Evenbob's Roulette Thread
Alas so do I. The casino just doesn't seem to offer me very many of those positive EV games.
>however I understand the odds and I don't play the side bets with a big house edge.
Well, Basic Strategy gives you that minus 1.414. Those whopping payoff bets with the high house edge are the only think that will make it all worthwhile ... IF they hit.
The one thing I have learned after a lifetime of gambling - you can't "grind" a profit. The longer you go on the grind the longer the casino has to grind you. You are small rock and the casino is a bit rock and big rocks nearly always reduce small rocks to dust.
People who are risk adverse tend to be grinders - grinders lose.
Quote: blackjackgoldenI am zero percent gamble..... Why gamble if you know you cant win more than 50% percent of the time.
Gambling is like target shooting with a gun that has bad sights, if you do hit something its just an accident. Pro's never gamble if they can help it, they always have an edge, or at least a perceived edge. Slot players aren't really gambling because they have no idea what they're doing. I think it can be called gambling if you understand the risk and do it anyway. If you're playing in ignorance, you're just giving to your favorite charity, the casino.
Quote: blackjackgoldenI am zero percent gamble..... Why gamble if you know you cant win more than 50% percent of the time.
I thought you were a blackjack player. The chances of winning any given hand of blackjack are never above 50%, even if the count is very player-favorable -- except in certain theoretical end-of-deck scenarios which never happen due to the cut card. What game do you play that has a >50% win rate?
How Often Do Gamblers Really Win? https://stoppredatorygambling.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-How-Often-Do-Gamblers-Really-Win-New-data-provide-some-answers.pdf
This is an interesting statistic, if 13% win then it is certainly possible to be consistently in that 13% if you have an edge. What is stopping you from having an edge. It's certainly not the law of large numbers, because that only applies to the casino. And even that is not written in stone, Steve Wynn has said that casino owners have losing quarters all the time because of the variance. You might have one or two big winning baccarat players that take all your profit for an entire quarter. But the law of large numbers always proves true in the end, a casino will always make money at the end of the year.
But how does the law of large numbers affect an individual player. The truth is, not at all.
"The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events or small numbers of events."
"This law of large numbers does not say anything about what will happen in a single observation or experiment. because individual events are unpredictable."
In the present moment when you make a bet, anything can happen. The law of large numbers has nothing to do with your bet at all. The truth is you won't live long enough to make enough bets where the law of large numbers will have an effect on you. It's not a law anyway, it's a theory. There is no math that says I cannot make a bet based on observation of outcomes in the short term that might have a better chance of winning than a random bet would. I know this is true because I do it every day. I don't beat the math, because the math does not apply to the short term. The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events. Read It and weep..
Quote: EvenBob"In 2013, The Wall Street Journal gained access to a private gambling database, which revealed that just 13.5% of gamblers end up winning."
No way 13.5% of gamblers are winners.
Quote: DRichQuote: EvenBob"In 2013, The Wall Street Journal gained access to a private gambling database, which revealed that just 13.5% of gamblers end up winning."
No way 13.5% of gamblers are winners.
link to original post
That's from the casino statistics, 13% sounds about right to me. 70% of the time in a casino a player is up in profit at least once but he just keeps playing until it's gone.
Quote: EvenBobI don't beat the math, because the math does not apply to the short term...
link to original post
I hope someone is compiling a list of all these EvenBob "aphorisms." They could probably write a book by now.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: DRichQuote: EvenBob"In 2013, The Wall Street Journal gained access to a private gambling database, which revealed that just 13.5% of gamblers end up winning."
No way 13.5% of gamblers are winners.
link to original post
That's from the casino statistics, 13% sounds about right to me. 70% of the time in a casino a player is up in profit at least once but he just keeps playing until it's gone.
link to original post
I have often wondered about that number. Some casino mag I read in the 2000s said the same thing and said more people need to learn to quit earlier.
Quote: EvenBob"In 2013, The Wall Street Journal gained access to a private gambling database, which revealed that just 13.5% of gamblers end up winning."
