Hello everyone.
I would like to discuss the theory of "covering the zero".
Lets assume for a moment that a bet selection/money management method existed which allowed a positive expectation for the game of european or american roulette.
I have heard a few on this board give the advice of making sure to "cover the zero". Assuming the zero is the enemy of the above "winning" method " how can this enhance any methods winnings?
I understand that by covering the zero you may be able to midigate the drawdowns of any method which the zero counts as its enemy. But this is the only advantage ... if any at all ... I can see by covering the zero.
I would think that by adding a bet (the zero) which carries a negative expectation to a theoretical advantage method you are actually diluting the effectiveness of the original method.
Am I missing anything? I wouldnt be the first time ...
Thanks.
GB
Betting on 0 changes nothing , the house edge is always the same wether you bet on it or not.. On big bets though i always bet on it! :)
I do also agree that betting on 0 make no meaning O0
I also agree that covering the zero makes no difference. However, it seems that people who agree with this point still do it. Not sure what the reasoning is for that?
I hear very often people who say that it makes no difference yet they still say "make sure and cover the zero when bets get high."
???
If betting EVERY spin and/or long progression , it must pay in the long-run to cover ZERO.
It has saved me money many times.
Let's say you're betting a progression on a single dozen and the bet gets high. OK, I covered the zero. Ops! I still have 24 numbers with the same chance of zero. What to do about them?
I ignore the zero. In some play of mine, the zero is only noticed when it hurts the progression. Otherwise, it does not exist.
Sam
Hi Sam.
Because i only play B+M Live minimum bet £5 which of course can increase upto £400 on a progression, Zero for ME is CHEAP INSURANCE where most bets on D+C can be £10 for me i"m very happy to WIN £9 all night long knowing that when Zero hits i make even more !!
Cheers,
Dino.
Let's use a simple Martingale on red as an example.
5
10
20
40
80
160
320............If you win this bet, how much do you win? 5 That's all you ever win. If you wanted to cover that 320 with a zero bet, how much would it take on the zero? About 9 or 10.
So if you win your progression, all the times you've bet on zero are losses. If you win the zero, you only cover your red bet and the money invested in the zero heretofore is lost.
If you work out the math, you will see it is a lose/lose situation. If that is wrong, would someone provide me the math to prove me wrong?
If there were a hedge bet that saved your cabbage, why not just always bet the hedge and forget the main bet?
Sam
Hi Sam.
Played my version of Matrix Hybrid last night at B+M live casino.
SPINS 112
GAMES 48
ZERO 6 ( 3 HIT, 3 DNQ )
PROFIT 95 ( D+C = 5-5 FLAT-BET )
Session was some kind of one-off , 6 zeros in 112 spins has got to be unusual !!
It"s funny, i sensed the croupier "knew" how to play it at will, during the game and what was his last bet of the session....... yes ZERO !!
Kind Regards,
Dino.
if zero is a problem why don't you play with the wheal layout instead. use sectors and you can play ec or dozzens. the only exception is one of the sectors as zero, so one more number than the others...
in a simplistic way, one could divide the wheal in two for EC betting. it would be always 19 numbers VS 18 numbers. this way it is like paying comission in baccarat, one would not avoid house hedge but pay the percentagem every spin.
another option is to play no zero roulette and pay 10% of winnings when leaving table or is it when withdrawing? anyways...
i guess it all depends on the mm your practicing.
cheers
My new motto: If it works for you, go for it!
Quote from: GameBreaker on Feb 19, 11:05 AM 2012
I have heard a few on this board give the advice of making sure to "cover the zero". Assuming the zero is the enemy of the above "winning" method " how can this enhance any methods winnings?
I would think that by adding a bet (the zero) which carries a negative expectation to a theoretical advantage method you are actually diluting the effectiveness of the original method.
"Zero" or one number more then you get payout is there to ensure negative expectation against player longterm. In short term session doesnt mean much to the player. Table limits are actualy your worst enemy..
Mathematical/statistical fluctuations in randommnes that are usualy handled with progressions against table limits on other side is what makes you loser actualy concering any classical progressional methods.
Regards
Drazen
I must admit my feeling is that only a small percentage of players use the Zero as a POSITIVE-OUTCOME bet, if there are any at all like me out there.It appears Zero is and always will be viewed as NEGATIVE and always a LOSING bet, this thinking goes back to the Dawn of Time.
Any LIVE player knows there is a certain amount of pressure when placing bets in the time-frame allowed etc. Having a clear STRATERGY before hand is paramount i have to know in advance how i am going to play COVERING ZERO gives ME a COMFORT-ZONE on EVERY bet.
5-5 or 10-10 to win 4 or 9 + 25 or 15 if zero hits IS cheap insurance + EXTRA PROFIT.
As Sam states if it suits go with it, or words to that effect.
I must have too many Zero thoughts in my brain all the time, now that could be a truism !!!!!!!!!
Best Regards to all Live Players on this Forum.
Dino.
I play code 4 and only on the 3rd and 4th bet do I cover zero to win
my betting looks like this...
1-1(2 units) for first spin, 3-3 (6 units) for second spin, 10-10 (plus one unit on zero) (21 units) and finally 29-29 plus 3 on zero (61 units)
betting zero on the 4th bet has saved me a few times now :) I view it as a tax more than anything
snubby
Honestly, now. What about the 12 uncovered numbers? Why do you fear the zero and not them?
Sam