MauiSunset Roulette
July 3rd, 2012 at 1:50:49 PM
permalink
On your site you go into great detail with a lot of
math explaining how roulette is not 1/38, but 1/52.
Could you elaborate on this, its sounds interesting.
You say "The odds are 1 in 38. However, those odds
are usurped by the probability of your number showing
up in the next spin – a HUGE difference."
Here is your chart for roulette. How did you arrive
at these numbers?
math explaining how roulette is not 1/38, but 1/52.
Could you elaborate on this, its sounds interesting.
You say "The odds are 1 in 38. However, those odds
are usurped by the probability of your number showing
up in the next spin – a HUGE difference."
Here is your chart for roulette. How did you arrive
at these numbers?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:03:36 PM
permalink
First let me state that this is simply a theory of mine - I've not seen this theory posted anywhere so I'm taking credit for it - good or bad.
I believe in the odds of a House Advantage of 5.26% - it's easy to calculate just divide 2/38 and you get it.
So when I stumbled upon a link, posted here by another person, to the Vegas numbers I expected to see a profit per Roulette table of 5.26% + or - .5%.
That's not what I see, I see 16% reported by the casinos as the House Advantage for Roulette not 5.26%
Maybe I'm reading that number wrong but it looks like that's the profit reported on the average for all of Nevada, the Vegas strip, and individual casinos.
Well this can't be - they should be spot on 5.26% plus a little difference accounting for free plays which should be peanuts. There are European tables in Vegas but not many probably 10% is a guess and that would lower the averages not raise them.
So what would account for a profit 16%/5.26% or 3 times as much?
Well it just seemed logical to me that the odds table is leaving something out - but what?
I had just written an article about the invalid "Roulette law of the third" but it struck me that the math says that about 36% of the numbers will duplicate and that means about 1/3 won't show up in cycles of 38 spins; about 14 numbers.
I simply added 14 to the equation for calculating House Advantage and came up with the numbers in the above table.
I can give individual numbers if folks want but this is my stab at accounting for the profit of 300% more than what should be reported.
I believe in the odds of a House Advantage of 5.26% - it's easy to calculate just divide 2/38 and you get it.
So when I stumbled upon a link, posted here by another person, to the Vegas numbers I expected to see a profit per Roulette table of 5.26% + or - .5%.
That's not what I see, I see 16% reported by the casinos as the House Advantage for Roulette not 5.26%
Maybe I'm reading that number wrong but it looks like that's the profit reported on the average for all of Nevada, the Vegas strip, and individual casinos.
Well this can't be - they should be spot on 5.26% plus a little difference accounting for free plays which should be peanuts. There are European tables in Vegas but not many probably 10% is a guess and that would lower the averages not raise them.
So what would account for a profit 16%/5.26% or 3 times as much?
Well it just seemed logical to me that the odds table is leaving something out - but what?
I had just written an article about the invalid "Roulette law of the third" but it struck me that the math says that about 36% of the numbers will duplicate and that means about 1/3 won't show up in cycles of 38 spins; about 14 numbers.
I simply added 14 to the equation for calculating House Advantage and came up with the numbers in the above table.
I can give individual numbers if folks want but this is my stab at accounting for the profit of 300% more than what should be reported.
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:06:25 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:07:41 PM
permalink
yup, you even have a forum just opened where I presume you will moderate.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:07:42 PM
permalink
Quote: IbeatyouracesI think he is still confusing "hold" with "house edge"
That could be - I'm looking at the tables and I see "profit" - I'm guessing that's House Advantage + or - something small.
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:08:49 PM
permalink
Quote: 98Clubsyup, you even have a forum just opened where I presume you will moderate.
I run a lot of chat rooms - I moderate all of them.
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:09:32 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunsetit struck me that the math says that about 36% of the numbers will duplicate and that means about 1/3 won't show up in cycles of 38 spins; about 14 numbers.
I simply added 14 to the equation for calculating House Advantage and came up with the numbers in the above table.
This is fascinating to me. Whats stopping the ball from falling
in any pocket as often as it can?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:10:10 PM
permalink
I'm leaving for a 4th of July family reunion this moment - will try to get back to this on the 5th.
have a great 4th everyone.........
have a great 4th everyone.........
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:11:44 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThis is fascinating to me. Whats stopping the ball from falling
in any pocket as often as it can?
Beats the hell out of me - I just know that about 36% of the numbers won't ever show up in the next spin - including the number you are betting on...
Got to go...
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:16:55 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunsetI'm leaving for a 4th of July family reunion this moment - will try to get back to this on the 5th.
I'll make sure we get back to it o the 5th. Your site has
some interesting observations I want to hear more
about. I thought I had seen everything on roulette,
this is something I have never run across.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:25:28 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunsetThat could be - I'm looking at the tables and I see "profit" - I'm guessing that's House Advantage + or - something small.
"Profit" would eman what operating a table costs vs how much money it brings in. therefore if, say, the cost for operating the table is $4.53 per hour and over that hour a total of $100 is bet, leaving a total of $5.26 for the casino, then the profit is 16% (approx).
$4.53 * 1.16 = $5.25
:P
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 3rd, 2012 at 2:32:58 PM
permalink
Maui's math skills worry me. If he's flying on a plane that he helped engineer, then we may never hear from him again.
July 3rd, 2012 at 3:08:26 PM
permalink
Question for Mr Sunset : If I take $300 to a roulette table, bet on number 23 50 times for $10 and leave with $200, what was the profit for the casino for all 50 spins? What the house edge per bet? What was the expected value of the bets?
Question 2 for Mr Sunset : Why is it 38% that no number will turn up next? Isn't it actually 37 out 38? Only 1 number can turn up next.
Question 2 for Mr Sunset : Why is it 38% that no number will turn up next? Isn't it actually 37 out 38? Only 1 number can turn up next.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 3rd, 2012 at 3:12:08 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunsetThat's not what I see, I see 16% reported by the casinos as the House Advantage for Roulette not 5.26%
Maybe I'm reading that number wrong but it looks like that's the profit reported on the average for all of Nevada, the Vegas strip, and individual casinos.
No, that's not profit at all. That's the ratio of win to drop. Win = how much the casino wins. Drop = how much the players buy in for. If I buy in at a $5 table for $100, the drop is $100. Suppose I play for about an hour and a half, making a total of 57 $5 bets on either red or black, following some hunches. I win 27 and lose 30 of them for a net result of -$15. That turns out to be the expected result as well when you factor in my total wagering action of $285 and the house edge of -2/38. However, the house doesn't keep track of my total wagering action because they can't (except on electronic tables). The only numbers they have are (a) how much I bought in for, and (b) how much they won. They won $15. I bought in for $100. 15/100 = 15%, and that is the number they report to the state gaming agency. It has nothing to do with the house edge.
Note that if I had bought in for $200, but played the same way and had the same results, win/drop would have been 15/200 = 7.5%. What the reported 16% win figure really means for roulette is that when players buy in at a table they play the same dollars over and over enough times for the house to keep 16%.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
July 3rd, 2012 at 3:14:50 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitQuestion for Mr Sunset : If I take $300 to a roulette table, bet on number 23 50 times for $10 and leave with $200, what was the profit for the casino for all 50 spins? What the house edge per bet?
Look at the chart. Its 30% HE for all straight up bets.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 3rd, 2012 at 3:18:41 PM
permalink
"The law of thirds" is emergent behaviour from the 1 in 38. Plus it's only a trend not a hard "rule" or "law". That's the beauty of random numbers and probability, lots of things emerge from very simple rules.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 3rd, 2012 at 3:19:05 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobLook at the chart. Its 30% HE for all straight up bets.
Perhaps he's found a way to manipulate the odds at the quantum level.
I visited his website, but found it very difficult to navigate. I don't understand why he attempts to go into such detail about the "law of the third". It's pointless, and it will in no way enable someone to win in the long run. The only effect that the law of the third may loosely help you interpret would be the fitness of the gaming device. However, the chi square test would be a much better fitness test, outside of mechanical testing. Perhaps he's missing the fact that each spin of the roulette wheel is an independent trial.
There's nothing on the website, mathematically speaking, that appears to have been written by an "aerospace engineer". Why are there such grievous errors in his mathematical calculations? And if he's a website designer, then why is the website so difficult to navigate?
-Keyser
July 5th, 2012 at 4:02:25 AM
permalink
Back from a fantastic 4th of July with the family - fireworks cancelled because of drought here in our area and it was 104 degrees F at 9:15 PM when the fireworks should have gone off but didn't.
It kind of summarizes a year of fizzle in America; make that 3.5 years of fizzle.
OK, back to my 2-week old theory.
I don't dispute that the minimum HA is 5.26% for American wheels - all I'm suggesting is that it could be more, and I've come up with a proposal that is open to debate and that's fine - kind of like a mini-Scientific Method where everything is open for debate and its up to me to try do defend it. If I can't defend it from all challenges then my theory is wrong. It's simple.
I'm not a statistician, I am an engineer by education and training - I look at things and when I see things that make no sense I get curious and try to find out if its me or the thing that I observe that is wrong; but something cough my eye and I investigate.
I was perfectly happy to regurgitate the HA of 5.26% (2/38 for an American wheel) and when I saw this report I started to question that number: http://www.gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4338
The column that caught my eye is the "Win Percentage" - which is about 16% for Roulette. So what does "Win Percentage" mean?
(I've got some business to attend to most of the day so I'll be back tonight, sorry)
It kind of summarizes a year of fizzle in America; make that 3.5 years of fizzle.
OK, back to my 2-week old theory.
I don't dispute that the minimum HA is 5.26% for American wheels - all I'm suggesting is that it could be more, and I've come up with a proposal that is open to debate and that's fine - kind of like a mini-Scientific Method where everything is open for debate and its up to me to try do defend it. If I can't defend it from all challenges then my theory is wrong. It's simple.
I'm not a statistician, I am an engineer by education and training - I look at things and when I see things that make no sense I get curious and try to find out if its me or the thing that I observe that is wrong; but something cough my eye and I investigate.
I was perfectly happy to regurgitate the HA of 5.26% (2/38 for an American wheel) and when I saw this report I started to question that number: http://www.gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4338
The column that caught my eye is the "Win Percentage" - which is about 16% for Roulette. So what does "Win Percentage" mean?
(I've got some business to attend to most of the day so I'll be back tonight, sorry)
July 5th, 2012 at 5:00:28 AM
permalink
suggestion:
read up on "hold" versus house advantage.
also, as far as the "fizzle" in the US:
you refer to 3.5 years which i assume you mean obama's term in office
considering the DJIA went from 14093 on 10/12/07 to 8281 on 1/16/09
let's all stop implying/pretending that obama ruined america's economy.
read up on "hold" versus house advantage.
also, as far as the "fizzle" in the US:
you refer to 3.5 years which i assume you mean obama's term in office
considering the DJIA went from 14093 on 10/12/07 to 8281 on 1/16/09
let's all stop implying/pretending that obama ruined america's economy.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
July 5th, 2012 at 5:05:53 AM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunsetSo what does "Win Percentage" mean?
I can not believe you are asking this.
If you are going to post about basic gaming math then start off learning the correct terminology.
AFTER that if you have questions ask for help.
You should learn win rate, drop, hold, house-edge, player edge, day, shift and should have some idea of which terms require what information to be defined. Also keep terms of what is defined over a period of time such as a shift.
A roulette table generally has atleast a fifteen percent to twenty percent win rate even if its a 5.26 percent house edge for every bet made there.
A craps table offers a variety of bets, some as low as 0.23 percent house edge and some of course at zero house edge, but the win rate for a craps table hovers in the twelve to twenty percent range. This is not a mystery.
From Vegas Made Easy:
If E is equal to the House Edge for a game such as 5.26% roulette and S is the number of weighted average sessions within a 24 hour period per player, then the formula to derive the Hold % is 1-(E) raised to the S. If the average number of sessions is 3 then, 1-(5.26%) =.9474 raised to the 3rd or .8504.
July 5th, 2012 at 1:01:56 PM
permalink
Mauisunset,
Why is it that you have so many posts talking about roulette, including a website dedicated to the game, yet you don't understand the odds of the game?
All the while, you appear to pretend that you are an expert on the subject. Why?
Why is it that you have so many posts talking about roulette, including a website dedicated to the game, yet you don't understand the odds of the game?
All the while, you appear to pretend that you are an expert on the subject. Why?
July 5th, 2012 at 1:21:12 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunset
The column that caught my eye is the "Win Percentage" - which is about 16% for Roulette. So what does "Win Percentage" mean?
Oh my. You have a roulette website and over 500 posts
on VLSroulette saying 500 times that roulette can't be
beaten, and you don't know how to calculate the HE and
you don't know what win % is? You also seem to think
'law of the third' is an actual mathematical law.
I'm speechless.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 5th, 2012 at 2:15:17 PM
permalink
Are you saying that he's made over 500 posts, posing as an expert on the subject? I knew it was high, but not that high.
If roulette had a 16% house edge, then it would still be, on average, a better bet than the horse or dog tracks inside of the US.
If roulette had a 16% house edge, then it would still be, on average, a better bet than the horse or dog tracks inside of the US.
