Does zero really have so much power?

[GamblerMickey]

Does zero really have so much power?

I have been running a simulation of a roulette system on a single-zero wheel and it turned out to be a loser.    Then I tried running the simulation by betting the opposite of before thinking that it would win, but it also was a losing system.   

As you can see on the graph included I have included both systems in same grap.  Then I tried to run the simulation but I took out the zeros of the simulation.    And now I get a graph looking much much better.   

So as you can see on the two graphs.    The balance follows the same pattern but with the zero included it just keeps going down.   

So is the zero really the thing killing all of our systems? I need to do more tests to find out but I have never thought that the zero had so much power.   

[Twisteruk]

No, it does not.


The Power is achieved by being payed 35/1 for a 36/1 outcome.

[chrisbis]

Its not does it have so much power.............................


.....................its, is its POWER

...................................ABSOLUTE!!!!




yes. x

[GamblerMickey]

ok.  I can relax then :)

[mr.ore]

Yes, it have such power. BUT - try your simualation with a single number instead of ECs. It takes much more time, before you can see it eating your bankroll. Say 100000 spins. Chances with a big variance are best way to beat zero in a middle term. Flatbetting one number, you can have a profit even after 100000 spins, but you pay for that by higher probability of being in greater loss.

[mr.ore]

With EC, on average you win every second spin, and payout is 1:1, so there is not much space for a good luck, because each zero moves the center of graph down. With a single number, you win every 37 spins, while payout is only 35. As with ECs, on average you lose one unit every 37 spins, but there is just much more room for a good luck. It is not such a big deal if it hits earlier or later than it should on average. Many times sleeping for 500 spins is a correction for an earlier winning trend. So zero is not really such a big deal for singles, and all good systems should utilize this fact - most spins should be played on single, and MAYBE if it is sleeping too long move to lower payout locations in order to slow losing streak, but do not be there for too long, maybe max. 5-10% of all bets.

[GARNabby]

Yes, it have such power. BUT - try your simualation with a single number instead of ECs. It takes much more time, before you can see it eating your bankroll. Say 100000 spins. Chances with a big variance are best way to beat zero in a middle term. Flatbetting one number, you can have a profit even after 100000 spins, but you pay for that by higher probability of being in greater loss.

Are you helping Victor with his tipping service?

[hanshuckebein]

@GM

thanks for this interesting simulation.

may I ask a question? which 'zero rule' did you use? la partage, en prison oder did you count the zero as an immidiate loss?

cheers

hans

[VIP]

No, it does not.


The Power is achieved by being payed 35/1 for a 37/1 outcome.

I agree

[mr.ore]

I'm not helping Victor, just telling my opinion. Anyway 100000 spins is too much even for singles according to my simulations, maybe 10000 spins is better number of spins where zero does not show that much and game is almost "fair". Look at the simulation of 131072 spins, all 37 numbers are there.

[mr.ore]

Well, let's consider 8192 spins as a number of spins, where the game is almost fair if flat betting single, anything above that might be problematic, the more spins, the bigger a hole.

[chrisbis]

..................and they are all (nearly all) going downhill !!

That right sir?

[mr.ore]

Yes, they are all going downhill, that is the power of unfair payout. Only way here is a progression, and that is also goind downhill, maybe even faster. We would have to invent a very mild progression which would make the game fair for more thousands of spins. I had a system based on labouchere which survived about 50000 spins on ECs, where after every spins I restructured the line to have the bigger probability of winning (computer algorithm, testing all possibilities in near spins...), but I have thrown it because it was useless anyway. If it's not winning just surviving at zero balance, and possible loss is big, why to bother, right? But if we just wanted to prolong "almost fairness", maybe it would be possible. Maybe even some bet selection would help? In the long term and mathematically no, but how often do you see on the graph that after a sleeper awoken once, it become sleeper right again? There are usually at least three "normal" hits before it sleeps again. Combining all this might be useful, and bet selection cannot hurt anything, since it does nothing, according to math.

[MrJ]

Other than the EC's, big deal regarding the zero(s). Its no different than a 16 or a 33 etc.

Ken

[GARNabby]

Yes, they are all going downhill, that is the power of unfair payout. Only way here is a progression, and that is also goind downhill, maybe even faster. We would have to invent a very mild progression which would make the game fair for more thousands of spins. I had a system based on labouchere which survived about 50000 spins on ECs, where after every spins I restructured the line to have the bigger probability of winning (computer algorithm, testing all possibilities in near spins...), but I have thrown it because it was useless anyway. If it's not winning just surviving at zero balance, and possible loss is big, why to bother, right? But if we just wanted to prolong "almost fairness", maybe it would be possible. Maybe even some bet selection would help? In the long term and mathematically no, but how often do you see on the graph that after a sleeper awoken once, it become sleeper right again? There are usually at least three "normal" hits before it sleeps again. Combining all this might be useful, and bet selection cannot hurt anything, since it does nothing, according to math.

You are coming "into stride", mr. ore!  Takes a lot of conceptionalizing to get to where you are, and will be.

This guy knows how to fight.