Roulette Ask The Croupier

Yes the house edge percentage is the same. It is important to be clear what you're saying here.

But the value of the house edge paid is obviously less with a $1 bet vs a $100 bet.

What the bettor pays in house edge in absolute terms is NOT THE SAME.

Paying $0.027 on a $1 bet is less than $2.70 on a $100 bet. The $1 bettor has risked less and therefore the house edge paid in absolute terms is less (but is the same in percentage terms).

Remember the context of this discussion is can one beat the house edge of an EC bet with LP.

Clearly one can by using a series of smaller bets that on a win reduces the total value risked and therefore the total house edge paid vs a single large EC bet where $1000 is risked in a single event.

What I am comparing is the effective house edge paid in absolute terms vs the big dumb bet as advocated by 6probability9 which guarantees a 2.7% (or 1.35% with LP) on $1000.

Don't misunderstand what I am saying to imply that each individual bet has not paid 2.7% house edge. Every bet has paid 2.7% house edge but we don't necessarily need to place every bet up to bet level 24 to net a $1000 win, which is why the average house edge paid using the series is in absolute value terms is less than the EC.

 

Yes. 36/37 = 97.3%

And failing twice is 36/37 × 36/37 = 94.7%
And failing 24 times is (36/37) ^ 24 = 51.8%

You can't get to level 24 unless you lost on levels 1 to 23.

This is basic probability of a sequence of events. Perhaps the concept is new to you?

 

@6probability9 Do-gou have any original ideas, or gu-you always keep reciting some old scripts.

 

You're being a a fool now grasping at straws.

Look at the expected value of the gain vs the loss. You are out of the race with your EC bet.

If you do the math you will see we risk $982 to win more than $1000, $1034 to be exact. That more than makes up the difference as the expected value shows.

I see you ignore that fact.

Yes the math doesn't lie. You just don't like the math whipping your ass and can't understand the basic premise.

House edge is based on how much you risk.

Can your $1000 EC bet ever pay less than $27.02 or 13.51 with LP? NO

The expected value of the 24 bets pays less house edge in absolute terms and you simply hate that you were wrong with your inferior bet selection.

Why don't you do your own spreadsheet of the series betting approach and post it here and we can pick it apart cell by cell.

If anything you may start to understand why less house edge is in fact possible and why the average house edge paid in absolute terms is less than the EC.

 

Your bank roll is 1K
$1000 ÷100×2.7 =$27
Starting att level 1 you are risking capital above the expected value of a straight up bet.
None of your bet level can afford to lose otherwise its lost over the -2.7% EV of 1000u.
Your progression is a pipe dream.
With worse negative expectancy than betting 2.7 of 1000u to reach your break - even target.

Bet 1 = 97.3% chance of losing, risk 2.9% of 1000
Bet 24 = 97.3% chance of losing, risk 5.6% of 1000
Bet 1 - 24 = 51.8% chance of ruining your entire bank roll by using progression.
Your progression increases the risk of losing above the expected value of wagering 1000u.

Your system is inferior to EC + LP. You entire argument was based on the premise that EC + LP loses 51.4% WRONG

Every Spin the effective house edge of LP -.0135.

You never disputed the house is expected to win 48.65 + 1.35 = 50%. When you play EC + LP. Instead you inserted a straw argument to show losing 24 straight ups (over 50% is likely) would equate roughly the same probability of losing 1 bet on EC.

You still can not convincingly refute -.0135 is lowest house edge / risk in the game of roulette.

 

The longer you continue to play this game the probability of you winning this argument will approach 0.

 

Here is a more detailed and accurate calculation of the bets and EV calculations. It may help you to understand.

My previous sheet was an overestimate of the house edge in the series bet and not as accurate as this one.

You will notice that the values are even more in favour of the series bet vs an EC. I don't apologize for the what the math says.

The average expected value is now a much lower -$8.10. This represents an EC equivalent of -0.81% H.E. when we divide by the $1000 that would be risked on a single EC bet.



Work through the calculations line by line and verify for yourself. If you think a cell calculation is wrong then just say that and explain why you think that cell is wrong and provide your calculation.

You need to understand that each bet is not risking $1000, it is starting with $29 risk and climbing from there.

Basic logic should tell you that $29 × 1/37 house edge is $0.78 (the expected value is the house edge) and that bet has a 1/37 chance to win.

As we continue up the levels raising each bet the house edge is climbing. When we get to level 24 the total combined probability of losing over those 24 bets is equivalent to losing on an EC.

On average when we win it won't be the first bet we make and it won't be the last. For this reason I calculate the Cumulative Level E.V. so you get an understanding of the house edge that is paid based on the probability of reaching that level. As an aside the Bet EV calculations do not consider the level probability, only the 1/37 probability to win and 36/37 probability to lose. The higher levels will not be visited as often as the lower levels. Each level is visited 1/37 less times than the level below. This is why the average house edge is lower than the 24th bet level because when a win occurs it won't always be at the highest level.

I have laid it all out, and I am happy to answer questions regarding the math and calculations and clarify with an open discussion but I won't reply to the insults and attacks if you're not actually trying to understand. It is not my job to teach you math but I will help you understand if you're genuinely interested and can put aside the grand standing.

 

If the dog would have not taken a crap he would have caught the rabbit.


if , if .

 

Average Plonker. Average is the sum of set of values ÷ by the total values.
You include the loss at bet level 24. You are seriously that tunnel-visioned to argue with a straw man; the average cum. lvl of all your ruined progression.

