Friday, February 13, 2009
Are all bets the same?
BUT, what about these two possible bets: (1) betting 35 units, one each on 35 different numbers; or (2) betting 34 units, one each on 34 different numbers?
Think about this, if you lose under the 1st option (35 units), it will take you 35 wins to offset one loss, BUT a loss under the 2nd option can be offset with only 17 wins. Doesn't this seem like an advantage??
More thoughts (on a later day) - Looking at the first scenario: If the wheel hit 38 different numbers, you would have won one unit 35 times and lost 35 units three times for a net loss of 70 units. Looking at the second scenario: If the wheel hit 38 different numbers, you would have won two units 34 times (+68) and loss 34 units 4 times (-126) for a net loss of -68. Is this the advantage?? a mere 2 units? or is my math simply wrong again??
Thursday, January 8, 2009
My Latest Conundrum
Sunday, January 4, 2009
An Exploitable Anomaly?
What is an anomaly?
Because there are 38 slots on a roulette wheel, math and probability theory would tell us that if you played one number straight up, you could expect to see the number hit once every 38 spins. There would be no reason for you to expect to encounter the number 17, for example, any more or less often than once every 38 spins.
If you were to set out to play one number for 38 spins, you would very often find yourself winning (once during the 38 spins). A single number on the inside of the roulette layout pays 35 to 1, this means that you will receive 36 chips back after placing one winning bet of one single chip. If you commit to play the number 17 for 38 spins in a row (stopping after a win), you will have a positive result if your number hits during the first 35 spins (with your expected gain diminishing with each spin). You would break even if your number hit on the 36th spin and you would suffer a small loss if your number came up on the 37th or 38th spin. (Of course, you would lose big if your number never hit during the 38 spins.)
IF the number did exactly as it is expected to do (appear every 38 spins), you would lose in the long run an amount equal to the house edge. The casinos rely on this.
But what about the "fact" that only 24 numbers will appear during the next 38 spins? Shouldn't this give us some potential edge?
Next bet (9u) = 216u, a win on this bet would give us 324 minus 312 = 12 units
60 decisions per hour
20 wins on first spin
15 wins on 2nd spin
5 wins on 3rd spin
40 wins x 12units = 480 units per hour
less one full series loss = 168 units per hour
The real question is: How often would you see a full-series loss? Is once an hour realistic or would you see more or less?
I wonder what a study of the Zumma roulette book would show?
Would it be difficult to program an Excel spreadsheet to identify if the next number is one of the last 24?
Is 24 the magic number? Or is there a better number to use?
Perhaps a better way of looking at the "units" required for this sort of play is to recognize that the smallest bet you play is 24 units. It is probably best to consider this 1 unit. Looking at this system from this angle, you will be winning .5 (one-half) unit with every spin (not counting losses).
1 unit = 24 chips
With the minimal chip size of 1 dollar, your unit would be $24. Usually, table minimums require a bet of at least $10 on the inside. Table maximums for inside numbers are often limits on the amount you can bet on a single number.
Here's a chart to show requirements and anticipated results:
Chip = $1
Unit = $24
Largest Bet = $216
Net/hr = $168 (with 1 full-series loss per hour)
Bankroll = $312 x 3 = $936 ($1,000)
******************************************
Ratio Between Wins and Full-Series Losses = 12/312 = 1 to 26
******************************************
Chip = $5
Unit = $120
Largest Bet = $1,080
Net/hr = $840
Bankroll = $1560 x 3 = $4680 ($5,000)
*******************************************
Double your bankroll in 6 hours.
But, does it work??
ANy thoughts?? Please comment.
Simple Grinds
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Systems 101 - A Primer
I thought I'd begin a thread design for the entry-level gambler looking for a system to play. You will not find any systems in this thread only basic information. You will also not find the rules of play here. If you will check other threads within this blog, I have recommended some books for the beginner (and intermediate) player.
I think a good place to start is the distinction between bet selection and money management. Simply put, Bet Selection systems (BS) tell the player where to place the next bet (like on red, or player, or passline for example). Money Management (MM) systems tell the player how much to bet on the next decision.
Most systems are mathematical templates that tell the player when to bet, where to bet and how much to bet. Typically systems are designed for Even Chance or 50/50 decisions (EC).
It should come as no surprise that ALL Casino games have a built in house edge. This is the amount of money one can expect to lose by playing the game. The edge is determined by the difference between the true odds and the payout. A simple example is playing one number straight up in roulette. If you place one unit on the 17 and the 17 hits, you are paid 35 to 1. You receive 36 units (comprised of your original bet and 35 of the house's chips, now might be a good time to stop playing). Because there are 38 numbers on an American roulette wheel, you have a one in 38 chance of winning a bet that pays 35 to 1. If true odds were paid, you would be paid 37 house units instead of 35. The house edge changes from game to game, but this simple illustration would be true for every single bet you can place in the casino. Some people win, some people lose but the casino ALWAYS wins, just look at the casino and this fact should be plainly evident.
It is widely claimed and typically accepted that math proves that systems do not work. It seems that with thorough testing, all that one can hope for is to break even (or more accurately, to break even less the house edge).
There are system testers available for system's players to test their theories against actual casino results. (see another thread in this blog for links to purchase testers). The idea behind testing is that if your system can beat the testers, then it should perform strongly under real circumstances. It should seem obvious that if you can not beat the testers, you system has a good chance of failing in the casino.
Is there hope? If math brings you to the conclusion that systems will not win and the testers are nearly impossible to beat, is there hope for developing a successful strategy? Many successful players claim that some systems perform reliably in the short run and the key to winning in the long run is changing systems to respond to the game as you play it. Testing several systems which are triggered by (sometimes) subtle changes in the game is a very difficult task. Therefore, it is plausible that a successful systems player could win in the long term by making changes that would not be easily duplicated in the tester books (like leaving the table in search of a more lively one for example).
LONG RUN v. SHORT RUN
more later . . .
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The Arsenal
More Later . . .
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The O/L/6 System for Baccarat
Here’s a fresh idea for Baccarat:
Ordinarily, systems are presented with a preliminary explanation of the “why.” I am a firm believer that although all readers would benefit from an understanding of the math and logic and probabilities behind a system, most readers will skip through the explanation of the “why“ and focus their efforts on the “how to.” Unfortunately, the results are that many players will dismiss the system as ineffective without working on it or they will play the system without a thorough understanding of the possibilities and will become prematurely disenchanted when they do not see immediate results. With this in mind, I’ll start by giving you the system, that way you can get on with your gambling, or ridicule or scorn.
Your first bet is 1 unit and is placed on the opposite decision as the 6th prior outcome. The previous pattern is then bet against and bets are doubled until you win or lose the 6th decision.
When you win, you begin anew. Your first bet after a win is the opposite of the 6th prior decision at that point.
BUT by betting that the last 6 decisions will NOT repeat in precisely the same order, you are betting that an event that has a 1 in 64 likelihood of occurrence will not happen back-to-back.
More "bad math" to think about: