Carsch system betting analysis

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