Carsch system betting analysis

Quote: GreenZero

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

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

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

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

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%.

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

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

Quote: ThomasK

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.
link to original post

Quote: gordonm888

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?
link to original post

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%.

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


.
link to original post

Quote: ThomasK

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%.

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


.
link to original post

What I'm doing here is not proving but is rather applying the idea that you brought up yourself in the thread MARTINGALE SO DIFFERENT WHEN___. And there I supported your finding with some mathematical evidence. (Thank you, gordonm888, for your clarification of the terms.)

What is different now and what makes you so annoyed?
link to original post

Quote: ThomasK

My point though is, that the Wizard always emphasizes that betting systems can't even dent the house edge. Our calculations seem to suggest otherwise.

Quote: lilredrooster

I'm not annoyed - I just think your post is misleading and could be hurtful to newbies in that they might endlessly chase a progression that can overcome the HA - being influenced by your posts - believing that such a progression may actually exist when it doesn't

imo you need to clarify exactly what your point is - is it that the progression will actually reduce the house edge_____????

or if not, what exactly are you saying - in plain English please - not in abstruse calculation.
link to original post

Quote: gordonm888

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?
link to original post

Quote: Mental

Quote: lilredrooster

I'm not annoyed - I just think your post is misleading and could be hurtful to newbies in that they might endlessly chase a progression that can overcome the HA - being influenced by your posts - believing that such a progression may actually exist when it doesn't

imo you need to clarify exactly what your point is - is it that the progression will actually reduce the house edge_____????

or if not, what exactly are you saying - in plain English please - not in abstruse calculation.
link to original post

Ah, but the opaque calculations and the equivalent slot machine concept are the smoke and mirrors that TK needs to support his bizarre claims.
link to original post

Quote: unJon

Quote: Mental

Quote: lilredrooster

I'm not annoyed - I just think your post is misleading and could be hurtful to newbies in that they might endlessly chase a progression that can overcome the HA - being influenced by your posts - believing that such a progression may actually exist when it doesn't

imo you need to clarify exactly what your point is - is it that the progression will actually reduce the house edge_____????

or if not, what exactly are you saying - in plain English please - not in abstruse calculation.
link to original post

Ah, but the opaque calculations and the equivalent slot machine concept are the smoke and mirrors that TK needs to support his bizarre claims.
link to original post

I’m more charitable than you. I think the equivalent slot machine works to point out a deficiency in the usefulness of the concept of house edge. Happy to elaborate but don’t want to threadjack.
link to original post

Quote: GreenZero

I was also looking at this progression with roulette betting 1 unit each on the 1st&2nd dozens and then betting on the 2nd&3rd dozens. Since your chances of hitting are about 66% it could work beautifully with this progression since your looking for 2 wins in a row to reset back to the beginning. I haven't done a small simulation on this yet though as a progression system involving 2 dozens get expensive really fast.
link to original post

Quote: ThatDonGuy

I just ran 750,000 sessions under the following conditions:
"Standard" method
Units are $20, since winning bets on bank only pay $19
Starting bankroll for each session is 930 units, or $18,600
A session continues until either the bankroll reaches zero or below (and I do allow for "negative bankroll" to make full bets), or 18,695 or above (a profit of 5 units, allowing for the possibility that all of the "winning" hands were bets on bank).

The results:

4883.5 hands per session
92% of the sessions were winners
However, the average result per session was a loss of just over 70 units, which makes sense - 92% of the time, you ended up around +5, and 8% of the time, you ended up around -930; (0.92 x 5) + (0.08 x (-930)) = -69.8.

If you use the "black box" method and treat each session as having bet 930 units, the "house edge" would be about 7.53%.
("How is that possible, since the house edge on straight player bets in baccarat is only 1.25%?" That's the edge per bet - the more you go back and forth between losing everything and reaching your target, the more you expose to that one bet at a time edge.)
link to original post

Quote: ThomasK

Before I answer your replies individually, please see here the Excel definitions I use to simulate the progression.

While preparing the Excel to share with you, I realized a mistake which seems to be in the definition of the system. The amounts of the progression add up to 93, but you need two losses in a row on the same progression level to be eligible to move to the next level. Therefore the amount lost in the worst case is 186 units.
This means that the equivalent slot machine requires 186 coins in.

Here now the components of the Excel for Carsch with Parlay on intitial bet and its winning and corrected coin in for the slot machine:

Prepare section A.

Copy spoiler contents and paste it to Excel, starting at cell A1.

probability(hit) =18/38

#attempts =MAX(L:L)

amount wagered =SUM(H:H)
payed =SUM(I:I)
return =B6/B5
house edge =1-B7

coin in =SUM(M:M)
cash out =SUM(N:N)
return =B11/B10
house edge =1-B12

Prepare section B.

Copy spoiler contents and paste it to Exel, starting at cell D1.

random won? key state wager payed wager per attempt payed per attempt attempt # coin in cash out fin
=RAND() =IF(D2<=$B$1;"won";"lost") =G2&E2 1 =VLOOKUP(F2;Q:W;5;0) =IF(E2="won";2*H2;0) =IF(G2=1;H2;H2+J1) =IF(G2=1;I2;I2+K1) 1 =IF(G2=1;186;0) =IF(G3=1;MIN(1;I2);0)*(186+K2-J2)
=RAND() =IF(D3<=$B$1;"won";"lost") =G3&E3 =VLOOKUP(F2;Q:W;4;0) =VLOOKUP(F3;Q:W;5;0) =IF(E3="won";2*H3;0) =IF(G3=1;H3;H3+J2) =IF(G3=1;I3;I3+K2) =IF(G3=1;L2+1;L2) =IF(G3=1;186;0) =IF(G4=1;MIN(1;I3);0)*(186+K3-J3)

Because of the localization of my Excel you might need to try this version. Semicolons ";" are replaced by commas ",". I'm not able to test whether it works properly:

Copy spoiler contents and paste it to Exel, starting at cell D1.

random won? key state wager payed wager per attempt payed per attempt attempt # coin in cash out fin
=RAND() =IF(D2<=$B$1,"won","lost") =G2&E2 1 =VLOOKUP(F2,Q:W,5,0) =IF(E2="won",2*H2,0) =IF(G2=1,H2,H2+J1) =IF(G2=1,I2,I2+K1) 1 =IF(G2=1,186,0) =IF(G3=1,MIN(1,I2),0)*(186+K2-J2)
=RAND() =IF(D3<=$B$1,"won","lost") =G3&E3 =VLOOKUP(F2,Q:W,4,0) =VLOOKUP(F3,Q:W,5,0) =IF(E3="won",2*H3,0) =IF(G3=1,H3,H3+J2) =IF(G3=1,I3,I3+K2) =IF(G3=1,L2+1,L2) =IF(G3=1,186,0) =IF(G4=1,MIN(1,I3),0)*(186+K3-J3)

Prepare section C.

