Should mrjjj be banned?
Poll
 | 30 votes (40%) | ||
| | 39 votes (52%) | ||
| | 6 votes (8%) |
75 members have voted
Quote: EvenBobOK, make 25 bets and see if you lost at 5.2%, I canQuote: MathExtremistNonsense. The HE is a property of the bet itself
guarantee you won't. You either will have won or lost
at a a far greater rate than 5.2%...
Really? Are we having this debate?
The term "house edge" is well-known and accepted as a definition of how much you will lose, relative to your total action, over an infinite amount of time. It is a statistical average that becomes closer and closer to reality the more you play. That is the definition of house edge.
No one is saying you will lose exactly the house edge on 1, or 2, or 25, or 2500 bets. But the more you play, the closer it gets. The house edge is a property of the bet. It applies to every dollar and cent you bet over the course of your life. It just might take that entire life for results to match theory.
Quote: weaselmanI am not sure what you mean by "HE manifesting itself"
The edge doesn't manifest itself on every spin, or
every hundred spins. It takes 10's of thousands
if not hundreds of thousands before it shows itself
as being a steady number. In the short term,
anything can happen.
Quote: EvenBobOK, make 25 bets and see if you lost at 5.2%, I can
guarantee you won't. You either will have won or lost
at a a far greater rate than 5.2%...
Guarantee, huh? I'll fade that action.
Here's the bet:
25 spins, I bet whatever I want, and at the end of the 25 spins I will have lost exactly 2/38 (i.e. 5.263...%) of my overall wager volume.
What odds will you give me?
Edit: or did you mean one spin, 25 different bets?
Quote: SOOPOOPeople lie all the time... for a variety of motives....
Ken's not lying. I've known him for years and at first
I was very skeptical, just ask him how he and I got
along. He told me one time he hoped I was run over
by a truck. Does that sound like him? But I gradually
became his supporter as I came to understand what
he's doing. He posts his various methods all the time
on other forums and lots of people have used them,
some with good success. He has a thing about math
people because they constantly hound him and call
him names, so he argues back just as vehemently.
Quote: EvenBobIn the short term,
anything can happen.
Yep, and in roulette all possibilities are equally likely. There's no way that practice can be of benefit. There's no improvement to be had.
Quote: MathExtremistEdit: or did you mean one spin, 25 different bets?
I meant you could bet one chip on 25 different spins.
Otherwise you'll bet red and black every time which
proves nothing.
Quote: rdw4potusY There's no way that practice can be of benefit. There's no improvement to be had.
You have to include the caveat 'as far as I know'.
Quote: EvenBobI meant you could bet one chip on 25 different spins.
Otherwise you'll bet red and black every time which
proves nothing.
If I bet red and black every time, I either break even (0%) or lose 2 chips (-100%). That's not -5.263%. You know that, right?
And is that your example of a "method" -- bet one chip per spin? You think that needs "practicing"?
Quote: EvenBobYou have to include the caveat 'as far as I know'.
Lol! I don't, and I won't. I will add the caveat that it might help to practice cheating. Bet capping and past posting can be tricky...
Quote: MathExtremistIf I bet red and black every time, I either break even (0%) or lose 2 chips (-100%). That's not -5.263%.?
You bet $1 on red and $1 on black for 100 spins. Thats
$200 wagered. Theres an average of 5 zeros every 100
spins. Thats a $10 loss. 5% of $200 is $10, you're losing
right at the house edge, rounding off the 5.2% in the
example.
You do know this, right?
Quote: EvenBobYou bet $1 on red and $1 on black for 100 spins. Thats
$200 wagered. Theres an average of 5 zeros every 100
spins. Thats a $10 loss. 5% of $200 is $10, you're losing
right at the house edge, rounding off the 5.2% in the
example.
You do know this, right?
If you just cover the board on every spin, you lose exactly 5.26% on every spin. No need for rounding or approximating...
Quote: rdw4potusIf you just cover the board on every spin, you lose exactly 5.26% on every spin. No need for rounding or approximating...
For the 100 spin example you do because you'll average
either 5 or 6 spins, its impossible to average 5.2 spins.
And you don't lose exactly 5.2% on every spin, that
only happens if you play basically forever. I have seen
the zeros sleep for over 300 spins, betting red/black
for those 300 spins and you would have lost nothing.
I've seen 18 zeros show up in 100 spins, thats losing
at more than 3 times the HE. The HE only applies in
the extreme long term.
Quote: EvenBobFor the 100 spin example you do because you'll average
either 5 or 6 spins, its impossible to average 5.2 spins.
And you don't lose exactly 5.2% on every spin, that
only happens if you play basically forever. I have seen
the zeros sleep for over 300 spins, betting red/black
for those 300 spins and you would have lost nothing.
I've seen 18 zeros show up in 100 spins, thats losing
at more than 3 times the HE. The HE only applies in
the extreme long term.
No, I don't think you're getting the point of what rdw is proposing (I earlier made the same proposal). Cover the ENTIRE board (including both zeros) with 1 unit straight-up bets. You are now risking 38 units. No matter what the next spin is, you will lose 37 units and gain 35 units, leaving you with 36, a net loss of 2 units. 2/38 = .052631...
Edit: Ooops. Slow post.
Side question: My mind seems to be a bit slow on basic math this evening, so I will appreciate some help here. I know that 1/19 is a rational number (obviously), and I think that means it should be representable as a repeating decimal. How many digits are in the repeating sequence, and how deep into the decimal do you need to go before the repetition begins? I can't seem to find the repetition with any of the tools I have readily available.
Quote: DocFirst of all, the edge isn't "exactly 5.26%". It's 1/19. Other than that, RDW has properly explained that you just need to place a $1 wager on each of the 38 numbers and your results will exactly match the theoretical house edge on every single spin, short-term or infinite-term.
Edit: Ooops. Slow post.
Side question: My mind seems to be a bit slow on basic math this evening, so I will appreciate some help here. I know that 1/19 is a rational number (obviously), and I think that means it should be representable as a repeating decimal. How many digits are in the repeating sequence, and how deep into the decimal do you need to go before the repetition begins? I can't seem to find the repetition with any of the tools I have readily available.
1/19 = 0.0(526315789473684210)...
Wolfram Alpha
Also, lots of fun stuff here
Quote: AcesAndEightsNo, I don't think you're getting the point of what rdw is proposing (I earlier made the same proposal). Cover the ENTIRE board (including both zeros) with 1 unit straight-up bets. You are now risking 38 units. No matter what the next spin is, you will lose 37 units and gain 35 units, leaving you with 36, a net loss of 2 units. 2/38 = .052631...
So aside from spoiling my bet against Bob (heh), this also pokes a big hole in the theory that "if you can limit your results to the HE then you can have a winning system". Putting $1 on every inside number leads to the HE on every spin, and also zero variance for a guaranteed loss of $2 per spin. The only way that's a "winning method" is if you compare your results to the guy who just lost a full complete bet on 6 because the ball dropped into 28.
Maybe that's what he means by "practicing". Learn to alter your worldview to believe losing results are winning ones, and you'll always win. That *would* take practice...
Quote: AcesAndEightsleaving you with 36, a net loss of 2 units. 2/38 = .052631...
You can do that by betting any of the even chances
or all 3 dozens or columns, so what. They're called
cancellation bets, you can't win by making them, so
what point does it prove? You can force the the HE
that way, again, so what. You can stand a foot away
from a target and hit the bullseye every time, it
proves nothing.
Bob, I think the point was to disprove your claim that:Quote: EvenBobYou can force the the HE
that way, again, so what. You can stand a foot away
from a target and hit the bullseye every time, it
proves nothing.
Quote: EvenBobThe HE only applies in
the extreme long term.
Quote: DocBob, I think the point was to disprove your claim that:
And my point was standing a foot away from the target
doesn't prove you can hit the bullseye every time. Nobody
shoots that way and nobody cancels every bet and calls
it playing. You're negating the entire game.
But this is all off topic. We're all still wondering exactly what it is that you practice so that your results are consistently better than the expected (by everyone else) rate of loss.
Quote: EvenBobAnd my point was standing a foot away from the target
doesn't prove you can hit the bullseye every time. Nobody
shoots that way and nobody cancels every bet and calls
it playing. You're negating the entire game.
What if I practice really hard, so that I'm the God of cancellation betting. If I practice, that will keep me from losing, right?
Quote: rdw4potusWhat if I practice really hard, so that I'm the God of cancellation betting. If I practice, that will keep me from losing, right?
You know, the Mike Caro roulette system (yes, it's a system) also guarantees you'll never have a losing roulette session. It doesn't take much practice either.
Quote: DocOne example might be to cover 19 numbers on one spin and (the same or different) 19 numbers on the next. .
This is almost the same as betting high or low. If you
watch a tote board that shows stats, you'll see high
and low are seldom if ever even. They fluctuate as
high as 70% in favor of one or the other.
Roulette inside numbers are -0.0526 units per spin, with a standard deviation of around 5.5 (as I recall). True, you need more than one spin for that to be really useful but it's amazing (to me) how quickly a few spins will converge into the model HE plus variance predicts.
Quote: thecesspitThe variance is AS important as the House Edge in any game. .
Variance is what kills you. Thats what you practice
for, to lower the variance. Thats what Ken does.
Thru practice, he knows how to read the game he's
playing and when to change tactics. Like he said, he's
thinking about roulette when he's driving, eating, and
taking a shower.
Quote: EvenBobVariance is what kills you. Thats what you practice
for, to lower the variance. Thats what Ken does.
Thru practice, he knows how to read the game he's
playing and when to change tactics. Like he said, he's
thinking about roulette when he's driving, eating, and
taking a shower.
I disagree. The variance is what can make you leave a winner. You want variance. Casino's sell variance for house edge. Of course the variance can make you lose. It's a two-way street but it tells you the story of what can happen when you play. The statement "anything can happen" is true, but also facile. Of course anything can happen in terms of the next few spins. The EV/Variance/game set up tells you what the chances of those happenings ARE.
Once it's happened, it doesn't matter what the chances were, it happened, and you can go count your winnings, or sob into your complimentary beer. The bet may have been good before the event, but once we know what happened, the result is all that matters.
I also don't believe you can "practice to reduce variance" any more than I can practice to reduce the weak thermo-nuclear force or Planck's constant. Again, I'd need to see even a sliver of evidence for it to make me question that belief.
Quote: thecesspitI disagree. The variance is what can make you leave a winner. You want variance.
No. you don't. Variance is just as much your
enemy as it is your friend. You want to get
as close to the HE with as little variance as
possible. No surprises, surprises are bad.
Quote: EvenBobThats what Ken does, he doesn't beat the HE, he just constantly practices different methods to stay ahead in the game.
......Isn't "staying ahead" in the game, the same as beating the HE??? What does that even mean? That he's just in the uptick of variance, sorry, that isn't beating the game, that is being lucky. Plain and simple.
Quote: EvenBobVariance is what kills you. Thats what you practice for, to lower the variance.
You are being as vague as Ken. How do you practice to lower the variance??? You keep mentioning that you use different methods, or that Ken has in the past, yet we still have yet to hear from anyone, what these methods are.......very sketchy.
I don't understand why you can't just explain it.
Think about how frustrating it must be to be a teacher.... You have a simple concept.... one which you think all your students will be able to understand.... and then you get an EvenBob or mrjjj who just will NEVER get it.... At least in a school you can fail the student in the subject... we hve no such recourse here....
Quote: EvenBobNo. you don't. Variance is just as much your
enemy as it is your friend. You want to get
as close to the HE with as little variance as
possible. No surprises, surprises are bad.
We have already demonstrated that it is possible to get extremely low (even zero) variance and be very close to (right on) the HE with no practice at all. And you lose money every time you try that. Assuming that the game actually has a house edge that benefits the house (and roulette does), then variance is the only way that you can ever come out ahead. It can also make you lose even more, but if you emphasize (even practice reducing variance), then you progressively reduce your probability of coming out ahead.
