Author Topic: Why the House Wins.  (Read 3098 times)

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2016, 05:05:41 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.


I recognize this system from the book you shared (The Wrangler's System is it?).  I have tried it myself even. :D
 

Sheridan44

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 232 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2016, 05:41:16 PM »
Excellent!

Romn points out another key element that should be in the gambler's arsenal....flexibility. Plan A to plan B if need be (hey.... it rhymes... LOL).
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 11:18:17 PM by Sheridan44 »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 379 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2016, 06:36:31 PM »

Hi sheridan
Don't you mean Plan A to Plan B if need B ?
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 379 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2016, 06:44:33 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.

Perhaps I should have phrased   my question differently UK
Why do EC bettors get half their stake back when they didn't bet zero ?
Questions I have but answers there come none.
Is choosing 1 from each of the 3 EC truly a 7/1 chance - ignoring the zero ?
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2016, 06:53:15 PM »
My uninformed opinion is (used to be?) that the casino actually wants us to bet the EC's because it gives them the greatest edge and that even if they give half back, the edge is still greater than if we bet inside bets like double streets, streets, splits & S/U numbers. :shrug:
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 379 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2016, 07:00:51 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.

I largely agree Sher - excepting the neutralising bit.
I CERTAINLY agree with you that the " nearer you get to infinity" the House Edge is likely to kill our "bankroll " because that is what I read when first encountering Probability Theory . Our critics seemingly  don't agree.
All too many don't think about the maths of their bets  -  that ANY of their bets should yield a profit if won .
I think they take literally the view of our critics  that it is all down to Luck so think " Why should I bother to develop a method when it is all down to Luck anyway. ? "
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 379 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2016, 07:10:01 PM »
Romn
you are indeed fortunate that you can afford to gamble with $8000 !
I couldn't do that unless I raided my savings . I only bet with my " disposable income " which isn't  megabucks.  When testing ideas I sometimes use 25p( 25c to you ).Like some others in the forum
I am more interested in ideas than money . My main is not to lose rather than win - which may strange to some.
Glad to hear that you win .The more the merrier  -  on both senses of that word.
 

Sheridan44

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 232 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2016, 07:46:44 PM »
Hi Scep....

Yeah......"neutralizing" the edge might have been a hopeful term. But one should be able to "trim it"- at least in the abstract, with smart play. I enjoy your posts, they are always well thought out... keep 'em coming.

Regards....Sher

PS...  How about  "Plan A to B and even C if need be"  lol
 

UK-21

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Thanked: 39 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2016, 08:44:23 PM »

Perhaps I should have phrased   my question differently UK
Why do EC bettors get half their stake back when they didn't bet zero ?
Questions I have but answers there come none.
Is choosing 1 from each of the 3 EC truly a 7/1 chance - ignoring the zero ?

1. My advice would be to engage a medium and see if you can make contact with one of the Blanc brothers and ask if they're aware of when the rule was first introduced and by whom.

2. Don't know where you get 7-1 from?   Let's take 1-18, red, odd as an example bet combination:

First covers 18 numbers (1-18)
Second covers an additional 9 numbers (19,21,23,25,27,30,32,34,36)
Third covers an additional 4 numbers (29,31,33,35)

Total numbers covered = 31

So (I think I've got this right, but I'm sure someone will correct me if not):

If you're lucky and either of 1,3,5,7,9 red pop up you've won on all three bets (prob=5/37)

If any numbers that are 19-36/red/odd (x5), black/1-18/odd (x4) or even/1-18/red (x4) show, you win two and lose one (13/37)

If any numbers that are 19-36/black/odd (x4), 19-36/red/even (x4) or 1-18/black/even (x5) number shows you win one and lose two.(13/37)

If an even black number greater than 18 shows you lose all three. (5/37)

If a zero pops up, you lose either all or half your wagers (prob 1/37)

At best you may win all three bets made which represents a 1:1 payoff on all wagers. There's a 18/37 chance of coming out in front (winning two or three out of three) and a 19/37 of losing money on each spin (winning only one, or none out of three or the zero being spun).

To begin with I struggled to understand what "EC" referred to, but I've now worked it out as "evens-chance" bets (although of course they're 18/37 if you want to be pedantic about it).  ;D
 

Sheridan44

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
  • Thanked: 232 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2016, 08:57:12 PM »
I don't really obsess about the zero or zeroes too much. Many place insurance (or hedge) bets on them..which just creates more overhead. Indeed they are a factor.... but I tend to consider all of the numbers I don't cover in a bet (usually 20 or more) as a zero, since they have the same effect on my pocketbook (as a zero)...so what's one or two more? I'm trending towards least outlay - most coverage, and the myriad of ways to accomplish this without bruising the payout too much.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 09:00:56 PM by Sheridan44 »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 379 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2016, 09:14:41 PM »

Perhaps I should have phrased   my question differently UK
Why do EC bettors get half their stake back when they didn't bet zero ?
Questions I have but answers there come none.
Is choosing 1 from each of the 3 EC truly a 7/1 chance - ignoring the zero ?

