![]() Newsletter Signup
Stay informed with the
NEW Casino City Times newsletter! Recent Articles
Best of Alan Krigman
|
Gaming Guru
How Betting Systems Affect Your Session Chances18 January 1999
Betting systems abound for casino games that pay even money -- 1-to-1 -- or close to it. While particulars vary greatly, the systems fall into three general categories.
No such systems can alter house advantage in games of independent trials. So, over the long run, the casinos' pound of flesh will equal the product of edge times handle -- total wagers booked. Few solid citizens, however, will place enough bets in their lifetimes to satisfy statistical criteria for "the long run." Certainly, no single game, not even a marathon match with the gambling gods, will come anywhere close. And it is in sessions of reasonable duration, where some players win and others lose, that betting systems have their impact. For a given bet, flat wagering leads to sessions with the closest odds of success and failure as well as the narrowest, most balanced, range of expected wins and losses. Negative progressions yield more chance for victory than defeat in any particular instance, but many small wins are offset by occasional large losses. Positive progressions offer more likelihood of an adverse than a favorable session, but intermittent rich rewards help compensate for frequent small routs. Idiosyncrasies of sessions depend on the details of each game and the unique twists players apply to their betting systems. But computer analysis of three archetypal strategies in a specific game show the trends. Sessions were 100 rounds each, except that those based on progressions ended immediately if the next required bet exceeded 256 units. Wagers examined are Red at double-zero roulette. The systems, which aren't necessarily practical but emphasize the effects of the approaches, are:
The following figures are the outcomes of a particular 2,000-session computer run using each technique. Note that with negative and positive progressions, starting at 1 unit, average bets are 5.2 and 3.8 units respectively. This is important both to gauge the absolute effect of bet size on profit and loss, and also to compare projected performance in the alternate cases. The column of equivalent wins and losses shows how much would be involved if the base flat and parlayed wagers were raised so the averages were the same as with Martingale betting.
The data show the trade-off opportunities. Consider these figures in developing an approach to suit your own gaming goals. However, recognize that other factors may bias expected session results. Of these, the most critical is the ratio of the bankroll you're willing to risk to the profit at which you'll quit. Actual wins or losses, of course, depend on whether you get lucky. Still, as Sumner A Ingmark lyrically lamented, life would be lovelier if choices going into a situation were clear: Just say what's wrong, and that I'll reject, Don't make me guess, I'll never select. Recent Articles
Best of Alan Krigman
Alan Krigman |
Alan Krigman |