Roulette Ask The Croupier

I just never saw anyone sharing it. Would you have?

 

I posted my math. The 69 dude is a troll.

 

You're confused on which direction to go, why don't you leave the thread.

2^(-1) × 2^(-1) = 2^(-2) = 1/4

we can all calculate how flawed your multiplication is.

Column 3 is a recipe for disaster
Column 4 is 2.9% - 98.2% of just how much you're losing.
Colum 10 is the realisation of $982 ÷ 100 × 2.7
Column 11 is -OneUp's Law of Indices
Column 14 trash.

Let's all congratulate that you can lower the house edge to -$8.10 after the point you've lost $982 of your bankroll.

You haven't refuted La Partage has 1/2 the house edge of your progression or any form of bet selection in roulette.

My position:

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

 

Evidently, the education system in your country has failed you. Can you read the text?

 

@TwoUp invented this 1000u scenario where you must compare betting 24 fractions to betting everything on Even.

 

Yes because it beats one large bet.

You threw out the challenge for a better bet selection than EC with LP and to back it up with math.

So I did. Sadly you are not competent to understand multiple bets.

Answer the questions, troll.

 

Why would you think that?

I read it and I couldn't imagine trying to survive on so little. The top of your industry is considered the poverty line here.

 

Back in 2013 the view was $60k was poverty and that is the top in your industry which you are not at as you're just a croupier who doesn't know much.

I can't imagine the cost of living has got any easier in the last 10 years.

You're really kicking goals there croupier.

 

Again Answer the questions.

You make no mathematical or logical arguments.

You won't answer the questions put to you because it exposes your trolling and patent lack of understanding.

Answer the questions.

We all see that:

• You believe a straight up bet can never win and must lose every time.
• You believe no bet can actually win unless it is an EC with LP.
• You believe you have to make 25 bets out of 24.
• You believe every loss is house edge, not the 1/37 or 2.7% accepted by everyone.
• You believe risking less than $982 is worse than risking $1000.
• You believe it is not possible to risk less than $982 because it is not possible to win on a non EC bet.
• You believe counting to 1 equals 2.
• You believe counting to 24 equals 25.
• You believe making the first bet 100% of the time is the same probability as 97.3%
• You believe flipping a coin once has probability 1/4.
• You believe when you multiply two numbers together you have to multiply one of them again just to be sure. This is why you say 1 × 1/2 equals 1/4
• You believe 2^(-1) = 1/4 ( when it is 1/2)
• You believe losing one bet actually loses two bets.
• You think you are a high end dealer

I believe you feed on attention in whatever form it takes.

 

& rightly so.

 

No just the probability of ECs (18÷37) winning is significantly higher than (1÷37).

The house edge is determined by the payouts. EC + LP is the only bet with -1.35% House edge.

I correctly counted 24 bet levels from (36÷37)¹ to (36÷36)²⁴

The house edge is a variable of any losing probability. 1/37 is contained in (36/37) this is how we calculate the expected value of a bet knowing that 1/37 = 2.7%. Straight-up every loss is -1x(36÷37). Every win is 35 x (1÷37). E.V. is determined by 1/37 (the house edge) and the payout of a win. That's a given every loss is the house edge.

you have a 2.7% Pr. every spin ECs Pr is 48.65%. You insist to misrepresent my position. I never said I'll risk $1000 all on 1 spin. That's the risk level you want to create so you can compare a straight up bet with an outside bet.

You are taking more risk the more levels progressed. You underestimate (36÷37)²⁴ or 51.8% Pr to lose 24 bets. starting bankroll is 1k. Your progression deviates from the -$27 expected value of repeating bet fractions of $1000. On level 24 You don't have a 48.2% chance of winning. Your chances is still 2.7%. how you are comparing this to EC bets is ridiculous.

You believe multiplying indices with the same base uses the subtraction law.

(36÷37) is the Pr of losing the first bet! how else did you calculate losing 78c?. you actually believe (36÷37)^1-1 is the operation in multiplying. CLOWN! (36÷37)^0 = 1.
(36÷37) ÷ (36÷37) = 1.

You clearly dont know multplicatation.

(36÷37) × 1 = 97.3 = Pr of Losing Bet 1
(1÷37) x 1 = 2.7 = Pr of Winning Bet 1

 

You can't multipy
You can't read
You can't imagine
You can't win

 

1 flip: 2^(-1) = 1/2

2 flips: 2^(-1) × 2^(-1) = 2^(-2) = 1/4

_____________________________________________

PS I challenged anybody to REFUTE EC + LP is the optimal bet in roulette with a house edge of -1.35.
Arguing with your kangarooshit that you probably bet on an American wheel is beneath my attention.

 

Right because professionals get paid the same salaries as they did nearly a decade ago. twat. I've been in this game for 4 years and just a fact for you, I was on furlough during the pandemic.

It's part of my responsibility to identify LOSERS. You're best off leaving the vicinity with your tail in between your legs.

 

One more thing.


Pr (Win @ Level) should all be 2.7%
The objective of you progression is to quit after a win.
Why are you multiplying the probability that you win on bet level 1 then win again on bet level 2 and win again on bet level etc.

Pr (Lose @ Level) should all be 97.3%
despite which level you reach the probability remains constant for winning or losing.

Pr (Level Reached) is dependent on losing a level because you're calculating the negative E.V. on each bet level Reached (not before W or L). The values should all shift one row up.

 

My bad why are you multiplying Pr Lose × Pr Win @ each level in column 12. the Pr of win or lose is constant.

 

Ahh. The mysteries of math. I would suggest you look at that very carefully as it is part of the reason you are stuck.

Understand we only arrive at a level based on the past bets losing. The probability of winning at a particular level is CONDITIONAL. It is based on the probability of losing all the prior bets to arrive at that level and THEN win the 1/37 bet.

 

I am involved with the game of roulette for the past 30 years and this La Partage is of NO help.


This cat is spreading a lot of Bull shit .



This cat is posting a lot of NOTING .


A scammer for the casino side .

 

Mostly implying a rhetorical question there, to see your understanding of the calculations in column 14. That gives you a cumulative "-$8.10" E.V. which isn't the true value or average of your losses.
Bet levels 2-24:

W = (36÷67)ⁿ × (1÷37)ⁿ

L = (36÷37)ⁿ × (36÷37)ⁿ

@ bet level 1 You lost. $29 × (36÷37) that would expect negative 0.78 value. If repeated
@ bet level 2 You lost. $30 × (36÷37) that would expect negative 0.81 value. If repeated

The cumulative level E.V. (column 14)
On bet level 2 you add the cumulative bet E.V. at level 1 & 2 . aka You've lost twice (36÷37)² that's (-0.78 + (-0.81 =) -1.59 E.V. and multiply this sum by the probability of losing one level prior, (36÷37)¹ to arrive at -$1.54 = -$1.59 × (36÷37)¹..
Why are you multiplying the cum. bet E.V with the Pr of losing -1 level prior?
You do this to all the subsequent level E.V. in column 14. calculating an average -$8.10 that doesn't exist.

by using a progession you neutralize the expected value of your prior bet level and each loss will accumulate towards the cumulative bet E.V. of your total: -$26.54.
Cum bet E.V. is theoretical as in if you played your progression over multiple times on average you will lose -$26.54.

 

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

Isn't a scam.

All I have to post is the math, and anybody that can calculate will understand that la partage is half the E.V. of any bet selection in roulette. If I repeated an EC + LP flat betting system with $1000br, the E.V would be =-$13.5.