1. My advice would be to engage a medium and see if you can make contact with one of the Blanc brothers and ask if they're aware of when the rule was first introduced and by whom.

2. Don't know where you get 7-1 from?   Let's take 1-18, red, odd as an example bet combination:

First covers 18 numbers (1-18)
Second covers an additional 9 numbers (19,21,23,25,27,30,32,34,36)
Third covers an additional 4 numbers (29,31,33,35)

Total numbers covered = 31

So (I think I've got this right, but I'm sure someone will correct me if not):

If you're lucky and either of 1,3,5,7,9 red pop up you've won on all three bets (prob=5/37)

If any numbers that are 19-36/red/odd (x5), black/1-18/odd (x4) or even/1-18/red (x4) show, you win two and lose one (13/37)

If any numbers that are 19-36/black/odd (x4), 19-36/red/even (x4) or 1-18/black/even (x5) number shows you win one and lose two.(13/37)

If an even black number greater than 18 shows you lose all three. (5/37)

If a zero pops up, you lose either all or half your wagers (prob 1/37)

At best you may win all three bets made which represents a 1:1 payoff on all wagers. There's a 18/37 chance of coming out in front (winning two or three out of three) and a 19/37 of losing money on each spin (winning only one, or none out of three or the zero being spun).

To begin with I struggled to understand what "EC" referred to, but I've now worked it out as "evens-chance" bets (although of course they're 18/37 if you want to be pedantic about it).  ;D

I got the 7/1 from 2x2x2 = 8 for a 7/1 chance of all 3 winning on the same spin. 

Try REH ( red-even high )which has only 4 numbers

No need for a medium, UK.  The refund was a condition imposed on casinos by the Uk Gambling Authorities. My question was  Why ? When they did not bet zero.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2016, 09:35:25 PM »
Your question is only about the UK?  The rule exists outside the UK doesn't it?

Unless the gambling commission is a regulatory arm of the casinos, it appears that my theory about the EC edge is certainly wrong as to why the rule exists...

Still doesn't the rule have its origin in France?
 

Trilobite

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
  • Thanked: 98 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2016, 09:44:17 PM »
...diminishing or even neutralizing the house edge.
That's a good place to start, but this feat is regarded as impossible for system players.

I would be very surprised if in the long run, anyone could reverse the house edge then add just one or two percent of profit.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1685
  • Thanked: 714 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2016, 10:50:52 PM »
If we accept that the stock market is inherently unpredictable, then we can compare the stock market to roulette.
Then we can consider the house edge as a broker's fee.
Now would you tell that it is impossible to make a profit in the stock market, because there is the broker's fee?

Another example. You rent a shop and start a business. Now would you tell that it is impossible to make a profit in with your shop, because you pay a  rent? Indeed it would be much better if you paid no rent. However if you make or lose money with your shop is more dependent on your entrepreneurship and business strategy than the shop rent.

In my opinion the house edge is relevant if you have no strategy or if you consistently flat bet the same bet.  If you do have a strategy, then it is the strategy and the variance that will dictate your win or loss, not the house edge.

On million spins automated tests.
I understand that after millions of spins, most systems produce around -2,7% loss, which is equal to the house edge. This is not proof of the power of the house edge. This is just a result that after millions of spins, when anything possible or impossible happens the meaning of any strategy disappears.

To give again an example, is like doing war simulations putting a specific army fighting all kinds of wars from ancient times to the future. The army cannot win any war there was, is and could be. Yet it can be a successful army. If you did a simulation with Alexander the Great's army fighting all wars in human history, then you would assume this army cannot conquer the world, yet it did.
I think this little post by Rambler explains this point great.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 11:03:52 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Romn.Paras

  • Moderator
  • New
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2016, 12:56:56 AM »
Yes Reyth.  You are correct.  I always fancied the Wrangler System.  For some reason it works for me, so I stick with it.

The reason that I use such a bankroll is that Kav points out how people play the stock market.  Most people have their retirements and 401k's which are determined by the stock market.  The difference is that in the stock market, most of the companies that handle your money tend to slap you with all different kinds of fees and charges to handle your own money. Some fees are as high as 20 percent here in this country.  That is a lot of money. 

I think we can all agree that if we make 10% return on an investment, that would be a good thing.  So my approach is to use my bankroll as an investment.  I want to attack the bank with a large capital.  I am looking to make 10% off of my investment each session. The other reason why I use a bankroll like that is because in this country they want us to play American Roulette instead of European Roulette.  The European Roulette tables are scarce in this country, but when you do find them, most of the time they are in the high limit rooms because the odds are better.  Some of the tables have $100 minimum bets. So I have to compensate for that by having a higher bankroll. 

I recently sold my business and made a profit off of it.  I use a portion of it to fund my bankroll and invest in myself.  I trust myself more than a stockbroker or a banker when it comes to my investments.  I wouldn't bring that kind of bankroll to a casino if I didn't have faith in what I was doing.

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth