## Poll

17 votes (60.71%) | |||

3 votes (10.71%) | |||

8 votes (28.57%) |

**28 members have voted**

Thanks for all the good news.Quote:kewljand was playing lower limit and had more travel time involved, so the number of hands played (which I didn't keep track of then) was probably closer to 40,000 a year. But still that is closing in on half a million hands in my 8 and a half years.

At what point can I expect variance to catch up to me?? lol

I do agree that bankroll and travel limits most card counters.

the formula, as you should know is ev/sd and your value should be a positive number.

Do you know what that is?

Get it as high as possible, even if that that means playing up to a million of hands more :)

Quote:thecesspitThe casino does not have a bottomless bank, no more than the SUM TOTAL OF -ALL PLAYERS- have a bottomless bank.

If you make a sum of all players, you have to make

a sum of all casinos. In which case the casino always

has the best BR.

Quote:EvenBobIf you make a sum of all players, you have to make

a sum of all casinos. In which case the casino always

has the best BR.

Hmm, true, but I -think- that the sum total of the bank rolls in Vegas over a year is greater than the sum total of the casino's bankrolls. 38 Million people visited Vegas last year. At a $1000 bank roll per person : $38 Billion bankroll. That's about the market capitalisation of the Big Three casino chains (and that's a stock market number, not what the casino has on hand).

In any case, doesn't matter. A 0 EV game is a zero EV game is a zero sum game. You can't add lots of Zeroes and get anything but 0.

In short : the casino doesn't get any advantage from spreading a zero sum game. My results show that even if there is an effect, over 1.8 million made bets, there was no net gain by the house or player. The casino gets an advantage by slicing of tiny pieces of your bank roll with it's house advantage.

That being said, I expect that is why you will likely never see more than a promotional game or two that offers a 0% house edge game, even if the casino could expect to make a few bucks off of it per month.

Quote:thecesspitHmm, true, but I -think- that the sum total of the bank rolls in Vegas

Vegas is too small. You have to consider all the casinos

in the world. Which you have to do anyway when talking

about roulette.

Quote:mustangsally

1,000 to 1

NOT bad odds at all.

Well ... I guess, you and I have very different notions of "good odds", that's all :)

Quote:EvenBobIf you make a sum of all players, you have to make

a sum of all casinos. In which case the casino always

has the best BR.

All players at a given casino. The reason they're being added together is to show you how they look to the casino, so there's no reason to add all casinos together, the same way when you're looking at how your own bankroll is faring against a trip up and down the strip, there's no reason to consider all the other suckers there just because you're considering all the casinos.

The point is that, as far as the casino's concerned, all bets are the same. They're making even-money bets against a faceless mass of "the public," and losing or winning just like you are when you make your bets with the casino. The public have essentially unlimited money, no matter how many individuals go broke, or just stop playing. What you're saying would be true if a group of people sat down, only leaving when their bankrolls were exhausted, and weren't replaced. But that's not how it works anywhere; even if they only left on exhausting their bankrolls, but were replaced, the upswings, although they'd inevitably end for each individual, would hold the house's money in perpetual abeyance. Moreover, no matter how far they get from even, over infinite time, they will always get back, since given infinite time, there will be winning and losing streaks of any arbitrary length, and it's equally likely that the casino will be down as up. It's true that as the number of bets made increases, the distance from zero in a fixed probability goes up in a function approaching a constant multiple of the square root, but no matter how far out you are, there's always eventually going to be a streak that takes you back. And, again, there's no reason for that to favor the casino, not until every last patron is broke.

Quote:EvenBobVegas is too small. You have to consider all the casinos

in the world. Which you have to do anyway when talking

about roulette.

They still dont have as big a bank roll as the players. Should be clear from my example of Vegas.... its nothing to do with bankrolls. Its all about a zero game cant be made to be non-zero. No more than a negative expectation game can be made positive via a series of negative bets.

By the way, I ran the sim ten times longer. 1.5% of the players were still in, and the house still had no advantage. Sixty million bets, three hundred million wagered, and the house still hasnt won any of the $2,000,000 bank roll. Sounds like a real money maker for the house.

Quote:24BingoIt's true that as the number of bets made increases, the distance from zero in a fixed probability goes up in a function approaching a constant multiple of the square root, but no matter how far out you are, there's always eventually going to be a streak that takes you back.

This just is not true. Taking one stream of results for

millions of spins and into infinity, one side will get

ahead and stay ahead forever. They will get closer

statistically, but never reach equality. In fact, the closer

they become % wise, the farther apart they become

in reality.

What happens is, there comes a point where one side

gets just far enough ahead, that no matter what happens

the other side can never catch up. So the gap just keeps

widening.

But you can't just look at one stream of outcomes. You

have to look at multiple streams, ultimately millions

of streams, to see where the equality is. For every

stream where red is far ahead of black, theres a stream

where black is ahead of red. If could look at enough

streams, there would be total equality.

When a player see's 12 reds in a row on a tote board,

he wrongly assumes that equality is right around the

corner, black will catch up soon. Maybe, maybe not.

In reality, on some tote board somewhere in the world,

there are 12 blacks in a row, and there's your equality.

Random numbers have to be looked at in very large

amounts, a small isolated stream tells you nothing

at all.