Ken's Asian Roulette Method
Quote: mrjjj??? What? So we will BOTH lose but I'll do it before you and somehow thats bad for me but better for you? Hmmm, ok.
Ken
ummm...yes, assuming you actually like playing. I'll get to play longer, and longer is better if the activity is fun.
Quote: MarieBicurieHow can someone be unbiased AGAINST someone? Either way, your test is flawed because you will only test under your terms and conditions. And then you go one to tell me that I'm biased?[/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can word it how you want to, knock yourself out. I said....non-bias, not unbiased.
The test is NOT flawed, its perfect. You made my point and dont even know it.
Test it under MY TERMS? The reason I worded the question like that is simple. BECAUSE, many people will say that under ANY ANY ANY situation, certain numbers (no bias in the wheel) will not or should not be BETTER for betting. There are like 300 posts that say that. So I worded the question accordingly. Its worded so PERFECT, few want to answer it honestly. If 'they' do, they are fu***d and 'they' know it. They can HIDE all they want behind...."its a dumb question Ken".
Talk about getting out of it. (lol)
Dont forget, I changed it a bit....3 numbers, not 4. 800 trials, not 100.
Let me ask you this. Assuming you think its not FAIR, which part of it is UNFAIR? (I'm sorry, is that a word? lol)
Ken
Quote: rdw4potusummm...yes, assuming you actually like playing. I'll get to play longer, and longer is better if the activity is fun.
Not counting comps (I could careless about them), let me see if I got this? (I love your logic BTW)
We both start off with 2K. I lose my 2K and 2-3 days later, your 2K is gone. Ok......but you have the upperhand over me?
Ken
Quote: rdw4potusNo. Why: Table limits and variance both exist.
Another example of wanting it BOTH ways. Let me sum it up and tell me which part I am wrong on.
Ok....dont play roulette, its a high HA. Play other games with a SKILL involved, lower HA. Correct so far?
As in my previous post, we both start off with 2K, you last longer than me BUT we both lose the 2K REGARDLESS of the HA.
You do not (as posted) pull in 10-20K per week because of 'table limits and variance'. Correct?
MarieBicurie has posted that 'she' does net that amount per week, I'm confused.
Ken
Quote: rdw4potusThis is absolutely false. NOT AT ALL CORRECT, KEN. AP is usually discussed as holecarding table games, counting BJ, playing games like video poker that actually have a player advantage, and taking advantage of generous promotions.
Especially on this board, there is only one person who talks about AP as clocking the wheel/bias. Wanna guess who that person is? (cough) (lol) (*facepalm*)
I did NOT say its the ONLY conversation in regards to AP and I did say 'other boards'. Of all the boards I'm on, this one is LAST to check during the day.
Listen, if someone wants to put a lable on themself as 'gifted' or 'skilled' or they have an 'edge' or they have an 'advantage' etc., go ahead. (lol)
Its your God given right.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjNot counting comps (I could careless about them), let me see if I got this? (I love your logic BTW)
We both start off with 2K. I lose my 2K and 2-3 days later, your 2K is gone. Ok......but you have the upperhand over me?
Are you actually suggesting that you'd rather lose your $2000 right away than over the course of 3 days? If that's true, you're unlike the majority of gamblers for whom gambling is entertainment. When most people pay for entertainment, they want to experience what they're paying for. 3 days of gambling for $2000 is a fair exchange for many people, but one hour of gambling for $2000 is not -- especially if you've flown to Las Vegas and still have two more days and no bankroll.
When you go to a movie, you expect to be entertained for a reasonable amount of time. The price is the same but the entertainment varies. If I see a terrible movie that lasts for 35 minutes, I absolutely feel worse than if I see a great movie that lasts for 2 hours. Gambling shouldn't be any different. If it is for you, you should rethink your gambling activities.
Quote: buzzpaffPerhaps you check this one last because others believe some of your BS.
Believe what? I gain nothing/lose nothing.
If you have a GREAT day gambling......I gain nothing/lose nothing.