July 5th, 2012 at 4:35:04 PM
permalink
Good grief guys take your meds; get a life......
I continue...
The "Win Percentage" is not defined in the document, perhaps there is a document by the Nevada Gaming Commission that spells it out - I don't have that document and can only guess. The document does state "The "Win Percent" for games provides a ratio which has been adjusted for effects of credit play" and that's all. The "Win Percent" for slot devices provides a ratio which represents the reported win amount divided by the total dollar amount played by patrons. I used that definition too but am open to a definition that pertains to table games by the commission.
This means that "Win Percentage" is the Cash slot - (cash chips at the beginning of the accounting cycle - the cash chips at the end of the cycle) divided by the amount in the cash slot for a period of time; like a shift or day or whatever. Credit play tokens are netted out.
The 16% "Win Percentage" is fairly constant - it appears at the state level, at the Strip level and many locations. I do see a high value of 19.80% and a low of 15.38% with 16% showing up the most.
Why 16%?
I haven't a clue, if you divide 16% by 5.26% you get 3.04.
One could argue that gamblers throw down their money and play exactly 3 times their bankroll and then leave. e.g. they throw down $100 and play and win and play and win until $300 has been bet. That would generate 16% based upon a HA of 5.26% That would mean that the vast majority of gamblers leave with 100% - 16% or 84% of their bankroll.
I sure don't see that at the table. I see gamblers throwing down their money and playing until they run out of chips - the vast majority of them; like 80% or 90% is my experience - the casino had 100% "Win Percentage" with them.
So I then came up with a theory which I will explain later - first the monkeys can beat their chest and tell us how they are the Roulette gurus.
So gurus what's your take on a somewhat stable 16% "Winning Edge"?
Oh come on gurus, you can postulate some kind of theory - I won't laugh at you I welcome your theories............
I continue...
The "Win Percentage" is not defined in the document, perhaps there is a document by the Nevada Gaming Commission that spells it out - I don't have that document and can only guess. The document does state "The "Win Percent" for games provides a ratio which has been adjusted for effects of credit play" and that's all. The "Win Percent" for slot devices provides a ratio which represents the reported win amount divided by the total dollar amount played by patrons. I used that definition too but am open to a definition that pertains to table games by the commission.
This means that "Win Percentage" is the Cash slot - (cash chips at the beginning of the accounting cycle - the cash chips at the end of the cycle) divided by the amount in the cash slot for a period of time; like a shift or day or whatever. Credit play tokens are netted out.
The 16% "Win Percentage" is fairly constant - it appears at the state level, at the Strip level and many locations. I do see a high value of 19.80% and a low of 15.38% with 16% showing up the most.
Why 16%?
I haven't a clue, if you divide 16% by 5.26% you get 3.04.
One could argue that gamblers throw down their money and play exactly 3 times their bankroll and then leave. e.g. they throw down $100 and play and win and play and win until $300 has been bet. That would generate 16% based upon a HA of 5.26% That would mean that the vast majority of gamblers leave with 100% - 16% or 84% of their bankroll.
I sure don't see that at the table. I see gamblers throwing down their money and playing until they run out of chips - the vast majority of them; like 80% or 90% is my experience - the casino had 100% "Win Percentage" with them.
So I then came up with a theory which I will explain later - first the monkeys can beat their chest and tell us how they are the Roulette gurus.
So gurus what's your take on a somewhat stable 16% "Winning Edge"?
Oh come on gurus, you can postulate some kind of theory - I won't laugh at you I welcome your theories............
July 5th, 2012 at 5:16:38 PM
permalink
I thought ME answered this in his postQuote: MauiSunsetGood grief guys take your meds; get a life......
I continue...
The "Win Percentage" is not defined in the document, perhaps there is a document by the Nevada Gaming Commission that spells it out - I don't have that document and can only guess. The document does state "The "Win Percent" for games provides a ratio which has been adjusted for effects of credit play" and that's all. The "Win Percent" for slot devices provides a ratio which represents the reported win amount divided by the total dollar amount played by patrons. I used that definition too but am open to a definition that pertains to table games by the commission.
This means that "Win Percentage" is the Cash slot - (cash chips at the beginning of the accounting cycle - the cash chips at the end of the cycle) divided by the amount in the cash slot for a period of time; like a shift or day or whatever. Credit play tokens are netted out.
The 16% "Win Percentage" is fairly constant - it appears at the state level, at the Strip level and many locations. I do see a high value of 19.80% and a low of 15.38% with 16% showing up the most.
Why 16%?
