Why do you lose at roulette?

Quote: EvenBob

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.

Change the payouts from 35-to-1 to 37-to-1 on a single zero wheel and I'll be a millionaire by next week ... and the same exact bet selection would leave me with no profit at all if it were a double zero wheel.

Quote: TomG

Change the payouts from 35-to-1 to 37-to-1 on a single zero wheel and I'll be a millionaire by next week ... and the same exact bet selection would leave me with no profit at all if it were a double zero wheel.

I like your argument Tom...
Bob says it's not the HE that beats us. You state categorically that if HE is negative, then you/we will not be beaten, but that we will take the casino to the cleaners.
Could both Tom and Bob be right. I'm with Tom. I have a tasty betting system that would be nice and reliable on that generous table.

Though, I'm sure that bad bet selection could see us bankrupted even on that generous table.

Quote: OnceDear

Not sure what you are saying.

If I have a 1000 units, and bet half my stack on each spin, then a win puts it up to 1500 units, and a subsequent loss puts it down to 750 units. A net loss of 250 units. Doesn't matter which order the win and loss occurs. Or which longer streak. Each pair or canceled streak reduces my stack significantly. This lowers my chance to take it all, from what it was the spin before when neither side keeps the lead throughout.

One might argue that I would require fewer wins compared to losses to take it all than were I flat betting one unit, if I thus increase my bet on a win, but look at what happens when I fall behind by, say, five straight losses. My 1000 units goes to 500, 250, 125, 62, and then 31 units. Compare this to my five straight wins to take the lead, when my 1000 units goes to 1,500 , 2,250 , 3,400 , 5,100 , 7,650 . I'm down to 1/32 of my stack, but up about only 8 times.

It doesn't seem a very palatable position to expect the chance to take it all to go down the next few spins even were it to eventually, in probability or not, amount to what you claim.

If you bet a fixed percentage, as you say then three things might happen.

You lose more times than you win. Therefore you lose money overall.
You win as many times as you lose. Therefore, rather absudly you still lose more money overall.
You win more times than you lose. Therefore you win money overall.
You are just not experiencing a linear growth/shrinkage of your bankroll.
Losses would take you back (down)further than if you had been flat betting and wins would take you forward (up) further than flat betting. the falls back would more than cancel out the steps forward, unlike flat betting.

Your betting pattern has changed the way that you win and lose.
But, the average amount that you end the day with, will on average have been the same as if you had flat bet.

Quote: EvenBob

How is that possible. How does the HE
possibly influence where you place your
bet.

On a double 0 roulette wheel, I will not bet the basket because the HE is worse.

Quote: OnceDear

Your betting pattern has changed the way that you win and lose.
But, the average amount that you end the day with, will on average have been the same as if you had flat bet.

A random walk will even out with probability p=1, regardless how far ahead one outcome becomes over the other. Do you want me post a reference for this? Which means that one who bets, say, half his stack on each spin, will always lose everything if the spins are allowed to continue, if only on paper in the case the casino busts.

The only question here is how often will one rebound enough, in its steady decline when spins continually even out, to bust his bigger opponent in practice?

Quote: rsactuary

On a double 0 roulette wheel, I will not bet the basket because the HE is worse.

... Or the HE is better, depending on which side of the table you're on ;)

From what I have read Bob is not a martingaler. He's more a trend bettor.

Not that he necessarily believes certain numbers will hit.

He's probably watching/tracking the numbers.

He probably believes that a group of numbers are NOT going come up so he spreads his money around the table trying to avoid them numbers.

He probably has enough numbers covered so he just needs to avoid a few(this happens more often than not and gives the illusion its working). Probably once he hits his win goal (no doubt a small one)he leaves with his profits. If he gets "unlucky" and burns through his session bankroll he leaves and comes back another day.

-------------------------------------------------------------

If you have a legal winning roulette system there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't be filthy rich.

Whatever complications you think you have CAN be worked out.