Copy spoiler contents and paste it to Excel, starting at cell Q1

key state input next wager sub-state fin
=R2&S2 1 won =R4 1 1
=R3&S3 1 lost =R6 1 1
=R4&S4 2 won 1 =2*U2 2
=R5&S5 2 lost =R6 =2*U3 2
=R6&S6 3 won =R4 1 3
=R7&S7 3 lost =R8 1 3
=R8&S8 =U8*10+V8 =S2 =R10 1 =V2
=R9&S9 =U9*10+V9 =S3 =R12 1 =V3
=R10&S10 =U10*10+V10 =S4 1 =2*U8 =V4
=R11&S11 =U11*10+V11 =S5 =R12 =2*U9 =V5
=R12&S12 =U12*10+V12 =S6 =R10 1 =V6
=R13&S13 =U13*10+V13 =S7 =R14 1 =V7
=R14&S14 =U14*10+V14 =S8 =R16 2 =V8
=R15&S15 =U15*10+V15 =S9 =R18 2 =V9
=R16&S16 =U16*10+V16 =S10 1 =2*U14 =V10
=R17&S17 =U17*10+V17 =S11 =R18 =2*U15 =V11
=R18&S18 =U18*10+V18 =S12 =R16 2 =V12
=R19&S19 =U19*10+V19 =S13 =R20 2 =V13
=R20&S20 =U20*10+V20 =S14 =R22 3 =V14
=R21&S21 =U21*10+V21 =S15 =R24 3 =V15
=R22&S22 =U22*10+V22 =S16 1 =2*U20 =V16
=R23&S23 =U23*10+V23 =S17 =R24 =2*U21 =V17
=R24&S24 =U24*10+V24 =S18 =R22 3 =V18
=R25&S25 =U25*10+V25 =S19 =R26 3 =V19
=R26&S26 =U26*10+V26 =S20 =R28 4 =V20
=R27&S27 =U27*10+V27 =S21 =R30 4 =V21
=R28&S28 =U28*10+V28 =S22 1 =2*U26 =V22
=R29&S29 =U29*10+V29 =S23 =R30 =2*U27 =V23
=R30&S30 =U30*10+V30 =S24 =R28 4 =V24
=R31&S31 =U31*10+V31 =S25 =R32 4 =V25
=R32&S32 =U32*10+V32 =S26 =R34 6 =V26
=R33&S33 =U33*10+V33 =S27 =R36 6 =V27
=R34&S34 =U34*10+V34 =S28 1 =2*U32 =V28
=R35&S35 =U35*10+V35 =S29 =R36 =2*U33 =V29
=R36&S36 =U36*10+V36 =S30 =R34 6 =V30
=R37&S37 =U37*10+V37 =S31 =R38 6 =V31
=R38&S38 =U38*10+V38 =S32 =R40 9 =V32
=R39&S39 =U39*10+V39 =S33 =R42 9 =V33
=R40&S40 =U40*10+V40 =S34 1 =2*U38 =V34
=R41&S41 =U41*10+V41 =S35 =R42 =2*U39 =V35
=R42&S42 =U42*10+V42 =S36 =R40 9 =V36
=R43&S43 =U43*10+V43 =S37 =R44 9 =V37
=R44&S44 =U44*10+V44 =S38 =R46 14 =V38
=R45&S45 =U45*10+V45 =S39 =R48 14 =V39
=R46&S46 =U46*10+V46 =S40 1 =2*U44 =V40
=R47&S47 =U47*10+V47 =S41 =R48 =2*U45 =V41
=R48&S48 =U48*10+V48 =S42 =R46 14 =V42
=R49&S49 =U49*10+V49 =S43 =R50 14 =V43
=R50&S50 =U50*10+V50 =S44 =R52 21 =V44
=R51&S51 =U51*10+V51 =S45 =R54 21 =V45
=R52&S52 =U52*10+V52 =S46 1 =2*U50 =V46
=R53&S53 =U53*10+V53 =S47 =R54 =2*U51 =V47
=R54&S54 =U54*10+V54 =S48 =R52 21 =V48
=R55&S55 =U55*10+V55 =S49 =R56 21 =V49
=R56&S56 =U56*10+V56 =S50 =R58 32 =V50
=R57&S57 =U57*10+V57 =S51 =R60 32 =V51
=R58&S58 =U58*10+V58 =S52 1 =2*U56 =V52
=R59&S59 =U59*10+V59 =S53 =R60 =2*U57 =V53
=R60&S60 =U60*10+V60 =S54 =R58 32 =V54
=R61&S61 =U61*10+V61 =S55 1 32 =V55

Finalize section B.

BEWARE: Excel might take quite some time to calculate the simaulation. Start with a few thousand rows before copying down the whole worksheet.

Mark the cells D3 through N3.
Copy these cells.
Paste these cells down the worksheet.

Simulate.

By refreshing the sheet, the random rolls in column D get updated.
The overall results are displayed in section A, i.e. columns A and B.

The other finite state machines.

Carsch with Parlay on the winning only. Paste, starting at cell Q1.

key state input next wager sub-state fin
=R2&S2 1 won =R4 1 1
=R3&S3 1 lost =R6 1 1
=R4&S4 2 won 1 1 2
=R5&S5 2 lost =R6 1 2
=R6&S6 3 won =R4 1 3
=R7&S7 3 lost =R8 1 3
=R8&S8 =U8*10+V8 =S2 =R10 1 =V2
=R9&S9 =U9*10+V9 =S3 =R12 1 =V3
=R10&S10 =U10*10+V10 =S4 1 1 =V4
=R11&S11 =U11*10+V11 =S5 =R12 1 =V5
=R12&S12 =U12*10+V12 =S6 =R10 1 =V6
=R13&S13 =U13*10+V13 =S7 =R14 1 =V7
=R14&S14 =U14*10+V14 =S8 =R16 2 =V8
=R15&S15 =U15*10+V15 =S9 =R18 2 =V9
=R16&S16 =U16*10+V16 =S10 1 2 =V10
=R17&S17 =U17*10+V17 =S11 =R18 2 =V11
=R18&S18 =U18*10+V18 =S12 =R16 2 =V12
=R19&S19 =U19*10+V19 =S13 =R20 2 =V13
=R20&S20 =U20*10+V20 =S14 =R22 3 =V14
=R21&S21 =U21*10+V21 =S15 =R24 3 =V15
=R22&S22 =U22*10+V22 =S16 1 3 =V16
=R23&S23 =U23*10+V23 =S17 =R24 3 =V17
=R24&S24 =U24*10+V24 =S18 =R22 3 =V18
=R25&S25 =U25*10+V25 =S19 =R26 3 =V19
=R26&S26 =U26*10+V26 =S20 =R28 4 =V20
=R27&S27 =U27*10+V27 =S21 =R30 4 =V21
=R28&S28 =U28*10+V28 =S22 1 4 =V22
=R29&S29 =U29*10+V29 =S23 =R30 4 =V23
=R30&S30 =U30*10+V30 =S24 =R28 4 =V24
=R31&S31 =U31*10+V31 =S25 =R32 4 =V25
=R32&S32 =U32*10+V32 =S26 =R34 6 =V26
=R33&S33 =U33*10+V33 =S27 =R36 6 =V27
=R34&S34 =U34*10+V34 =S28 1 6 =V28
=R35&S35 =U35*10+V35 =S29 =R36 6 =V29
=R36&S36 =U36*10+V36 =S30 =R34 6 =V30
=R37&S37 =U37*10+V37 =S31 =R38 6 =V31
=R38&S38 =U38*10+V38 =S32 =R40 9 =V32
=R39&S39 =U39*10+V39 =S33 =R42 9 =V33
=R40&S40 =U40*10+V40 =S34 1 9 =V34
=R41&S41 =U41*10+V41 =S35 =R42 9 =V35
=R42&S42 =U42*10+V42 =S36 =R40 9 =V36
=R43&S43 =U43*10+V43 =S37 =R44 9 =V37
=R44&S44 =U44*10+V44 =S38 =R46 14 =V38
=R45&S45 =U45*10+V45 =S39 =R48 14 =V39
=R46&S46 =U46*10+V46 =S40 1 14 =V40
=R47&S47 =U47*10+V47 =S41 =R48 14 =V41
=R48&S48 =U48*10+V48 =S42 =R46 14 =V42
=R49&S49 =U49*10+V49 =S43 =R50 14 =V43
=R50&S50 =U50*10+V50 =S44 =R52 21 =V44
=R51&S51 =U51*10+V51 =S45 =R54 21 =V45
=R52&S52 =U52*10+V52 =S46 1 21 =V46
=R53&S53 =U53*10+V53 =S47 =R54 21 =V47
=R54&S54 =U54*10+V54 =S48 =R52 21 =V48
=R55&S55 =U55*10+V55 =S49 =R56 21 =V49
=R56&S56 =U56*10+V56 =S50 =R58 32 =V50
=R57&S57 =U57*10+V57 =S51 =R60 32 =V51
=R58&S58 =U58*10+V58 =S52 1 32 =V52
=R59&S59 =U59*10+V59 =S53 =R60 32 =V53
=R60&S60 =U60*10+V60 =S54 =R58 32 =V54
=R61&S61 =U61*10+V61 =S55 1 32 =V55