Ken
Quote: MathExtremistAre you actually suggesting that you'd rather lose your $2000 right away than over the course of 3 days? If that's true, you're unlike the majority of gamblers for whom gambling is entertainment. When most people pay for entertainment, they want to experience what they're paying for. 3 days of gambling for $2000 is a fair exchange for many people, but one hour of gambling for $2000 is not -- especially if you've flown to Las Vegas and still have two more days and no bankroll.
When you go to a movie, you expect to be entertained for a reasonable amount of time. The price is the same but the entertainment varies. If I see a terrible movie that lasts for 35 minutes, I absolutely feel worse than if I see a great movie that lasts for 2 hours. Gambling shouldn't be any different. If it is for you, you should rethink your gambling activities.
"Are you actually suggesting that you'd rather lose your $2000 right away than over the course of 3 days? If that's true, you're unlike the majority of gamblers" >>>
So lets examine this EDGE you have over me. We both lost our 2K but I lost it a BIT SOONER. Where is the 'edge' thingie, I'm lost? You had more FUN losing your 2K, now I got it, my bad. You can scream at the top of your lungs how you are the king of all kings because you dont play roulette BUT you'll 'still lose' playing your game. Huh?
Ken
Quote: thecesspitPlaying a game with a lower house edge, but the same variance means you are more likely to be a winner at the end of any session (as long as the end of the session is not stated as being "out of cash").
So now we're breaking it down by sessions? Oh boy......
Ken
Quote: mrjjj"Are you actually suggesting that you'd rather lose your $2000 right away than over the course of 3 days? If that's true, you're unlike the majority of gamblers" >>>
So lets examine this EDGE you have over me. We both lost our 2K but I lost it a BIT SOONER. Where is the 'edge' thingie, I'm lost? You had more FUN losing your 2K, now I got it, my bad. You can scream at the top of your lungs how you are the king of all kings because you dont play roulette BUT you'll 'still lose' playing your game. Huh?
Ken
Ken, you keep missing the point. The great majority of players do not go to a casino expecting to make money. They go expecting to have a small chance to make money. My 2k at pai gow will have a much greater chance of being turned into a win than your 2k at roulette. But my best chance at 'doubling up' would be to bet it all on one pai gowhand, or red at roulette. That is not why I go to a casino, nor is it why most people go.
You often chide others on not answering your questions.... I have one for you.... To me the two green numbers (0) and (00), make it impossible to win at roulette in anything but the shortest run of luck. You obviously disagree. Here's the question...
How many more green numbers could a wheel have and you still be able to have a 'method' that could reliably produce winning results?
Quote: SOOPOOKen, you keep missing the point. The great majority of players do not go to a casino expecting to make money. They go expecting to have a small chance to make money. My 2k at pai gow will have a much greater chance of being turned into a win than your 2k at roulette. But my best chance at 'doubling up' would be to bet it all on one pai gowhand, or red at roulette. That is not why I go to a casino, nor is it why most people go.
You often chide others on not answering your questions.... I have one for you.... To me the two green numbers (0) and (00), make it impossible to win at roulette in anything but the shortest run of luck. You obviously disagree. Here's the question...
How many more green numbers could a wheel have and you still be able to have a 'method' that could reliably produce winning results?
A respectful post, quite nice. Dont forget, its not the greens that give the house its edge, its the fact that the payout is 35:1. There are more numbers than 35.
That aside, I agree with you, most only go to the casino to 'have fun'. Very odd thinking but hey, its their money, have a blast. You know how a person can SPOT ME playing? I'll be the guy after a hit of $1,750......not even cracking a smile. Big deal !!
"You often chide others on not answering your questions" >>> Very true and I dont mean 7 minutes. (lol) I think a week or so is PLENTY of time assuming their computer did not crash etc. I already count around 6 questions HERE, not yet answered. Will they? Most likely not. Your question, how many zero's? You want a funny answer (but serious)? I have TESTED methods at random.org and put in 3 zero's instead of two, just to see results. Who else do you know does that? All those results sucked. So I guess my answer is TWO. I wish to God that the laws were different for online betting here in the U.S.
I practice ALOT at DublinBet (one zero) and have very good results but it does me no good, its all fake money. This is called open communication. You asked me a question and I answered it the best I could. I hope my answer was satisfactory?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjSo now we're breaking it down by sessions? Oh boy......
