I still don't get the ranking system. :(
The "goal" is to bet the least amount and win the most - over time
I don't see the value given to someone who bet 1/2 million $ and is negative (- 1.0 winrate).
How does that rank higher than someone who bets small and wins constantly over time and is positive winrate ?
The ranking should be thought out differently -
I still believe everyone under 1.0 should be ranked below anyone "above" 1.0 or better.
Everyone below 1.0 should be ranked by how close they are to breaking even -
Everyone above 1.0 should be ranked by number of spins played and "balance".
Just my opinion, perhaps I just don't get it.
My serious "TurboGenius" account is apparently stuck at 28th place - even though I have kept it over 1.0 - have played
a good number of spins and betting low amounts while keeping my profit per spin average around +3.5 units per spin played.
I can look up the list and see icashbot for example (just for example lol) having played 1/2 the number of spins
that I have - in the negative after betting $519,850.00 with a winrate of 0.983 / $8,700.00 in the hole
So this ranks 6th and my account ranks 28th
Just complaining - I think we're way off track of what's important here.
The least amount bet (risk) with the most profit (profit) over time is how we beat the game.
Would the serious gambler look at someone who throws 1/2 million on the table in 226 spins and is negative
as higher ranked as a player at 504 spins making 3 units per spin average profit ?
As someone on the game site said - once you're so far in the hole, there's no way out. With the 100.00 per number high bet amount, no player who is negative can make up that amount in order to reach 1.0 again.
Why isn't the "Balance" just shown as a negative number then ? It goes back to the "bankroll" vs "balance" suggestion
I had before. The ranking should show the "Balance" negative or positive taking into account bankroll resets, etc.
And the player should have "Bankrolls" available while they play - which the Balance would reflect as they play obviously.
I agree it doesn´t make much sense.
IMO it ought to be something simple: Balance, Number of spins played, and just for appreciation Amount bet vs. Amount won.
First Bankroll of 1000u is given to you. Balance is Zero. Everytime it gets a reset because you ran out of funds, you´re in debt, and a negative Balance should show this.
Example:
Start: BR: 1000 - Bal: 000000 - SP: 00000 - AB: 000000 - AW: 0000000
Bet and win on 1DZ: BR: 1100 - Bal:+000100 - SP: 00001 - AB: 000050 - AW: 0000100
Also should a higher number of spins played necessarily add to some winrate? It just shows IRL you´re spending too much time in the Casino. Seriously if you are 500 up after 3800 spins you´re not that much of a winner.
Quote from: psimoes on May 21, 04:22 PM 2016
Seriously if you are 500 up after 3800 spins you´re not that much of a winner.
I think that rather depends on how your playing... risk to reward.
Quote from: Blood Angel on May 21, 04:30 PM 2016
I think that rather depends on how your playing... risk to reward.
Anyone over 1.0 after X amount of spins played is a winner really -
Then you look at how much a player bet and their balance in order to rank accordingly (IMO)
I would say that 500 profit after 3800 spins like psi said is borderline -
but I've seen for example (looks again) -
21. phi 1000 114 44555 79590 1.78
this makes no sense lol.
How does one bet $44,555.00 and win $79.590.00 and have 1,000.00 bankroll ? It must mean resets, but regardless -
Some kind of reworking of the ranking process is in order or else everyone is simply confused and the ranking doesn't mean much.
@Blood Angel It´s not that, unless said player is winning constantly, like 1.3 units every 10 spins without drawdowns...
You can see by my account. I´m using MPR for system testing since my RX expired.
14. psimoes 1008 2264 1505749 1399850 0.9296702
How on Earth I´m at 14th is beyond me.
Quote from: psimoes on May 21, 05:09 PM 2016
You can see by my account. I´m using MPR for system testing since my RX expired.
14. psimoes 1008 2264 1505749 1399850 0.9296702
How on Earth I´m at 14th is beyond me.
It's probably because of the high amount bet. For some reason the ranking puts you higher if you bet more.
Completely opposite of what a typical gambler would do - bet small and win big, less risk and high payoff.
Maybe it will get resolved, maybe not - either way it is fun and addictive of course as roulette should be lol
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 21, 06:31 PM 2016either way it is fun
That's what keeps one going heh....
Turbo, The algorithm does put higher win rates at the top, UNLESS the player has bet and played significantly less. This prevents short term winners from ranking high. And players with the highest win rate with enough bets and spins are at the top.
It is easy to get a high win rate over fewer spins. But harder to get high win rate over more spins. Compare these players:
Player A: Win rate 1.1 with lots of spins
Player B: Win rate 0.99 with even more spins than player A
Player C: Win rate 2.5 with not many spins
The average amount bet and spins player, with all players, is in the ranking algorithm. The chances are player A with rank first, then B, then C.
I understand your point but player C should not rank higher because it would be easier to achieve their results than what player A achieved. The algorithm gives higher rank to players with results that are harder to achieve. Isnt that how it should be?
It may seem counterintuitive to rank a 0.99 player higher than a 2.5 player, but 2.5 is easier to achieve if you play fewer spins. What you are suggesting is to still rank higher the players with higher win rate. But if we do that, then we have the bigger problem of giving higher rank to players that havent played over a large enough sample.
And if we capped the variables of spins played and amount bet, then a player could sit on a 1.2 win rate with $300,000 bet and 1,000 spins played, with a result all from luck. But another player may have a 1.1 win rate with $10m and 50,000 spins bet with a genuinely effective system, but they would never beat the other player... despite having the better system.
In your example with icashbot, you have lower win rate and much less bet, so you will of course rank lower. You need both high amount bet and high amount of spins, in combination with high win rate.
Balance isnt shown as a negative number because it wouldnt indicate how good a system was. One player could have -$100,000 and another with -$10,000, but both from the same amount of spins and amount bet. So running bankroll alone wont tell the whole story. Besides we already have total bet and total won.
It comes back to the important variables of win rate, amount wagered, and amount of spins. You need all three in the equation, and thats what the algorithm uses. Again the algorithm gives higher rank to players with results that are harder to achieve - ie less likely to occur for amount bet and soins played, even if their win rate is below 1.0.
If you have a better algorithm in mind, please give the equation and explanation for discussion. Whether or not it is changed depends on what everyone wants.
If we automatically put players with win rate of 1.0 and above at the top, then sorted them, then a player with 0.99 win rate but billions bet and millions of spins may have a system that changes the odds, but still they'll never beat a player with a 1.000001 win rate that only bet on 5 spins. In any case, the algorithm needs to be dynamic and shouldnt segregate groups of players, or it creates new problems.
Also before we implemented the algorithm, i made it known for criticism and suggestions. If anyone wants it changed, suggest a mathematical equation. An actual algorithm that can be coded. An idea or concept alone cant be coded. And keep in mind if you change something, you create a new set of problems.
The problem with the current algorith is more perception. Like why should a 0.99 win rate rank higher than 1.1? Again its because, with all important variables considered, the player with 0.99 has achieved results that are harder to achieve.... whether by luck or a better system.
But again if someone can suggest another algorithm, and guve the actual equation, then we can simulate it in excel and see if we like that one better. But it must calculate based on amount of spins, amount bet, and win rate. Short term luck with small bets will mean more lucky players will rank. It may be more fun, but less realistic.
Another thing to consider is on the leaderboard, notice most of the players with larger win rates are at the bottom, BUT theyve played much fewer spins. Are their results easier or more difficult to achieve than say maestro who has played heaps and is just below breaking even?
Test for yourself and youll find rarely youll break even over thousands of spins. But often you will have a high win rate over fewer spins.
I'll post later how the winrate should be calculated - the way it's being done now isn't taking some important things into consideration - one reason why I wanted "spins bet on" recorded or in the rankings.
When I have time later I'll post it - RX has it perfect already lol - maybe I can use that as an example when I explain it
I don't know how the rating system works for the game - is it posted somewhere?
One way would be to do a simple standard deviation or z-score, which does take account of the number of spins played. I'll wait to see what Turbo says, but I think RX uses it.
i rather ask Steve to put win rate for everyone above 3.0000 and stop wasting money on coder and all that...everyone happy winner,pockets full no money waste...
I am registered but when I am trying to place a bet the site turns into a green background.
Some fun. More interesting for me is dublinbet.com.
What`s the idea for creating multi player feature anyway?
Puzzled.
Quote from: Tamino on May 22, 11:46 AM 2016
I am registered but when I am trying to place a bet the site turns into a green background.
I can't even register. I just get "loading" in the top left corner of the screen, but nothing ever loads.
You have to factor in the house edge when ranking players - not how much they bet.
Say player A) uses 100.00 chips on straight up numbers but player B) uses 1.00 chips
Player A will have placed 100 times in bets more than player B even though player B could be (should be) leading in the ranks.
This is because the amount being bet doesn't matter (or shouldn't in the ranking really).
Euro wheel -
Each cycle of 37 spins would mean the house edge is 1 unit (unit being the average bet per spin)
Then you can figure out who's doing better than someone else by how far ahead of this expected negative % that each player is.
(yikes, confusing my own self lol)
1. FreeRoulette 304400 1129 3627685 3898880 1.0747570
Ok, for example I'll use this stat from the leaderboard page.
$3,898,880.00 bet over 1,129 spins. This means $3,453.39 being bet per spin average (how that's possible, I have no idea lol)
So with 1,129 spins, we have 30.51 cycles of 37 spins.
The expected math result (what the player should have considering the house edge) is -$105,362.93
(amount bet average per spin X cycles of 37 spins)
The player has (won) $3,898,880.00 - (bet) $3,627,685.00 or $271,195.00 profit
Then you compare this to the expected amount and represent that as a percentage.
This percentage is how you can compare members and place the ranking.
Someone might be well above the math-expected amount but ranked low as it currently stands.
When you compare this way, it doesn't matter how much a person bets - small units or large units -
the percentage is what matters. (the player's 'edge' if there is one)
This net % is the perfect way to see how players rank because it's not relevant what unit size they use, like it is now
in the current ranking. Betting 1.00 chips and winning vs betting 100.00 chips and winning - you have to use this % to compare them or else there's no use in ranking lol.
Below is what it looks like when a person bets 1.00 on 1 number for 37 spins and everything works normally (as expected)
They have 1 winning spin and 36 losing spins - the house edge that was obtained is obvious.
(note the -2.70% just as it should be)
(link:://s32.postimg.org/apjnzo0hh/ss1.jpg)
here (pulling from my own sessions not done on the multiplayer site) :
(link:://s32.postimg.org/9aoiu6kj9/ss2.jpg)
So using this value to rank is perfect, it won't matter what amount someone bets, but what will matter is what everyone is looking for - how to beat the house math edge and by how much.
Just my 2 cents. the "winrate" column needs a rework IMO
Everyone "should" - given enough time - have a -2.70% in the reworked "winrate) stat column. (note "enough time" could be an eternity or it could be 10 spins - it depends on if they are winning and have something that works or not.)
Then you can look at players that are positive in this column and compare that to people at -2.70 where the math says they should be at... and others with worse than -2.70 who are actually losing worse than they should.
and now.... I must rest..... LOL
I agree with Turbo. It's a simple and fair ranking system. The formula is -
(units Won - units Lost) x 100 / Total units bet = Edge (as a %)
Of course some will get lucky for a while, but more spins will sort out the men from the boys.
Quote from: Bayes on May 22, 11:33 AM 2016I don't know how the rating system works for the game - is it posted somewhere?
It's:
Your rank score = A x B x C
= (your amount of spins played / AVG of all players) x (your amount bet / AVG of all players) x (your win rate)
Where A is never greater than 1, and B is never greater than 1.
And your "win rate" is (amount won) / (amount lost). So a break even win rate is 1.000000. We could put it in terms of edge, but many people dont even understand what -2.7% would mean. And besides it wont change who's ranking higher if win rate was calculated the same way as "edge"
Quote from: Tamino on May 22, 11:46 AM 2016I am registered but when I am trying to place a bet the site turns into a green background.
If you have problems, it would be something like browser security settings. I've tested it on ipad, android, windowws 7, 8 and and 10 with no problems.
Quote from: Tamino on May 22, 11:46 AM 2016What`s the idea for creating multi player feature anyway?
For fun, chat, separating people who are all talk from people with a good system, and competition. It isnt possible with dublinbet.
Turbo what you described is much the same as the "win rate". But the "win rate" alone is not a reliable indicator of success, which is why its easy to get a 2.0 win rate in short term, and hard to get a 1.1 win rate in the longer term.
The way the current leaderboard reads is players who have the highest win rate AND have played comparatively more than others are ranked at the top. The only way you can have a high win rate and rank at the top is if you have played enough spins and made enough bets to back it up.
So unless I'm missing something, what you described as your suggest algorithm is already the existing win rate. A win rate of 1.2 is the same as 120%.
Also betting $3000 or is easily possible. just max bets on 3 outside areas and a few inside bets.
The data from roulette xtreme is mostly irrelevant, like highs, lows drawdowns etc. Again what matters is amount of bets placed, amount of spins played, amount won and amount lost. The win rate is simply (amount won) / (amount lost). We added the variables or amount of spins and amount bet to ensure that "short term lucky" players dont rank high. The algorithm is quite simple, but is working as intended. The intention is again players who have the highest win rate AND have played comparatively more than others are ranked at the top.
It does not help to have a running bankroll because one player may have -$100,000 and another -$10,000 but they both have played just 100 spins. What matters is amount won vs amount lost and how much they've played.
Please explain what I'm missing. What you are basically proposing is to rank players based on edge alone. This is the same as ranking on win rate alone. But they how do you propose we deal with short term players with high win rates?
Quote from: Bayes on May 22, 02:44 PM 2016(units Won - units Lost) x 100 / Total units bet = Edge (as a %)
"Win rate" is (amount won) / (amount lost). And we already factor in total units bet based on 1 unit = $1. A player can instantly change the value of their unit (hypothetically), so it needs to be consistent for everyone at $1 units. What happens when the player bets $5000 on ONE spin and wins? They just got very lucky and will rank very high. They could even stop playing and out-rank players that have a 1.1 win rate over 1,000,000 spins and $10m bet.
That's why we need "amount of spins" in the equation too.
It's true that one player may play with $1 as their units and another may play with $100 per units. But I dont see a way we can deal with this without creating additional problems. The same table limits apply to everyone, and the goal of roulette is to win the highest amount of money possible. So everyone is on a level playing field. If a player wants to make lower bets, thats their choice. But to outrank others they'll need to make larger bets.
Quote from: Steve on May 22, 08:25 PM 2016Your rank score = A x B x C
= (your amount of spins played / AVG of all players) x (your amount bet / AVG of all players) x (your win rate)
AVG of all players ? How is that relevant ?
I stand by my point of using the -2.70 as where everyone should eventually end up at - vs 1.0 as used now for "breaking even"
Each player can be scored independently from the other players - I could care less if someone bets 1/2 million or 5 million while I'm betting 3k over more spins.
Looking at my 'serious' account vs those "above me" in the ranking.....
12 people "above me" have bet less spins then I have - even 4th place for example (yes - 4th place, near the top out of ALL players) has only bet 448 spins (less than mine) and his winrate is .995 vs mine (in profit) at 1.012
The only difference is that his bet per spin average is $492.50 and mine is $38.83
So I bet less, win more - have a better win rate and have played more spins..... he's 4th and I'm 30th.
Surely you see that this is flawed lol.
Using each person's personal standing against the -2.70 expected edge is how it should be done - not compared to other players.
That's how a ranking works - You don't take the gold medal from a runner because "on average" the other runners didn't make it around the track as far oO.
I explained how this is done - it only takes one additional set of data for each player that keeps track of amount bet total / played spins and compare that to the fixed edge the casino/game has built it and then rank the players accordingly.
I'll just keep track of my own stats and ignore the ranking chart for now, it makes no sense.
Quote from: Steve on May 22, 09:26 PM 2016The data from roulette xtreme is mostly irrelevant, like highs, lows drawdowns etc. Again what matters is amount of bets placed, amount of spins played, amount won and amount lost.
I posted the picture to show the % stat that I highlighted - that's how to compare all players equally compared to the house - not against one another - how much they bet in $ won't matter (and it doesn't matter in the real world) because the % will show who's making bets that are beating the house edge and not just from luck.
Quote from: Steve on May 22, 09:26 PM 2016The intention is again players who have the highest win rate AND have played comparatively more than others are ranked at the top.
No, as I stated above - I had done (in 30th) better than the player in 4th. More spins, better profit, higher winrate - the only difference is that person threw a lot more money down per bet - which isn't relevant in a ranking.
Quote from: Steve on May 22, 09:31 PM 2016But to outrank others they'll need to make larger bets.
We're playing equally against the "house" - not "who can outbet who by making bigger bets"
Don't we want to bet the least amount, while winning the most - over time - consistently ?
Or do we want to rank people who bet 3 million $ on the table and are ahead $60.00 at the top ? that's nonsense.
Anyway lol - I'll keep track of my own stats. I count bet spins, amount bet and my bankroll.
From there I can tell exactly how much ahead I am ahead against the house edge.
I can manually do that with other players individually - but whoever programmed the site has the means to figure that easy stat out and rank players accordingly.
Again, just my 2 cents.
Quote from: Bayes on May 22, 02:44 PM 2016I agree with Turbo. It's a simple and fair ranking system.
Thanks
Turbo, you are taking this far too seriously me thinks lol
and...how can you play your way...in the future, with no past spins when all these spins are from the past.
That I dont get :o
Quote from: Turner on May 24, 06:27 PM 2016
Turbo, you are taking this far too seriously me thinks lol
and...how can you play your way...in the future, with no past spins when all these spins are from the past.
That I dont get :o
I don't understand it
betting hot numbers as you sit down is betting past spins
depends how you look at it
could be after you sit, then you start but you are still going off past spins
I sit down, I ignore the history board. 3 hits twice, now i bet 3 because it hit twice, those 2 hits are past spins
(link:s://media1.giphy.com/media/l4KhLDQhHF0ckE5EY/200.gif)
Quote from: Turner on May 24, 06:27 PM 2016Turbo, you are taking this far too seriously me thinks lol
and...how can you play your way...in the future, with no past spins when all these spins are from the past.
That I dont get
It's a competition for each player against the house edge - serious stuff.
And they aren't past spins, I'm seeing them for the first time. I don't look at past spins as I'm playing either (since it's clear when I start and log in)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 24, 06:31 PM 2016
I don't understand it
betting hot numbers as you sit down is betting past spins
depends how you look at it
could be after you sit, then you start but you are still going off past spins
I sit down, I ignore the history board. 3 hits twice, now i bet 3 because it hit twice, those 2 hits are past spins
(link:s://media1.giphy.com/media/l4KhLDQhHF0ckE5EY/200.gif)
:thumbsup:
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 06:08 PM 2016AVG of all players ? How is that relevant ?
It's relevant because you need to compare the RELEVANCY of amount of spins and bets made by each players. Otherwise short term lucky players will rank higher.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 06:08 PM 2016I stand by my point of using the -2.70 as where everyone should eventually end up at - vs 1.0 as used now for "breaking even"
This is almost exactly the same as the current "win ratio". It doesnt matter if we express wins vs loss as a percentage or value above or below 1. The difference is either -2.7% or 0.972972. You are asking to express the same win ratio in a different way.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 06:08 PM 2016Each player can be scored independently from the other players
Yes they can be. But the point of the leaderboard is a comparison.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 06:08 PM 2016Looking at my 'serious' account vs those "above me" in the ranking.....
12 people "above me" have bet less spins then I have - even 4th place for example (yes - 4th place, near the top out of ALL players) has only bet 448 spins (less than mine) and his winrate is .995 vs mine (in profit) at 1.012
The only difference is that his bet per spin average is $492.50 and mine is $38.83
So I bet less, win more - have a better win rate and have played more spins..... he's 4th and I'm 30th.
Yes but he has wagered more, so his results are more relevant. You are assuming his unit size is greater. But the truth may be that he's betting on more numbers. You might be betting $100 on 3 numbers per spin, and he may be betting $100 on 20 numbers per spin.
But I understand your point that if you were both flat betting on 3 numbers, and he bet $100 per number and you only bet $5 per number, then he would have an advantage in the ranking. From that perspective, it is a weakness in the algorithm. But as in real life, big bettors will usually win more if their system is successful. So if you are interested in ranking higher in the leaderboard, then just bet bigger. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. If betting on more or fewer numbers is an advantage, it will be reflected in your win rate and leaderboard rank.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 06:08 PM 2016Using each person's personal standing against the -2.70 expected edge is how it should be done - not compared to other players.
Again we already show the win rate, and it's really no different to the percentage you propose. Each player has their individual stats, but we must compare players to each other for leaderboard rankings.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 06:08 PM 2016That's how a ranking works - You don't take the gold medal from a runner because "on average" the other runners didn't make it around the track as far oO.
Any race involves comparison between other competitors. The only factor in a running race is time. But in the roulette game we need to consider other variables like amount of spins played, amount bet and win rate.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 06:08 PM 2016I explained how this is done - it only takes one additional set of data for each player that keeps track of amount bet total / played spins and compare that to the fixed edge the casino/game has built it and then rank the players accordingly.
But how does this solve the problem of lucky short term winners having a higher percentage, who then rank higher?
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 06:08 PM 2016how much they bet in $ won't matter (and it doesn't matter in the real world) because the % will show who's making bets that are beating the house edge and not just from luck.
Unless we have each player set the value of "1 unit", we need to assume 1 unit = $1. It is the same for all players so nobody has an advantage or disadvantage.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 06:08 PM 2016I had done (in 30th) better than the player in 4th. More spins, better profit, higher winrate - the only difference is that person threw a lot more money down per bet - which isn't relevant in a ranking.
Yes but you dont know if they bet $1000 on 3 outside bets, or $3000 worth of inside bets covering lots of numbers.
My understanding of your points and summary response:1. One player may make $1 flat bets, and another makes $100 flat bets. They can both have the same win rate, but the player with higher bets will rank higher on the leaderboard.RESPONSE> Then just bet higher if you want to rank higher.
2. The more a player plays and bets, the higher they will rank even if their system loses.RESPONSE> Yes but if their system loses, the more they play and the more they bet, their win rate will drop to expectation. So if someone plays the same amount of spins and wagers the same amount, but has a better win rate, they will naturally rank higher.
3. A player could just use a bot to automatically bet lots of money over lots of spins, and they'll get a 0.97 win rate and probably rank first.RESPONSE> This would only work if other players played much fewer spins and had comparable win rates. This player would have no control over other people's amount of spins played, so they could have lots of spins played and the average wont change much. All it would take to beat such a player on the leaderboard would be a slightly higher win rate, and a reasonable amount of spins/bets.
Ultimately I do understand your point, but as far as I can see what you propose is no different to ranking based on win rate alone. That's how it initially was, but then short term players were ranking well above everyone else, then just stopped playing. And the harder players tried to catch them, the further they got from achieving top rank. If you offer a better solution and provide the mathematical equation, of course we'll code it.
Yes the win rate is the most important factor. But it doesnt tell the full story. The ranking algorithm MUST account for amount of spins played and amount wagered.
A simple enhancement could be:
Your rank score = A x B x C
= (your amount of spins played / AVG of all players) x (your amount bet / AVG of all players) x (2 x (your win rate))
Where A is never greater than 1, and B is never greater than 1.
The addition is in red. This makes the win rate more relevant than before. The effect will be more players who have good win rates but fewer spins played will rank at the top.
The ultimate solution would be to look at every individual bet, but would still need a comparison with other players, or short term lucky players will rank higher all the time.
Quote from: Steve on May 24, 07:39 PM 2016Unless we have each player set the value of "1 unit", we need to assume 1 unit = $1. It is the same for all players so nobody has an advantage or disadvantage.
Well no, we don't have to assume anything.
The amount bet by a player divided by 37 would be their average unit size per spin - easy calculation.
We know the house edge would be 1 of these units per 37 spins (set in stone) as the house edge.
It wouldn't matter if someone bet 1.00 chips or 100.00 chips because the % will rank them properly - beating the house edge is simply results that are better than -2.70 - and each player's rank would show (ie. -3.12, -2.90, -1.90, 0.14, or even in my photo above to achieve +31.29 etc etc). The amount bet by each player doesn't matter - the amount compared to other player's doesn't matter - we're going against one math variable which is the house edge and not each other.
I'm not sure why the amount a person bets matters in the ranking - or how my play is factored in with everyone else's in order to produce my rank. Maybe it's just me and some mental block I'm having.
I agree that number of spins played is important obviously. (Although the best method might be to bet everything you can for one spin and never bet again - to be "devil's advocate" that person would rank high and rightfully so - but what are we looking for ? Someone who wins long term using a method, or someone who bets it all on one spin and wins, etc.) confusing indeed.
Perhaps it's a riddle that can be solved - too bad "luck" can't be a variable that can be calculated lol.
I understand your points, however I disagree with some as mentioned above.
Like I said though, I'll calculate my own - I know my unit size and know where the "math" says I should be at, and the difference
between the two.
I see this at the table all the time, someone buys in with 100 bucks and plays it all on one spin - spreading some chips around while I use my smaller unit size and method - if they win I don't stop and think "wow, he's doing something that works" just like I don't think that the people in the top rank listing are using anything that works - simply because they bet more money than I did - the math says that I'm ahead of them against the house.
For the record -
Current
I bet 648 spins (17.51 cycles)
I bet $25,161.00 so my unit size per spin average is $38.83
So that means each 37 spin cycle the house should be ahead $38.83
For a total of $679.91 - My bankroll should show -$679.91 (according to the expected result)
I won $25,488.00 so my bankroll is +$327.00 (as you have it 1.0129963 winrate)
The comparison of (expected) -$679.91 vs $327.00 as a percentage is my current standing, and that won't matter if player "B" bets $1,000.00 chips and I bet $1.00 chips.
QuoteBut to outrank others they'll need to make larger bets.
is just not logical to me lol. The percentage won't change one bit if I bet low or high amounts, it's a fixed value.
Like I said, maybe it's me just not thinking it out - but damn I'm pretty sure I've thought it out lol
Cheers.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 24, 09:03 PM 2016Well no, we don't have to assume anything.
The amount bet by a player divided by 37 would be their average unit size per spin - easy calculation.
I didn't mean that - What I meant was the amount bet in total divided by number of spins bet on would be their average unit size per spin. Hence the house edge would be "1" of those units per 37 spin cycle.
Was typing too fast.
Exactly what is the algorithm you are proposing? ie the exact equation
Quote from: Steve on May 24, 07:39 PM 2016From that perspective, it is a weakness in the algorithm. But as in real life, big bettors will usually win more if their system is successful. So if you are interested in ranking higher in the leaderboard, then just bet bigger
I personally think that is not a weakness. One can go from 1 to 100 in progression if you are starting with 1 unit. If someone is starting with 100 then there is no allowance for progression. Obviously if one is not using progression then that is definitely a weakness but am sure some one who doesn't have 100 times allowance planned in the progression can bet higher.
I do have a simple solution though. I am an excel coder and it will look like below in excel IF(C1="Turbogenius", RANK=1,(A1XB1))
>:D
I don't need to be in first, but I want a fair ranking or else why have one.
Why haven't you played ? Too busy ?
(link:s://media1.giphy.com/media/11vsrRFqhjOcKI/giphy.gif)
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 25, 07:03 AM 2016
I don't need to be in first, but I want a fair ranking or else why have one.
Why haven't you played ? Too busy ?
Agree it was horrible pun. Apologies. Didn't mean to come across like that.
yes. Have been travelling for some family get togethers. Thanks for asking.
:wink: