+ Register

[Kav]

With respect, at the surface level, I just cannot see the point to which you are intending to drive here Kav. As stated earlier, heading negatively, which is what you appear to be doing using this 'reduction to zero', a sort of reduction ad absurdum,  in attempting to break the square, you will frustrate your worthy intentions. Please clarify further or correct me here. I do not want to make a grievous
error.

What part of my previous reply you did not understand?
Parlay is a better way to minimize you bankroll than flat betting, in the situation I presented.

[sqzbox]

Um - I still stand by flat bet. You have to consider ALL possible outcomes. If you use a parlay, reverse marty or normal marty, or whatever, all these imply increasing individual bet amounts and so your average bet MUST be higher than your average flat bet (assuming you bet the minimum of 1 unit). Depending on exactly WHEN the betting sequence ends you could be left with a LARGE profit, or perhaps nothing. But, ON AVERAGE, somewhere between 0 and a high value which will be, I contend, larger than simply flat betting.

When flat betting it is true that you will end up with a profit - but the question was "minimal profit" not "zero profit" (the latter of course is an oxymoron anyway and in my view would not be part of the set of possible valid outcomes).

[Bayes]

sqzbox,

I wrote a little simulation to test this. If you use a standard reverse marty assuming 7 steps (a house limit of 100 units) and also given a 60% win rate, the marty makes far more than flat betting. However, I disagree that losing your bank isn't a case of "minimal" profit, and in fact, if you bet your entire bank on each spin (whatever it may be) you will lose it every time. Even betting half your bank doesn't guarantee you will lose under these conditions; most of the time you will lose it but every now and then you make a huge profit which makes up for all the previous lost banks.

Theory says that  with a positive expectation you should be timid (bet a small % of your bank).

[sqzbox]

Perhaps we need the OP to define "minimal profit" then.  Does -1 represent a minimal profit? In which case -10 is a better result? And -100 better still? Because it is more minimal? Weird. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would have thought that +1 was the lowest possible value that a minimal profit could be - it is a profit and it is the minimum that a profit can be. Anything less is not a profit it seems to me.

And surely a flat bet at minimum is the most "small %" of your bank that can be bet, and since, as your simulation suggests, the marty makes far more than a flat bet then playing the marty or reverse marty is NOT what we would want to play if we wanted to achieve minimal profit.

Betting your entire bank every time will guarantee you lose it all when the loss occurs, but if we are in a 60% win situation then 60% of the time we are in a big win situation. If the simulation ends at a win then that is an entirely different situation and may well represent a larger bankroll than flat betting.  However, if the simulation is long then probably the flat bet would end with a bigger bankroll than betting the whole thing each bet. This is just another reason why the question itself makes no sense - too undefined.

Are we in a circular argument? [smiley]aes/dont_know.png[/smiley]

[Bayes]

Actually, I've just realized that I didn't take the house limit into account in my simulation. If the reverse marty is limited to 7 steps (house max 100 units), then obviously you can't bet your entire bank whenever it exceeds this.

I think the question as posed by Kav wasn't very clear, but in general, the correct solution is to flat bet. This would also be confirmed by the mathematical expectation, which would tell you that in the long run you will make a 20% return on investment (assuming 60% win rate). It simply cannot be any less than that, without assuming unrealistic scenarios such as infinite house limits.

[sqzbox]

Thanks Bayes - I feel vindicated! 

There are too many undefined variables in the original question - as you say. What is the spread provided by the house in which we are playing? 1 to 100 is a different game from 1 to 25 for example. What is the value of the limits? 100 units versus 25 units? again, different games. Do I have to bet every spin? How many events are in the set? Can I choose when to stop? and so on and on.

I've always maintained that the 2 most powerful tools in our arsenal are - 1) we can choose whether to place a bet or not, whereas the casino must always play, and 2) we can choose how much to bet, and the casino must always match it.  The OP says nothing about either of these powerful weapons.

Therefore we have no choice but to generalise the answer.  Given that the mathematical expectation under general casino conditions for this scenario is 20% ROI (didn't know that), and the assumption that we are talking "in the long run", then minimal profit is achieved by minimal investment which can only be achieved by flat betting.  But again, it should be stated that this assumes certain restrictions such as "must bet every spin".

[Bayes]

Bayes, you and the other math guys are ever circling but don't know how to "go in for the kill".

So, are you saying the math is wrong?

I thought the point of Kav's question was to get us to think "out of the box", but to what end? did he have something specific in mind? What is the take-away value from this exchange?

You can dream up all kinds of novel approaches, but novelty shouldn't be an end in itself, IMO.

[Kav]

So, are you saying the math is wrong?
I thought the point of Kav's question was to get us to think "out of the box", but to what end? did he have something specific in mind? What is the take-away value from this exchange?
You can dream up all kinds of novel approaches, but novelty shouldn't be an end in itself, IMO.

Hi,
Yes it was a thought provoking question. This is not a test to which I already knew the answer. When you explore new territory you don't know what you will find. Maybe gold, maybe nothing.
My base idea was to ask the opposite question than we often ask. "How do I minimize profits" instead of "how do I minimize losses" or "how do I maximize profits". If we found an interesting answer then we could reverse it and see if that method can maximize profits or minimize losses.  Just a thought. A shot in the dark, but hopefully in the right direction.

I think Picasso once said that "Computers are not so important, they only provide answers". Meaning that asking (new) questions and wondering is of greater importance. Every thought process begins with a question.

@Bloohood
Thanks.
I also read your answer in the wizard forum. You are an example that a "pointless" question can provoke someone to think. Could you please elaborate about what you mean?

[ybot]

Kav, no system will work if it does not work flatbetting.
No matter what you do, you need an actual edge to succeed.
Then, Kelly criterion prevents you from bankrupcy.
In case table limits are not high, you just flatbett ever
warm regards

[Kav]

Kav, no system will work if it does not work flatbetting.
No matter what you do, you need an actual edge to succeed.
Then, Kelly criterion prevents you from bankrupcy.
In case table limits are not high, you just flatbett ever
warm regards

This thread is about the system that ill offer the least amount of profit in a favorable spin sequence.
Why flat betting is the worst way t bet is a totally different subject.
Flat betting can not be called a "system". It is merely a bet selections, since your bet will always be the same.

[ybot]

I guess, the answer you long for might be from a math guy.
Bayes should do.

[pedro]

Hi all,
Have you seen the Cammegh web site where they demonstrate the 360 rrs roulette wheel ?

These wheels should be outlawed, to be able to change the speed of the rotor in play is just not fair. I have my suspicion that they are in use at Crown casinos in Australia. .Tried asking the Pit bulls,but they just smirk, over the last few years, after they put in the new Rapid roulette, a few dealers have whispered to me not to play the Rapid (dealers you ask yes I have seen these guys and girls grow into adults over the last 21 years as we only have one Casino in Melbourne) no wonder the terminals are empty .The wheels  on the main floor may be the same,  gee the one number that is not covered comes up,   players can't be that unlucky that many times can they?
Would any one know if there are the old style wheels in play in any of the Australian casinos ?
Cheers Pedro.