I haven't a clue, if you divide 16% by 5.26% you get 3.04.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/10453-mauisunset-roulette/2/#post160763
Mr. Donald Catlin has an old article about calculating a hold percentage.
Interesting reading
http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/article/calculating-a-hold-percentage-1230
I Heart Vi Hart
July 5th, 2012 at 6:14:54 PM
permalink
It still raises a big red flag. How can a supposed "aerospace engineer", and a self proclaimed roulette expert with his own roulette site, and over 500 posts on the subject, miss out on how to correctly calculate the house edge?
July 5th, 2012 at 6:21:16 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunsetwhat's your take on a somewhat stable 16% "Winning Edge"?
Why do you insist on calling the 16% an 'edge'? The 16%
is the result of playing, its completely different from the edge.
The edge is written in stone, the hold is variable.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 6th, 2012 at 5:15:59 AM
permalink
Let me get this straight before I continue - no howling monkey as any idea why the "Winning Edge" is 16% but will jump up and down at mine.
Right - and exactly what I expected; a load of poop.
I continue with my daily 10 minute allocation to this.........
My theory:
Everyone and his brother regurgitates the House Advantage of 5.26% (2/38) as what the casino is supposed to get from the gamblers at the Roulette table - the House Advantage. That's what the simple division gives us and I sure don't argue with the math.
But what if this is the wrong way of looking at this?
That 5.26% means that folks throwing down $100 should play for a while and walk away with the starting bankroll - amount bet * 5.26%. If they do the normal insane betting that I see 25% of that $100 is thrown down as multi-dollar bets on 5 to 10 numbers. Within 4 spins the gambler should walk away with $100 - $5.26% or $95 bucks in his pocket.
I don't see this at all. I see gamblers betting until they have no chips left, it doesn't take that long - the vast majority of them and the vast majority of bets are "straight up" single number bets - just a bunch of them all at once once the dealer spins the ball.
Quite frankly I expected a "Winning edge" of 90% to be reported by the casinos.
Now I've cooked up several theories to explain the reason playing Roulette the usual way I see gamblers play it always results in no chips left but this theory deals with that 16% "Winning edge".
Let's look at the simplistic odds theory of 2/38:
The actual HA formula is
number of slots that can be landed on/38 * Payout – 38-number of slots that can be landed on/38 * bet
The key to the HA is the number of slots that can be landed on - the simple 2/38 calculation demands 38 slots be available to land on.
Well what if that's not correct?
(I'll continue tomorrow)
Monkeys you have it the rest of the day - have a howling good time...........
Right - and exactly what I expected; a load of poop.
I continue with my daily 10 minute allocation to this.........
My theory:
Everyone and his brother regurgitates the House Advantage of 5.26% (2/38) as what the casino is supposed to get from the gamblers at the Roulette table - the House Advantage. That's what the simple division gives us and I sure don't argue with the math.
But what if this is the wrong way of looking at this?
That 5.26% means that folks throwing down $100 should play for a while and walk away with the starting bankroll - amount bet * 5.26%. If they do the normal insane betting that I see 25% of that $100 is thrown down as multi-dollar bets on 5 to 10 numbers. Within 4 spins the gambler should walk away with $100 - $5.26% or $95 bucks in his pocket.
I don't see this at all. I see gamblers betting until they have no chips left, it doesn't take that long - the vast majority of them and the vast majority of bets are "straight up" single number bets - just a bunch of them all at once once the dealer spins the ball.
Quite frankly I expected a "Winning edge" of 90% to be reported by the casinos.
Now I've cooked up several theories to explain the reason playing Roulette the usual way I see gamblers play it always results in no chips left but this theory deals with that 16% "Winning edge".
Let's look at the simplistic odds theory of 2/38:
The actual HA formula is
number of slots that can be landed on/38 * Payout – 38-number of slots that can be landed on/38 * bet
The key to the HA is the number of slots that can be landed on - the simple 2/38 calculation demands 38 slots be available to land on.
Well what if that's not correct?
(I'll continue tomorrow)
Monkeys you have it the rest of the day - have a howling good time...........
July 6th, 2012 at 6:36:49 AM
permalink
please expand on your theory, now that mrjjj got the nuclear option, the board needs a resident roulette expert.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
July 6th, 2012 at 10:05:09 AM
permalink
Wasn't Mr. Jjj. also an "aerospace engineer"?
July 6th, 2012 at 5:47:55 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunset
The actual HA formula is number of slots that can be landed on/38 * Payout – 38-number of slots that can be landed on/38 * bet
The key to the HA is the number of slots that can be landed on - the simple 2/38 calculation demands 38 slots be available to land on.
