Betvoyager No Zero Roulette: worse in short term, better in long term

[button]

When I was a lad if you put $1 on a horse at 10/1
and it won you got $10 plus your stake back.

Now it seems that the stake is included in the $10
so it's only 9/1.

BVNZ pays 36/1 (which includes your stake) which, to me
is 35/1 so there is a house edge.

You are right Ross, they do in fact only pay 35/1.

[pcsoftdiy]

BV NZ is a little better than normal Single-zero casino.

The rule is BV NZ will charger you 10% of your 24-hour win.

We just suppose that we only flat bet red on every spins.

If we use robots, we can spin 4 times per minute. So we will have  4*60*24 = 5760 spins per 24-hour session.

For NZ roulette. We suppose day one we have 40% red and day two we have 60% red.

So day one:  2304 red and 3456 black, we lose 1152 units
     day two: 3456 red and 2304 black, we profit 1152 units but only get 90% of it, should be 1036.8 units.
These two days: we lose 1152-1036.8 = 115.2 units.

However: for single zero roulette.

Two days should be 5760*2= 11520 spins
     Red: should be 11520*18/37=5604.32
     Black and zero: shoulbe be 11520*19/37 = 5915.67
    If we only flat bet red on single zero. we will lose 5915.67- 5604.32 = 311.35 units for same two-day gaming.

[Steve]

It just depends on how long you play for.

[pcsoftdiy]

House edge is a story on long term.

If we play flat bet as long as possible. We can count every session to two group. one is losing one is winning. It is similar with the two-day example above.

No zero but charge 10% on winning is better or worse than single zero depends on the losing rate on losing session.

The example above suppose the losing rate is 60%. NZ lose 115 units less than 311 units on single zero.

But if the losing rate is 80%. NZ will lose 345 units more than single zero.

The balance point is 77%. NZ will lose 311 units equal to single zero.

But I don't think random no zero roulette can have such high volatility.

[psimoes]

The 40/60 example you posted was deceiving because the taxed result over the winnings isn´t always the same in every possible situation. 10% of 60 isn´t equal to 10% of 80. Even when the outcome gets reversed to be fair to the even chances. They´re still not returning 10% of your losses.

The example you posted for the SZ roulette was correct, so an example for the NZ must be done in the same way:

5760*2=11520 Total spins, or units bet.

11520(18/36) = 11520*0.5=5760 There being same odds for Red and Black, the balance point is actually 50/50.

5720*10% = 572 units lost to NZ. Against 311 units lost to SZ.

The HE for NZ  is 5% which is slightly less than DZ roulette, but in reality you´ll need to have a 10% edge over the house just to break even.
In the long run it´s a wolf in sheep´s clothing.

[pcsoftdiy]

to psimoes,

You don't really understand my example.

If you use 50% losing rate for every session, you lose 0 units.

[psimoes]

Yes, but 50% losing rate means 50% winning rate. You lose 10% of your winnings, which is 5% total.

[pcsoftdiy]

It seems you never play bv nz before. bv does not charge every winning. They charge for winning session. The session can be as long as 24 hours.
For example, from beginning your have 1000 units bankroll.
You place red flat bet only for 24-hours, if you count the winning rate as 50%, you win 5760 units and lose 5760 units. So your bankroll is still 1000 units. Bv will not charge you.

[psimoes]

Just read my previous posts in this thread.

[pcsoftdiy]

Got your idea. You just think in the long run the losing and winning session should be 50% to 50%.  And we will pay tax on winning session.

Of course bv nz still has house edge.

But your example is like you only play one spin per session. It is completely different from my example.

[psimoes]

OK. Well, how I see it in the long run there is no difference between taxing individual winning spins and full winning sessions. I´s just another level of abstraction. The percentage remains constant.

[psimoes]

5760*2=11520 Total spins, or units bet.

11520(18/36) = 11520*0.5=5760 There being same odds for Red and Black, the balance point is actually 50/50.

5760*10% = 576 units lost to NZ. Against 311 units lost to SZ.

Corrected

[vineeee]

Regarding the encrypted file, I havent had a look at exactly what theyre doing that may prevent "deniable encryption". Again Im not accusing them of using it, just saying its possible. In the end, you cant beat any rng anyway. Where to play depends on where you can get an edge.

Steve,
i am studying roulette for more than 10 years, i can beat no zero roulette in long term (i can prove you). The only problem in BV is that maximum numbers to download in advance is  only 50. If they will be at least 100 000 numbers in advance in that zip file, then i just laugh to 10% percent commisson, they can take 20% and still no problem to make some money constantly.

[psimoes]

@pcsoftdiy,

I think there is another constant, but I´m not sure about its significance:

Bankroll is 1000 x 2, two sessions x 2. Betting on Red.

1st session: red wins 950, black wins 50

1000+950-50=1900, tax=90

session total =1810

2nd session: red wins 50, black wins 950

1000+50-950=100

1810+100=1910

net loss 2000-1910=90

90/2000=0.045 or 4.5% HE

3rd session: red wins 550, black wins 450

1000+550-450=1100, tax=10

session total = 1090

4th session: red wins 450, black wins 550

1000+450-550=900

1090+900=1990

net loss 2000-1990=10

10/2000=0.005 or 0.5% HE

As the HE varies, it seems the more you go for a higher profit, the higher house edge you face. But the ratio is linear: 10/0.5=20 vs. 90/4.5=20. What this constant value of 20 means here, I don´t know.

In a "best possible situation" followed by a "worst possible situation"where red wins 1000 on one session and blacks wins 1000 on the other, HE is 5%.
In a "most inocuous situation" where red wins 500 and black wins 500, HE is 0. The ratio being linear, the average would be 5+0/2=2.5. Could the actual house edge for NZ be 2.5% ?

Thinking now about triplicing the original 1000 bankroll on a good session and losing no more than 1000 on a losing session. Think it´s promising.

[pcsoftdiy]

Steve,
i am studying roulette for more than 10 years, i can beat no zero roulette in long term (i can prove you). The only problem in BV is that maximum numbers to download in advance is  only 50. If they will be at least 100 000 numbers in advance in that zip file, then i just laugh to 10% percent commisson, they can take 20% and still no problem to make some money constantly.

I just use some auto mouse and keyboard software to click the button to generate random numbers in advance every 10 minutes,  Which can make sure BV can not generate numbers based on my bet.

To:psimoes

English is my second language. I am  1000+ times better at Math than English. So if I can not explain it clearly, That is it.

There is much difference between just charge 10% for session and for every bet.

Because every session can include up to 5620 spins. In 5620 spins it is impossible to meet very high volatility.

Remember in this 5620 spins you don't have any house edge, but in single zero, you will lose 311 units per 5620 spins just because there is one more zero.

The more spins your session have, the more stable your system is.

The lose rate will be towards 50% in the long run.

For example, we have 100-day plan to bet red only on bv nz.

Day 1, 5620 spins lose 80%
Day 2, 5620 spins win 80% but charge for 10% of winning.
Day 3, 5620 spins lose 55%
Day 4，5620 spins win 55% but charge for 10% of winning.
.......
Day 100. 5620 spins win 50%. no loss and no charge.

You can count every losing day to lose group, every win day to win group, charge 10% for win group.

If the losing rate is lower than 77% for whole lose group, we will lose less than bet every spins in single zero roulette.

In the long run, lose rate in all losing days is impossible to reach such high volatility as 77%.

This is why I can say in the long run, bv nz 10% commission on win session is better than single zero.


I have virtual play more than billion spins in RX software. It is very easy to make profitable RX strategy to beat no zero spins.