Roulette strategy

I have a betting strategy that I would like opinions about. ASSUME THAT THIS IS A SINGLE 0 WHEEL. The bet goes like this: Bet in increments of 3 on the 2nd and 3rd twelve, then place a $1 square bet between the 1,2,4,5, and another $1 square bet between the 7,8,10,11. Out of 37 possible numbers, there are 5 that you lose on. On the other 32 numbers you win $1. So you will win your bet roughly 86.5 % of the time, and lose teh bet 13.5 % of the time. Are my calculations correct?


In the long run the casino edge is the same. Since it is likely that you will win on the first few spins (about 8.5 out of 10), I propose that you make the bet 4 or 5 times, then take those winnings and try to parlay them on some other higher payout bets. I look forward to reading your responses.

"If a gambler risks a finite capital over a large number of plays in a game with constant single-trial probablility of winning, losing, and tying, then any and all betting systems lead ultimately to the same value of mathematical expectation of gain per unit amount wagered"

-From "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" by Richard A Epstein


No matter what fuzzy math you use, you can't beat the game. With your system, you are risking a large amount for a frequent small win. This is exactly to opposite of what you want to do. Utility theory can give some merit to betting small amounts on longshots, but says the opposite about bets like this. Read the book mentioned above, it is excellent.


In simpler terms, what are you going to do when you win a dollar (and don't say 20 mins of calling with 10-10-321)? Risking 8 dollars to win a dollar when the odds are against you is silly. You would much rather make the single number bets (which pay better than the corner bets, btw) and risk a small amount to have a big win, because the amount you won would acutally be meaningful to you.

I'm still amazed at the hoops the average guy runs through to come up with clever ways to disguise the way he is playing a 100% sucker's game.


Read Grosjean. Throw your strategy into the garbage can, roll up your sleeves and see what you can come up with that has +EV.

I've only met Grosjean for 2 minutes. But his gaming book on making money is light years better than any other I have ever read (sorry MM and DS). He is a true pro that I believe makes his money playing vs. casinos. How smart is Grosjean? Are you familiar with Einstein? John Nash? Aristotle? Morons.


/images/smile.gif


Of course, like John Nash, with super intelligence can come some super quirky habits, like not realizing carrying 5 fake IDs and 60k on you might get you in trouble in a back room.

They were just players cards. Haven't you ever carried players cards of "friends"? Doesn't Grosjean have a real job?


They merely eject recreational players, but react stronger to organized pros. Here is my fictionalized dramatization of Grosjean's lawsuit cross-examination. There might be some interesting issues about admissibility of items from an illegal search.


Lawyer: "Were you beating them in an organized, well-capitalized, professional way beyond 'card counting' with exclusive knowledge of dealers' hole cards and hit cards?"


Grosjean: "Sometimes."


Lawyer: "Did they reasonably suspect you were using illegal methods?"


Grosjean: "It beats me. Surveillance saw me beat them for large money using unconventional techniques, perhaps as part of a professional team. They weren't smart enough to immediately identify the techniques or legality."


Lawyer: "You knew you might be detained?"


Grosjean: "Of course. Duh! I usually avoided detection by playing with 'fake I.D.' and cash."


Lawyer: "So the backrooming was a minor inconvenience, not a surprise?"


Grosjean: "Yes. But now they have my real name and picture so I can't play anymore. I can't sue for the right to play, I can only sue for the backroom inconvenience."


Lawyer: "Your honor, give him $10k, a Coke, and a smile. Let's use this public courtroom for more important things."

How the bogus authors like Singer, Thomason, etc. and the legit authors who are only decent, don't read this book, and immediately conclude "I suck" and go and spend some real time learning the finer points of advantage gaming.

Fez,


Think you're awesome since I've read some of your stuff at the other forum. I thought Grosjean's math was dead on and it shed a lot of light on potential winning strategies, but how much of it was really practical? I know I haven't read it enough times to gleam everything, but my main impression was "that's interesting, but how do I apply this?" I don't know how to get a lot of hole card info or the like. Anything I should definitely focus on?


Thanks

Think you're awesome since I've read some of your stuff at the other forum. I thought Grosjean's math was dead on and it shed a lot of light on potential winning strategies, but how much of it was really practical? I know I haven't read it enough times to gleam everything, but my main impression was "that's interesting, but how do I apply this?" I don't know how to get a lot of hole card info or the like. Anything I should definitely focus on?


You might try my "Get The Edge At Blackjack". Several people have pointed out the books complement each other since BC is heavy on data but coy about the actual techniques required to get the data, whereas my book, not being academic-orientated, is lighter on data and much more comprehensive on technique. I'll think you will find the blackjack opportunities are very practical indeed after you read GTEAB.


You might also try reading the groups.google.com archives (free) and doing some searches on some of the techniques Grosjean mentions.

Many other authors? F.


John your book was too simplistic for it to be a valuable one for me, but will serve the typical gambler very well. I cannot give you the highest marks, since you simply didn't attempt enough quad jumps (and I'm happy you didn't). Great writing and clear, concise information. And a real gem pointing out a technique I had never seen in print before.


I'd like to say see p x, y and z of Grosjean's book......that is where the real practical value is. Selfishly, I'm going to keep my big mouth shut, and let the readers find it on their own!

I'll more than settle for a B+, particulary considering the amount of stupid typos that got in the book.


However, I couldn't give an A+ Grosjean. The reason being that he either ignored or doesn't accept the advances made in optimal betting theory in the last few years. This is a major, major problem and considerably frustrating for the rest of us in the field, very similar to your running battle with DS over bet sizing.


To give an example, take the baccarat chapter which dismisses attempts to find workable card counting methods for baccarat with a cursory reference to Thorp and Griffin's studies on the subject. In fact, six years ago Abdul Jalib M'Hall published a report showing gains of up to $500 an hour from baccarat, crucially, when Kelly betting is taken into consideration, which the Thorp and Griffin studies did not consider.


With his own studies of casino war and the royal match bets Grosjean replicates Griffin's erroneous baccarat methodology and looks at the wagers in terms of pure EV without regard to risk, which produces theoretically infinite error. The potential gain from these games is seriously understated.


So, while I appreciate the data on for example, next-card play at blackjack I am left with rather a sour taste in my mouth since I doubt many people can see the problem.

Grosjean put in a 3 page ancillary chapter on Baccaret. In it, he describes counting opportunities as "few but ripe". He doesn't dismiss it, just says the opportunity is not very good due to shallower penetration. He then goes on to show how to kick their ass if you have knowledge of a card coming. All in 3 pages! Contrast this with the MM and DS books which are in Dickens style (paid by the word). I like MM's books, but they are more fun to read (a lot of text and general discussion) and lighter on clear cut stuff on how to bust out the hurt on Casinos.


Re: Abdul. A bright kid no doubt. He posted some clever stuff here last year. He got an A from me on dreaming, and an F on execution. I doubt he is making any money despite his great brain storming. I read his posts and thought "Boy, this Luke Skywalker is not going to get it done unless he finds Ben Kenobi or Yoda fast".

"Grosjean put in a 3 page ancillary chapter on Baccaret. In it, he describes counting opportunities as "few but ripe". He doesn't dismiss it, just says the opportunity is not very good due to shallower penetration. "


That is true, however without understanding optimal betting theory you can't really determine how deep you need the penetration to be. Also, baccarat penetration is very deep in most places outside of Las Vegas. You can still find 100% penetration if you know where to look for it. I don't think he knows this.


"He then goes on to show how to kick their ass if you have knowledge of a card coming. "


Yes. However, I published all of the figures in the Grosjean chapter in "Baccarat for the clueless" back in '97. I'm not accusing him of plagiarism because my guess is he calculated the data independently, but it has nothing new to add. All the statistics are in BFC, together with a detailed explanation of the techniques neccessary to actually obtain next card information.


"Contrast this with the MM and DS books which are in Dickens style (paid by the word). I like MM's books, but they are more fun to read (a lot of text and general discussion) and lighter on clear cut stuff on how to bust out the hurt on Casinos."


I must be alone amongst blackjack authors in rating MM and DS. In their defence I'd say that they had the considerable disadvantage of writing in the pre-Pentium age-the type of stats you get in BC just could not be calculated easily back in the seventies and eighties. Nonetheless they filled in a lot of blanks in my education concerning statistical theory.

Their perspective seems to be one of natural poker players looking at other games for profit opportunities: I appreciate that perspective. They see things others do not.


"Re: Abdul. A bright kid no doubt. He posted some clever stuff here last year. He got an A from me on dreaming, and an F on execution. I doubt he is making any money despite his great brain storming. I read his posts and thought "Boy, this Luke Skywalker is not going to get it done unless he finds Ben Kenobi or Yoda fast". "


Oh, I think he made his money already. He was quite candid about it in fact. You can still read the posts about his experiences with advantage play in the nineties in the groups.google.com archives, notably in his "Abdul's auto-biography" posts. I don't think any of it is fabricated, it was backed up by too many independent sources, some of whom weren't exactly enamoured of Abdul.


I'm not familiar with his poker writings here but he published several papers on rec.gambling, mostly on blackjack, which showed a very high level of intellectual riguour. Much of modern advantage play theory hails directly from his writings.

I was referring to Abdul in the sports betting arena. I only paid attention to his sports posts.

"He got an A from me on dreaming, and an F on execution."


Can you give an example of this?