+ Register

[Albalaha]

Over centuries of casino gambling, people easily conclude that the casino games are invincible only because of negative expectations or house edge/house fees.

     This is only partially true. Let us do these reality checks:

1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.

2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.

3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?

      Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:

1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.

Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).

So, either have fun with gambling without thinking of losses or quit it. Trying failed ideas or ranting over the house edge won't help.

[Mike]

1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.

If the game is fair then in the long run you will break even, but even offering a fair game the casino is still likely to win because they have an infinite bank in comparison with any individual player. Look up "Risk of Ruin" for the math.

2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.

That wouldn't prove anything, and it's easy with hindsight to say "I would have quit here" AFTER the session. The truth is in some sessions you will never get ahead.

3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?

Of course, you will win in the long run.

I agree with you that the house edge isn't the ONLY factor; poor discipline and money management certainly contribute much to the casino's coffers which they wouldn't get if gamblers didn't use silly progressions and continually "reinvest" their winnings until they lose everything, but self discipline and sensible money management should be givens; they are necessary but not sufficient for success. The overriding factor is getting an edge in the first place, only then should you focus on MM and discipline, they are certainly not substitutes for an edge. And variance is not the enemy as many gamblers seem to think. If you have no edge it's the only way you can win in the short term, and if you have an edge it's irrelevant.

[alrelax]

If the game is fair then in the long run you will break even, but even offering a fair game the casino is still likely to win because they have an infinite bank in comparison with any individual player. Look up "Risk of Ruin" for the math.

That wouldn't prove anything, and it's easy with hindsight to say "I would have quit here" AFTER the session. The truth is in some sessions you will never get ahead.

Of course, you will win in the long run.

I agree with you that the house edge isn't the ONLY factor; poor discipline and money management certainly contribute much to the casino's coffers which they wouldn't get if gamblers didn't use silly progressions and continually "reinvest" their winnings until they lose everything, but self discipline and sensible money management should be givens; they are necessary but not sufficient for success. The overriding factor is getting an edge in the first place, only then should you focus on MM and discipline, they are certainly not substitutes for an edge. And variance is not the enemy as many gamblers seem to think. If you have no edge it's the only way you can win in the short term, and if you have an edge it's irrelevant.

Mike's responses are 100% dead on accurate, not fully explained but totally correct, IMO.

[Albalaha]

@Mike,

If the game is fair then in the long run you will break even, but even offering a fair game the casino is still likely to win because they have an infinite bank in comparison with any individual player. Look up "Risk of Ruin" for the math.

"Will" is a wrong word here. You may be at break even, losing or winning even after a million spins. A perfect equilibrium of all bets may not be possible even after a billion spins. Think over it.

That wouldn't prove anything, and it's easy with hindsight to say "I would have quit here" AFTER the session. The truth is in some sessions you will never get ahead.

I never said I will quit or not, I just said I will be ahead with my bankroll, for sure at one point of time or other if it is only about beating house edge alone, be it 185 spins or 1850 spins. Give me any kind of scatter. That is not as easy to do for everyone.

Of course, you will win in the long run.

Again you are being hasty. The long run, in which you might get to win, you may give up all hopes of winning back your losses. Check  #3 of American Zumma book. It kept on so bad for 15k spins, even giving 1 chip for 100 placed bets won't help. The terms, "may" and "will" should never be used as synonyms of each other.

      I just mean to say that the house edge alone could be handled in playable sessions. Variance coupled with foolish money management feed casinos. Crying over house edge alone is like saying, a 105 kg wrestler has borne edge over another wrestler of 100 kg weight and that with 100 kg weight is mathematically bound to lose.

[Mike]

          Again you are being hasty. The long run, in which you might get to win, you may give up all hopes of winning back your losses. Check  #3 of American Zumma book. It kept on so bad for 15k spins, even giving 1 chip for 100 placed bets won't help. The terms, "may" and "will" should never be used as synonyms of each other.

You didn't say "Guarantee that I will win in X spins", and of course variance is always present, but with an edge you will prevail over time. The necessary bankroll required for severe drawdowns can be calculated.

      I just mean to say that the house edge alone could be handled in playable sessions. Variance coupled with foolish money management feed casinos. Crying over house edge alone is like saying, a 105 kg wrestler has borne edge over another wrestler of 100 kg weight and that with 100 kg weight is mathematically bound to lose.

To say that the house edge can "be handled in playable sessions" is just to say it doesn't matter, which is absurd.  Your analogy with the wrestlers is a poor one. Nobody would agree that weight alone is the deciding factor in a wrestling match, but as I've said, the other factors such as MM and discipline only make a difference AFTER you have gained a real edge; they are not a substitute. And I'm not "crying" over the house edge; even in roulette it can be overcome, just not by nonsensical strategies such as quitting when ahead, or patterns in past numbers, trends, and progressions. These have zero merit in a random game of independent trials.

[Gizmotron]

To say that the house edge can "be handled in playable sessions" is just to say it doesn't matter, which is absurd.  Your analogy with the wrestlers is a poor one. Nobody would agree that weight alone is the deciding factor in a wrestling match, but as I've said, the other factors such as MM and discipline only make a difference AFTER you have gained a real edge; they are not a substitute. And I'm not "crying" over the house edge; even in roulette it can be overcome, just not by nonsensical strategies such as quitting when ahead, or patterns in past numbers, trends, and progressions. These have zero merit in a random game of independent trials.

Calling something "nonsensical," as you do, does not actually validate your opinion. It only displays a reliance on an imagined peer review that actually is non-existent. I'm here to challenge your well worn-out dogmatic demagogic "deplorable"-isms. If I do this then you "mathBoyz" will have to rewrite the books. And then a reel peer review will have to take place. Soon, someone will offer you the "Red Pill." Take it.
...

[Gizmotron]

Over centuries of casino gambling, people easily conclude that the casino games are invincible only because of negative expectations or house edge/house fees.

     This is only partially true. Let us do these reality checks:

1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.

2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.

3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?

      Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:

1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.

Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).

So, either have fun with gambling without thinking of losses or quit it. Trying failed ideas or ranting over the house edge won't help.

Loved it! A wonderful display of logic.

[Jimske]

Over centuries of casino gambling, people easily conclude that the casino games are invincible only because of negative expectations or house edge/house fees.

     This is only partially true. Let us do these reality checks:

I hope it's obvious by now that other than variance the only reason we lose is the NE.  Of course under variance we include limited funds, limited bets place, poor MM, etc. 

E Clifton Davis uses the casino hold figures to "prove" the house is cheating!  How can the hold be 20% on a game with a bit over 1 point against?  LMAO.  If one flat bets forever one will pay ONLY the juice BUT you got to play forever for this to be true.  In the meantime one wins or loses as a product of luck - variance.  If not flat bet than it's just based on average bet size (ABS) -  .

While endeavoring to win one must be aware that we are paying "rent" equal to the HA on EVERY bet whether we win that bet or not.  The majority (I say majority but got no idea.  Casino still offers the game so it's a good assumption) of gamblers lose because they increase their bet to overcome losses from VARIANCE + the HA.  So even IF they win as many hands as lose they're still stuck with paying the juice which now is going to be a product of the ABS.  In theory with unlimited bankroll and no house limit we only lose to the HA.

But individuals run out of money, reduce their wagers and lose not 1.4% but 100%.  LOL  We cannot recoup losses by reducing bet size UNLESS we expect to win a significant more wagers than lose.

This is a long way of saying that the HA really is the only reason we lose.  More importantly it goes to show that we must profit by paying the rent AND after losing more hands than win, IOW overcoming negative variance.  Cause if we just manage to pay the rent we will be even.  Which ain't so bad I guess.

So let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.

Example soxfan Sure Win can profit with a low of 16% strike rate.  Surely if one can profit from such a low strike rate one could devise a method to overcome a 49% strike rate!!!

J

[Gizmotron]

So let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.

Spot on right. The whole posting was great.


Now for some arithmetic 101. If I bet only on the Black, I'm betting 18 numbers against 19 or 20 numbers that I will win on each spin. But I will only get paid back 1 to 1 on that bet. Example $10 wins $10. The greens give the casino offering the game an advantage. Perhaps this is more "bonehead" arithmetic in nature. That advantage is that they won't pay back on the true odds. Thus the reference to "paying rent." This could be shortened to PR. ... and that could be misunderstood as propaganda. Just digressing. ... or is that de-greasing the dressing?


All this makes it clear to me that if I play 18 numbers against 19 or 20 numbers I should have a win to loss ratio that favors the casino's side of each of those bets. But variance allows for that ratio to fluctuate a little in the sort run irregardless of the imbalance in the payoff ratio. It will do this without the influence of that edge too. I mean the ratio will change as the session goes on. I don't mean that the influence is gone. Randomness is the influence that dictates what variance will produce. So it is easy for me to figure out that I must play a strategy that attempts to process that variance by analytically detecting that relationship between randomness and variance. I can't change the imbalance ratio of the payoffs in the casino having an advantage. But I can react to the difficulty in accessing the current state of variance. That is a thing that I can become skilled at doing. And that is the ground that I am defending. I'm only wasting time if the arguments always fall back to the house's advantage. That is already a stipulated point.


Can a player ride the waves of variance? Can variance be seen as waves? Does that even exist? I not only say that it does, but that it can be an acquired skill.

[Mike]

Example soxfan Sure Win can profit with a low of 16% strike rate.  Surely if one can profit from such a low strike rate one could devise a method to overcome a 49% strike rate!!!

But it's not really the strike rate which is the problem. Just cover 30 numbers on the roulette layout and you have an 81% strike rate, but this doesn't mean it's a better idea than betting 3 numbers (it isn't). And profit over a 16% strike rate doesn't tell you much; over how many hands must this minimum strike rate materialise? It can't be many.

I do concede that perhaps in the majority of cases, gamblers lose not to the house edge, but to variance. One way of countering this is to just place more bets, but the trade off there is that you're exposing more to the HA. Generally speaking if you're playing an NE game the bold plan is the best one. If you have the balls and bankroll then go for it.

[Gizmotron]

I do concede that perhaps in the majority of cases, gamblers lose not to the house edge, but to variance. One way of countering this is to just place more bets, but the trade off there is that you're exposing more to the HA. Generally speaking if you're playing an NE game the bold plan is the best one. If you have the balls and bankroll then go for it.

It appears so. Most gamblers lose as they walk in the door and open their wallets. They all have an amount that they are willing to lose. They can say it is the cost of entertainment or that they owe the casino for that fantastic looking chandelier. They can pay $50 to get $1 worth of comps. It's all a game to get them to sit down and stay. And it is totally the bankroll that takes them out. It's smaller than the variance, based on table layout minimums. As soon as they hit their limit they pull their parachutes and out the door they bounce, happy as a sucker for a happy ending in a chic-flick.

[AsymBacGuy]

Of course you are right, Alba.
And many replies are accurate, imo.

Providing a zero or a very low negative edge, our main enemy will be the variance that most players try to "control" by worthless methods.

My opinion is that even a part of BJ counters will get the best of it because they increase their wagers JUST on 12-13% of the total hands dealt (that is the average number when a positive count will arise itlr) and only for few hands after their trigger arises.
Nonetheless, even most successful Bj counters may be losing for weeks despite their 2-2.5% (at best) mathematical advantage.

The proof is that casinos will confide on extra mathematical factors is reading their annual records: profits are 12-15% of the total money wagered at their baccarat tables, for example.
That is 10-12 times more than expected by simple math.

Casinos advantages:

- math edge
- infinite bankroll vs limite players' bankrolls
- betting limits
- no emotions involved as they know the final positive outcome

Possible players advantages:

- selecting at most the situations to bet
- adapting a proper MM knowing that losing sessions or losing weeks are inevitable as a strategic plan can only get the best of it in a very diluted fashion. The same is true for casinos which may stay losers for long.

We can't alter the casinos advantages, just working on our possible advantages.

as.

[Albalaha]

We can not change the payouts decided by casinos. Can change our strategies though and all old strategies are proven failure, so ranting on them or making statement that we can not win, is not fair. If you really feel that, don't gamble at all.

[Mike]

So let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.

Yes, but in order to have your winning hands accumulate more $ than the losing hands you have to know when to bet big, and when to back off. But how would you know this unless you have an edge? and to have an edge you must win more hands than you lose flat bet...  So it's not a case of either/or; the former option is a precondition for the latter.

[Albalaha]

So let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.

Spot on.

I do not believe or expect the former. Flat bet win could only be achieved with a proven advantage play.

Now, how to do the later is very tricky but not impossible. We just do not need to know which hand wins but rather whenever wins come closer to  the real expected hit rate,we bet in a manner higher than our previous losing bets and win thereby a net profit.

Take the classic case of martingale:

It can win without knowing when the win comes but it  lacked the common sense of remaining within a reasonable limits.
Same goes with martingale or fibonacci. They mathematically win the game but practically not.

They failed to keep in mind the virtual limit of variance that can even make a billion chips lose , the way they suggested to play.
Every progression suggested worked only in one particular type of variance and miserably failed in other.

I believe we can better that. An mm that can sustain the worst and win later in average case confirming "law of large numbers".