Caro’s Roulette System #1 explained

By Mike Caro | Exit

Warning:
Read after you’ve seen Caro’s Roulette System #1.

Why my system really works!

Leading experts agree: Caro’s Roulette System #1 really does cut the house advantage to literally zero — Here’s why in the creator’s own words

OK, since you were smart enough to come to this page, I won’t play any more games with your mind. Here’s the truth.

People are always asking me for good roulette systems. This disturbs me, because for many years I have preached that there are some gambling games you can beat and some you can’t. In the can-beat category are poker, sports wagering, blackjack, and more. In the can’t-beat category are craps, roulette, wheel of fortune, keno, and much more.

Yes, I will entertain arguments that you can theoretically beat roulette by measuring the rotation of the ball and the speed of the wheel. But that’s another matter for another day — and, besides, this turns out to be better in theory than it is in practice.

So, let’s look at Caro’s Roulette System #1. In saying that my system could cut the house edge to literally zero, I chose the word “literally” quite carefully. It means that “zero” is to be taken precisely to mean “zero.” If you follow the instructions exactly, all bets are eliminated. You can sit and watch the wheel spin forever, but you will never make a bet — unless you violate the instructions.

Now that I’ve explained it, you might want to review the rules again. Here they are…

Caro’s Roulette System #1

First, never bet simply red or black. Also don’t bet odd or even. These are equally poor, consistently losing wagers.

Second, don’t be suckered into betting zero or double zero, despite what some experts may suggest. This may seem like you’re betting with the house, but for technical reasons you are actually betting against the house — and you are taking the worst of it.

So, in order to negate the house advantage, you MUST stick to straight non-green number bets. All odd red numbers turn out to be bad choices, based on over two trillion computer trials. Don’t bet them.

All even black numbers fair poorly, and cannot be bet, for much the same reason, which I won’t explain here.

Let’s get straight to the money-saving advice. Any bet you decide to make MUST cover only even-red or odd-black numbers. There are no exceptions.

Finally, you need to be very disciplined in excluding the number 30 and the group of consecutive numbers that begins with 11 and continues clockwise through and including 14.

This system may seem mystical, but I take gambling quite seriously, and this works for me.

Poker1.com: Related suggestions

Posted in ALL

13 Responses to Caro’s Roulette System #1 explained

Mark says:

August 5, 2010 at 01:02

Mike,

What do you think about this? I’ve often told friends (who don’t play poker or count cards), that they need to decide on their purpose of gambling in Vegas.

If they are there for entertainment, then they can split up their available funds in a way to maximize entertainment value which means spreading out their bets such that they have a decent chance of not running out of money before the end of their trip. But by admitting it is entertainment, they need to realize that they are INCREASING their chances of coming home with a loss.

If they are there to try to “get lucky” and win some gambling money. In-other-words, increase their chances of making a profit (I’m not talking about maximizing EV, but making a profit.) Then they should take all the money they were willing to gambling and place it on “red” and spin the wheel once and only once. (“Red” is figurative, meaning any single bet that gives near 1:2 odds… the closer the better.)

My reasoning is, that while this in no way changes the EV, it increases the variance, which gives the greatest chances of the houses edge NOT being realized via the shortest possible sample set. Of course a sample set of 0 would be even better, but the assumption is the friend going to Vegas does want to gamble.

Thanks,

Mark

Reply
- Mike Caro says:
  
  August 5, 2010 at 02:31
  
  Hi, Mark –
  
  You’re right. I’ve explained this many times, especially at seminars.
  
  You’re maximum chance of leaving as a winner when playing against house odds is to make large bets only a few times — or a single huge wager.
  
  The more you drag out the action with smaller bets, the more likely you are to lose. Of course, there’s a reason for this. When you make a lot of small bets, winning some and losing others, you’re actually wagering more money than you would be by making a few larger bets. The house’s take is theoretically a percentage of the total amount of money you’ve wagered.
  
  Also, if you want to bet a certain amount, such as $100 a spin, you have a better chance of winning if you bet in a sequence such as $10, $100, $190 over and over than betting a flat $100 each time.
  
  You’ll still average the same loss over a long time, but you have a better chance of getting lucky in the short term. It’s the variance you talked about.
  
  Thanks for the comment.
  
  Straight Flushes,
  Mike Caro
  
  Reply
Mark says:

August 5, 2010 at 00:54

Oops… When I said “They lose in the martingale system because….” The pro-noun “they” is referring to the player NOT the casino. The “player” lose in the martingale system (still over all -EV.)

Reply
Mark says:

August 5, 2010 at 00:52

I believe in the “martingale system” if you have near infinite money you can have near certainty that you can profit a single bet amount (as long as that single bet amount is a VERY small portion of your total funds available.) It’s much like flipping the lottery on its head. In the martingale system you are potentially risking huge sums of money to nearly insure winning a small sum of money (where playing the lottery you are risking a small sum and are nearly assured that you will NOT win a large sum of money.) The house still wins in both cases. They lose in the martingale system because they are risking little to have a small change of winning A LOT, while you are risking A LOT to have a large chance of winning a little. And it turns out their profit to risk is always going to be greater than the players. Of course this isn’t good enough for the house, so they put betting caps just so Bill Gates can’t implement the Martingale system in a way that his “small bets” are significant losses to the house, even if they have the edge they don’t want that variance.

Reply
- Mike Caro says:
  
  August 5, 2010 at 02:20
  
  Hi, Mark –
  
  Thanks for making your first comment and joining our Poker1 family.
  
  As you know, the Martingale “system” doesn’t change the odds whatsoever. You still will eventually suffer the same loss (through eternity), calculated as a percentage of your total wagers minus the house’s fixed edge.
  
  It’s a good system if you want to escape with a dollar profit most of the time, trying to delay the inevitable.
  
  I much prefer my roulette system, in which you get to see a lot of spins of the wheel, but never make any bets.
  
  Good thoughts. Thanks.
  
  Straight Flushes,
  Mike Caro
  
  Reply
  - Mark says:
    
    August 5, 2010 at 20:47
    
    Wow. What a nice quick response. No need to beat a dead horse, but actually if you had infinite funds (and time) you could assure yourself reaching a profit at some point using the martingale system, as the chance of hitting red twice in a row is 1 given an infinite number of spins. And it just takes hitting red twice in a row to insure a profit of a single bet amount. So with infinite money it can be done. The funny thing is this does not mean you have +EV. Because it requires an infinite amount to risk to just win a finite amount of money. The -EV is still there.
    
    This is why I said near infinite amount of money to get a *near* certain chance of winning one bet. The math works out, and your EV is still negative, but if you have an unbelievable amount of money you could insure a 99.9% chance of winning a much smaller amount of money, and the money you win will always be less than 0.1% of the money you put at risk. And there is the -EV.
    
    Reply
    - Mark says:
      
      August 5, 2010 at 20:55
      
      Oh… and if Bill Gate’s decided to use the martingale system, his 0.1% or even 0.01% could be a value large enough that the casino wouldn’t want Bill Gates to have a 99.99% chance of winning 0.008% which the 0.008% may represent a million dollars. I believe this is one of the reasons they cap bets.
stan jett says:

June 11, 2010 at 15:14

A friend of mine told me once that he beats the roulette wheel by betting one color and doubleing up the next bet if he loses. His system is called by most, “The law of Averages”. or “I’m Due.” I showed him with a pen and paper that if he started with a $5.00 bet and doubled up if he lost for only 19 spins, that he would have to bet over one million dollars on that 19th bet just to break even.

Reply
- Mike Caro says:
  
  June 11, 2010 at 16:07
  
  Hi, Stan –
  
  That’s called the “Martingale System.” It increases your likelihood of winning for a given session, but doesn’t affect the house edge whatsoever.
  
  You’ll win $1 a lot of times (or $5 in your example), but the one eventual huge loss you take swallows up all those tiny wins and leaves you broke.
  
  I like the way you explained it to your friend.
  
  Straight Flushes,
  Mike Caro
  
  Reply
dean says:

April 3, 2010 at 16:16

the group of #s consecutive brging with 11 clockwise through 14
are what #s ?

Reply
- Mike Caro says:
  
  April 3, 2010 at 17:12
  
  Hi, Dean –
  
  I’ve added a graphic showing the American roulette wheel layout. This should answer your question.
  
  Straight Flushes,
  Mike Caro
  
  Reply
  - andy says:
    
    April 25, 2010 at 16:31
    
    Mike that would be all the nos on the wheel clokwise from 11 to 14 leaving it to be B2,G0,B28,R9,B26,R30. then you say odd red are bad choices that removes R9. You say even black are bad so B28, B26 and B2 are out. you say dont bet on R30 and dont bet on Greens. effectively you are saying dont play. This is funny
    
    Reply
    - Mike Caro says:
      
      April 25, 2010 at 16:58
      
      Glad you enjoyed it, Andy.
      
      Thanks for visiting the new Poker1.
      
      Straight Flushes,
      Mike Caro