House Edge Don't Matter

[Scarface]

Good stuff Joe!  Do you happen to have the data for units lost and won?  Just curious because wins and losses per session could be big differences.  Let's say we ran 1000 test for 100 spins betting red only.  Maybe results show an equal number of win/loss sessions...but end result could still end in a loss or gain of a couple hundred units.   I'm pretty sure with the number of test you ran, it will be pretty equal to house edge

[D.Karas]

It does matter since if there was no zero you couldnt loose to zero

[Joe]

Do you happen to have the data for units lost and won?

I've added to the code so that it now shows the final balance, I assume that's what you meant? Sample run :

Code Select Expand

       Final Balance (Zero) :    -308
    Final Balance (No Zero) :     105

   Winning sessions with no zero :   49
    Losing sessions with no zero :   47
Break-even sessions with no zero :    4
      Winning sessions with zero :   38
       Losing sessions with zero :   57
    Break-even session with zero :    5

P(W) on standard wheel : 38.00%
      P(W) on NZ wheel : 49.00%


New code :

Code Select Expand

const
  NS = 100;  // number of sessions
  SL = 150;  // session length
var
  z,nz       : array[1..NS] of integer; // session results
  i,j,spin,
  zw,zl,bez,
  nzw,nzl,
  benz,sumz,
  sumnz      : integer; 
begin
  sumz := 0;
  zw := 0;
  zl := 0;
  bez := 0;
  sumnz := 0;
  nzw := 0;
  nzl := 0;
  benz := 0;
  randomize;
  for i := 1 to NS do begin
    for j := 1 to SL do begin
      // get spin (no zero wheel)
      spin := random(37);
      if spin in [1..18] then
        dec(nz[i])
      else if spin in [19..36] then
        inc(nz[i]);
      // get spin (standard wheel)
      spin := random(37);
      if spin in [0..18] then
        dec(z[i])
      else
        inc(z[i]);
    end;
    // no zero session results
    if nz[i] > 0 then
      inc(nzw)
    else if nz[i] < 0 then
      inc(nzl)
    else inc(benz);
    // standard session results
    if z[i] > 0 then
      inc(zw)
    else if z[i] < 0 then
      inc(zl)
    else inc(bez);
    inc(sumz, z[i]);
    inc(sumnz, nz[i]);   
  end;
  writeln('Final Balance (Zero) : ':30, sumz:7);
  writeln('Final Balance (No Zero) : ':30, sumnz:7);
  writeln;
  writeln('Winning sessions with no zero : ':35, nzw:4);
  writeln('Losing sessions with no zero : ':35, nzl:4); 
  writeln('Break-even sessions with no zero : ':35, benz:4); 
  writeln('Winning sessions with zero : ':35, zw:4);       
  writeln('Losing sessions with zero : ':35, zl:4); 
  writeln('Break-even session with zero : ':35, bez:4);
  writeln;
  writeln('P(W) on standard wheel : ':25,zw * 100 / NS:3:2, '%'); 
  writeln('P(W) on NZ wheel : ':25, nzw * 100 / NS:3:2, '%')               
end.

[ego]

House Edge with La Partage has been simulated for 60.000 placed bets - even money with various staking plans - many stay and end with positive results.
Is all in Philip Koetesh book.

Cheers

[Scarface]

Ok, back to basics.  If you're strategy can't survive a wheel with fair payouts, then it can't survive with house edge.  Testing should be done with realistic bankroll.  If test shows an aggressive progression like 1 unit to 100 units, and you know you'll never play like this with real money, scrap it.  Try something different.

Even with a 1 million spin sample, reds can still outnumber blacks by 100s, even 1000.  Flat betting a static system indefinitely will not work.  There is nothing in the law of large numbers that's says ver selections have to equal out.

So, what doe that leave us with?  The enemy of system players is variance.  If your strategy can't be controlled on a non zero wheel, how can you expect it to do well when you factor in the house edge.

Negative variance will come.  There is no way to avoid it.  However, nothing says we have to make the same static bet, or follow the same rules that we make for ourselves. 

