Play roulette at Royal Panda

Author Topic: Why the House Wins.  (Read 2865 times)

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Why the House Wins.
« on: April 15, 2016, 03:32:11 AM »
Hello Friends.  I hope all is well with you.  Today I was thinking about another theory on why the house wins.  Let me know what you think.

The reason why the House wins with such regularity, is not because it has a great advantage over the player in the percentage, but because it is a machine, with practically  an unlimited bankroll, playing mechanically against many players, most of whom possess no bankroll at all, and all of whom, at a critical moment are liable to lose their tempers or their nerve.

The House certainly has a great advantage in the point of capital, it has the advantage of being a machine,  and it also has the advantage of the limit, but against all this we must remember that the player has two great advantages in his favor.  1.)  He can continue to play as long as he is a loser, and can run away the moment he is a winner. 2.) He can vary his stake according to if his luck is good or bad.

I was reading a book that stated that 99% of all systems ever invented fail for want of sufficient capital.  The remaining 1% are defeated by the maximum. The only way to hope for success is to attack the House with a large bankroll in such a way that the maximum will never be reached.

Also keep in mind that the dealers will be on the look out when you get into deep water, and then by spinning quicker than usual, they will try to prevent you from working out any calculation to arrive at the amount to be staked. They will hurry you and try to make you lose your head and your temper.   Has this happened to any of you before?  What did you do in this situation?  What is the best way to combat this technique the dealer uses against us?



 
The following users thanked this post: kav

UK-21

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Thanked: 39 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2016, 07:04:56 AM »
Some interesting thoughts. I've taken part in forum exchanges in other places where it's clear that terms such as "winning" or "losing", or "beating the wheel" mean different things to different people. Does "winning" mean walking away from the felt at any time where you have more in hand than you started with, or does it refer to the longer term expectation of applying a system? One reason why the term "winning system" is somewhat of a misnomer, as no system, consistently applied, will show a longer term profit over a hundred million trial test - over such a huge number of spins the house edge will do it's job.

With regard to your comments re 99% insufficient capital and 1% impact of table limits, I'd disagree with the first - any system, capitalised to any amount, when tested to a hundred million spins will have less at the end of it than when starting out, less by around +/-2.7% of the total wagers made. I think you're right about the impact of the table limits which are profound - without these everyone would simply martingale to their hearts content, within the limitations of their own pockets and what they could borrow - eventually everyone would be one unit up.

Take out the house edge onany casino game and what do you have? A game where profits to the operator are solely reliant on the intervention of the variance fairy. I remember some years back, an online casino operator offered a "zero edge" lounge with games adapted slightly so they had no house edge. For roulette the green slot was removed, giving a breakeven game to the operator. They lost money on it.

My tip for today is thirty four red - I'm told it's a dead cert . . .    :D

 

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2016, 03:09:18 AM »
Thank you UK-21 for your well thought out response.  You make some valid points as well, such as the defining "winning" and "losing" or "beating the wheel".  You are correct in that each individual has a different interpretation of what each word means.  In my opinion, I believe you are also correct that if there was no limit , the martingale would be the system of choice.  Very nice observation my friend.  Here is something else to consider.

Most people will tell you that the House has one chance better than the player in every thirty seven spins.  This is true if you only play on 1 number straight up.  But if you play on an even chance, the House only has half this advantage over you, or one chance better than you in every seventy four spins, the reason being when your stake is on an even chance and zero appears you don't lose your whole stake, but only half of it. The player always has the right to take off half his stake.

So, if a player puts a unit on the first eighteen numbers straight up instead of putting eighteen units on "Manque" or 1-18, he is doing a very foolish thing because when zero comes out as it should once every thirty seven spins, the player will lose the whole eighteen units, where if the player had put eighteen units on "manque", he would only lose nine of them; in other words the player who plays on the numbers is quite sure to lose, on the average,  nine more units an hour than the player who plays on "manque".

 

UK-21

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Thanked: 39 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2016, 08:26:49 AM »
. . .  or, possibly putting it another way . . .

. . . those roulette players who are fortunate to have access to a game where evens-payoff bets only lose half, and play these, will only lose half as much over the longer term as those who don't or who play the 2-1s, streets, corners etc etc.

In a similar fashion to your comment in your third para, if people have access to a "lose-half-only-on-a-zero" game I've never understood why they persue a strategy of betting on two columns (24/37) in whatever combination they progress. Assuming all things being random and equal, you can take the same degree of risk by covering an evens-payoff bet and a street together (18+6/37) - although with 75% of the wager only subject to a 1.35% edge. I make the aggregate edge on this bet to be 1.69%, just around 1% less than betting on 2 x dozens.

This is one reason why when I've been playing around with staking plans (yes, too much time on my hands around a year ago) I've focussed on the evens-payoff bets.

Today's tip is two black.   ;)

 

Sheridan44

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
  • Thanked: 224 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2016, 12:29:11 PM »
To me the HE is the casino shorting your payoff relative to the true odds. A roulette wheel would not even need zeroes on it to accomplish this. They could drop the zero or zeroes off of the wheel and lower the payout to 34:1 (on the single number bets anyway) , and the HE would still be there.  I liken it to a coin flip game, if it's heads you win, tails the casino wins....you'd pay them $1 for each tails, but they would only pay you 95 cents or so for each heads. Paradoxically, the casino only wins when you "win" - since this is when they extract their HE percentage. In a sense you're not really fighting the wheel itself, or the table layout, it's the unfair payout structure.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 12:58:19 PM by Sheridan44 »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2016, 01:38:05 PM »
I don't understand why this keeps cropping up in a GAMBLING forum. Yes the HE exists ,  we all know that , but   his doesn't mean  that the House will always win . It seems  that some people want to  air
 their Knowledge " of  the " odds " against the player.
It depends ENTIRELY on WHAT  you  bet and respect the  odds.
Simple !
What is not so simple is WHAT to bet and When .  So , let's discuss THAT aspect of "the Game " .
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

UK-21

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Thanked: 39 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2016, 02:52:12 PM »
OK . . . if this is going over old ground, let's kick off a new thread to discuss how we can achieve the best compromise between risk and return, whilst taking into account the HE/less than true-odds paytables?
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2016, 03:52:11 PM »
The real problem in any form of gambling is WHAT to bet to give us a reasonable chance of profit.
I  think that betting  with method is better than betting haphazardly.
Anyone disagree ?
( ap  IS a method  )
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2016, 09:43:24 AM »
A few thoughts on previous posts.
Romm
99% of systems ? How can he possibly know every system devised ? Impossible I think.

Dealers hurrying us ?
I experienced that and dealt with it by merely sitting on my stool with my hands at the back of my head and, when he looked at me  , I simply shook my head. He only looked at me once .He was quickly replaced- casinos prefer players to bet .
Mind you, that was the only time I  had that experience in all my years iof betting.
You are certainly right though , when you say that the player can choose when to bet and when to walk away.
Betting Bankroll ?
The only time I have a bankroll is when I am on a winning streak and decide to hold on to my winnings to increase my stakes. Otherwise I don’t have a bankroll -  I just take a certain amount of money whenever I go to the casino. I have never yet met anyone at a casino who has a Betting Bankroll
and I have asked a fair number of players.  It would be interesting to know how many members here have an actual Betting Bank. If any have would they care to tell me what the amount of  it is - and what level of their stakes ?

U.K21
I have said before that this site should have a sort of “dictionary” or “ Thesaurus “ wherein is defined the terms we use here. “ Winning” to me means “ Profiting”. This would  defeat scamming system sellers who , quite properly, claim to have a “ winning system “.
You must surely be joking when you mention a “ hundred million test “ ? How many years would that take  in a real casino - at appr. 3 to 3 ½ hours per hundred spins per hour ?
We bet in the real world, UK, not in your hypothetical one !

Incidentally, I think the variance fairy is our REAL opponent and not the House Edge.

A question to you both.
You speak of  le   partage -the taking of only half the bets on EC when zero occurs  yet don’t question WHY this is done. After all the bettor didn’t bet on zero , did he ? And why 50% and not ,say, 25 or 75% ?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 10:03:03 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

UK-21

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Thanked: 39 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2016, 10:25:45 AM »
Second time round - this forum software managed to ditch a posting that took me 30 minutes plus to write. Not impressed.

=================================================================

Moving the conversation on, I wrote a piece around what might be done to arrive at a profit each spin whilst accepting a degree of risk - whatever that is.

It is possible to bet in such a way as to guarantee a win on each spin, and at the same time negate any variance; simply bet all thirty seven numbers straight up. Problem with this is that the return will only be 35+1, and so by doing this it'll result in a negative profit (or loss) of one unit per spin. Not recommended.

If we cover 36/37 numbers, the return will be 35+1 on a winning number, so we would achieve zero profit although we'd be taking a risk of losing (1/37). So all risk and no return. Why bother, unless you're playing solely for the entertainment value. Again, not something to be recommended me thinks.

If we cover 35/37 numbers, a winning spin will result in a return of 35+1, deriving a profit of one unit. However, this means betting against an increased degree of risk (2/37 or 5.41%) to achieve it, and would mean staking 35 units to win 1 unit. Many would argue this is not a great value bet.

Possibly the optimum amount of numbers to cover each spin is eighteen, giving an evens-payoff and returning a profit equivalent to the inital stake with a slightly less than 50% probability of this occuring? As Scepticus has said, at the end of the day this is all gambling (on a session-per-session basis) although this shouldn't detract from the inevitability that if anyone plays regularly, and for long enough, they'll reach a point where any session wins they may experience will never cover their lifetime losses. The house edge will have done its job. Again, it comes down to individuals' interpretation of what constitutes "winning"? I won a few bob yesterday, but overall I've lost money to the wheel of doom.

