Roulette Measuring Success

Strawman, not talking about chip programs.

 

You are of course speaking for yourself. You do not speak for me and you do not speak for others aside from your supplicating forum buddies.

To take your statement literally, I can only leave the casino at a rate -1/37th of my starting bankroll multiplied by the number of bets made. Variance in the short term is not a factor and MUST be ignored.

You say that one cannot lose or profit from variance no matter what.

Those are your words and the mathematical implication of what you are stating as facts.

What an untenable position you find yourself in.

I also have not revealed anything about how I play so you're not even qualified to have an opinion.

What I have spoken of are some mathematical foundations of probability to help others understand parameters of certainty and distribution of outcomes, as well as sage advice on understanding risk vs reward to inform money management decision making.

You say it's all BS, and only you have a winning way.

Sadly you continue to demonstrate that you have a faulty mind and are incapable of learning or rational thought. You fail to actually understand probability and variance and only regurgitate "stuff you don't understand", which is content that you picked up from others on WoV who sounded like they knew something. Dr Sir CTRL+V/CTRL+C still spells Dr Dickhead.

 

In the long term, variance is NOT a winning method. In the short term, you can get lucky, but over time, luck runs out! This is a fact.

 

I have no beef with SirAnyone.
He's a nobody.

What irks me is the misinformation he picked up from WoV that he mindlessly bulldoze on other gamblers.

 

I realised that on the very first post of his I commented on after joining.

Well that my beef, or should say tofu, after all Dr Sir is a weak intellectual soy boy that can only trash forums with copy and paste troupes from WoV. I never had the inclination to join that forum, just the same message on repeat by conceited douchebags who parrot what others told them.

So I'll probably take a bite out of him every time he spews his nonsense here even though I prefer beef over soy.

And eventually I will just give up and let him run rampant with his tofu and soy because he will never give up as this forum is the highlight in his life and he's addicted to his delusion of being one of the roulette elite.

 

One person incapable of experiencing joy is enough to destroy a joyful party. I was thinking, it would be way more fun if instead of attacking each other in the lowest possible form we were discussing everyone's ideas with open minds.

I'd love to hear ideas from @TurboGenius, @Raf, @Luckyfella, @TwoUp, and everyone else with different mindsets than mine. It looks like some people get their daily dose of passive aggression by closing their ears and opening their mouths here, on this forum.

I take one of the guys I mentioned as an example, he is excited about a system or concept he has researched recently, he wants to share the concept with fellow Roulette researchers, but at the same time, he might become a target for someone's aggression caused by the frustration of failure. So he better keep the idea to himself and protect it, maybe lay off some vague hints, instead of initiating an exciting discussion.

You either have a winning strategy or are on your way to it. If you believe there is no way to beat Roulette, you must be contributing to some Gamblers Anonymous foundation or something. Cut us some slack, FFS.

 

@ Luckyfella, Dr Sir said:

However, if you have a very very large edge, then you don't have to test for as many spins.

and you replied :

"You wrote this bolded statement. Yet you fail to deduce the edge is so large you don't need large sample testing."

But this is exactly what he IS saying. It's what I said too, and TwoUp agrees, so I'm not sure what the argument is about.

Regarding variance, Dr Sir is correct to say that luck runs out (variance = luck). If it didn't, hypothesis testing would be worthless. Do you understand why? If you don't, it means you haven't really understood its purpose.

Short-term variance is what keeps gamblers looking for the ultimate system, because in the short-term (especially if you use progressions, which magnify the variance), it seems as though it overcomes the house edge. The expected losses due to the house edge are directly proportional to the number of bets made, so the more you bet, the more the house edge bites. However, the standard deviation, which is the square root of the variance, initially increases at a faster rate than the expectation, but then starts to level off, and is overtaken by expectation. Plot curves of the standard deviation, which for the binomial distribution is sqrt(npq) against expectation on the same axes and you'll see what I mean.

 

Why don't you tell this forum so they know the person behind the moniker,

Do you gamble at all?

Do you gamble with online casino or b&m casino?

If you do gamble, what chip size do you bet?
(My answer - usd100)

 

lol, none of that is relevant to the points I made. Try actually addressing what I wrote instead of attacking the messenger. You're indulging in classic Ad Hominem.

