Author Topic: No Zero Roulette  (Read 3196 times)

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1437
  • Thanked: 196 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2016, 12:10:41 AM »
Hi guys.
Is the betvoyager   no zero table an   RNG - or Live ?
Does it allow you to miss some spins ?

It's RNG and allows only 5 to 6 spins without betting.

2.7% is lower than 10%
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2016, 05:11:07 AM »
Hi guys.
Is the betvoyager   no zero table an   RNG - or Live ?
Does it allow you to miss some spins ?

It's RNG and allows only 5 to 6 spins without betting.

2.7% is lower than 10%

2.7% is being imposed on each spin in one hand and 10% is charged after 100s of spins, only on net winnings, in no zero games. If you do not understand even the basic maths, only God can help you.
 The real edge with casino could only be +/- 0.10 %. Now spot the difference of 2.70% and 0.10%. That should help you a bit.
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1437
  • Thanked: 196 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2016, 06:42:20 AM »
Hi guys.
Is the betvoyager   no zero table an   RNG - or Live ?
Does it allow you to miss some spins ?

It's RNG and allows only 5 to 6 spins without betting.

2.7% is lower than 10%

2.7% is being imposed on each spin in one hand and 10% is charged after 100s of spins, only on net winnings, in no zero games. If you do not understand even the basic maths, only God can help you.
 The real edge with casino could only be +/- 0.10 %. Now spot the difference of 2.70% and 0.10%. That should help you a bit.

You see only what you want to see, 2.7% is only on money wagered, so unless you wager your entire bankroll (or more) it's lesser than 10% deduction from winnings.

But perhaps your net profit is so tiny (if any) which makes you consider 10% commission better than 1 extra number.

You would be correct only if you were wagering (risk) too much (BR or more per session) and your profit was little to none, this is not my case, perhaps it's yours.

Excuse me if I'm not placing myself under the same umbrella with you...
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 650
  • Thanked: 523 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2016, 07:02:23 AM »
BA, your analysis is flawed. What you're not taking into account is the compounding effect of the house edge when it's present on every spin. The 10% rule applies only to net profits, and even if you regularly make a profit you're still much better of paying the 10%, especially if playing a lot of numbers.

The formula is not 0.9 * Wins -  Losses, but 0.9 * ( Wins - Losses). That makes all the difference.

Actually, it would be interesting to discover just how big your advantage would have to be in order to justify playing a standard wheel with a 2.7% HA in preference to no HA but 10% deducted from net profits. I feel a sim coming on...
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 07:13:58 AM by Bayes »
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 650
  • Thanked: 523 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2016, 07:06:36 AM »
The very fact that you trust this BS is nuts, crazy nuts. A kick-back for new accounts perhaps? Something not adding up.

And the very fact that you think we're nuts means you're ignorant of BV's randomness control, or don't understand how it works. If BV only offered no-zero and no randomness control I wouldn't trust it either, and of course they're aware of that, which is why they have it.

This is a section for casino reviews. What a strange world it would be if the only reviews which could be trusted were negative.
 

Dane

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
  • Thanked: 122 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2016, 07:12:37 AM »
The very fact that you trust this BS is nuts, crazy nuts. A kick-back for new accounts perhaps? Something not adding up.

And the very fact that you think we're nuts means you're ignorant of BV's randomness control, or don't understand how it works. If BV only offered no-zero and no randomness control I wouldn't trust it either, and of course they're aware of that, which is why they have it.

This is a section for casino reviews. What a strange world it would be if the only reviews which could be trusted were negative.

Maybe something is not adding up
 within you or without you?

"HOLD YOUR BELIEFS LIGHTLY" (Grayson Perry).
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 07:21:05 AM by Dane »
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1437
  • Thanked: 196 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2016, 07:19:14 AM »
BA, your analysis is flawed. What you're not taking into account is the compounding effect of the house edge when it's present on every spin. The 10% rule applies only to net profits, and even if you regularly make a profit you're still much better of paying the 10%, especially if playing a lot of numbers.

The formula is not 0.9 * Wins -  Losses, but 0.9 * ( Wins - Losses). That makes all the difference.

Let's say I've wagered 300 Euros over 1 session and won 100 Euros, 2.7% of 300 = 8.1 Euros
10% of 100 = 10 Euros

So your de facto reply doesn't apply to every situation, has to do with how much you wager and win, simple as that.

I don't care if you like the particular casino or in general the RNG's, but what is true it's true.
And by the way, most (if not all) of the professional gamblers don't play RNG's, don't take my word, ask Real to tell you!

 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 650
  • Thanked: 523 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2016, 07:34:29 AM »
Let's say I've wagered 300 Euros over 1 session and won 100 Euros, 2.7% of 300 = 8.1 Euros
10% of 100 = 10 Euros

This is very misleading because you're taking an average (the house edge) and applying it to a very small sample. How often do you hear it said that no-one ever loses exactly 2.7% of their wagers in a session? But here you are doing just that. The reality is that it could be considerably more, or nothing, over 300 spins.

And that return suggests an advantage of 400/300 * 100 = 1.333. A 33% advantage! Nice going, can you keep it up?

Quote
And by the way, most (if not all) of the professional gamblers don't play RNG's, don't take my word, ask Real to tell you!

So what? It has nothing to do with the point at issue.
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1437
  • Thanked: 196 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2016, 08:00:37 AM »
Quote
This is very misleading because you're taking an average (the house edge) and applying it to a very small sample. How often do you hear it said that no-one ever loses exactly 2.7% of their wagers in a session? But here you are doing just that. The reality is that it could be considerably more, or nothing, over 300 spins.