Ken
Indeed, you can view it as all "one long session" that is life. I gamble in sessions, as I go once a year to Vegas, and want to give myself the best chance to be ahead at the end of the day. I do not gamble for profit. I am not an AP (of any stripe).
The point still stands. With a game with lower EV (and the same variance, very important this, which is very key about Roulette...) you are more likely to have a higher bank balance at any point, be that after one hour, one year or one life time. It's more likely you will be in the positive (which is good, right) than a game with more of a house edge.
That's all I'm saying. You can be ahead after 4 days with a -5.26% game, and behind with a -0.5% game after 4 days. Just that it's MORE LIKELY that the -0.5% game will be doing better for the player.
With games with HIGH variance (single number bets on the roulette wheel is one) means you'll deviate from the "EV" result much more (either above or below). It can be shown that a life time player of Craps on pass line betting x10 odds (a negative expectation game) can be ahead at the day of his death (1 million rolls, if I recall the numbers I crunched once, 20% chance of being ahead on death).
Thus I believe YOU (Ken) can be ahead just via the variance of the game, and the methods/systems you play are not the reason why you are ahead. It just appears to you that they are the reason. You may not agree with this. So be it.
Quote: mrjjj
I did ask MarieBicurie a GREAT question, still waiting. To be FAIR, she can take her time. She kind of WALKED INTO IT so its not 100% my fault.
What was that? My definition of "Great" is hardly the same as yours.
Quote: MarieBicurieWhat was that? My definition of "Great" is hardly the same as yours.
Ummm, ok. Take your time with my question. Fair is fair.
Ken
Quote: mrjjj"Are you actually suggesting that you'd rather lose your $2000 right away than over the course of 3 days? If that's true, you're unlike the majority of gamblers" >>>
So lets examine this EDGE you have over me. We both lost our 2K but I lost it a BIT SOONER. Where is the 'edge' thingie, I'm lost? You had more FUN losing your 2K, now I got it, my bad. You can scream at the top of your lungs how you are the king of all kings because you dont play roulette BUT you'll 'still lose' playing your game. Huh?
Ken
1) I play against the house. I never said I had an edge over you, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
2) Yes, I play for fun. I try to win money, but I also try to stretch my gambling budget to fit the trip I'm taking. I have never lost $2000 in a trip, but I have won $2000 several times.
3) I certainly never have "screamed at the top of my lungs about how I am the king of all kings because I don't play roulette." I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps your tirade was misdirected?
4) In fact, I do play roulette occasionally. My primary games are craps and VP, but I've played just about everything at one time or another.
5) I also win roughly as often as I lose, and while I am slightly ahead over the course of my gambling career, I chalk that up to being lucky, not any perception of skill. I know very well what the house edge is and I harbor no illusions that I am exerting any skill over the game -- certainly not by placing specific combinations of wagers in varying amounts (a.k.a. a "betting system"). I learned a long time ago that such wager combinations have no impact on the house edge.
Quote: mrjjjhttps://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/5901-kens-asian-roulette-method/11/ <<< If you want, I can ask the question again? Its YOUR choice.
Ken
Well, if it is my choice. Yes, please ask it again. I saw the part of fair or unfair but have no idea to what specifically you are referring to.
Quote: MathExtremist1) I play against the house. I never said I had an edge over you, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
2) Yes, I play for fun. I try to win money, but I also try to stretch my gambling budget to fit the trip I'm taking. I have never lost $2000 in a trip, but I have won $2000 several times.
3) I certainly never have "screamed at the top of my lungs about how I am the king of all kings because I don't play roulette." I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps your tirade was misdirected?
4) In fact, I do play roulette occasionally. My primary games are craps and VP, but I've played just about everything at one time or another.
5) I also win roughly as often as I lose, and while I am slightly ahead over the course of my gambling career, I chalk that up to being lucky, not any perception of skill. I know very well what the house edge is and I harbor no illusions that I am exerting any skill over the game -- certainly not by placing specific combinations of wagers in varying amounts (a.k.a. a "betting system"). I learned a long time ago that such wager combinations have no impact on the house edge.
You're missing the point, big shock. (lol)
The guys that slam roulette can NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, I started a thread about it. If a person (anyone) slams roulette cause its no good and THEIR game of choice is SMARTER to play, thats fine but then you better be netting 10-20K per week. If not, we have a serious problem with LIES and illusions.
I have NO RESPECT for the poster that says roulette sucks but at the SAME time, they are not pulling in 10-20K per week. To me, those are red flags. Your game(s) of choice is most likely great in theory but you STILL get pounded just like the rest of the hacks. Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts.
Ken
Quote: MarieBicurieWell, if it is my choice. Yes, please ask it again. I saw the part of fair or unfair but have no idea to what specifically you are referring to.
Keep in mind, she ASKED ME to post this again.
I'll track the last 150 spins. I'll pick 3 numbers for me and I'll pick 3 numbers for you to flat bet for ONLY THE NEXT 20 spins. For myself, I'll take the most current 3 numbers with 3 hits on them (temporarily hot). For you, I'll pick the 3 numbers that have hit the LEAST in the last 150 spins. We will flat bet for the next 20 spins. This TEST (hypothetical) would be done over 800 trials. <<<
Ok, you stated >>> "test is flawed because you will only test under your terms and conditions".
I'm asking, why do you feel it is unfair?
Ken
Quote: SOOPOOThanks for answering my question. 2 zero's is your max. Ken- your comment about 'netting 10 -20 k per week' only makes sense if someone is claiming they have a 'method' or 'system' to beat a game reliably and consistently. If you read ME's and my posts we both generally expect to lose. Others who use Advantage Play at certain VP games have calculated how much per hour they can average over time, and none come close to 10k per week. BJ card counters are often prevented from plying their trade, and thus likely are unable to net that magic 10k per week reliably. As far as poker, there are hundreds if not thousands who can meet your requirement of 10- 20 k per week. ME's and my claims are not that we have found the magic wand that lets us beat the casino, but rather, that you have not, either. By the way, you pick '10 to 20k' per week. I think there are many on this forum who would be happy if they could devise a 'method' to pull in a mere 5k per week playing a game they love...
I wouldn't get out of bed for 5K. My point being, I hear alot of trash talking here but I would bet my soul to the devil, not many are making 'decent' money per week.
I dont care if its AP (cough) or a 'skilled' player.
Keep in mind, I did not say....NOBODY, I said not many.
Ken
Quote: gofaster87That's funny Ive been gambling my whole life and hit many large jackpots all the way up to $25k and I still get excited by a $500-$1000 win. Whats the use of gambling, unless its your main source of income, if it isn't exciting and fun. Hell, my gf gets excited over a $10 win and shes had many jackpots in the $5k-10k range.
I see similar people. They have $1 on a number and it hits. You would think they won Powerball or something. I win (not always) and I leave......not a huge deal.
Ken
You must spend a lot of time in bed.Quote: mrjjjI wouldn't get out of bed for 5K.
Quote: mrjjjYou're missing the point, big shock. (lol)
The guys that slam roulette can NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, I started a thread about it. If a person (anyone) slams roulette cause its no good and THEIR game of choice is SMARTER to play, thats fine but then you better be netting 10-20K per week. If not, we have a serious problem with LIES and illusions.
I have NO RESPECT for the poster that says roulette sucks but at the SAME time, they are not pulling in 10-20K per week. To me, those are red flags. Your game(s) of choice is most likely great in theory but you STILL get pounded just like the rest of the hacks. Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts.
Ken
To paraphrase your position, while it is a universally-accepted fact that American roulette has a significantly higher house edge than
blackjack,
video poker,
baccarat,
pai gow,
pai gow poker,
craps (line bets + odds or inside place bets),
Caribbean Stud,
Let It Ride,
Three Card Poker, and
many slot machine games,
anyone who mentions this fact must either make between $10,000 and $20,000 per week playing one of those games or they will lose your respect.
Famous quotes by both Westley and Vizzini come to mind.
Quote: thecesspitI assume Ken makes 10-20k per week.
Not quite (not far off).....I'm not the guy posting how they have an EDGE or an ADVANTAGE (skill) over sucker roulette players. So I just assumed.......