What is in our control?  How can you beat a wheel without zeros? 

[ozon]

House edge is of great importance.
Why do you think why the betfair removed a few years ago wheel without a zero.
Because defeating such a circle is not a problem.
I even wrote a topic in this forum, where I described exactly how to beat a wheel without a zero.
But get a real edge of more than 2% and eve  minimal   low  win  over house edge, playing flat, or with minimal positive progression in long run is bordering on a miracle.

[Steve]

House edge don’t  matter 😱

Don’t say things that are forbidden in the forum. 

Steve and the goons will come and attack

😂😂😂😂😂

Flat earthers making jokes at the round earthers. Clueless.

[Steve]

Variance is not being understood here. Basically its the deviation from what you expect. There is always variance.

With the exception of increasing the amount of numbers you bet, you cannot reduce variance.

So if you want a low variance system, bet 30 numbers or so.

But it wont help if your win rate is still below payouts. Earth is round.

Variance is not the enemy. The odds or payouts arent the enemy. The enemy is the player's own ignorance.

[Roulettebeater]

are you You neglecting the effects of the house edge ?

[Joe]

Another way to reduce variance is to make more bets. As we know, in the short term anything can happen (meaning high dispersions), but these will even out as the number of bets increases. But the more bets you make the more you are exposed to the house edge grinding you down, so there's a trade off; isn't there always in life? ;-)

If you were able to lower the variance without having to make more bets or increase the quantity of numbers played so that you could use a progression safely, then you may still lose at the standard rate but would easily be able to make up the losses with your money management. Or you can attempt to increase your hit rate. Doing that may not reduce the variance but it would shift the bell-curve to the right and so away from negative territory. 

So those are the two possible paths to the holy grail, as I see it. You don't have to get an edge in order to win, but lowering the variance may be just as hard to do.

[Steve]

Variance has no part in the hg because it alone doesnt address the fundamental problem, which is odds vs payouts.

Reducing variance still has a use if you want more predictable, and less volatile results. But again it still doesnt change the fundamental problem.

[Joe]

Variance has no part in the hg because it alone doesnt address the fundamental problem, which is odds vs payouts.

Steve, why can't you bypass the problem of odds vs payout by reducing the variance? As I said, if you can lower the variance enough to use a progression or some clever money management without getting anywhere near the house limits, you can still make a profit even though you haven't changed the odds. And which is more important, changing the odds or making a profit?

Changing the variance isn't locked to changing the odds; I can't see any theoretical reason why you can't change the variance without having to change the odds. After all, you can do it the other way round; you can change the odds without changing the variance.

[Steve]

you can lower the variance enough to use a progression or some clever money management without getting anywhere near the house limits, you can still make a profit even though you haven't changed the odds.

Thats not changing odds. Thats trying to win short term. Theres a big difference.

If your goal is to win most timesyou play, with the understanding when you do lose, you could lose all previous winnings and more, that's easy. Many systems do that.

But if you want an approach where simply the more you play, the more you earn.. then you absolutely must change the odds.

Changing the variance isn't locked to changing the odds; I can't see any theoretical reason why you can't change the variance without having to change the odds.

Of course you can change variance. But odds are different.

You can decrease variance by betting more numbers. Technically this changes the odds BUT it does not change the difference between odds and payouts. When i say you must change the odds, i specifically mean you must increase accuracy of predictions to be high enough to overcome the unfair payouts. Its just simpler to say "change odds".

What you are talking about is finding an approach with more stable results.

The best approach for this is probably bet all the even chances for one side, and use a +1 progression after losses, and -1 after wins.  Bet something like odds, blacks, 1-18. To lose, you would be a bad and rare losing streak.

[falkor2k15]

I think the variance problem is tied up with the hold/cold fallacy. People think that the Law of the Third is a reflection of variance - but that's actually what we expect to happen.

Joe, I don't see how you can control the variance? Perhaps you could post a couple of examples?

[Steve]

The more numbers you bet, the lower your variance. Its really simple.

Of course prediction accuracy affects variance too but thats only for AP.