Roulette Ask The Croupier

Assuming the country is Poland and this link is accurate to the Polish gambling act.
Under restrictions:
all visitors to casinos, must register before entry. Their personal data must be stored for three years and can be accessed by the authorities. In casinos, a video record of each game must be prepared and stored for three years.

they have facial recognition in Poland??

I would say it's a massive assumption to believe that Surveillance isn't paying attention to your visits/ sessions.

 

In the UK its common for GMs/ Gaming Management from different casinos to communicate with each other. Tbh I'm baffled by your system not working unless you switch locations..

 

The irony is too fun.
Yellow is a subset of Green and Red

Green = Yellow

 

Say you have $1000 and want to double it. The conventional math advice is 1 bet of $1000 on an EC.

In casinos with LP rule you get to halve the house edge. And in those without your house edge remains at 2.7%.

I will show how even without it you can get a better deal using the $1000 (or 1000 units if you prefer to use units) by betting a single number, and raising the bet to meet or slightly exceed the $1000/1000u profit target.

I will show you that your effective house edge can be as low as 1.07% besting your LP house edge.

The benefit of this approach is that with an early win your house edge paid in both absolute terms and percentage is less than an EC bet.


I have shown the house edge above from many angles. The math shows an EC may not be the best bet. The expected house edge (H.E.) at level 24 which is EC equivalent probability betting under $1000 to win more $1000 has just 1.07% house edge when looking at the expected values of win vs loss and using the difference as the absolute house edge and then diving this by the total bet amount to date.

So the math doesn't lie, EC is not necessarily the best bet.

 

The house edge is still there, you're just not grasping it. The house edge does not change based on how much you bet. The house edge on every bet on the inside remains a constant 2.7% or 5.26% on the double zero wheel.

 

Still waiting for that edge to catch up - I guess it takes a really long time.
Since there's no way I could lose what I've won plus get to the negative point where the "edge" says I should be.....
I sort of don't take your reply seriously.

 

"Not necessarily" is disingenuous to say the least. You haven't tested ECs? The data you posted shows up to 24 bets or levels by betting on a single number. 24/37 is 2/3 the probability of the wheel. You're telling me that 24 bets is a conclusive measurement of expected value.

I'm not convinced that your math "shows an EC may not be the best". LP's -.0135 is calculated from all possible variables. -.0107 in the 24th level when the mean of 24 bets is -.0235 is bordering on propaganda. (The math doesn't lie)

Expected Value is long-term.

 

I should've called it sooner.
No disrespect, but we can throw out your findings.

Expected value only applies to bet sizes that are equal.

You're using a progression.

 

You misunderstand the bet completly.

The figures are based on betting a single number and doing it up to 24 times whilst increasing the wager size so that the payout nets at least $1000. Each time you make a 1/37 bet there is a 36/37 chance that you miss the number and lose your bet.

The probability of missing a straight up number 24 times is (36/37)^24 = 51.8%.

The probability of an EC missing on a single spin is 19/37 = 51.4%

So we see for equivalent probability of success that the house edge can be lower betting the single number up to 24 times.

 

I have shown the house edge on the bets and it is clearly there. The bet scenario is to use $1000 to try and win $1000 or lose the $1000 trying. We are not betting beyond the heat death of the universe. We have up to 24 bets to win or lose $1000 and not a bet more.

House edge is always based on what is risked, so even though 2.7% edge exists on a single straight up bet, this is small in absolute terms per bet compared to risking $1000 to win $1000 on a single EC bet.

The difference in expected values between what you win (net win amount multipled by the probability of winning) and the expected loss (net loss to date multiplied by probability of losing) is the house edge in absolute terms. This absolute house edge amount when divided by the total amount risked (net loss to date) is the house edge in percentage terms vs dollars risked at that betting level. These are all shown. As you see the house edge climbs closer to the theoretical 2.7% as we get to bet 24 which is the EC equivalent.

I am trying to be open and transparent here. I have provided the intermediate calculations and values so anyone (even sir anyone) can check my work. Please call out which calculations and values you feel are incorrect and explain your math for calculating your values.

I would attach an excel if the site allowed it but sadly using math is not a use case intended by the site admins.

 

I think your incapable of using a calculator.

I can bet a straight up number 24 times as per the table and get the equivalent probability to an EC.

Again I showed the math for this.

If I win any of those 24 bets then on average my Hosie edge will be less than paying $1000 × 1/37. There is no opportunity with the single EC bet to have a lower house edge but the straight bet does have this opportunity and hence a lower average cost to make the same or better return.

Use the calculator instead of dying in a ditch with your ego.

 

Yes and despite all you may have been, told it beats your EC for the average house edge you pay.

Wrong. Expected value is probability × amount.

Any event or sequence of events has a probability to occur and to not occur. For each outcome win or lose we have a corresponding net payout or net loss amount. With the probability and the amounts we get an expected value for a win, expected value for a loss, and a net overall expected value by subtracting the expected value of the loss from the expected value of the win.

Wrong, my series of straight up bets beats your 1 EC bet even considering LP.

It is thoroughly disputed with math, in case you didn't notice.

You taunted everyone to find a better bet selection and to show math. Well I did and you just don't like being proved wrong.

Clearly you now have an egg on face moment to deal with, as the mathematical truth demonstrates there is far more to it. But will you let the math in, that is the question?

Rather than continuing to dig a hole for yourself, perhaps you might learn something useful by studying the detail of why the house edge can be lower using a series of straight up bets than a single large bet on an EC.

I showed it with an example of $1000. Let's up the stakes to $1 million .

Would you bet $1 million on a single EC with a $27k house edge guaranteed or would you use the series of bets approach to have the opportunity of short circuiting the betting sooner and being exposed to less house edge because a win at any level means you have not yet put the full $1 million at risk so the house edge must be less than $27k.

Even repeating this sequence betting scenario over and over, the expected values for the house edge have to be lower than an EC as it can only ever be as high as an EC if you only ever win precisely on bet 24.

Play this series game longer term and the hits will occur at various levels. Yes we are aiming for an EC equivalent in the probability by making up to 24 bets but that doesn't mean we can't win the series sooner say on bet 1, 3, 9, 13, 18, or 22.

We can't EVER be any worse than the house edge paid on an EC as on average when a win is realised we have not yet risked the full amount and it is impossible to pay house edge on money in our pocket that we have not yet risked.

 

The most optimal betting strategy is betting all 37 numbers on the single zero wheel.
This gives me a 100% win rate which destroys SPIKES 80% win rate (Ha!)

 

You can always upload a file eg. Mediafire & post the link.

My two-fold question pertains to the avg he of -2.35 --

• that's lower than the initial -2.7, so in English, why would that be so .. the advantage is constituted from the slight progression .. as in a zero-sum game = put something in, takes something out?
• frankly, when pitting this against LP alone, -2.35 < -1.35, the average is still lesser in grade than -- so why do you say that it bests LP .. is that 'coz we are observing from the perspective of more than one spin' interval, in other words evaluating both on the grounds of an ≈equal/very similar probability?

 

The Avg at the top of the rightmost column is just an column average (average of the values in that column). It is not an overall E.V that can be compared to the EC bet as the amount risked as you progress up the levels change.

For example the 2.7% EV on the first bet is just 78 cents, and is the actual house edge paid on a $29 bet. If you win the first bet this would represent an effective EV compared to the EC of just 0.00078 (78 ten thousandths per dollar risked).

The best indicator of the average EV paid is the bottom row (rightmost cell).

The series betting approach can win on earlier steps, not only on spin 24 where the maximum house edge is realised. Therefore on average, the series approach pays less house edge than a single $1000 EC even with LP.

The avearge house edge paid is lower because many times when you do win you haven't yet reached level 24. Because of this you have not risked your entire $1000 bankroll and you cannot possibly pay house edge on money that is not at risk on the felt.

The house edge is always based on how much you risk, it is always a percentage of the amount risked.

The series of bets doesn't put all the money at risk on the table right away and you get the opportunity of an early win and thus pay less house edge on average when you do win vs the player using an EC.

When you don't win by bet 24, you lose your $1000 ($982 for the series) just like the EC.

It is obvious that the opportunity of an early win, on average risks less and reduces the house edge paid vs one large EC which risks it all and pays it all in one bet.

 

Im mostly going to address the probabilities.

Hence Each time you make a 18/37 bet there is a 18/37 chance that you miss the number and lose your bet and a 1/37 chance that you keep .5 the wager.

youre dead serious. you started at bet level 1 which is 36/37 = 97.3%. The longer you multiply the probability of an independent event i.e. (36/37)^sq the limit will approach zero probability. the sum probability that you calculated of losing 24 consecutive spins is (36/37)^24 = 51.8%. Each probability of success on each spin up to 24 times is 1/37. The longer you continue to play this game the probability of you winning this argument will approach 0.

The probability of EC + LP losing a bet on a single spin is 50% = 48.65% + 1.35%
Let's define 19/37 as the probability of the losing pockets and use your 51.4% for an instance. The probability of EC losing 24 consecutive spins is 1.13043357E−7. I'm sure you know what e- means on a calculator. If we start EC at bet level 1 it has a 51.4% chance of missing. The math proves 24 consecutive misses on ECs is highly unlikely compared to betting straight up.

Expected value calculates the expected average of a repeated bet that is repeated bet size. you started using a progression in your tests. How am I expected to lose a mean -2.7% of x value if the x value per spin progress from $29 to $56.

Your data is data is inconlusive to dispute EC + LPs expected value -1.35%. All possible variables exist over 37 levels not your personal record at 24.

 

Your bet selection is bottom-tier. You have 51.8% at bet level 24 . EC would have 51.4% at bet level 1. EC alone at bet 1 is more probable and if we repeated the trials up to 24 levels EC would hit more successfully.

EC + LP is the optimal bet selection. the house is expected to win 48.65% + 1.35%. = 50%. Where have you disputed that?? Who knew mathematical straw mans exist.

You are not calculating the expected value the net of a single bet size because you are using progression. All your finding can be thrown out.

1×(18÷37)-1×(18÷37)-0.5×(1÷37)= -.0135

Gg

Talk about ego, I've been talking about La Partage.

 

51.8% chance of losing 24 times in a row. Well done.

 

$1. bet on the red has the same house edge as $100 bet on red.

 

The math doesn't lie. The house edge on a straight up is 2.7%. The heavy experimenter's bias is clear. Using a $1000 br, a bet of $29 would constitute a possible "early win". (35:1) that exceeds the 1:1 payout 2up is claiming is inferior.

playing fantasy columns with a progression because the first bet has a 97.3% expectancy of failure.