I wrote an article about it at link:://:.roulettephysics.com/beyvoyager-no-zero-roulette/
Basically in the short term, it's worse. But if you play long term, it's much better.
Even though I appreciate you posting this, I have zero sympathy for anyone that may of lost money.
Ken
5 dimes offers enhanced payout american roulette
House edge is lower then euro wheels
Just a fyi
If you're playing online, then why on earth would you want to play the 00 game instead of the single 0 game??? I'm sure the no zero is part of a scam.
In general, playing online is a foolish bet.
Enhanced 00 wheel
Quote from: The General on Apr 10, 11:08 PM 2016
If you're playing online, then why on earth would you want to play the 00 game instead of the single 0 game??? I'm sure the no zero is part of a scam.
In general, playing online is a foolish bet.
Yep and thats what I dont understand about Celtic Casino. I practice there on the 00 wheel while people are betting real money on it. If you are ABLE to play there, why are you not on the 0 wheel, I dont get it?
Ken
I thought BetVoyager had an honest RNG. Who would have thought the casino was dishonest?
If I had to guess (I have NO proof of this), I would say there are no honest RNGs, sorry.
Ken
let me play devils advocate
Bet Voyager RNG MUST be fair and truly random.....if it were not, they would not be charging commission, they would not need to
if you win on bet voyager and its fair, then i see nothing wrong with it
and thats my thought
Let me ask this.....what is the min and max bet for an inside number at the casino in this title?
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Apr 11, 09:10 PM 2016
Let me ask this.....what is the min and max bet for an inside number at the casino in this title?
Ken
Ok, this is my point and I wont change my mind on it (lol).
My guess is, the min is VERY low. 1 cent? and the max is most likely not too bad either.
I'm not talking about a straight up number but we'll use a street as an example.
If that RNG is 100% fair...I dont see how you couldn't use a VERY long street progression and not lose.
How long? I dont know, I need the mins and max of that site. but a 100 step progression (starting at a very low min bet only) and not losing, is not out of the question. Can you use a 100 step progression on a street at a REAL casino with a $5 min bet? No.
The opposite of that.....I think the *ONLY* way this is possible to lose is on a non-fair RNG.
If the RNG site wanted to be 100% LEGIT, either the max bet would have to come down and/or the min bet would have to go up, quote me on that s**t. On top of that, using a bot? Its a decent bet if you had the correct BR and a fair RNG....but I highly doubt it.
Ken
As I much as I dont like progressions, lets be honest, where are your limits?
Meaning, even to a anti-progression person (myself included), what do you think of a 250 step progression on a street? You know that sucker would not lose. Now what about a 10 step progression on a street? (lmao)....too damn low!!
So we agree, there is SOMETHING in the middle?
....but playable? Probably not. On a fair RNG? Again, probably not.
Ken
Table min is 5 cent. In my opinion table limits doesn't really matter, a 20 step martingale would need a bankroll of over 26K. No one's gonna sit down with 26K to win 5 cents.
Low limits are necessary, so more people can afford to play, but at the same time, the same game is available for high rollers too. With progressions, even 1 cent starting bet can be too high. I know it sounds ridiculous :) But I did play progressions on 10+ inside numbers, starting from 1 cent, and very often the draw down was â,¬100+
Steve,
I respectfully disagree with your analysis regarding Betvoyager's no zero option. What your calculations have failed to take into account is the compounding effect of the house edge. Even with 10% deducted from winnings, it's still a considerably better deal than playing with a normal house edge of -2.7%.
I wrote a computer simulation to prove it. The first part of the program simulates the situation where there is a normal house edge, and then calculates the profit (wins - losses).
The second part simulates the case where there is no house edge but 10% is deducted from winnings, which is calculated as 0.9 * (wins - losses).
Most importantly, the two parts of the program use exactly the same set of spins, so the comparison is fair.
10,000 bets are made on high numbers (even chances). Here's the code:
'A demonstration that roulette played with no house
'hedge but 10% deducted from winnings is superior
'to roulette played with a normal house edge (but
'no deduction from winnings)
'(1) with house edge
wins = 0
losses = 0
for i = 1 to 10000
result = int(rnd * 37)
if result >= 19 then
wins += 1
else
losses += 1
end if
next i
print "profit = "; wins - losses
print
'(2) no house edge, but remove 10% of winnings
wins = 0
losses = 0
for i = 1 to 10000
result = int(rnd * 36) + 1
if result >= 19 then
wins += 1
else
losses += 1
end if
next i
print "profit = "; 0.9 * (wins - losses)
And the results are:
Case (1) - normal house edge -376 units.
Case (2) - no zero but with 10% of winnings deducted -72 units.
So as you can see, case (2) is far from being "twice as bad" as a normal game with the standard house edge. In fact, the losses in the first case are over 5 times higher than for a no zero wheel, even taking into account the 10% deducted from winnings.
I appreciate that this result may seem counter intuitive, but many people don't understand how the house edge works. They think that if the house edge is say 2.7%, it means they can sit down at the roulette table with $100 and after a few hours leave with a loss of only about $3. What they don't understand is that the house edge doesn't apply to their starting bankroll, but the total amount they wager.
As to your second point about Betvoyager's randomness control, I haven't had a chance to see exactly how it works, but I don't think you've got it quite right there. Anyway I'll be back with my thoughts on it later.
Work for betvoyager? I'll check your post in detail later.
QuoteWork for betvoyager?
I thought someone might accuse me of that. The answer is no, but even if I did, would it matter? Either the math is correct or it isn't. I haven't posted on the forums for a long time but I used to be a member at VLSroulette and also GG before the forum got screwed up. Some of the guys from GG might remember me - Ken?
Does Snowman post here? he's a math guy and I'm sure will back me up. But really there's no need, you can check the facts for yourself if you have any programming skills. You could even do it on a spreadsheet. If there are any programmers here they can check my code. It's written in simple Microsoft BASIC syntax.
Here is the proof again done with simple math. I'll use Steve's example of a player who starts with a $1000 bank and stakes $10 for 100 spins.
Assuming a HA of 2.7%, the player can can expect a return of 1 - 0.027 = 0.973.
The average loss over 100 bets is going to be $1000 * 0.973^100 ~ $65.
So he has $1000 - $65 = $935 left from his original bankroll.
Now let's see what he loses with no house edge, but 10% deducted from the winnings.
Since there is no HA, on average he will lose nothing, so will end up with the same amount he started with - $1000. But, again on average, half of these bets will have been losses and half wins, which means he won $500.
10% of $500 = $50, so his net "gain" will be $1000 - $50 = $950.
This is $15 more than if the HA had been present, even after paying the 10% on winnings. And don't forget this is only over 100 bets! Over 1000's of bets the difference will be much greater.
Quote from: Bliss on Apr 12, 05:21 AM 2016
Some of the guys from GG might remember me - Ken?
We know you dont work for BV, Bliss. Internet never forgets anything, so you can Chillax!
Now with respect to the fairness bit, Steve is correct. The underlying assumption you have taken around 50% wins is something that I would question. Let me try explaining this.
To understand this we need to get to the basic definition of house edge. There are 37 possibilities or slots in single zero wheel we all know that. Casino pays out 36 as winnings. So the house edge is 36/37 or 1-0.972 or 2.7%.
Now consider the no zero roulette situation. There are 37 possibilities or slots. Casino pays out 36 as winnings but retains 10% of that winnings. So they pay 32.4. So the house edge is 32.4/37 or 1-0.875 or 12.43%.
So you can see what is better. Hope it all makes sense
Math VS Math
May the best math win
:xd: :xd:
Also bliss I would make one correction to the following formula in the code.
It is currently reading.
print "profit = "; 0.9 * (wins - losses)
It should read.
print "profit = "; ( 0.9 * wins )- losses
Hope my reply is of some use.
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 12, 12:20 PM 2016
We know you dont work for BV, Bliss. Internet never forgets anything, so you can Chillax!
Now with respect to the fairness bit, Steve is correct. The underlying assumption you have taken around 50% wins is something that I would question. Let me try explaining this.
To understand this we need to get to the basic definition of house edge. There are 37 possibilities or slots in single zero wheel we all know that. Casino pays out 36 as winnings. So the house edge is 36/37 or 1-0.972 or 2.7%.
Now consider the no zero roulette situation. There are 37 possibilities or slots. Casino pays out 36 as winnings but retains 10% of that winnings. So they pay 32.4. So the house edge is 32.4/37 or 1-0.875 or 12.43%.
So you can see what is better. Hope it all makes sense
There are 36 slots in the NZ roulette.
But I still do not understand Bliss´calculations.
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 12, 12:20 PM 2016
Now consider the no zero roulette situation. There are 37 possibilities or slots. Casino pays out 36 as winnings but retains 10% of that winnings. So they pay 32.4. So the house edge is 32.4/37 or 1-0.875 or 12.43
I should not blame this on my fat fingers. This Should read as follows.
Now consider the no zero roulette situation. There are 36 possibilities or slots. Casino pays out 36 as winnings but retains 10% of that winnings. So they pay 32.4. So the house edge is 32.4/36 or 1-0.9 or 10%.
Quote from: Bliss on Apr 12, 04:18 AM 2016
They think that if the house edge is say 2.7%, it means they can sit down at the roulette table with $100 and after a few hours leave with a loss of only about $3. What they don't understand is that the house edge doesn't apply to their starting bankroll, but the total amount they wager.
Does "total amount players wage" mean their initial bankroll plus the winnings, i.e. a player arrives with 100, bets 50 on an EC and wins, uses the now 150 to bet some more for the entire session? Those winnings by means of risk taken were already subject to the house edge, right?. Applying HE again over money taken from the casino sounds like double taxing. ???
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 12, 01:01 PM 2016
Applying HE again over money taken from the casino sounds like double taxing. ???
If you stop betting post the money is taken then your statement is true, but if you are going to wager your risk exposure increases.
Psimoes, that statement you quoted from Bliss is completely correct. The house edge should be calculated on the amount wagered and not the bankroll. This is the reason why people get wiped off their bankroll as it compounds based on the amount wagered.
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 12, 12:44 PM 2016
But I still do not understand Bliss´calculations.
The only area what Bliss did not get quite right is the following bit.
"The average loss over 100 bets is going to be $1000 * 0.973^100 ~ $65".
This should have read ~$27 instead of 65.
Every 36 out of 37 times you are going to win. So considering you are playing ECs. You are staking $10 for 100 spins. Out of 100 spins, lets say every 37th spin will be zero. So spin 37 and 74 are 0. That takes out 2 spins from 100. REmaining 98 spins we win 49 or lose 49. So the calculation is
49 spins won = $10*49 winnings = $490
49 spins lost = $10*49 lost = $490
2 spins lost on 0 = $10*2 = $20
Total bankroll at the end is $1000+$490-$490-$20 = $980.
Take Non-zero. Same thing no zeroes. 50% you win and 50% you lose.
50 spins won = 0.9*$10*50 winnings = $450
49 spins lost = $10*50 lost = $500
Total bankroll at the end is $1000+$450-$500 = $950.
So $950 in non-zero with 10% commission as opposed to $980 in a single zero roulette.
I guess an easy to understand situation would be something like the following: a player has a BR of $37 and bets $1 on a straightup for 37 spins. Wins 1 time, loses 36 times, goes home with $36. The player does this for three sessions. Well, the results are the same, $111 minus 2,7% is $108; the same as $37 minus 2,7% equals $36; times three equals $108.
You just pick the bankroll and subtract 2,7%.
With the NZ Roulette there is no HE so in the longterm the winnings equal the losses. Which means the 10% aftertax over the winnings is equal to half of that subtracted to the bankroll i.e. 5%. Almost doubles 2,7%
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 12, 01:13 PM 2016
So $950 in non-zero with 10% commission as opposed to $980 in a single zero roulette.
Having explained all the above, may I ask why do you prefer BV non zero wheel in all your showed plays then?
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on Apr 12, 01:25 PM 2016
Having explained all the above, may I ask why do you prefer BV non zero wheel in all your showed plays then?
Drazen
Not the subject of the thread. But to answer that question when you can win every session does it really matter to you whether the house edge is 2.7% or 10%. As Mr. J would put it, it's my tip
Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 12, 01:32 PM 2016
Not the subject of the thread. But to answer that question when you can win every session does it really matter to you whether the house edge is 2.7% or 10%. As Mr. J would put it, it's my tip
E. X. A. C. T. L. Y.
Think the HE on the NZ is actually 5% as in the longterm you´ll win only half of your bets. Are you saying you can actually win all the time? Like, just because there is no zero to mess things up? Just curious.
Hi Priyanka,
You're right I did make a mistake in my calculation, but actually we are all wrong. ;D
The deduction on winnings is not made in the way you have calculated it. In fact things are actually better than I thought, because the 10% applies only to
net winnings. See the payment rules on Betvoyager-
link:s://:.betvoyager.com/about/payrules/
QuoteIf a player plays on equal odds casino games, a 10% house fee will be taken from the player's net winnings at the end of the game session or upon a withdrawal of net winnings from the table through the cashier. The duration of the game session cannot exceed 24 hours. The house fee and restrictions are only in regards to equal odds games.
There are two examples given.
My code was basically correct, but I needed to add the following:
'payout 90% of net winnings if in profit.
if wins > losses then
print "profit = "; 0.9 * (wins - losses)
else
print "profit = "; wins - losses
end ifSo it is certainly not accurate to say that the odds are twice as bad as the normal house edge game. They are considerably better. Of course, if you always win every session then you may end up paying more "tax" because your net winnings are always positive, but against that you have to take into account how much the presence of the house edge damages the profit you would have made had it not been present.
Returning to the calculation, suppose you make 1000 bets of $1 on red, your return will be $1000 * 0.973 = 973 (not sure how I messed that up previously, and you were right to point out the error).
So you have lost $27 to the house edge.
For the no zero game, on average, since the odds are completely fair, you will make no net profit, and no net loss. You break even. So in the "long run" you pay no 10% tax at all.
Of course, in a given session profits will fluctuate, you win some and lose some, so of course you end up paying the tax on those occasions when you finish a session with a net profit.
On the other hand, if playing the game with standard house edge, the more you bet, the more you will lose.
So I know which game I'd rather play, and the simulation proves it.
Quote from: Bliss on Apr 12, 02:51 PM 2016
For the no zero game, on average, since the odds are completely fair, you will make no net profit, and no net loss. You break even. So in the "long run" you pay no 10% tax at all.
Sorry, not sure about this.
Would be true if the house returned all the10% fees taxed in the short run I think. Or if they payed the player 10% of the net loss. Which they obviously won´t.
Quote from: Bliss on Apr 12, 02:51 PM 2016
The deduction on winnings is not made in the way you have calculated it. In fact things are actually better than I thought, because the 10% applies only to net winnings.
Quote from: Bliss on Apr 12, 02:51 PM 2016
So I know which game I'd rather play, and the simulation proves it.
I give you that :thumbsup:
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 12, 03:18 PM 2016
Sorry, not sure about this.
Would be true if the house returned all the10% fees taxed in the short run I think. Or if they payed the player 10% of the net loss. Which they obviously won´t.
Yeah well, I was just looking at it from the point of view of the long term average. Of course you will end up paying the tax sometimes, even if you don't have a winning system. ;)
The point is, the tax is not applied in the way it is on Baccarat, for example. In Bacc, you only get a 95% return on banker bets:
every banker bet. That has a grinding effect on your bankroll especially when you make large bets. That doesn't happen here because the deduction is made only on net winnings at the end of a session. Big difference.
I see your point. Thanks
Quote from: Bliss on Apr 12, 03:35 PM 2016
Yeah well, I was just looking at it from the point of view of the long term average. Of course you will end up paying the tax sometimes, even if you don't have a winning system. ;)
The point is, the tax is not applied in the way it is on Baccarat, for example. In Bacc, you only get a 95% return on banker bets: every banker bet. That has a grinding effect on your bankroll especially when you make large bets. That doesn't happen here because the deduction is made only on net winnings at the end of a session. Big difference.
You know, if NZ has the same odds as coin toss, then there will be times when the losing sessions will be even with the winning sessions. So in the long run the player will lose those 10 percent to the house per winning session. It´s still unfair payout in disguise. :(
I agree that if you're only going to make a few bets, maybe like that guy Ashley Revell ;D, then you're probably better off sticking with their standard house edge games. But a regular player who can't guarantee that they will win - and who can? then the NZ option is the best.
Again, I have no reason to "promote" Betvoyager. I don't have an account and don't play RNG anyway, but it seems a bit harsh to characterize them as scammers. I was looking at their site and they even have a page about the house edge. How many online casinos give you this kind of information? It's not in their interest to do so; it seems to me that they're more transparent than most.
Regarding the randomness control, it seems that the algorithm is in the public domain, so you could create your own program to compute the checksum. In that case there would be no chance of them being able to cheat. You don't have to rely on their software if you don't trust it.
link:s://:.betvoyager.com/randomness/#randomness-control-video/
QuoteThe checksum is being computed with the help of the program used in our casino. Players can use other programs to compute the checksum for text information according to the SHA-256 algorithm. Players can find such programs on the following websites:
link:://jssha.sourceforge.net
link:://:.farfarfar.com/scripts/encrypt
link:://:.fileformat.info/tool/hash.htm
Additional checksum calculators
The SHA-256 is merely one of numerous algorithms that can be used to compute a checksum. We have chosen it to ensure randomness control in our casino because no modern sources of information have ever uncovered any insecurities or incorrectness connected with this algorithm.
I can agree that RNG is fair random, but online roulette have other parts in program which can be manipulated by programmers so everything looks in order, for example RNG hit number 9 but on display it can show number 32 because I have no money on 32 so at the end everything is perfect for casinos :)
MumboJumbo,
That's exactly the situation which the feature is supposed to give you peace of mind about. It seems you haven't understood how it works. To be fair though, the explanation given on the site could be clearer. I understand it because I'm familiar with the technology which is used everywhere; emails, downloading files, anywhere where information is transmitted.
The idea is that a spin (or spins) are generated in advance of you playing them. The point of doing that is so that you can check, after the spin actually appears on the screen, that it was the same spin which was generated before you placed your bet.
A unique code is generated for the spin(s) which have been generated in advance. You place your bet, then that spin is displayed. You can now check (using either their software or your own), that the code is the same as that which was given before you place your bet. If the code is different, it means the spin generated in advance was changed after you bet, in which case you know the casino was cheating.
Same principle with emails or downloading files. Have you ever downloaded a file and been given a checksum? the checksum is there to ensure that the file you downloaded wasn't corrupted in transit.
To be honest I don't know why other casinos don't do the same with their RNG. A lot of potential players are put off because, as you say, it would be easy for the casino to cheat you by changing the spin after you've made your bet.
Some people reckon that the casino figures out your pattern of play, but that's nonsense. They would just be gambling in that case. The simplest way for them to cheat is just to present a number different to the number (or group of numbers) that you bet on, after you bet.
Ok, you said " I'm familiar with the technology which is used everywhere; emails, downloading files, anywhere where information is transmitted." Can I ask you something ? Do you familiar with reverse engineering in computer programming?
Quote from: MumboJumbo on Apr 13, 05:54 AM 2016
Do you familiar with reverse engineering in computer programming?
I am. What's your point?
Quote from: Bliss on Apr 13, 03:17 AM 2016
I agree that if you're only going to make a few bets, maybe like that guy Ashley Revell ;D, then you're probably better off sticking with their standard house edge games. But a regular player who can't guarantee that they will win - and who can? then the NZ option is the best.
The guy that bet his life savings on a colour? He would have a better chance on the NZ wheel. I think it can be more benefitial to the player that makes a few bets on the NZ, wins* and leaves for good than the SZ. It´s just that it will definitely make the player lose in the long run.
* This provided the player wins the few sessions and as you say, no one guarantees that. But in the short run it´s a fair odds game as advertised.
Regarding the original topic I think it can be as much as a scam as the SZ or DZ is, but in the same sense casinos don´t tell the players about the house edge. They don´t have to and they (both casinos and majority of gamblers) don´t care. Remember, the Zero isn´t there to screw the individual player up; it´s just there because the house is running a business and without it it wouldn´t make any profit with the game. The NZ has to profit from the player in some way, because the service and transactions cost money. 10% is a bit on the high side though, but there are other games with a higher house edge for no apparent reason I think.
Steve I´m saying he would have had a better chance to win on NZ because he would be betting 18 against 18 instead of 18 against 19.
This is crazy, you need to have an edge of 10% just to stay even. Or win 10 sessions out of 19 . Given a proper bankroll and within reasonable table limits, can you win a coin toss game?
Quote from: Steve on Apr 13, 04:45 PM 2016
Again my problem with betvoyager is the advertising as if the casino has no edge.
I logged in today to betvoyager to see what they are saying. They seem to say two things
1. The only no zero roulette in the world
2. With real equal odds during game play.
They dont seem to say the casino has no edge. Looks like they are very clear on what they are offering. Also, before anyone enters the game they are displaying a huge popup that says 10% house fee will be taken from the winnings. Interesting!!
