Why do you lose at roulette?
Quote: Mission146I actually disagree with that. I think single-zero Roulette would be a pleasurable game now that I have not been able to justify double-zero for several years due to the House Edge..
If you're worried about the zeros, you
shouldn't play. They are just 2 extra
pockets, if you don't have a game
plan, they won't make any difference.
Quote: EvenBobIf you're worried about the zeros, you
shouldn't play. They are just 2 extra
pockets, if you don't have a game
plan, they won't make any difference.
I submit that they make a difference of nearly double the House Edge.
AHigh,
I'm not going to belabor the point of the, "Lying," accusation. I agree with you that EB's opinion on that matter is wrong, and as evidence, I submit that I personally disagree which makes it a non-Universal. That said, 'Lying,' is an unnecessarily strong accusation when the comments do not refer to anything material.
Quote: Mission146I submit that they make a difference of nearly double the House Edge.
.
But it's not the HE that beats you, it's
poor bet selection. If you lose a $100
buy in after making five bets (or 50),
what beat you. The HE or your lack
of a good bet selection. I think you
know the answer.
Quote: IbeatyouracesLack of good bet selection = wrong guess.
It wasn't a guess, it's a fact. If I select 10
numbers and none of them win, and
I do it five times in a row, my lack of
picking winning numbers is why I
lost, not the HE.
Quote: Mission146I'm not going to belabor the point of the, "Lying," accusation. I agree with you that EB's opinion on that matter is wrong, and as evidence, I submit that I personally disagree which makes it a non-Universal. That said, 'Lying,' is an unnecessarily strong accusation when the comments do not refer to anything material.
You are the admin and you choose who you want to side with.
Side with EvenBob on this and we are all here watching.
Call it a lie, call it a dubious claim, call it ignorance. It's nothing worth me thinking about and it's pretty clearly untrue in my view.
We can split hairs all day long and that's what I'm here to do. This thread was, at one time, an attempt to further the industry with participation from intelligent forum members.
Now it is what it is.
Quote: EvenBobIt wasn't a guess, it's a fact. If I select 10
numbers and none of them win, and
I do it five times in a row, my lack of
picking winning numbers is why I
lost, not the HE.
Basically what I said. Just means you guessed wrong. All the HE comes from the short pays, ie., not paying true odds. That's all. Same with a coin flip. Bet dollars and only get paid 99¢ on a win gives that 50/50 proposition a house edge. Pay it $1 and then no house edge.
Quote: AhighYeah, that site is worse than this one for sure!
But there are similarities, still.
Same guys posting same old tired stuff over and over and the same debates over and over and the same people thinking the same things that are OBVIOUSLY FALSE and the tired responses from folks who know trying to talk sense into idiots and then arguing.
Yeah, lots of similarities, really.
I just re-read this from a week ago. Nothing changes since then. Surprising as I thought things would be different this far in the future.
Quote: IbeatyouracesBasically what I said. Just means you guessed wrong.
Bad guessing, bad bet selection, it's why
you lost. Had nothing to do with the HE.
Quote: EvenBobBad guessing, bad bet selection, it's why
you lost. Had nothing to do with the HE.
And I never said it did...
Quote: IbeatyouracesAnd I never said it did...
My orig point was, Missions says he
won't play double zero roulette
because of the HE. Losing at roulette
has nothing to do with the HE.
Quote: IbeatyouracesTougher to win on double versus single.
How does an extra pocket make it
tougher to win. Zeros don't come
up any more than any other number.
I guarantee you won't be able to
tell the difference between a single
or double zero table. You will lose
on either one.
Quote: EvenBobLosing at roulette
has nothing to do with the HE.
Bob.... COME ON!!!!! You have probably read over 100,000 posts on this gambling website....
Have you learned NOTHING????
I think that EB has realized that one must think beyond the HE.Quote: SOOPOOHave you learned NOTHING????
Simplistically speaking, "Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose." http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/04/quarter-century-poker-sklansky-einstein.htm
All the gambling forums wind up in the same rut in old thinking.
Quote: SOOPOOBob.... COME ON!!!!! You have probably read over 100,000 posts on this gambling website....
Have you learned NOTHING????
