DeMango
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 2452
July 28th, 2020 at 2:38:40 PM permalink
This is why this progression works when wins and losses are similar. Perfect progression for even chance bets, which is why it was designed.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 154
  • Posts: 2883
July 28th, 2020 at 4:18:24 PM permalink
pardon me for changing the subject a little bit - but maybe still relevant

on another website a guy posted that he used Oscar's grind not because he believed it was a winning system but to milk comps out of the house
the idea was that he would last longer than flat betting

for example, if your bets range from $10 to $200 during a session will the PB really see that?
or will he rate you as a guy who sometimes bets $150 or $200
I'm not sure

I don't really know if his idea had any validity
any comments about that?
.................↔◄ ♣ ¶ §@ ~ Æ ¥ ¿ µ ± ™ œ ¿ € ™ © ® ≈ ♣ ◄ ↔..............
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1325
  • Posts: 21766
July 28th, 2020 at 5:25:13 PM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

on another website a guy posted that he used Oscar's grind not because he believed it was a winning system but to milk comps out of the house
the idea was that he would last longer than flat betting

for example, if your bets range from $10 to $200 during a session will the PB really see that?
or will he rate you as a guy who sometimes bets $150 or $200



I don't believe either point has validity.

First, if you want your money to last as long as possible, then flat betting will achieve that. I am interested to see evidence to the contrary.

Second, the floor, in my experience, tends to estimate on the low side of your range. If your range is $10 to $200, with an average of $100, I think you would see an average bet of about $50. If your goal is comps, you should bet more on your first bet and when the floor is watching.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 154
  • Posts: 2883
July 29th, 2020 at 3:41:06 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard



First, if you want your money to last as long as possible, then flat betting will achieve that. I am interested to see evidence to the contrary.





maybe Don could do a sim - he seems to like doing them - I would do it, but it's not my thing - I would probably mess it up
Don - I hope you don't mind my asking -


compare the # of bets a guy would on average be able to make starting off betting $10 at 2 zero roulette until he taps out his whole $1,500 bankroll

compared to a guy flat betting $75

it would be fun to see the results
Last edited by: lilredrooster on Jul 29, 2020
.................↔◄ ♣ ¶ §@ ~ Æ ¥ ¿ µ ± ™ œ ¿ € ™ © ® ≈ ♣ ◄ ↔..............
DeMango
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 2452
July 29th, 2020 at 4:45:48 AM permalink
I agree with a sim BUT double zero Roulette? Don't Pass at craps would be far more interesting and way less house advantage. If it were possible to do a Banker bet with 1.05 unit advance on a loss, but that might be unrealistic.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 154
  • Posts: 2883
July 29th, 2020 at 6:27:17 AM permalink
yeah, you're right - it would be better on a house game with a lower HA

oscar's grind:


the very old story is that there 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘖𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘳


according to this link:


"The originator of the system, a weekend Craps shooter, undescribed except as Oscar, told Wilson that he had never left Las Vegas as anything but a winner.

The celebrated gambling mathematician, Dr. Allan N. Wilson, introduced the system in his immensely informative book, “The Casino Gambler’s Guide”.

Wilson reported that Julian Braun, the foremost computer analyst of gambling probabilities, had found that a player who used the system on even-money Craps wagers with a betting unit of $1 would risk reaching a $500 house limit no more often than once in 4,250 sessions."




very, very interesting................to me anyway



https://www.casinoencyclopedia.com/oscars_grind_for_bj_etc/




before anybody jumps to play this system -
they player will still lose more than he won if he gets into what is generally referred to as 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘶𝘯
.................↔◄ ♣ ¶ §@ ~ Æ ¥ ¿ µ ± ™ œ ¿ € ™ © ® ≈ ♣ ◄ ↔..............
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
  • Threads: 94
  • Posts: 4189
July 29th, 2020 at 6:54:50 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

maybe Don could do a sim - he seems to like doing them - I would do it, but it's not my thing - I would probably mess it up
Don - I hope you don't mind my asking -


compare the # of bets a guy would on average be able to make starting off betting $10 at 2 zero roulette until he taps out his whole $1,500 bankroll

compared to a guy flat betting $75

it would be fun to see the results


Double Zero Roulette:
Flat Bet: 380 bets
D'Alembert: 290 bets

Single Zero Roulette:
Flat Bet: 740 bets
D'Alembert: 477 bets

The flat bet values are calculated from the Gambler's Ruin formula: mean number of bets = initial bankroll / (1 - 2p), where p is the probability of winning a bet.
For double zero roulette with a bet of 75 and a bankroll of 1500 (i.e. 20 bets), the number = 20 / (1 - 2 x 9/19)) = 20 / (1/19) = 380.

Note that flat betting 1 will last longer than a D'Alembert starting with 1, for a very simple reason; you will expose more money to any house edge with D'Alembert than you would with a flat bet equal to the initial D'Alembert bet.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 154
  • Posts: 2883
July 29th, 2020 at 7:27:47 AM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy



Note that flat betting 1 will last longer than a D'Alembert starting with 1, for a very simple reason; you will expose more money to any house edge with D'Alembert than you would with a flat bet equal to the initial D'Alembert bet.




yes, but I was referring to Oscar's grind - not the D'Alembert

also, I was postulating that with Oscar you would start betting with $10 and tap out when you have lost your $1500

but flat betting you would average things out and bet $75 every time - not starting at the lowest bet when playing Oscar which is $10

or maybe it's more realistic for the flat bet to be $50 - not sure



I was wondering who would last longer if they both had roughly 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 exposed to the house edge.
.................↔◄ ♣ ¶ §@ ~ Æ ¥ ¿ µ ± ™ œ ¿ € ™ © ® ≈ ♣ ◄ ↔..............
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1325
  • Posts: 21766
July 29th, 2020 at 5:27:08 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, assuming the first bet is a loss and the number of losses exceeds the number of wins until the last bet of the run, if the player has a run of N losses and N wins in some order, won't the profit be N?



That's correct. Do you feel it contradicts something I said?
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
  • Threads: 94
  • Posts: 4189
July 29th, 2020 at 5:46:24 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

That's correct. Do you feel it contradicts something I said?


No - I think I misread what you were describing in your table.

  • Jump to: