Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

Actually you are probably giving very sound advice. But I do not understand what you're saying. I am like a grade school student when it comes to things like you say. I would have to see an example of it demonstrated. Not just told, but shown. Such as, when you make a statement like "Strike rate is irrelevant if your not overcoming the house edge." Easier said than done. Okay, why is strike irrelevant? (I think TwoUp would totally disagree with that). How do you overcome the House edge? How do I determine the long term expectation?

 

EXACTLY!!

You must have an edge that is significantly better then the edge the casino has. All the math in roulette is based on the probability of making random bets on random outcomes. If you can make an educated guess as to the next outcome and you're right far more often than you're wrong you now have the edge over the casino.

 

By having a bet selection that is right far more often than wrong. Every progression ever invented is just a Band-Aid to cover up for poor bet selection. This is where Two-Up-His-Ass is wrong. If you have a bet selection that wins far more often than it loses using a progressions is just a silly waste of time. Just flat bet within your bankroll and make your goal. And you must have a reasonable goal or you are playing for reasons other than making money. That's between you and your shrink. We have a goal for everything we do in life. We set the alarm for a certain time, we eat a certain amount of food everyday, we get to our job on time and leave when were supposed to. Virtually everything we do has a predetermined goal. Why do people think they do not need a goal when they go to the casino. The casino does everything it can to encourage you not to have a goal and just play and play and play. Who do you think comes out of the best end of that deal.

 

I do have to respond to your comment here because I agree with everything you said. The strategy I play is based on making an educated guess on the next outcome and I am right far more times than I am wrong. The reason I use the Marty (I know you loathe it) is because it gives me 7 chances to make an educated guess. But I very rarely bet past the third step. If I used my strategy just to win one unit a day I would have won 259 sessions played X 8,0289 units won = 2,079,511 days of winning one unit, divided by 365 days = 5,697 years of winning one unit per day. If I changed my strategy to winning one unit per day using the highest maximum bet that allows for a 7step Marty, my sessions wouldn't last more than 2 minutes a day and I would be a millionaire. If my testing continues to show the same win rate over the next year, I will give it a shot at a B&M casino. I will start with a small base unit value like around 25.00. I can easily afford that. I will play a session to a win of 1,600.00. or to a loss of 3,200.00 if I should lose the 7 step Marty right off the bat. No biggie. We shall see.

 

When you lose the 7 step Marty how many bets does it take to recoup that loss. My fast calculation says just to recoup your loss you would have to bet 250 to 300 times just to get back to where you were. In a real casino producing 30 spins an hour on average this could take you 10 hours or more. Do you really think this is a practical way to play? This is based on being down 128 units and on average winning on the third spin. It would probably be more than 300 bets to get back to even.

 

Good question. I average around 129 spins to win 64 units. The rare times I lose the Marty, I have accumulated most of the time around 42 units average. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But playing for 10 hours, I don't think I would like that. I guess I would only play until I figured enough is enough. I just did the math. 129 spins only amounts to a little over 4 hours. That I could handle okay.

 

David, you're using a 7 step marty, right? How many bets have you made in total? how many busts? what's your final profit? what's the house edge of the game you're playing?

TwoUp has already done a mathematical analysis of the marty, but with the information I asked for I can write a simulation which will show how likely it is that your results are due to luck or that your bet selection has an edge. Obviously I can't simulate your system because I don't know how you pick your bets, but I can code the marty and use a simple bet selection which we know doesn't have an edge. The point of doing that is to find a range of outcomes when betting WITHOUT any edge, which can be compared with your actual results. If it would highly unlikely that your results would have occurred without any real edge, it means that you more than likely do have an edge. There are purely mathematical ways of doing this (it's called Hypothesis testing), but the fact that you're using a progression complicates things, which is why a simulation is better in this case.

 

I agree with the sentiment, but the effect on the house edge is to actually pay more house edge and a potential change to the variance and payout based on the progression rules.

Any time one does a parlay on a win their variance is changed vs flat because the probability of winning vs losing changes as variance is p×q.

So assume 50/50 then p = 0.5 and q = 0.5

Flat betting:

Variance is p×q = 0.5×0.5 = 0.25
Standard deviation = √(0.25) = 0.5​

With a parlay (full press) on a win, the variance of the two bet series is based on the series probability:

WW +3u probability = 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25
WL -1u probability = 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25
L -1u probability = 0.5

So p = 0.25 and q = 0.25 + 0.5
Variance p×q = 0.25×0.75 = 0.1875
Standard deviation = √(0.1875) = 0.433

The expected value is still zero less the house edge (which will now be higher) but the effect of the progression has also lowered the variance.
​

Lower variance can be useful when combined with a real edge but will without an edge it will reduce the length of time you can outrun the house edge.

Hence why you really do want a real edge to extinguish the house edge.

We also have to recognise that many gamblers do lose sessions due to variance (insufficient bankroll vs their bet level, or lack of discipline), and not solely the house edge. Yes it is true that everyone does reduce their bankroll due to the effective house edge based on turnover, but this is not the sole reason why entire bankrolls can be lost in a session.

For example If a gambler has 100 units and their turnover is 200u in a session they will pay twice the house edge vs a gambler who bets with just 100u turnover. But that alone won't lose the bankroll to house edge which is a few dollars in this example, but variance can certainly be responsible for a lost bankroll even with an edge.

Without some variance it would be impossible for anyone betting against random to make any gain in a session. It is the variance that allows one to potentially exceed the corrosive house edge within a session when you don't have a real edge.

The expected gain is ± the standard deviation minus the house edge. So the more you grind out in a session the more the house edge bites as a percentage of every bet whilst the standard deviation only increases by the smaller square root of the variance.

So don't over bet and minimise turnover vs potential gain.

 

He did provide his numbers further back, 254 series/sessions (64u target) and net 6 thousand odd units won, which is why I was able to say it exceeded the 1 sigma range but was within 3 sigma confidence. Still a fortunate (lucky) result but within the plausible range. I also only based my numbers on pure 50/50 odds, and we know house edge will errode some profit over those 254 sessions.

 

"An educated guess" is saying having a magic voice in your head telling you what to bet next can beat the casino.

You are saying you can predict the future better than 50% random using past results and "guessing". If you can do that with random then it's not random and if you say otherwise you don't understand the definition of random.

One possibility is you simply believe in mystical techniques, not rational thought, logic or math.

Another is your sample size is too small and you're still well within the expectations of what is explained by variance.

And the final possibility is you're not being honest.

 

Nope. Educated guessing is based on years of experience and observation it has nothing to do with magic.

What you do not understand is there are different states of random. A roulette wheel does not produce true random results, it produces random results good enough for what it's used for. It's kind of sort of random. Because you're dealing with a limited amount of pockets on the wheel it tends to be very repetitive and it goes in and out of phases. I have developed different strategies for different phases and if the wheel is playing one of the games I developed then I can bet. If it's not playing any of them I don't bet. Knowing when not to bet is the biggest tool you can have with roulette. Most people have no idea when not to bet, they bet on every spin. Knowing when to bet and when not to bet gives you a huge edge in the game. It takes years of observation to get to this point and most people are not willing to even give a fraction of that time to learning it. That's because for the most part they are compulsive gamblers who are extremely greedy and extremely impatient so they will go to extremely risky extremes like using a Martingale.

There is no sample size because the roulette wheel resets itself after every spin and every bet I make is arrived at uniquely and has nothing to do with the last bet I made. The roulette wheel changes its game with every spin and my strategy flows with those changes. I only bet when the variance is in my favor and never bet when it's not. Sometimes it's not in my favor for a couple days but at least I realize that and can protect my bankroll. But most of the time I find something to bet on. Win one unit and I'm done. Get in get it done get out. I could play longer but why would I if I can reach my goal with one win. Why would I expose my bankroll to the infinite bankroll of the casino any longer than I absolutely have to. That is the height of arrogance to think that I could just play and play and play. Some people call what I do Hit and Run and casinos have always feared people like me more than any other kind of player. Because we don't give the casino a chance to get their money back. And no the sessions are not connected, every session is unique and separate from the last session. Obviously.

 

Assuming you have a win rate of 80% as you claim whenever the wheel is "playing your game", this makes no sense. You could play all day every day provided you only bet when the wheel is "playing your game". It would be like playing a biased wheel - just keep on playing as long as the bias exists and your profits will only increase. But it seems like you're trying to make a case for "hit & run" when it's not necessary (apart from the fact that hit & run doesn't work anyway).

 

Not the way you play it. Of course it works the way I play it.

 

The only thing that makes a difference to your edge is the bet selection, not how many bets you make in a playing session. hit & run is nonsense.

 

If one plays hit and run that is their way and the same g oes for the martingale players .


Those are all individual choices . I am a recreational but having been trained to play like a professional .


Still I am not married to any of the casino games . I know what is what and always prepared

to expect the unexpected .

 

How can I get this info to you privately? I do not want to post it here to start another scrutiny war. I am more than willing to have my strategy analyzed by someone who knows what they're doing. I would like some answers myself as to why it has consistently done so well. I think one of the reasons for it's success is playing a session until I win 1/2 of a complete 7 step Marty failure, that way I only need 2 session wins to recoup. But most of the time I have accumulated quite a few units before the Marty failure. I have learned the biggest mistake people make using the Martingale is to win just a few units then quit. There is a little more involved here than what most people evidently do not realize.

 

David,

How many numbers are you betting on? I'm assuming that you're just betting on one of the ECs. Is that correct?

 

Twoup,

Rather than saying "1 sigma range" it's better to simply say a standard deviation or one standard deviation.

 

Dr. Sir A A Too much is made about the EC betting process . There plenty of other betting options

at a roulette table .


It`s that 50 / 50 gimmick that is drawing the attention .

 

I only play EC selections. But because I use a Marty progression, I prefer the game of Craps over all of them. No Zeros to interrupt the progression. The Pass Line and Don't Pass Line pay 1 to 1. Not like in Baccarat where as Banker is paid a 5% commission on a hit there. If I Marty up to the 7th step and hit on Banker, I lose quite a few units that I have to make up. So Craps it is for me, but the part I really dislike about Craps played in a B&M casino, the outcomes take way to long. The time between rolls when bets are placed, and sometimes a shooter may roll 10 or more times before an outcome. However, the strategy has done quite well on Roulette despite the Zero's. Even though I am just testing this strategy and no real money is changing hands, for some reason when I play it on Roulette I am living in constant fear of those Zero's showing up; especially when I am up to the 5th step or higher.