Bet method based on mini-games

[GLC]

I have recently been playing around with a new idea.

I have been using different bet methods like martingale, Alembert, Labouchere, pluscoup, etc... but instead of basing them on each bet, I play a mini-game and each game represents a unit either won or lost in the global bet method.

In other words if I'm playing an even chance, say Red, with a flat bet and when I reach either +5 or -5 that ends the game.  That "GAME" becomes the 1st unit won or lost in my global bet method.

So, If I am playing Alembert (+1 on a loss, -1 on a win) as my global bet method and each unit is made up of a game to +5 or -5 and I play 25 spins and end up at -5 in my flat bet even chance mini-game, then that represents -1 in my global method.  My next bet will be at 2 units in my mini-game of flat betting an even chance.  Now my min-game will be at 2 units per bet and will end when I get to +10 or -10 (this is really my basic unit size times 2.  My basic unit size could be $1, $5, $10, $12 etc...)

If I lose my next mini-game, I add 1 to my game size and will be betting my basic unit size times 3.  I will play until I am +5 times 3 or - 5 times 3.  If I reach +5 times 3 or +15 if my unit size is 1, my next mini-game will be played at 1 times 2, etc...

This idea can be use to give an added element of safety to almost any system that can be played in roulette.  It works best with systems that can be played to + or - the same number of units.

Think about it.  I think you'll like it.

George

[mr.ore]

You should not play like that, you are only losing more without gaining anything. If you flat bet 5 units bankroll to get 5 more (so your target is 10 units) with 1 unit bet size, then your probability of winning is only 43.2825%. It is much worse than 48.6486% if you bet five units on even chance.

Look at this table, where it is clear, that flat betting is not worth it:

bankroll	bet	W	L	Pwin
0	no bet	-	-	0.0000%
1	1 unit on 1:1	2	0	7.7466%
2	1 unit on 1:1	3	1	15.9236%
3	1 unit on 1:1	4	2	24.5548%
4	1 unit on 1:1	5	3	33.6656%
5	1 unit on 1:1	6	4	43.2825%
6	1 unit on 1:1	7	5	53.4336%
7	1 unit on 1:1	8	6	64.1488%
8	1 unit on 1:1	9	7	75.4592%
9	1 unit on 1:1	10	8	87.3980%
10	no bet	-	-	100.0000%

Bankroll is your actual bankroll, you start at 5. If you win (W) you go to 6, on lose (L) to 4. Pwin means what is overall probability you get to 10 before you get to 0.


Rather try this as your minigame:

bankroll	bet	W	L	Pwin
0	no bet	-	-	0.0000%
1	1 unit on 8:1	9	0	9.6347%
2	1 unit on 8:1	10	1	19.4039%
3	1 unit on 5:1	8	2	29.0382%
4	3 units on 2:1	10	1	38.9424%
5	1 unit on 5:1	10	4	48.8436%
6	2 units on 2:1	10	4	58.7449%
7	3 units on 1:1	10	4	68.6461%
8	1 unit on 2:1	10	7	78.8149%
9	1 unit on 1:1	10	8	89.1212%
10	no bet	-	-	100.0000%

probability of doubling your bankroll is higher than flat betting five units on even chance. You have 5 units and bet 1 unit on line, if it loses your bankroll is 4 and you bet 3 units on dozen, and if that loses, your bankroll is 1, and you bet 1 unit on corner, if it loses, session ends, if it wins, your bankroll is 9, and you bet 1 unit on ec, if it loses then bet 1 unit on dozen, if that loses then bet 3 units on ec, if that loses bankroll is 4 again, and you bet 3 units on dozen and so on until you reach your target or lose 5 units.

Table is simple to follow, W says on what line/bankroll to go if you win, L says on what line to go if you lose. Useful feature of this little system - max. bet size is 3 units.

[mr.ore]

If you want your unit size to be 1, then this is still better than betting five units on ec, but worse than previous method:

bankroll	bet	W	L	Pwin
0	no bet	-	-	0.0000%
1	1 unit on 8:1	9	0	9.6217%
2	1 unit on 8:1	10	1	19.3924%
3	1 unit on 5:1	8	2	28.9905%
4	1 unit on 5:1	9	3	38.7220%
5	1 unit on 5:1	10	4	48.6589%
6	1 unit on 2:1	8	5	58.3634%
7	1 unit on 2:1	9	6	68.3000%
8	1 unit on 2:1	10	7	78.5810%
9	1 unit on 1:1	10	8	89.0011%
10	no bet	-	-	100.0000%

[GLC]

Mr. Ore,

Thanks for your very interesting method of trying to turn 5 units into 10 units.  I will give this a test since it looks like an interesting way to play.

I wasn't really suggesting that anyone use my flat bet on Red as a valid means of winning or losing 5 units.  I was just using a simple example to try to explain that my real post is the idea of playing mini-games within a larger framework that controls how large or small our unit size in a mini-game should be.

Let's say we play your 1st example of a better way to play and we bet $1 unit size.  But we don't just play $1 for mini-game after mini-game.  We use the classic Alembert bet method as a control to determine when to change our mini-game unit size.

So we have global units represented by a mini-game and betting units represented by the units in the mini-game.  A loss of a mini-game is a -1 unit in our global bet structure.  So a lost mini-game = -1 in our global structure and the rules of our Alembert global structure tell us to increase our mini-game unit size by 1 unit.  This means that our next mini-game will be played at $2 units.  If we win this mini-game we will have recovered the previous $5 loss and be ahead $5 because we have $5X2=$10-$5=+$5.

Had we lost the 2nd mini-game at $2 units, we would have a minus for our global structure and our Alembert rules say that on a loss we add 1 unit to our next bet (mini-game) so our next mini-game will be played at our base unit size times 3 or $1 X 3 = $3.  We continue to increase and decrease the size of our mini-game units per Alembert rules until we are at  +$5 at which time we reset our global structure to 1, our base bet size.

I'm not suggesting that we use Alembert as our global structure, it's just a common example that people can understand without having to go into a lot of teaching.  A safer global structure would be the +2/-2 or +3/-3 where we don't increase the size of our mini-game unit until we have lost 2 or 3 in a row etc...

This is an adaptation of the idea many authors use when they present their systems and they give you 3 levels of play.  You play at the basic level as long as you win.  On a loss you increase the size of your unit for quicker recovery of the lost units.  Their argument is that the odds of losing 2 times in a row with their system is very small.  If you do lose two games in a row, they have a third level to go to that raises their unit size much more so a win at the 3rd level will recover from the 2 previously lost games.  The odds of losing 3 times in a row are so remote as to be beyond the realm of possibility, so they say.

At first I thought I had come up with a new idea.  Now I realize it's just a tweak on an existing idea and not so clever after all.  I do think it's an improvement.  But that remains to be seen.

Once again, thanks for taking the time to respond.  Your input is always logical, mathematical, worthy of consideration and very appreciated.

George

[mr.ore]

I understood what you meant. But I just want to say, that hardly any method will do any better than the second method I posted there, if you have that five starting units. Classical systems like Labouchere, having only 5 units starting bankroll, have lower chance of doubling them than this, I'm not sure how bad are they, though.

Good roulette system should have probability of winning x units with starting bankroll sb very near (36/37)*sb/(sb+x), and you can hardly have it higher, only by very little small amount like half a percent, not enough to overcome house edge.

Look at this: VLS' 50% Money Management

link:://rouletteforum.cc/vls%27-view-b57/vls-50percent-money-management/msg25947/

It is similar idea with intersession bankrolls. You save half of a won money as your win, and the other half is divided again to two halfs, first is used to increase unit size in a session you will play next, and the second for cushions bankroll with minimal unit size. If you win several sessions in a row, your unit will become bigger, and you get more cushion bankrolls, then if you lose, you use minimal bankroll and play with that, again inflating unit size. If you lose several sessions in a row, you lose them with minimal unit size. It is positive progression. Might work nice with no-zero roulette, on normal roulette you need little more luck with that. You can experiment with kept % and how you split them, maybe after several wins play with cushion bankrolls, and after losing it, play with inflated one.

[GLC]

Well put Mr. Ore.  I presumed you knew what I was up to.  I just wanted to clarify for the sake of others reading who may not have spent as much time tinkering with roulette.

I appreciate the idea of using Victor's money management method in this situation.

I have been testing this idea with excellent results on the "Very Near Infallible Roulette System" posted in the General Discussion section.  The stretched pluscoup progression I recommend is also a positive progression.  Playing the VNIRS takes about 40 spins on average to either win or lose 10 units which is a lengthy mini-game, but I have been averaging about 55% wins which keeps me in the positive betting according to the pluscoup.

If my win average stays at this level, a big if, I am going to a more aggressive global bet method to increase profits without increasing risk too much.

I will look at how to most effectively apply Victor's method to the VNIRS.

Thanks,

George

[beretta28]

Mr.Ore

Bankroll:5 units
Win goal: + 5 units
According with all mathematicians and experts of the web,the highest probability to get it,is playing 5 units in one spin on an EC.
I could give you a lot of links (in French,Italian,German)
Are you sure you are not mistaken with your "second" method?

[mr.ore]

I am sure I am not mistaken. It works because on average you bet less than five units to reach your target, so they are not exposed to house edge. It is same idea as instead of betting two dozens, bet 1 unit on ec and if it lose, bet 1 unit on dozen. If you win, you are 1 unit up, if you lose, you are two units down. Probability of winning is 18/37 + 19/37*12/37 = 0.65303140978816654492.

If you bet on two dozens, each of them 1 unit, probability of winning is 24/37 = 0.64864864864864864865.

0.65303140978816654492-0.64864864864864864865=0.00438276113951789627

That is a difference of 0.4%, not much, but it is there.

We have two units, want to have 3 units. If we avoid betting one unit sometimes, probability of winning is increased. You do not bet on dozen, if you win on even chance. If you bet two dozens, you ALWAYS lose one unit while winning two.

Another example:


Let's have two methods to win one unit with five units bankroll, both are based on probability:

method 1: bet 1 unit on five lines, we cover 5*6 numbers.
Probability to win is p(method 1 wins) = 5*6/37=0.810810.

method 2: bet 1 unit on even chance, if it loses bet 1 unit on dozen, if that also loses bet last 3 units on even chance. Anytime it wins, profit will be 1 unit, while still risking 5 units bankroll like with method 1. Probability is different:
p(method 2 wins) = 18/37+19/37*12/37+19/37*25/37*18/37 = 0.821826

method 2 is better than method 1

Difference is 0.821826 - 0.810810 = 0.011016. That is 1.1% difference in probability. There are those little nasty tricks in gambling. Similar trick can be used in craps, for example. You will still lose in the end, and the difference is actually negligible. But you will play more spins this way for same price

[mr.ore]

Another example:

bankroll	bet	W	L	Pwin
0	no bet	-	-	0.0000%
1	1 unit on 35:1	36	0	1.5907%
2	1 unit on 35:1	37	1	3.1838%
3	3 unit(s) on 17:1	54	0	4.8236%
4	3 unit(s) on 17:1	55	1	6.4227%
5	5 unit(s) on 11:1	60	0	8.1081%
6	1 unit on 35:1	41	5	9.7049%
7	1 unit on 35:1	42	6	11.3037%
8	3 unit(s) on 17:1	59	5	12.9716%
9	3 unit(s) on 17:1	60	6	14.5857%
10	10 unit(s) on 5:1	60	0	16.2162%
11	6 unit(s) on 8:1	59	5	17.8350%
12	6 unit(s) on 8:1	60	6	19.4665%
13	1 unit on 35:1	48	12	21.0744%
14	4 unit(s) on 11:1	58	10	22.7067%
15	9 unit(s) on 5:1	60	6	24.3474%
16	4 unit(s) on 11:1	60	12	25.9963%
17	1 unit on 35:1	52	16	27.6124%
18	1 unit on 35:1	53	17	29.2307%
19	5 unit(s) on 8:1	59	14	30.8554%
20	8 unit(s) on 5:1	60	12	32.5260%
21	1 unit on 35:1	56	20	34.1531%
22	1 unit on 35:1	57	21	35.7833%
23	1 unit on 35:1	58	22	37.4180%
24	1 unit on 35:1	59	23	39.0576%
25	7 unit(s) on 5:1	60	18	40.7068%
26	2 unit(s) on 17:1	60	24	42.3517%
27	3 unit(s) on 11:1	60	24	43.9988%
28	4 unit(s) on 8:1	60	24	45.6459%
29	1 unit on 17:1	46	28	47.2638%
30	6 unit(s) on 5:1	60	24	48.9401%
31	1 unit on 17:1	48	30	50.5628%
32	2 unit(s) on 11:1	54	30	52.2074%
33	3 unit(s) on 8:1	57	30	53.8626%
34	13 unit(s) on 2:1	60	21	55.5088%
35	5 unit(s) on 5:1	60	30	57.2201%
36	1 unit on 17:1	53	35	58.8563%
37	2 unit(s) on 11:1	59	35	60.5332%
38	2 unit(s) on 11:1	60	36	62.1923%
39	4 unit(s) on 5:1	59	35	63.8464%
40	4 unit(s) on 5:1	60	36	65.5283%
41	1 unit on 17:1	58	40	67.1897%
42	1 unit on 17:1	59	41	68.8596%
43	1 unit on 17:1	60	42	70.5429%
44	2 unit(s) on 8:1	60	42	72.2261%
45	3 unit(s) on 5:1	60	42	73.9094%
46	1 unit on 11:1	57	45	75.5767%
47	1 unit on 11:1	58	46	77.2541%
48	6 unit(s) on 2:1	60	42	78.9592%
49	1 unit on 11:1	60	48	80.6652%
50	2 unit(s) on 5:1	60	48	82.3712%
51	1 unit on 8:1	59	50	84.0697%
52	1 unit on 8:1	60	51	85.7919%
53	1 unit on 5:1	58	52	87.4903%
54	3 unit(s) on 2:1	60	51	89.2363%
55	1 unit on 5:1	60	54	90.9817%
56	2 unit(s) on 2:1	60	54	92.7272%
57	3 unit(s) on 1:1	60	54	94.4727%
58	1 unit on 2:1	60	57	96.2653%
59	1 unit on 1:1	60	58	98.0822%
60	no bet	-	-	100.0000%

To double 30 units to 60, probability is 48.9401%. If you look at this operation as on a "flat bet 30 units on even chance", then you could say, that house edge is -2*48.9401%+100%=2.1198%. But it is not true, because you do not usually bet all 30 units before you win.

[beretta28]

Thanks,very clear.
I'm playing roulette looking at these tricks too.
Do you know the "Bold strattegy" of Dubins and Savage?
If Yes,do you agree?
If not,could you tell me the best way to increase your bankroll by 10%(Bankroll 10 units,win goal + 1 unit)?
Thanks in advance

[beretta28]

Mr.Ore
I'm happy to have finally met someone that "speaks my language" playing roulette.

1)Your example 30 units to 60 units is not clear.
What the first bet?What the second if you lose or win the first bet and so on...?

2)Your approch is clear:less you are exposed to house hedge,better it is.
But in ALL your examples ,if you have a long streak of W and L,without reaching your goal yet,the house hedge could be higher and higher because you are obliged to play a lot of spins.
Am I wrong?

[mr.ore]

Yes, I know what a bold policy is. Those are simple bold policy. Simple because there is always bet only on one location.

Policy to win 11 units:

bankroll	bet	W	L	Pwin
0	no bet	-	-	0.0000%
1	1 unit on 8:1	9	0	8.7203%
2	1 unit on 8:1	10	1	17.5148%
3	1 unit on 8:1	11	2	26.4321%
4	1 unit on 5:1	9	3	35.2262%
5	3 unit(s) on 2:1	11	2	44.2668%
6	1 unit on 5:1	11	5	53.3046%
7	2 unit(s) on 2:1	11	5	62.3424%
8	3 unit(s) on 1:1	11	5	71.3802%
9	1 unit on 2:1	11	8	80.6623%
10	1 unit on 1:1	11	9	90.0698%
11	no bet	-	-	100.0000%

For comparison, even chance only version - anti+Martingale:

bankroll	bet	W	L	Pwin
0	no bet	-	-	0.0000%
1	1 unit on 1:1	2	0	8.1882%
2	2 unit(s) on 1:1	4	0	16.8313%
3	3 unit(s) on 1:1	6	0	25.7125%
4	4 unit(s) on 1:1	8	0	34.5976%
5	5 unit(s) on 1:1	10	0	43.7549%
6	5 unit(s) on 1:1	11	1	52.8534%
7	4 unit(s) on 1:1	11	3	61.8523%
8	3 unit(s) on 1:1	11	5	71.1174%
9	2 unit(s) on 1:1	11	7	80.4107%
10	1 unit on 1:1	11	9	89.9406%
11	no bet	-	-	100.0000%

You start on line with same number as your starting bankroll and according to W,L columns you continue. If you win, go on line in W column, if you lose, go to line with L column. At any point, you know your probability of winning. In this case, start on line 10 to win 11 units.

Number of spins is on average low enough, so house dos not eat so much, that's what I think. While my policy improvement algorithm is not always that good and needs some tuning, computed probabilities are correct, it is just a matrix multiplied many times. So if algorithm finds a policy, it might not be absolutely optimal, but if I see that computed probabilities are higher than Marty, then I know it is very near.

Also remember that those are just fancy versions of parachute...

[beretta28]

Thanks
I'm afraid in your EC version there is a mistake.
In line 8, L is 4 and not 5,if I have well understood.

As far as your policy to win 11 units is concerned,I'm still convinced that the house hedge,for all bets at 2,70% level, instead of 1,35%(all bets EC version),offset the advantage you mention(90,0698% vs 89,9406%) in particular,long and unlucky sessions!

I must calculate how often these bad sessions occur.

[mr.ore]

There is no mistake - on line for bankroll 8 we bet 3 units. After L you have 5 units, so L is 5. There cannot be any mistake, tables are computer generated, it is faster

If you have access to a roulette with imprison/la partage option, then you should probably play only even chances. The tables are for single zero wheel without imprison or la partage option, outsides are also exposed to 2.7% house edge.

Greatest differences with those policies are on american roulette.

Same table for american wheel

bankroll	bet	W	L	Pwin
0	no bet	-	-	0.0000%
1	1 unit on 8:1	9	0	8.3705%
2	1 unit on 8:1	10	1	16.8811%
3	1 unit on 8:1	11	2	25.6305%
4	1 unit on 5:1	9	3	34.1394%
5	3 unit(s) on 2:1	11	2	43.1292%
6	1 unit on 5:1	11	5	52.1088%
7	2 unit(s) on 2:1	11	5	61.0884%
8	3 unit(s) on 1:1	11	5	70.0680%
9	2 unit(s) on 1:1	11	7	79.5202%
10	1 unit on 1:1	11	9	89.2212%
11	no bet	-	-	100.0000%

Marty on american wheel:

bankroll	bet	W	L	Pwin
0	no bet	-	-	0.0000%
1	1 unit on 1:1	2	0	7.3917%
2	2 unit(s) on 1:1	4	0	15.6047%
3	3 unit(s) on 1:1	6	0	24.2805%
4	4 unit(s) on 1:1	8	0	32.9433%
5	5 unit(s) on 1:1	10	0	42.1392%
6	5 unit(s) on 1:1	11	1	51.2588%
7	4 unit(s) on 1:1	11	3	60.1476%
8	3 unit(s) on 1:1	11	5	69.5470%
9	2 unit(s) on 1:1	11	7	79.0251%
10	1 unit on 1:1	11	9	88.9606%
11	no bet	-	-	100.0000%

[mr.ore]

Some simulations of that 10 bankroll to win 10% system.