Roulette Oxymoron

I decided to re-create the "38 people go into a casino" again to make a point.

So in this display - all players will flat bet $25.00 every spin for 10,000 spins on "their own number".
Here are the results. I hope this puts to rest the "single spin" problem.

==============================
Player 0 ends +$4,700 edge ? +1.88%
Player 00 ends -$10,600 edge ? -4.24%
Player 1 ends -$21,400 edge ? -8.56%
Player 2 ends -$8,800 edge ? -3.52%
Player 3 ends -$34,900 edge ? -13.96%
Player 4 ends -$7,000 edge ? -2.80%
Player 5 ends -$7,900 edge ? -3.16%
Player 6 ends -$8,800 edge ? -3.52%
Player 7 ends -$6,100 edge ? -2.44%
Player 8 ends -$9,700 edge ? -3.88%
Player 9 ends +$2,900 edge ? +1.16%
Player 10 ends -$8,800 edge ? -3.52%
Player 11 ends -$19,600 edge ? -7.84%
Player 12 ends -$17,800 edge ? -7.12%
Player 13 ends -$22,300 edge ? -8.92%
Player 14 ends -$16,000 edge ? -6.40%
Player 15 ends -$8,800 edge ? -3.52%
Player 16 ends +$21,800 edge ? +8.72%
Player 17 ends -$24,100 edge ? -9.64%
Player 18 ends -$19,600 edge ? -7.84%
Player 19 ends +$2,900 edge ? +1.16%
Player 20 ends -$7,000 edge ? -2.80%
Player 21 ends +$8,300 edge ? +3.32%
Player 22 ends -$17,800 edge ? -7.12%
Player 23 ends -$26,800 edge ? -10.72
Player 24 ends -$12,400 edge ? -4.96%
Player 25 ends +$11,000 edge ? +4.40%
Player 26 ends -$20,500 edge ? -8.20%
Player 27 ends -$24,100 edge ? -9.64%
Player 28 ends -$20,500 edge ? -8.20%
Player 29 ends -$30,400 edge ? -12.16%
Player 30 ends -$23,200 edge ? -9.26%
Player 31 ends -$5,200 edge ? -2.08%
Player 32 ends -$31,300 edge ? -12.52%
Player 33 ends -$31,300 edge ? -12.52%
Player 34 ends -$15,100 edge ? -6.04%
Player 35 ends -$16,900 edge ? -6.76%
Player 36 ends -$16,900 edge ? -6.76%
==================================
All players combined ? -$500,000 edge ? (wait for it) -5.26%
===============================================

As a side note - you can see that flat betting over this many spins means less people can possibly leave this many spins later as a winner. That's why over time a progression is key. But that's not the point of this thread.
Sir Anyone and others who see the game as a 1 spin game - who above lost at the house edge ?
No one. That's not how the math works with random - it's also not how the casino wins.
The casino wins because ALL players COMBINED end with the house edge exactly - regardless of which players left as winners (6 of them) and regardless of how many left as losers.
It's the combined play of all players in the casino that makes the house edge. No single player plays AT the house edge unless that player plays EVERY number for every spin.
Then yes, they can expect to lost at exactly the house edge.
For everyone else - who use systems or methods - they will range from +8.75% (or better) to -13.96% (or worse) - but they will never lose or win at the house edge.

Now, in this test - you can sit for 10,000 spins above and tell those 6 players (or the 13 from the original thread) that they are DOOMED to the house edge - but you are lying to them and yourself.
You can prove this to yourself.
So the primary goal in making any type of system is bet selection - HOW to be one of those 6 above, or one of the 13 in the other shorter test (see where I'm going ?).
We want the shortest session possible. We want the greatest advantage possible (as far positive from the "house edge" as possible).
We have random - random is predictable, math beats a math game.
Unless you tell me that a player is betting every number on every spin, or
a player is going to see 38 numbers appear in 38 spins, or
a player is going to see 38 repeats in a row of a number - the door is open thanks to random.
The house edge will be there for all of the players in the casino, but I will always (yes, always) be
closer to the (above) +8.75% and even better because if I were playing my method on the above numbers, I would have been on at least 3 or 4 of those "top 6" and on at least 3 or 4 of those "top 13" in the original thread.
You can say random can't be beat and that it's a "oxymoron" because the house edge will kill you - but I just explained in detail that you are wrong to think this way. Take it or leave it.

 

That's because as far as the house edge fully revealing itself goes, 10k spins is not a large enough sample for just one number.


If you do the same sim for 100,000 spins many more of your 38 players will be losing, and some of them will be very close to house edge.

Do it for 1 million spins and most of them will be losing at very close to house edge.

 

Overtime the house edge is the biggest reason that the player will become a net loser, and variance becomes the smaller factor. This is easily demonstrated mathematically.

Please don't try and tell us next, that the house edge has no effect on you because you only play in the short term.

 

house edge is the first thing when frequent online gambler will consider to bet on site or not.
If u just do random or less bet in one site sure house edge will have small affect on u only.
If play long term on one site then u will see how house edge eat u when u on auto bet or consecutive long time in play.

 

We agree - that's why if flat betting (over a long long period of time) it becomes harder and harder to end up with a profit. Lucky for us we don't have to flat bet.

Lucky for us we don't have to flat bet AND
Luck for us we can use a system/method that doesn't stay on a single number over and over forever.
Instead of 1 million spins, or 100,000 spins or 10,000 spins we can play short sessions.

After 100,000 spins - the BEST number that could have been played in my test appeared at +2.24 STD DEV
and the player had 2,745 wins over 100,000 spins betting $25.00 flat bets and ended -$29,500 at -1.18 "edge".

Now what if I told you (wasn't the title of another thread ?) That we don't have to stay on a single number for that time ?
What if a player was on the BEST numbers to play for 5,000 spins then changed to the next BEST numbers to play for 5,000 spins and so on and so on for the 100,000 spins ?
You might fall off of your seat when you saw the results - and that is just a hypothetical silly idea. No one would stay on a single number for 5,000 spins lol. (I hope not)
Guess what ? I can stay on a few numbers for 60 spins (example) or 50 spins, or 80 and do this over and over again for the entire 100,000 spins. Where will I be ? It won't be -1.18 "edge" - it will be the massive edge that I'm getting now, and will continue to get for as long as I want to play.

I'm hoping that this is sinking in somehow - I know the next comment is that "you have no idea what's going to be hot and repeat and what's not so it's all useless". I explained this in other threads, you CAN know thanks to random.
It's up to you if you want to keep posting the facts about why X doesn't work (and we agree) or if you think about how to avoid doing what doesn't work I suppose.

 

You provided me a great opportunity to give you something to ponder;

What we see usually at busy roulette tables is a lot of chips spreaded across the table, then dealer shoves most of them into the hole and pays the rest to few winners.
This is what I call "gambling arbitrage", gamblers betting against each other, thus covering all probabilities on every spin, regardless of who is the winner the casino collects its share from the total action.
But what would be a gamble both ways, for the casinos too?
Can you imagine?
Let's say that if every player on the table was betting exactly the same and all together as a syndicate of gamblers had a single, unified, huge bankroll and by using different color of chips would be able to surpass any table limits...this is what could be a huge gamble for any casino around the world!

 

I'm curious why higher priced win streaks are always considered a balance argument for lower priced losing streaks. Where's the math that somehow equivocates that? It's not a progression that reaches a sequence of death. The math does not say that losing streaks are far larger and longer lasting than winning streaks are. You mathBoyz are still full of it. Deal with "Bet big when you are doing good and bet small when you are doing bad." It's a concept as old as gambling itself. Please don't embarrass yourself with you can't know when you are doing good.

 

Turbo does your (example) system of adding 1unit after a hit can pass this 10,000 spins test?

 

Not really arbitrage from the casino view, but see your point. Its the bookmakers percentage. The overround. The cut. As TG has explained above its the houses guaranteed percentage from the 'mass market' gambling. The single player isn't really subject to it in the short term. Which is where we are all playing.

However the 'method' in question is a form of arbitrage. Your re-investing in the market depending on each numbers differing performance.

 

In other words the system works, until it doesn't for some, and for others it fails from the start. Big wow.

 

I'm not saying you can't somehow make a go of it, I'm just saying your "10k spins for 38 players" argument is invalid.

It's a comfortable arrangement for the point your trying to make, and nothing more.

 

It's a perfect and 100% accurate example of the "house edge" - what it is and why it happens, how it happens and shows that contrary to the "1 spin" theory - it doesn't effect "all" players equally, it actually effects NO players equally. The only reliable "edge" the house has is ALL players who play a table game Combined.

 

Turbo did you read my question?

 

This is wrong since not every number reaches the same percentage (of appearances) within the same total of spins.
The time when every number would have equal hits is unknown and vague, actually you cannot be sure even if it'll happen.
So since HE based on the equal appearances of every number, it would be at least jumpy to take it for granted.
Have you ever tested to see if and when all numbers would be equal??
If casinos won millions it was because of the gamblers betting against each other (unintentionally) and not because of some absolute balance in the vague distant future.
TG said it, only if someone would bet all numbers flat then would lose exactly by the HE.
Of course nobody would do it, but many together are doing it.

 

Absolutely it should be the priority. However...

A progression won't magically turn a system which doesn't win flat betting into a winning system.

And a large number of short sessions don't add up to one long one?

Seems like this is the only possible hope remaining.

 

Rona, it is harder to win playing only flat bets, so this is a reason why Turbo does not want to hear you

Longer is session, harder is to win, but maybe Turbo still will win because his second part of "full nick name" is genius. He is very clever man and has huge experiences in creating of systems. I more and more think that he wins only because he not plays on "perfect" way, because if he would play so, then he should play more numbers and this would reduce winning units.

 

No worries. Think we are talking about different things.

 

You're right on this. 35/1 over more spins will manifest the edge for every number. But millions or hundreds of thousands of spins really doesn't matter.
I don't know why people want a betting method to proven over such a long range to qualify whether it works or not.
The facts are that we're always playing in the short term range and in the short term (if you can even call 10k spins short!?) the house edge isn't flat and the predictability of the patterns that random presents can be exploited. If TG could play 1 million sessions of 100 spins back to back, his outcome would be the same. 100 million spins doesn't effect the method because you're not playing one single number constantly. You are yourself, those 38 or 37 people. And you choose how and where to put your money.

 

It absolutely does - and the proof is the fact that the casino places min/max limits on bets.
They know as well as anyone that if there wasn't a cap put on the highest bet that you could make
then you could ride out any "bad run". Correct ?
(Unless you're going to tell me that they do it to "help" the player - or keep them from losing all of their money.)
So since we have the casino impose table limits - we know that it's one major weakness they have.
I'm sure they calculate the least chance of a progression maxing out with their limits and decided how
they limit bets. They didn't however ask me when they did it (laughs). Because a aggressive progression
(as opposed to the mild ones that can go for a long time) destroy the game. No one really bets that way though do they ? Everyone has been preached to death that progressions are "bad". It's simply not the case.