Roulette Defining the Short and Long Run

In the world of gambling, everybody has heard the statement that every strategy ever devised (or will be devised), may possibly win in the short run but will eventually lose in the long run. That is actually saying no more than a strategy could possibly win at first, but eventually fail in a day, in a week, in a month, in a year, in 10 years, in a hundred years or beyond. The fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as ‘short run’ or ‘long run.’ It is just simply a run over a period of time however long that may be. What exactly is considered the short run? What exactly is considered the long run?

Long run and short run cannot be established accurately because there are no specific boundaries and too many circumstances and variables involved. Both the short run and long run could be anywhere from a minute to eternity. When questioning those who stand firmly on the principal that every strategy will eventually fail, cannot answer the question at what point is eventually? How is that determined exactly? How long is the short and long run exactly? Let’s face it, if those questions could be answered with some degree of accuracy, everyone could end up a winner.

For instance, when testing a strategy to be used for roulette, some say it needs to be tested with at least a thousand spins to determine if the strategy has any validity over the long run. Others say it needs to be tested with a million spins. Which is it? That’s quite a wide variance.

Here is the exact definition of short and long run. What is the short run? It’s the period of time you are winning. What is the long run? It’s the point in time when you lose it all.

When I lived in California around the age of 25, Las Vegas was just a short drive away. My wife and I would go there as often as we could because she just loved playing the slot machines. I learned to play Blackjack perfectly from a Blackjack software device that would correct me when I made the wrong decision. I advanced to the point I could play all day long without ever being corrected. I devised a betting strategy that I used in Vegas that worked quite well. My strategy was to do nothing more than flat bet. I would start with 10 units. If I won 6 units above the 10, I would set them aside not be used, then continue to bet with only the remaining 4 units. From that point forward, I would set aside a win of 2 units and play out the rest of the session with 4 units until they were lost. Years later I learned from internet research that I actually came up with nothing new; that type of strategy has been around since the beginning of gambling.

Here is the only strategy that wins in the long run, but you probably already know this:

1. Playing casino games is only to be considered as a form of entertainment and never, ever to be considered as a way to earn a living.

2. Only gamble with money set aside for entertainment that you can afford to lose. If you do lose it, no harm done. It is no different than a person who sets aside money to take a vacation in his motor home. When the vacation is over all that money is spent but not considered a loss. It all comes down to everybody spends a certain amount of money for fun and entertainment. The big difference between gambling and vacationing is: With gambling, there is always the hope and possibility of making a little money; maybe even cover all the expenses involved.

 

It's not a question of time, but a number of spins played. Some reported that losing systems have shown a profit after 300K spins played, but after another 300K, it crashed. The best I've seen was TurboGenius Minimal Interval Strategy, he claimed it beat 1 Million spins, but after analyzing the result, as the system needed qualification spins (around 150 spins) before putting a bet on the table, the system was still in profit after around 300K spins, but lost when re-launched against more spins. Others reported the same experience with the test of a losing system.

When testing a system, you need to erase luck and variance, that's why a lot of spins are required. But when you have a brain, you don't need to test a system anymore, you know beforehand the end result.

 

Actually, it is a question of time which also agrees with what you said. A certain number of spins takes a certain amount of time. Number of spins, amount of time, same thing.

 

Not really, usually the weekends when a Roulette table is full of players, you will hardly get 30 spins/hour. If you are alone during the week for example, you can easily get 120 spins/hour. Therefore, if you stay 4 hours for instance, it is 120 spins Vs 480 spins which is not a small difference, especially if you are willing to track numbers everyday.

 

We often hear some statements like:

"In long run, every system fails",
"No money management will hold in the long run",
"in long run, house edge will override any strategy"

The term "long run" has been used for time immemorial to point out the negativity and uncertainty of the game. It is asserted that if we play enough trials, momentary good luck bubble, if any, will surely blast and we will see the real face of gambling, i.e. inevitable losses.
While this term can be heard numerous times, it is hard to find any strict definition attached to it. People often ask, "what the h*ll is long run?" Although most people accept "the long run will kill a gambler for sure" by their experiences but it is very difficult to define this term in numerial form than hypothetical.
Actually, long run has never been defined but it means, "in enough trials".It just means what will happen if we keep on playing and not in a lucky or bad day. Enough trials can be understood to be a period that either eliminates or reduces the overall variance to the stage of break even point +house edge+negligible variance.
Since equilibrium is a theoretical concept and house edge will take away any bet from equilibrium, we should not expect that. Even expecting a bet to go at break even+house edge is not very prudent and practical. Minor variance, be it negative or positive, should always be expected.
In my humble opinion, in a period where a bet gets to its break even+double of the house edge max with 99.9999% likelihood, can be defined as "the long run", for testing any methodology to play.
Hence, as per my simulations and observations, 10,000 cycles of any bet can be taken as a " virtual long run".
For example, for an EC bet, a cycle(break even) is 2 spins, so playing 20,000 bets(only placed bets count for this) can be deemed to be as good as playing, "long run" for an EC bet. Similarly, for a straight up bet, playing 360,000 to 3,80,000 placed bets are enough to be taken as "long run". This way, we can count the assumed or "virtual long run" for any bet, proportionally.
Anybody, who is a winner over so many randomly provided placed bets by any defined approach, is a long run winner.
There is another noteworthy thing that a long run doesn't mean playing 10,000 cycles in continuity. You can play 100 cycles for 100 days and the overall result will reflect the "long run" impact.

 

Great subject. What is long run. Does long is a combination of short runs? If so we just need to make sure we win short term. And then "leave while you're ahead" sounds like good advice...

 

People have been conditioned to say "long run" as an acknowledgment that they are aware of the "law of large numbers" frequentist opinion.

Because of that accepted standard by many, Reading Randomness will take a few years to start the arguments all over again. How do you quantify attacking the win streaks only? The attempt to subjugate the method by marginalizing it as a subjective truth is just obfuscation up till now. So I bring the world a full sample of exemplifiers. These are complete contradictions to the notion of a law of large numbers.Human nature will turn this into a stampede. I get more and more success reports. These are people that go from wanting to learn if it is true to being convinced that it is true.

 

Your above comments are right on, my sentiments exactly. Long run cannot be defined specifically, you say "in enough trials", I say over a period time however long or short that may be. Same thing. We all know that eventually a strategy will crash, so why do we even bother to play at all when we know that eventually we will lose? Ah,ha, that is because we don't actually believe it deep down inside. We are a creature of hope, we say there has got to be a way I can beat this and I will. Here is the main problem hard core gamblers have: When winning, when is enough, enough? When losing, when is enough, enough. There is a way to be a winner by knowing when enough is enough.

Her is an approach to winning at roulette that is as good as any and better than some. 1. Test a few roulette strategies until you find one that shows fairly good potential. 2. Create the largest operating bankroll you can afford to lose. 3. Determine how many spins is to be considered a session. 4. Determine how many units to be won or lost per session. 5. Determine how much you want to win ultimately that if achieved, game over for good. 6. Estimate how many sessions you think you can play staying within the short run. If you are ahead in winnings after you reach your estimated short run, play from that point forward with your winnings only, your initial bankroll is out of the game. This is just a guess of course, but it's part of a plan and better than no plan at all. If you have a bankroll you can afford to lose but the potential of a certain gain, and you quit playing according to your own rules, you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose except your initial bankroll which you could afford to lose anyway. So there.

 

You are just delaying the inevitable which is going bankrupt by not exposing yourself to the House Edge. There is no difference if you play 10000 spins without a break and reaching this amount of spins over 1 year by playing 100 spins sessions occasionally. Your so called good advice is known as the "Hit and Run" Strategy which is as old and useless as the Martingale.

 

That is exactly right and to be heeded above all advice, delaying the inevitable. I will figure out a way to delay the inevitable for ever. It can be done with the right approach. Right?

 

The right approach is to never put a bet on the Roulette table

 

How can i lose in the long run if I win the short runs?

 

That's kind of faith based if you believe it. Nobody can not expose themselves to the house's advantage. It's built into every spin. The payouts are not equal to the odds. But you don't have to expose the same amount of money on each bet. You can lose an unfunded bet selection and then it all comes down to selecting when to do that. You believe that nobody can know when to use a virtual bet. Without the use of good timing there is no good timing. This is not about long run or hit and run. It's about knowing when not to fund a bet selection. You can lose all the bets that you are supposed to lose in the long run. You just don't have to pay to lose all the bets in a losing streak. It takes all the bets in order to lose against the house's advantage. I'm saying that you can know when you are in a losing streak. You can pull the plug and change the math.

 

Because there will come a day where your no edge system will lose big time and never recover your previous wins. It is basic probability, the more spins you play, the more exposed to the House Edge you are. If I open RX soft and play the Martingale on Red during 20 spins right now, I have more chance to be in profit than if I play it for 2000 spins.
And no, I don't believe anyone can know when his luck is back or gone during a playing session. If it was the case, he would become the richest
person on earth in no time, and all bets game would disappear all of a sudden

 

And there may just be one other right approach also.

 

You've the right to dream about it and spend your time finding the HolyGrail if you've nothing better to do.

 

Okay Bago, you have enlightened me to finally understand what the long run is according to your thinking. The long run according to you is the point when a person looses all of his winnings and his complete bankroll. Total ruin. Who in their right freaking' mind would play to that point? Actually many, but no accounting for morons. I like Rona's advice, we will only play the short runs and not the long runs. Can't lose much this way.

 

I have nothing better to do. So there.

 

If you like to play Roulette, you will continue to do it so for a very long time right?. What you are explaining is you will play Roulette rarely like buying a lottery ticket for your birthday? In this case, yes you can be a winner and if you don't win, you won't lose much. But I thought you were willing to play often. So yes again, in this case, you will lose overtime and never be winning money playing Roulette.
As I said, a lot of short sessions is equal to the long term because it is the number of spins played that will catch you, not the time spent in the Casino drinking whiskey to the bar in order to forger your losses.

 

You are always talking about people who play helter skelter with no plan. If I have a plan to play 50 sessions only and win or lose X amount of units within those 50 sessions and no more, this could be well within the short run. The key to this whole discussion as many have stated in the past, have a fairly decent strategy, have a money management plan and be willing to quit before ruin. If this is not your strategy, then you will get what you deserve. Everybody who plays a strategy will lose a session now and then, but not everybody losses using a strategy to the point of ruin.