I think one of the differences is this.
If you study sequences of 600 spins then you can make some research and come to some conclusions depending on the betting system. Much like I present the good and bad scenarios when describing systems
However in a long sequence (million spins) the good and bad sequences are lost and always the result will be something like -2,7%.
For example like horus
has posted in the betselection cc forum, Philip Koetsch in his book "Conquer the casinos" has tested various betting systems. He used one hundred 600 spin sequences
for his test and came up with very interesting conclusions. If he just tested millions of spins sequences he couldn't reach any usefull conclusion. I quote horus post:
- - - - - - - -
He looks for what he considers to be the most useful information.
- what are the absolute worst and best things that could theoretically happen?
- what were the worst and best things that actually did happen in 600 rounds?
- what were the average worst and best things that did happen?
- what typically happens if you don't get out while your ahead , but instead play the full round of 100 games?
- during a round, how often can you expect to get ahead by at least 10, 20 or 30 chips?
- in a 100 game round, how many times does your bankroll net-status typically reverse from losing to winning?
- how often does this net-status never reverse but remains losing throughout a 100 game round?
So all in all, it's a very detailed and interesting piece of analysis.
In the following tables we see the results for 3 dififferent methods of betting:
- Flat betting
- Linear betting: add 1 chip to the previous bet every time you win up to a total of 4 chips. You always revert back to 1 chip after a loss.
- Geometric betting. This is letting a winning bet ride. So let's go for x3 again. (1,2,4,8) Revert back to 1 unit on a loss.
See the VERY INTERESTING tables.
PS: I want to thank horus for this amazing post in betselection.