Carsch without Parlay. Paste, starting at cell Q1.

key state input next wager sub-state fin
=R2&S2 1 won 1 1 1
=R3&S3 1 lost =R6 1 1
=R4&S4 2 won 1 =2*U2 2
=R5&S5 2 lost =R6 =2*U3 2
=R6&S6 3 won 1 1 3
=R7&S7 3 lost =R8 1 3
=R8&S8 =U8*10+V8 =S2 1 1 =V2
=R9&S9 =U9*10+V9 =S3 =R12 1 =V3
=R10&S10 =U10*10+V10 =S4 1 =2*U8 =V4
=R11&S11 =U11*10+V11 =S5 =R12 =2*U9 =V5
=R12&S12 =U12*10+V12 =S6 1 1 =V6
=R13&S13 =U13*10+V13 =S7 =R14 1 =V7
=R14&S14 =U14*10+V14 =S8 1 2 =V8
=R15&S15 =U15*10+V15 =S9 =R18 2 =V9
=R16&S16 =U16*10+V16 =S10 1 =2*U14 =V10
=R17&S17 =U17*10+V17 =S11 =R18 =2*U15 =V11
=R18&S18 =U18*10+V18 =S12 1 2 =V12
=R19&S19 =U19*10+V19 =S13 =R20 2 =V13
=R20&S20 =U20*10+V20 =S14 1 3 =V14
=R21&S21 =U21*10+V21 =S15 =R24 3 =V15
=R22&S22 =U22*10+V22 =S16 1 =2*U20 =V16
=R23&S23 =U23*10+V23 =S17 =R24 =2*U21 =V17
=R24&S24 =U24*10+V24 =S18 1 3 =V18
=R25&S25 =U25*10+V25 =S19 =R26 3 =V19
=R26&S26 =U26*10+V26 =S20 1 4 =V20
=R27&S27 =U27*10+V27 =S21 =R30 4 =V21
=R28&S28 =U28*10+V28 =S22 1 =2*U26 =V22
=R29&S29 =U29*10+V29 =S23 =R30 =2*U27 =V23
=R30&S30 =U30*10+V30 =S24 1 4 =V24
=R31&S31 =U31*10+V31 =S25 =R32 4 =V25
=R32&S32 =U32*10+V32 =S26 1 6 =V26
=R33&S33 =U33*10+V33 =S27 =R36 6 =V27
=R34&S34 =U34*10+V34 =S28 1 =2*U32 =V28
=R35&S35 =U35*10+V35 =S29 =R36 =2*U33 =V29
=R36&S36 =U36*10+V36 =S30 1 6 =V30
=R37&S37 =U37*10+V37 =S31 =R38 6 =V31
=R38&S38 =U38*10+V38 =S32 1 9 =V32
=R39&S39 =U39*10+V39 =S33 =R42 9 =V33
=R40&S40 =U40*10+V40 =S34 1 =2*U38 =V34
=R41&S41 =U41*10+V41 =S35 =R42 =2*U39 =V35
=R42&S42 =U42*10+V42 =S36 1 9 =V36
=R43&S43 =U43*10+V43 =S37 =R44 9 =V37
=R44&S44 =U44*10+V44 =S38 1 14 =V38
=R45&S45 =U45*10+V45 =S39 =R48 14 =V39
=R46&S46 =U46*10+V46 =S40 1 =2*U44 =V40
=R47&S47 =U47*10+V47 =S41 =R48 =2*U45 =V41
=R48&S48 =U48*10+V48 =S42 1 14 =V42
=R49&S49 =U49*10+V49 =S43 =R50 14 =V43
=R50&S50 =U50*10+V50 =S44 1 21 =V44
=R51&S51 =U51*10+V51 =S45 =R54 21 =V45
=R52&S52 =U52*10+V52 =S46 1 =2*U50 =V46
=R53&S53 =U53*10+V53 =S47 =R54 =2*U51 =V47
=R54&S54 =U54*10+V54 =S48 1 21 =V48
=R55&S55 =U55*10+V55 =S49 =R56 21 =V49
=R56&S56 =U56*10+V56 =S50 1 32 =V50
=R57&S57 =U57*10+V57 =S51 =R60 32 =V51
=R58&S58 =U58*10+V58 =S52 1 =2*U56 =V52
=R59&S59 =U59*10+V59 =S53 =R60 =2*U57 =V53
=R60&S60 =U60*10+V60 =S54 1 32 =V54
=R61&S61 =U61*10+V61 =S55 1 32 =V55

link to original post

Quote: darkoz

Quote: GreenZero

I was also looking at this progression with roulette betting 1 unit each on the 1st&2nd dozens and then betting on the 2nd&3rd dozens. Since your chances of hitting are about 66% it could work beautifully with this progression since your looking for 2 wins in a row to reset back to the beginning. I haven't done a small simulation on this yet though as a progression system involving 2 dozens get expensive really fast.
link to original post

It wouldn't be a carsch.

The idea is to win two in a row. Betting two of three dozens means you lose twice as much per loss and win half as much per win.

Let's say you lose, 1,2,4,7. That's 14×2 so you just lost 28.

And now you win the next two. That's win 22-11 and again the second spin so you made back only 22 units after losing 28.

You would have to win three in a row. And as the progression of losses goes on then the number of winning spins needed goes up.

What you should analyze is the opposite.

Betting just one dozen using the carsch because you only need one win instead of two to profit.

Lose 1,2,4,7 for a fourteen unit loss. Then win 22 on the fifth spin.

Or perhaps a combo carsch. For example if you win the fifth you make a second spin be two dozens by splitting the win.

Example: Lose first four. 1,2,4,7. Then win 22 and divide that for to get the second win so you cover 11 on two of three dozens.

If you win the second spin you add 11 more for a profit of 19. (33-14).
link to original post

Quote: lilredrooster

______________


the Carsch progression got me thinking about parlays
and no, of course I'm not claiming that this changes the HA in any way

but it is kinna interesting to me anyway

if you successfully parlay the 2nd to last number in the progression - $21 - you have a win equalling $63___________I'm not counting previous losses

but if you successfully parlay the last number in the progression - $32 you have a win equalling $96

the risk in the larger parlay attempt has increased by only $11 - but your win has increased by $33

the size of the win has increased by three times the size of the increase in the risk


.
link to original post

Quote: JackSpade

The only way you're going to dent the house edge, assuming you win no more often than your actual statistical odds of winning, is if your average wager on winning bets is higher than on losing bets.

Technically, the house edge itself doesn't change as a result of any progression. It's the same on every bet regardless of size, assuming all outcomes are equally random.

What can change is the player's expected returns on a game if he is using a progression that always results in the highest wager being a win. That's a big "if." But with a large enough bankroll, low enough initial wager, high enough maximum wager, and gentle enough progression to allow for more than 10 steps, a system somewhat like Carsch as described in this thead and as applied to two dozens bets on roulette could conceivably be sustained through any "2 in a row" drought a player would ever likely suffer in his lifetime. It therefore could create an expectation that average wagers on winning bets would be slightly higher than on losing bets.
link to original post

Quote: JackSpade

But with a large enough bankroll, low enough initial wager, high enough maximum wager, and gentle enough progression to allow for more than 10 steps, a system somewhat like Carsch as described in this thead and as applied to two dozens bets on roulette could conceivably be sustained through any "2 in a row" drought a player would ever likely suffer in his lifetime. It therefore could create an expectation that average wagers on winning bets would be slightly higher than on losing bets.