Reducing the House Edge
Consider a 37 number table where the bettor receives half his bet back if zero occurs when he/she bets Red or Black.
The Probability of getting 3 correct in 3 consecutive spins is one in eight if we ignore the zero. But what to bet ?
By betting a particular chosen sequence of 3 or even 3
consecutive Blacks or Reds to be All Correct or All Wrong
we can reduce the House Edge by betting in 3s.
We let the first spin go without betting.This is our" Indicator"( trigger) of what to bet on the second spin of the three.
If the second chosen selection( our first bet) wins we then bet the resultant 2 points on the following spin .
If the first spin-which we don't bet- is wrong then we bet- as a double- the second and third spin to be wrong.
Thus we , in effect, bet the three to be correct or incorrect over the 3 spins.A 2in 8 chance (1 in 3) for which we get paid 3/1-correct odds ignoring the zero.
Now consider the chances of the zero.
If it falls on the first spin we don't lose as we haven't bet.
If it falls on the second spin we lose half a point.
If it falls on the third spin then either,
a) we lose nothing if our second bet loses as our double has lost. or,
b) we lose the win of the second spin but not our original stake so we lose -or win - nothing.
So the chance of LOSING to the zero is reduced.
Quote:Member since: Oct 16, 2013
instead of pouncing on him let's try to help him find who hacked into his account; he can't have been paying that little attention
surely a pure troll wouldnt have waited this long to get his jollies by tweaking the rest of us
edit: I just looked at the other threads he started
Quote: scepticusREDUCING THE HOUSE EDGE.
Consider a 37 number table where the bettor receives half his bet back if zero occurs when he/she bets Red or Black.
The Probability of getting 3 correct in 3 consecutive spins is one in eight if we ignore the zero. But what to bet ?
By betting a particular chosen sequence of 3 or even 3
consecutive Blacks or Reds to be All Correct or All Wrong
we can reduce the House Edge by betting in 3s.
We let the first spin go without betting.This is our" Indicator"( trigger) of what to bet on the second spin of the three.
If the second chosen selection( our first bet) wins we then bet the resultant 2 points on the following spin .
If the first spin-which we don't bet- is wrong then we bet- as a double- the second and third spin to be wrong.
Thus we , in effect, bet the three to be correct or incorrect over the 3 spins.A 2in 8 chance (1 in 3) for which we get paid 3/1-correct odds ignoring the zero.
Now consider the chances of the zero.
If it falls on the first spin we don't lose as we haven't bet.
If it falls on the second spin we lose half a point.
If it falls on the third spin then either,
a) we lose nothing if our second bet loses as our double has lost. or,
b) we lose the win of the second spin but not our original stake so we lose -or win - nothing.
So the chance of LOSING to the zero is reduced.
A system you say!
Quote: scepticusConsider a 37 number table where the bettor receives half his bet back if zero occurs when he/she bets Red or Black.
The Probability of getting 3 correct in 3 consecutive spins is one in eight if we ignore the zero. But what to bet ?
By betting a particular chosen sequence of 3 or even 3 consecutive Blacks or Reds to be All Correct or All Wrong we can reduce the House Edge by betting in 3s.
We let the first spin go without betting.This is our" Indicator"( trigger) of what to bet on the second spin of the three.
If the second chosen selection (our first bet) wins we then bet the resultant 2 points on the following spin.
If the first spin-which we don't bet- is wrong then we bet- as a double- the second and third spin to be wrong.
How can the first spin - the "indicator spin" - be "wrong"?
Do you mean that if your first bet loses, you bet 2 on the other color for each of two more spins? Or perhaps you bet 1 on the other color on the next spin, and then let the bet ride for another spin if it wins?
Quote: scepticusThus we, in effect, bet the three to be correct or incorrect over the 3 spins. A 2 in 8 chance (1 in 3)
The last time I looked, a 2 in 8 chance is 1 in 4.
Before I continue any further, let me make sure I understand your system.
Your first spin is a non-betting "indicator" spin.
Your second spin has a bet of 1 on the same color as the first spin.
If your second spin wins, your third spin has a bet of 2 on the same color.
If your second spin loses, your third spin has a bet of 1 on the opposite color, and if the third spin wins, your fourth spin is a bet of 2 on the same color.
ZCore13
OKQuote: scepticusConsider a 37 number table where the bettor receives half his bet back if zero occurs when he/she bets Red or Black.
Never ever ignore the zero!Quote: scepticusThe Probability of getting 3 correct in 3 consecutive spins is one in eight if we ignore the zero.
There are now 27 possible 3 spin sequences and not all have the same probability of happening
I know you know this to be true
here is my table for this
| index | pattern | zero | red | black | prob |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 000 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1.97422E-05 |
| 2 | 00R | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.000355359 |
| 3 | 00B | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.000355359 |
| 4 | 0R0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.000355359 |
| 5 | 0RR | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0.006396462 |
| 6 | 0RB | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.006396462 |
| 7 | 0B0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.000355359 |
| 8 | 0BR | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.006396462 |
| 9 | 0BB | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0.006396462 |
| 10 | R00 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.000355359 |
| 11 | R0R | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0.006396462 |
| 12 | R0B | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.006396462 |
| 13 | RR0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0.006396462 |
| 14 | RRR | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0.11513632 |
| 15 | RRB | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0.11513632 |
| 16 | RB0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.006396462 |
| 17 | RBR | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0.11513632 |
| 18 | RBB | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0.11513632 |
| 19 | B00 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.000355359 |
| 20 | B0R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.006396462 |
| 21 | B0B | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0.006396462 |
| 22 | BR0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.006396462 |
| 23 | BRR | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0.11513632 |
| 24 | BRB | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0.11513632 |
| 25 | BB0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0.006396462 |
| 26 | BBR | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0.11513632 |
| 27 | BBB | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.11513632 |
looks like BBB = RRR = RBR = BBR and so on
8 of the 27 patterns have the same chance to happen in any 3 spin set. This IS so cool ;)
Now you can easily calculate if you actually do change the house edge
Please submit your homework in a timely manner if you want the credit
fun fun
Sally
This leads me to ask scepticus
"Why do you want to reduce the house edge?"
Quote: ThatDonGuyHow can the first spin - the "indicator spin" - be "wrong"?
Do you mean that if your first bet loses, you bet 2 on the other color for each of two more spins? Or perhaps you bet 1 on the other color on the next spin, and then let the bet ride for another spin if it wins?
The last time I looked, a 2 in 8 chance is 1 in 4.
Before I continue any further, let me make sure I understand your system.
Your first spin is a non-betting "indicator" spin.
Your second spin has a bet of 1 on the same color as the first spin.
If your second spin wins, your third spin has a bet of 2 on the same color.
If your second spin loses, your third spin has a bet of 1 on the opposite color, and if the third spin wins, your fourth spin is a bet of 2 on the same color.
Well ,O.K. TDG I didn't check my post properly .It is 1 in 4 but it is still a 3/1 chance - ignoring the zero.
Once again, I may not have made myself clear.
Consider I choose to bet BOTH Red AND Black over 3 spins-the 3 to be either all reds or all black.Betting both red and black on the first spin is not advisable because (a) we won't profit and (b) a zero would incur a loss.So we avoid the first spin of the three.
If a red wins the first spin we bet 1point on red and if it wins we put 2 points on red again on spin 3. Similarly with black.
If, on the second spin black wins when I'm betting red the bet is lost and we don't bet the third spin.
In theory we are betting BOTH red and Black to win 3 in a row- a 3/1 shot ignoring the zero.
The bet is over a series of 3 spins ,there is no fourth .
Clearer now ? The question is does it reduce the whole HE over the series of three or has it been reduced ?
Quote: mustangsallyOK
Never ever ignore the zero!
There are now 27 possible 3 spin sequences and not all have the same probability of happening
I know you know this to be true
here is my table for this
index pattern zero red black prob 1 000 3 0 0 1.97422E-05 2 00R 2 1 0 0.000355359 3 00B 2 0 1 0.000355359 4 0R0 2 1 0 0.000355359 5 0RR 1 2 0 0.006396462 6 0RB 1 1 1 0.006396462 7 0B0 2 0 1 0.000355359 8 0BR 1 1 1 0.006396462 9 0BB 1 0 2 0.006396462 10 R00 2 1 0 0.000355359 11 R0R 1 2 0 0.006396462 12 R0B 1 1 1 0.006396462 13 RR0 1 2 0 0.006396462 14 RRR 0 3 0 0.11513632 15 RRB 0 2 1 0.11513632 16 RB0 1 1 1 0.006396462 17 RBR 0 2 1 0.11513632 18 RBB 0 1 2 0.11513632 19 B00 2 0 1 0.000355359 20 B0R 1 1 1 0.006396462 21 B0B 1 0 2 0.006396462 22 BR0 1 1 1 0.006396462 23 BRR 0 2 1 0.11513632 24 BRB 0 1 2 0.11513632 25 BB0 1 0 2 0.006396462 26 BBR 0 1 2 0.11513632 27 BBB 0 0 3 0.11513632
looks like BBB = RRR = RBR = BBR and so on
8 of the 27 patterns have the same chance to happen in any 3 spin set. This IS so cool ;)
Now you can easily calculate if you actually do change the house edge
Please submit your homework in a timely manner if you want the credit
fun fun
Sally
This leads me to ask scepticus
"Why do you want to reduce the house edge?"
Quote: mustangsallyOK
Never ever ignore the zero!
There are now 27 possible 3 spin sequences and not all have the same probability of happening
I know you know this to be true
here is my table for this
index pattern zero red black prob 1 000 3 0 0 1.97422E-05 2 00R 2 1 0 0.000355359 3 00B 2 0 1 0.000355359 4 0R0 2 1 0 0.000355359 5 0RR 1 2 0 0.006396462 6 0RB 1 1 1 0.006396462 7 0B0 2 0 1 0.000355359 8 0BR 1 1 1 0.006396462 9 0BB 1 0 2 0.006396462 10 R00 2 1 0 0.000355359 11 R0R 1 2 0 0.006396462 12 R0B 1 1 1 0.006396462 13 RR0 1 2 0 0.006396462 14 RRR 0 3 0 0.11513632 15 RRB 0 2 1 0.11513632 16 RB0 1 1 1 0.006396462 17 RBR 0 2 1 0.11513632 18 RBB 0 1 2 0.11513632 19 B00 2 0 1 0.000355359 20 B0R 1 1 1 0.006396462 21 B0B 1 0 2 0.006396462 22 BR0 1 1 1 0.006396462 23 BRR 0 2 1 0.11513632 24 BRB 0 1 2 0.11513632 25 BB0 1 0 2 0.006396462 26 BBR 0 1 2 0.11513632 27 BBB 0 0 3 0.11513632
looks like BBB = RRR = RBR = BBR and so on
8 of the 27 patterns have the same chance to happen in any 3 spin set. This IS so cool ;)
Now you can easily calculate if you actually do change the house edge
Please submit your homework in a timely manner if you want the credit
fun fun
Sally
This leads me to ask scepticus
"Why do you want to reduce the house edge?"
The zero should only occur once in an average 37 spins
I can ignore the zero if I want to-my choice not yours .This does not mean I don't think it exists - just that it makes calculating easier.After calculating factor in a 1 in 37 loss to allow for the zero . Yes?.
"why do I want to reduce the house edge ? because maths geeks tell us it can't be done and I think it would give me a better chance to win .Don't you think so - assuming it can be done.
Quote: scepticusThere are only 8 sets of 2x2x2
The zero should only occur once in an average 37 spins
I can ignore the zero if I want to-my choice not yours .This does not mean I don't think it exists - just that it makes calculating easier.After calculating factor in a 1 in 37 loss to allow for the zero . Yes?.
"why do I want to reduce the house edge ? because maths geeks tell us it can't be done and I think it would give me a better chance to win .Don't you think so - assuming it can be done.
But it can't.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13What happens if a green comes up twice in a row after the indicator spin?
