I present the following argument that I found recently, for your debate and discussion. [Got that, did you? It's not my article]
Feel free to tear it apart if needs be.
- If there is any internal truth we need to find it.
- If it's a flawed argument we need to know that too.
- If the consensus is that it's valid and sound I'll reveal the source. Otherwise it can simply wither on the vine.
Over to you...
Many roulette players tend to succumb to the idea that their chance of winning will increase immensely if they're betting on more numbers.
However, this is a wrong move if you want to win in the long term.
Yes, your chances increase in the short-term when you're playing multiple numbers, but short-term winnings can just as easily and quickly be lost again if you continue to pursue that betting strategy using multiple numbers.
You need to concentrate on long-term winnings if you want to strike it rich.
I will prove to you below through mathematics why that is so:Let's assume you play 37 spins and each number on the wheel lands just once during those 37 spins. You are betting $1 on number 0 throughout all spins.
When the ball lands on 0 you'll win $35 ($36 - $1 = $35). But you'll lose $1 for each of the other 36 numbers/spins.
That means that after those 37 spins you've ended up with a total net loss of $1 ($35 won - $36 lost = -1$).Now let's play that example through again. This time you're betting on 2 numbers during each of those 37 spins.
Let's say you're betting $1 on number 0 and $1 on number 1. When the ball lands on 0 or 1 you'll win $34 ($36 - $2 = $34).
But but you'll lose the $2 total bet for all other 35 numbers.
At the end of those 37 spins you therefore have incurred a total net loss of $2 ($34 x 2 - $35 x 2 = -2$).We're going to raise our stake now, shall we? Okay, now let's say you'll bet on 10 numbers during each spin of those 37 spins.
You place a $1 each on number 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
When the ball lands on either of these numbers you'll win $26 ($36 - $10 = $26).
But you'll lose the $10 total bet for all other 27 numbers.
After 37 spins you've now suffered a total net loss of $10 ($26 x 10 - $10 x 27= -10$).See how your losses mount the more numbers you play?
It's a mathematical certainty and the idea that the more numbers you bet on the higher your winnings will be is simply a misconception that doesn't work.
The unshakable fact is that you losses become exponentially higher the more numbers you play.
If you bet $1 on 20 numbers, you'll have lost $20 after 37 spins. There is nothing you can do about it.It's been proven through thousands of records that the above is true in the long term and of course under the assumption that each number really lands on average once every 37 spins.
Betting on multiple numbers at the same time is a fundamentally wrong decision for long-term winning.
The perfect solution, however, is betting on only one single number and stick with it.
You are right. Cover the table is not the best. Every time you win on one chance you 100% lose on other. My testing with one straight up shows good result.
Everybody should know 2/3 bet is loser bet.
The odds of winning are the same according to pay out on all inside bets. Playing one number you do not "waste" any chips which can impossible win.
In short numbers of spins you may have better result playing more numbers, but if playing too many the winnings are more unsure.
...Interesting discussion dear Max, thanks for bringing it to the fore.
To me one number brings the opportunity for abrupt deviations from the mean, with wild swings.
It might be a blessing or a curse, depending on who you ask. But it does provide the "wildest" positive runs since the payout accompanies on the evening-out trams.
Remember roulette has "game duties", among which is to balance outcomes. Since one number is (physically) a hard target to hit, the game can miss a pocket during several cycles; but it must deliver as per its "duties" and then a single cycle MUST get more hits than expected when considering 37 individual spins in order to balance the ratios.
Here you "milk" it.
It's true, playing one number will maximize your chances of achieving a target, but because the variance is high you also run the risk of losing more than you would had you been playing more numbers. That's the beauty of roulette, you can choose according to your risk/reward preferences.
The deviation, while aginst your play, will in worse cases be impossible to match. that's more the reason than the HE a session will be lost.
I have played 1 number, had a 400+ sleeper and ended up with a win. The number in question got better hit rate later.
I used 5000 units to stand a long drawdown, got a long streak of winnings of total 13670 before the first bust, which happen yesterday.
I will not know then next will come, no way to say it will last until I reach 5000 units or about 45 sessions won.
I have used methods wich the inventor use all kinds of math and statistical research, and lost. I have used pure woodooo and won, it is a game of chance,
but still I think in the longer run you do better (lose less) using some methods.
Without a robot, who can wait out 400 losses for a win? In a casino, no less? Bathroom, anyone?
I'm not a math person, but this doesn't really strike me as being totally, 100% accurate.
Betting one number-------->on the way to a win---------->there can be no other wins.
Betting 24 numbers---------->lots of wins waiting for that loss he speaks of.
Not voting either way; I think all types of betting have their place.
Sam
A casino visit may be 400 spins a visit. A BM casino use to have higher min stake than a casino on internet. The play and the way we do it must be different on line or at a casino there 400 spins an hour is possible. The whole nigth at a BM casino must have methods which can possible end, The play will differ.
The theoretical models are not practical or even effective for a shorter time as a visit on a casino or an hour playing on line.
The variance is so broad, it is not possible to know very much before the play is over.
Winning 2/3 of the spins is not the same we are winning. Winning 1 of 35 can also make a winning. The odds are the same on most of the bets. In some casinos in EU the outside bets has lower disadvantage. Playing one number 37 times is about 2/3 chanse to hit once. But this is not to be mixed of how long it takes when we actually try.
The strategy :
Select the hottest number.
In 300 more spins you need 9 wins to break even.
Hot numbers hit from 12 to 24 times per 300 spins.
A hot number can cool off at any time.
"Know when to hold them, know when to fold them."
One number is statistically the worst, to play. It can offer you the worst odds possible and the biggest variance too along with lowest expectancy to "appear and clump". Not a very practical idea in a real casino.
Quote from: albalaha on January 04, 2013, 06:47:26 AM
One number is statistically the worst, to play. It can offer you the worst odds possible and the biggest variance too along with lowest expectancy to "appear and clump". Not a very practical idea in a real casino.
In a BM casino it goes too slow to run a longer session on over 2000 spins. Otherwise I do not see a single should be harder to win playing. They cluster and sleep as well. The variance even out, but takes longer runs. The pay out is high, so you need to win just a fraction of the spins.
I have done well using straight up, and most of the time it is one or a few.
I think I have done 10000 spins in two weeks playing one number only.
Ralph,
that applies to all bets but waiting for a single number to clump can be as disastrous as #3 of zumma. May be playable with bot only.
Quote from: albalaha on January 05, 2013, 02:31:10 PM
Ralph,
that applies to all bets but waiting for a single number to clump can be as disastrous as #3 of zumma. May be playable with bot only.
Easier with a bot, I have done 1000 of spins manual as well. 4000 in an evning manual is possible.
TCS had a run of 10000 spins and never come out using a split.
I have had a 2300 spins until 2 units plus, the funny was it was never down much.
A RFH you can get with any method.
Nobody seems to have disagreed with the mathematical arguments in the article.
Do we assume from that everyone agrees with the writer's figures?
Or do we assume nobody read it right through?
I have found the flaw in the math. When I get time and am not so sleepy, I'll write it up.
Thanks, Esoito....
Sam
Betting one number offers the best payout available in the game but as Bayes points out the variance is high compared to the low probability of winning. The examples are OK but the author assumes you're winning your very first bet and achieving maximum return every time, which clearly isn't possible and kind of undermines the whole argument. What if you hit on the tenth spin? You have previously already lost 9 units. What if the number doesn't hit at all? You're down 37 units.
To lower variance play more numbers, but you lose more and potentially more quickly. In the end, though, there is no actual difference. The EV for a single zero game is the same for all bets. But that's not really the problem, the EV just really says you can't win flat betting by gaining a real edge. Unofficially then, you don't need a real edge to win. What if you could consistently guess at least 1 in every 4 even chances? You could win all day by doubling up on only a 25% hit rate. There's no maths that says you can't play a bet selection in a regular state of low variance. And that applies to all payouts.
Let's assume you play 37 spins and each number on the wheel lands just once during those 37 spins.
There are some things one can assume for the sake of argument. This is not one of them.
Let's assume you are a very good guitarist, but you have never played "Classical Gas". How long would it take you to learn it?
The assumption you are a very good guitarist is not out of the realm of possibility. You could be!! Hitting 37 numbers without a repeat is out of the realm of possibility in the normal sense of the word. So the argument is moot from the get-go.
But I'm sure someone will point out I'm wrong! I love it!!
Sam
Maybe one number but for sure, NOT many numbers. Another thing left out (unless I missed it), this one number business sounds great in theory BUT......
A) Most people want the fun and excitement of betting many numbers. Most lack the discipline and lets be honest, its VERY boring.
B) Your time!! In terms of RNG, I could careless, I'm talking about an actual casino. When betting 1-2 numbers, you must have the TIME to bounce back when down and that's NOT counting, we haven't even discussed unit sizes for that ONE number.
EXAMPLE >> I played one number about a month ago. I left with a $900 profit. How long did that take? 7.5 hours. What was my peak along the way you ask? Yep, $900 at the end. You can **NOT** play one number on your lunch break from work.
Ken
A A funny thought. Consider there are 36 alternate universes. In every universe I am chosing 1 number to bet on. None of the numbers are same. In other words am betting on all 36 numbers but 0. I am flat betting 1 unit. I stop after an optimal number of spins, between 14 to 22 (some crazy relation to pi) or if the number that am betting on hits, whichever is earlier. Now when I total up the results from all these universes will I be plus at the end of these optimal number of spins?
