Reducing Volatility @ TwoCatSam

[reddwarf]

OK,

I'm done studying:
1. yes, combining bets SEQUENTIALLY does introduce auto correlation in the resulting sequence. This can not be used however because it does not help predicting where to put the next bet, it is just an attribute of the history of hits!

2. While investigating I encountered some really puzzling, roulette related facts, as far as I know I've never seen them mentioned in this or other forums, so I will start a new thread soon. Anyway, volatility reducing bets are the worst bets you can imagine! From every perspective! (reduced probability of winning a session of bets, higher probability of gamblers ruin etc)

Red dwarf

[Gerrard]

@Monte Carlo(if he still watches this thread)

I have been reading this thread recently.  Very interesting, I can't believe I missed this one.
You stated with your method (2 EC's IE Black/Even, Red/Odd) the odds are 23. 6%=W, 28. 9%=L, and 47. 5%=tie.
Do you think there is a possiblity you can turn the 23. 6% win into a tie and MOST of the 47. 5% into a win? Keeping the w/l  unit amounts the same? EI w = +4  l = -4.

[medo]

@Monte Carlo(if he still watches this thread)

I have been reading this thread recently.  Very interesting, I can't believe I missed this one.
You stated with your method (2 EC's IE Black/Even, Red/Odd) the odds are 23. 6%=W, 28. 9%=L, and 47. 5%=tie.
Do you think there is a possiblity you can turn the 23. 6% win into a tie and MOST of the 47. 5% into a win? Keeping the w/l  unit amounts the same? EI w = +4  l = -4.



Playing this on En prison rules and FLD...it is a winner on the long run.

[Gerrard]

 


Playing this on En prison rules and FLD. . . it is a winner on the long run.


[/quote]

FLD?

[Far-Q]

Follow Last Decision = FLD

[Gerrard]

Follow Last Decision = FLD

I thought so.  Just wanted to make sure though.  Thanks
BTW @Far-Q
Nice avatar

[Far-Q]

No problem......and thanks.

[reddwarf]

Oh boy, here we go again: please do understand, applying the scheme as mentioned in the thread, you will lose, even if you take out the zero and even if you follow the last, or the penultimate or the parity of the time in seconds or whatever method there is to select the bet.

Although I still doubt Monte Carlo's claims, I think that what he does illustrate is that the reason why we lose at Roulette is NOT because of the house edge, but because of the volatility:

The casino has, compared to us, unlimited bankroll. Due to volatility we are going to loose anyway, even if the house edge would be zero or even positive! yes when the house edge is positive, there are methods (kelly) to reduce the posibility of gamblers ruin. And yes, because the house edge is negative we lose even more!

I think that if Monte Carlo is honest, and he does have a method: he must have found a way to exploit the reduced volatility. This then must be a combination of money management and clever bet selection (reduced volatility at some point implies conditionality, meaning, the previous spins do contain information about the next spin). And if he has a method, than is must be a rather complex one!

What he claimed thusfar is true: combining bets does decrease the volatility, which is illustrated with his examples, but the examples themselves can never be the method! (as he also indicates in his replies)

reddwarf

[Number Six]

Playing this on En prison rules and FLD. . . it is a winner on the long run.




FLD?

medo, prove it.

Show us the maths behind it.

[medo]

medo, prove it.

Show us the maths behind it.

No time.Must be on the run to Slovenia--there is En prison table.

[LuckoftheIrish]

I have run several 100 000 spin samples just to find the Loss streaks of betting BE every spin in single zero roulette.

I ran a few dozen 100 000 spins samples (so just a few million spins) and the least amount of losses in a row in 100 000 spins was 12.  The most was 23!  Look at this session I just ran:

   BE           %
W   27108   27.108
L   29593   29.593
P   43299   43.299
   100000   
(P stands for Push  W is BE, L is RO)

8   B   E   W   0
36   R   E   P   0
9   R   O   L   1
5   R   O   L   2
19   R   O   L   3
3   R   O   L   4
5   R   O   L   5
9   R   O   L   6
3   R   O   L   7
35   B   O   P   7
27   R   O   L   8
35   B   O   P   8
1   R   O   L   9
13   B   O   P   9
31   B   O   P   9
27   R   O   L   10
32   R   E   P   10
7   R   O   L   11
7   R   O   L   12
1   R   O   L   13
1   R   O   L   14
1   R   O   L   15
36   R   E   P   15
23   R   O   L   16
25   R   O   L   17
29   B   O   P   17
34   R   E   P   17
5   R   O   L   18
23   R   O   L   19

So his claim that you will see lower loss streaks that simply betting a single even chance is wrong.  Actually the loss strings will be longer.

[LuckoftheIrish]

-