Doc
Doc
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 6302
December 9th, 2010 at 9:55:18 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

There maybe ways of being up after a 1000 hands. However is it a 50/50 shot? Probably not. I also think people under estimate the difficulty of getting ahead and staying there, especially with a small bank roll.

I think it might be important to consider why someone might be interested in taking on the challenge and whether they might do it with less than a 50/50 shot.

Suppose someone did not really want to try to make a living playing against the house at a casino table. Also, perhaps they do not consider the amount of money they might possibly get from Mr. Bluejay to be all that exciting. However, they might think they could make a whole bunch of money selling books or DVD's or training courses on how to beat the casino.

If they could promote their book/DVD/course with the validated claim that they had beaten Mr. Bluejay's challenge, live and in a real casino, that might be of significant value to them, perhaps enough to risk a little money at less than a 50/50 shot at winning. If someone is considering that kind of scheme, they might start by accepting the challenge at a low stake -- perhaps taking the challenge several times until they wind up a winner even once by chance -- before they even start writing the book or producing the DVD or organizing the course. Whadya think?
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 145
  • Posts: 1556
December 9th, 2010 at 10:56:28 AM permalink
"they might start by accepting the challenge at a low stake -- perhaps taking the challenge several times until they wind up a winner even once by chance"

I do not believe Mr. Bluejay is offering the live challenge more than once to the same person and certainly not for the same system. If the challenge fails at the low stakes, then that's it.

Plus, I'm sure that anyone promoting a book, etc would not want Mr. Bluejay to become linked to as he will probably denounce any of the systems mentioned in the book, unless they actually produced valid results.
Doc
Doc
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 6302
December 9th, 2010 at 11:13:11 AM permalink
In the original (computer simulation) challenge, I think that Mr. Bluejay had agreed (1) to keep details of the system confidential and (2) in the case of a system successful against the challenge, to publicly acknowledge that on his web site. Maybe I got that wrong, or maybe those features do not apply to the live challenge. If they do, and if someone were to offer a series of low-stakes responses to the challenge -- each with slightly-different-but-equally-bogus strategies -- there might be an opportunity for them to win by chance and get this public "endorsement" by Mr. Bluejay for their system. Such a scam could be viewed as more costly to Mr. Bluejay than the actual cash he placed at risk.
crazyiam
crazyiam
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 44
December 9th, 2010 at 11:46:16 AM permalink
A quick look at worst case gaming the challange exploits gets me at best a 5.3% chance to beat your challange. Anything legit should be much worse.

Note if I started adding in odds for craps this number might go up, but it doesn't seem worth the math, since I'm fairly certain your challange is safe.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 145
  • Posts: 1556
December 9th, 2010 at 11:47:46 AM permalink
The confidentiality was the choice of the challenger, if I remember correctly. And yes, he agreed to publicly acknowledge the system.

But it would have to work within the one month period of the challenge. He's not going to sit in a casino with you(or his representative) for months on end while you wait to get lucky to pigeonhole him into an endorsement.
HKrandom
HKrandom
Joined: Oct 1, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 130
December 9th, 2010 at 9:45:38 PM permalink
Quote: crazyiam

A quick look at worst case gaming the challange exploits gets me at best a 5.3% chance to beat your challange. Anything legit should be much worse.

Note if I started adding in odds for craps this number might go up, but it doesn't seem worth the math, since I'm fairly certain your challange is safe.



Like I said earlier, if you bet a lot early you have more chances of being up 60% than being down 100%. Following a few large bets with many minimum bets would then satisfy the challenge without incurring significant losses. 1000 hands is too little, there are many ways to win this challenge more than 50% of the time.
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
Joined: May 21, 2010
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
December 9th, 2010 at 10:17:22 PM permalink
Quote: HKrandom

Like I said earlier, if you bet a lot early you have more chances of being up 60% than being down 100%. Following a few large bets with many minimum bets would then satisfy the challenge without incurring significant losses. 1000 hands is too little, there are many ways to win this challenge more than 50% of the time.


I wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree. If this were the case and it was really that easy, I don't think anyone would be wasting their time putting up their cash in an even money proposition bet against MB - you'd be out making money on the craps tables.

The object here is to increase your starting stack by 60%. Anyone who says they can do that 50% of the time should be playing craps full time. It's easy to say that it's a simple challenge to beat but that's the whole point; MB is putting up his money against yours and he's confident that more often than not he'll win your money.

If you bet big at the start and lose then you're not only going to lose $1,000 to MB but you'll also be down the $500 you began with. If you hit early then you have to hang on for the next 990 or so wagers and keep at least a $300 profit. Look at it this way - you're basically saying that more than 50% of the time you'll get up over $300 early in the challenge. That simply defies the odds of the game you're playing so why do you think you can do it? What bet is there on the craps layout that gives you better than even odds to win?

I'm asking because I've spent a fair bit of time looking at this since MB offered the "live" challenge. He's not asking you to be up $1.00 after 1,000 rounds... that would be tough enough but you've got to be ahead 60%! Come on. It's no different than simply playing craps against the house except that now MB has the same advantage over you that the house has and he's only offering even money. You'll probably end up beating MB the same percent of times that you'd beat the house... which as you know will be less than 50%.
Happiness is underrated
HKrandom
HKrandom
Joined: Oct 1, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 130
December 9th, 2010 at 10:49:20 PM permalink
Quote: TheNightfly

I wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree. If this were the case and it was really that easy, I don't think anyone would be wasting their time putting up their cash in an even money proposition bet against MB - you'd be out making money on the craps tables.

The object here is to increase your starting stack by 60%. Anyone who says they can do that 50% of the time should be playing craps full time. It's easy to say that it's a simple challenge to beat but that's the whole point; MB is putting up his money against yours and he's confident that more often than not he'll win your money.

If you bet big at the start and lose then you're not only going to lose $1,000 to MB but you'll also be down the $500 you began with. If you hit early then you have to hang on for the next 990 or so wagers and keep at least a $300 profit. Look at it this way - you're basically saying that more than 50% of the time you'll get up over $300 early in the challenge. That simply defies the odds of the game you're playing so why do you think you can do it? What bet is there on the craps layout that gives you better than even odds to win?

I'm asking because I've spent a fair bit of time looking at this since MB offered the "live" challenge. He's not asking you to be up $1.00 after 1,000 rounds... that would be tough enough but you've got to be ahead 60%! Come on. It's no different than simply playing craps against the house except that now MB has the same advantage over you that the house has and he's only offering even money. You'll probably end up beating MB the same percent of times that you'd beat the house... which as you know will be less than 50%.



You don't get my point. The chances of winning $500 are less than the chances of losing $500, however the chances of winning $300 are higher than the chances of losing $500. If I get up $300 60% of the time and down $500 40% of the time I still lose in the long term, making it impossible to make a living playing. However, if I were to make an even money bet of $1000 that I will be up, the EV would be +180 since I would have a 40% chance of losing $1,500 and a 60% chance of winning $1,300.
TheNightfly
TheNightfly
Joined: May 21, 2010
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 480
December 9th, 2010 at 10:59:36 PM permalink
I do get your point but I disagree that you'll be up 60% of your starting stack more than 50% of the time... over 1000 hands. If you believe you will be I'm asking you to show how this can be proven mathematically. I don't believe it can. As I said, it's easy to say that it can be done but (which you've done twice now) but I don't see how you can. If you make a $500 bet on the first hand/spin/roll then you'll be ahead slightly less than half the time and you'll be broke slightly more than half the time. So, slightly less than half the time you'll be up and now you have to stay up over $300 for the next 999 rounds. How does this win you the bet more than half the time?
Happiness is underrated
HKrandom
HKrandom
Joined: Oct 1, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 130
December 9th, 2010 at 11:46:36 PM permalink
Playing $1 a hand would have an expected loss of $10 over 999 hands of Baccarat since the house edge is around 1% and 1% of 1000 is 10. You can stay up after over 1000 hands by betting $1 per hand.

  • Jump to: