calculation regarding minigames of 4 spins on the even chances

[hanshuckebein]

hi folks,

suppose I bet the even chances continously in minigames of 4 spins, i.e.:

game 1: H L H L
game 2: L H H L
game 3: L H H L
and so on

I have an expectation of losing 6.25 of my minigames completely (0,5 x 0,5 x 0,5 x 0,5 = 0,0625) within 100 spins. zero disregarded for a start. is this correct?

I now play these minigames a bit differently. I still use the 4 spin range but stop betting after a win.

game 1: H (loss) L (win)  no bet  no bet
game 2: L (win)  no bet  no bet  no bet
game 3: L (loss)  H (loss)  H (loss)  L (win)

this way of playing of course reduces the total number of my bets.

but does it also reduce my theoritical  expectation of losing 4 minigames in a row or is it still 6.25 within 100 spins?



I have a test session of 2700 spins in total. playing continously I should have lost 168.75 of my minigames completly.
using the pause after win approach I actually bet on only 1293 spins in which I should have lost 80.81 of my minigames completely. is this correct?

well, I hope I could make myself understandable.

thanks for your help and advice. 

cheers

hans

[nitrix]

Your approach is very insteresting as it's something that striked my minds too recently. I couldn't figure out a way to do proper maths on this though and prove anything.

The sure thing is, if you were to play EVERY spins (on a wheel with no Zeros), you'd eventually win just as much as you lose, so break-even. But, if, like you said, you can skip the next spins when it would be to your advantage, then you can skip an expected loss... and make a profit in the long term...

PM me if you wanna do any brainstorm, I'm a tinker too, not much of a gambler ;3

[warrior]

Your approach is very insteresting as it's something that striked my minds too recently. I couldn't figure out a way to do proper maths on this though and prove anything.

The sure thing is, if you were to play EVERY spins (on a wheel with no Zeros), you'd eventually win just as much as you lose, so break-even. But, if, like you said, you can skip the next spins when it would be to your advantage, then you can skip an expected loss... and make a profit in the long term...

PM me if you wanna do any brainstorm, I'm a tinker too, not much of a gambler ;3
[/quote  Nothing breaks even in roulette ,so im not sure why you keep saying that,after ten year of playing i have not ever seen the game break even,gamblers fallacy  illusion,the only time it breaks even is when you the player makes a conscious decision to leave when your even ,or if you have a loss to try and get even the session of play.

[nitrix]

Because both a real wheel and RNG are results of the chaos theory. You can find chaos in almost everything we do. A real-life example would be to the supermarket at the cashiers where clients will spread out evenly into different lines. Its semi-concious but can you predict who will get where?

Back to the subject, I don't think of the Caos theory as a God that dictates everyones life, but if you were to play every spins, then because the numbers are chosen in a random manner with a lot of entropy, sometimes it'll work for you, and sometimes it wont, still with the same odds no matter what happened previously.

Roulette WILL almost always give you the same amount of #1, as the same amount of #2, as the same am.... you get the drift. Except it does this in a perfectly "balanced" random fashion. So random to an extend. But the entropy is so large that you can never tell for sure what the next result is gonna bet.

I, when brainstorming, simply assume ALL outcomes posdible of my system will happens ONCE. Your goal is to finish with a profit:

I.e. Betting on two dozens. A Roulette begginer would assume he has better odds of winnings.... well if you do my method of proceeding, lets try each possible outcomes:

> Bet dozen 1&2, 1 comes out, you WIN +1 unit, for a new total of 1.
> Bet dozen 1&2, 2 comes out, you WIN +1 unit, for a new total of 2.
> Bet dozen 1&2, 3 comes out, you LOSE -2 units, for a new total of 0, break-even.

You're back to your starting point, but wait, in the mean time the Zero on the wheel spun a few times... your bankroll went down.

Then you invent a progression to recoup the losses but any progression that plays every spins will suffer the same Chaos theory problems.

In fact even if you were to pick one number every 15 spins, you'd have nearly the same amount of each outcomes after a while....

Its just the way physic does its work (Quantum experiments, anybody?) so is how random generators are programmed.

[warrior]

 In you example yes that will happen in short burst,but when you look at red black 1 million spins it will NEVER be 500,000 and 500,000 or any bet selection even your number ex.NEVER.PS LIVE WHEEL ONLY ,no rng thats created by the casino programmers.

[hanshuckebein]

hmmm... guys ... any remarks or hints about my calculation and my question? 

cheers

hans

[warrior]

hmmm... guys ... any remarks or hints about my calculation and my question? 

cheers

hans

Its all the same ,i to was thinking this way but no more its only an illusion ,SD favors casino.

[nitrix]

Random.org gives me "nearly" half red, half black.
"nearly" means for me about a 9% margin (which is an acceptable standard deviation).

Anyway, if you were to beat every individual outcomes, you could win the big portrait, that's what I'm saying. I'll stop spamming his topic now xD

---

Back on topic, I'm not sure if playing every spins or picking one in a while (based on a situation) makes a difference. It deserves at least some testing to me.

[warrior]

I'm done with this i have beaten RANDOM .ORG manytimes, LIVE WHEEL will kick everyones behinde.

[hanshuckebein]

@warrior

thanks for a lot for your opinion. 

just to make sure that I`have completely understood: you say that pausing after a win has no influence on  the expectation of still losing 6.25 minigames in 100 played spins?

cheers

hans

[warrior]

 I do not believe it will .

[hanshuckebein]

ok - understood. 

[hanshuckebein]

@bayes

if you read this, could you please give your opinion? I would really appreciate it.

thanks and cheers

hans

[Bayes]

Hi Hans,

Your calculations seem ok to me. When you say "lose completely" I assume you mean that you lose all 4 bets in the minigame?

Skipping bets after your first win shouldn't make any difference.

[hanshuckebein]

thanks a lot