ZCore13
Your first green is the second spin/the first bet so the bet has lost and if the second spin loses then the third spin is not bet.
So we let the third spin go without a bet and also the next spin which is the first of the next three spins.
We ( theoretically) bet in series of three.
Quote: Zcore13But it can't.
ZCore13
" It can't " is not a reason.
Using my illustration - explain please.
Quote: scepticusexplain please.
We are greatly indebted to Michael Shackleford for providing a website that answers your question, so now we don't have to do the work! Check it out!
https://wizardofodds.com/
Quote: scepticusignoring the zero.
Once again, I may not have made myself clear.
ignoring the zero.
I did take some liberties with the quote, but you're ignoring the zero.
They're ALL good games, if you remove the house edge.
The problem is, even on a single-zero wheel, that little white ball doesn't ignore the zero 2.7% of the time. The fact that you only lose half of your even money bet is still a house edge of 1.35%.
If you want to place insurance on 0 ($1 per $72 on red/black, if I remember correctly...), you're creating a predictable loss rate, but you're not removing the house edge.
As far as I know, the ONLY way to remove the house edge in roulette is to find a biased wheel.
Quote: scepticus" It can't " is not a reason.
Using my illustration - explain please.
Maybe we are all not understanding each other. If you are saying you can reduce the house edge by placing certain bets over other bets, or by hedging bets, of course you can. If you are saying you can
You can reduce the house edge by playing a corner bet (5.26% HE) over the first five numbers (7.89% house edge).
If you are trying to say you can reduce any house edge by any type of money management or betting system, you can't. Nothing changes the house edge of a bet or combination of bets. You can not ignore certain outcomes no matter how infrequent they come up. They are part of the house edge.
Your illustration shows you can lose less money by better less often. That is reducing risk, not house edge.
ZCore13
Quote: scepticusWell ,O.K. TDG I didn't check my post properly .It is 1 in 4 but it is still a 3/1 chance - ignoring the zero.
Once again, I may not have made myself clear.
Consider I choose to bet BOTH Red AND Black over 3 spins-the 3 to be either all reds or all black.Betting both red and black on the first spin is not advisable because (a) we won't profit and (b) a zero would incur a loss.So we avoid the first spin of the three.
If a red wins the first spin we bet 1point on red and if it wins we put 2 points on red again on spin 3. Similarly with black.
If, on the second spin black wins when I'm betting red the bet is lost and we don't bet the third spin.
In theory we are betting BOTH red and Black to win 3 in a row- a 3/1 shot ignoring the zero.
The bet is over a series of 3 spins ,there is no fourth .
Clearer now ? The question is does it reduce the whole HE over the series of three or has it been reduced ?
Understood. If zero doesn't show up, the HE is zero. Of course, that's why the zero is there.
Going back to your original post concerning the zero:
Quote: scepticusIf it falls on the first spin we don't lose as we haven't bet.
Correct.
Quote: scepticusIf it falls on the second spin we lose half a point.
Correct.
Quote: scepticusIf it falls on the third spin then either,
a) we lose nothing if our second bet loses as our double has lost. or,
b) we lose the win of the second spin but not our original stake so we lose -or win - nothing.
So the chance of LOSING to the zero is reduced.
In other words, if you lose the second spin (because the first two spins were two different colors, or the second spin was zero), you don't lose anything if the third spin is zero because you didn't bet anything, and if you win the second spin, you lose nothing overall from the three spins because the 1 point that you lose (since your bet is 2) is the 1 point that you won on your second spin.
Here is what really happens:
Assume the first spin is not zero - if it is zero, you didn't bet anything, so wait for a non-zero spin.
1/37 of the time, the second spin is zero; you lose 1/2.
18/37 of the time, the second spin is a different color from the first spin; you lose 1.
18/37 x 18/37 of the time, the second and third spins are the same color as the first one; you win 3 overall.
18/37 x 18/37 of the time, the second spin is the same color as the first one, but the third one is different; you lose 1 overall.
18/37 x 1/37 of the time, the third spin is green; you break even overall.
