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

[Steve]

I wrote an article about it at link:://:.roulettephysics.com/beyvoyager-no-zero-roulette/

Basically in the short term, it's worse. But if you play long term, it's much better.

[MrJ]

Even though I appreciate you posting this, I have zero sympathy for anyone that may of lost money.

Ken

[RouletteGhost]

5 dimes offers enhanced payout american roulette

House edge is lower then euro wheels

Just a fyi

[The General]

If you're playing online, then why on earth would you want to play the 00 game instead of the single 0 game???  I'm sure the no zero is part of a scam.

In general, playing online is a foolish bet.

[RouletteGhost]

Enhanced 00 wheel

[MrJ]

If you're playing online, then why on earth would you want to play the 00 game instead of the single 0 game???  I'm sure the no zero is part of a scam.

In general, playing online is a foolish bet.

Yep and thats what I dont understand about Celtic Casino. I practice there on the 00 wheel while people are betting real money on it. If you are ABLE to play there, why are you not on the 0 wheel, I dont get it?

Ken

[Proofreaders2000]

I thought BetVoyager had an honest RNG.  Who would have thought the casino was dishonest?

[MrJ]

If I had to guess (I have NO proof of this), I would say there are no honest RNGs, sorry.

Ken

[RouletteGhost]

let me play devils advocate

Bet Voyager RNG MUST be fair and truly random.....if it were not, they would not be charging commission, they would not need to

if you win on bet voyager and its fair, then i see nothing wrong with it

and thats my thought

[MrJ]

Let me ask this.....what is the min and max bet for an inside number at the casino in this title?

Ken

[MrJ]

Let me ask this.....what is the min and max bet for an inside number at the casino in this title?

Ken

Ok, this is my point and I wont change my mind on it (lol).

My guess is, the min is VERY low. 1 cent? and the max is most likely not too bad either.

I'm not talking about a straight up number but we'll use a street as an example.

If that RNG is 100% fair...I dont see how you couldn't use a VERY long street progression and not lose.

How long? I dont know, I need the mins and max of that site. but a 100 step progression (starting at a very low min bet only) and not losing, is not out of the question. Can you use a 100 step progression on a street at a REAL casino with a $5 min bet? No.

The opposite of that.....I think the *ONLY* way this is possible to lose is on a non-fair RNG.

If the RNG site wanted to be 100% LEGIT, either the max bet would have to come down and/or the min bet would have to go up, quote me on that s**t. On top of that, using a bot? Its a decent bet if you had the correct BR and a fair RNG....but I highly doubt it.

Ken

[MrJ]

As I much as I dont like progressions, lets be honest, where are your limits?

Meaning, even to a anti-progression person (myself included), what do you think of a 250 step progression on a street? You know that sucker would not lose. Now what about a 10 step progression on a street? (lmao)....too damn low!!

So we agree, there is SOMETHING in the middle?
....but playable? Probably not. On a fair RNG? Again, probably not.

Ken

[ati]

Table min is 5 cent. In my opinion table limits doesn't really matter, a 20 step martingale would need a bankroll of over 26K. No one's gonna sit down with 26K to win 5 cents.
Low limits are necessary, so more people can afford to play, but at the same time, the same game is available for high rollers too. With progressions, even 1 cent starting bet can be too high. I know it sounds ridiculous But I did play progressions on 10+ inside numbers, starting from 1 cent, and very often the draw down was â,¬100+

[Bliss]

Steve,

I respectfully disagree with your analysis regarding Betvoyager's no zero option. What your calculations have failed to take into account is the compounding effect of the house edge. Even with 10% deducted from winnings, it's still a considerably better deal than playing with a normal house edge of -2.7%.

I wrote a computer simulation to prove it. The first part of the program simulates the situation where there is a normal house edge, and then calculates the profit (wins - losses).

The second part simulates the case where there is no house edge but 10% is deducted from winnings, which is calculated as 0.9 * (wins - losses).

Most importantly, the two parts of the program use exactly the same set of spins, so the comparison is fair.

10,000 bets are made on high numbers (even chances). Here's the code:

Code Select Expand

'A demonstration that roulette played with no house
'hedge but 10% deducted from winnings is superior
'to roulette played with a normal house edge (but
'no deduction from winnings)

'(1) with house edge

wins = 0
losses = 0
for i = 1 to 10000
  result = int(rnd * 37)
  if result >= 19 then
    wins += 1
  else
    losses += 1
  end if
next i
print "profit = "; wins - losses
print

'(2) no house edge, but remove 10% of winnings

wins = 0
losses = 0
for i = 1 to 10000
  result = int(rnd * 36) + 1
  if result >= 19 then
    wins += 1
  else
    losses += 1
  end if
next i
print "profit = "; 0.9 * (wins - losses)

And the results are:

Case (1) - normal house edge -376 units.
Case (2) - no zero but with 10% of winnings deducted -72 units.

So as you can see, case (2) is far from being "twice as bad" as a normal game with the standard house edge. In fact, the losses in the first case are over 5 times higher than for a no zero wheel, even taking into account the 10% deducted from winnings.

I appreciate that this result may seem counter intuitive, but many people don't understand how the house edge works. They think that if the house edge is say 2.7%, it means they can sit down at the roulette table with $100 and after a few hours leave with a loss of only about $3. What they don't understand is that the house edge doesn't apply to their starting bankroll, but the total amount they wager.

As to your second point about Betvoyager's randomness control, I haven't had a chance to see exactly how it works, but I don't think you've got it quite right there. Anyway I'll be back with my thoughts on it later.

[Steve]

Work for betvoyager? I'll check your post in detail later.