June 8th, 2013 at 5:42:37 PM
permalink

I have an idea of how to at least minimize the pit falls of the Mandalay betting system and I'd like to get your opinion on it.

If I am to understand correctly, the pit falls of the Mandalay system are that you risk a great deal of money for a small reward and it requires a large bank roll to survive several consecutive loses. My solution is to use all three dozens or columns in roulette. You would place a minimum bet on one of the three dozens to start. If you win you repeat. If you lose, however, you double your bet on that dozen and then also bet the minimum on the other two dozens and play them independently. Always doubling after a lose and returning to the minimum after a win on each dozen independently.

This accomplishes two things:

1) Since you are playing the dozens with a 2:1 payout, instead of profiting only one unit after a win you would make your money back PLUS a profit equal to the last bet of the sequence. So in essence the longer you go without a win the more profitable an eventual win would be.

2) By playing all three dozens you are protecting yourself against a long sequence of consecutive losses on a specific dozen. If one isn't winning the other two are and will allow yourself to finance the dozen that has been loosing which will eventually profit even more as stated in 1).

I'm not saying it is a statistical garunteed profit, but I think it would take an EXTREME statistical oddity not to.

I would much appreciate any input no matter how critical.

Thanks!

If I am to understand correctly, the pit falls of the Mandalay system are that you risk a great deal of money for a small reward and it requires a large bank roll to survive several consecutive loses. My solution is to use all three dozens or columns in roulette. You would place a minimum bet on one of the three dozens to start. If you win you repeat. If you lose, however, you double your bet on that dozen and then also bet the minimum on the other two dozens and play them independently. Always doubling after a lose and returning to the minimum after a win on each dozen independently.

This accomplishes two things:

1) Since you are playing the dozens with a 2:1 payout, instead of profiting only one unit after a win you would make your money back PLUS a profit equal to the last bet of the sequence. So in essence the longer you go without a win the more profitable an eventual win would be.

2) By playing all three dozens you are protecting yourself against a long sequence of consecutive losses on a specific dozen. If one isn't winning the other two are and will allow yourself to finance the dozen that has been loosing which will eventually profit even more as stated in 1).

I'm not saying it is a statistical garunteed profit, but I think it would take an EXTREME statistical oddity not to.

I would much appreciate any input no matter how critical.

Thanks!

June 8th, 2013 at 5:49:55 PM
permalink

A dozen can easily sleep for 15 spins or more, happens

all the time. You would reach the table limit very fast.

all the time. You would reach the table limit very fast.

"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."

June 8th, 2013 at 5:56:40 PM
permalink

Quote:KingofHarts

I'm not saying it is a statistical garunteed profit, but I think it would take an EXTREME statistical oddity not to.

I would much appreciate any input no matter how critical.

Thanks!

I will say that it is NOT a statistical guaranteed profit. You are not doing anything that alters the house edge on any spin, you're just manipulating (increasing) the amount of money that you're exposing to the house edge.

Bob is right about what'll happen here - the first dozen will miss for so long that you'll hit the table max and be unable to make the next required bet. You'll have small wins on the others, but not enough to make up for the losses on the first dozen. Then, a 0 will come and you'll wind up in the fetal position crying on the casino floor.

"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett

June 8th, 2013 at 6:39:06 PM
permalink

Quote:KingofHarts... By playing all three dozens you are protecting yourself against ...

Thou shalt not hedge thy bets... fancy hedges and simple hedges are each forbidden. You can get cute about the amounts and the timing but the whole idea is to either bet and take your chances or don't bet and leave the casino.

When you win a hedged bet... you have a high risk and a low return.

When you lose a hedged bet... you have a high risk and an even lower return.

Whats the allure? Certainty? Certainty of loss and certainty of a somewhat unusual but still common enough sequence wherein the player runs up against the Table Limit restrictions while trying to stick to the system of absurd bets that at best will only narrowly allow escape from ruin and more likely will guarantee the ultimate arrival of a gambler's ruin aided by table limits.

June 8th, 2013 at 8:41:36 PM
permalink

This theory completely ignores the 0 and 00. If either of them hit, you lose all your chips on the layout in your scenario. Nothing beats the 5.26% man.

June 8th, 2013 at 9:48:59 PM
permalink

I guess I don't understand this. If a green comes up in my scenario you just double your bet on all three dozens and you would profit even more when they do hit. Im looking at this as each dozen bet is independent. Roulette has a very low VI and a standard deviation of 3.48 on the dozens.

So heres my math on this and its been awhile since I took statistics so correct me if I am wrong...

With a $5 minimum bet and a $500 max you can lose 6 times doubling your bet each time before the max becomes an issue at $315 (5+10+20+40+80+160)=315 and then you can go to $500 and still make a profit of $685 on the 7th spin.

So 7 spins to get your dozen. If the probability of hitting your dozen is .31 and the standard deviation of a dozen is 3.48 than to find Z you would: (7-3.1)/3.49= 1.11. If I look at my Z table you get .8665.

So 86.65% of the time I will hit my dozen in 7 or less spins. Not to mention I could make a second $500 bet and if that won I would still break even. The Z value on 8 spins is .9192.

Where did I go wrong?

So heres my math on this and its been awhile since I took statistics so correct me if I am wrong...

With a $5 minimum bet and a $500 max you can lose 6 times doubling your bet each time before the max becomes an issue at $315 (5+10+20+40+80+160)=315 and then you can go to $500 and still make a profit of $685 on the 7th spin.

So 7 spins to get your dozen. If the probability of hitting your dozen is .31 and the standard deviation of a dozen is 3.48 than to find Z you would: (7-3.1)/3.49= 1.11. If I look at my Z table you get .8665.

So 86.65% of the time I will hit my dozen in 7 or less spins. Not to mention I could make a second $500 bet and if that won I would still break even. The Z value on 8 spins is .9192.

Where did I go wrong?

June 8th, 2013 at 10:06:07 PM
permalink

Quote:KingofHartsI guess I don't understand this. If a green comes up in my scenario you just double your bet on all three dozens and you would profit even more when they do hit.

I would say that it just makes you lose faster by pushing you closer to the limit. It's a hit against all 3 of your dozens bets. You should not want your bets to be high - it just means you're closer to trouble.

"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett

June 8th, 2013 at 10:17:01 PM
permalink

Any possible combination of bets you or a computer can

come up with was already tried 150 years ago in Europe by

people way smarter than most of us. To say there is

nothing new in roulette is the understatement of a couple

centuries. This book on roulette was written over 100 years

ago and people are still talking about these systems today, and

they were old when the book was written.

http://www.archive.org/stream/montecarloanecdo00bethiala#page/n5/mode/2up

come up with was already tried 150 years ago in Europe by

people way smarter than most of us. To say there is

nothing new in roulette is the understatement of a couple

centuries. This book on roulette was written over 100 years

ago and people are still talking about these systems today, and

they were old when the book was written.

http://www.archive.org/stream/montecarloanecdo00bethiala#page/n5/mode/2up

"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."

June 8th, 2013 at 10:38:01 PM
permalink

I'd say there's plenty new in roulette since then-- refinements to the wheel, etc. to decrease the possibility of bias, making it harder to get ahead...

June 9th, 2013 at 1:13:50 PM
permalink

I appreciate everyone's responses. I guess it's one of those things I'm gonna have to try and learn the hard way if it doesn't work

June 9th, 2013 at 1:23:29 PM
permalink

Quote:KingofHartsI appreciate everyone's responses. I guess it's one of those things I'm gonna have to try and learn the hard way if it doesn't work

No. stop. Why waste your money? Just think about it. Is there a house edge on very bet you're thinking of making? Yes? Then why would this work?

"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett

June 9th, 2013 at 1:36:53 PM
permalink

Quote:rdw4potusNo. stop. Why waste your money? Just think about it.

Why? Just take your money to the casino and get it

over with. Thats the only way most people like this

learn, being shown with real money and real losses.

Logic and math doesn't work, but a drained bank

account can be very convincing.

"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."