A pure extension of Twocat's 5 strikes and out.
Hmmm i am in a hurry. the flight's in the evening and haven't packed yet
There are some good points in here for sure!
Quote from: Mr J on August 23, 2013, 05:43:48 AM
B) Your time!! In terms of RNG, I could careless, I'm talking about an actual casino. When betting 1-2 numbers, you must have the TIME to bounce back when down and that's NOT counting, we haven't even discussed unit sizes for that ONE number.
Ken
Totally agree. My small test yesterday comprised of around 400 spins. It took about 3 hours on betvoyager. That would have taken 8-9 hours in some of the casinos where I play at.
Quote from: Number Six on August 23, 2013, 01:07:40 AM
There's no maths that says you can't play a bet selection in a regular state of low variance. And that applies to all payouts.
Well I think this is where we will have our best shot. So it's all about finding an optimal way to achieve it.
Since this system came up again..........."A pure extension of Twocat's 5 strikes and out."
I have in my bots systems that play 1 number and systems that play many; "Five Strikes" starts playing 35. I think it is just the preference by the individual. I hate to wait for 100 spins or more to see one number bet. I'd rather just win or lose and get it over with.
Sam
"I hate to wait for 100 spins or more to see one number bet. I'd rather just win or lose and get it over with" >>> .....and this is the norm. Don't take that in a bad way. Most people simply will not play ONE number, its just not "fun" enough.
Ken
Ken
I don't take it in a bad way. I have stated many times I do this for fun. I guess I am different; my wife says I'm nuts. I love to sit and watch three bots run at the same time. (Beats TV) It's much better to see chips go down and wait for a win/loss than to watch a bot run for hours on end and never get a bet.
I will say one more thing: It is very possible to win playing a large-numbers game.
Samster
You guys shouldn't get wrapped up in whether or not you can play a system against a live wheel. You can. There is much more to the game than just black and white.
Firstly, though, if you have to wait 200 spins for a win, well there seems to be something suspect with that. Why base the system around winning on an event that you have to stand around all day waiting for? Base it on events that are happening all the time. Logical, no?
And the straight-up bet really offers no advantage over any other bet. All it does is offer the best payout. Take the premise of the bet selection and modify it so you can apply it to a lesser payout.
Use the very same premise to bet the splits or streets so you can play it against a live wheel. Mathematically there's no difference.
Quote from: Number Six on August 23, 2013, 06:14:20 PM
Firstly, though, if you have to wait 200 spins for a win, well there seems to be something suspect with that. Why base the system around winning on an event that you have to stand around all day waiting for?
The best way IMO would be to have a handful of triggers for every spin. That does not mean you are going to bet on every spin.
However you are ready to jump in at any time. Small windows of opportunity will present themself somewhere down the line. I think this is one of the reasons I prefer just to play a single number or a split or two. I just want to dip my toe in the water and try and get a quick win or two which will give me a profit. You can have quite a few attempts at this when playing so few numbers. Playing an E/C bet and losing that first bet means a win on the next attempt can only result in breaking even if you are flat betting.
It is my belief that if you can keep the variance low for an E/C bet or a sixline for example...then you should be able to achieve the same eventually for the other bets like streets / splits etc... It is surely just a natural progression if you are onto something. So then I would be asking why would anybody want to put more of their money in action if they did not really need to. It reminds me of the saying 'it's not what you win, it's what you don't lose'.
But anyway, we all have our own ways of playing and it's all good as long as we are getting some enjoyment out of it!
Playing a single number gets the ultimate variability to be up the longest possible.
For instance, you have got 53% chance to be at least +1 unit in a 179 spin play
As pne said, there are no wasted chips playing 1 number. playing 2 number has got a at least 1 unit wasted, because only one numbers comes at the time.
If something in roulette is GOOD (playing one number), there is always an opposite, there has to be. The opposite is....playing MANY numbers.
As I have said 400 times in the past, stop with SO MANY numbers bet (imo). 2-4 !!!!!!!!!!
Ken
Cool, Ken is around.
Over the past three years of play I'm often been tempted to bet one number that is firing fire-hot at a time. They run a five or six hits hot streak and then most of the time they drop off that super hot pace.
Based on 300 spins, a hot number needs to hit 9 times to break even. Hot numbers hit from 14 to 22 times in 300 spins. I know this because my first research into randomness was tracking the three hottest numbers from 300 spin cycles. I started that research back in 1995. I've seen a hot number hit 28 times once. That's three times the break even point.
Here is what often happens. The super white hot, hottest number, is often also one of the three hottest numbers in a 300 spin cycle. That's a reference to recognition of the best three and nothing more.
When you start to think in terms of 10 to 12 hours on a live wheel of play as a session then now you are ready for hottest number play.
my 2 cents