What's Even a bigger shock is that the Forum has learned nothing after reading 18,000+ posts. What a waste of energy.
Quote: SOOPOOBob.... COME ON!!!!! You have probably read over 100,000 posts on this gambling website....
Have you learned NOTHING????
So you seriously think the HE is the
reason you lost a hundred bucks at
roulette, even though you won not
a single bet. I see that all the time,
not a single win.
Please tell me how the HE did that.
Quote: EvenBobSo you seriously think the HE is the
reason you lost a hundred bucks at
roulette, even though you won not
a single bet. I see that all the time,
not a single win.
Please tell me how the HE did that.
You said losing has NOTHING to do with the house edge. (I capitalized 'nothing')
No, the house edge is not the reason I lost $100 at roulette. It is the reason I will lose more often than I will win. And you know that. Stop being silly.
Quote: SOOPOOIt is the reason I will lose more often than I will win. .
How is that possible. How does the HE
possibly influence where you place your
bet.
Here's an example. There are 8 blacks in
a row. You think that's enough so you
start putting $15 on red and 7 bets
later you didn't win once. How did
the HE effect this in any way. It's a fact
that even if there was no HE, you would
still lose at roulette because you have
no bet selection that beats random
outcomes.
Quote: EvenBobHow does an extra pocket make it
tougher to win. Zeros don't come
up any more than any other number.
I guarantee you won't be able to
tell the difference between a single
or double zero table. You will lose
on either one.
What's the probability of red hitting on a single zero wheel as opposed to a double zero wheel? It's less likely on a double zero wheel making it tougher to win.
Quote: SOOPOOBob.... COME ON!!!!! You have probably read over 100,000 posts on this gambling website....
Have you learned NOTHING????
Quote: IbeatyouracesWhat's the probability of red hitting on a single zero wheel as opposed to a double zero wheel? It's less likely on a double zero wheel making it tougher to win.
That is the HE. In the long run, casino will always win.
Quote: FranciscoIf casino offers you a roulette wheel with no zero or double zero. It pays 36 to 1 . Then there is no HE. You can bet one dollar on each number, and you will never loss. Now there is zero . You bet on all the number except zero. When zero comes out, you lose 36 dollars. If you bet on all numbers including zero, then you lose 1 dollar.
That is the HE. In the long run, casino will always win.
I think there is history with EvenBob not understanding casino math for roulette guys. Just a word to the wise before you waste time trying to explain.
Quote: AhighI think there is history with EvenBob not understanding casino math for roulette guys. Just a word to the wise before you waste time trying to explain.
I got sucked in.....
However, if it was my forum with my rules.... I would boot any poster with over 18,000 posts who doesn't understand the term 'house edge'....
Quote: SOOPOOI got sucked in.....
There are online casinos that have no
zero roulette. The risk of ruin is still
there for the player, but never the
casino. This is really kids stuff on
gambling forums, it's been discussed
to death.
"American Roulette and European Roulette wheels are negative expectation games. Wheels without a zero aren't negative expectation games, but thanks to limited bet sizes and the 'risk of ruin' concept, it isn't possible to drain a casino of all its cash, thanks mostly to your limited wallet."
Even without zeros you can't win without
a proper bet selection. It's like playing a
coin flip game against Bill Gates, he will
always win eventually.
Quote: SOOPOOI got sucked in.....
However, if it was my forum with my rules.... I would boot any poster with over 18,000 posts who doesn't understand the term 'house edge'....
Thanks. I think. And yeah, I don't mean to attack him personally. I think he hurts the ability for the forum to focus on more intellectual pursuits.
That is absolutely an opinion, and it could be only a problem for me personally.
But, I don't know. But here is what I have to say, and I have told this to the Wizard and it's absolutely true, and it's the reason why I still post on this forum:
Quote: Ahigh
I follow in the Wizard's footsteps when it comes to analysis and understanding of casino mathematics and fairness and transparency and answering technical questions that gamblers might have.
It's good to have people to ask questions, but we have NO SHORTAGE OF THEM, and EvenBob, honestly, in my opinion, demonstrates that statistically, the most prolific person on this forum is not really getting much out of the forum that they couldn't get from a beauty salon with a bunch of gossiping housewives.
I just wish I could expect more, that's all.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but here's the lay explanation just in case. Luck goes both ways -- if you're lucky, you'll hit your numbers and you'll win. If you're unlucky, you won't and you'll lose. But if you're neither lucky nor unlucky, you won't break even: you'll also lose. That's because when compared to the chances of winning a bet, the payoff isn't at true odds. That's where the house edge comes in (and comes from). If you win a Red bet and then lose a Red bet, you've broken even. It turns out that's slightly lucky -- the chances of winning Red are less than the chances of losing. If you play 38 times and have the expected number of wins and losses (18 and 20, respectively), then you've lost 2 bets. That's not breaking even, that's losing.Quote: EvenBobSo you seriously think the HE is the
reason you lost a hundred bucks at
roulette, even though you won not
a single bet. I see that all the time,
not a single win.
Please tell me how the HE did that.
And the casino doesn't care whether you specifically get lucky or not. If 38 different people each bet $10 on a different number on the roulette layout, someone's walking away very happy but the casino doesn't care who that is -- they make $20 regardless.
eventually break even, you will never
win. Neither will the casino. Without
a good bet selection, the HE makes
no difference at all.
Quote: MathExtremistLuck goes both ways -- if you're lucky, you'll hit your numbers and you'll win. If you're unlucky, you won't and you'll lose. But if you're neither lucky nor unlucky, you won't break even: you'll also lose. .
In the long term, yes. But we don't live
long enough to ever play there. We
play in the extreme short term, on a
bet to bet basis. The HE has little or
nothing to do with us losing, it's
our poor bet selection that's our
downfall.
The HE is easy to understand if you look
at every roulette wheel in the world as
one big game. Thousands of outcomes
a second, 24/7. That's a big enough
number for us to see the HE at work.
On a bet to bet basis, however, it's
not possible to see the effect of the
HE, even though it's theoretically
there. Anything can happen is the
short term for the player, the long
term only concerns the casino.
Quote: EvenBobThere are online casinos that have no
zero roulette. The risk of ruin is still
there for the player, but never the
casino. This is really kids stuff on
gambling forums, it's been discussed
to death.
"American Roulette and European Roulette wheels are negative expectation games. Wheels without a zero aren't negative expectation games, but thanks to limited bet sizes and the 'risk of ruin' concept, it isn't possible to drain a casino of all its cash, thanks mostly to your limited wallet."
Even without zeros you can't win without
a proper bet selection. It's like playing a
coin flip game against Bill Gates, he will
always win eventually.
Something tells me not to touch this topic with a pole the size of that to clean my pool, but I'll take the bait this time...
What you wrote is not true. If you played roulette on a wheel with no zeros until either you or the casino went bust then your chances of coming up with all the money would be (your bankroll)/[(your bankroll)+(casino bankroll)]
For example, if you play with Bill Gates and you have $50 and he has $50 billion, then your chances to walk away with all the money is 50/50,000,000,50. Your betting strategy makes no difference.
Quote: WizardSomething tells me not to touch this topic with a pole the size of that to clean my pool, but I'll take the bait this time...
What you wrote is not true. If you played roulette on a wheel with no zeros until either you or the casino went bust then your chances of coming up with all the money would be (your bankroll)/[(your bankroll)+(casino bankroll)]
For example, if you play with Bill Gates and you have $50 and he has $50 billion, then your chances to walk away with all the money is 50/50,000,000,50. Your betting strategy makes no difference.
I applaud you for answering, and welcome your presence.
Quote: WizardYour betting strategy makes no difference.
It would be a draw in the end. But
we don't play in those conditions
in the real world. You would eventually
lose to the casino because they could
outlast any losing streak and you
cannot. It's like Bill Gates playing
a marty with no max betting limit.
Of course he would always win.
But there is no place that does that.
Quote: EvenBobIt would be a draw in the end. But
we don't play in those conditions
in the real world. You would eventually
lose to the casino because they could
outlast any losing streak and you
cannot. It's like Bill Gates playing
a marty with no max betting limit.
Of course he would always win.
But there is no place that does that.
Bob you claim you have a system that can beat roulette. NVM If it's possible or not because most of us already know the answer. My question is why is Roulette so special? Why cant this system work on craps or some other game?Quote: EvenBob.
Quote: EvenBob...Without a good bet selection....
EB you use that phrase a lot.
Please define 'a good bet selection' in some useful way.
'The bet which happened to have won' would not be a satisfactory answer, since such a definition would add no value to any discussion.
If you know how to make 'a good bet selection' then you know something truly valuable. I assert that you don't.
Yeah, Mike. I think Bob is doing his usual mischief.Quote: WizardSomething tells me not to touch this topic with a pole ..
Yayyyy. you used my favourite formula :o)Quote:...your chances of coming up with all the money would be (your bankroll)/[(your bankroll)+(casino bankroll)]
What nonsense is this?Quote: EvenBobIt would be a draw in the end.
your Tiny bankroll verses Massive bankroll in a fair wager would be massively likely to lose. What sort of 'End' would it be if you didn't? You even go on to say as much, so why contradict yourself?
Quote:You would eventually lose to the casino because they could outlast any losing streak and you cannot.
There are ways to use betting strategy to ensure that the eventual return closely or exactly matches the EV as given by the HE. Bet all 37 numbers equally and you would match exactly, or play just any old number an awful lot of times and you would approach the same loss rate.
There is a bet selection process that ensures that your outcome is nowhere near the value dictated by the house edge: The extreme of that would be to have a lifetime of one bet on one number. That would be the maximum example of embracing the variance. Is that what you have in mind for good bet selection? A strategy to ensure you have the advantage of variance? Next you will be telling us that if you only make one bet in your lifetime, on one number, then it makes no difference if there is one zero, or two zeros. That would be nonsense because by implication you would do just as well with 35 zeros.
I'd addQuote: IbeatyouracesLack of good bet selection = wrong guess.
Lack of good bet selection = wrong guess coupled with over-betting your bankroll.
That's assuming that good bet selection = a way of betting that reduces the risk of early exit with empty pockets.
Such a good bet selection might consist of waiting till 0 has come up 5 times in a row before throwing some chips on any random number or numbers or outside bets.
Boring !
Quote: Dalex64Why do you think that waiting for five zeros in a row then betting on any number or numbers or outside bets is good bet selection?
Because it will have the one very real effect of stopping Bob from wagering and losing so often: Play less = lose slower :o) Not playing enough wagers to constitute a sample size that is representative of the long term, and thus make HE less significant than variance.
He could achieve similar success if he only wagered after watching the wheel spin 69 million or so times before placing his carefully crafted wager.
I was trying to understand what Bob perceives as good bet selection and was taking it to the extreme.
He would, of course have the same chance of winning or losing his wager no matter how many zeros he waits for, or for that matter, where he throws his chips down.
For an example of what might be bad bet selection, how about...
Place entire (session) bankroll on ( pick any number or outside bet including green 0)
If it loses, then that was bad selection.
If it wins, let the bet roll with new bigger bankroll on any number, numbers, or outside bet, including, maybe, the same number as before.
If it loses, then that was bad.
If it wins, let the bet roll with new bigger bankroll on any number, numbers, or outside bet, including, maybe, the same number as before.
Rinse - repeat until you own the casino, or until you lose..... Oh dammit you might have to switch tables because of table max. Oh well, a minor inconvenience, but unlikely to last too long.
It's remarkable how often I see Roulette players divi up their session bankroll and throw it all at the table at every spin. That's gotta be bad bet selection.
That's the great thing about Roulette: You can construct a bet with almost any probability and with easily calculated payout. E.g. bet 1 number for a 1 in 37 chance of winning profit of 35 or bet 35 numbers with a 35/37 probability of winning profit of 1. None of those beats the HE long term. You can only hope to beat long term expected results by not playing long term. Then you need a smidgen of luck. If you want to eliminate luck, always bet equally on all numbers at the same time. Your return can then be guaranteed :o)
Stoopid game.
What if you bet a fixed fraction, say half, of your stack on each spin (, and round non-integer bets up or down)? At any rate, the above "conclusion" ought to have been even generally proved out.Quote: WizardWhat you wrote is not true. If you played roulette on a wheel with no zeros until either you or the casino went bust then your chances of coming up with all the money would be (your bankroll)/[(your bankroll)+(casino bankroll)].