And that return suggests an advantage of 400/300 * 100 = 1.333. A 33% advantage! Nice going, can you keep it up?

Actually what theory suggests is - 2.7% over the long term and not from a small sample, it was a simple example so don't try to dodge my point because it's perfectly clear.

I think you know that almost everyone could win for a while, 33% win rate doesn't mean a perpetual guarantee, but it happens from time to time to most of gamblers.
It could even be 100% or even  more, didn't you know that?
What is hard is to profit consistently, not from time to time.

The only case which you are correct is for those gamblers who wager too much to gain too little, like Martingalers for example, their profit is tiny in comparison with what  they have wagered, that's why casinos like BV is actively trying to lure this kind of gamblers.
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 650
  • Thanked: 523 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2016, 08:24:13 AM »
Actually what theory suggests is - 2.7% over the long term and not from a small sample, it was a simple example so don't try to dodge my point because it's perfectly clear.

BA, that was exactly the point I was trying to make, but perhaps I didn't express it very well. You have to look at the long term, but in your example you take a small sample and apply the 2.7% house edge to it (which is only valid as a long term average), and compare it favourably with BV's 10% cut which isn't an average and valid only in the long term, but applies to every session. That's what I meant when I said it was misleading.

Sure you can get an apparent "advantage" of 33% or even 100% in some sessions, but on average? No. And that's why the no-zero option is the best choice in the long run for the average player, even with the 10% cut. The simulations I've done confirm that the effective house edge is indeed about 0.1%. If you have a consistent advantage it would depend on what that advantage actually is. If it's high enough, then maybe your best bet is the standard game.

Quote
The only case which you are correct is for those gamblers who wager too much to gain too little, like Martingalers for example, their profit is tiny in comparison with what  they have wagered, that's why casinos like BV is actively trying to lure this kind of gamblers.

Don't all casinos welcome those kinds of players?, why single out BV? And actually, the reverse is true. In the standard game the house edge whittles away at your profits, that's why it's recommended to bet "boldly" in negative expectation games. Get in and get out quickly. But with no house edge you can afford to take it slow. If you have the advantage (or at least, no disadvantage), the opposite strategy is advised: bet conservatively (your only enemy is variance).

BTW, are you Greek?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 08:26:13 AM by Bayes »
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1437
  • Thanked: 196 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2016, 08:41:44 AM »


For me it's a matter of playing the natural wheel with a croupier (the way it's meant to be) and not some graphics in front of a PC screen, it's not about 2.7 or 10 percentages, you may lose either way, with or without 0.

By advocating the no 0, is like you are claiming that this would be sufficient to make you winner.
Those who have the real edge don't mind about trivial matters like this.

Quote
BTW, are you Greek?

Yes, but I consider myself cosmopolitan because I like and I 've travelled so much.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 08:43:22 AM by BlueAngel »
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 650
  • Thanked: 523 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2016, 10:08:13 AM »
For me it's a matter of playing the natural wheel with a croupier (the way it's meant to be) and not some graphics in front of a PC screen, it's not about 2.7 or 10 percentages, you may lose either way, with or without 0.

Fair enough. The experience of playing roulette in a B & M casino is authentic. But what I object to is those who say that RNG is like a slot machine. If the RNG isn't rigged then what's the difference in the outcomes? There's only a potential difference if you're an AP. I've challenged members of various forums to tell the difference between spins from a real wheel and an RNG and they can't. A wheel is just a physical RNG.

Quote
By advocating the no 0, is like you are claiming that this would be sufficient to make you winner.
Those who have the real edge don't mind about trivial matters like this.

I'm not claiming that, only that given a choice, it makes sense to play the game with the lower HA. If you had a choice between playing a 00 wheel and 0 wheel you'd obviously choose the latter. I say "obviously" but some players are ignorant of the difference. I remember one guy who said that the 00 wheel was the better choice because "you have more chances to win".  ::)

Quote
Yes, but I consider myself cosmopolitan because I like and I 've travelled so much.

Just wondered. In my experience Greeks like to argue (not a criticism, BTW).  ;)
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1437
  • Thanked: 196 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2016, 10:48:57 AM »
Quote
But what I object to is those who say that RNG is like a slot machine.

But it is like a slot machine, predetermined payouts according odds of the real wheel, just a cheap imitation if you will.

I dare to argue but not for the shake of it, only when I consider it necessary.

Do you play only EC bts?

If you ask me, I try to create my own methods by getting inspired from other members (not all of them), I have a plethora of methods in my gambling arsenal, some are good but grind (small profit), some are good but not so practical (work under certain conditions).

I like to have alternatives, not only in gambling.
How about you?
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Thanked: 650 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2016, 11:01:31 AM »
BA,

Are you a so called "Advantage Player", do you play wheel bias, visual ballistics or the dealer's signature or something?
Because if you do not, then I don't see why you object to RNG roulette.
Unless you believe they are all rigged.
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1437
  • Thanked: 196 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: No Zero Roulette
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2016, 11:26:46 AM »
BA,

Are you a so called "Advantage Player", do you play wheel bias, visual ballistics or the dealer's signature or something?


Kind of...but I don't have to explain my method(s) here.

Quote
Because if you do not, then I don't see why you object to RNG roulette.
Unless you believe they are all rigged.

That's a possibility...besides I'm enjoying the casino atmosphere more than online casinos.

Like Scep said: "Different strokes for different folks..."! 8)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 11:29:06 AM by BlueAngel »