 

This disingenuous part of your slander is that you misrepresent my argument as I am playing 1 bet at $1000 on EC (+ LP). whereby it is impossible to lose $27 or $13.5 in one spin.

 

@thereddiamanthe

La Partage.
1×(18÷37)-1×(18÷37)-0.5×(1÷37)= -.0135
Some french guys obviously had a clue before us.

a prediction is an estimation made from observations.

 

The average is the average of the cumulative expected loss at each level multiplied by the probability of reaching that level.


If you want to have an intelligent discussion then pull your head out of your derriere and explain column by column where the calculations are wrong.

Is the 1st column "Bet #" wrong?
Is the 2nd column "Target $" wrong?
Is the 3rd column "Bet $" wrong?
Is the 4th colum "Cum. Loss" wrong?

Which columns do you agree with and which do you say are wrong?

State why the math is wrong on a column by column basis.

If you can't do that then you're beyond intelligent discussion.

 

Again cease with the attacks.

There is just math here. You should be able to surgically pinpoint which columns you agree with and which you disagree with and state precisely why the actual calculus wrong.

If we are to have a proper discussion about the math then make it about the math and state your alternative calculation where you disagree with a calculation.

I have put it there to be verified but so far you have not pinpointed a cell in that table that is wrong and provided your alternative calculation.

There is nothing hard here it is just adding and multiplication and division which are all just forms of addition at the core of math.

If you can't do that then you're not competent to have a discussion about math with.

This is your opportunity to make it about facts, not opinion and emotions and grand standing and accusations. I am not making a claim here other than presenting the math openly and transparently which can defend itself.

The floor is yours to make a pinpoint mathematical argument about why any column in that spreadsheet is wrong. So I suggest you get out your calculator and verify for yourself.

When you have found a miscalculation then report your findings and we can unpack that in a rational manner.

If you can't do that then the table of calculations is by default deemed correct and you're just having a kiniption fit and making emotional personal attacks because your ego is bruised.

 

A lot of effort being expended on an argument that neither side is going to back down on.

 

It is not about winning an argument. 6probabilty9 threw out the challenge to find a better bet selection that beats his EC with LP and prove it with math.

When he got what he asked for he stoops to attacking the messenger rather than making an attempt to actually think, ask questions to confirm his understanding and make a rational point. None of that has happened sadly.

I contribute on these forums and in other threads to share understanding of some of the more interesting aspects where things are not exactly like we were always told or imagined them to be.

Hopefully some find it useful and insightful. I didn't have to share what I know but I have laid it out in full detail to be understood and scrutinized.

Anyone with a calculator can verify the sums for themselves and maybe through the process may look at things differently having gained a deeper understanding of how the house edge works.

If I said 1+1=9 that is easy to prove as nonsense.

The math I have used is literally just basic addition, multiplication and division. It should be very easy to conclusively show where it is wrong right down to the column and row. I am not hiding a thing or handwaving at some secret sauce method, it's laid bare for anyone to see and validate and convince themselves.

Unfortunately we haven't had any level of mature discourse from 6probabilty9. Maybe he will settle down and actually try to understand, attack the math and not the man. But it is a slim chance based on what I have witnessed thus far.

 

TwoUp

Not all are math savvy; but that don’t mean they can’t beat roulette.

If, they can follow a method like “the advantage of repeats”; Now that is something many can’t.

But with practice they should see everything is going left to right. But they don’t even get that.

By the way, I do like your math posts.

 

Your loss of $1000 includes house edge. You risk $1000 on a bet with true odds 18:19 that pays 1:1 which is less than the risk taken. If it paid true odds your win amount would be $1055.56.

You also just admitted that it is impossible to risk less than $1000 with your EC betting and therefore impossible to pay less house edge than $27 or $13.50 with LP which I agree with.

That above statement is the nexus of why the series of bets can pay less house edge than the EC and on average it must pay less. It could only pay the same house edge amount as an EC if every win only ever occurs exactly on the last bet, meaning bet 24.

 

& if you play EC+LP as a sequence of bets .. eg. for 37 or (↑ 24 spins)
.. how many times can you expect a straight-up number, herein applicable as being Zero, to appear?

Once, 1/37.
Practically, somewhere from none to three, four.
Only in extreme & very very rare instances five or more.
This brings us to an average of 1 again.

In that case the house edge would be 1×(18÷37)-1×(18÷37)-0.5×(1÷37)= -.0135 -- or ½ less.
& only then !!

On all other instances, provided your bs has been incorrect,
even though playing LP, you'd still pay the whole -0.27.


So, based on SU expectation, or probability nicked out of your name --
your average house edge for playing EC+LP for a sequence of 37 spins would be

(-0.27 x 36)-(0.135 x 1) / 37 = 0.26635135135 where 135 repat into beyond infinity & that's where I got 135.


Play it a bit further, & soon your probability of keeping your hollyfied advantage will deterioratingly approach 0,
as with every additional spin your actual paid house edge will nearify -2.7.


Now, you might attempt to revert your attention & argument to 'one spin only' ..
but pointlessly so, as whoever actually plays roulette
(not in a whole lifetime gambles at one EC+LP spin) ..
does that on multiple occasions.

& however many of them more, well, then read that penultimate paragraph again, & again & again ..
till your mind breaks free pushing those temple blinders off ..
& you realize your catechism has no stand, no even grounds to stand on.