When I was a lad if you put $1 on a horse at 10/1
and it won you got $10 plus your stake back.
Now it seems that the stake is included in the $10
so it's only 9/1.
BVNZ pays 36/1 (which includes your stake) which, to me
is 35/1 so there is a house edge.
Quote from: Ross on Apr 15, 06:50 PM 2016
When I was a lad if you put $1 on a horse at 10/1
and it won you got $10 plus your stake back.
Now it seems that the stake is included in the $10
so it's only 9/1.
BVNZ pays 36/1 (which includes your stake) which, to me
is 35/1 so there is a house edge.
You are right Ross, they do in fact only pay 35/1.
BV NZ is a little better than normal Single-zero casino.
The rule is BV NZ will charger you 10% of your 24-hour win.
We just suppose that we only flat bet red on every spins.
If we use robots, we can spin 4 times per minute. So we will have 4*60*24 = 5760 spins per 24-hour session.
For NZ roulette. We suppose day one we have 40% red and day two we have 60% red.
So day one: 2304 red and 3456 black, we lose 1152 units
day two: 3456 red and 2304 black, we profit 1152 units but only get 90% of it, should be 1036.8 units.
These two days: we lose 1152-1036.8 = 115.2 units.
However: for single zero roulette.
Two days should be 5760*2= 11520 spins
Red: should be 11520*18/37=5604.32
Black and zero: shoulbe be 11520*19/37 = 5915.67
If we only flat bet red on single zero. we will lose 5915.67- 5604.32 = 311.35 units for same two-day gaming.
It just depends on how long you play for.
House edge is a story on long term.
If we play flat bet as long as possible. We can count every session to two group. one is losing one is winning. It is similar with the two-day example above.
No zero but charge 10% on winning is better or worse than single zero depends on the losing rate on losing session.
The example above suppose the losing rate is 60%. NZ lose 115 units less than 311 units on single zero.
But if the losing rate is 80%. NZ will lose 345 units more than single zero.
The balance point is 77%. NZ will lose 311 units equal to single zero.
But I don't think random no zero roulette can have such high volatility.
The 40/60 example you posted was deceiving because the taxed result over the winnings isn´t always the same in every possible situation. 10% of 60 isn´t equal to 10% of 80. Even when the outcome gets reversed to be fair to the even chances. They´re still not returning 10% of your losses.
The example you posted for the SZ roulette was correct, so an example for the NZ must be done in the same way:
5760*2=11520 Total spins, or units bet.
11520(18/36) = 11520*0.5=5760 There being same odds for Red and Black, the balance point is actually 50/50.
5720*10% = 572 units lost to NZ. Against 311 units lost to SZ.
The HE for NZ is 5% which is slightly less than DZ roulette, but in reality you´ll need to have a 10% edge over the house just to break even.
In the long run it´s a wolf in sheep´s clothing.
to psimoes,
You don't really understand my example.
If you use 50% losing rate for every session, you lose 0 units.
Yes, but 50% losing rate means 50% winning rate. You lose 10% of your winnings, which is 5% total.
It seems you never play bv nz before. bv does not charge every winning. They charge for winning session. The session can be as long as 24 hours.
For example, from beginning your have 1000 units bankroll.
You place red flat bet only for 24-hours, if you count the winning rate as 50%, you win 5760 units and lose 5760 units. So your bankroll is still 1000 units. Bv will not charge you.
Just read my previous posts in this thread.
Got your idea. You just think in the long run the losing and winning session should be 50% to 50%. And we will pay tax on winning session.
Of course bv nz still has house edge.
But your example is like you only play one spin per session. It is completely different from my example.
OK. Well, how I see it in the long run there is no difference between taxing individual winning spins and full winning sessions. I´s just another level of abstraction. The percentage remains constant.
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 22, 04:31 AM 2016
5760*2=11520 Total spins, or units bet.
11520(18/36) = 11520*0.5=5760 There being same odds for Red and Black, the balance point is actually 50/50.
5760*10% = 576 units lost to NZ. Against 311 units lost to SZ.
Corrected
Quote from: Steve on Apr 13, 04:45 PM 2016
Regarding the encrypted file, I havent had a look at exactly what theyre doing that may prevent "deniable encryption". Again Im not accusing them of using it, just saying its possible. In the end, you cant beat any rng anyway. Where to play depends on where you can get an edge.
Steve,
i am studying roulette for more than 10 years, i can beat no zero roulette in long term (i can prove you). The only problem in BV is that maximum numbers to download in advance is only 50. If they will be at least 100 000 numbers in advance in that zip file, then i just laugh to 10% percent commisson, they can take 20% and still no problem to make some money constantly.
@pcsoftdiy,
I think there is another constant, but I´m not sure about its significance:
Bankroll is 1000 x 2, two sessions x 2. Betting on Red.
1st session: red wins 950, black wins 50
1000+950-50=1900, tax=90
session total =1810
2nd session: red wins 50, black wins 950
1000+50-950=100
1810+100=1910
net loss 2000-1910=90
90/2000=0.045 or 4.5% HE
3rd session: red wins 550, black wins 450
1000+550-450=1100, tax=10
session total = 1090
4th session: red wins 450, black wins 550
1000+450-550=900
1090+900=1990
net loss 2000-1990=10
10/2000=0.005 or 0.5% HE
As the HE varies, it seems the more you go for a higher profit, the higher house edge you face. But the ratio is linear: 10/0.5=20 vs. 90/4.5=20. What this constant value of 20 means here, I don´t know.
In a "best possible situation" followed by a "worst possible situation"where red wins 1000 on one session and blacks wins 1000 on the other, HE is 5%.
In a "most inocuous situation" where red wins 500 and black wins 500, HE is 0. The ratio being linear, the average would be 5+0/2=2.5. Could the actual house edge for NZ be 2.5% ?
Thinking now about triplicing the original 1000 bankroll on a good session and losing no more than 1000 on a losing session. Think it´s promising.
Quote from: vineeee on Apr 22, 12:31 PM 2016
Steve,
i am studying roulette for more than 10 years, i can beat no zero roulette in long term (i can prove you). The only problem in BV is that maximum numbers to download in advance is only 50. If they will be at least 100 000 numbers in advance in that zip file, then i just laugh to 10% percent commisson, they can take 20% and still no problem to make some money constantly.
I just use some auto mouse and keyboard software to click the button to generate random numbers in advance every 10 minutes, Which can make sure BV can not generate numbers based on my bet.
To:psimoes
English is my second language. I am 1000+ times better at Math than English. So if I can not explain it clearly, That is it.
There is much difference between just charge 10% for session and for every bet.
Because every session can include up to 5620 spins. In 5620 spins it is impossible to meet very high volatility.
Remember in this 5620 spins you don't have any house edge, but in single zero, you will lose 311 units per 5620 spins just because there is one more zero.
The more spins your session have, the more stable your system is.
The lose rate will be towards 50% in the long run.
For example, we have 100-day plan to bet red only on bv nz.
Day 1, 5620 spins lose 80%
Day 2, 5620 spins win 80% but charge for 10% of winning.
Day 3, 5620 spins lose 55%
Day 4，5620 spins win 55% but charge for 10% of winning.
.......
Day 100. 5620 spins win 50%. no loss and no charge.
You can count every losing day to lose group, every win day to win group, charge 10% for win group.
If the losing rate is lower than 77% for whole lose group, we will lose less than bet every spins in single zero roulette.
In the long run, lose rate in all losing days is impossible to reach such high volatility as 77%.
This is why I can say in the long run, bv nz 10% commission on win session is better than single zero.
I have virtual play more than billion spins in RX software. It is very easy to make profitable RX strategy to beat no zero spins.
QuoteOf course bv nz still has house edge.
Quotebut in reality you´ll need to have a 10% edge over the house just to break even.
In the long run it´s a wolf in sheep´s clothing.
QuoteBVNZ pays 36/1 (which includes your stake) which, to me
is 35/1 so there is a house edge.
One thing everyone needs to understand about the 10% @ BV is.
A zero wheel eventually takes 2.7% no matter what.
BV NZ only takes 10% from your winnings, you have to win your session to walk away with 90% of what you won, it does not happen during a session, the odds are still a true 50/50, 2/1 etc up to single number bets at 36/1, there's 36 possible outcomes NOT 37 as in single zero, the difference between 36/1 and 37/1 is 2.7% = house edge .
Seems very simple to understand, not so?
Iow....just track till one ec is behind and flatbet to profit. In theory it can't lose. Exept your patience :twisted:
Quote from: pcsoftdiy on Apr 22, 10:34 PM 2016
Remember in this 5620 spins you don't have any house edge, but in single zero, you will lose 311 156 units per 5620 spins just because there is one more zero.
Corrected
Site down? Is that happening often? :-X
Quote from: Ross on Apr 15, 06:50 PM 2016
BVNZ pays 36/1 (which includes your stake) which, to me
is 35/1 so there is a house edge.
With the payment is as you wrote, but I do not see here the "house edge".
a) We put 1 unit on one of the fields - we win and receive 1 as a refund of our +35 wins = 36 units from the table
b) I understand that in your opinion it should be 1 as a return of our + 36 win = 37 units from the table.
SUMMARY: Hitting 1 number = 37 units from the table.
NOW WE REVERSE BETTING:
a) On each of the 36 fields you set 1 unit - a full table (!) spent 36 units and after you stop the wheel you download 37 units from the table?
;)
SECOND EXAMPLE:
a) You place 18 units for a simple RED chance (you'll never say that the No-Zero casino has an advantage here) - you win / lose 18 units.
b) You place 1 unit for each red number = 18 units
you win / lose 18 units.
You will bet 1/3 or 1/4 numbers - you will get an equal, proportional refund.
THERE IS NO HOUSE EDGE
The casino organizes a football match and for your team to take part in it, you have to bear various costs - travel, hotel, etc. (you have to take risks in roulette).
If you win the match - the casino will refund you and pay 10 units for winning.
You have two options to choose from:
1) You can play the ENTIRE MATCH with 10 players against 11 casino players and if you win, you get 10 units.
2) You can play the ENTIRE MATCH with 11 players against 11 casino players, but then (ONLY if you win) the casino will refund you and deduct 10% and you will get 9 units to win.
For stopping a 10% fee - WHICH IS AFTER THE FINISHED AND ONLY WINNING MATCH - is it worth the WHOLE MATCH and EVERY MATCH which you decide to play (!) Play in weakness?
Is it worth reducing your chances of recovering all incurred costs and receiving an additional 9 bonus units for these 10%?
I have a very unequivocal opinion on this subject and this issue of reflection is closed to me.
This is obviously an illustrative example, so please do not enter into mathematical discussions that 10/11 is not the same as 35/37 etc., because it is obvious.
But this example in no way reflects the possibilities offered by the lack of zero in roulette.
There is an old rule in roulette that the more you bet on the table, the more you will ultimately lose, because in each long turn you pay tax.
So the more you bet, the more units you'll finally give away to the casino - you know very well what I mean.
Now let's imagine that you have a game where you can place different bets during each single hand from which * something always comes back to you, because it will NEVER be zero.
You can fix the table in such a way that after losing, ALWAYS 49% of the table will come back to you, and even if you wanted, it would be 49.9 / 50.1
- It gives you amazing gaming comfort.
* I mean such opposite betting - 499RED / 501BLACK is a stupid bet, but only as an example that "something always comes back to you".
It doesn't have to be just a simple chance.
When in the French roulette, which gives 50% loss of simple chances (that's why there are no other wheels for me and I'm surprised that anyone plays other), you bet 2 units in ONE GAME, e.g. BLACK and you lose, the casino will take you 1 unit.
When you finish the whole session - e.g. 200-300 ROTATION and earn 10 profit units at the end on roulette without zero, then the casino will take you 10% of it - that is also 1 unit.
You really can't see the difference?
REMINDER: 10% is charged after the entire session, not after a single game.
Another thing is if someone has such a need - it is possible to generate further numbers for tracking trends, without the risk of losing money.
It is not possible to place equivalent bets from the same group against each other and press SPIN (it does not work - it is "dead"), but you can do it like this:
1/18 - 3 unit
3rd 12 - 2 unit
six-line 19/24 - 1 site
and then it works - we have another spin for which we do not pay.
For me it all looks just too good, there are very low rates, thanks to which you can apply very detailed and balanced betting, the lack of zero additionally means that you do not lose on "insurance" of this zero, with high bets - this "insurance" often disturbs the balanced betting system with regular wheels.
All this means that I have doubts whether everything is all right and BetVoyager does not use any "ugly" actions to otherwise undermine the players' chances.
That's why I admit and write about it openly that I have touched on this topic on several portals, because I want to play at BetVoyager, but I am very careful - I have very little confidence in the online world.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26814.msg237747;topicseen#msg237747