Author Topic: What's Better?  (Read 495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Third

What's Better?
« on: June 16, 2019, 03:21:55 AM »
4 chances: 1 @ 48.65%, 1 @73.73%, 1 @86.45% & 1 @ 93.05%, all for 1 unit gain or a loss of 15 units

OR

20 chances:

1 @ 8.113550186157227  for 33 units gain
1 @ 15.56199073791504  for 30 units gain
1 @ 22.40707397460938 for 27 units gain
1 @ 28.6958293914795 for 24 units gain 
1 @ 34.48299407958984 for 21 units gain
1 @ 39.7999496459961 for 18 units gain
1 @ 44.67529296875 for 15 units gain
1 @ 49.16539001464844  for 12 units gain
1 @ 53.2804183959961 for 9 units gain
1 @ 57.09329223632813 for 6 units gain
1 @ 60.5774383544922 for 3 units gain
 63.74024200439453  for 33 units gain
 66.6853256225586  for 27 units gain
 69.39194488525391  for 21 units gain
 71.87322235107422  for 15 units gain
 74.13592529296875  for 9 units gain
 76.22955322265625  for 3 units gain
 78.16228485107422  for 30 units gain
 79.92918395996094  for 21 units gain
 81.54774475097656 for 12 units gain

all for a loss of 93 units.

Can we just simply say that 93% for less money is always better than 81% for 6x as much?  What about 20 chances to gain dynamic profit, most for far greater (more than making up for the 93%:81% difference) than just 6x?  Well over half the time (53.28%) we are guaranteed to make at least 150% more profit, and that's not taking into account the hits that come after that, which are even more statistically likely.

What kind of statistical measurement should be used to examine this?  What's the real risk:profit probability picture here?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 03:36:10 AM by Third »
 

Rinad

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2019, 04:27:15 AM »


  you know Third the comparison between chances is often overlooked . most players I know often like the 93% chance to win less ,much more then any other.
I dont think that way anymore. the question thst is not often asked is :  how many spins will it take me to "MAKE-UP" losing a session or losing a progression ?
a simple example is the following. if I play a neg.prog like 1-1-2  ,I will lose 4 units when I lose it.
BUT it could take me around 20 spins to "make up losing it" depending on where the wins take place.

if i play a 1-3-7  prog.  and lose 11 units ,it wont take me more then 11 spins no matter what.
when playing blackjack years back I done both progressions and I can said that even know the 1-3-7  is scary when you look at the numbers of units ,it really is not when you experience with it.
you lose 3 spins in a row  around every 7 spins on average  but you have a very quick way to make 3/4 units on average before it happens. you play a 1-1-2   and it can take you much longer to win that 3/4 units.
a 1-3-7-15  may cost you 26 units but as far as a hit a run or a recovery with a nice bet selection can in my opinion take a player much farther then a 1,2,4,8   where you have to expose your risk to the house much longer.  the edge of the house is much more reduced by less exposure.
I played the 1,3,7   for years and the power behind it is my personal favorite because as i said before.
the question to me is : how long will it take me to 'make-up" losing that prog, ?  11 spins is all.

Cheers,
Rinad
 
The following users thanked this post: Third, Astutillo

dobbelsteen

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2019, 06:55:26 AM »
both bet selections are easy to program in Excel. These selections can be played with different systems. For a program you need also a system. ECs  are 12 number bets .You cannot change the general features. Without test results it is impossible to make conclusions.
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Third

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2019, 03:05:55 PM »
When I combine both your posts together, it gives me a great idea to further express my thoughts.  Gotta run, so more when I get back; Pales method + multi-sets ladder for easy testing.
 

Third

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2019, 06:44:56 PM »
So I am kinda tired and worn out at the moment but here is how I would start this study:

The base progression is 1 2 4 8 for a loss of 15 units & a 93% chance to hit. 

I consider that there are a number of ways to win back this 15 units, the greatest is to win profit back in 1 hit, which is 16 32 64 128 for a loss of 255 units and a 99.52% chance to hit (1:208 coup attempts).  The smallest way to win profit back is to loop the progression of 1 2 4 8 and requires 15 hits with the following distribution:

1...96.43%   <=== the greatest chance to win
2...86.58%
3...80.57%
4...74.97%
5...69.76%
6...64.91%
7...60.40%
8...56.20%
9...52.29%   <=== after this point, we can only expect to lose
10...48.66%
11...45.28%
12...42.13%
13...39.20%
14...36.48%
15...33.94%


So we can see that trying to win profits back by looping the main progression is only slightly better than playing a single Dozen for 1 hit. 

I personally have been playing 3 hits to win profit back, with a diminishing bet amount on each successive attempt (80.57% chances); 1 attempt at 6 units (risking 90), 1 attempt at 5 units (risking 75) and 1 attempt at 4 units (risking 60).  So:

1 2 4 8 6* 5* 4*

What if we try 2 attempts?  This would be 1 @ 8 (risking 120) and 1 @ 7 (risking 105), with 86.58% chance to win:

1 2 4 8 8 7

I guess what it comes down to is, what levels of debt are we most comfortable dealing with if we miss while trying to win the profit back;  I personally like 3 much better than 2.

..6
===

Debt = 105 (/3)+1 = 36.  So we can see that these bets begin to climb out of control.  So either we must increase our divisor (decrease the chance of regaining profit) or move inward in the felt (increase our profit potential per unit risked).



Here is a very interesting example of a progression that won back 15 units, staying on the EC's but using different divisors (number of projected attempted bets to regain the profit):

8 4 4 8 8 8 12 4 8 8 8

This only used 1, 2 & 3 divisors and actually recovered 15 units twice for a total profit of 32 units in 11 bets, the highest recorded debt was only 35 units.

Its interesting to note that the divisor method makes "blocks" of bet amounts, representing them as a single unit; here we see block of 4, where 8 is a divisor of 2 and 12 is a divisor of 3.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 07:49:27 PM by Third »
 
The following users thanked this post: Astutillo

dobbelsteen

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2019, 08:33:50 PM »
When you wager on a cluster of 4 random ECs , you wager on an event with a probability of 1/16. The bet selection does not matter. Study the SSB principle to understand
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Third

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2019, 09:19:36 PM »
I agree that the bet selection doesn't matter but there are times when I have choices within my selection, where I bet the EC pair that has the least disparity (i.e. High 10 hits, Low 9 hits, has a disparity of 1) and sometimes two EC pairs are tied for lowest and I either bet SAME as last or OPPOSITE of last.  In that case, I compare the cumulative probability from the last sequence of spins and it will be found than one of the EC's has a greater chance of hitting (e.g. the sequence 8 11 2 12 36, where I wish to bet SAME and both Low and Black might have tied in disparity, I would compare that Low has hit 4 times in a row (2.7% chance to hit) but Black has only hit 3 times in a row (5.6% chance to hit) and I would bet Black.

I do this even though its ultimately true that selection doesn't matter.
 

scepticus

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2019, 11:54:27 PM »
Third

You claim that your  4 step bet has a 93% chance yet your " chart shows a 74.97 % chance .

Which is the correct one  ?
The   Bet Selection  is what you decide  to bet  so is paramount . If you don't have the winning number in your  selection you lose and no progresssion will save you.
 
The following users thanked this post: juice

Third

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2019, 12:17:43 AM »
@Scep: The chart is for winning debt back, so the statistics are subsequent to a 1 2 4 8 miss.  I am a bit tired today, weak in math and easily confused, so maybe you can help me disentangle the apparent divergence in statistics.  The chart is meant to show the devolving percentages after receiving 4 misses and the goal is to recover all debt in X number of coup attempts, where I took 96.43 as the base and devolved it by itself for each spin (and it really should be by each coup >.<).  This approach is obviously terrible?

Of course one could not examine cumulative probabilty, staying with static probability, and we can always say that we have .4865 chances, but we would be kidding ourselves if we don't understand that those chances devolve after every subsequent consecutive hit and evolve after every subsequent consecutive miss.



Here is another game that was more interesting, all on EC's, using a flexible divisor:

1 02 1 02 04 1 02 04 08 16  01 2 1 02 04 08 01 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 8 1
8 16 8 12 18 9 14 14 19 25 13 18 9 14 14 19 18 9 5 7 4 3 6 6 9 5


which recovered 15 units in 26 spins, with an all time high debt of 98 units.  This session was somewhat bad with the worst sequence running 2 hits in 252 numbers bet, which is 1:126 [is this -3.4 SD?] (vs. 1:37).  The divisor fluctuated between 1 and 4. 

The red bolded represents what would have been a full 4-step progression loss (.9643 event, occurring after only 2 hits), which is what we are trying to avoid, in using a divisor. 

However, it is interesting to note that after 2 hits, we only would have went down to 75 units instead of 98.  Things are worse if its after only 1 hit (90 units) and back to back is 135 units. 

So, very interesting that only a back to back loss (.9952 event) would do worse than our divisor here! 
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 01:09:11 AM by Third »
 

Third

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2019, 01:24:45 AM »
Just a parting note to the last post -- even though we eventually got our coup on the 5th hit (there were also 4 hit coups), the overall debt during the process would have skyrocketed above 98 units because bets would have been called for as high as 32 (risking 63 on top of existing debt) and 64 (risking 127 on top of existing debt) units, using a constant divisor of 3.

So eventually, using a divisor of 3 (or 2, or 1) continuously (a fixed divisor) becomes very inefficient in regards to risk:profit.

This brings to mind a very interesting method that is a form of delayed parachute.  Once our debt:profit becomes greater than 2:1 using our flexible divisor on EC's, we simply move in to the Dozens.  Once we hit 5:1, we move into the DS, 8:1 Quad, 11:1, Street etc.

We are trying to gain 15 units, so here is how it would look:

Debt........Selection
-29..........................EC
-75..........................DZ
-89..........................DS
-119.........................Quad
-165........................Street
-254........................Split
-525........................S/U
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 01:54:47 AM by Third »
 

dobbelsteen

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2019, 07:51:32 AM »
For me the explanation of this system and strategy is to difficult and I think , I  do not stand alone. An Excel program is not always necessary. A simple note sheet is enough. In sum of  my videos  a note sheet is added.

In the note sheet you see step by step the betting and the payout
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

dobbelsteen

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2019, 08:11:38 AM »

Here an example of the Kav bet with a note sheet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJv_i1SVFJ0
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

scepticus

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2019, 09:37:47 AM »
Third
If you look at the  expectation chart that was posted by vitorwally you will see that , for an 80% chance if success a 4 step is reached in appr.4 bets .

If you do a 1-2-3-4- step bet it costs you 10 chips, Losses of 20 x 10 =200.
Your wins will be 2-3-3-2 - average 2.5 . You win 80 times 2.5 which is 200.

A small factor of .1 is the risk as the HE is already factored in .

Beware though  !  Random is the real risk  . Maths  do not dictate but are a guide .
 

scepticus

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2019, 12:04:07 PM »
OOPS  !
That shouild read a DOZEN is expected in appr. 4 bets .
Silly me .
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Third

Re: What's Better?
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2019, 02:43:06 PM »
@Dobble: That was an idea off the top of my head.  It is not simple to explain the whole thing because the bet amounts use the Talos Divisor but the bet selection type is easy because if your debt reaches beyond the column on the left, you move down one column.  This chart, though possibly useless, will maintain a 2:1 debt:profit goal ratio with the bet selection type you use.

This is kind of a brainstorming thread for myself, rather than a system thread (hence its location in the Roulette Strategies sub-forum).

@Scep: Thanks!   You can see how easily I become confused! :D
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 02:45:08 PM by Third »