How to play and survive in the long run, look at this simulation!

[ego]

Some one did a quick Martingale simulation:

100 "clowns" playing 100 spins a day over one year. $10 initial bet, $100k initial total funds, $100k table limit.

Here are the results:

84 of them went broke before the end of the year

16 survived, winning an average of $140k

This makes 16 clowns to truthfully go online and tell people how they got rich "beating" roulette - but you will never hear from the 84...

[ego]

So how does that put light on the subject ?

Well i assume that is a straight forward simulation.

So if some one use Marty with regression after a positive gain strategy.
Then 84 would be much less ... during one year of play.

If some one use the same probability as a dice have alternating and playing using sequential betting with staking plans into different levels ... well then i am pretty sure 84 would be less during one year of play ...

I am pretty sure there is other methods to try to fool randomness and end with a positive net gain.

Whats your take on the subject ...

[TwoCatSam]

I'd give you a well-thought-out answer, but you'd just delete my post.

Might as well delete this one!



TCS

[ego]

Well TCS feel free to tell what you think, you been around for many years and i assume you play the game for many years, so what is it going to be ...

I pretty sure some one could end one year with a positive net gain, but what about two years or even three years in a row ...
Making claims that some have done, doing 15000 Euro during one year is some serios shit as you can make a living on 1100 Euro each month ...

That whit a game where the house edge should take its cut and that the game has negative expectation using systems.

[TwoCatSam]

Yes, I've been around many years and I've taken my lumps.

People should get over the idea that the house edge is the enemy; it is not.  The enemy is dispersion.  If the house edge were the enemy, people would go on BV where there is not house edge and make a killing. 

Now they say--------OH!  BV takes 10% of your winnings.  That's AFTER you won.  Who would mind winning a thousand a month and walking off with 900?  But who can do it?

Forget the house edge.  We should all be searching for the only two things that will win:  an end to dispersion or finding a way to ride the positive tram.

These are my opinions only; I have not been up the mountain.

Sam

[ego]

Yes, I've been around many years and I've taken my lumps.

People should get over the idea that the house edge is the enemy; it is not.  The enemy is dispersion.  If the house edge were the enemy, people would go on BV where there is not house edge and make a killing. 

Now they say--------OH!  BV takes 10% of your winnings.  That's AFTER you won.  Who would mind winning a thousand a month and walking off with 900?  But who can do it?

Forget the house edge.  We should all be searching for the only two things that will win:  an end to dispersion or finding a way to ride the positive tram.

These are my opinions only; I have not been up the mountain.

Sam

-

That was a nice way to put some light on the subject ...

[TwoCatSam]

Thank you.

[LuckoftheIrish]

If a person could play at Betvoyager and choose to play somewhere else, I would say that is probably a foolish decision.  Playing equal odds, there is a 50% chance you can be ahead after X spins, at equal odds roulette.

Even with the 10% they take off net wins, it beats any other roulette game out there.

[GLC]

If a person could play at Betvoyager and choose to play somewhere else, I would say that is probably a foolish decision.  Playing equal odds, there is a 50% chance you can be ahead after X spins, at equal odds roulette.

Even with the 10% they take off net wins, it beats any other roulette game out there.

No "probably" to it!!   That is if you're playing a progression and don't want the green goblin to get you.

If you're flat betting, it seems to me that playing single zero, en prison is the way to go.

What do you think?

GLC

[Robeenhuut]

You wager 1 unit on EC's for 1 bet 1000 times. On average you win 500u and lose 500u. Your winnings are taxable at 10% so you end up with 50u loss so HE is 5% in this case. Simple explanation. Casino has always the edge.

[Robeenhuut]

Some one did a quick Martingale simulation:

100 "clowns" playing 100 spins a day over one year. $10 initial bet, $100k initial total funds, $100k table limit.

Here are the results:

84 of them went broke before the end of the year

16 survived, winning an average of $140k

This makes 16 clowns to truthfully go online and tell people how they got rich "beating" roulette - but you will never hear from the 84...

Ego

You don't need to run a simulation to come to a conclusion that out of 100 clowns even more than a half can have a winning record. Its just a basic math and statistics.

Sam

HE just adds up. If you play for a longer period of time and  encounter a balanced distribution it will bury you. Of course if you have a favorable distribution with a better rate than HE you are a happy gambler.

Regards