 

I am correct to call you out that you have no skin in the game. Lmao!
And no math degree to show. Fact.

Now readers know who MJ is.

And you put me on ignore.

 

I agree with this, the house edge increases linearly whilst the variance only increases by its square root, and eventually gets caught up if one bets too many times recycling their capital. You basically have a window in which to make profit and the more bets it takes generally means more house edge paid.

I don't however subscribe to some long term voodoo shadow of creeping death life long session that follows you from table to table over years.

Once a session is over and you have locked up the win, gone to the cage you have crystalised the win. The next session is a fresh start and completely independent and you again have a window to make profit where the variance gives you an opportunity to beat the edge. If your staking method is poor you will either lose to variance busting an insufficient bankroll by increasing bet levels too much or you get ground down with the effect of house edge. Even so it would have to be an incredibly long session to get beaten by the edge as opposed to variance.

Also as you also point out we can increase the variance with different kinds of betting, another example is single numbers are higher variance than EC's.

There is some interesting math in this area, the arcsine law tells us it's so much harder to double a bankroll on EC's with many small bets than with larger ones.

A reference example with a $100 BR betting $1 unit on an even chance casino game less typical house edge: It's around 78,000 times less likely to make $100 before losing $100 with a $1 bet vs just a single $100 bet. Yes 78,000 times less likely!

Grinding with small bets is generally bad for that reason and as a footnote the additional house edge contributions.

Where you can potentially erode some house edge vs an EC bet is with a single bet in roulette as both EC and single bets have the same house edge percentage. The single bet has higher variance but the average house edge to double say a $100 wager is less than a single large EC bet as you may hit the win earlier and therefore pay less overall house edge on a smaller overall amount wagered.

 

I had to learn and apply all of the math that TwoUp wrote above for my bet strategy. Based on this gamblers math and more math still that I start from this ground zero to look for the elusive edge in terms of what to bet, how much to bet and when to bet.

When taken all these together, how many members actually get to this level to understand the math requirement?

TwoUp and TurboGenius are 2 members on my list.

Do you realise most of you, veteran or not, are way behind the curve?

And you guys are angry we did not post on forums our betting strategy?

Best is MJ wants the details so he can test.
What a joke! Lmao!

 

Do you guys realise how difficult to design a betting strategy to win flatbet?

This means the bet strategy MUST(100%) have positive edge.

Correct betselection, correct betsize, correct bankroll and correct timing of the bets.

Did you read my earlier post that my session bankroll is 12units?

12units flatbet.

Put all together, do you still think I use negative progression with 12units playing a 90spins session?

Do you realise how much math went into designing such a systems betting strategy?

Go figure.

Instead of throwing accusations at me. Lol

I'm not bragging. No point.
I do this for real.

The purpose of my posting on forum is to refute this non-stop nonsensical claim that SirAnyone, MJ and Benas force on threads that systems betting CERTAINLY(100%) can't win. BS.

I also have to point out IF you don't adapt the math that TwoUp wrote above, you have difficulty to get to the positive edge systems strategy. Impossible my be the correct word though I don't want to discourage YOU.

 

..some really interesting stuff, thanks.

 

Do you think it's due to luck to perform such a session on rsim?

3000+% ROI in 200 spins

Go figure.

 

@Luckyfella, why don't you (and others) elaborate on the concepts that can lead to a winner system? As far as I'm aware, it's based on some concepts that the naysayers call "fallacies". So just shoot them, those guys will make fun of it (who the actual f**k cares?), others (me included) might use it to build their own system. This is in case you actually like to help. Otherwise, it's safe to say this fight is based on mutual interests, tbh.

 

This member "ordinary people" asked me on TurboGenius thread for hints. He wants me to narrow down his search effort.

I wrote dozen or quad.

Is this clear enough help?

Read TwoUp's posts and read mine. Combine both. I wrote that earlier.

 

No one is going to hand you anything on a silver platter, you need to put in the work yourself.

Turbo has spelled it all out, read his threads, come up with a hypothesis, test it, evaluate the results, and make corrections as needed.

Work work work, test test test.

Cheers

 

Yes someone can make mislead and make confused when read their comment.

Advise for @Klausy read when you think someone comment give u a positive and helpful. Can check their post history