Quote: TheGrimReaper13

A random walk will even out with probability p=1, regardless how far ahead one outcome becomes over the other.

Except when there are win or lose goals which can be hit before 'the long term' arrives
If the loser busts out, or if the casino busts out, then the random walk keels over and dies.

Quote:

Do you want me post a reference for this?

Sure. why not.

Quote:

Which means that one who bets, say, half his stack on each spin, will always lose everything if the spins are allowed to continue

Not if he achieves that one absurdly improbable win goal.

Quote:

if only on paper in the case the casino busts.

You lost me there.

Quote:

The only question here is how often will one rebound enough, in its steady decline when spins continually even out, to bust his bigger opponent in practice?

We were looking at the absurdly improbable, so it's hard to see the benefit. I can create you a simulation in Excel which would show that with casino bankroll of 100x player bankroll and playing till the player is below min bet, he will take all the casino's bankroll approx 1/100 times. Caveat: He must never place a bet that would leave the casino in debt. Do you have Excel?

Quote: AxelWolf

From what I have read Bob is not a martingaler. He's more a trend bettor.

Not that he necessarily believes certain numbers will hit.

He's probably watching/tracking the numbers.

If I recall, he claimed the ability to 'read random' and benefit from patterns in that random. I wonder if he still believes such BS.

Quote: OnceDear

If I recall, he claimed the ability to 'read random' and benefit from patterns in that random. I wonder if he still believes such BS.

I'm not trying to pick on Bob personally but betting systems.

But since his roulette system has come up again.

Even if he doesn't believe it, he would never admit it now. That would require him to admit us and himself he was wrong for years and can't actually beat roulette. Killing the game he probably loves.

Perhaps he really does believe he has a winning system. It's possible he's up using his system therefore he's confident it works.

IMO If anyone honestly believed their system actually worked they would be out in casinos playing it for big sized betting amounts. Especially something that's available all over the world 24/7 365.

I don't want to hear BS about heat in the casinos, because unlike real AP.... with roulette you can announce to the pit boss you have a winning betting system and they will tell the host to send you a limo for next time, especially if you bet enough money.

We all know there's no system that can beat roulette unless you use a promotion, marketing, bias, clocking or cheating.

If Bob could prove he could beat roulette he would be a very very wealthy man. He wouldn't even have to step foot in a casino. There's guys who would put up millions in BR money, they wouldn't ever say a word and he would get his cut.

Perhaps he thinks his system demands certain limited situations. Like no green for x number of spins. Therefore it's not something that works spin after spin. That's meaningless because AP's with real methods have been able overcome situations that require great patience for the rare opportunity to make millions.

Quote: AxelWolf

Even if he doesn't believe it, he would never admit it now. That would require him to admit us and himself he was wrong for years and can't actually beat roulette.

Bob has admitted that he voted for Obama for prez in 2008. If he admitted to that, he might admit to anything. What could be more embarrassing than that?

Quote: SOOPOO

Bob has admitted that he voted for Obama for prez in 2008. If he admitted to that, he might admit to anything. What could be more embarrassing than that?

I neither like or dislike Obama. I believe there's been both good and bad things during his presidency. IMO things were much worst a few years prior to him. They could get much worst after him.

I'm not sure if it really matters who happens to be president at the time when it comes to certain things.

Personally I was a Bill Clinton fan but only because I was young and doing well at the time.

i think it is always hard to guess

Quote: Jenna23

i think it is always hard to guess

My thoughts exactly. But I think I have a good one.

Quote:

A random walk will even out with probability p=1, regardless how far ahead one outcome becomes over the other. Do you want me post a reference for this? Which means that one who bets, say, half his stack on each spin, will always lose everything if the spins are allowed to continue, if only on paper in the case the casino busts.

Quote: OnceDear

Except when there are win or lose goals which can be hit before 'the long term' arrives
If the loser busts out, or if the casino busts out, then the random walk keels over and dies.

The game must be balanced in theory in all respects before only the stacks are the consideration in practice. Flat betting is balanced in theory for a fair or even game. It always evens out. Fractional betting isn't. Therefore, fractional betting in practice won't lose at the fair or even rate at which flat betting will exhaust itself in practice.

Flat betting a given stack in practice will withstand some evening-out periods of spins before it tails off to a big win over casino, or busts. But fractional betting in practice will lose over those same periods of evening-out for the flat betting before it too tails off to a big win over the casino, or busts.

That both betting methods, given a finite starting stack, will bust over infinity doesn't mean that all other factors than stacks have been removed or evened out. The fractional method would be an even game in theory or all along were its outcomes to win at slightly over 60% of the spins, or were wins paid at a greater rate. Then fractional betting would hold its own like straight-up flat betting. That would be the fair way to judge the fractional.


P.S. OnceDear, a good reference to random-walk theory is "Probability and Statistical Inference" by J. G. Kalbfleisch; section 2.8, vol. 1, 2d edition. (I had these pages up on adobe acrobat.com a few years ago, but it appears they deleted the old files on the new site.)

Quote: TheGrimReaper13

It always evens out. Fractional betting isn't. Therefore, fractional betting in practice won't lose at the fair or even rate at which flat betting will exhaust itself in practice.

Wrong dude.

Fractional betting will, more often than not tend to chip away your bankroll faster because a losing wager loses more than a winning wager wins.
That is true: You get slaughtered steadily if there are equal numbers of winners to losers.

However, that BAD effect is completely cancelled out by the fact that if you have a just a few more winners than losers, the increase in bankroll is accelerated and non-linear compared to what would have happened with flat betting. The perceived disadvantage of fractional betting is only real if you lose your stack. On those rare occasions where you beat the house, you will do so with relatively few extra winning rounds.

Quote:

The fractional method would be an even game in theory or all along were its outcomes to win at slightly over 60% of the spins, or were wins paid at a greater rate. Then fractional betting would hold its own like straight-up flat betting.

You are considering count of losers = count of winners. Look at the effects of a mismatch. If you adjusted payouts to compensate, you would be cheating the casino.

Look at two examples starting with 50 and staking half bankroll ( rounded to the cent ) on an even money wager.

Here's a losing streak
50
25
12.50
6.25
3.12
1.56
0.77 (You were wiped out and lost an average of (25+12.5+6.25+3.12+1.56+0.77) at an average $8.20 per hand over 6 rounds.
but lets say you had 6 wins
50
75
112.50
168.75
253.12
379.69
569.53

so, those 6 'extra wins netted you a healthy $519.53

Matched wins and losses : yeah, your bankroll gets slaughtered
but win a few more than you lose and you will win faster and bigger.


Incidentally, I've studied this phenomenon after using it on day one of my BlackJack career where I used a 10% of bankroll playing method. Within hours £150 became £6000. It was luck, I just had about 30 extra wins compared to the house.

Do you have Excel? I can demonstrate with a simple model.

Quote: OnceDear

Fractional betting will, more often than not tend to chip away your bankroll faster because a losing wager loses more than a winning wager wins.
That is true: You get slaughtered steadily if there are equal numbers of winners to losers.

However, that BAD effect is completely cancelled out by the fact that if you have a just a few more winners than losers, the increase in bankroll is accelerated and non-linear compared to what would have happened with flat betting. The perceived disadvantage of fractional betting is only real if you lose your stack. On those rare occasions where you beat the house, you will do so with relatively few extra winning rounds.

The disadvantage is real. Equally likely outcomes even out in theory, and also in practice until it becomes a matter of stack-size when one stack, usually the larger, decisively veers off the other at some point in play. Every point in play where wins equal losses may as well be viewed a new starting point in a random walk. Independent events. It's only when one side rides a lead through to victory that it's a matter of who has the larger stack.

Quote: OnceDear

You are considering count of losers = count of winners. Look at the effects of a mismatch. If you adjusted payouts to compensate, you would be cheating the casino.

I'm not suggesting cheating the casino. Only that things be brought in line with your own fair betting formula so that stacks alone may be so compared as to who will take all.

Quote: OnceDear

Look at two examples starting with 50 and staking half bankroll ( rounded to the cent ) on an even money wager.

Here's a losing streak
50
25
12.50
6.25
3.12
1.56
0.77 (You were wiped out and lost an average of (25+12.5+6.25+3.12+1.56+0.77) at an average $8.20 per hand over 6 rounds.
but lets say you had 6 wins
50
75
112.50
168.75
253.12
379.69
569.53

so, those 6 'extra wins netted you a healthy $519.53

Matched wins and losses : yeah, your bankroll gets slaughtered
but win a few more than you lose and you will win faster and bigger.

You will have to win a lot more than a few more to stay above water because you can't restart at the 50 units when it suits for an example of winning big. To win almost two-thirds of the time. Ie, add almost two wins for every two wins and two losses which normally occur over the long-run.

Quote: OnceDear

Do you have Excel? I can demonstrate with a simple model.

No. Honestly, I'm not that much into this stuff. I'm not disputing that the Wizard's stack approach explains what's going on here; only that fractional betting can't be considered fair like flat betting roulette w/o a zero on the wheel. Here, the betting system is theoretically deficient. It must be handicapped along with the roulette wheel to make also this a matter of only stack-size.

Thanks, though. Especially for your little proof. I enjoyed it, haven't looked at it quite that way before.

Quote: TheGrimReaper13

The disadvantage is real.

Nope. Sorry, you are wrong. When considering all probabilities, you cannot dismiss the unlikely one where the smaller bankroll prevails.

Quote:

...fractional betting can't be considered fair like flat betting roulette w/o a zero on the wheel.

In the absense of house edge, in a fair wager, whether you flat bet or whether you fractional bet, or however you bet, it's all fair and with an equal opportunity of prevailing as given by that formula earlier.
If you increase your wager when you win and decrease your wager when you lose, or whether you do the opposite, will change the shape of your bankroll graph. but only the shape, not the probability of busting out or of breaking the bank. That probability is a function of stack sizes.

You could easily take down the casino's $50M bankroll from just $50 start bankroll by winning your first 35 even money bets staking half your bankroll each time.
Tell me that isn't as fair as having to win one million extra flat bets of $50.

Please, no-one pipe up with table max limitations.

50
75
112
168
252
378
567
850
1275
1912
2868
4302
6453
9679
14518
21777
32665
48997
73495
110242
165363
248044
372066
558099
837148
1255722
1883583
2825374
4238061
6357091
9535636
14303454
21455181
32182771
48274156
72411234

In general you lose at roulette as soon as you decide to play roulette.

Quote: AxelWolf

From what I have read Bob is not a martingaler. He's more a trend bettor.

He's probably watching/tracking the numbers.

He has said as much referring to the way an employee asked him about his roulette score card

Quote:

He probably believes that a group of numbers are NOT going come up so he spreads his money around the table trying to avoid them numbers.

That's what I reckon too. Reading from his previous simple maths question, I suspect he's using 'empirical probability' Remember that howler of a thread Simple Maths Question

Quote:

Probably once he hits his win goal (no doubt a small one)he leaves with his profits. If he gets "unlucky" and burns through his session bankroll he leaves and comes back another day.

That's my guess too.
Pity he's never been drawn to explain his skill of 'good bet selection' and his 'game plan'

Quote: OnceDear

He has said as much referring to the way an employee asked him about his roulette score cardThat's what I reckon too. Reading from his previous simple maths question, I suspect he's using 'empirical probability' Remember that howler of a thread Simple Maths Question
That's my guess too.
Pity he's never been drawn to explain his skill of 'good bet selection' and his 'game plan'

It's almost impossible to explain gut feelings AKA guessing.

Quote: AxelWolf

It's almost impossible to explain gut feelings AKA guessing.

I think EvenBob could probably explain it.