How Often Do Gamblers Really Win? https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-often-do-gamblers-really-win-1381514164
This is an interesting statistic, if 13% win then it is certainly possible to be consistently in that 13% if you have an edge. What is stopping you from having an edge. It's certainly not the law of large numbers, because that only applies to the casino. And even that is not written in stone, Steve Wynn has said that casino owners have losing quarters all the time because of the variance. You might have one or two big winning baccarat players that take all your profit for an entire quarter. But the law of large numbers always proves true in the end, a casino will always make money at the end of the year.
But how does the law of large numbers affect an individual player. The truth is, not at all.
"The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events or small numbers of events."
"This law of large numbers does not say anything about what will happen in a single observation or experiment. because individual events are unpredictable."
In the present moment when you make a bet, anything can happen. The law of large numbers has nothing to do with your bet at all. The truth is you won't live long enough to make enough bets where the law of large numbers will have an effect on you. It's not a law anyway, it's a theory. There is no math that says I cannot make a bet based on observation of outcomes in the short term that might have a better chance of winning than a random bet would. I know this is true because I do it every day. I don't beat the math, because the math does not apply to the short term. The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events. Read It and weep..
link to original post
Pay walled. Does that 13% mean lifetime, or on a per visit basis? I can't see the full article, but I could believe it on a basis of individual player, individual visit---maybe even over a year; of course, some of those would just be one visit, or trip.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: DRichQuote: EvenBob"In 2013, The Wall Street Journal gained access to a private gambling database, which revealed that just 13.5% of gamblers end up winning."
No way 13.5% of gamblers are winners.
link to original post
That's from the casino statistics, 13% sounds about right to me. 70% of the time in a casino a player is up in profit at least once but he just keeps playing until it's gone.
link to original post
If it is just from casinos and on a per trip basis that may be correct. If you include all gambling such as lotteries that number is way over inflated.
The article is at https://stoppredatorygambling.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-How-Often-Do-Gamblers-Really-Win-New-data-provide-some-answers.pdf
Quote: Mission146
Pay walled. Does that 13% mean lifetime, or on a per visit basis? I can't see the full article, but I could believe it on a basis of individual player, individual visit---maybe even over a year; of course, some of those would just be one visit, or trip.
link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/3831-how-much-gamble-do-you-have/#post900267
on 30% of the days they wagered."
How did they do that, blind dumb luck? No, they did it because they accidentally were playing the game with their bets in a way that favored winning. If they could figure out how they did that accidentally, they could repeat it and win more often.
That's what I did. I mastered bet selection. Nothing else matters, bet selection is the king.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobI don't beat the math, because the math does not apply to the short term...
link to original post
I hope someone is compiling a list of all these EvenBob "aphorisms." They could probably write a book by now.
link to original post
I'm still putting the final touches on my "Everything I know about Gambling" by Dieter Greene.
Still trying to get Shed Simove to agree to be my editor, he's a master of the genre.
Quote: Dieter
Still trying to get Shed Simove to agree to be my editor, he's a master of the genre.
link to original post
https://shedsimove.com/
fewest wagers over the two years—also had the highest winning percentage. About 17% of them.."
I have found this to be true also. I make as few bets as possible to make my goal, ideally only one bet is my favorite. The more often you bet the better your chances of losing whatever profit you have. Some people call it hit and run, I call it win and leave. And the statistics bear it out.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobI don't beat the math, because the math does not apply to the short term...
link to original post
I hope someone is compiling a list of all these EvenBob "aphorisms." They could probably write a book by now.
link to original post
So you think the law of big numbers applies to the short-term? Really. Please explain that to me.
Quote:The article is at https://stoppredatorygambling.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-How-Often-Do-Gamblers-Really-Win-New-data-provide-some-answers.pdf
I guess I must be cheating, then.Quote:
"Unless they cheat, about the only way gamblers can win at games of chance is to get lucky and then stop gambling."
The study is very flawed because a large number of players sign up and play very briefly before cashing out. If you take the segment of players that played for 100 hours or more, the number of winners would be very small. As it is, we cannot tell how much the win and leave segment inflates the winner percentages.
Also, any study that does not count free slot play does not show the real picture. Some of the heavier gamblers can be clearing $1000 per day in FSP from a single site.
Quote: Mental
The study is very flawed because
link to original post
How do you know what they studied and didn't study, there's no details. So you're just guessing. What would be the point of doing a very flawed study, they aren't trying to prove anything. My guess is it's not flawed at all, that they tried their best to give a fair and balanced picture.
Fair enough. The presentation of the study by the WSJ is flawed and misleading.Quote: EvenBobQuote: Mental
The study is very flawed because
link to original post
How do you know what they studied and didn't study, there's no details. So you're just guessing. What would be the point of doing a very flawed study, they aren't trying to prove anything. My guess is it's not flawed at all, that they tried their best to give a fair and balanced picture.
link to original post
"Big losers of more than $5,000 among these heavy gamblers outnumbered big winners by a staggering 128 to 1."
I think I am the 1.
The data sets are available for download. The data is quite old. The RTP for the raw data is just 93.36%. I don't think I have ever placed an online bet worse than 94% RTP, and my median bet on slots is probably 97.5% RTP.
According to the law of large numbers, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value and tends to become closer to the expected value as more trials are performed.Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobI don't beat the math, because the math does not apply to the short term...
link to original post
I hope someone is compiling a list of all these EvenBob "aphorisms." They could probably write a book by now.
link to original post
So you think the law of big numbers applies to the short-term? Really. Please explain that to me.
link to original post
Do you think there is a threshold number for the LLN to apply? If so what is that threshold?
The answer is there is no magic number or threshold. The LLN applies when you go from one wager to two wagers. The average results tends to become closer to the expected value when you go from a session length of one bet to a session length of two bets. This is easy to demonstrate in physical trials (coin tosses, for example) or Monte Carlo simulations.
I don't expect you to understand because the LLN is based on math.
Quote: MentalThe LLN applies when you go from one wager to two wagers.
link to original post
"The law of large numbers has a very central role in probability and statistics.
It states that if you repeat an experiment independently a LARGE NUMBER of
times and average the result, what you obtain should be close to the
EXPECTED VALUE". https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter7/7_1_1_law_of_large_numbers.php#:~:text=The%20law%20of%20large%20numbers,the%20law%20of%20large%20numbers.
Two wagers is not a large number of times too bet. You won't live long enough to place enough bets to make your wager fall under the LLN. Like I pointed out, the only thing the LLN effects is the casino and that's not even true all the time. Casinos frequently lose money as Steve Wynn points out, but in the end they always make a profit. That's because of the sheer number of wagers being made in the casino 24/7. That same math does not apply to the individual player. For an individual player anything can happen. He can buy in at the roulette table for $100 and lose that $100 in the first hour. Or he can make $500. There is no math that governs anything that short-term.
Was your last sentence meant as a joke? Probability theory can be applied to one wager.Quote: EvenBobQuote: MentalThe LLN applies when you go from one wager to two wagers.
link to original post
"The law of large numbers has a very central role in probability and statistics.
It states that if you repeat an experiment independently a LARGE NUMBER of
times and average the result, what you obtain should be close to the
EXPECTED VALUE". https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter7/7_1_1_law_of_large_numbers.php#:~:text=The%20law%20of%20large%20numbers,the%20law%20of%20large%20numbers.
Two wagers is not a large number of times too bet. You won't live long enough to place enough bets to make your wager fall under the LLN. Like I pointed out, the only thing the LLN effects is the casino and that's not even true all the time. Casinos frequently lose money as Steve Wynn points out, but in the end they always make a profit. That's because of the sheer number of wagers being made in the casino 24/7. That same math does not apply to the individual player. For an individual player anything can happen. He can buy in at the roulette table for $100 and lose that $100 in the first hour. Or he can make $500. There is no math that governs anything that short-term.
link to original post
In your understanding, what is the threshold for the LLN to kick in? You say casinos achieve that threshold but individual bettors do not. So what is the specific number of bets where the LLN kicks in?
If you repeat an experiment independently a LARGE NUMBER of times and average the result, what you obtain should be close to the EXPECTED VALUE.
If you repeat an experiment independently a (LARGE NUMBER + 1) times and average the result, what you obtain tends to be closer to the EXPECTED VALUE.
Every experiment narrows the dispersion of the results normalized by the number of trials. The second experiment is the one that narrows the dispersion the most. The (LARGE NUMBER + 1) experiment hardly makes any difference at all.
People fail to realize that multiple short-term sessions add up to the long term. If we use roulette as an example: While betting on even money bets, it doesn't take long for the HA to get you. It may take many spins to come near the exact HA, but it doesn't take long to be in the red.Quote: EvenBobQuote: MentalThe LLN applies when you go from one wager to two wagers.
link to original post
"The law of large numbers has a very central role in probability and statistics.
It states that if you repeat an experiment independently a LARGE NUMBER of
times and average the result, what you obtain should be close to the
EXPECTED VALUE". https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter7/7_1_1_law_of_large_numbers.php#:~:text=The%20law%20of%20large%20numbers,the%20law%20of%20large%20numbers.
Two wagers is not a large number of times too bet. You won't live long enough to place enough bets to make your wager fall under the LLN. Like I pointed out, the only thing the LLN effects is the casino and that's not even true all the time. Casinos frequently lose money as Steve Wynn points out, but in the end they always make a profit. That's because of the sheer number of wagers being made in the casino 24/7. That same math does not apply to the individual player. For an individual player anything can happen. He can buy in at the roulette table for $100 and lose that $100 in the first hour. Or he can make $500. There is no math that governs anything that short-term.
link to original post
Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobI don't beat the math, because the math does not apply to the short term...
link to original post
I hope someone is compiling a list of all these EvenBob "aphorisms." They could probably write a book by now.
link to original post
So you think the law of big numbers applies to the short-term? Really. Please explain that to me.
link to original post
I said nothing about the law of large numbers. You said "math" does not apply to the short-term, which it obviously does.
Quote: Mental
I don't expect you to understand because the LLN is based on math.
link to original post
Zing
Quote: EvenBobIts a good question. On the TV poker shows, Tom Dwan is always said to have lots of 'gamble' and thats what makes him interesting. He takes chances, he pushes the money out there when many others don't. How much gamble do you have? I have almost none. Card counting BJ for a few decades cured me from betting on games where I don't have an edge. I watch people in the casino all the time and am constantly amazed at how much gamble some people have. I'm not talking about clueless dicks, I mean people who understand the games. I admit, I'm envious and jealous of many of them. Taking risks is not my style, I'm a solid edge player. I can't even drive over a tall bridge without turning into a quivering mass of Jello, why should I be able to slide a black chip out there if I don't the odds are in my favor.
link to original post
I don’t understand how this is EvenBob
Quote: Mental
In your understanding, what is the threshold for the LLN to kick in?
link to original post
What's the difference, you're never going to get there making one bet at a time. What matters is this:
"The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events or small numbers of events."
"This law of large numbers does not say anything about what will happen in a single observation or experiment. because individual events are unpredictable."
Quote: AxelWolfPeople fail to realize that multiple short-term sessions add up to the long term.
link to original post
Yep. And every time it snows it has a little more to the glacier. Of course it doesn't actually become a glacier until it snows thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of times, but each snowfall does add to it. If you're there at the beginning when a glacier first starts you'll never live long enough for it to become an actual glacier. You start playing individual roulette sessions you'll never live long enough to reach the long term. What matters is:
"The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events or small numbers of events."
"This law of large numbers does not say anything about what will happen in a single observation or experiment. because individual events are unpredictable."
Quote: unJon
I don’t understand how this is EvenBob
link to original post
I don't know what that post is about it was 13 years ago. I never played blackjack for decades so I don't know if I was quoting someone or what. Who knows. I played blackjack for a while just to have something to do and thought I could count cards but I wasn't. But that was probably in the early 90s.
Quote: EvenBobbecause individual events are unpredictable."
link to original post
Unless you have the proper bet selection, eh, EB? Then you can predict them with 80% accuracy!
Quote: unJonI don’t understand how this is EvenBob
link to original post
I don't understand "I don’t understand how this is EvenBob"
Is a comma missing? Is there a '?' missing?
What are you saying Unjon?
It looks like typical EvenBob to me. Credit where it's due, he's been consistent since he joined this forum.
Quote: EvenBobI never played blackjack for decades so I don't know if I was quoting someone or what.
link to original post
It was possibly your 'friend' that played blackjack for decades and maybe you were channelling him. Easy done, and heck, it was 13 years ago. Who could be expected to remember and explain such a distant historic post?
Mind you, how did you remember this thread to come to bump it this week? What brought it back to your attention?
And quite incidental: How could one think he was were counting cards and not be?
So many questions. Each probably an opportunity for you.
We all know where this will now take us. Same **** different day, and hey look, it's outside that sub-forum.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobbecause individual events are unpredictable."
link to original post
Unless you have the proper bet selection, eh, EB? Then you can predict them with 80% accuracy!
link to original post
Oh TigerWu....... Now you've done it.
Quote: EvenBob. . . . I know this is true because I do it every day. I don't beat the math, because the math does not apply to the short term. The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events. Read It and weep..
link to original post
THIRTEEN YEARS this thread remained dormant!!!!!
THIRTEEN ******g YEARS!
And then it gets bumped by EvenBob to make what point exactly! You guessed it.
We should have a medal for 'Thread Bump of the Decade'
Quote: OnceDearTHIRTEEN YEARS this thread remained dormant!!!!!
THIRTEEN ******g YEARS!
And then it gets bumped by EvenBob to make what point exactly! You guessed it.
We should have a medal for 'Thread Bump of the Decade'
link to original post
I wonder when EvenBob's shenanigans are going to be considered a violation of Rule 5: "Do not post the same message more than once."
When he's the last member here.Quote: TigerWuQuote: OnceDearTHIRTEEN YEARS this thread remained dormant!!!!!
THIRTEEN ******g YEARS!
And then it gets bumped by EvenBob to make what point exactly! You guessed it.
We should have a medal for 'Thread Bump of the Decade'
link to original post
I wonder when EvenBob's shenanigans are going to be considered a violation of Rule 5: "Do not post the same message more than once."
link to original post
I'll exit the thread now. I've given it my star rating and I will not be feeding oxygen or fuel to this thread.
DFTT !
"The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events or small numbers of events."
"This law of large numbers does not say anything about what will happen in a single observation or experiment. because individual events are unpredictable."
By all means let's talk about everything else but the fact that single events are not affected at all by the law of large numbers. You want some more quotes because they're everywhere on the internet on this subject. Every math person agrees, every real math person, that individual observations or events are not impacted by the law of large numbers. So why are the two constantly linked together then on gambling forums. It's because people are trying to make a point that does not exist. Each individual bet I make is on its own and anything can happen. This is why there are ways to get in make a profit and get out, I do it every day.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobbecause individual events are unpredictable."
link to original post
Unless you have the proper bet selection, eh, EB? Then you can predict them with 80% accuracy!
link to original post
I never predict anything I make educated guesses from long observations of outcomes. Keep trying you'll get it right eventually.
You are ducking the question. What number constitutes a large enough number to for the law of large numbers to apply?Quote: EvenBobSo a lot of blah blah blah and a lot of yada yada yada and nobody has yet to address this:
"The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events or small numbers of events."
"This law of large numbers does not say anything about what will happen in a single observation or experiment. because individual events are unpredictable."
