Quote from: Albalaha on June 07, 2018, 05:02:06 AM
People used to laugh when the concept of airplane was first conceived.

I guess it was just a matter of time before the Wright brothers showed up in this thread.

This is a non sequitur

"People said nobody will ever make a machine that can fly, they were wrong. Therefore gambling systems work!"

QuoteIf you know that only house can win, what the hell are you doing on a gambling forum?

Al,

Nobody is saying that only the house can win, especially not Xander, who has made a very good living from the casinos for over 30 years. But he hasn't done it by using progressions. or waiting for the right patterns in past results.

There are many reasons why someone might post on a gambling forum, one of which might be to criticise wrong ideas and explain why certain strategies can't work.

Gizmo,

I only mentioned proof because you did :

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2018, 12:36:05 PM
Many here won't want to call it an edge. But if it is a proven advantage they will have to live with that outcome anyway. So for me the task ahead is to prove it. If I can't then the idea of consistently, enough to beat the variance, beating the game with flat bets would also be validated by me as to being ineffective. So that is my challenge.

Ok, so maybe you're not in a position to prove it yet, no problem. But I'm interested in how you could prove it without using some kind of algorithm. Yes it would be a lot of work, but how else could you provide a real proof? You say that the human brain can do it easy, but a computer can keep track of many more variables than a human could, and it would double as a documented proof, if it worked.

Gizmo,

I can see the patterns all right. But now what?

My next bet can be either for the pattern to continue or for it to end. Which do I choose, and more importantly, WHY?

Your proof starts here. 

Quote from: Albalaha on June 04, 2018, 07:16:23 AM
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.

This is just gambler's fallacy I'm afraid. 

Quote from: Jimske on June 03, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
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.

Quote from: Jimske on June 03, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
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.

Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 08:06:53 AM
          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.

Quote
      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.

Quote from: Xander on June 02, 2018, 06:18:26 PM
Mike,

Gizmo doesn't comprehend the math.  He really sucks at it.  He's a "literate boy," but not one of the "mathboyz."

I know, but my replies aren't really for Gizmo. And besides, he's admitted he has a "problem" with gambling. I'm proud to be one of the "mathboyz". 

Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 06:03:16 AM
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.

Quote2. 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.

Quote3. 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.

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 01, 2018, 08:44:09 PM

Why, mathematically, must anyone have an edge in order to win?

Gizmo,

You really don't need math to understand why an edge is needed, simple logic in plain English is enough. First, what is an edge? It's the difference between what you SHOULD get paid in order to break even, and what you ACTUALLY get paid. If the payments on winning bets are short, the edge lies with the house, if they are long, you have the edge. eg. if the payout is 35 chips on a single number and the probability of a hit is 1/37, you will lose, if it's 1/36 you will break even, and if it's 1/35 you will win (long term). The edge is defined by the relationship between the payout and the probability of a win. The simple math which encapsulates this is well known. Here is the forumula for expectation in even money bets on a double zero wheel:

EV = (18/38 x 1) + (20/38 x -1) = 18/38 - 20/38 = -2/38 = -5.26%

So ON AVERAGE, you lose.

Gamblers often think they can win because the house edge very rarely manifests over a session or even a number of sessions. They win because of the variance, which in the SHORT term can often put them way ahead of what the expectation (long term average) dictates. But as the number of bets increases, the house edge dominates. It's the short term behaviour of variance (standard deviation) which fools players into thinking that they can win long term. The expected loss is proportional to the number of bets made, but the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of bets made.

The blue line (standard deviation) initially increases at a faster rate than the expected loss (red line), but there will come a time (when the lines intersect) after which you will be in the red, never to recover.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 30, 2018, 06:33:10 PM
Well that's your opinion which reflects a rigid mentality and it's based on the conventional "wisdom".


But please answer me honestly, since when it's really better to think and act like the majority (average Joe)?
And I'm not talking only about gambling, but about almost everything...
As a general rule in my life I'm trying to avoid the majority beliefs, habits, mentality, way of life in general.

BA,

It may be my "opinion" but at least I can back it up with facts and logic, which is not the case for those who say that guessing which RANDOM number is going to appear next has some validity. All you have is mere assertion. As I said, if you were able to demonstrate that these techniques actually work, you would have to use facts and logic, statistics, etc. ie, rational processes!

And if you are trying to avoid the majority of beliefs etc, aren't you as much controlled by them as someone who follows the herd? What is the value of going against the grain just for the sake of it?

@ Gizmo,

QuoteAll I do is watch 12 different sets of 18 numbers. I'm not stuck to just the reds. I can see up ticks in any one of the sets. I can guess better than you can pontificate. I have the skill. You don't.

This would only work if there was some genuine asymmetry in the outcomes, or if previous outcomes influenced future outcomes, if only sometimes. This can and does happen in trading stocks because people tend to use the same indicators, and swings are often driven by what other people are doing. It doesn't happen in roulette (or Bacc) for obvious reasons, so your candlestick charts are irrelevant. You can jump on a trend or anti trend but there is never any tendency for it to continue, and if you can't identify any REAL underlying causes which correlate with the perceived trends, you're just following a random walk.

QuoteJust saying you are right does not actually make you right.

Correct, but this is just what you do. I give good reasons why your ideas can't work, whereas you just assert that they do. Haven't you noticed that trend?

The "no system" system is the final attempt to get the better of the casino by those who have been there, done it, and tried many so-called "mechanical" systems which require you to stick to a rigid schedule of bets and/or money management.

Sooner or later, you're going to realize that no system will win consistently. The solution? Simple : abandon "mechanical" systems and just GUESS! make up your selections, patterns and progressions on the fly. Learn to "read randomness", cultivate your intuition, etc...

The problem is, this idea just doesn't work, and you're still deluding yourself. The solution is not to abandon "mechanical" systems and embrace "non-mechanical" ones, (whatever they actually are), but to learn why any kind of system based on patterns and progressions cannot work. In fact, the term "non-mechanical" is self-contradictory, because if you knew how and why a non-mechanical system worked, it would no longer be non-mechanical, but mechanical like all the others, and you could then use math or simulations to show that it didn't work.  On the other hand, if you DON'T know how or why your method is working, then you're just guessing, aren't you?

The comfort to be drawn from playing these guessing games (as opposed to applying a structured set of rules) is that they are apparently immune from the math (and the "mathboyz" critiques  ). Gambler's who have "progressed" this far like to feel that they're more sophisticated than their colleagues who are still bumbling around with mechanical systems, and therefore ultimately doomed to fail. It's nonsense of course; the reasoning seems to be : "You can't win by using a system, therefore if I DON'T use a system I will win!". 

They don't seem to realize that although they may be working very hard at guessing, in truth they're just betting randomly, and therefore they have no more chance of getting an edge by betting this way than someone who uses a rigid system mindlessly.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 25, 2018, 04:13:04 PM
The same goes for another popular misconception; "what's better, betting more or betting less numbers?"
The majority mistakenly believes that less is better, but if this was true then all we had to do was to pick 2 to 4 numbers in order to become victorious like Ken! 

You're right in that betting fewer numbers doesn't give any advantage in itself, its value lies in the fact that the variance is higher betting fewer numbers, and exposes less to the house edge. When you don't have an edge, betting fewer numbers means the swings will be larger in BOTH directions. A gambler relies on these swings if he wants to quit while ahead, but of course, because variance is a two-edge sword, it means that when betting fewer numbers the losses will also be larger. Either way (betting more or fewer numbers), in the absence of a real edge, the expectation (mean) will overcome short term variance eventually. The merit of fewer numbers lies in the duration of the swings which enables more opportunities to quit with a profit. But these are not "real" opportunities in the sense that they confer an edge; you're just relying on luck.

Quote from: Jimske on May 24, 2018, 08:33:34 PM
OTH, using a structured bet placement based on bias I have found win % consistently higher.  I'm talking Baccarat of course.  Last year, prior to my 10 month away I was tabulating all wagers and have continued since I've been back.  To date  2,538 wagers with 53.94% strike rate.  Again, all live wagers.

Jimske,

Are you betting a roughly equal mix of banker/player? I'm not sure what the exact long term win rate should be, but assuming you're not betting ties, it should be pretty close to 50%. Assuming this, your results are impressive and at the far end of the bell curve. A p-value of less than 1% is deemed "significant".

QuoteNull hypothesis: population proportion = 0.5
Sample size: n = 2538
Sample proportion = 0.5394
Test statistic: z = (0.5394 - 0.5)/0.00992486 = 3.96983
Two-tailed p-value = 7.192e-05
(one-tailed = 3.596e-05)

It could still be a fluke though, because the number of hands played is relatively small.

Quote from: Gizmotron on May 20, 2018, 03:35:16 AM
They refuse to admit that a quit while you are ahead player can win long term. Yet we see this by day traders and swing traders every day in the stock market. Funny how they did not get the memo.

Gizmo,

We got the memo alright, in fact we're sick of getting it, we just think it's nonsense. Here's the thing about hit & run. In order for it to work, you have to know when to hit and when to run. In other words, there have to be genuine opportunities. But in a game like roulette (or baccarat), there are none because previous outcomes don't influence future outcomes and all patterns are equally likely.

And your analogy with trading is misplaced. Stock prices CAN follow definite trends because of the herd mentality. There are psychological reasons  why following a trend is often a good bet, but obviously these factors don't exist in roulette because it's just a ball and a wheel.