Carsch system betting analysis

Was wondering if someone can do a deep analysis (1,000,000+ hands) on the 10 step Carsch systems I have below with Baccarat with the following betting sequence:

Trigger: PP
Betting sequence BBB-PPP-BB-PP (10 steps)

Trigger: BB
betting sequence PPP-BBB-PP-BB (10 steps)

Carsch sytstems:

Carsch Progression Betting System.

10 Step Carsch Unit Progression (Standard Risk)
===============================
1,1,2,3,4,6,9,14,21,32 (10 step loss 93 units)


10 Step Aggressive Carsch Progression (Higher Risk Greater Reward)
=====================================
1,2,4,7,11,17,26,40,61,93 (10 step loss 262 units)

Except for the first bet, 2 losses in a row moves you 1 step to the right.
1 win keeps you at the current step.
2 wins in a row resets you back to the beginning of the progression.

I did this with 1000 hands on Bovada's RNG which took quite a while lol
Results have good potential up 210 units

I don't have the software to test that many hands but I was hoping someone on here does.

Quote: GreenZero

I don't have the software to test that many hands but I was hoping someone on here does.

I, and many others here don't need software to answer your question

no money management (progressive) betting system can overcome or reduce the house advantage or have any effect at all on the percentages

those who think it can are either very green or are deluding themselves

many have claimed otherwise, thousands - probably tens of thousands - not a single one has ever proved it

that should tell you something


.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: GreenZero

I don't have the software to test that many hands but I was hoping someone on here does.

I, and many others here don't need software to answer your question

no money management (progressive) betting system can overcome or reduce the house advantage or have any effect at all on the percentages

those who think it can are either very green or are deluding themselves

many have claimed otherwise, thousands - probably tens of thousands - not a single one has ever proved it

that should tell you something


.
link to original post

Oh I know. I just wanted to see test results to see how resistant it is to the house edge and when it fails and how many times.

Quote: GreenZero

Oh I know. I just wanted to see test results to see how resistant it is to the house edge and when it fails and how many times.
link to original post

Please explain 'resisting the house edge'
The system will have no impact on the house edge at all.
What are you hoping to calculate? Probability of winning one unit with a bankroll of x units? Maybe probability of doubling your bankroll?

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: GreenZero

Oh I know. I just wanted to see test results to see how resistant it is to the house edge and when it fails and how many times.
link to original post

Please explain 'resisting the house edge'
The system will have no impact on the house edge at all.
What are you hoping to calculate? Probability of winning one unit with a bankroll of x units? Maybe probability of doubling your bankroll?
link to original post

Resistance meaning how long it stays afloat until it gets beat down by the house edge winning 5 units per session and then walking away from the table. Bankroll management of a total loss (93 units with standard Carsch) = to 10% of your bankroll so if you have a losing session, you take a 10% hit against your bankroll.

For example:
stanadard Carsch 93 units($10 units). You should have atleast a $9300 bankroll ect...

Hi GreenZero,

I set up the progression in Excel as a finite state machine. It simulates even money bets in double zero roulette but doesn't use triggers for the betting sequence.



The simulation runs 1,048,575 rolls.
The number of progressions contained in these rolls is given in row 3 "#attempts"

Rows 5 through 8 show the results for the single rolls which is neither surprising (5.26% house edge) nor useful for a comparison.

Rows 10 through 13 give the results for the equivalent slot machine which requires 93 coins in. The house edge of this slot machine shows the differences.

I am not completely sure whether the Parlay is only wagered on the winning of the first roll or whether both, the wager and its winning amount, have to be wagered again.





Progressions on winnings, here the two step Parlay, are a bad choice on negative expectation games anyway, so I removed the Parlay step and ended the progression after the first win.

Quote: ThomasK

This picture is not meant to be readable but to give an impression and overview of the simulation.

The house edge of the slot machine is roughly around 0.51%.

Parlaying the wager plus the winning amount, raises the slot machine's house edge slightly to something around 0.59%.

Progressions on winnings, here the two step Parlay, are a bad choice on negative expectation games anyway, so I removed the Parlay step and ended the progression after the first win. The house edge of the slot machine now drops to roughly 0.13%.

so, to summarize:

you have 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙑𝙀𝙉 that with this progression the house edge is increased when parlays are used and is reduced dramatically when they are not

Congratulations - you are surely due for consideration for a Fields Medal in Mathematics for your 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙊𝙁𝙎

you have 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙑𝙀𝙉 something that no one else in history has ever proven - right here on WOV - everyone here is so lucky to have seen it here first - WOV should perhaps be mentioned when you are awarded the Fields Medal

you might want to consider providing a readable documentation of your findings when you submit your work to the Judges - but on the other hand - maybe that's not necessary - your 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙊𝙁𝙎 are tremendously compelling even without readable documentation


.

I would not say ThomasK has proven anything. I would say that he has done a simulation, with 1M trials, and produced some evidence.

First, I'm glad ThomasK did this. I haven't seen this Carsch system before and I was hoping someone would analyze it.

Secondly, I think it's appropriate to ask some questions about the simulation and try to understand what has been done. I'll start:

In the 1M trials simulation, how often was the 10-step betting sequence terminated with a loss on the 10th step, losing 93 units (while presumably winning some bets on the way through the progression?) In other words, how many times did you wager 32 units and lose?

How many times did you wager 32 units and win?

What wagers are made after all 10 steps lose?

What was the mean wager size as averaged over the roughly 1M trials?

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: ThomasK

This picture is not meant to be readable but to give an impression and overview of the simulation.

The house edge of the slot machine is roughly around 0.51%.

Parlaying the wager plus the winning amount, raises the slot machine's house edge slightly to something around 0.59%.

Progressions on winnings, here the two step Parlay, are a bad choice on negative expectation games anyway, so I removed the Parlay step and ended the progression after the first win. The house edge of the slot machine now drops to roughly 0.13%.

...you have 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙑𝙀𝙉 that with this progression the house edge is increased when parlays are used and is reduced dramatically when they are not

Congratulations - you are surely due for consideration for a Fields Medal in Mathematics for your 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙊𝙁𝙎
link to original post

Only if ThomasK is under the age of 40.

Quote: GreenZero

Was wondering if someone can do a deep analysis (1,000,000+ hands) on the 10 step Carsch systems I have below with Baccarat with the following betting sequence:

Trigger: PP
Betting sequence BBB-PPP-BB-PP (10 steps)

Trigger: BB
betting sequence PPP-BBB-PP-BB (10 steps)

Except for the first bet, 2 losses in a row moves you 1 step to the right.
1 win keeps you at the current step.
2 wins in a row resets you back to the beginning of the progression.
link to original post

Question: if your first bet is 1 unit on B, are the steps:
1 on B
1 on B
2 on B
3 on P
4 on P
6 on P
9 on B
14 on B
21 on P
32 on P?
In other words, when you get to the point where you are betting 3, do you always bet 3 on P until either you win twice in a row and reset (presumably to 1 on B, as the two Ps that you won would trigger the system), or you lose twice in a row and switch to 4 on P?