The least useless?

So, I have always been fascinated by the idea of finding a game/system that has a very low likelihood of losing in a short term.

I understand that over the long term, every system fails.

That said, I have become fascinated by Aruze's Lucky Big Wheel. (The wiz has a write-up on it here: https://wizardofodds.com/games/big-six/ )

What I am looking for is a way to take advantage of the 85% win rate by betting 6,3,1 in a ratio, then using a "system" to mitigate losses when the 15% chance bites you in the ass.

So far, my best ratio/system is 1 unit on 6, 2 units on 3, and 4 units on 1 - resulting in 0/1/1 85% of spins.

An alternative is 3 units on 3:1, and 5 units on 1:1, resulting in 4/2 72% of spins.

Any thoughts on a system to go with it?

Why?

Quote: RS

Why?

Riches, glory, fame... The usual.

Also, a way to play recreationally and rarely lose.

Quote: 21Flip

Quote: RS

Why?

Riches, glory, fame... The usual.

Also, a way to play recreationally and rarely lose.

I'd find a casino with 10x or 20x odds (craps) then martingale the odds. Well, not a true martingale, but, place enough odds so that if you win, you've made up all your losses (and perhaps gain an extra couple bucks). You don't have to do a true martingale (double up every loss) because the odds payout greater than 1:1. And a small expected loss (-EV) because there's only a HE on the flat bet (pass line).

Remember, it's not a winning system!

I am familiar with craps, and understand that it has great options for play.

The reason I am fascinated by this wheel is the decision speed. Decision every spin, and the huge hit rate on combo bets.

I think that focusing on the 1:1 and 3:1 is actually better, even though the hit rate goes from 85% to 72%.

The big 9% edge on the 6:1 eats into the "system" to much. The 3:1 and 1:1 only have 3.7% edge. It sucks to lose that 13% hit rate, but it's to damn expensive to buy.

Quote: 21Flip

...I understand that over the long term, every system fails...

Quote: 21Flip

Riches, glory, fame... The usual.

Also, a way to play recreationally and rarely lose.

Do you really understand why systems lose then? =P

Quote: Romes

Do you really understand why systems lose then? =P

I call 'counting' a system, a good system. There are others. You have to look at the long run.....
There's variance to account for, a nasty multi-headed beast with big teeth.
And then there are the casino employees who really don't want you to sit there for hours on end drinking their scotch and accumulating chips. Small minded individuals ;-)
It's a cold hard world out there...
Laugh at it.

Quote: Romes

Do you really understand why systems lose then? =P

I know you were most likely being rhetorically snarky here, but I will answer anyway, to clarify my original question.


So, the martingale system, right? "Double your loss, hope no long losing streaks" pretty much sums it up. On the flip side, you end up betting 8,16,32 units to win 1 unit - ewww.

But the reason that the martingale system fails is eventually, that long probability chance of 14 Bankers in a row will come, and you are crushed. Now, the flip side to that is, the odds of that 14 Bankers coming in the couple of hours you are at the table is slim.

So, for someone like me, I want to go into a casino once every few months and putter about for a few hours, playing some system with relatively low risk of hitting a longshot bad event.

And, yes, I know that there are no "sessions" - it is all one big session, as the more time I spend in a casino, the closer my likelihood of experiencing that longshot approaches 1.


Think of it this way - the lottery has a million different combinations, and the prize is $1.1 million this week. Should you buy 1 lottery ticket? How about 10?

From a pure math perspective, yes. You have positive EV.

From a real world perspective? No. It's a 1 in a million shot, or a 1 in 100k shot. Could it happen? Sure! Will it? Highly unlikely.


I want to flip that.

I want to find easy quick game that, by combining the rules and the system, allows me to say - "Eh, I could lose big, but I will probably never see it in my lifetime".


Haven't found it yet.

Half the fun is looking for it. :-)

Quote: 21Flip

So, for someone like me, I want to go into a casino once every few months and putter about for a few hours, playing some system with relatively low risk of hitting a longshot bad event.

So go and do that. But if you play games that have a house advantage you are losing money during those hours of puttering.

Quote: 21Flip

Think of it this way - the lottery has a million different combinations, and the prize is $1.1 million this week. Should you buy 1 lottery ticket? How about 10?

From a pure math perspective, yes. You have positive EV.

From a real world perspective? No. It's a 1 in a million shot, or a 1 in 100k shot. Could it happen? Sure! Will it? Highly unlikely.

If there is no chance of a split jackpot and the $1.1 million is net win after taxes and I can put 20 quick picks on each ticket, I will buy 200 tickets (for $4,000) every day for the next year (or until I hit the jackpot, at which point I'll buy even more. . . )

Quote: TomG

So go and do that. But if you play games that have a house advantage you are losing money during those hours of puttering.



If there is no chance of a split jackpot and the $1.1 million is net win after taxes and I can put 20 quick picks on each ticket, I will buy 200 tickets (for $4,000) every day for the next year (or until I hit the jackpot, at which point I'll buy even more. . . )

And I understand your point. But you doing that would require lots of time, energy, and effort, plus $4000 per day, with no guarantee of a hit - each day's drawing only offers you a 1 in 250 chance of winning.

And that's the point - I want to play a system that is the inverse of doing what you are doing. Where by not using it often, each "session" is unlikely to lose. Some form of crazy anomaly would have to occur.

I understand that I am always at a disadvantage. I just want to make the odds of me experiencing that disadvantage rare.