and double-zero roulette wheel).

In second place, my answer is ONE - you are more likely to achieve just a single 1-36 spin than any other number of non-zero spins. Again, I agree with Ronthepon.

In other words, I'm saying that if you compare any two figures of consecutive 1-36 spins, you should always bet on the smaller one.

NONE is smallest figure of all.

Many will find this unbeleivable!

Simon

I'm going to have to disagree with this analysis. First, on the grounds of common sense: Anyone who has ever played roulette will tell you that landing on any one specific number is pretty rare. In fact, all things being equal and averaged over a long period, about 1/37 of the rolls will hit 0. If these were equally distributed, 36 would be the perfect bet, but, obviously, these are not going to be equally distributed. If this analysis were correct, it would be very common to get two zeroes in a row (or, by symmetry, two of ANY number in a row). I think thus far, I most agree with Eric.

So whats wrong with your analysis? Well, you are looking at the odds of rolling EXACTLY one roll then hitting 0 compared to the odds of rolling exactly two rolls then hitting 0, etc. What we should be looking at is the average number of rolls between hitting 0 twice.

So whats wrong with the following analysis: Compare the probability of rolling x consecutive non zero rolls and comparing this to the 0 roll as follows?


This method suggests (incorrectly I think) we should roll 130 times or so.

-Will