Well what if that's not correct?
Uh Oh. Buckle up, we've got a live one.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 6th, 2012 at 7:14:07 PM
permalink
PoopQuote: MauiSunsetLet me get this straight before I continue - no howling monkey as any idea why the "Winning Edge" is 16% but will jump up and down at mine.
Right - and exactly what I expected; a load of poop.
PoopQuote: MauiSunset
My theory: ...........
Exactly
Next!
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
July 6th, 2012 at 7:20:59 PM
permalink
I feel sorry for MauiSunset. To be fair, EvenBob started the thread, not him. Uh oh, was it with a purpose of a personal attack on a forum member?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 6th, 2012 at 7:35:07 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanI feel sorry for MauiSunset. To be fair, EvenBob started the thread, not him. Uh oh, was it with a purpose of a personal attack on a forum member?
Uh oh, its a break off from another thread where Maui
said he didn't want to hijack the thread we were in.
Why are you trying to get me in trouble?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 6th, 2012 at 7:44:33 PM
permalink
Bob, figure it out. His name is Weaselman. LOL
July 7th, 2012 at 4:33:00 AM
permalink
OK, time to feed the monkeys....
(My theory can be found in a simple to read article at my website, but without all the monkey business thrown in)
Here goes today's 10 minutes:
The House Advantage for an American wheel is 5.26% or 2/38 and for whatever reason the casinos have supported this "theory" for 200+ years - that should send up a red flag or yellow banana. (European wheels are 2.7% or 1/37 but I'm only going to talk about American wheels since that's the vast majority of wheels I can play on)
The casinos have adjusted their payout tables to insure that the result of each type of Roulette bet is 5.26% with the exception of the first 5. Please look at this table: https://wizardofodds.com/games/roulette/
Now the casinos didn't have to stick with payouts that always make each bet equal to 5.26%, they could have picked different payout amounts, e.g. instead of 35 to one it could be 33 to one, or a split 16 to 1 instead of 17 to 1. Let me show you:
For a single number bet, a "straight up bet" the HA, or expectation, is defined as:
Expectation = (Loss x Probability) + (Win x Probability)
Expectation = (-$1 x 37/38) + ($35 x 1/38)
Expectation = (-$0.9737) + ($0.9211)
Expectation = -$0.0526
A HA of 5.26%
Let's look a changing the payoff amount of a split bet (1 chip covering 2 numbers):
At 17 to 1 payoff the Expectation is (-$1 x 36/38) + ($17 x 2/38) = -$0.0526 or a HA of 5.26%
At 16 to 1 payoff the Expectation is (-$1 x 36/38) + ($16 x 2/38) = -$0.1053 or a HA of 10.53%
So why did the casinos decide that a hard to calculate payout of 17 to 1 is what they would ALL use for 200+ years and not 16 to 1 which is much easier on the dealer and the gambler?
Because the HA is much much greater than this in reality and tinkering with that one difference of 16 instead of 17 makes little difference to them anyway.
I'm trying to explain my thought process of why I looked at that 5.26% HA - in engineering circles it's called a Kaizan Blitz - looking at what you have and questioning everything you assume; everything. I am questioning that 5.26% HA as compared to what I see at the table and the reported numbers to the gaming commission - that's all.
Well, I'll continue tomorrow, I've given the monkeys new words to hoop and holler at, this should be fun..........
(My theory can be found in a simple to read article at my website, but without all the monkey business thrown in)
Here goes today's 10 minutes:
The House Advantage for an American wheel is 5.26% or 2/38 and for whatever reason the casinos have supported this "theory" for 200+ years - that should send up a red flag or yellow banana. (European wheels are 2.7% or 1/37 but I'm only going to talk about American wheels since that's the vast majority of wheels I can play on)
The casinos have adjusted their payout tables to insure that the result of each type of Roulette bet is 5.26% with the exception of the first 5. Please look at this table: https://wizardofodds.com/games/roulette/
Now the casinos didn't have to stick with payouts that always make each bet equal to 5.26%, they could have picked different payout amounts, e.g. instead of 35 to one it could be 33 to one, or a split 16 to 1 instead of 17 to 1. Let me show you:
For a single number bet, a "straight up bet" the HA, or expectation, is defined as:
Expectation = (Loss x Probability) + (Win x Probability)
Expectation = (-$1 x 37/38) + ($35 x 1/38)
Expectation = (-$0.9737) + ($0.9211)
Expectation = -$0.0526
A HA of 5.26%
Let's look a changing the payoff amount of a split bet (1 chip covering 2 numbers):
At 17 to 1 payoff the Expectation is (-$1 x 36/38) + ($17 x 2/38) = -$0.0526 or a HA of 5.26%
At 16 to 1 payoff the Expectation is (-$1 x 36/38) + ($16 x 2/38) = -$0.1053 or a HA of 10.53%
So why did the casinos decide that a hard to calculate payout of 17 to 1 is what they would ALL use for 200+ years and not 16 to 1 which is much easier on the dealer and the gambler?
