Neutrino
Neutrino
Joined: Feb 20, 2014
  • Threads: 84
  • Posts: 515
March 17th, 2014 at 6:10:26 PM permalink
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.
geoff
geoff
Joined: Feb 19, 2014
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 368
March 17th, 2014 at 6:16:50 PM permalink
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.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
March 17th, 2014 at 6:26:55 PM permalink
Quote: geoff

If you flat bet your expected variance is 0.



That is not right.
teliot
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 2035
March 17th, 2014 at 6:34:31 PM permalink
Quote: Neutrino

Is there a betting system that reduces variance?

Flat bet $1 on each of the 38 numbers in roulette.
Visit my YouTube Channel: @AdvancedAdvantagePlay
Neutrino
Neutrino
Joined: Feb 20, 2014
  • Threads: 84
  • Posts: 515
March 17th, 2014 at 6:46:31 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

That is not right.



+1
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7157
March 17th, 2014 at 6:51:36 PM permalink
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).
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
March 17th, 2014 at 6:57:27 PM permalink
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)
Neutrino
Neutrino
Joined: Feb 20, 2014
  • Threads: 84
  • Posts: 515
March 18th, 2014 at 12:19:31 AM permalink
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.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 306
  • Posts: 8409
March 18th, 2014 at 6:34:13 AM permalink
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.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
March 18th, 2014 at 10:51:04 AM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: