System based purely in maths REVISITED!!!!!!!!!!

[gingermolloy]

I have been reading and contributing to this forum now for some time, and I feel it is time that I return to the subject that first brought me here.

When I first posted this I was convinced I was right about some things that I now know (thanks to you guys) I was wrong about.

After reading countless posts on this forum and spending some time alone trying to work out what is going on, I am still no nearer a full understanding of this.

So here we go again.

I need to know why I seem to have come up with a way of calculating a mathematical advantage where one clearly doesn't exist.

Firstly, let me explain this advantage as if I was convinced it was a fact.

I know there must be something wrong with my logic here, but I cannot find it.

See what you guys think and let me know.

So, here is my supposed "System based purely in maths".

Consider this! If I was to give you the opportunity to bet on the outcome of a roll of a dice and I gave you odds of 6/1, would you take the bet?

Of course you would because the fair odds would be 5/1. If you were given 6/1 over a lot of rolls of the dice you would come out on top.

Now let us consider the roulette wheel. Fair odds of a number appearing are 36/1 (on a European wheel), but we are given 35/1. These are unfair odds, and it is for this reason that the house enjoys a 2.7% advantage.

Let us now consider if we were given odds of 37/1 on a number appearing. Would we bet? Of course we would, and over the long term we would win.

So I believe that a ratio of the fair to given odds is a reflection of weather we have beaten the wheel or not. If the ratio is below 1.00 we are at an advantage and will win over the long term.

For a single spin this ratio would be 37/36 = 1.027. (Note that we are now dealing with decimal odds where 2/1 = 3.00)

If you calculate this ratio for any single spin you will discover this ratio, and it is this that tells us that if we bet on a single spin over a long period of time we will lose out at a rate of 2.78%.

Now let us consider the Grand Martingale Progression with a stop limit.

i.e. Bet on an evens chance using this progression 1, 3, 7, 15.

If we lose after the 4th spin, we take it on the chin and start again, and if we win at any point we start again.

What we are doing here is betting on a series of spins, I.e that we will not lose once in a series of four spins.

The odds of us losing all four spins on an evens chance is (19/37)^4 = 0.069536

We can convert this into decimal odds by calculating the reciprocal of 1 minus this number. (Ill explain later why this works if anyone is interested.)

For this that is 1/(1-0.069536) = 1.074732. This is FAIR odds.

Now for the given odds.

Given odds can be seen as the amount we would win for each unit wagered.

eg,
We would win 2 units (winnings plus the return of our wager) for a wager of 1 unit on an evens chance, so the odds are 2/1 = 2.00.

So given odds are, the amount we get if we win divided by the amount we had to wager.

We have 4 different points at which we could win, so lets work out the given odds for each of these.

If we win after 1 spin: given odds = 2/1 = 2.00
If we win after 2 spin: given odds = 6/4 = 1.50
If we win after 3 spin: given odds = 14/11 = 1.273
If we win after 4 spin: given odds = 30/26 = 1.15385

As you can see, all of these are better odds than we worked out to be fair (1. 074732)

Therefore this method of betting should give us an advantage.

HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we use probability to calculate the average amount won and the average amount lost using this method we end up with a net loss.

Real life test also show a net loss.

WHY???

[Boo_Ray]

WHY

I think because you can lose much more in 4 spins then you can win in 4 spins

[gingermolloy]

That has been demonstrated, but why do I get better odds given than are fair and still lose

It makes no sense, It must be wrong, but I cant see where

ginger

[gingermolloy]

win 1 2 10 19 on the progression steps

Philic,

where are you getting these numbers from??

and evens in decimal form is 2.00

ginger

[gingermolloy]

You got it mate

Its a grand martingale

1 unit for every spin

ginger

[gingermolloy]

It will fail 1 in 14.38, say 14

so it will be 13 wins for every loss.

You are right, the amount won is not enough to cancel out the losses, but why do the odds seen so good.

Espesially at the early wins!!!

I know it fails because the losses out do the wins, this is why all progressions I have tried to date have failed.

It must be a quirk of the maths, I just cant see it

ginger

[gingermolloy]

Totally correct

Couldn't agree more.

But what about the Fair to Given odds ratio??

Why does it point towards us having an advantage over the house when we dont??

ginger

[gingermolloy]

I think it's because:
Roughly without zeros:
1st step 8 win in 16    = 8
2nd step 4 win in 16   =8
3rd step 2 win in 16    =6
4th step 1 win in 16    =4
                             ------
                               26

5th step 1 loss in 16    = -26

Minus the house edge.
So the number of times you win the next step becomes less, meaning you win more times on the first steps when the profit is less.
I think all progressions will work out equal minus the house edge.

Is it possible to configure a progression so that it will win more at the later stages?

Just thinking out load here, but, could you make it so that as the progression moves along and we go without a win for longer, could we cover more numbers, therefore bending the grandmartingale further??

say,
bet 1: cover 10 numbers
bet 2 : cover 15
bet 3: cover 20 numbers and so on.

I think its got legs, going to try it now

ginger

[esoito]

"If we use probability to calculate the average amount won and the average amount lost using this method we end up with a net loss."


Thinking aloud...

Isn't the zero some sort of wildcard? A sort of random-buggery-factor that needs to be factored in to your calculations?

Trouble is its appearance isn't regular. Sometimes it appears in clusters; other times there's a long time between drinks.

And the erratic intervals could play merry hell with your bottom line.

[bombus]

This bit's wrong.

The odds of us losing all four spins on an evens chance is (19/37)^4 = 0.069536

In the real world the odds of losing increases after each lost stage of the 4 steps.

[mane]

Hi. You say

"We have 4 different points at which we could win, so lets work out the given odds for each of these.

If we win after 1 spin: given odds = 2/1 = 2.00
If we win after 2 spin: given odds = 6/4 = 1.50
If we win after 3 spin: given odds = 14/11 = 1.273
If we win after 4 spin: given odds = 30/26 = 1.15385

As you can see, all of these are better odds than we worked out to be fair (1. 074732)"


That is correct if it was certain that you would win in the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd or the 4th spin. This system would indeed have an advantage over the house.
You just forgot to add the times you dont hit in any of the four first spins. I´m sure that will put the average given odds in favor of the house.

[gingermolloy]

"If we use probability to calculate the average amount won and the average amount lost using this method we end up with a net loss."


Thinking aloud...

Isn't the zero some sort of wildcard? A sort of random-buggery-factor that needs to be factored in to your calculations?

Trouble is its appearance isn't regular. Sometimes it appears in clusters; other times there's a long time between drinks.

And the erratic intervals could play merry hell with your bottom line.

The Zero has been factored in mate, It is the very buggery factor that ruins the maths

ginger

[gingermolloy]

This bit's wrong.

In the real world the odds of losing increases after each lost stage of the 4 steps.

Yeah! You could have a good point there!

These fair odds only stand for a bet placed on the outcome of all four spins placed before the first spin, for every failed spin the odds of a loss will increase.

I think you may have found the reason my maths dont add up.

I will investigate further,

Thanks

ginger

[gingermolloy]

-