Tater,
I can now tell you exactly what is wrong with the first formula you lifted. There are other sequences besides 4 straight losses which put a big dent in your bankroll if you extrapolate the suggested progression.
I calculated chip ratios for other situations such that 2 successive wins at the same bet level would bring you back to +1 or +2 chips for the short sequence. 74/36 is incorrect because all of these rations should be 1.5/1.
Ratio Win/Lose this spin cumulative spins
3/2 lose -5 -5
9/6 win +3 -2
9/6 lose -15 -17
27/18 win +9 -8
27/18 lose -45 -53
81/54 lose -135 -188
3/2 lose -5 -5
9/6 win +3 -2
9/6 lose -15 -17
27/18 lose -45 -53
96/64 lose -160 -222
3/2 lose -5 -5
9/6 win +3 -2
9/6 lose -15 -17
27/18 lose -45 -62
96/64 win +32 -30
96/64 lose -160 -190
There are other such sequences but you get the idea.
The system looked so good because these possible sequences, which also produce "wipe-outs" in the $200 range were not factored in.
Now in a short series of spins like 1000, you may not encounter any of these additional negative runs. Or you may encounter several. I only have 15,000 spins to work with, and the average of these additional negative sequences in the $200 range is about 2 per 1000 spins.
Also, the statement "In an average 1,000 spins you should win $630 ($1000 minus 2 times losses of $185 each) is incorrect. You have many short sequences where the net at the end of a series of spins is only +1 chip. If it takes 5 spins to earn one $1.00 chip, you are not playing for $1.00 each spin. You would only get $630 if there were no spins for losses other than the two series of 4-straight losses per 1000 spins.
I suspect the above two additional considerations will probably reduce the advantage to the theoretical -5.28%.
But thanks for posting that formula. It was fun to work it out, and who knows...
curmudgeon
I can now tell you exactly what is wrong with the first formula you lifted. There are other sequences besides 4 straight losses which put a big dent in your bankroll if you extrapolate the suggested progression.
I calculated chip ratios for other situations such that 2 successive wins at the same bet level would bring you back to +1 or +2 chips for the short sequence. 74/36 is incorrect because all of these rations should be 1.5/1.
Ratio Win/Lose this spin cumulative spins
3/2 lose -5 -5
9/6 win +3 -2
9/6 lose -15 -17
27/18 win +9 -8
27/18 lose -45 -53
81/54 lose -135 -188
3/2 lose -5 -5
9/6 win +3 -2
9/6 lose -15 -17
27/18 lose -45 -53
96/64 lose -160 -222
3/2 lose -5 -5
9/6 win +3 -2
9/6 lose -15 -17
27/18 lose -45 -62
96/64 win +32 -30
96/64 lose -160 -190
There are other such sequences but you get the idea.
The system looked so good because these possible sequences, which also produce "wipe-outs" in the $200 range were not factored in.
Now in a short series of spins like 1000, you may not encounter any of these additional negative runs. Or you may encounter several. I only have 15,000 spins to work with, and the average of these additional negative sequences in the $200 range is about 2 per 1000 spins.
Also, the statement "In an average 1,000 spins you should win $630 ($1000 minus 2 times losses of $185 each) is incorrect. You have many short sequences where the net at the end of a series of spins is only +1 chip. If it takes 5 spins to earn one $1.00 chip, you are not playing for $1.00 each spin. You would only get $630 if there were no spins for losses other than the two series of 4-straight losses per 1000 spins.
I suspect the above two additional considerations will probably reduce the advantage to the theoretical -5.28%.
But thanks for posting that formula. It was fun to work it out, and who knows...
curmudgeon
