WatchMeWin's craps betting system

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here's what it says: "You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average.

If it's not exceptionally clear by saying "on average" that I mean "on average", then how exactly do you suggest I word the sentence to make it so?

do you mean to say $15 for every $50 ?

I dont want to answer for him but, I think the rules state. You must bet at least $50 per hour.( I think this is so the test doesn't take 10 days to complete lol) There has to be 1000 bets resolved and you must average a $15 profit for every 50 bets resolved. So basically you need to average at least a $15 profit for 20 straight 50 bet resolved, betting "sessions".

Although I could also be reading the rules totally wrong

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here's what it says: "You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average.

Quote: OdiousGambit

do you mean to say $15 for every $50 ?

What are you all smoking? No, I meant exactly what I said: $15 for every 50 rounds played, on average.

Quote: vert1276

I dont want to answer for him but, I think the rules state. You must bet at least $50 per hour.

(groan) No. That is not what the rules state. The wager between me and the challenger is for a minimum of $50 per hour of play.

Why say "on average" at all? If seems to be confusing some pretty intelligent people, which bode well for what it'll do to the minds of the system proponents who'll take the challenge. It looks like all you mean is that the total win must exceed $15 per 50 rounds played. Maybe we can define an additional term? Let 50 rounds = 1 flight. The challenger wins when: total win >($15 * number of flights)

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here's what it says: "You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average.

If it's not exceptionally clear by saying "on average" that I mean "on average", then how exactly do you suggest I word the sentence to make it so?

I know what "on average" means, I just don't know what you're applying it to. Do you apply "on average" to
(a) the entire 1000-round trial in aggregate, or
(b) each clump of 50 rounds individually?

I buy in for $500 and agree to play 1000 rounds. Suppose I alternate win/loss of $1 for 998 rounds, then lose $1, then win $301 on the final round. I have won $300 over 1000 rounds and now have $800, which is an average of +$15 per 50 rounds. Do I pass?

If not, I submit that your wording needs to reflect that you're not so much interested in a single trial of 2*bankroll but 20 smaller trials of bankroll/10, each of which must be profitable at the rate you require.

I normally don't like to comment on these challenge things, because I don't quite understand them. However, I would just say at this point that while I found that the original set of challenge rules seemed rather straight forward to me, it's obvious that other people don't seem to think so. The problem I see with that is that other people, those who would take you up on the challenge, will probably use these vague misunderstandings of the rule to try to get around them.

Anyway, I think simplifying things would be easier. For example, the person can choose the number of rounds between 1,000 and 10,000. I would argue that you should limit this to multiples of 1,000. Just to make things easier.

Then it becomes easier to state that the person must show a profit of $300 per 1,000 rounds at the end of all rounds played.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if not then it seems to me that for whatever reason you're not understanding plain English.

Of *course* "on average" applies to the entire trial. If I meant that *each* clump of 50 rounds had to be profitable, without averaging, then I wouldn't have added the words "on average". It's the addition of the words "on average" that tells the reader, clearly, that I'm not talking about *each* clump of 50 rounds in isolation of everything else.

Nevertheless, the other posters are right: I need to make the wording even clearer. While I was rewording I realized that I could improve the terms: Requiring $15 per 50 rounds on average isn't the best criterion, it's best to be direct and say $15 per *hour*, since the whole point is that the challenger should have to show that their system is practical, and the best way to do that is by showing that it can reliably produce $x per hour. With that in mind, here's my rewording for the various items in question.

Quote:

Revised items

(2) You will choose the number of rounds to wager on in the casino before we begin (1000 to 10,000 rounds).

(3) The challenge is an even-money bet between you and me (not 10-1 odds). The amount wagered between you and me is any amount you choose, between $1000 to $30,000, with a minimum of $50 per hour of play (including time you spend at the table not betting while waiting for "streaks" or other conditions). Yes, you won't know the exact number of hours you'll be playing in the casino to finish your X number of rounds, so you should estimate well to make sure you meet the minimum challenge wager. Roulette, craps, and baccarat are typically played at around 40, 50, and 70 rounds per hour respectively, but if you're waiting for streaks or other conditions then your play will be slower.

(6) You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 an hour on average. (Win must be ≥ total hours played X $15.)

Incidentally, here's how a challenger would fare under various scenarios, betting on the Pass Line in craps.

* 18% chance of winning -- Bet 1/2 each time until 150% of starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $15 per 50 rounds
* 39% chance of winning -- Bet 1/2 each time until double the starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $15 per 50 rounds
* 31% chance of winning -- Bet 1/2 each time until 250% of starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $15 per 50 rounds

* 35% chance of winning -- Bet 1/2 each time until double the starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $20 per 50 rounds
* 38% chance of winning -- Bet 1/3 each time until double the starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $15 per 50 rounds

That's a little too high for comfort, but I'm not sure the best way to increase the chances that a losing system will lose the challenge. I'm loathe to increase the win requirement above $15 or $20 an hour, and going from $15 to $20 results in only a negligible difference anyway. Perhaps granting a starting bankroll of only 1/3 the number of rounds (rather than 1/2) is the way to go...

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Maybe I'm missing something, but if not then it seems to me that for whatever reason you're not understanding plain English.

Of *course* "on average" applies to the entire trial. If I meant that *each* clump of 50 rounds had to be profitable, without averaging, then I wouldn't have added the words "on average". It's the addition of the words "on average" that tells the reader, clearly, that I'm not talking about *each* clump of 50 rounds in isolation of everything else.

That's what I thought at first, but when I asked yesterday whether it was sufficient to win $300 (start with $500, end with $800) over the course of the trial, you said no. At that point, I was at a loss as to what the other requirements were. I still don't know, but the change of rules seems to make it moot.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's what I thought at first, but when I asked yesterday whether it was sufficient to win $300 (start with $500, end with $800) over the course of the trial, you said no. At that point, I was at a loss as to what the other requirements were. I still don't know, but the change of rules seems to make it moot.

The words "on average" also caught me for the exact same reason. Your question seemed reasonable but when it was shot down (with no further explanation why_ I was also not sure why it would not have been appropriate. If you make 1000 bets and end up $300 up, then you've met the terms and condition of the bet as describe originally.

In the original rules, the term "on average" for me is unnecessary.

Okay, I see where we went wrong. When you asked if a $300 win was sufficient with a starting bankroll of $500, I thought "No, because the requirement is $15 per 50 rounds of play, and we don't know how many rounds because the challenger chooses the number of rounds beforehand." But actually we *do* know the number of rounds, because the starting bankroll is determined by the number of rounds. If we started with $500, then there were necessarily 1000 rounds, meaning the required win had to be at least 1000 ÷ 50 x $15 = $300. So this was my error and I apologize. In any event, I hope the new rules are easier to understand.