Can you see the difference?

[kav]

Hello,

Well this may seem a simple question, but it is more deeper than it may appear. I'm sure the know-it-all guys who talk about house advantage, millions spins testing  would not understand. But the others. These who still learn and still fight with their brain, their instinct and their knowledge to find a solution to the "problem of roulette", these, may find the question thought provoking.

Here's the question:

You have two chips.

According to the "theory", it doesn't no matter how you bet these chips. You could well throw em on the table and let lady luck decide the bets (outside or inside etc.)

Still, I want to ask the gentlemen who believe there MIGHT (just might) be some kind of difference, between the following 3 betting strategies which one would you select and why:

1. Put both chips on an even money bet for a spin
2. Flat bet on an even money bet for two spins
3. Bet on two dozens for a spin

It may seem like a simple question, but please ponder a little bit on the differences between these 3 "betting strategies". Some key concepts to take into account:
-winning/losing possibility
-win size
-loss size
-distribution (table distribution, time distribution)

The next step would be to decide how would we play 15 chips.

1. Bet 5 double streets with 3 chips on each for a spin
2. Bet 5 double streets with 1 chip on each for 3 spins
3. Bet 3 double streets with 1 chip on each for 5 spins
4. Bet 1 double street with 1 chip for 15 spins
5. Bet 1 double street with 15 chips for a spin

I hope this second example makes it more clear what I mean by "table and time distribution"

Kind regards

[LS]

Hi Kav,

You have just labelled me a 'know-it-all' because I am one of those people who tests according to millions of spins, and 'talks about' house advantage.

The house advantage is rock solid and no system will ever change it. However, progression can help you overcome several standard deviations of losing streaks.

That is why people like Kaj, Ed, gameguy, myself, and many others work on overcoming the house edge over a million spins.

Here I will compare the difference in chance between these three categories you mentioned:

Using two chips;
1. Put both chips on an even money bet for a spin
2. Flat bet on an even money bet for two spins
3. Bet on two dozens for a spin

Taking into account key factors:
-winning/losing posibility
-win size
-loss size
-distribution (table distributon, time distribution)

1. Put both chips on an even money bet for a spin
Winning/losing probability:
(a)Numbers covered by 2 chips = 9/37
(b)Numbers covered by 1 chip = 18/37
(c)Numbers not covered: 10/37

Probability to fall within category (a): p = 0.243243243
Probability to fall within category (b): p = 0.486486486
Probability to fall within category (c): p = 0.27027027

Win/loss size:
(a): 2 units.
(b): 0 units.
(c): -2 units.

Difference between winning & losing in 1 spin:
0.243243243 - 0.27027027 = -0.027027027
or -2.7% (House advantage)

2. Flat bet on an even money bet for two spins

Chance of winning 2 units: (18/37)^2 = 0.236669102
Chance of losing 2 units: (19/37)^2 = 0.263696129
Chance of breaking even (1 win, 1 loss):
1 - (0.236669102 + 0.263696129) = 0.499634769

Difference between winning & losing in 2 spins:
0.236669102 - 0.263696129 = -0.027027027

or -2.7% (House advantage)

3. Bet on two dozens for a spin
Each of the two units are placed with the following individual probability:
p = 12/37
p = 0.32432432

Therefore, to lose on each individual unit,
p = 1 - 0.32432432
p = 0.67567568

By placing one unit each on 2 unique dozens, you are covering 24 of 37 numbers on the board.

To win,
p = 24/37
p = 0.648648648

To calculate the house advantage, considering you are playing both dozens simultaneously, you calculate the difference between the two probabilities above.

0.648648648 - 0.67567568 = -0.027027027
or -2.7% (House advantage).

Kav, there is no 'better category' as you stated. If you play 2 dozens simultaneously, you are risking 2 units to gain 1, with a 2.7% house advantage because of the zero. So that's taking everything you s
aid into account (potential profit/loss per spin).

WHATEVER decision you make per spin on the roulette board, you have a 2.7% House Advantage against you, as I have proved above.

Regards,
LS

[kav]

Hi LS,

I did not intent to offend anyone. I just wanted to avoid non constructive replies.

And I hope I do not offend you by telling you that your reply is off topic. You didn't have to prove there is house advantage. I already knew it. We all know it I hope.

I never said there is a way to overcome the house advantage.
And I never said there is a better "category" of the three types of betting. Never.

Please get out of the house advantage trip, open your mind and you may see what I'm after. Ok the house is there to stay, no arguing about it. In fact the house advantage is not the point.

The point of my post goes much deeper than the house advantage.
It shows three very different ways of betting. And I asked you, expert or no expert gamblers which of these three ways will you use if you have to. No answers. Well if you do not noticed the winning losing probability, the win/loss size and the time and table distribution is different in each one of those 3 choices!!! If you want to calculate something, calculate these parameters!!!

My point with this question (and the next) was to show the big difference in expected CHANCE TO WIN, AMOUNT TO WIN, CAPITAL RISKED etc. when playing with such a simple capital as just 2 chips. Now imagine the possibilities available for different strategies and approaches with more capital and more possible bets!

See the differences. See the options. These options are your tools, are the basis on which one could form a roulette strategy. A strategy that may not beat roulette over millions of spins and may not "overcome" the house advantage but may produce a good chance for profitability.

I don't care much which is the theoretical house advantage because I have never meet a gambler who has lost in his gambling life an amount equal to this advantage. And have stopped to care so much about the result of testing millions of spins because I don't plan to play a million of pins in my life.

And if you want THE TRUTH WHY SERIOUS GAMBLERS LOSE AT ROULETTE, IT IS
NOT BECAUSE OF THE HOUSE EDGE IT IS BECAUSE OF THE "NON STANDARD
DEVIATION" (if I can use this phrase) one experiences while playing roulette.

In short: tell me that today there will come 150 REDS, 170 BLACKS and 12 GREENS. THE ODDS WILL BE AGAINST ME (MORE THAN JUST THE HOUSE EDGE) but I can bet on RED with the proper bet selection (entry-exit points) and money management and finish the session with profit! So no, it's not that the odds are against us by the house edge that makes us lose, is the... luck, is the difference from standard deviation that makes us lose. To put it simply, is it the fact that there is possible in a session to have not 170 but 190 or more blacks and the fact that you don't know when it will happen, that prevents us from devising a successful system/strategy.

And to finish this issue once and for all for all the house-edge-obssesed gentlemen: show me a system that would win if there was no house edge. I dare anyone to show me a system that could beat roulette if there was an edge in favor of the player!!!! Say you don't loose your money when 0 comes, and you gain a chip bonus for every 100 spins played. Now show me a system that will win with this favorable conditions!!! Hey! Not a system that will win after 5 millions spins, but a system that I could play say for 10 days, 100 spins per day and be sure that in total I will come ahead after the last day. This means a system that will generate profit in real life. If you give me such a system I most certainly could turn it to successful system taking into account the house edge. It's not the house edge that's the problem. How else can I explain it to you?

Oh, and by the way, even if you could find a system that is profitable in the long run (3 mil spins) this does not guarantie its success in the short run (hundreds of spins) and if it is not successful in the short run, then it is useless. You are just looking in the wrong direction.

With all respect,
Kav

[Rambler]

Kav is absolutely right. If you had a method that would win over a million spins, it might be a consistent loser at a hundred spins. Years ago when the Apple was the computer of the day I was determined to beat Horse Racing. I fed in information to a multiple regression program until the computer memory was full. I bought a newer computer with twice the memory and continued. When I tried to get it to make a selection it picked the most likely horse in every race. Every one was either the first or second favorite. I had given the computer so much information it had smoothed out all the bumps where the longshots won.

[LS]

Hi again kav,

Thanks for your reply! Good post.
Sorry for pointing out the absolutely identical chances between the three.

If someone held a gun to my head and told me to win (or they pulled the trigger), I would choose option 3.

The only problem with that is you can only win 1 unit while risking 2. Afterall, playing that bet simultaneously means one unit MUST lose.

You are reminding me of the way Ion Saliu thinks. Have you seen his first system? He bets on all but 5 single numbers. 11 spins a day only. He claims to expect to lose only once a week in a real life situation.

I hope finally THIS is on the right track!

The problem with this system, similarly to your option #3, is that you're risking many units just for a modest return. Chances are you will win most of the time, but when you have a loss, which could very well happen in the first couple of spins, you have created a hole which will be very hard to climb out of.

In short: tell me that today there will come 150 REDS, 170 BLACKS and 12 GREENS. THE ODDS WILL BE AGAINST ME (MORE THAN JUST THE HOUSE EDGE) but I can bet on RED with the proper bet selection (entry-exit points)

I like your example there, however I don't believe in using proper bet selection as you might have noticed (check out many of my proven points in my thread). But I DO fully agree with the money management part!

Negative progression is the only thing that will raise your chances to overcome a losing streak. There's no point trying to avoid a losing streak using 'proper bet selection', as I think there is 0.0% advantage doing that. It is just a psychological advantage.

I dare anyone to show me a system that could beat roulette if there was an edge in favor of the player!!!! Say you don't loose your money when 0 comes, and you gain a chip bonus for every 100 spins played. Now show me a system that will win with this favorable conditions!!! Hey! Not a system that will win after 5 millions spins, but a system that I could play say for 10 days, 100 spins per day and be sure that in total I will come ahead after the last day. This means a system that will generate profit in real life. If you give me such a system I most certainly could turn it to successful system taking into account the house edge.

Hey kav,
You're saying you can rely on testing over a small sample can 'most certainly' make you successful.

Let's use the 9-step Martingale as an example:
The 9-step Martingale will bet up to 256 units on the 9th spin, then quit at that.

You are playing 1000 spins (10 days, 100 per day).
Sometimes, 1000 spins you will NOT lose your money AT ALL. Therefore you are a WINNER.

Other samples of 1000 spins (new numbers) you may lose 1+2+4+8+16+32+64+128+256 = 511 units SEVERAL times.
Now that makes you a BIG LOSER.

That's how Standard Deviation works.
It is the luck of the 1000 spin draw.

Kav, I understand your point, because I believe the basis of my Cluster System should be more profitable than not over 1000 spins.
And I only tested it for about 2,500 spins.

If only you encounter the luck of the draw.

Thanks,
LS

[kav]

Thanks LS for a really interesting reply.

And YES you are on the right track.
Option 3 (betting on 2 dozens) is the betting option I would choose too.

With this, I don't mean to say that option 3 is "better" or anything. I just want to show that roulette, although a game of chance, offers us the opportunity to make "educated" plans/strategies and make decisions that would bring us closer to our objective, whatever it may be. This understanding is the basis to creating a roulette strategy.

I have visited Ion Saliu's site and I have exchanged emails with him to a couple of years ago.

I like your example there, however I don't believe in using proper bet selection as you might have noticed (check out many of my proven points in my thread). But I DO fully agree with the money management part!

You may be right. I know what you mean. Though I wouldn't describe "entry-exit points" exactly as "bet selection". To me, the issue of "entry-exit points" is still under consideration. But you may very well be right. It is possible they don't matter.

I hope you understand that the Martingale wouldn't pass my test as a successful system, since it does NOT guarantee profit after 1000 spins, even with favorable conditions. The challenge I posed was: I give you favorable conditions (no zero, 1 chip bonus for every 100 spins played), but you should give me a SURE winner after 1000 spins. Martingale is not a sure winner. Does not guarantee a profit after 1000 spins.

Hope to hear more from you.

[Avalon]

To put it simply, is it the fact that there is possible in a session to have not 170 but 190 or more blacks and the fact that you don't know when it will happen, that prevents us from devising a successful system/strategy.

This is the core of every game of chance.
At some point in time the odds will be in your favour, that is the only time to play.

[BlueAngel]

My answers}

1) an EC  for 2 spins

2) 3 lines for 5 spins

My answers based on my belief that the above selections have the overall better chances to win.

[kav]

It is really interesting that Avalon and BA have recovered this thread from the past.

Just to note for those who know him, that LS is Laurence Scott.

[Jesper]

Kav if you give me no zero (fair odds) and an extra chip every 100 spins, I will win, if I bet all numbers, I will win one unit in a slow speed of every 100 spins.

[kav]

Kav if you give me no zero (fair odds) and an extra chip every 100 spins, I will win, if I bet all numbers, I will win one unit in a slow speed of every 100 spins.

That is also Laurence Scott's answer, but this is not a system, this is just bending the rules. Because you make no risk bet.
What all this proves is that there is no real system to win 100% even if you have an edge.
So people should stop overestimating the HE influence.