The overall EV = (1/37 x -1/2) + (18/37 x -1) + (18/37 x ((18/37 x 3) + (18/37 x -1) + (1/37 x 0))
= (1/37 x -1/2) + (18/37 x -1) + (18/37 x 36/37)
= (1/37 x -1/2) + (18/37 x -1/37) = 1/37 x (-73/74).
It appears that your third bet has no edge on green because you're not comparing it to the alternative of stopping after the second spin, where you would win 1 overall. In effect, you are betting "one of yours and one of the house's" on the third spin, and if zero shows up, you lose nothing from your original 1 (which is why you claim that you lose nothing), but you lose 100% (not 50%) of the house's 1.
Whenever someone is using that expression, it shows they hate math. If they hate math, there is a strong likelihood they don't understand it.Quote: scepticusbecause maths geeks tell us it can't be done
My question: why do they bother to do math, then?
On the other hand:
there are people here who constantly confuse "reducing the edge" and "suppressing the edge". They are quite obnoxious and self-righteous in not even reading what other people write. It is they who give rise to this "math geek" bad reputation.
House edge is relative to amount bet. Defining your betting sequence means correlating it with previous results. It doesn't change the HE for the next, partial outcome. But OF COURSE it can change the H.E. on an overall "bet". It simply never makes it negative.
The hold in roulette isn't 17% because
of the HE.
Quote: SOOPOOThis isn't going to be pretty.
you were s o o o o o right :;;
Quote: EvenBobSo what if you could get rid of the HE.
The hold in roulette isn't 17% because
of the HE.[/q
agreed - human failings.
Quote: Zcore13Maybe we are all not understanding each other. If you are saying you can reduce the house edge by placing certain bets over other bets, or by hedging bets, of course you can. If you are saying you can
You can reduce the house edge by playing a corner bet (5.26% HE) over the first five numbers (7.89% house edge).
If you are trying to say you can reduce any house edge by any type of money management or betting system, you can't. Nothing changes the house edge of a bet or combination of bets. You can not ignore certain outcomes no matter how infrequent they come up. They are part of the house edge.
Your illustration shows you can lose less money by better less often. That is reducing risk, not house edge.
ZCore13
I accept the smack on the wrist. I have reduced the risk but not the house edge. The point I was trying to make was that by not betting the first spin I was giving myself a better chance of profiting.
Betting anything other than the first five numbers is a different bet and so , being a different bet has a different HE.
I don't try to win arguments ,as a gambler, I just try to win money.
Thanks
Quote: Zcore13Maybe we are all not understanding each other. If you are saying you can reduce the house edge by placing certain bets over other bets, or by hedging bets, of course you can. If you are saying you can
You can reduce the house edge by playing a corner bet (5.26% HE) over the first five numbers (7.89% house edge).
If you are trying to say you can reduce any house edge by any type of money management or betting system, you can't. Nothing changes the house edge of a bet or combination of bets. You can not ignore certain outcomes no matter how infrequent they come up. They are part of the house edge.
Your illustration shows you can lose less money by better less often. That is reducing risk, not house edge.
ZCore13
I accept the smack on the wrist. I have reduced the risk but not the house edge. The point I was trying to make was that by not betting the first spin I was giving myself a better chance of profiting.
Betting anything other than the first five numbers is a different bet and so , being a different bet has a different HE.
I don't try to win arguments ,as a gambler, I just try to win money.
Thanks
Quote: kubikulannWhenever someone is using that expression, it shows they hate math. If they hate math, there is a strong likelihood they don't understand it.
My question: why do they bother to do math, then?
On the other hand:
there are people here who constantly confuse "reducing the edge" and "suppressing the edge". They are quite obnoxious and self-righteous in not even reading what other people write. It is they who give rise to this "math geek" bad reputation.
House edge is relative to amount bet. Defining your betting sequence means correlating it with previous results. It doesn't change the HE for the next, partial outcome. But OF COURSE it can change the H.E. on an overall "bet". It simply never makes it negative.
I never said you could eliminate the HE
Some others here would not agree that you can change the HE.
Quote: EvenBobSo what if you could get rid of the HE.
The hold in roulette isn't 17% because
of the HE.
Bob, If you got rid of the house edge and make it zero, the hold would theoretically be zero. If somehow you got the house edge to be a negative number, -1% for instance, the hold would be negative.
Hold is just a number that tells the casino how many times someone is cycling through their money. Perfect play with a 5% house edge will hold $5 for every $100 bought in over the long haul. When they play through the same $100 again, they will theoretically lose another $5. Now the hold is 10%. Some people will play through their money less than once. Some will play through it many more times than once, especially when they are winning. On average people will play through their money 3-5 times. Hold really has more to do with the players than the house.
ZCore13
Quote: DieterI did take some liberties with the quote, but you're ignoring the zero.
They're ALL good games, if you remove the house edge.
The problem is, even on a single-zero wheel, that little white ball doesn't ignore the zero 2.7% of the time. The fact that you only lose half of your even money bet is still a house edge of 1.35%.
If you want to place insurance on 0 ($1 per $72 on red/black, if I remember correctly...), you're creating a predictable loss rate, but you're not removing the house edge.
As far as I know, the ONLY way to remove the house edge in roulette is to find a biased wheel.
I didn't claim to REMOVE the HE
I have a strong feeling you will lose both with this system.You asked your question you got answers. What's left? Why argue and worry about it? Just play, when you're rich send us proof and laugh at everybody.Quote: scepticusI accept the smack on the wrist. I have reduced the risk but not the house edge. The point I was trying to make was that by not betting the first spin I was giving myself a better chance of profiting.
Betting anything other than the first five numbers is a different bet and so , being a different bet has a different HE.
I don't try to win arguments ,as a gambler, I just try to win money.
Thanks
Quote: scepticusI accept the smack on the wrist. I have reduced the risk but not the house edge. The point I was trying to make was that by not betting the first spin I was giving myself a better chance of profiting.
Betting anything other than the first five numbers is a different bet and so , being a different bet has a different HE.
I don't try to win arguments ,as a gambler, I just try to win money.
Thanks
Ok, we're getting closer. Next is your thought that by not playing the first roll, you are giving yourself a better chance of profiting. The only reason that is true is because every time you skip a negative expectation bet you are saving yourself money. When skipping it, you remove a chance to win and a little better chance to lose. Skipping it has no affect on your next bets. The second spin has no memory of the first. Every chance that was available on the first spin is again available on the second spin, no matter what happened.
So yes, you can make better bets with lower house edges. You can hedge bets to decrease your risk and decrease your net win if you do hit your main bet. But you can not change or affect in any way the house edge on any one or combination of bets.
ZCore13
Quote: ThatDonGuyUnderstood. If zero doesn't show up, the HE is zero. Of course, that's why the zero is there.
Going back to your original post concerning the zero:
Correct.
Correct.
In other words, if you lose the second spin (because the first two spins were two different colors, or the second spin was zero), you don't lose anything if the third spin is zero because you didn't bet anything, and if you win the second spin, you lose nothing overall from the three spins because the 1 point that you lose (since your bet is 2) is the 1 point that you won on your second spin.
Here is what really happens:
Assume the first spin is not zero - if it is zero, you didn't bet anything, so wait for a non-zero spin.
1/37 of the time, the second spin is zero; you lose 1/2.
18/37 of the time, the second spin is a different color from the first spin; you lose 1.
18/37 x 18/37 of the time, the second and third spins are the same color as the first one; you win 3 overall.
18/37 x 18/37 of the time, the second spin is the same color as the first one, but the third one is different; you lose 1 overall.
18/37 x 1/37 of the time, the third spin is green; you break even overall.
The overall EV = (1/37 x -1/2) + (18/37 x -1) + (18/37 x ((18/37 x 3) + (18/37 x -1) + (1/37 x 0))
= (1/37 x -1/2) + (18/37 x -1) + (18/37 x 36/37)
= (1/37 x -1/2) + (18/37 x -1/37) = 1/37 x (-73/74).
It appears that your third bet has no edge on green because you're not comparing it to the alternative of stopping after the second spin, where you would win 1 overall. In effect, you are betting "one of yours and one of the house's" on the third spin, and if zero shows up, you lose nothing from your original 1 (which is why you claim that you lose nothing), but you lose 100% (not 50%) of the house's 1.
Thanks for taking the trouble (again) That Don Guy.
To be honest I'm not bothered about losing the House's 1 point I won on the second spin.I'm more concerned about preserving my bankroll.
I think all too many in this forum confuse Probability with Certainty. You cannot calculate uncertainty- only the Probability of an event .
Random is Random and Gambling is Gambling is Gambling.
Thanks again
So 99% receive thanks.Quote: scepticusMy thanks to everyone who posted. Even the one/s who think I am a dumbass !
Quote: scepticusThanks for taking the trouble (again) That Don Guy.
To be honest I'm not bothered about losing the House's 1 point I won on the second spin.I'm more concerned about preserving my bankroll.
I think all too many in this forum confuse Probability with Certainty. You cannot calculate uncertainty- only the Probability of an event .
Random is Random and Gambling is Gambling is Gambling.
Thanks again
Just because all you have are probabilities doesn't mean you should dismiss them. I mean would you take an even money bet on the generals to beat the globetrotters. I mean its not guaranteed they'll lose, they've won games in the past. Obviously you wouldn't take that bet and its because you have an incredibly high probability of losing it even though it is not a certainty. And if you keep making bets on the generals you have a very very high chance of going broke again no certainty but probably something you would want to avoid.
Quote: scepticusI didn't claim to REMOVE the HE
You wanted to reduce the house edge. I see this as the same as removing some (or all) of the house edge. This cannot be done with a betting system; this can only be done with a rule change or a nonrandom outcome determination.
So long as each of the 37 outcomes is equally likely, there is a house edge.
If you were to place bets such that no matter where the ball landed you would win (all 37 straight bets), you would lose, because the net from each round is only 36. You cannot win as much as you're betting. That is the fundamental definition of house edge. Hopefully, it doesn't take much of a math geek to figure out that if you can't win at least as much as you're betting, you're losing.
As you've correctly determined, there is an advantage to betting red/black or even/odd or high/low vs half the individual straight bets as a block, since even money bets only lose half against a zero, whereas the straight bets would each lose all. This is a reduction in house edge, but it's because of a special rule.
Quote: scepticusI never said you could eliminate the HE
Some others here would not agree that you can change the HE.
In Craps like to say "You can change the HE but not the EV" which relates to Free Odds.
Perhaps the general statement should be "You can change the HE but only by increasing the EV".
"www.fergusleesroulette.co.uk" check "free roulette ideas".
ZCore13
Quote: odiousgambitIn Craps like to say "You can change the HE but not the EV" which relates to Free Odds.
Perhaps the general statement should be "You can change the HE but only by increasing the EV".
You aren't changing anything. The bet in front has a 1.4% HE and the bet behind has a 0% HE. Combining the bets to calculate HE makes no sense -- you already know the HE from the front....why make it confusing? Combine the bets if you're trying to calculate variance, maybe. But HE...no.
EV is the opposite of HE. HE = 1.4%. EV = -1.4%.
Quote: RSYou aren't changing anything. The bet in front has a 1.4% HE and the bet behind has a 0% HE. Combining the bets to calculate HE makes no sense
I don't generally like looking at the HE of bet combinations, but make an exception for the free odds in Craps.
Why? because it is possible to tweak your action to include the zero HE bet.
Where it makes no sense is for a player to increase his action dramatically in order to play the free odds IMO. Ideally, a player's *total action* would be nearly the same, when the benefit of it is pretty clear .
This is an old debate. The Wizard covers it. He puts it a different way slightly.
Quote: wizardWhat I suggest is betting less on the pass so that your need for action is mostly met by a full odds bet. For example if you are comfortable betting about $90 per bet, and the casino allows 5x odds, then I would drop the pass line bet to $15 and bet $75 on the odds. That will lower the overall house edge from 1.414% to 0.326%.
https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/craps/odds-bets/
Quote: fergusleeparkHave a fledgling website "by a recreational roulette player for recreational roulette players" where I give some ideas.
"www.fergusleesroulette.co.uk" check "free roulette ideas".
All of your ideas involve betting random
against random, which is always an
epic fail. You have no real bet selection
at all.
People fool themselves into thinking they can out think random events.
I notice the people who think they can beat simple table games like baccarat and roulette, just don't have what it takes to play any real advantage plays, especially if its complicated or they have to think differently, do research, use actual math or statistics.
There are real advantages out there, things like counting cards, VP, promotions, poker sports etc. All that requires actually learning and doing things like strategies and calculation. Thats why They resort to simple guessing games because its easy(they are just like ploppies). With some thought and knowledge using casino promotions rating cards and other methods even the worst games can be beaten. Yet they usually ignorantly ignore that stuff and ploppy it up.
Mike posted up a fairly easy sports system that has been profitable for many years, he even posts up the picks, yet people are ignorantly chasing losing -ev garbage systems.
I guess I should be thanking them and encouraging it.
Quote: AxelWolfI notice the people who think they can beat simple table games like baccarat and roulette, just don't have what it takes to play any real advantage plays, especially if its complicated or they have to think differently, do research, use actual math or statistics.
Sorry Axel,
But I must say your statement come across as being a bit naive.
I am first and foremost an AP roulette player, and have at times, on rare occasions have been an AP bac. player. I must also say that I couldn't make a living off of the paltry edge that exists in the games that you actually believe are "beatable". I find counting cards to be a complete and utter waste of time.
I am not a system player. I do not attempt to exploit random events. On the contrary. I simply exploit inefficiencies that exist in the dealing procedures and equipment used within the games.
For the last several years, I have made a full time living as an AP.
-Keyser
Quote: Keyser
But I must say your statement come across as being a bit naive.
I disagree. I wish more people would make
posts just like his more often, daily even. Spread
the word, the truth needs to be told and
maintained.
I would be the first to agree with you under the right conditions. Obviously If there is a inefficiency in a dealing procedure or something wrong with the equipment IE hole carding, sloppy dealers, biased dice, manufactured marked cards, bad shuffles, , card steering, .card exposure, sequencing, Ace cutting, Shuffle tracking, edge sorting, glitches, Clocking, biased wheels. most of that actually fits this description "complicated or they have to think differently, do research, use actual math or statistics"Quote: KeyserSorry Axel,
But I must say your statement come across as being a bit naive.
I am first and foremost an AP roulette player, and have at times, on rare occasions have been an AP bac. player. I must also say that I couldn't make a living off of the paltry edge that exists in the games that you actually believe are "beatable". I find counting cards to be a complete and utter waste of time.
I am not a system player. I do not attempt to exploit random events. On the contrary. I simply exploit inefficiencies that exist in the dealing procedures and equipment used within the games.
For the last several years, I have made a full time living as an AP.
-Keyser
I don't "believe" counting and such is beatable, I know it is. Like you I rarely chase "paltry edges" I look for 3% or better depending on the situation. I play lower edges at times however thats not my priority. If I find a $5 FPDW somewhere you bet Ill be playing it.
I have stated a few times that just about every game can have the possibility of an advantage under the right conditions including keno, slots, bingo, craps, roulette, Baccarat, but usually those situations can be proven with math calculations. I've had some type of advantage on all of the games in that list and many more.
However with a %100 legitimate normal game playing within the rules, there is no system that works(and that's what i was talking about). It's obvious what 99% of these system players are talking about, Bet selection, money management, using past results and predicting/guessing future results.
Quote: AxelWolfI notice the people who think they can beat simple table games like baccarat and roulette, just don't have what it takes to play any real advantage plays, especially if its complicated or they have to think differently, do research, use actual math or statistics.
I guess my point is that you shouldn't dismiss such people. In a way, it's kind of funny, since the AP players that I work with that play these games, have the same condescending attitude towards the people that are still wasting their time counting cards and playing the games that you consider beatable.
-Keyser
