Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
• Posts: 3706
August 8th, 2014 at 8:45:32 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

So 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
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
scepticus
Joined: Oct 16, 2013
• Posts: 57
August 8th, 2014 at 8:47:01 PM permalink
Quote: Dieter

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.

I didn't claim to REMOVE the HE
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
• Posts: 20137
August 8th, 2014 at 8:50:15 PM permalink
Quote: scepticus

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

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.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
• Posts: 3706
August 8th, 2014 at 8:51:43 PM permalink
Quote: scepticus

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

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
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
scepticus
Joined: Oct 16, 2013
• Posts: 57
August 8th, 2014 at 9:07:20 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

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:

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
scepticus
Joined: Oct 16, 2013
• Posts: 57
August 8th, 2014 at 9:10:49 PM permalink
My thanks to everyone who posted. Even the one/s who think I am a dumbass !
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
• Posts: 20137
August 8th, 2014 at 9:24:04 PM permalink
Quote: scepticus

My thanks to everyone who posted. Even the one/s who think I am a dumbass !

♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Twirdman
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
• Posts: 1004
August 8th, 2014 at 11:00:16 PM permalink
Quote: scepticus

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

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.
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
• Posts: 3069
August 9th, 2014 at 1:49:06 AM permalink
Quote: scepticus

I 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.
May the cards fall in your favor.
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
• Posts: 8806
August 9th, 2014 at 3:52:19 AM permalink
Quote: scepticus

I 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".
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