Mathematicians.......please take a look at this!

[TwoCatSam]

CD...

I appreciate your raising this issue.  It's an answer I needed.  AND...I found the book by KFS which I plan to print.  No, I had not seen it.

KFS

Thanks for your explanation.  You are one of the few who will take a person's question and truly answer it.  Are you a teacher in real life?  I did figure out the paradox from what winkel said. (I was up most of the night with this one.)  But your post gave me a whole new way to look at things.

And thanks for that e-book!  Man that is a work! 

Thanks to all who answered!

Chickendinner, for this I would buy you a...um...er.....chicken dinner!

Samster

[TwoCatSam]

KFS

In your example you seem to be saying this:

Even though there is a push when the first dozen OR the large numbers hit, there is still an edge to be paid to the house on all those bets.

I am thinking this is the case and when the zero or the other uncovered number hits, you pay the edge in a lump sum.  Then I get to thinking, isn't that true with all bets?  You win for a while and then you lose.  When you lose you pay the edge.

This raises a totally new and different--dare I say exciting--issue for me, but I must dwell on in for days lest I make myself look dim.(er)

Pass on this whole thing if you're done with it and I will, too!

Sam

[ChickenDinner]

Thanks for the dinner Sam, but unfortunately it seems, to me at least (hang on, another post - you as well), that my original question remains in dispute.

Does excluding the zero in a betting system give the house a futher 2.7% advantage (or edge)?

Let's forget outside bets and imagine a hypothetical roulette table that pays odds 36-1 on the inside numbers. Great thinks the hypothetical player - no house edge! Well, not quite. The only rule is you can't bet zero. So therefore the house has a 2.7% advantage over the long-term: a 2.7% edge. Agreed?

So on a real European Roulette table that pays untrue odds of 35/1 (giving them a 2.7% edge), excluding the zero (in a bet selction) will always give the casino a further 2.7% edge.

Yes there are will always be 37 or 38 slots in which the ball can slot, we can't change that. But by always excluding 1 number (eg, the zero) in a bet selection, there are only 36 or 37 slots in which you can win.

If I'm wrong, I am more than happy to admit so. And for those of you who think I am wrong, could you please explain why in very simple terms. Maybe I should have tried a bit harder at Maths when I was at school...

CD

[TwoCatSam]

CD

Does excluding the zero in a betting system give the house a futher 2.7% advantage (or edge)?  I'm sure KFS can answer that.

Let's forget outside bets and imagine a hypothetical roulette table that pays odds 36-1 on the inside numbers. Great thinks the hypothetical player - no house edge! Well, not quite. The only rule is you can't bet zero. So therefore the house has a 2.7% advantage over the long-term: a 2.7% edge. Agreed?  Yes

Both winkel and Monte Carlo have said it is possible to increase the house edge.

Bloomone and I studied his idea of reducing the "volatility" and we both agreed with him that it is possible to increase the edge.  Now, after reading KFS, I simply don't know.

About the time you "know" something, you get shot down!!  Ain't it fun, though?

Sam

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Hi,

CD, you are confusing "will not allow you to bet Zero" and "will not pay you for a hit on Zero"
The latter equals to keeping an extra bet - stealing.

But if you are not allowed to bet the Zero, there is no difference at all...

Suppose you bet 1u on every number 1 - 36 for 37 times = 37 x 36u = 1332u
You will hit the winning number 36 times winning 36u = 36 x 36 = 1296.
Giving you a loss of 36 u and -36 / 1332 = -2.7%

Now, if the casino refuses to pay for a bet on Zero:
For 37 times you bet 37u (1u on every number) = 1369u
You will win 36 times 36u = 1296u...
Giving you a loss of 73u and -73 / 1369 = 5.33%


Regards,
KFS

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Sam,

Regarding your "pay-the-edge" question...

In my mind we all pay all of the time... You have to bet (pay) to win.

I think about it like this:
There are 37 persons at the table. They all bet one $10-chip each on one number each so all of the numbers are bet.
Zero hits. (or whichever)

The dealer puts the marker at the lay-out and collects all the money.
Then he counts 36 chips and hand them to the winner.
The dealer keeps 1 chip.

Who's chip?

No; not a trick question...
I like to think that we all payed 1/37 of that chip...


Have a nice week-end!
KFS

[TwoCatSam]

KFS

I wrote:  This raises a totally new and different--dare I say exciting--issue for me, but I must dwell on in for days lest I make myself look dim.(er)

You wrote:  I like to think that we all payed 1/37 of that chip...

You read my mind!

Thanks for your tutorial and...

Good day!

Sam

[ChickenDinner]

Thanks Kon-Fu-Sed - I understand what you are saying.

Perhaps my example was wrong, though. I guess what it comes down to is that 99% of systems use statistics as a method for bet selection. So if the player ignores one number, he or she ignores a possible outcome and is therefore using only 97.3% of the available numbers as a guide to select their bets. I'm undoubtably mixing statistics and house edge here. But I think the bottom line is that a system that only uses 97.3% of the numbers has a 2.7% disadvantage over a system that uses 100% of the numbers. The house edge itself will not change; it will always by 2.7% or 5.26%. But in order to make optimal use of sequential and binomial probability theory (and standard deviation), 100% of the numbers should be tracked and played. I know that the absolute probability for each spin will always be 1/37 or 1/38, but if mathematical estimates are all we have to go on when placing a bet, all the numbers must be included in whatever bet selection method is used.

Thanks for your help anyway mate, and hopefully I am not talking too much bollocks in this post 

Cheers

CD

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Good morning CD, an All,

Yes: The way I see it, you are absolutely correct when you describe it like that.


/KFS

[ChickenDinner]

Thanks KFS. I'm glad to hear that I'm on the right tracks. Now I just need to find that optimal system...!

Cheers
CD

[Poit]

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

[Poit]

-