9 Numbers

[Proofreaders2K]

Lalyranchers

[Proofreaders2K]

Lalyrancher

[pins]

can not read messages

[pins]

can not read messages

[nullified]

Among the many other counter-intuitive scenarios that show up in the game of Roulette is the observation that: the more you try to cover the table, the less money you actually win. 

While this may be obvious to some, perhaps even more surprising is the fact that: the less you try to cover the table, the more you actually win.  What I'm talking about here is probabilities, not statistics.

Let's look at the most common scenario, and take that as our base point.

On an Even Chance bet, you have 19/37 chances of losing, and 18/37 chances of winning.  This amounts to 51.35% of the time you can expect to lose, and 48.65% of the time you can expect to win.  Notice I said "expect to lose," and "expect to win."  The Law of Large Numbers says that, over an (undefined) extended period of time, all numbers will approach their expected occurrences - this is what is known as "Regression to the Mean."  In shorter trials however, there is often a large disparity between how many times a number should show up (in terms of it's probability), and how many times it actually does show up - in other words the number of wins and losses can vary greatly.  So in, say, 100 trials of flat betting on red, you may actually end up winning a dollar or two - but that isn't to be expected.  What's to be expected is that you lose about $51 and win about $49 - and overall lose about $2 or $3 dollars per 100 trials.

Okay, so practically speaking, if I'm going to flat bet $1 on red for 100 bets, then I should expect to lose (at best) -$2.  So my expected loss for a bet that covers about 49% of the table is -$2.

Now what about if I want to cover more of the table?  What should I expect when I cover, say 2 of the Dozens?  Well, if I put $1 on each of the Dozens and use a flat bet, then I am covering 24 of 37 spaces, which means I can expect to win 64.86% of the time - or about 65%.  So 65 times out of 100 I should see a profit of $1.  That leaves 35% of the time I'll lose... which means in that same 100 spins I'll lose $2 35 times.  So my expected loss for 100 spins is ($2 * 35) - $65 = -$5.

Hmmm.  Even though I've covered more of the table, my expected loss has now increased by $3.

And when I decide to cover more of the board, things only get worse.

When I cover 5 of the 6 lines with $1 each, I've used $5 to cover 30 spaces, or 81% of the table.  Now if I flat bet those $5 for 100 trials, I can expect 81 wins of $1 each, and 19 losses of -$5 each.  This amounts to +$81 - (19 * 5) = -$14 as my expected loss.

And if I bet $1 each on 11 of the 12 streets, I cover 33 spaces on the table which is 89% of the table.  So with my $11 I can expect a win $1 89 times out of 100 trials, and lose $11 for 11 times.  This equates to +$89 - ($11 * 11) = 89 - 121, or -$32 as my expected loss.

So do things get any better when I cover less than half the table?

When I flat bet on a single dozen, I cover 12 numbers with my $1, or 32.4% of the table.  So in 100 trials, I can expect to win $2 32 times = $64.  In that same 100 trials, I can expect to lose on 25 of those numbers, which is 67.58% or 68%.  So 68 times I will lose my $1.  Now my expected loss is 64 - 68 = -$4.  Lower, but still not as low as an Even Chance Bet.

Okay, now I'll flat bet on a single line covering 6 numbers.  So my $1 covers 6 of 37 numbers, so I can expect it to hit 16 times in 100 trials (6/37 = 16.21%).  When it hits, I profit by $5.  So 16 * 5 = +$80.  Since I will lose on 31 numbers, they will come out 84 times in that same 100 trials (31/37 = 83.78%).  My losses are -$84, and my wins are +$80, giving me an expected loss of -$4.  Still almost twice that of the House Edge.

I'll save you the rest of the math and simply point out that covering 3 numbers (a street) produces an expected loss of -$4, 2 numbers (a split) produces an expected loss of -$10, and a single number produces an expected loss of -$25.

None of this looks any good, and none of these flat bets do anything to cut into the house edge.

The only bet I left out was the corner bet.

On a corner bet, I use my $1 to cover 4 of 37 numbers.  So it covers 10.81% of the table, or about 11%.  In 100 trials I can expect to win 11 times at $8 profit each, which is +$88.  The other 89% of the time, I will lose my dollar.  So my expected loss is +$88 - $89 = -$1.

-$1?

That's less than half the house edge of -2.7%.

It's still not a winning bet, unless my corner happens to win 11 times before it loses 89 times.

But what if I was only working with 36 numbers instead of 37?  Honestly, the difference is only minimal, since 4/36 = 11.11%.  So I should still expect my corner to hit 11 times with a profit of 8 dollars each to equal +$88, and I'll lose 89% of the time, so -$89 for an expected loss of -$1.

I realize that 10.81% is not 11%, but what else are we to do with that .81 but round it up?  So yes, there is going to be some fluctuations.  But still, it appears that this flat bet has cut the house edge by more than half.

I'm not sure what we can do with this information, but it is counter-intuitive to be sure - which is why I named this post as I did.  I may just run a few hundred trials and see where it stands statistically, but as I see it, flat betting on a corner seems like a good way to not kill your bankroll.  Maybe if we can siphon a few quick hits and move on...

[nullified]

Among the many other counter-intuitive scenarios that show up in the game of Roulette is the observation that: the more you try to cover the table, the less money you actually win. 

While this may be obvious to some, perhaps even more surprising is the fact that: the less you try to cover the table, the more you actually win.  What I'm talking about here is probabilities, not statistics.

Let's look at the most common scenario, and take that as our base point.

On an Even Chance bet, you have 19/37 chances of losing, and 18/37 chances of winning.  This amounts to 51.35% of the time you can expect to lose, and 48.65% of the time you can expect to win.  Notice I said "expect to lose," and "expect to win."  The Law of Large Numbers says that, over an (undefined) extended period of time, all numbers will approach their expected occurrences - this is what is known as "Regression to the Mean."  In shorter trials however, there is often a large disparity between how many times a number should show up (in terms of it's probability), and how many times it actually does show up - in other words the number of wins and losses can vary greatly.  So in, say, 100 trials of flat betting on red, you may actually end up winning a dollar or two - but that isn't to be expected.  What's to be expected is that you lose about $51 and win about $49 - and overall lose about $2 or $3 dollars per 100 trials.

Okay, so practically speaking, if I'm going to flat bet $1 on red for 100 bets, then I should expect to lose (at best) -$2.  So my expected loss for a bet that covers about 49% of the table is -$2.

Now what about if I want to cover more of the table?  What should I expect when I cover, say 2 of the Dozens?  Well, if I put $1 on each of the Dozens and use a flat bet, then I am covering 24 of 37 spaces, which means I can expect to win 64.86% of the time - or about 65%.  So 65 times out of 100 I should see a profit of $1.  That leaves 35% of the time I'll lose... which means in that same 100 spins I'll lose $2 35 times.  So my expected loss for 100 spins is ($2 * 35) - $65 = -$5.

Hmmm.  Even though I've covered more of the table, my expected loss has now increased by $3.

And when I decide to cover more of the board, things only get worse.

When I cover 5 of the 6 lines with $1 each, I've used $5 to cover 30 spaces, or 81% of the table.  Now if I flat bet those $5 for 100 trials, I can expect 81 wins of $1 each, and 19 losses of -$5 each.  This amounts to +$81 - (19 * 5) = -$14 as my expected loss.

And if I bet $1 each on 11 of the 12 streets, I cover 33 spaces on the table which is 89% of the table.  So with my $11 I can expect a win $1 89 times out of 100 trials, and lose $11 for 11 times.  This equates to +$89 - ($11 * 11) = 89 - 121, or -$32 as my expected loss.

So do things get any better when I cover less than half the table?

When I flat bet on a single dozen, I cover 12 numbers with my $1, or 32.4% of the table.  So in 100 trials, I can expect to win $2 32 times = $64.  In that same 100 trials, I can expect to lose on 25 of those numbers, which is 67.58% or 68%.  So 68 times I will lose my $1.  Now my expected loss is 64 - 68 = -$4.  Lower, but still not as low as an Even Chance Bet.

Okay, now I'll flat bet on a single line covering 6 numbers.  So my $1 covers 6 of 37 numbers, so I can expect it to hit 16 times in 100 trials (6/37 = 16.21%).  When it hits, I profit by $5.  So 16 * 5 = +$80.  Since I will lose on 31 numbers, they will come out 84 times in that same 100 trials (31/37 = 83.78%).  My losses are -$84, and my wins are +$80, giving me an expected loss of -$4.  Still almost twice that of the House Edge.

I'll save you the rest of the math and simply point out that covering 3 numbers (a street) produces an expected loss of -$4, 2 numbers (a split) produces an expected loss of -$10, and a single number produces an expected loss of -$25.

None of this looks any good, and none of these flat bets do anything to cut into the house edge.

The only bet I left out was the corner bet.

On a corner bet, I use my $1 to cover 4 of 37 numbers.  So it covers 10.81% of the table, or about 11%.  In 100 trials I can expect to win 11 times at $8 profit each, which is +$88.  The other 89% of the time, I will lose my dollar.  So my expected loss is +$88 - $89 = -$1.

-$1?

That's less than half the house edge of -2.7%.

It's still not a winning bet, unless my corner happens to win 11 times before it loses 89 times.

But what if I was only working with 36 numbers instead of 37?  Honestly, the difference is only minimal, since 4/36 = 11.11%.  So I should still expect my corner to hit 11 times with a profit of 8 dollars each to equal +$88, and I'll lose 89% of the time, so -$89 for an expected loss of -$1.

Now I realize that 10.81% is not the same as 11%.  But what other choice is there but to round up to 11?  Obviously there is going to be fluctuations here between 10 or more wins per 100 trials.  But long term, the loss is only $1.

I'm not sure what we can do with this information, but it is counter-intuitive to be sure - which is why I named this post as I did.  I may just run a few hundred trials and see where it stands statistically, but as I see it, flat betting on a corner seems like a good way to not kill your bankroll.  Maybe if we can siphon a few quick hits and move on...

[Andrew.B]

i used the old search first technique and couldn't find anything. . .

a friend of mine came across a free bot about a week ago now which i have been tinkering with. . .

not sure if i can post websites in here so i wont. . .

it's called Roulette Bot Plus (if you remove the spaces and throw a . com on the end you will have yourself a website  )

it uses H/L, O/E, R/B, Dozens and Rows.  the minimum bet is 1 unit of desired currency and you can tinker with the Threshold (number of sleeps before a bet) if you feel so inclined.  you can also change the bet progression and switch bet types on and off

please don't do as i do and use it with real money on the default settings. . .  i can guarantee whilst you might make over $100 in a 23 minute session (each automated session lasts 23 minutes and it will not operate the casino for two hours to avoid automated play) you will lose everything in 2-4 sessions!!! (tried and tested baby . . .  )

but i have been having some amounts off success over the last week. . .  it will run up to about 370 spins per session depending on your computers speed and how many bets it places. . .

can we get some opinions and if anyone has heard of or used or even better; made a profit using the bot???

would be greatly appreciated

cheers

Andy

[nullified]

Among the many other counter-intuitive scenarios that show up in the game of Roulette is the observation that: the more you try to cover the table, the less money you actually win. 

While this may be obvious to some, perhaps even more surprising is the fact that: the less you try to cover the table, the more you actually win.  What I'm talking about here is probabilities, not statistics.

Let's look at the most common scenario, and take that as our base point.

On an Even Chance bet, you have 19/37 chances of losing, and 18/37 chances of winning.  This amounts to 51.35% of the time you can expect to lose, and 48.65% of the time you can expect to win.  Notice I said "expect to lose," and "expect to win."  The Law of Large Numbers says that, over an (undefined) extended period of time, all numbers will approach their expected occurrences - this is what is known as "Regression to the Mean."  In shorter trials however, there is often a large disparity between how many times a number should show up (in terms of it's probability), and how many times it actually does show up - in other words the number of wins and losses can vary greatly.  So in, say, 100 trials of flat betting on red, you may actually end up winning a dollar or two - but that isn't to be expected.  What's to be expected is that you lose about $51 and win about $49 - and overall lose about $2 or $3 dollars per 100 trials.

Okay, so practically speaking, if I'm going to flat bet $1 on red for 100 bets, then I should expect to lose (at best) -$2.  So my expected loss for a bet that covers about 49% of the table is -$2.

Now what about if I want to cover more of the table?  What should I expect when I cover, say 2 of the Dozens?  Well, if I put $1 on each of the Dozens and use a flat bet, then I am covering 24 of 37 spaces, which means I can expect to win 64.86% of the time - or about 65%.  So 65 times out of 100 I should see a profit of $1.  That leaves 35% of the time I'll lose... which means in that same 100 spins I'll lose $2 35 times.  So my expected loss for 100 spins is ($2 * 35) - $65 = -$5.

Hmmm.  Even though I've covered more of the table, my expected loss has now increased by $3.

And when I decide to cover more of the board, things only get worse.

When I cover 5 of the 6 lines with $1 each, I've used $5 to cover 30 spaces, or 81% of the table.  Now if I flat bet those $5 for 100 trials, I can expect 81 wins of $1 each, and 19 losses of -$5 each.  This amounts to +$81 - (19 * 5) = -$14 as my expected loss.

And if I bet $1 each on 11 of the 12 streets, I cover 33 spaces on the table which is 89% of the table.  So with my $11 I can expect a win $1 89 times out of 100 trials, and lose $11 for 11 times.  This equates to +$89 - ($11 * 11) = 89 - 121, or -$32 as my expected loss.

So do things get any better when I cover less than half the table?

When I flat bet on a single dozen, I cover 12 numbers with my $1, or 32.4% of the table.  So in 100 trials, I can expect to win $2 32 times = $64.  In that same 100 trials, I can expect to lose on 25 of those numbers, which is 67.58% or 68%.  So 68 times I will lose my $1.  Now my expected loss is 64 - 68 = -$4.  Lower, but still not as low as an Even Chance Bet.

Okay, now I'll flat bet on a single line covering 6 numbers.  So my $1 covers 6 of 37 numbers, so I can expect it to hit 16 times in 100 trials (6/37 = 16.21%).  When it hits, I profit by $5.  So 16 * 5 = +$80.  Since I will lose on 31 numbers, they will come out 84 times in that same 100 trials (31/37 = 83.78%).  My losses are -$84, and my wins are +$80, giving me an expected loss of -$4.  Still almost twice that of the House Edge.

I'll save you the rest of the math and simply point out that covering 3 numbers (a street) produces an expected loss of -$4, 2 numbers (a split) produces an expected loss of -$10, and a single number produces an expected loss of -$25.

None of this looks any good, and none of these flat bets do anything to cut into the house edge.

The only bet I left out was the corner bet.

On a corner bet, I use my $1 to cover 4 of 37 numbers.  So it covers 10.81% of the table, or about 11%.  In 100 trials I can expect to win 11 times at $8 profit each, which is +$88.  The other 89% of the time, I will lose my dollar.  So my expected loss is +$88 - $89 = -$1.

-$1?

That's less than half the house edge of -2.7%.

It's still not a winning bet, unless my corner happens to win 11 times before it loses 89 times.

But what if I was only working with 36 numbers instead of 37?  Honestly, the difference is only minimal, since 4/36 = 11.11%.  So I should still expect my corner to hit 11 times with a profit of 8 dollars each to equal +$88, and I'll lose 89% of the time, so -$89 for an expected loss of -$1.

I'm not sure what we can do with this information, but it is counter-intuitive to be sure - which is why I named this post as I did.  I may just run a few hundred trials and see where it stands statistically, but as I see it, flat betting on a corner seems like a good way to not kill your bankroll.  Maybe if we can siphon a few quick hits and move on...

[Steve]

There are some errors in the database so I'm installing the latest version of of the forum software. The site may be down for a day, maybe less.

[Steve]

-