Roulette Ask The Croupier

*Insert math scam*

 

A1: it's possible to die from age 0 and after the 24th birthday.

A2: 48.2% is the Pr that you're not dead on your 24th bday. The Pr of living decreases as birthdays continue.

A3: 1 out of 37 on average die. you don't have a sample to calculate an average age at death.

Pfft. do my answers satisfy your straw math.

 

left unread.

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/ask-the-croupier.23993/page-25#post-144721

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/ask-the-croupier.23993/page-25#post-144749

 

If I used the probability one level past then my first bet would not always be made.

My probability of exposure to the house edge would actually get smaller as 36/37×36/37 is less than 36/37.

Basic counting you can't grasp. Even flipping a coin once you fucked up and said it's twice.

I will repeat. We are betting for heads. What is the probability we have to flip the coin a second time? We don't care about the outcome of the second flip. We only want the probability that we MUST flip the coin a second time.

You said repeatedly it is 1/2 × 1/2 = 1/4.

I say it is 1/2 because there is only a single coin flip that decides if we need to flip the coin again. 1/2 the time the first flip will be tails and only then must we flip the coin a second time. I don't care what the outcome of the second flip is. That is not the probability that is relevant to deciding if you even flip the coin a second time.

How can you have a decision to flip a coin based on the outcome of the coin you haven't flipped yet?

You can't understand the idea of the events that lead to an action are distinct from the outcome of performing the action. You keep conflating the probability of those events together.

Nothing can save you from yourself.

 

A1. The scenario doesn't care about what happens after age 24. It is bounded to those persons born alive who can all die in their first year of living right up to age 24. Again you can't comprehend.

A2. Wrong 49.2% is the probability of a person dying by their 24th birthday. 51.8% is the probability of being alive beyond their 24th birthday.

A3. Wrong you didn't provide the answer. The question was "what is the average age of death"? . The probability to die each year is 1 out of 37 as stated in the scenario, so you should be able to calculate the average age of death, unless you don't understand probability.

Answer A3 honestly and you have a chance to understand the principle. But you refused.

 

You just keep reposting the same old thing, without addressing the requested.


As the straight-up numbers come out (no matter what you is bet) ..
when you bet EC three possible outcomes pertain to it
ie. correct EC (the bet one), opposite EC, or Zero.

The actual 50% he discount only applies when the Zero comes out
ie. you'd get 0.135 of the he back, rather than paying 2.7 = 50% discount.

The trouble with not-your formula is that such an instance only happens,
not when the opposite EC comes outm, but when the Zero itself appears.

Meaning that the SU number expectancy = in this case Zero,
is only once! in 37 spins.

.

In short, you expectantly pay ½ the he on only 1/37 spins,
otherwise the house edge payed is the full 2.7.

Once you calculate the AVERAGE of the ACTUAL house edge paid,
(1x (0.135) + 36x (0.27)) / 37 = 2.63067567568

.

To summarize, you are expected to pay the reduced he only once in 37 spins,
or your EC+LP formula expectancy is only valid for 1x spin in practical application.

.

Not-your formula stands 'in laboratory environment' on spin-to-spin basis,
but in reality, when applied on a series of spins in a broader context,
evaluated correctly by taking ALL other FACTS into the equation ..
it falls short of still being true.

In other words it does not address the reality of things, multi-level facts.

.

EC+LP expected HE actually paid over 37 spins is -2.63067567568%.

That figure differs a bit -1.35, doesn't it?

 

& don't equate yourself with Tyson .. that's actual;y his fighting style;
meanwhile you just picked up a formula & adopted it as your own ..
taking credit for it standing on it like a stupid little boy on a top of a hill.

Go climb a mountain, @gizmotron can tell you something about ghat.

 

NO. STOP. he said calmly.

(0.0135) × (1÷37) + (-0.27) × (-36÷37)

Don't make me laugh that is not calculation of expected value for Even Chances + LP.

1 × (18÷37) -1 × (18÷37) -0.5 × (1÷37) = -0.0135

Just stick to playing roulette for dummies on an american wheel.

 

N/A to me.

No, its not -- its the calculation of the actual HE paid,
provided only one (expected) Zero, in percentage.

Now, stop bluffing, & address the written, fallen one.

 

Ofc, for EC+LP, knowing that the expected probability of one Zero appearing in 37 spins is 1/37.

-2.63067567568% .

 

Specify what is incorrect about that .. exactly.
(Primary school math, btw.)

 

No the first bet is not always lost.
The event/ outcome that determines whether you begin progression from 97.3% to 94.67% etc. is a Loss. Your "bet series" starts @ a lose, 97.3% Pr on bet level 1.

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/ask-the-croupier.23993/page-22#post-144477

You are conflating flipping once is 100% with flipping for heads once.

(1/2)⁰ = 1 = 100% Pr that you flip heads or tails.
(1/2)¹ = ½ = Pr 1 flip is heads.
(1/2)² = ¼ = Pr 1st flip tails therefore 2nd flip.
HH❌ HT❌ TT❌ TH✅

[I stop when I get heads on the second flip]

You are so desperate to deny the outcome of the second flip determines if we flip a second time.
The experiment is looking for heads on the second flip. You never admit to the flaws in your calculations so you back peddle on the math.

You can't understand the concept of independent events multiplying their probability of occurrence i.e. flipping a coin twice. You keep conflating the probability of having to flip the coin once with the independent Pr of Heads or Tails.

 

"Once you calculate the AVERAGE of the ACTUAL house edge paid,
(1x (0.135) + 36x (0.27)) / 37 = 2.63067567568"

You are testing my patience.

(0.0135)×(1÷37)+(−0.027)
×(−18÷37)


EVEN CHANCES is not +36 × (.027) to the HE.

18 × (.027) to the HE.


STFU!!. he asked calmly.

 

this is one of most fascinating threads for ages....battle of the giants.....at the end of the day though this way of thinking is worth nought

 

A futile argument between strangers on the internet. 26 pages of drivel.

 

The way I look at it, is as a test to observe how gamblers respond to factual statistics pertaining to La Partage.

I initiated the discord with EC + LP is the optimal bet in EU roulette and presented the calculations of the 1.35% house edge.

Facts. Many gamblers want to deny the math because they believe their own bet selections can outperform the 2.7% or 5.26% HE.

 

not really.....two different points of view....to me its fascinating .....i like them both tbh ..not rooting for one or the other.....but like the back and forth..there so much alike but very different in there thinking

 

i will tell a short story....my son in law made his living from arbing but also casino bonuses...playing through won amount on blackjack on a bot...now he knew roulette was all i was interested in an his companions told him that betfair had a special unlimited re load bonus and a deposit match on roulette ...150 % turnover was 1...if i remember the bet itself was 0...just bet high and low...win and withdraw..then deposit

one of the guys was a maths geeks and gave him a method just for the La Partage table...we are in the uk....if you had enough money in the bank to deposit multiple times it was a win win on this table....needless to say betfair within half an hour saw something was wrong....stopped all bets....in that time i won 2000....my son in law won 6000....his was frozen but i cashed mine out within 20 mins of playing....his got stopped and he had to argue for his deposit back....there was so many on this i slipped through and got my money...i cashed out in the 1st 20 mins before i carried on ..and comp points money too was not taken back...i got them too

we laugh about it to this day.... La Partage if you are using an ec bet is the way to go....i totally agree on that

i always think the guy who set this up got sacked from betfair

 

It's most likely to be a cultural divide.

Some communities have adopted worse variants of French roulette. La Partage is potentially unknown to many gamblers.

 

STFU, huh? Now I got you.
Nope.

Don't reprint -- what is incorrect .. in my calculation?

=====

Meanwhile, your formula addresses the 'numbers bet in one spin ..

Mine, is more correct, addressing the actual house edge paid
based on the expectation of during 37-spins Zero appearing once.

√

=====

Your theatrics, feelings & emotions are beyond my concern.