Quote: TheGrimReaper13What if you bet a fixed fraction, say half, of your stack on each spin (, and round non-integer bets up or down)? At any rate, the above conclusion ought to have been generally proved out.Quote: WizardWhat you wrote is not true. If you played roulette on a wheel with no zeros until either you or the casino went bust then your chances of coming up with all the money would be (your bankroll)/[(your bankroll)+(casino bankroll)].
Grim,
Here's my proof.
In any fair wager ( coin toss, roulette wheel with no zeros, etc ) where there is no house edge:-
The fair return on the wager = ((Original stake )/(Probability of a Win))
Lets label that as R=S/P
That pretty much defines a fair wager.
eg for the roll of a fair die, if you call incorrectly, you lose your stake and get no return
but if you call correctly, you get a return of 6 units:-
return = 6 =((Original stake )/(Probability of a Win)) = 1/(1/6)
Now, if R=S/P defines a fair wager, then so does P=S/R
i.e. Probability of a win = Stake/(Total Return)
There is a disputed statement that money management cannot improve on this. I.e.It makes sod all difference how you construct your wager. It could be Martingaling, Oscars Grinding, Flat Betting, or staking the whole lot at once. You will never do better than P=S/R
So, if you stake your whole bankroll in some way and you want to have your return equal to all of your bankroll, + all of the casinos bankroll ( or Bill Gates's )
S= your bankroll
R = S + Casino's bankroll
P=S/R =S/(S+ Casino bankroll)= (Your Bankroll)/(Your Bankroll+Casino bankroll)
then as Wizard said...
Quote:your chances of coming up with all the money would be (your bankroll)/[(your bankroll)+(casino bankroll)].
If you can do worse, then you can do better.Quote: OnceDearYou will never do better than P=S/R.
Even if you only trade off wins and losses, then betting half your stack each spin will kill you.
Quote: TheGrimReaper13If you can do worse, then you can do better.
Hmmmm No.
By 'do worse', I meant, end up with a lower probability of success, not end up with a worse actual outcome.
By 'do better', I meant, end up with a higher probability of success, not end up with a better actual outcome.
Probable outcome does not necessarily equal actual outcome. You might go into a casino with $50 and bankrupt the place if they keep taking your bets.
You cannot end up with a higher probability just by betting strategy or money management.
You can do worse. EG. a betting strategy on blackjack where you find yourself unable to double or split a hand, or a Marty system where you don't have the funds to double up with.
That formula was derived from a zero edge game. If there is a house edge, you will have a different formula and P will be smaller.
On the basis of probability, you are much more likely to win a few and lose a few before (and during) you or the casino losses a lot. So, your stack would already be relatively crippled compared to what you started with, ie, your (OD's) chance of going home with all the money.Quote: TheGrimReaper13Even if you only trade off wins and losses, then betting half your stack each spin will kill you.
Quote: TheGrimReaper13On the basis of probability, you are much more likely to win a few and lose a few before (and during) you or the casino losses a lot. So, your stack would already be relatively crippled compared to what you started with, ie, your chance of going home with all the money.
Not sure what you are saying.
Recalculate the probability as your session progresses, however you wager and indeed whatever you wager on.. Bet any fraction of your stack in any amount or proportion will make no difference.Bet half, bet all, bet $1. just recalculate P as you proceed.
If you started with $50 against the casino'$50M then regardless of how you propose to manage your bets, your probability of 'winning the house' would be
P=50/50000050 = 0.000000999999
If you threw down your first wager and lost $25, then
New value of P=25/50000050 =0.0000004999995 (Denominator is the same because as your bankroll went down, the casino's went up)
If you threw down your remaining $25 and lost it then
New value of P=0/50000050 =0 (You now have nothing to stake and thus no chance of ever winning again.
If on the other hand you go on a winning streak and find yourself with $5,000
Then recalculate P at that time as
5000/50000050 = 0.00009999 (Denominator is the same because as the casino's bankroll went down, yours went up)
In other words you could be hellishly lucky and still doomed to fail, just because your bankroll is no match for the casino's