The mean of the distribution is in the realm of a negative outcome. The probability of coming out ahead is the portion of the distribution that is in the range of positive outcomes. The wider the distribution, the greater the portion in the positive-outcome zone. An extremely narrow distribution (very low variance) means there is little probability of coming out ahead. A zero-width distribution means you lose every time.
Quote: EvenBobNo. you don't. Variance is just as much your
enemy as it is your friend. You want to get
as close to the HE with as little variance as
possible.
Bob, the smallest possible variance is zero. You can "get" there, quite easily, and you don't need to practice for that (there are a few posts earlier, that explain exactly how to get the variance to be exactly zero). If you bet $38 every time, you will lose exactly $1 every time. Am I reading this correctly - this is what you want? You want to lose money on every bet?
Quote: DocWe have already demonstrated that it is possible to get extremely low (even zero) variance and be very close to (right on) the HE with no practice at all. And you lose money every time you try that. Assuming that the game actually has a house edge that benefits the house (and roulette does), then variance is the only way that you can ever come out ahead. It can also make you lose even more, but if you emphasize (even practice reducing variance), then you progressively reduce your probability of coming out ahead.
The mean of the distribution is in the realm of a negative outcome. The probability of coming out ahead is the portion of the distribution that is in the range of positive outcomes. The wider the distribution, the greater the portion in the positive-outcome zone. An extremely narrow distribution (very low variance) means there is little probability of coming out ahead. A zero-width distribution means you lose every time.
Re-read this a few times.... ^^^^^^ (Doc's Quote)
The only way to truly come out ahead on roulette, is to not place any bets.
The only way to truly come out ahead on roulette, is to not place any bets.
Not necessarily true. I bet $5 on number 35 for a lady friend many years ago. It won and she has never played roulette since.
LOL
If your "method" is "to not place any bets", then I can't fault the method. You won't lose, but I don't describe that as "truly come out ahead on roulette." As buzzpaff has noted, it is indeed possible to come out ahead at roulette after having placed wagers, but only if your betting method allows for enough variance that there is some probability of being in positive territory.Quote: YoDiceRoll11Re-read this a few times....
The only way to truly come out ahead on roulette, is to not place any bets.
I was trying to describe the phenomena that reducing variance (on a negative expectation game) reduces the probability of being in positive territory, just as it reduces the probability of being in extreme negative territory. Reduce variance enough, and you have no chance at all of winding up ahead.
Was my explanation unclear?
Quote: DocI was trying to describe the phenomena that reducing variance (on a negative expectation game) reduces the probability of being in positive territory, just as it reduces the probability of being in extreme negative territory. Reduce variance enough, and you have no chance at all of winding up ahead.
That's not really so. The M.O. of all "guaranteed" betting progressions is to increase the probability of being in positive territory by weighing the distribution of probable win size towards low profit, and the distribution of probable loss size towards very high loss.
It's the ratio between the areas under the curves that is constant for each success rate (and equal in a 0-edge game at 0 deviation), but not their width.
Quote: buzzpaff
It won and she has never played roulette since.
And how do you know she never played roulette again? You spend every waking hour with her?
Quote: DocIf your "method" is "to not place any bets", then I can't fault the method. You won't lose, but I don't describe that as "truly come out ahead on roulette." As buzzpaff has noted, it is indeed possible to come out ahead at roulette after having placed wagers, but only if your betting method allows for enough variance that there is some probability of being in positive territory.
I was trying to describe the phenomena that reducing variance (on a negative expectation game) reduces the probability of being in positive territory, just as it reduces the probability of being in extreme negative territory. Reduce variance enough, and you have no chance at all of winding up ahead.
Was my explanation unclear?
Sorry Doc, I wasn't being clear, When I posted Re-Read "This" A few times. I was talking about your post (edited to reflect intention). Your post completely summed up what anyone needs to know what we are talking about, and if I could lock the thread, it would end with your comment at the end of Page 18.
Quote: P90That's not really so. The M.O. of all "guaranteed" betting progressions is to increase the probability of being in positive territory by weighing the distribution of probable win size towards low profit, and the distribution of probable loss size towards very high loss.
It's the ratio between the areas under the curves that is constant for each success rate (and equal in a 0-edge game at 0 deviation), but not their width.
Think about it in "long run" terms. After enough trials, the distribution of your result will be close enough to normal. It has two parameters - mean, and variance. Mean is fixed at house edge, the only one left to be varied is variance. The smaller the variance, the lower the probability of landing far enough from the mean to end up positive. If the variance is zero, like Bob wants, you'll always lose exactly the same amount (equal to the house edge).
That's what Doc is saying - variance is your friend. Any system, method, rule or a hunch, whatever you call it, offering higher probability of a (small) win, must at the same time increase the variance (thus heightening the probability of a very high loss), so that, added together, and weighed by the probability, they still result in the mean (house edge) value.
You are saying the same thing but in different terms. Essentially, you both are correct (except for your very first sentence, saying "that's not really so" ... yes, it is :)) .
I'm not sure I understand your post, particularly the last sentence, so I probably just didn't follow. I'm also not sure that we disagree.Quote: P90That's not really so. The M.O. of all "guaranteed" betting progressions is to increase the probability of being in positive territory by weighing the distribution of probable win size towards low profit, and the distribution of probable loss size towards very high loss.
It's the ratio between the areas under the curves that is constant for each success rate (and equal in a 0-edge game at 0 deviation), but not their width.
I think that the "guaranteed" betting progressions that you refer to are methods/techniques/systems to increase variance and present an increased probability of regaining a position in positive territory (and also an increased probability of being far into the negative). This is the opposite direction of what has been discussed by others above, where "practice" at roulette, so as to achieve a decrease in variance, is suggested as the way to obtain assured (or at least more likely) profitability. Of course I don't understand that viewpoint at all, which was my point.
...Quote: YoDiceRoll11Quote: buzzpaff
It won and she has never played roulette since.
And how do you know she never played roulette again? You spend every waking hour with her?
It really doesn't matter, the fact is that with a small sample size, you can come out ahead.
All the house edge really states, is that on average, if you take all the money you have ever exposed to a certain bet, with HE x.xx%, your net loss should be about total_exposed*HE.
It's all about the law of averages. I could go and win a million dollar bet, and then spend the rest of my life making $10 bets. The reason I will be ahead is due to the variance in my bets. If you averaged out my bets, the closer my average bet got to $10, the closer I would get to losing $52,600.
Quote: Triplell...Quote: YoDiceRoll11Quote: buzzpaff
It won and she has never played roulette since.
And how do you know she never played roulette again? You spend every waking hour with her?
It really doesn't matter, the fact is that with a small sample size, you can come out ahead.
All the house edge really states, is that on average, if you take all the money you have ever exposed to a certain bet, with HE x.xx%, your net loss should be about total_exposed*HE.
It's all about the law of averages. I could go and win a million dollar bet, and then spend the rest of my life making $10 bets. The reason I will be ahead is due to the variance in my bets. If you averaged out my bets, the closer my average bet got to $10, the closer I would get to losing $52,600.
Yes, we all know this (at least most of us). My point is that you can't just say "I practice a lot, therefore I can beat the HE, or "beat the game" by using a positive progression. Great, you got lucky in the short term, we want to hear stories about wins, that's great..... but your "method" means nothing statistically. Next.
I was just merely iterating the point that you said the best way to come out ahead in roulette is to not play. I understand what you were saying, as roulette is a bad bet compare to others that are available, but it's pretty hard to "come out ahead" without playing, and it is definitely not impossible, as you implied. I agree with you, however, that long term, the game will drain you, and there is nothing you can do about it.
It still baffles mean that someone thinks they can beat the house edge of roulette. It is possible in blackjack, because the math supports that the greater ratio of 10's in the deck, the greater the advantage to the player.
It's not supported in craps, but at least it is somewhat believable that someone with enough skill could produce a non-random outcome. Although, I would argue that it is more likely that <.1% of those who claim to be able to control the dice can actually control the dice.
Video poker has the obvious advantage with certain pay-tables based on perfect play.
Professional poker has it's obvious advantages, although I'm starting to think that many of the pro's aren't making as much as you think they are.
With a certain degree of studying, sports betting could provide profitable.
With that said, I feel that everyone who has these abilities, could use their potential somewhere else. Someone who is good at math, could easily become an engineer in this country and make nearly 6 figures within 5-10 years of graduation. But to each their own....
You can't beat the "game" of roulette in the long run. However, it is possible to exploit flaws in the gaming device and win in the long run. This is basically what people are saying.
Quote: KeyserTriplell,
You can't beat the "game" of roulette in the long run. However, it is possible to exploit flaws in the gaming device and win in the long run. This is basically what people are saying.
No, that's precisely what people are not saying. The two proponents of "practicing" roulette start with the premise that the wheel is *not* biased or rigged, and that there is no dealer bias either. Rather, they say, it is possible to practice the game to observe patterns and exploit those patterns to their benefit. Paradoxically, they also insist that the odds of each number on each spin are still 1/38. That would render any observed patterns meaningless for predictive purposes, but don't try to tell them that.
To me, the "two proponents of "practicing" roulette" are not so much after "patterns" but are more after the final distribution of N spins so they can apply the known "averages" to their next series of wagers.Quote: MathExtremistRather, they say, it is possible to practice the game to observe patterns and exploit those patterns to their benefit.
Paradoxically, they also insist that the odds of each number on each spin are still 1/38.
That would render any observed patterns meaningless for predictive purposes, but don't try to tell them that.
Then one method, of 4 to 6 total methods, for example, of looking back at the last 60 spins will "reveal" the hot and cold numbers.
Hot meaning a higher standard deviation than a cold being lower.
Then 1 to 3 bets are made, flat betting for 10 spins, on those hot numbers if my memory serves me.
Here are some examples in picture form.(actual spins from El Cortez Jan 2012)
60 spin samples
The 2 numbers that have hit 5Xs in the above photos have also slept along the way for over 30 spins each.
The 2 numbers that have hit 4Xs have also slept along the way for over 30 spins each.
So, how hot IS hot during the 60 spins or does it matter?
More examples coming in mrjjj's "ahead for life" thread
FYI: In 60 spins of a 00 wheel:(I think mrjjj knows this info)
all averages (Not distributions)
numbers NOT hit: 7.67 (=BINOMDIST(0,60,1/38,FALSE)*38)
hit 1X: 12.44 numbers
hit2X: 9.92 numbers
3X: 5.18 numbers
4X: 2.00 numbers (4 or more Xs: 2.79 numbers)
5X: 0.60 numbers
Quote: Triplell
I was just merely iterating the point that you said the best way to come out ahead in roulette is to not play.
I was being a little sarcastic.
You must forgive me when I see quotes like this:
Quote:Thats what Ken does, he doesn't beat the HE, he just constantly practices different methods to stay ahead in the game.
"stay ahead in the game" is the same thing as beating the HE. Cmon....
Quote: TriplellSomeone who is good at math, could easily become an engineer in this country and make nearly 6 figures within 5-10 years of graduation. But to each their own....
And this is what I mean by being ahead and by not playing roulette, invest your money in a CD, you'd make more money than playing roulette in the long term.
Quote: guido111the "two proponents of "practicing" roulette" are not so much after "patterns" but are more after the final distribution of N spins so they can apply the known "averages" to their next series of wagers.
Are you kidding me? Trying to use the final distribution of spins and known averages to the next series of wagers IS LOOKING for patterns. That's indistinguishable and undeniable.
Past number trends of hot or cold numbers, CAN NOT predict future numbers. Just because the distribution is "missing" a 25 here and a 34 there in a series, DOES NOT MEAN EITHER NUMBER IS ANY MORE OR LESS LIKELY TO HIT "in the next series of wagers" or ever.Quote:Then one method, of 4 to 6 total methods, for example, of looking back at the last 60 spins will "reveal" the hot and cold numbers.
These methods mean well, are based in math, but ultimately fail to realize the disconnect between the past and the future. Gambler's Fallacy is the perfect diagnosis here. Using past numbers to predict future ones, plain and simple.