Because the HA is much much greater than this in reality and tinkering with that one difference of 16 instead of 17 makes little difference to them anyway.
I'm trying to explain my thought process of why I looked at that 5.26% HA - in engineering circles it's called a Kaizan Blitz - looking at what you have and questioning everything you assume; everything. I am questioning that 5.26% HA as compared to what I see at the table and the reported numbers to the gaming commission - that's all.
Well, I'll continue tomorrow, I've given the monkeys new words to hoop and holler at, this should be fun..........
July 7th, 2012 at 4:47:20 AM
permalink
TL:DR
once i read the word monkeys, i lost all interest and what little respect i had.
you still demonstrate no understanding of house advantage versus hold.
once i read the word monkeys, i lost all interest and what little respect i had.
you still demonstrate no understanding of house advantage versus hold.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
July 7th, 2012 at 7:12:52 AM
permalink
Out of curiosity, I wonder how inept a PE needs to be before their credential can be pulled...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
July 7th, 2012 at 8:25:10 AM
permalink
I've noticed that Maui suddenly no longer has time to post since Evenbob busted him on the his chart. Prior to the bust, Maui was a very prolific poster. Now he claims that he bascially doesn't have time to "feed the monkeys"?
It appears he has had enough time to set up an entire website dedicated to roulette with his view as to what the best "systems" are.
It appears he has had enough time to set up an entire website dedicated to roulette with his view as to what the best "systems" are.
July 7th, 2012 at 9:02:32 AM
permalink
Maui is an arrogant ( expletive deleted).
July 7th, 2012 at 11:26:36 AM
permalink
Just so you do not qualify for suspension, I offer the following :
Arrogance is said to be a virtue, especially in the context of some professions such at the senior managerial or expert level. Here's how you can learn what arrogance is and how to benefit from its use.
The purpose of arrogance is to let those whom you do not really value anyway know that you are better than them at a certain activity or in character. People tend to find out how skilled you are, no matter how you choose to act. Acting arrogant, however, is a straightforward solution that will have an almost immediate effect. This is, of course, antithetical to the point of getting along with your fellow human beings but it is a choice for you to make.
The overall benefit to using arrogance is being treated as a superior person. In order to have that red carpet treatment, you must truly accept and adhere to strict arrogance protocol. This treatment may well outweigh the lack of being liked if you need to adopt such a persona in a professional context, or because you need to keep people at a distance from you, for whatever reason.
Arrogance is said to be a virtue, especially in the context of some professions such at the senior managerial or expert level. Here's how you can learn what arrogance is and how to benefit from its use.
The purpose of arrogance is to let those whom you do not really value anyway know that you are better than them at a certain activity or in character. People tend to find out how skilled you are, no matter how you choose to act. Acting arrogant, however, is a straightforward solution that will have an almost immediate effect. This is, of course, antithetical to the point of getting along with your fellow human beings but it is a choice for you to make.
The overall benefit to using arrogance is being treated as a superior person. In order to have that red carpet treatment, you must truly accept and adhere to strict arrogance protocol. This treatment may well outweigh the lack of being liked if you need to adopt such a persona in a professional context, or because you need to keep people at a distance from you, for whatever reason.
July 7th, 2012 at 11:28:37 AM
permalink
Quote: WASHOO2Maui is an arrogant ( expletive deleted).
I have no idea what Maui is talking about. The monkeys comment is
a bit over the top, all we asked for is an explanation of what he
means on his web page. He's the one that told us to go there and
read it, now he seems upset that we questioned his math. Oh well.
He's trying to re-configure the game from a new standpoint because
he confused hold with edge. Round hole and square peg come to
mind.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 7th, 2012 at 11:34:09 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobRound hole and square peg come to
mind.
Agree, but if that was all it was he wouldn't have received the reception that he did.
