BetVoyager Portal

Author Topic: Why our systems fail?!  (Read 15952 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1614 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2015, 11:42:18 AM »
Dang Pales!  All I can say is just WOW.

I can only have the very greatest respect for you grizzled field veterans.  What you guys accomplish is truly amazing!

All I can do is simply learn as much as I can.

LOL.  Despite all this I am still curious about "I know the bad sequence won't repeat" and to learn the numbers there.  I totally agree that its not about seeing black 20 times but instead the same principle (i.e. using the documented downward probability curve) applied to seeing black 6 times, 3 times in a row and any variation of such numbers.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2015, 02:11:24 PM by Reyth »
 

Mike

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 901
  • Thanked: 186 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2015, 02:07:39 PM »
Quote
thru research I have found, that the roulette cannot do the unusual repeatedly after every consecutive trigger.

No, it can't, but that doesn't mean you can't lose a lot of units on those rare occasions when you DO get repeats.

I think there's too much emphasis on beating the variance, as though the HE is just a minor annoyance which can be shrugged off. This is because system players are obsessed with up-as-you-lose progressions, which is why they're always researching the longest sequence before some event occurs or doesn't occur. The trouble is, this is an ever-receding horizon, and by actively seeking out such events you will find them.

If you tackled the house edge directly, and not the variance, you would make more progress. Variance is really not a big deal if you flat bet or use simple proportion of bank staking (which is preferable to flat betting).
 

Mike

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 901
  • Thanked: 186 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #32 on: August 04, 2015, 02:24:04 PM »
(i.e. using the documented downward probability curve)

Reyth,

What is this "downward probability curve" and what does it show?
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1614 times
 

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Thanked: 796 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2015, 01:15:34 AM »
Quote
thru research I have found, that the roulette cannot do the unusual repeatedly after every consecutive trigger.

No, it can't, but that doesn't mean you can't lose a lot of units on those rare occasions when you DO get repeats.

I think there's too much emphasis on beating the variance, as though the HE is just a minor annoyance which can be shrugged off. This is because system players are obsessed with up-as-you-lose progressions, which is why they're always researching the longest sequence before some event occurs or doesn't occur. The trouble is, this is an ever-receding horizon, and by actively seeking out such events you will find them.

If you tackled the house edge directly, and not the variance, you would make more progress. Variance is really not a big deal if you flat bet or use simple proportion of bank staking (which is preferable to flat betting).
Many players confuse the "up as you go" with doubling and tripling the bets after a loss.
(EC bets and 2 dozen/column bets).
However that's not the only bets every system requires.
There are 1 dozen bets, There are 3 street bets or 2 street bets, 5 number bets etc. Where the  up as you go is very smooth, and it takes lots of increasing bets to reach a dangerous level.
As long as you know how small groups behave. Knowing the upper limit of an average length of a (detrimental to your system) sequence is very important because it confines your bets within a known range that produces a hit most of the time.
The doesn't mean you step outside probability. It is just that at that point you bet on the premise that the series of  bets won't exceed the sequence's average length and start leaning towards the rare. That's what you are betting on.
And you stop if you reach the average upper limit without a hit. That's how casinos get their money back when you are having a good hit rate. Even the smallest LOSS RATE can surpass in money value an entire winning spree.
However by stopping on time you don't give them that chance.
Think of it the other way.
It's like when a player is on a winning roll, and the casino halts the spins and closes the table.
Just to put your winning spree to an end. They can't do that.
Only the player can do  that. Isn't that an advantage?
When you bet the ideal range you don't step outside probability.
As a matter of fact, you count on the premise that your bet will fall under the exact probability  assigned to that bet.
 With an added twist.
That negative variance has for the most part been eliminated.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Trilobite

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Thanked: 158 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2015, 03:31:16 AM »

When you bet the ideal range you don't step outside probability.


So what would you consider an ideal range?

Let's take the dozens for example. Betting up as you lose with a table limit that allows 15 steps how many steps would be "ideal" before surrendering the loss and restarting?
 

GameNeverOver

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2015, 01:02:49 PM »

When you bet the ideal range you don't step outside probability.


So what would you consider an ideal range?

Let's take the dozens for example. Betting up as you lose with a table limit that allows 15 steps how many steps would be "ideal" before surrendering the loss and restarting?

Trilo,
I'm not playing Palestis's advocate here, but he has mentioned at least dozen times how he plays.
One of his plays is:
waiting for red/black to appear 6 times in a row and then bet on the opposite for 2 spins (1-2). He is +1 unit every time his bet (in those two steps) won. In opposite case, he lose 3 units.

The Palestis premise behind his play is:
1) we don't see 6 consecutive hits on the same color that often
2) sight of 8 consecutive hits on the same color does happen but are even rarer
3) in case we encounter that rare situation (30+ hits on that same color) due to variance we lose only 3 units
4) 3 units lose is easily covered and
5) few units profit is easily achievable.
 

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Thanked: 796 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2015, 02:52:18 PM »

When you bet the ideal range you don't step outside probability.


So what would you consider an ideal range?

Let's take the dozens for example. Betting up as you lose with a table limit that allows 15 steps how many steps would be "ideal" before surrendering the loss and restarting?
That's where empirical experience comes in.
In the case of a dozen bet (I never bet 2 dozens with progression):
 If you mean 15 steps betting one dozen,  then the total range is 1-15.
Though many times, you will hit that dozen much earlier than going thru all 15 steps, all it takes one time a failed 15 step loss and everything you won in earlier hits will be wiped out. It's a matter of time but it will happen.
If you pick to bet a dozen randomly, in testing, after a while you will find that this chosen dozen hits more frequently in a certain range. For example from spin 3-7.
So you wait lose spin 1 and 2 virtually, and then bet spin 3 thru 7. If there in no hit then you stop and repeat the process again. The loss won't be devastating because you only bet for 5 steps.
Next time you can start with a higher value chip and if you hit, you recover the previous loss plus you end up with a small profit.
Rather than increasing the progression 15 steps in one try, you break it up in smaller progressions as "new situations" develop.
The logic behind it is, that the roulette cannot keep on reaching extremes in consecutive situations (triggers).
For example you may see 13 red in a row, but I doubt that you will see it happening again in the same roulette in the same session.
I play one dozen after I have seen it sleeping for 6 spins. Then I bet that dozen for 5 spins.
Because it's very easy to see a dozen sleeping for 6 spins, but rare to see it 12 spins.
So my ideal range is from the usual to the edge of the rare.

Many players talk about long progressions all the way up to max allowed at the table.
Though that may seem harmless in a 10 cent min. online casino, in a real B+M casino with a $10 min, a long progression can wreak havoc not only in your wallet, but in your psychological well being too.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2015, 03:18:36 PM by palestis »
 

Trilobite

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Thanked: 158 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2015, 02:00:35 AM »
Thanks for the explanation.

In principal I think this is on the right track but getting the mix just right might prove very difficult.

Skipping over the first 2 bets will no doubt mean missing out on a great number of wins, also stopping the progression short will result in forfeiting many wins just the other side of 7.

Is there some guarantee the remaining wins within the chosen range will be enough to change the probability of the game at all?

Considering any chosen range, are we stopping too early with too little invested so as to deny many affordable wins? Are we stopping too late with too much already invested putting recovery at an unfair disadvantage?
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

weird

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2015, 02:44:39 AM »
Respected Gentlemen.

"Fight the VARIANCE".

We do not try to fight the VARIANCE.

We just wait for the variance to present itself,

and let it pass,

only then we jump in.

Hoping the variance wont REPEAT itself..

But it did, repeat itself!!!

Thus we need a MM that will survive, if the DOUBLE VARIANCE...
sort of cut loss and win more than losses...

thus,
NEED,
 a good win/loss and profit/loss RATIO.
=================

avoiding the variance...

IT simply like when we try to cross the busy street.
we wait patiently till its 'safe' to cross.
We do not simply dash across the street .
 

les

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #40 on: August 16, 2015, 10:51:13 AM »
On top of the house edge 2-7% the biggest  reason is the sleepers  that when you betting more

and more numbers sink your bankroll, the person who has the patient to play 1 number is very 

hard to beat for the casino . And you can pick your number any way you like[except knowingly picking sleepers ]     
 

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Thanked: 796 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #41 on: August 16, 2015, 02:09:20 PM »
Thanks for the explanation.

In principal I think this is on the right track but getting the mix just right might prove very difficult.

Skipping over the first 2 bets will no doubt mean missing out on a great number of wins, also stopping the progression short will result in forfeiting many wins just the other side of 7.

Is there some guarantee the remaining wins within the chosen range will be enough to change the probability of the game at all?

Considering any chosen range, are we stopping too early with too little invested so as to deny many affordable wins? Are we stopping too late with too much already invested putting recovery at an unfair disadvantage?
It is true that waiting for something before we bet (trigger), and abandoning the progression early will forfeit potential wins. But on the other hand it will save the player from potential disasters.
Without the patience to bet when things seem to be right, takes time.
When you bet an entire range you never know if you are going to run into a bad variance starting right at the moment when you start betting.
Weird got the idea right.
Mike and Real say that waiting for something to happen does not alter the possibilities, as they remain the same whether you start betting now, or waiting for something to happen first.
The whole idea of waiting is this.
Since you never know when a variance will hit you, you wait for a variance to happen first, without betting.

Then you bet on the premise that the variance will not continue. And certainly that you won't run into more than one negative variances in a row.
When you see 8 red in a row, that's an indication that a variance is in effect.
Maybe unimportant in a sample of 10,000 spins, but certainly very important in the very short session that you will play.
So when you start betting black after 8 red (for a limited number of bets of course), you are betting on the premise that this variance is about to expire. And since your goal is ( and should  be) to have just one hit  and stop, chances are that it is much more likely to happen vs. the variance continuing its relentless attack.
The reason that some systems fail, is because they are poorly designed. They don't correctly take into account the length of a variance, and are based on the premise that frequent betting adds up the profits faster. Unfortunately the losses add up much faster than the profits.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #42 on: August 16, 2015, 04:24:28 PM »
   An interesting fact that I have pointed out on a number of occasions Is that while the math expectancy of any series is a straight slopping line with each run producing 1/2 the hits of the one above. ie runs of 1 are twice as frequent as runs of 2, and runs of 2 are twice those of 3 etc ad infinitum. The short term results tend to show a bell graph with a fairly small range rising rapidly to a peak and then rapidly falling as the runs get longer. It is the small area on each side of these peaks that we call "THE BETTING RANGE"

      These peaks do not show in long term tests because the overall variance tends to average out. With EC's the peak seems to form between spin 3 and 8. Thus if you start betting at spin 4 or 5 and stop after 3 or 4 tries.You will be betting into the peak and each bet will tend to get more than its average share of hits.
      On the other hand if you start betting at spin 7 or 8 you will be betting into the decline, and your early bets will score more than their share of hits.

   Palestis moves around from table to table looking for runs on the marque which he can bet against. So he gets plenty of action. I sit at a table and "buy in". I have to take the spins as they come. If I waited for runs of 8 plus I would only be able to get a few bets each session. By starting at spin 4 and stopping at spin 7 I get lots of action. The down side is that I also get a much higher ratio of losses to wins. The end result is much the same, except that Palestis's  method allows a bigger base bet.

       Establishing the "Range" takes a lot of work. you will need to collate the results of at least 100 sessions of 50 or 60 spins to arrive at anything worthwhile. Like Palestis I prefer to use actual spins rather than RNG, and am constantly analysing my play for improvements. I must stress that this method works best with a series of sequential progressions. ie  After a loss a NEW TARGET is attacked with a higher base bet. The real progession takes place after seeing a new trigger.

                     Harry
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

The Bedsit Botter

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 100
  • Thanked: 50 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2018, 12:13:09 PM »
I am really amazed how much emphasis is placed on the HE and variance. Those who are so worried about these 2 issues, I believe are those who bet too often, if not continuously. When a player bets continuously then he has to worry about the HE and the variance. Especially if he doesn't stop when he is winning.
Playing roulette should be no different than playing Texas Holdem. 
You fold most of the time (avoid betting or betting virtually), and you only emerge to strike when the opportunity is by far in your favor. Then you retreat. You can't beat this strategy. There is nothing the HE can do to hurt you and neither the variance. Because you don't have to bet long enough to become a victim of either or both.

So I fold/fold/fold until I get pocket Aces shove all in get called by someone holding pocket Kings they hit a 3rd King on the river to make a set and I lose.

I still have to worry about negative variance even though I only played a single hand.
The upside is I will also experience positive variance such as the guy who called me with pocket Kings if I play enough hands.
So variance is not an issue as over time both the negative and the positive will balance out unfortunately the house edge will always be present!

 

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1454
  • Thanked: 753 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2018, 01:05:17 PM »
Many system players underestimate the House Advantage. I think partly because there is nothing they think they can do about it.  The variance is something which is needed for winning or losing on all practical play.

If we reduce the variance to nothing, (bet all numbers), we lose 2 every spin on a double zero, one every spin on a zero, and break even on NOZ. If we image a table with 36 numbers paying 37 on a single, we are sure to win, and it is the positive expection and lowest possible variance.

What ever wheel we play, it is of use to reduce the variance, with positive or zero expected return, but with larger negative expection a larger variance bet.

If we think we have a positive expection due to a bias for example, the variance will make it winning or losing at least for the first spins, if the positive expection remains long, the player will win if staking many small bets with the lowest variance permitted for his method and findings.

Play at the best table means check the true odds against the pay out, i.e the House advantages.

Look at the three pictures, and think, of which you would have chosen if the casino offered you a free spin.
All tables gain one unit if you win!!