### Author Topic: Why the House Wins.  (Read 9924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Trilobite

##### Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2016, 05:32:05 AM »
The house wins because reduced payouts exist, probability exists, independence exists, variation exists,  and the long run exists.

The only way to prove victory over the house is to show a long run profit. Without a long run profit the math boys and naysayers will always claim your victory was due to luck.

…and they’d be right.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 07:16:22 AM by Trilobite »

#### UK-21

##### Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2016, 07:09:54 AM »
Referring back to my last, it's interesting that doing as suggested and covering all three evens-payoff bets as given in my example only provides a 18/37 probability of coming out in front. There's a 19/37 that you won't - exactly the same as if you'd only bet on one of the options. This bet doesn't provide any added value and simply results in exposing more money to the house edge.

With regard to the analogy of playing the stock market and being liable for a commission, let's make a small adjustment and call it the commodities market. In this market it's possible to buy at a price, sell at a higher price and make a profit. But if you were faced with a commodity that would never sell at a higher price than you paid for it, and the selling was still subject to a commission, would this be such a great deal? This is exactly what happens in roulette - you buy at 37, sell at 37 and a 1/37 commission is applied to the sale when you get your money back.

A couple of years ago I read a post by someone endeavouring (unsuccessfully I think) to explain the impact of the house edge, and he used the example of someone who bet around £20 a spin on the wheel of doom being offered a game without a zero/no edge but being charged an ante of £0.50 per spin to bet - effectively being charged £0.50 a spin for the privilege of having the green slot removed. How many people would play this game if they could? If there was a choice of this or a game with a traditional pay-table I suspect it would be few if any.

Today's number is three red.

Good luck at the felt.

#### Reyth

##### Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2016, 12:19:54 PM »
With regard to the analogy of playing the stock market and being liable for a commission, let's make a small adjustment and call it the commodities market. In this market it's possible to buy at a price, sell at a higher price and make a profit. But if you were faced with a commodity that would never sell at a higher price than you paid for it, and the selling was still subject to a commission, would this be such a great deal? This is exactly what happens in roulette - you buy at 37, sell at 37 and a 1/37 commission is applied to the sale when you get your money back.

I am sorry but here I must disagree.  I may buy (or sell) at 37 but when I sell (or buy) it should be for either a large profit (45 e.g.) or a smaller loss (35 e.g.).  Some strategies include a +0 result but normally that doesn't occur.

#### scepticus

##### Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2016, 01:35:36 PM »
Referring back to my last, it's interesting that doing as suggested and covering all three evens-payoff bets as given in my example only provides a 18/37 probability of coming out in front. There's a 19/37 that you won't - exactly the same as if you'd only bet on one of the options. This bet doesn't provide any added value and simply results in exposing more money to the house edge.

With regard to the analogy of playing the stock market and being liable for a commission, let's make a small adjustment and call it the commodities market. In this market it's possible to buy at a price, sell at a higher price and make a profit. But if you were faced with a commodity that would never sell at a higher price than you paid for it, and the selling was still subject to a commission, would this be such a great deal? This is exactly what happens in roulette - you buy at 37, sell at 37 and a 1/37 commission is applied to the sale when you get your money back.

A couple of years ago I read a post by someone endeavouring (unsuccessfully I think) to explain the impact of the house edge, and he used the example of someone who bet around £20 a spin on the wheel of doom being offered a game without a zero/no edge but being charged an ante of £0.50 per spin to bet - effectively being charged £0.50 a spin for the privilege of having the green slot removed. How many people would play this game if they could? If there was a choice of this or a game with a traditional pay-table I suspect it would be few if any.

Today's number is three red.

Good luck at the felt.

UK
You have tried LRO - now try LBO and tell me the answer.
And why the casino gives a 50% rebate to EC bettors when zero occurs when, clearly, they  did not bet zero.
And, no, I don't accept that I need to play for about 342 years to prove your point that I am certain to lose. I face unfair odds at each and every spin so can lose at each and every spin - hypothetically anyway. Variance is my real enemy  and not the House Edge.
You continually fail to realise that this is a GAMBLING forum and we gamblers know that we face unfair odds so just why are you here ? To "Educate" us and tell us that we are " degenerates" ?
Try telling members of ISIS that there is no Allah and you will get your head in your hands to play with !
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 01:37:31 PM by scepticus »

#### UK-21

##### Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2016, 08:19:48 PM »
UK
You have tried LRO - now try LBO and tell me the answer.
Why? What will this prove? I'm sure you can do the sums yourself.

And why the casino gives a 50% rebate to EC bettors when zero occurs when, clearly, they  did not bet zero.
I don't know. I didn't create the rule.

And, no, I don't accept that I need to play for about 342 years to prove your point that I am certain to lose. I face unfair odds at each and every spin so can lose at each and every spin - hypothetically anyway. Variance is my real enemy  and not the House Edge.
OK. Good luck in keeping on the good side of the variance fairy.

You continually fail to realise that this is a GAMBLING forum and we gamblers know that we face unfair odds so just why are you here ?
Believe it or not, many people who gamble don't, and are open to believing nonsense they read online, eg that bettng in a certain way means one can play roulette with an  advantage over the house - something I read on the gambling.co.uk forum not too long ago.   Hold on . . . that was written by you!

. . . just why are you here ? To "Educate" us and tell us that we are " degenerates" ?
No. I thought that some of the contributors here might find one of my spreadsheets of some use when fathoming out ways to get the most out of their gambling pennies. In the twenty years plus of being online (I can remember the days of \$22.50/hr connect time charges), I've utilised many freebies I've pulled from the 'net, and this is just me giving a little something back with my compliments. I'm not forcing anyone to use it. If it saves someone, somewhere a load of work then that's great by me.

Try telling members of ISIS that there is no Allah and you will get your head in your hands to play with !
A childish analogy me thinks. I work with a charming guy who's a devout muslim, and we respect and tollerate each others' views on the existence of a deity (I'm agnostic by the way). You should try it sometime.

Chin chin.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 08:28:30 PM by UK-21 »

#### scepticus

##### Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2016, 11:35:05 PM »
UK
You have tried LRO - now try LBO and tell me the answer.
Why? What will this prove? I'm sure you can do the sums yourself.

And why the casino gives a 50% rebate to EC bettors when zero occurs when, clearly, they  did not bet zero.
I don't know. I didn't create the rule.

And, no, I don't accept that I need to play for about 342 years to prove your point that I am certain to lose. I face unfair odds at each and every spin so can lose at each and every spin - hypothetically anyway. Variance is my real enemy  and not the House Edge.
OK. Good luck in keeping on the good side of the variance fairy.

You continually fail to realise that this is a GAMBLING forum and we gamblers know that we face unfair odds so just why are you here ?
Believe it or not, many people who gamble don't, and are open to believing nonsense they read online, eg that bettng in a certain way means one can play roulette with an  advantage over the house - something I read on the gambling.co.uk forum not too long ago.   Hold on . . . that was written by you!

. . . just why are you here ? To "Educate" us and tell us that we are " degenerates" ?
No. I thought that some of the contributors here might find one of my spreadsheets of some use when fathoming out ways to get the most out of their gambling pennies. In the twenty years plus of being online (I can remember the days of \$22.50/hr connect time charges), I've utilised many freebies I've pulled from the 'net, and this is just me giving a little something back with my compliments. I'm not forcing anyone to use it. If it saves someone, somewhere a load of work then that's great by me.

Try telling members of ISIS that there is no Allah and you will get your head in your hands to play with !
A childish analogy me thinks. I work with a charming guy who's a devout muslim, and we respect and tollerate each others' views on the existence of a deity (I'm agnostic by the way). You should try it sometime.

Chin chin.

1 )
Methinks you have already made the calculation and found that it has only a 4 in 37 chance of winning as compared to
LRO’s 5in 37 so has less chance of winning  despite being offered the same odds when bet as 3  Even Chances . This
Is an anomaly and we gamblers try to take advantage of
such anomalies.
2 )
Because  I sought the  answer and you have no  interest in it.
Your only interest here is to tell us that gambling on roulette is a foolish thing to do.
3 )
“ a hundred million trial test “ LOL
4 )
Few if any , in this forum fit your description.
Yes. I may have said something along those lines but you will need to tell  me in which post I  made it for me  verify and justify it .
5 ) You went further than that though. You clearly imply that     you think we are foolish to gamble at roulette.
6) That your friend  is friendly is irrelevant here - many ( most ) muslims  are no better or worse than other people.
|Where have I given my view on religion ?
The purpose of my remark was to highlight the fact that you are not a gambler  so you are here under false pretences.

#### Reyth

##### Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2016, 11:41:14 PM »

I het to be a stick in the mud here but guys the convo is getting more on a personal level here and away from roulette.

I know Kav wants this board to be focused on roulette and not personally oriented arguing.

The following users thanked this post: kav

#### UK-21

##### Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2016, 07:18:38 AM »
Funny . . . I thought this was a forum for those with an interest in playing and studying roulette, regardless of the motivation - contrary to some views gambling and playing roulette do not necessarily go hand in hand; some do it solely for the entertainment value (me included).

When people start throwing more and more money across the felt, having read somewhere that if they do this, or do that, they'll come out a "winner" (however one measures that) that's when they start to descend a long slippery slope. I'm strongly in favour of people taking steps to being "informed gamblers". Sorry if that grates.

I think we should respect the wishes of the mod and draw this to a close now.

#### scepticus

##### Re: Why the House Wins.
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2016, 09:56:40 AM »
The point I was making here is that UK21 is not a roulette player.
But,Yes , Reyth. i' ll respect the Moderator's view and draw this to a close.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 10:29:20 AM by kav »