Roulette Measuring Success

The same is true for each & every game ≠stop-loss.

 

You only pay house edge on a win. If you don't agree with that then there is no point going further. Losses are just that, the payout on the win is where the house edge is paid, we are robbed the house edge in payout vs the true odds of the bet/risk we took.

The fact that we locked up a session win means we paid the house edge and beat the odds through positive variance. We won more than we lost AND WE PAID OUR DUES and we don't have to pay them ever again.

The next session is independent, we may suffer negative variance but remember are more likely to lose a session bankroll from variance than from the house edge. You just have to play too long to lose to HE.

If you argue each session is not independent then I'll have to sic the fallacy memes on your ass.

Now you can argue that positive and negative variance will ultimately cancel each other out through many losing and winning sessions and all you're left with is the house edge. Which is what I believe you are saying. Simpleton math analysis will arrive at this conclusion as long term the variance becomes smaller and smaller over the set of millions of independent trials.

However methods do exist to ensure more winning sessions than losing ones and when averaged out the winning session value is greater than the average losing session value. It is not that difficult to ride out negative variance within a session, can you always win with 100%? Of course not, probability always has a very long tail, but often enough to lock up a win.

For example if you have a method that has a failure rate of say 1 in 5,000, and your session target is 20% of session bankroll. On a great session you risk 5 units and win, on a good session you may need to bet 15 units and on a bad day you may require 50 units, on a really bad day 100 units and on an extreme outlier you lose the session bankroll completely due to negative variance, the 1 in 5,000 event happens. Your average number of units risked per session may be 25 units. And every 5,000 attempts at a session win it fails and you lose the entire session bankroll.

Given it takes less than 5 sessions to replace a bankroll (especially if you reinvest session wins to bet at a higher level) there is no problem if one manages their overall bankrolls. It's like a trade went south and you lost exactly the risk you were prepared to lose. We don't cry over losses, they are expected and planned for.

Build up 5 reserve bankrolls and it's a 1 in 125 billion you will lose all 5 back to back with a 1 in 5000 failure rate (and yes it could happen), but for a dose of reality it's about 1 in 125 you will die this year.

Am I worried? Yes, but not with gambling.

 

[QUOTE="Luckyfella, post: 126102,

Better still even if the 90 spin session is split into 3 smaller 30spins sessions the result remain the same.
.[/QUOTE]

This is really interesting

 

"1. Any series of bets has a negative expectation.
2. This expectation is the (negative) sum of the expectations of the individual bets.
3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
4. If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
(a) be a loser;
(b) eventually stay a loser forever, and so never again break even;
(c) eventually lose his entire bankroll, no matter how large it was." -Source is Dr. Edward Thorpe's "The Mathematics of Gambling".

In short it means your money management can't even make a dent in the house edge, regardless of how you raise and lower your bets at each spin of the wheel.

 

Exactly.

Shows that MJ doe not know the basics & cannot differentiate between essential constituents of the game.
Imagine when it gets more complex ..

 

Wow, MJ's post went completely over your head.

 

No, it didn't.

Instead of using biting the nail with the hammer sideways to get it out, he actually turned the hammer around pulling out the nail with its forks; tackling the problem resolutively.

You both just cannot see it.

 

Really? That's like earth shattering information that you felt would contradict all of the mathematicians, experts, and history?

 

You focus on infinity where variance is eliminated and everyone loses to house edge. I focus on where variance is king and we can actually win, the short term view.

My long term is built on session wins with a mathematically exact failure rate based on combinatorial analysis, simulations and other techniques you wouldn't understand.

It we look at insurance, the risk the underwriters take is carefully evaluated and the premium is charged based on this risk. Margins on the premiums are wafer thin and the overheads and payouts are very close to the premiums charged, but between those loss events the wins (premiums coming in) are used to bet on the market. The interval between loss events is what matters (and is why insurance companies stretch out the claims process to provide an interval) and within that loss interval, compounding of wins is possible. Nothing can stop the loss events, but between those events wins are multiplied.

The important point is that with money management and session wins, every session win has a multiplier effect over a number of winning sessions. What is eventually lost is not from our initial bankroll it is lost from wins on wins on wins.

You don't have to like the math of compounding, simpleton math looking at infinite spins never includes this effect.

 

Nonsense. There doesn't exist a bet size that you can multiply times a negative value and produce a positive one. You're yet another gambler living in denial.

 

You're so hung up on the house edge...it's just friction.

Do you pay tax on your income? Does it cost you to get to the casino,? Maybe a Greyhound bus fare and food stamps?

You see when I am placing millions of dollars worth of trades, I have friction that I need to cover, futures contracts have turnaround costs, there are brokerage fees to pay, margin accounts have interest to cover, then I have currency conversion losses, and then I have to pay banking charges and finally on top of all that I have to pay tax on my gains, plus there are office overheads, accounting fees and so on.

These all contribute to erroding any gains one makes in an EFFICIENT MARKET. How then can anyone make a profit? Well you can win through multiplying wins on wins between realised loss events. Simple as that.

With gambling there is only the tiny house edge, no brokerage fees, no accounting, no tax to pay as I live in a country where gambling is not taxed no matter how much you make. We have some notable gamblers with annual turnover in excess of 3.5 billion who don't pay tax. Why is gambling such a good bet? No black swan events, you never face an event that can wipe out a portfolio overnight.

But if I really focus on what you're saying. You say it's impossible to make a session win through positive variance. You say that all sessions are dependent and linked and therefore you have just committed the gamblers fallacy.

When I bet in a session, whatever variance anyone else had before me has no bearing on my session. Your variance you faced in your sessions has no effect on my session.

My previous session wins and losses have no bearing on the current session. But you say it does and it's building up like a hidden debt and that is the biggest fallacy I've ever heard!

The negative variance is dealt with in the session, it doesn't build up like an invisible monster and follow me around session to session.

There is no hidden debt or piper to pay as it's paid for in the session, and the session failure rate is precisely known. It's precisely known so that I have the required level of certainty in the interval between failure events to multiply a session bankroll many times over.

Any future session losses are basically paid out of compounded interest, never from my original seed money which I already took back long ago plus earnings. I could really give a fuck if I lost several sessions back to back, it's not out of my pocket.

Each session is independent, the variance is won and paid for on session by session basis.

Stop spreading fallacies and telling everyone there's a hidden connection between session and there's a house edge boogeyman lurking to get ya.

At the end of the day you don't understand probability or variance and you fail to understand how that can be leveraged.

 

THE ASS ESSAY is selling desperation clothed in seemingly smart reasoning that works on gullible, silly & those of weak will & running on hope .. when that hope evaporates they suddenly his LIEt & his illusions casted suddenly make 'sense' accepted as the truth.

 

DSSA

 

I'm not sure as to why you keep mentioning the market, and it's obvious, that you have no idea either.
You're money management folly is just that, and it does nothing to change the odds for the reasons others and myself have previously stated.

 

I think my family would notice if I had no idea what I'm doing.

But that's ok they are living in an imaginary reality and you must be right.

Or the other alternative is that you're nothing but an assclown who makes incredibly baseless and naive assumptions about everyone and everything because it makes you feel better about your pathetic self.

 

LOL, no point respond to his scam posting strategy. He seeks airtime.

 

Can you point out exactly where I claimed money management "changed the odds"?

You can't, can you. You are not an honest person and you twist things into something no-one ever said.

I have persistently maintained the probability 1/37 never changes.

You have an internal dialogue in your mind that you believe that's what I said and you try to claim people are saying something they never did.

We can change the odds based on how we bet, an example being betting a dozen 10 times has a different probability of success than betting singles 120 times. We don't change the 1/37 probability but we do change the probability of getting a win. How we bet also changes the variance.

Bettting on even chances has less variance than betting on dozens, bet on streets more variance again, bet on splits even more variance and singles having the most variance, add parlays and even more.

Variance is a tool we can tune, it enables us to win and beat the edge but it is also a double edged sword, the variance does cut both ways. The method of betting does matter and can even reduce house edge, but Dr Sir Dickhead says it matters not.

Without variance we can never EVER win, we can only pay the house edge. An example of zero variance would be betting every number, or both banker and player in Baccarat, you can't net a win as there is no variance, you pay exactly the house edge as a net loss on your win.

So assuming one doesn't bet every number or bet both Banker and Player the variance is what provides opportunity for profit and loss that exceeds the house edge. As a side note there is a way to profit betting both sides but casinos do their best to prevent that. You could in theory wash non-neg chips if a casino is lax and was to allow two colluding players to bet their non-neg chips on the same game taking opposite sides, both players make rebates on the churn win lose or draw exceeding the house edge. Highly likely to be noticed so more a theoretical idea than a practical one.

Dr Sir Dickhead says bet hundreds of thousands to a million times and you have no variance. Well I'm sorry, I don't play sessions that long, the variance has either had me in session profit or generated a session loss which I have a precise calculated rate of failure for. Either way the house edge and the variance is crystalised as a win or lose at the end of a session.

Quite simply, there is never a session the way I play where the house edge ever dominates the variance. Maybe Dr Sir Dickhead grinds away, on wobbly wheels forever and a day I don't know and I don't care.

Within a session if you survive the negative variance and chalk up a session win there is no further debt to pay, you already beat the negative variance and the house edge through positive variance.

Repeat, repeat and repeat. Once you know the failure rate of the method you use and the average profit vs the expected session loss, the rest is bankroll management which Dr Sir Dickhead says doesn't matter.

Let's all take his advice and report back shall we.

 

I remember days that Roulette forums were not about convincing Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone. This is sad.

I, for the hundredth time, ask @TurboGenius , @TwoUp , @Luckyfella , @DutchCrown and everyone else that possess useful knowledge for a winner approach to Roulette, to create a new thread and start talking concepts. Let's not waste this enthusiasm on convincing someone who quotes some other guy to make a point against you.

If you have a winner system, you should either be winning out there and not care about other forumers, or be winning and sharing with fellow Roulette researchers. Fighting with minority naysayers on a discussion board "about beating Roulette" is foolish, tbh.

If making sure that every naysayer alive is aligned with and convinced about what you believe is on your agenda, I must say, you can do better, or at least not do the worst.

This was my last try. I hate to jump in every time and remind you that how productive these posts could be. Leave it or take it. Many members here are looking for a constructive discussion to start contributing.

Peace out

 

The only way to have a discussion without the likes of the Dr Sir unspeakable crew throwing grenades is to ban him or take it someplace else where he cannot interfere.

Sadly there will always be his type nomatter where you go. I have no idea why he is on a gambling forum when he has nothing to offer than copy and paste.

Maybe his daddy was a bad gambler or he lost all his money being stupid gambling himself and is compensating. Or maybe he went loco watching for wobbly wheels, obsessed looking for his version of a four leaf clover. I mean anything less than a million spins is statistically irrelevant according to him. Could you imagine waiting that long to have an iota of certainty that a wheel has a bias and then having to give up and move onto the next wheel to watch another million spins when there's no exploitable bias? Maybe this is where the bitterness and envy comes from.

Side note: I'm sure he doesn't watch for a million spins but it's a great opportunity to rub his nose in his own excrement by holding him to the same standards he applies to everyone else.