This is like a 24" square peg and a 3" round hole. Not only is it ill shaped, but it's obviously the wrong size as well.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
July 7th, 2012 at 11:37:18 AM
permalink
“Through me you pass into the city of woe:
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.
Justice the founder of my fabric moved:
To rear me was the task of Power divine,
Supremest Wisdom, and primeval Love.
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
Through me you pass into eternal pain:
Through me among the people lost for aye.
Justice the founder of my fabric moved:
To rear me was the task of Power divine,
Supremest Wisdom, and primeval Love.
Before me things create were none, save things
Eternal, and eternal I endure.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
July 7th, 2012 at 11:37:19 AM
permalink
MauiSunHasSet
Poop
just needs a bigger hammer
Poop
just needs a bigger hammer
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
July 7th, 2012 at 11:38:17 AM
permalink
Quote: 7crapsMauiSunHasSet
Poop
Don't force it. Get a BIGGER Hammer.
July 7th, 2012 at 12:17:39 PM
permalink
MauiSunset -
The house edge is the average casino win from each wager.
The hold is the average casino win from each buy-in.
If every player were to bet their entire buy-in once and leave, win or lose, then the hold would approach the house edge over time.
But this isn't what happens. A player will typically buy in and make multiple bets. Each bet is exposed to the house edge. Exposing the same buy-in to the house edge multiple times grinds down the player's buy-in. The amount the player buys in for, minus the amount they leave the table with, is the casino's win or "hold".
It is the hold which is reported for table games in the reports you have been reading.
In the case of double-zero roulette, if the hold is 16%, that means the average player wagers their buy-in 3.04 times before leaving the table. For example, someone buying in for $100 places $304 in wagers before coloring up and leaving. $304 times the house edge of 5.26% is a $16 win for the casino; a $16 win from a $100 buy-in is a 16% hold.
The reason why hold cannot be mathematically predicted is because you can't predict how many wagers a player will make, and for what amounts, before they color up and leave.
The house edge is the average casino win from each wager.
The hold is the average casino win from each buy-in.
If every player were to bet their entire buy-in once and leave, win or lose, then the hold would approach the house edge over time.
But this isn't what happens. A player will typically buy in and make multiple bets. Each bet is exposed to the house edge. Exposing the same buy-in to the house edge multiple times grinds down the player's buy-in. The amount the player buys in for, minus the amount they leave the table with, is the casino's win or "hold".
It is the hold which is reported for table games in the reports you have been reading.
In the case of double-zero roulette, if the hold is 16%, that means the average player wagers their buy-in 3.04 times before leaving the table. For example, someone buying in for $100 places $304 in wagers before coloring up and leaving. $304 times the house edge of 5.26% is a $16 win for the casino; a $16 win from a $100 buy-in is a 16% hold.
The reason why hold cannot be mathematically predicted is because you can't predict how many wagers a player will make, and for what amounts, before they color up and leave.
July 7th, 2012 at 12:29:38 PM
permalink
Quote: JB
In the case of double-zero roulette, if the hold is 16%, that means the average player wagers their buy-in 3.04 times before leaving the table. For example, someone buying in for $100 places $304 in wagers before coloring up and leaving.
It goes without saying these are long term results on
a player to player basis. If you single out a single
player and he wagers his buy-in 3 times before
leaving, anything could happen that day. He might
win 3 times. But over hundreds of visits, he'll lose
right at the HE of 5.26%.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 7th, 2012 at 2:06:12 PM
permalink
Maui, you say on your page that "The existing odds table
demand that each of the 38 slots on the Roulette wheel
has an equal chance of being spun – this is false".
So you think every spin is not an independent event,
and the odds of the ball falling into any one pocket are
not equal on every spin? The fact that each spin is
completely independent of the last spin is the bedrock
the game is based on. Right or wrong?
demand that each of the 38 slots on the Roulette wheel
has an equal chance of being spun – this is false".
So you think every spin is not an independent event,
and the odds of the ball falling into any one pocket are
not equal on every spin? The fact that each spin is
completely independent of the last spin is the bedrock
the game is based on. Right or wrong?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 7th, 2012 at 3:16:51 PM
permalink
Quote: MauiSunsetSo why did the casinos decide that a hard to calculate payout of 17 to 1 is what they would ALL use for 200+ years and not 16 to 1 which is much easier on the dealer and the gambler?
Because the HA is much much greater than this in reality and tinkering with that one difference of 16 instead of 17 makes little difference to them anyway.
Well, the 1:1 payoff on Red and Black has stayed the same without tinkering also. Is that part of some international conspiracty too?