I've attached something I rustled up in Excel this morning which anyone wishing to play around with this concept of risk/return can use to see what they need to stake (combinations and amounts) in order to achieve a profit on a winning spin, and the probability of achieving it on a per-spin basis. Please note that my uploading this file should not be taken as my endorsement or encouragement for anyone to gamble, and it comes with all of the usual guff around anyone pulling a copy uses it at their own risk.  Enjoy.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 10:33:48 AM by UK-21 »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2016, 11:45:04 AM »
I can relate to your disappearing post, UK.. I now do longer posts in Word and then copy and paste.
I won’t access your excel sheet. If you factor in a negative the answer will always be a negative.
You are one of many who come to these gambling forums and try to teach us the error of our ways. We have found that ,in small samples, “The Long Run” does not apply. Many Short Runs do a Long Run make ? Why do some claim to know what numbers occurred  in the intervals between our visits ? Presumptions / Assumptions may not
 reflect reality.
Btw
You never answered my questions. Care to give your thoughts ?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 12:35:53 PM by scepticus »
 

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2016, 04:00:33 PM »
I enjoy each one of your responses to this thread. Both UK-21 and Scepticus make very valid points that cannot go unnoticed. Scepticus, you seem like a very well seasoned and informed player. Thank you for sharing your experiences with the dealer.  I am like you in the sense that once the dealer starts to try to hurry us, I wait for a little bit to see if the dealers is replaced or until the game slows down.   I would be happy to answer the questions that I do know.

As far as a Betting Bankroll,  I do have a betting bankroll that I personally use. I set aside between $5,000 and $8,000 for my personal bankroll.   I am a brick and mortar casino player. I do not play online for money. I live a few hours from Las Vegas so I go there to play for real. My goal is to win only 10% of my total bankroll for the day and quit. It seems that most people make the mistake of not having a target goal to aim at. Greed is another factor that comes into play. Here is actually a system that I have used that I personally had much success with.    The only difference for me is that instead of trying to win back my other half of the bankroll, I personally try to win only 10% of my total bankroll. Thus spending less time at the table.  There is no one size fits all approach.  This approach works for me so I use it.  There is a saying that "If it isn't broke, don't fix it".  So I continue to stick with it and have had much success with it.  I can't speak for anyone else's experience but it seems to work for me.

 Also one unit equals $50 dollars. That is how I play it.

1.) I play a 4 step Martingale 1,2,4,8. My unit is $50 dollars.  The method of staking is what ever hits when I arrive at the table is what I play.  Then I play until I lose twice consecutively on the same EC , then switch to the other EC  The only combination that the house can beat me at is a "coup de Deux" or two of each in succession. Red Red, Black Black, Red Red.

2.) In the event of losing 4 times in a row, the total lost is 15 units.  So then I set up a improvised Labby which I write 2,3,2,3,2,3. Then I commence playing this way until the losses are recouped and go back to the original 4 step Martingale after the Labby is crossed off.  If the total units loss is 50 units, then I split the Labby into 2 or 3 different Labbys and continue until all the losses are recouped.

Like I said, this system works for me.  Many people have criticized me because statistics show this and computer programs show that, but I just play what works for me.

Scepticus... as far as the reason for taking half of the bet off when zero appears, I do not know the answer to that question. It is definitely some good food for thought.

 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

UK-21

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Thanked: 39 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2016, 04:19:18 PM »
It's in the rules . . . .

Here's an extract from a recent release of the UKGC publication: Rules of casino games in Great Britain (Archive version)

3.3 When the winning number is zero (or double zero, where available):

a) wagers placed on zero, double zero or combination of either with one, two and/or
three, shall win at odds in accordance with rule 3.2;

b) either:
- i) half of each wager on any even money chance shall be lost and the remaining half
returned to the player; or
 -ii) all wagers on any even money chance shall be lost

c) the whole of all other wagers shall be lost.


found on page 8. The UKGC no longer maintains this illustrious document but the rules of roulette haven't changed since 2011. I suspect this rule existed before the Blanc brothers opened their casino in Bad Homburg, so it isn't anything new. I've read the recollactions of someone who use to play at the Grand Casino in Monte Carlo before the Boer War, and he makes reference to it.
 

UK-21

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Thanked: 39 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2016, 04:24:30 PM »
Romn.Paras - May I ask, do you keep track of your overall results for applying your systems to date (number of cycles you execute, outcomes, total amount wagered), or just your session-by-session results?

 

Sheridan44

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
  • Thanked: 224 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2016, 04:50:34 PM »
My post wasn't meant to create a sense of hopelessness, I was merely looking the HE monster in the eye for what it is. I want to know the "enemy" before I devise my plans against him.

The idea that the player's minus expectancy in the casino must catch up with him in the long run, is based on infinity. As a practical matter, however, gambling is done over periods of minutes, hours and days. Our concern, therefore, is with mathematical probabilities within reasonable amounts of time.

I believe the casino can be beaten. I think a combination of intelligent strategy, optimal betting in relation to risk/reward, discipline, timing, bankroll management..etc.. can play a major role in diminishing or even neutralizing the house edge.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 04:53:24 PM by Sheridan44 »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth