Author Topic: Winning. The real problem to be solved  (Read 6332 times)

mogul397

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 31 times
Winning. The real problem to be solved
« on: February 19, 2016, 06:23:05 PM »
After playing around with methods for decades, it occurs to me that there
are many good strategies available to play roulette and other games. I also
find it true that the house advantage is negligible as far as the real outcome.

The problem is that, with many great betting methods and schemes, that eventually
the variant of the table will go against you more than a bank will allow.

THIS is the problem to be solved. Not the selection method.



 

mogul397

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2016, 06:24:46 PM »
After playing around with methods for decades, it occurs to me that there
are many good strategies available to play roulette and other games. I also
find it true that the house advantage is negligible as far as the real outcome.

The problem is that, with many great betting methods and schemes, that eventually
the variant of the table will go against you more than a bank will allow.

THIS is the problem to be solved. Not the selection method.

It's GOING to happen. And all the fears about the house edge have nothing to do with it.
It would happen with a DEAD EVEN game.  More to do with the laws of chaos then
anything else.
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1197
  • Thanked: 119 times
  • Gender: Female
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2016, 07:16:10 PM »
The problem is that your bet selection doesn't provide you with an edge.  Consequently the casino's edge will continue consuming your bankroll, regardless of your progressions and money management.

Ten years from now, if you look back, you'll find that there will be a new group of young people foolishly trying to design "up as you lose progressions" for the same recycled strategies.  Break the cycle, get educated, free your mind,  and escape the fallacies.

-Real
« Last Edit: February 19, 2016, 07:23:08 PM by Real »
 

mogul397

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2016, 07:45:11 PM »
The problem is that your bet selection doesn't provide you with an edge.  Consequently the casino's edge will continue consuming your bankroll, regardless of your progressions and money management.

Ten years from now, if you look back, you'll find that there will be a new group of young people foolishly trying to design "up as you lose progressions" for the same recycled strategies.  Break the cycle, get educated, free your mind,  and escape the fallacies.

-Real

Thanks for being real.........

I think I've done that a couple times with decades already. I have also closed the
door to roulette and gambling a few times.  For decades at times.  But something always
reels me back in. I don't need the money like I used to. And rather than a casino being
an 8 hour ride, then 2.5 hours, then .5 hours, now there is one 3 exits down.

So I've got the money and the access. And the time. But I STILL don't want to give money
away. I'd enjoy making a small profit, for the sake of not losing.

So many methods look attractive.  For a LONG time. Then the variant.  You are not "wrong".
You're just in the game.  As weird as it sounds, I really do think that some of the best
methods are the up as you lose progression. Possibly martingale. Cause you're locking in
wins for the time.

Lately I'm sold on the flat bet. But even with a parole, it has it's way of bitch slapping you.
Not cause you're wrong.  Cause you're in the game...
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
  • Thanked: 577 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2016, 09:23:32 PM »
If basically what you are saying is that the bankroll is the main limitation, then yes, I agree.
One could theoretically start very carefully, with very low denominations, grinding etc and I know for a fact that Belgian has done this to the point of nervous breakdown.
But for "normal roulette players" yes, the inadequate bankroll is probably a more important problem than the bad strategy.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
  • Thanked: 577 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2016, 09:33:14 PM »
I plan to open again the Belgian thread, but till then and because your topic reminded it to me, let me tell you what happened with Belgian.

After much thought at some point, he started his system with like $100 and very low denominations ($0.05 if I remember correctly). His point was to increase the base bet as his capital increased. He had tremendous determination. He played over 10 hours a day, every day for weeks.

The system produced profits, but as he gradually increased the base bet to like $10 then the sequence from hell came and he lost all his bankroll. This happened again and again. After much effort he multiplied his starting capital, only to be wiped out, at some point by an extreme sequence.

He was very near to the point of total nervous collapse. His wife was worried, but she supported him morally. In the end he succeeded. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but I think he managed to turn $100 to something like $2000, which is 20 times your initial total bankroll. Then he stopped and said he would never try this again. The mental, physical and nervous toll he had to pay was too much.
 

mogul397

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2016, 10:32:21 PM »
I plan to open again the Belgian thread, but till then and because your topic reminded it to me, let me tell you what happened with Belgian.

After much thought at some point, he started his system with like $100 and very low denominations ($0.05 if I remember correctly). His point was to increase the base bet as his capital increased. He had tremendous determination. He played over 10 hours a day, every day for weeks.

The system produced profits, but as he gradually increased the base bet to like $10 then the sequence from hell came and he lost all his bankroll. This happened again and again. After much effort he multiplied his starting capital, only to be wiped out, at some point by an extreme sequence.

He was very near to the point of total nervous collapse. His wife was worried, but she supported him morally. In the end he succeeded. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but I think he managed to turn $100 to something like $2000, which is 20 times your initial total bankroll. Then he stopped and said he would never try this again. The mental, physical and nervous toll he had to pay was too much.

I look forward to it.  Knowing, as you say, to expect the sequence from hell,  my way
of thinking is that of problem solving. So the problem usually is the long losing streak.
How to prevent it.  There may be others.  One idea about that problem is to stop after a certain
number of losses. Another might be to change your betting paradigm.  Because one side or
the other is winning. Another piece, I think, might be to sit out for a while to remove yourself
from the sequence.

I never played a martingale. But I watched one. Decades ago a couple attractive girls
at Foxwoods.  You can gain as much from the experience of others.  And somewhere inside,
with their money, you're all "the next one HAS to be black" and more and more reds come out.

The answer?  Get off that wagon.  The core logic behind a martingale being stupid is that
streaks can be long.  And the roulette gods have a special time and place for them to happen.
When YOU are betting.  While watching the girls bust (That's bust in play, not bust on their body),
I somehow thought "just play the red". And bail yourself out.  That is part of the answer.
Jump off the barrel before it goes over the falls.....
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
  • Thanked: 577 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2016, 10:48:26 PM »
Yes. But it goes beyond the same color.
Even if you bet follow the last (color) the sequence from hell can come.
Also there is no mathematical support to the idea that if you stop betting now and continue some other day the losing sequence will stop.

I'm not saying this to discourage you or anyone. Just to show there are no simple solutions.

But I thought your topic was about the bankroll, or not?
 

mogul397

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2016, 03:17:20 AM »
Yes. But it goes beyond the same color.
Even if you bet follow the last (color) the sequence from hell can come.
Also there is no mathematical support to the idea that if you stop betting now and continue some other day the losing sequence will stop.

I'm not saying this to discourage you or anyone. Just to show there are no simple solutions.

But I thought your topic was about the bankroll, or not?

You said 3 things.  Yes, the first one is kind of spooky. You're in the middle of
an infamous run against you.  I just KNEW those girls were going to get it. I legitimately
felt sorry for them, with the caveate that they probably were directed to play a martingale
under that way. Same color. Yeah, it becomes intuitive.

Next you are correct that the interruption of a series supposedly doesn't help. Without
actual proof in play, that feels like one of those notions I want to believe.  There is a sense
from my early days where we'd say "WHH"  "What's happening is happening".  You don't have
to be a genious to know and see this fact.  Streaks. Chops.  Of subject, my experience with
"MR C craps program". You practice rolling dice. That's not the method, but the practical part.
As you see numbers in that crystal ball we'll call your brain, your brain sees patterns. And more
than once, for the fun of it, I rolled dice on my rug and called the next roll. I also did a similar
thing for real at a roulette table. Because my brain and focus was on it.  There is something to be
said about finding the rhythm of the table or dice, or whatever.  So when I see a zero, I like to
separate myself from it. I usually don't.  But you kind of know more are on the way. As opposed to
the marquis that is clean of zeros.

Lastly, yes, I suppose it's about bank.  But it's more about applying that bank correctly to
survive what you know will be that sequence from hell (barring faith in what I just said).

So I just said a lot of nothing, but I agree with you.  Too bad the 2nd point about rhythm
can't be put in a box. But the expression "two don't or three don't tables" has some value.
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
  • Thanked: 250 times
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2016, 12:00:21 PM »
I plan to open again the Belgian thread, but till then and because your topic reminded it to me, let me tell you what happened with Belgian.

After much thought at some point, he started his system with like $100 and very low denominations ($0.05 if I remember correctly). His point was to increase the base bet as his capital increased. He had tremendous determination. He played over 10 hours a day, every day for weeks.

The system produced profits, but as he gradually increased the base bet to like $10 then the sequence from hell came and he lost all his bankroll. This happened again and again. After much effort he multiplied his starting capital, only to be wiped out, at some point by an extreme sequence.

He was very near to the point of total nervous collapse. His wife was worried, but she supported him morally. In the end he succeeded. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but I think he managed to turn $100 to something like $2000, which is 20 times your initial total bankroll. Then he stopped and said he would never try this again. The mental, physical and nervous toll he had to pay was too much.
That is y, betting the most frequent winning range, is so important. A player should never allow an extreme sequence to ruin his entire bankroll. It's not a matter of "if" but when it will happen.
Betting the most frequent winning range (something that  takes some serious testing to determine), guarantees that you will only be betting during the "advantage range". If you don't hit in that range , you quit and try again under a new trigger.
Which brings up the next issue.
The fact that consecutive short range failures are much more rare to happen, than a single failure comprised of an equal number of total bets that would've been placed in several short range bets, each under a new trigger.
That is a fact.
So when you test  to determine the success statistics of a particular system, players should also test to determine the most  frequent betting range, within which, success occurs. 
A 99% success rate, impressive as it may seem, means nothing if when the 1% failure rate happens, it takes down the entire B/R.
Here is an example to make the point understood.
Instead of betting indefinitely (or as far as your B/R can take you), on an 8 spins missing dozen,
it's much better to bet just 3 spins, and stop if no hit.
Next time around it is unlikely, that under the same conditions, the missing dozens will escape a hit in those 3 bets. And certainly not the third time around.
Where a non stop betting spree will succumb, when that missing dozen decides to go all the way up to its missing limits. Or the B/R will run out long before a hit comes along. 

« Last Edit: February 20, 2016, 12:16:33 PM by palestis »
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2016, 04:26:08 PM »
Next time around it is unlikely, that under the same conditions, the missing dozens will escape a hit in those 3 bets. And certainly not the third time around.

Why is it unlikely? Again this is just making predictions on the basis of past spins.
 

mogul397

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2016, 06:55:27 PM »
I plan to open again the Belgian thread, but till then and because your topic reminded it to me, let me tell you what happened with Belgian.

After much thought at some point, he started his system with like $100 and very low denominations ($0.05 if I remember correctly). His point was to increase the base bet as his capital increased. He had tremendous determination. He played over 10 hours a day, every day for weeks.

The system produced profits, but as he gradually increased the base bet to like $10 then the sequence from hell came and he lost all his bankroll. This happened again and again. After much effort he multiplied his starting capital, only to be wiped out, at some point by an extreme sequence.

He was very near to the point of total nervous collapse. His wife was worried, but she supported him morally. In the end he succeeded. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but I think he managed to turn $100 to something like $2000, which is 20 times your initial total bankroll. Then he stopped and said he would never try this again. The mental, physical and nervous toll he had to pay was too much.
That is y, betting the most frequent winning range, is so important. A player should never allow an extreme sequence to ruin his entire bankroll. It's not a matter of "if" but when it will happen.
Betting the most frequent winning range (something that  takes some serious testing to determine), guarantees that you will only be betting during the "advantage range". If you don't hit in that range , you quit and try again under a new trigger.
Which brings up the next issue.
The fact that consecutive short range failures are much more rare to happen, than a single failure comprised of an equal number of total bets that would've been placed in several short range bets, each under a new trigger.
That is a fact.
So when you test  to determine the success statistics of a particular system, players should also test to determine the most  frequent betting range, within which, success occurs. 
A 99% success rate, impressive as it may seem, means nothing if when the 1% failure rate happens, it takes down the entire B/R.
Here is an example to make the point understood.
Instead of betting indefinitely (or as far as your B/R can take you), on an 8 spins missing dozen,
it's much better to bet just 3 spins, and stop if no hit.
Next time around it is unlikely, that under the same conditions, the missing dozens will escape a hit in those 3 bets. And certainly not the third time around.
Where a non stop betting spree will succumb, when that missing dozen decides to go all the way up to its missing limits. Or the B/R will run out long before a hit comes along.

I hear what you're saying.  Do you have a suggestion of how to determine that range?

My thinking is that the reaction of a player is keyed to if they are winning or not.
You win certain small amounts. But when you are losing, you are hoping to recoup and you
"hold on, hold on, hold on". That is a sure bet for the house.  So ALL your losses are catastrophes
from panic and fear, and the wins are whatever you figure is all you can get. Cut off.

One time I parlayed a good one at the craps table. The crowd was out of control like you imagine
with the pictures of those mugs on books. Yelling and cheering. I can still feel it.  And the look
of apprehension/fear of the box man who consistently pushed my winning back, and I pushed
them back on the line.

So my thinking is to put yourself in the shoes of the house.  You are playing as the house.
You react when losing (and are actually winning) like you would in fear (of yourself).

My favorite scenario for this is a fib series.  When you win (and you are the house and lose),
you go up the fib ladder.  According to standard rules.  You won, so you bet the 1 unit bet.
Then the 2,3,5,8, etc.  That is the parlay for you.

Being the house, if you win (lose) one, you go back 1 bet.  2 wins resolving the series.
If you get it (as the house) you resolve your sequence and 1 unit is all that was at stake.
Of course there may be the series of losses, that get you up the ladder. Up the ladder more
that you'd be comfortable betting if you were losing (but you're winning).

And you are chasing the fib series as the house, as if you are losing.  And then you make the
choice to stop. You stop out of fear (as the house and as you might if actually playing).

But you made a profit. From the inevitable sequence from hell (that are not all that uncommon
with the fib). And you rake in your profit. The only wild card is when you stop. But there's a lot
less at stake and a lot less angst when you are winning. Playing psychologically as the house.
And giving up your losing fib progression. (For you to keep the winnings)
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
  • Thanked: 577 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2016, 07:23:24 PM »
Next time around it is unlikely, that under the same conditions, the missing dozens will escape a hit in those 3 bets. And certainly not the third time around.

Why is it unlikely? Again this is just making predictions on the basis of past spins.

Mike,

Palaistis does have a point here.
It is more unlikely to have a dozen miss more than 11 consecutive spins, three times in a row than just once.
IMO the possible counterpoint to his argument is that he "misses" the cases where the dozen appears in the 12th spin.
But he definitely has a point.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
  • Thanked: 577 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2016, 07:37:37 PM »
mogul,

So you are proposing a positive Fibonacci progression.
Very good idea.

Fibonacci
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144

Together with a friend we have made research about all the possible positive progressions with comparison tables etc. We finally created the N progression. Here it is:

N progression
2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 17, 23, 30, 38

The good thing about the N is that it does not matter that much when you stop. It still matters, but because it gets less aggressive than Fibo, a possible late loss is less catastrophic.

 

mogul397

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 123
  • Thanked: 31 times
Re: Winning. The real problem to be solved
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2016, 11:42:44 PM »
mogul,

So you are proposing a positive Fibonacci progression.
Very good idea.

Fibonacci
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144

Together with a friend we have made research about all the possible positive progressions with comparison tables etc. We finally created the N progression. Here it is:

N progression
2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 17, 23, 30, 38

The good thing about the N is that it does not matter that much when you stop. It still matters, but because it gets less aggressive than Fibo, a possible late loss is less catastrophic.

Correct.  And let me point out the obvious.  The thing about the fib series play is that
you are looking for a double win to resolve the series.  Of course that can and will happen.
If you are playing "up as you lose", I guess, not often enough. And off topic, I would
mention how tough it is at times with parlay players just to get simple double wins.

But my real point here is the fact that one long run of wins (losses) is not necessary to
climb the fib ladder. If you don't get your two in a row, then the series doesn't resolve.
So you keep playing (with the casino money) as the results drift (against) (for) you.
When you pull back on position in your bet and win (loss) you go a step higher once again.

In other words, it is not a fragile endeavor.  The same choppy results that keep you from
getting 2 wins, give you "Two steps forward, one step back"