Are there any betting systems that reduces variance?

No betting system can change the house edge in a game. That's not the question here. The question is variance. In some situations, higher variance is desirable. But in most situations I would say lower variance is more desirable.

Is there a betting system that reduces variance? My intuition says yes, and my intuitive logic as follows.

We look at games of skills with a jackpot. Such as most video poker. Those games have quite big variances and often someone would come out behind. You come out behind way more than you come out ahead, when you do come out ahead, you come out WAY ahead.

Most so-called "successful" betting systems seem to be the exact opposite. You usually come out ahead and rarely come out behind, but if you come out behind you're WAY behind. This way it almost functions as a "reverse jackpot" where if you do hit the "jackpot" you lose a tremendous amount of money. If video poker has high variance due to a positive jackpot, I have reasons to intuitively believe some betting systems will be able to reduce variance.


I for one never thought of betting systems as "totally useless garbage" just because they don't change the EV (in strict definition, aka house edge). In my opinion there are other reasons that may call for a betting system, such as reducing variance, in this case.

The way to reduce variance is to flat bet. If you flat bet your expected variance is 0. Obviously each session will actually be different, but the expectation is there.

Quote: geoff

If you flat bet your expected variance is 0.

That is not right.

Quote: Neutrino

Is there a betting system that reduces variance?

Flat bet $1 on each of the 38 numbers in roulette.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

That is not right.

+1

Quote: Neutrino

I for one never thought of betting systems as "totally useless garbage" just because they don't change the EV (in strict definition, aka house edge). In my opinion there are other reasons that may call for a betting system, such as reducing variance, in this case.

I think systems have a place for sure. I'd personally much rather win $50 most days and lose $500 every 11th day than break even every day. It's just more fun for me that way.

To achieve this, I usually play a modified progressive system. I almost never only play the system, I usually also count BJ or try to holecard another table game. The system helps to mask the other plays (it also mitigates their effectiveness).

I've often wondered about using a negative betting progression as cover in a game where you have an edge off the top. It makes you look like just another degenerate, and it means that they need a lot more data before they can be sure that you have an edge (the last thing that they want to do is back off one of these negative progression guys who is eventually going to blow off his whole bankroll)

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I've often wondered about using a negative betting progression as cover in a game where you have an edge off the top. It makes you look like just another degenerate, and it means that they need a lot more data before they can be sure that you have an edge (the last thing that they want to do is back off one of these negative progression guys who is eventually going to blow off his whole bankroll)

I guess that depends on how the dealers and the pit view you. I have no doubt that most dealers are as dumb as the public and probably believe in betting systems and other gambling myths and fallacies. Perhaps some pit bosses do as well. And if they are stupid enough they might back off real degenerates for fear of threat.

If there's anyway to know what the dealer/pit boss in your casino perceives as a threat, simply acting the opposite way would suffice. Provided if the opposite way is +EV. But how does one know? Simply asking probably wouldn't cut it since they have no reason to tell you the truth.

Quote: Neutrino

In some situations, higher variance is desirable. But in most situations I would say lower variance is more desirable.

A lot of gamblers decide that they want lower variance because they just took a beating. However, it is a misplaced desire if that same player is playing negative expectation. This can be counter-intuitive.

-EV: you want variance
+EV: you want less variance.

The House likes less variance; nothing would make them happier than this example, if all 38 numbers are equally covered in roulette, by a bunch of players or by one dumb player. The game is +EV to the house of course.

Quote: Neutrino

No betting system can change the house edge in a game. That's not the question here. The question is variance. In some situations, higher variance is desirable. But in most situations I would say lower variance is more desirable.

Is there a betting system that reduces variance? My intuition says yes, and my intuitive logic as follows.

We look at games of skills with a jackpot. Such as most video poker. Those games have quite big variances and often someone would come out behind. You come out behind way more than you come out ahead, when you do come out ahead, you come out WAY ahead.

Most so-called "successful" betting systems seem to be the exact opposite. You usually come out ahead and rarely come out behind, but if you come out behind you're WAY behind. This way it almost functions as a "reverse jackpot" where if you do hit the "jackpot" you lose a tremendous amount of money. If video poker has high variance due to a positive jackpot, I have reasons to intuitively believe some betting systems will be able to reduce variance.


I for one never thought of betting systems as "totally useless garbage" just because they don't change the EV (in strict definition, aka house edge). In my opinion there are other reasons that may call for a betting system, such as reducing variance, in this case.

Yeah, you could purposely try to lose every hand. This would significantly decrease variance.

Hitting your BJ hand until you have 22 will reduce variance.

I think "betting system" usually has the connotation that you somehow change the expectation from using it (like there is something magical about it). But I think the way you are using it you could call it a betting strategy, and yes your betting strategy will definitely effect the variance.

I've heard of people who were absolutely aghast after playing 10x odds craps that they could lose so much money. Their EV after all was only a few dollars.

If you played $1 on each number on the roulette wheel you would lose $2 every time. Since the outcome is always the same the variance of this bet would be 0. (Personally, I think it would well be worth the $2 to make this bet and act really smug about it)

Rules of thumb for estimating gambling variance:

Variances of independent bets simply add together. Ex: a fair coin is tossed -$1 heads +$1 tails.. The VAR is 1. The VAR for the outcome of two two tosses is 2.

typically higher payouts = higher variance. i.e a single number bet will have more variance than a even bet in roulette.

If you spread out your bankroll over multiple bets you will reduce variance. Ex: (1) a fair coin is tossed once -$10 for heads +$10 for tails. The variance is 100. (2) a fair coin is tossed ten times +$1 for heads, -$1 for tails. The variance of one toss is 1. The variance of the sum of the ten flips is 10.

Note: if you make ten $10 bets the variance is more than making one $10 bet. That means there is more risk. I mention this because many gamblers will think that due to the law of large numbers there is less risk for making more bets. This is wrong.

You should take the square root of the variance to get a more useful indication of the risk you are taking. (The standard deviation)

the simple answer

If you want to gamble and reduce variance without doing something ridiculous. (1) make the smallest possible bets (2) make bets with even payouts (3) make as few number of bets as possible. maybe even play every other hand if you are allowed.

Quote: Buzzard

Hitting your BJ hand until you have 22 will reduce variance.

i already said that copycat, but it was meant to inform. Also not splitting or doubling. Most consistent results and the least possible wagers reduce variance. No betting system can reduce variance without increasing the house edge. They all increase variance to increase the likelihood you will win a small amount, decrease the likelihood you will lose a small amount, and increase the likelihood you will lose a huge amount. You can reverse this process to a degree with money management systems, that would increase the likelihood of losing small amounts, and winning large amounts. But you cannot reduce variance.