Author Topic: Jack Kennedy roulette pay-off  (Read 2472 times)

TheGenner

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • Thanked: 9 times
Jack Kennedy roulette pay-off
« on: March 10, 2015, 02:08:27 PM »
[this post was in relation to newbielink:http://rouletteforum.roulette30.com/index.php/topic,7.0.html [nonactive]]

Not sure how many of you have read Jack Wise Kennedy's work and his Square Roulette Method.

Anyhow, he did have an interesting theory regarding the payoffs.

It's in chapter 3 of his book. I tried to upload a link but I'm not allowed. You can google it. I found it on the wayback machine.

Thanks
« Last Edit: March 10, 2015, 03:33:04 PM by kav »


 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Thanked: 650 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jack Kennedy roulette pay-off
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2015, 03:30:00 PM »
Hi Genner,

This is the part you are referring to?
You can also find my interpretation of Jacks roulette system here. I really tried hard to simplify it.

Here is the excerpt from his book:

PAYOFF EQUAL HOW MANY DIFFERENT BETS

Now let's play one unit on each of four different numbers straight up for 38 spins: Each number comes up once in 38 spins, which is the correct expectation. The mathematics: 38 units times four is 152 units played. You are paid 35 to 1 each time you hit for a total of 36 units. 36 X 4 = 144 units, which you subtract from 152 units lost, which leaves the house with an eight unit or a 5.26% win and you, the player, with a 5.26% loss. The house odds remained the same. However, when you hit on those four spins, you also were paid three units of your own money back. This has to go into the calculation of your rate of loss. Now each of four numbers in those 38 spins must hit at different times because if one hits the other three lose.

When they individually hit, your actual payoff is not 35 to 1, because you also lost the other three units you were playing on different numbers so your actual true payoff for each is 32 to 1 for a minus of three units for each of the four different numbers hit (12 extra units total). You total the eight units and the 12 extra units lost for a total of 20 units lost in 38 spins, not eight units lost. You played four units for 38 spins for a total of 152 units played and the actual payoff for that spin was 32 to 1, for a total of 33 units. 33 X 4 = 132 units won on those four spins you hit. Subtract 132 won, from 152 lost for a loss of 20 units. The math: you are losing at a rate of 13.15% for that series of 38 spins. The more different numbers you are playing the higher the percentage you lose: it start at 5.26% when you play a single number, and increases at the rate of 2.63% for each additional number you play straight up. However this is true only if all units played, have the same amount of units played on each number. But if you bet three units on one number and one unit on the other number and you hit the one with the single unit and are paid 35 to 1, the true payoff is 32 to 1. The house percentage, of course always remains the same (5.26%).

ILLUSION?
Some people write in and tell me that my math is an illusion, a mis-impression or falsification of what actually happens when you are trying to find out how much you win or lose on each spin or a series of 37 or 38 spins. My math is so well hidden, that you can only understand it by examining individual spins:

SOME EXAMPLES
Example #1: you have one unit and play that unit on a single number straight up and it hits. You are paid 35 to 1, so you win 35 more units than you started with. Your true payoff is 35 to 1 for that spin.

Example #2: you have two units and play those units on two single numbers and it hits one of them. You are paid 35 to 1, so you win 34 more units than you started with. Your true payoff is 34 to 1 for that spin.

Example #3: you have three units and play those units on three single numbers and it hits one of them. You are paid 35 to one, so you win 33 more units than you started with. Your true payoff is 33 to 1 for that spin.

Example #4: you have four units and play those units on four single numbers and it hits one of them. You are paid 35 to 1, so you win 32 more units than you started with. Your true payoff is 32 to 1 for that spin.
Example #5: you have four units and play three units on one number and one units on a single numbers and it hits the number with the single unit on it. You are paid 35 to 1, so you win 32 more units than you started with. Your true payoff is 32 to 1 for that spin.

Example #6: you are the only one playing a double zero roulette wheel; you place one unit on all 38 numbers. You hit one of the numbers and they pay you 35 to 1. Did you win anything? The answer is: No!!! You did not win anything because the house paid you your own money back; and because they did not pay the correct odds, you lost two units for a 5.26% loss on that spin.

Example #7: You place one unit straight up on one number for 37 spins and do not hit. So you played 37 units and lost 37 units. On the 38 spin you play four units on four different numbers and hit one of them, which paid 35 to 1. But, you played 37 + 4 units for a total 41 units played in 38 spins. Subtract 36 units from 41 units played, and you have a loss of five units. Two of the lost units occurred because the casino did not pay the true odd of 37 to 1. But if they had paid 37 to 1, you would have still lost three extra units on the 38 spins.

Example #8: You play four units straight up on four different numbers for one spin, and hit one and you get paid 35 to 1 for it, which is 36 units. You play eight more spins the same way and lose all eight spins for a loss of 32 units. Subtract 32 units from 36 units and you have your four units you started with. In nine spins you break even because you started with four units and after nine spins, you still have four units. You won 32 units and lost 32 units. Now the same thing happens for the next 27 spins where you get a hit and win 32 units every nine spins. So at the end of 36 spins you end up even with the casino, because you have your original four units. Now if you played spins 37 and 38 and lost four units on each you would have lost eight units or 5.26% of the amount played in 38 spins. But, if the casino had paid you the true odds of 37 to one, you would have been even with the casino because you would have won two units more for each hit for a total of eight more units, plus your four units that you started with. Then if you lost four units on spin 37 and 38, you would have broke even because you would still have your four units you started with.

Example #9: If you are playing ten different numbers at the same time for 38 spins, your losses go to 28.9%. Why is this? After each of the expected 10 hits in 38 spins, the house pays you 35 units and you get to keep the single unit on the winning bet, but you lose the other 9 units on each of the 10 expected hits for a total of 90 units lost. So your true payoff is really 26 to 1 instead of 35 to 1.Your total loss in 38 spins is 20 units at 5.26% and 90 extra units for a total of 110 units, which is 28.9% for that series of 38 spins. (A complete series is (x) unit on (x) numbers for 37 or 38 spins.)

However, If you had played those ten units on one single number for 38 spins, then when you hit, you get paid 35 units for each unit (350 units) and get to keep the ten units for a total of 360 units won, so in this series of play, you are only playing at a 5.26% disadvantage, but you are also only losing at a 5.26% average because you did not lose any extra units. You played 10 units for 38 spins, which is 380 units played, and ended up winning the expected one hit for 360 units, which is 20 units lost or 5.26%.
 

TheGenner

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: Jack Kennedy roulette pay-off
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2015, 04:01:39 PM »
Hello Kav,

 Thanks! That's the one. I remembered it after reading Marigny's thread and thought some of you may have found Jack's theory regarding payoffs interesting.

Thanks for taking the time to upload it. I am looking forward to reading your interpretation of his method now.
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1218
  • Thanked: 286 times
Re: Jack Kennedy roulette pay-off
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2015, 10:18:36 AM »
It is much better to play one unit on a dozen than 2 units on two dozens. See the topic "who is the smartest".
 

mogul397

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 32 times
Re: Jack Kennedy roulette pay-off
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2015, 09:51:44 PM »
Do can I ask an obvious question and ask if that method of
selection works as advertised?  I haven't heard any bad stuff.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Thanked: 650 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jack Kennedy roulette pay-off
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2015, 09:55:55 PM »
Hi,

I have not experience with this method. Furthermore because the method is open to interpretation, I believe everyone plays it a bit differently.
 

mogul397

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 32 times
Re: Jack Kennedy roulette pay-off
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2015, 10:24:08 PM »
If it wasn't for the summary that was posted, I wouldn't get it heads or
tails.  But it looked interesting. 

There were specific ambiguities about playing 4 or 8 numbers.

I ran a "wallpaper" test (Throw it and see if it sticks) and it seemed
to make some sense.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3159
  • Thanked: 896 times
Re: Jack Kennedy roulette pay-off
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2015, 03:43:00 PM »
Quote
I ran a "wallpaper" test (Throw it and see if it sticks)...

LOL.