By all means let's talk about everything else but the fact that single events are not affected at all by the law of large numbers. You want some more quotes because they're everywhere on the internet on this subject. Every math person agrees, every real math person, that individual observations or events are not impacted by the law of large numbers. So why are the two constantly linked together then on gambling forums. It's because people are trying to make a point that does not exist. Each individual bet I make is on its own and anything can happen. This is why there are ways to get in make a profit and get out, I do it every day.
link to original post
Quote: MentalYou are ducking the question. What number constitutes a large enough number to for the law of large numbers to apply?
link to original post
I asked Google and it said:
"Large" is not an exact number. All the Law of Large Numbers states is that eventually you'll get 'closer and closer' (in a precise mathematical sense) to the expected odds, not that there's a number you can point to and go "aha!
I looked at a bunch of other places and nobody wants to commit to exactly what the large number is. I know Mike ran a billion hands for baccarat. Is a billion enough? You tell me, you seem like you know the answer the way you keep asking. What number constitutes a large enough number for the law of large numbers to apply. I can't find anybody that will commit to that, so go ahead.
You have implied that I am not a real math person, so I was hoping you could educate us all.Quote: EvenBobQuote: MentalYou are ducking the question. What number constitutes a large enough number to for the law of large numbers to apply?
link to original post
I asked Google and it said:
"Large" is not an exact number. All the Law of Large Numbers states is that eventually you'll get 'closer and closer' (in a precise mathematical sense) to the expected odds, not that there's a number you can point to and go "aha!
I looked at a bunch of other places and nobody wants to commit to exactly what the large number is. I know Mike ran a billion hands for baccarat. Is a billion enough? You tell me, you seem like you know the answer the way you keep asking. What number constitutes a large enough number for the law of large numbers to apply. I can't find anybody that will commit to that, so go ahead.
link to original post
Here is a hypothetical game with an 1-for-1 money payoff. I roll one die. You win if the number rolled is one through six. Otherwise, you lose. The theoretical long-term RTP is 1 (exactly unity).
If I do one trial/roll, the average RTP of all trials will be unity. If I do two trials, the average RTP will still be unity. The law of numbers has already been satisfied. The experimental result has converged on the theoretical result. No number of additional trials will get us any closer to the theoretical RTP.
For some classes of probability distributions, an infinite number of trials will not converge to a stable RTP. So, the answer I will give you is the the threshold number is between one trial and more than infinity.
Quote: EvenBobSo a lot of blah blah blah and a lot of yada yada yada and nobody has yet to address this:
"The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events or small numbers of events."
"This law of large numbers does not say anything about what will happen in a single observation or experiment. because individual events are unpredictable."
By all means let's talk about everything else but the fact that single events are not affected at all by the law of large numbers.
link to original post
Everyone knows individual events are not affected by the law of large numbers. Literally no one is arguing otherwise. Mental just wanted to know what you consider "large." What is there to "address" or discuss?
Quote: EvenBob
I never predict anything I make educated guesses from long observations of outcomes.
link to original post
Hey, I have a gambling system, too!
Everyone on the casino bus has a gambling system as good or better than EB's nonsystematic system.Quote: TigerWuHey, I have a gambling system, too!
link to original post
Everyone on the casino bus has a gambling system as good or better than EB's nonsystematic system. I actually like the fact that EB doesn't want to explain his system because I hated being trapped on a bus having to listen to the whacko explanations.Quote: TigerWuHey, I have a gambling system, too!
link to original post
Quote: TigerWuEveryone knows individual events are not affected by the law of large numbers.
link to original post
So you agree that the law of large numbers has absolutely nothing to do with where I should place my next bet in a game like roulette. If everybody knows individual outcomes are not affected in the slightest by the law of large numbers then where I place my next bet is a event completely separate from the law of large numbers and how it applies to roulette. Right? Is that a correct statement? Be careful with your answer because this is obviously a trap I'm setting in case you were curious. So far you walked into it just fine, let's see how much further you will go. Mental doesn't want to walk into it, he wants to blah blah blah and yada yada yada on the finer points of what a large number is.