Quote: MathExtremistTo paraphrase your position, while it is a universally-accepted fact that American roulette has a significantly higher house edge than
blackjack,
video poker,
baccarat,
pai gow,
pai gow poker,
craps (line bets + odds or inside place bets),
Caribbean Stud,
Let It Ride,
Three Card Poker, and
many slot machine games,
anyone who mentions this fact must either make between $10,000 and $20,000 per week playing one of those games or they will lose your respect.
Famous quotes by both Westley and Vizzini come to mind.
Please dont misquote me, thank you sir.
I am referring to the 500 posts saying they have an EDGE playing their *LOW* house advantage casino game. Any person who matches this description and netting 1K per week, big deal.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjPlease dont misquote me, thank you sir.
I am referring to the 500 posts saying they have an EDGE playing their *LOW* house advantage casino game. Any person who matches this description and netting 1K per week, big deal.
Ken
You're scoffing at someone who makes more than the U.S. household median income by playing casino games? You're very hard to impress.
Quote: mrjjjAnd yet AGAIN......this does not necessarily mean you. Anyone matching my opinion, you know who you are, I dont need to point YOU out.
Ken
You're missing the point again (lol) (cough). 1k/week is over the U.S. household median income. Anyone making $1k/week playing casino games is doing something pretty remarkable.
Quote: mrjjjAnd yet AGAIN......this does not necessarily mean you. Anyone matching my opinion, you know who you are, I dont need to point YOU out.
Ken
But Ken, I don't make over $50,000 per year playing casino games. I never claimed to. I'm probably up around $3000 over the course of 15 or so years, a paltry win rate of $200/year on average. That's just noise.
But as for matching your opinion, I doubt anyone else would be so dismissive of someone who consistently made $50,000 per year playing casino games. You've limited the definition of "successful advantage player" to someone who makes more than $500,000 per year, and I have a feeling that you're the only one who holds that view.
Quote: rdw4potusYou're missing the point again (lol) (cough). 1k/week is over the U.S. household median income. Anyone making $1k/week playing casino games is doing something pretty remarkable.
Basing it on THAT, ok fine but I'm not impressed. To be more specific AGAIN, my comment is directed to the crew with the 'EDGE' or cool 'SKILL'. 1K? Big deal. The guy who nets 1K a week playing BINGO? I bow down to you.
Ken
Quote: MathExtremistBut Ken, I don't make over $50,000 per year playing casino games. I never claimed to. I'm probably up around $3000 over the course of 15 or so years, a paltry win rate of $200/year on average. That's just noise.
But as for matching your opinion, I doubt anyone else would be so dismissive of someone who consistently made $50,000 per year playing casino games. You've limited the definition of "successful advantage player" to someone who makes more than $500,000 per year, and I have a feeling that you're the only one who holds that view.
A half million a year?
I want to make sure I got this. Not insulting you but maybe I'm a bit lost.......you're not big on playing roulette. Why? Because you KNOW BETTER THAN THAT.
But.....you are up around 3K over 15 years NOT playing roulette, correct?
Ken
Quote: mrjjjA half million a year?
$10k/week (your lower limit on being impressed, apparently)* 52 weeks/year= $520,000/year.
Quote: rdw4potus$10k/week (your lower limit on being impressed, apparently)* 52 weeks/year= $520,000/year.
No.....I'm saying I EXPECT the 'roulette sucks' crew to net a min. of $520,000 per year, as you pointed out. If 'they' dont, I'm kind of confused as to HOW they defend THEIR GAME OF CHOICE? Afterall, they have that EDGE and a cool SKILL.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjA half million a year?
I want to make sure I got this. Not insulting you but maybe I'm a bit lost.......you're not big on playing roulette. Why? Because you KNOW BETTER THAN THAT.
But.....you are up around 3K over 15 years NOT playing roulette, correct?
I'm not big on playing roulette because it's too slow for me, and I feel bad when I play a game with such a high edge. I'd usually rather play craps, so I do. Simple as that. Occasionally, when I do feel like playing roulette, I seek out a single-zero wheel and play outside bets (e.g. MGM Grand). There the edge is comparable to craps. And yes, I am up around 3K over 15 years playing whatever I feel like. Mostly craps and -EV VP, with a smattering of almost everything else.
As for the half million figure, that's your threshold for being impressed, not mine. I'd be very impressed if someone could consistently make $50K/year playing house-banked games.
Quote: mrjjjNo.....I'm saying I EXPECT the 'roulette sucks' crew to net a min. of $520,000 per year, as you pointed out. If 'they' dont, I'm kind of confused as to HOW they defend THEIR GAME OF CHOICE? Afterall, they have that EDGE and a cool SKILL.
That's a non sequitur, Ken. I vastly prefer craps to roulette, I don't claim to have any sort of edge at either, and I certainly don't make $520,000 per year at the dice tables.
Edit: I also don't feel responsible for "defending" my preference for dice over roulette. Neither should anyone else, even if they think "roulette sucks".
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not big on playing roulette because it's too slow for me, and I feel bad when I play a game with such a high edge. I'd usually rather play craps, so I do. Simple as that. Occasionally, when I do feel like playing roulette, I seek out a single-zero wheel and play outside bets (e.g. MGM Grand). There the edge is comparable to craps. And yes, I am up around 3K over 15 years playing whatever I feel like. Mostly craps and -EV VP, with a smattering of almost everything else.
As for the half million figure, that's your threshold for being impressed, not mine. I'd be very impressed if someone could consistently make $50K/year playing house-banked games.
Ok, impressed with 50K per year but what if those were LOW house advantage games? I hear alot about these games on this forum.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjOk, impressed with 50K per year but what if those were LOW house advantage games? I hear alot about these games on this forum.
Basically everything is a low house advantage game compared to roulette. I'm not sure what you're asking about. Are you referring to +EV games where making $50K/year can actually be an expected outcome rather than a significantly lucky one?
Quote: MathExtremistBasically everything is a low house advantage game compared to roulette. I'm not sure what you're asking about. Are you referring to +EV games where making $50K/year can actually be an expected outcome rather than a significantly lucky one?
This is my point AGAIN. If roulette sucks so bad and so-n-so here is playing a lower HA game, with SKILL and an EDGE (cough), I assume that person is netting 10-20K per week. If my assumption is TOO HIGH, I'm then saying that I'm not very impressed.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjThis is my point AGAIN. If roulette sucks so bad and so-n-so here is playing a lower HA game, with SKILL and an EDGE (cough), I assume that person is netting 10-20K per week. If my assumption is TOO HIGH, I'm then saying that I'm not very impressed.
The HA of roulette is 5.26%. The HA of craps is lower at 1.41%. Someone who plays craps does not have (nor claim to have) "SKILL and an EDGE (cough)" over the casino, and it is wholly unreasonable to assume that they make $10,000 per week playing dice. Your assumptions are unfounded.
If someone is playing a +EV house-banked game, where the player actually has the advantage over the house, it is still a major feat to consistently pull down even $1000 per week. If your threshold for being impressed starts at $10,000 per week for a self-professed advantage player, you are a very hard person to impress. I'm not a card counter, so perhaps someone with high-level card counting experience can answer this question. The expected weekly win for a counter would be $10,000 if all of the following were true:
$160 avg bet (perhaps spreading $100 - $500?)
+1% avg edge
125 hands/hour, 50 hours/week (total of 6250 hands/week)
Are those reasonable expectations or wildly-optimistic given current conditions? If you're a frequent blackjack AP, how many hands do you get in per week, and roughly what's your average wager?
Quote: gofaster87People would take you more seriously if you weren't such an arrogant SOB.
No you wouldn't. And he's just being honest, whats wrong with that.
Quote: gofaster87Ive gambled a long time and find arrogance to be very telling of a bullshit gambler.
And I find arrogance to be the hallmark of many pro gamblers. What do BS gamblers have to be arrogant about, they aren't accomplishing anything.
Quote: gofaster87People would take you more seriously if you weren't such an arrogant SOB.
Let me guess. You're one of the goofs that gets excited over winning $35? Am I right? I see the same thing.....$1 on a street and it hits!!! The person erupts with cheer. Are you kidding me? Its $11.
Ken
