+ Register

[sqzbox]

There are 128 legal bets on the felt (I think I have this right - did I count them up correctly?). In addition the wheel can be partitioned into neighbours, tiers, and any sort of breakdown you care to think up.  People can "cover zero", use the "imbalances" such as columns with more blacks than reds and vice versa, and so on and on. You can dream up all sorts of possible bets and the sky is the limit - there may be almost an infinite number of possibilities. It is no wonder that discussions, forums, schemes, systems, seem endless and there seems no end in sight of ways people are dreaming up to attack the game. What is a person to do?


I'd like to lend some brain power to "efficiency". If we were to accept that there is such a thing as "advantage play" (and I realize that this is contentious in its own right and worthy of a whole other discussion, but for the purposes of this one let's just accept it at face value), then how can we implement this in the most efficient way?  The line between negative and positive advantage is small, would you agree? Even with an advantage, turning this into a profit requires efficiency because playing inefficiently will swallow up the profit in the blink of an eye.


Or even - how can we find, or define, an efficient bet?  Should we use the math (i.e. statistics) or just plain logic. Statistics can be dangerous - but powerful when used appropriately. To quote Nassim - "it is a mistake to use statistics without logic, but the reverse does not hold: It is not a mistake to use logic without statistics".


To help kick it off and keep us on topic, here is a definition of efficiency.


A level of performance that describes a process that uses the lowest amount of inputs to create the greatest amount of outputs. Efficiency relates to the use of all inputs in producing any given output, including personal time and energy.
Being efficient simply means reducing the amount of wasted inputs.
Happy thinking!


Bryan

[VLS]

Even with an advantage, turning this into a profit requires efficiency because playing inefficiently will swallow up the profit in the blink of an eye.

Very thought-provoking post.

This efficiency topic reminds me about this: even with the positive edge, the player will face drawdowns.

Then we can argue the most efficient way to bet is to use bankroll and unit-size management in order to optimize the winning runs in such a manner that they overcome the negative ones in order to help to the keep player afloat.

This implies rising the betting unit with casino's money.


In gambling the bankroll is truly the player's oxygen. No bankroll = no game, hence every step for ensuring bankroll preservation while risking should be at the top of the smart bettor's list. Rising session units from the player's pocket is a no-no. A consistent method should be good enough to rise the units on its own. Ideally starting with the very minimum base unit allowed, growing to the highest unit table maximums take.


The most efficient for bankroll preservation and multiplying is then identifying the most appropriate times to bet and maximize profits there (i.e. say for a single number, statistics might show clumps at a certain range of spins, this statistical attack zone should be squeezed for as many units as possible), as well as identifying the worst times to bet (this implies evaluating when the number is a sleeper and "letting it go to sleep" as much as it dares to go prior to resuming active bets).


There's no difference between a unit won and a unit saved in the monthly balance.

Maximizing profits goes hand in hand with maximizing savings for increasing efficiency in the bankroll.

[XXVV]

Thank you Sqzbox and Victor for key thought generating definitions and your practical observations for survival while climbing this challenging mountain.


Your statements deserve much detailed response and elaboration but if I may briefly add to Victor's note on the principles of bankroll preservation on one hand ( a delicate balancing act) and smart trigger timing as such a key efficiency component on the other hand, we are making fantastic progress and are starting this discussion well above base camp.


With the use of finely tuned triggers to activate designated trap bets we use time as our friend, and constantly review our position. Awareness and alertness is everything in choosing what to do next. When your life depends on it, we could say you will operate at peak efficiency. It is that level of focus that is needed to bring the best results.


Embedded in these few sentences are several ideas which need explanation and these will follow in due course. Thanks Sqzbox for rising to the challenge- lol.

[sqzbox]

Thanks Vic - interesting response.  You make some good points and I like the analogy of bankroll = oxygen.  Very true!

One point I would like to make - I believe it is a mistake to take the view that winnings are the casino's money.  It is not!  It is your own, hard-won money.  Raising bets as a strategy when you are winning is fine - I have no problem with the concept - I just believe we should not view this as the casino's money.  In my view it most certainly is not!  It is YOUR money - and it was hard-won. If a person were to view their profits as casino money then it is very likely that they will make the mistake of varying away from their pre-determined strategy, for example maybe carrying on when they should have quit, because of the mental view of "oh well, it is casino money now so I won't really be risking anything if I push it a little bit longer even though my strategy is tuned to quit at this point".  If you get my drift ...  I don't want to get caught up in semantics but I believe this is a very important point.

Your point about letting a sleeper sleep is well-made. This is an example of what I like to call "managing the variance".  There should be no surprises when playing - if you do not know the possible variance of your particular strategy then you haven't researched it enough to be playing it.

But back to topic - is it possible to construct an efficient bet? Given that the odds are unable to be manipulated and are completely inviolate no matter how one constructs a bet, can we find efficiencies from the ecart?

[TwoCatSam]

If you ever have "the casino's money" and try to leave with it, they won't like you!  It means you pulled an Einstein and stole it! 

It's your money---until you give it back!

Sam

[XXVV]

...."can we find efficiencies from the Ecart?.....


Yes.

[VLS]

@sqz

http://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/(manrique)-a-chip/

Agreed!

[XXVV]

Yes, yes, yes..... well ( with respect) we are awaiting your next step, Sqzbx.

[ignatus]

Efficient bets - what are these? I think:


1) Hotnumbers
2) Repeaters
3) Most recent hit numbers
4) Coldest numbers


Using triggers and progressions. If you can combine all these you have the perfect system! 

[sqzbox]

All good ideas, and it seems that we have a consensus that generally believes that there is such a thing as an efficient bet. We probably have a good idea of what is meant by "efficient" as well. 

But can we be more specific about it? 

Can we maybe zero in on it a little more by agreeing what is an inefficient bet? 

For example, would it be considered an inefficient bet to simply scatter 1 or 12 or 18 chips around the table in a random fashion on every spin - that is, without any regard to what is unfolding? 

No regard to regression or variance, no structural overlays such as LOT, or cycles of 37, or whatever. 

Would this be inefficient compared to, say, studying the ecart for normality, or anomalous behaviour, or cross-referencing statistical measures and betting selectively rather than every spin? 

Is there really any difference?

[VLS]

Is there really any difference?

Long-term = no, according to math.

Short-term = yes, it can be the difference between a winning session and a disastrous one.

Remember the true long term is "infinity" (because regardless of previous success, there will always be a vigintillion more spins which the system must pass to be sure --the never-ending story!).
In the end, we're ultimately trying to beat a short term: the spins in our own limited lives

[MarignyGrilleau]

Long-term = no, according to math.

Short-term = yes, it can be the difference between a winning session and a disastrous one.

Remember the true long term is "infinity" (because regardless of previous success, there will always be a vigintillion more spins which the system must pass to be sure --the never-ending story!).
In the end, we're ultimately trying to beat a short term: the spins in our own limited lives

30 Years of roulette, playing 300 spins a day would be something like 3.25 million spins

[sqzbox]

OK - this is where I have a little trouble - short term vs. long term.  There are 2 problems.
1. These are both relative terms. Is the long term 3.25 million? or infinity? or 300 spins non-stop? Is the short term 5 spins? 50 spins?
2. Is not the long term just the sum of x short terms?  If we say that the answer is yes for the short term, then are we saying that this is an average over a bunch of short terms?  In which case, would not a statistically significant collection of short term sessions sum to the positive?


You see the dilemma I am sure.  I am leaning towards the belief that it is NECESSARY to solve the problem for the long term.  Saying that something (a strategy) works for the short term is just smoke on the water.  dah-dah-daaaah ... dah-dah-dedaaah. 

[MarignyGrilleau]

1. These are both relative terms. Is the long term 3.25 million? or infinity? or 300 spins non-stop? Is the short term 5 spins? 50 spins?

For me, Long Term:
-is the Overall Permanence of a method.
-is you Personal Permanence. (your LW registry of actual placed bets).

2. Is not the long term just the sum of x short terms?  If we say that the answer is yes for the short term, then are we saying that this is an average over a bunch of short terms?  In which case, would not a statistically significant collection of short term sessions sum to the positive?

As you can deduct from above, my opinion is Yes, the long term is just the sum of x short terms.  

"Frank Zappa and the Mothers
Were at the best place around
But some stupid with a flare gun
Burned the place to the ground"   

[JohnLegend]

OK - this is where I have a little trouble - short term vs. long term.  There are 2 problems.
1. These are both relative terms. Is the long term 3.25 million? or infinity? or 300 spins non-stop? Is the short term 5 spins? 50 spins?
2. Is not the long term just the sum of x short terms?  If we say that the answer is yes for the short term, then are we saying that this is an average over a bunch of short terms?  In which case, would not a statistically significant collection of short term sessions sum to the positive?


You see the dilemma I am sure.  I am leaning towards the belief that it is NECESSARY to solve the problem for the long term.  Saying that something (a strategy) works for the short term is just smoke on the water.  dah-dah-daaaah ... dah-dah-dedaaah. 

The trick is to make profit. Too much time is wasted debating longterm Vs short term play. You must understand the game begins and ends from the time you enter the cycle to the time you leave.

what you are able to achieve within that timeframe is all that matters. You can try to be too clever about it all. And the reason is sheep mentality. You hear from so called experts that you don't stand a chance.

Who are you/we to question them? They must know best math is on their side right?

I have never doubted. That played straight you can't win, never ever. BUT WHO SAID YOU HAVE TO PLAY STRAIGHT?

If I say I have a double dozen/column method that wins 4 times out of 8 nearly all the time. The first thing most will say is wait a minute. You are losing 8 and winning 4 how can that work?

Their thinking is so stuck in I lay 5, then I expect at least 6 back. And you wonder why the masses still think this games for fools after 300 years.

To put it simply. smart money management is the most important thing, AFTER you have found a way to make it work. There needs to be no edge. Just a simple understanding, that if I bet this amount at a certain time I will gain a profit.

Not the flawed thinking that I've got to have an edge or I can't win. That flawed notion has guaranteed casinos that the masses always keep the losing habit. And their vaults full.