Hi all, specially Mike and Wizard
I came here suggested by Michael Shackleford. Recently I have exchange some emails with both him and Mike, trying to take the 30k challenge.
After reading plenty of threads here, I realize why Michael Bluejay was not happy with my questions, so I apologize to both you and Michael Shackleford.
Event tough I am not an expert like most of you here, I would love to exchange ideas with you guys.
I have thought of a system that is sure to beat the challenge, if it wasn't for the starting bankroll. The main reason for this term said in another post by Michael Bluejay is that "no system seller suggests that their system needs a big bankroll". What if I have one that does? I think I am just unhappy because that is preventing me from winning 30k, sorry about that.
I will not share the system for now because I am trying to improve it so that my bankroll does never hit 0.
I hope that we can get along well, as we all share the same passion for gambling.
Regards!
Quote: s2dbakerThreats?
Sorry, I meant threads xD
Quote: blaxiusHello everyone, let me introduce myself. My name is Andres and I'm from Argentina.
I came here suggested by Wizard. Recently I have exchange some emails with both him and Mike, trying to take the 30k challenge.
The Wizard of Odds is a marketing name used by a Mr. Michael (Mike) Shackleford. So I am not sure who you are talking about. There is a WizardofEngland who contributes to this site.
The reason betting systems are not valid, is that the device (dice, ball,spinning wheel) has no memory of the past. Past results cannot be used to predict the future.
Blackjack counting systems don't really rely on the past. The systems counts the cards played and if the remaining cards have more 10's and Aces, the likelihood of a blackjack is higher than being dealt from a new deck. While the blackjack could go to either player or the dealer, only the player get paid bonus money.
Quote: pacomartinThe Wizard of Odds is a marketing name used by a Mr. Michael (Mike) Shackleford. So I am not sure who you are talking about. There is a WizardofEngland who contributes to this site.
The reason betting systems are not valid, is that the device (dice, ball,spinning wheel) has no memory of the past. Past results cannot be used to predict the future.
Blackjack counting systems don't really rely on the past. The systems counts the cards played and if the remaining cards have more 10's and Aces, the likelihood of a blackjack is higher than being dealt from a new deck. While the blackjack could go to either player or the dealer, only the player get paid bonus money.
Thanks for the information. I was referring to the "wizard of odds" Michael Shackleford, and Michael Bluejay (Mike).
I understand your point of the devices not having memory of the past, but they tend to stabilize towards infinite.
Quote: rainmanWhat is this 30k challenge?
"Any betting system that promises to make you a winner is junk, and I'm so confident about this that I'm putting my money where my mouth is: I'll wager $30,000 against any system seller's $3,000 that their betting system can't beat the house. (Or I'll wager my $10,000 against their $1,000, if they prefer.) "
https://easy.vegas/gambling/betting-system-challenge
Quote: WongBoand the need for an infinite bankroll is why the challenge stands untouched.
Infinite bankroll? I was talking about it being the way it was before, when there was no starting bankroll. The system just had to show a net profit. Too bad at that time I was not even 18.
Quote: blaxiusHello everyone, let me introduce myself. My name is Andres and I'm from Argentina.
Hola, bienvenido al foro.
No estoy segura de entender tu problema. Si te es más fácil exponerlo en español, lo puedo traducir al inglés para beneficio de los demás.
Quote: NareedHola, bienvenido al foro.
No estoy segura de entender tu problema. Si te es más fácil exponerlo en español, lo puedo traducir al inglés para beneficio de los demás.
Thanks, but I have been working in English for a few years now, and I am quiet fluent with it. There is no problem at all, I just wanted to say hi to everybody.
Nice to meet you by the way, where are you from?
Quote: blaxiusNice to meet you by the way, where are you from?
Mexico City
Quote: blaxiusI have been working in English for a few years now, and I am quiet fluent with it. There is no problem at all ....
Welcome to the forum. Did Nareed teach you to type? Through her, we have learned to laugh quietly at such little things ....
Quote: DocWelcome to the forum. Did Nareed teach you to type? Through her, we have learned to laugh quietly at such little things ....
You seem to be picking up my sardonic sense of humor quiEt well on your own ;)
Quote: DocQuote: blaxiusI have been working in English for a few years now, and I am quiet fluent with it. There is no problem at all ....
Welcome to the forum. Did Nareed teach you to type? Through her, we have learned to laugh quietly at such little things ....
That was actually quite funny
I'm sure his future winnings will provide him with the bankroll shortly.
Quote: FleaStiffMichael Bluejay of VegasClickdotcom has a modified hurdle that people who propose a test of systems must pass. Apparently our South American friend has a system but lacks the required minimimum bankroll for the Vegas Click challenge that has been discussed on a thread on this board.
I'm sure his future winnings will provide him with the bankroll shortly.
Wow, I thought that my English was clear, but I can see that I may be wrong. It's not that I am lacking the money to take the challenge, the problem is that Michael Bluejay's challenge consists of 20 attempts each with a starting bankroll of $5000. If my bankroll hits $0, then I lose that attempt. What I was trying to say is that most of the times my system goes below $0 but in the end it shows a profit greater than the starting bankroll of $5000. So if the challenge were as before when there was no starting bankroll, I would win.
Is it somehow more clear now?
and not a system that just capitalizes on positive variance occasionally.
Quote: WongBothe system has to be proven to be a consistent winner
and not a system that just capitalizes on positive variance occasionally.
Actually, I have been trying for years to create a consistent winner system, failing time over time. But the challenge is pretty tempting as it does not require that.
200,000 trials most definitely requires a system that can win consistently.
EDIT: unless you are talking about the alternate challenge?
Sorry, but I am no longer able to post because of the restriction as I am new.
Please quote this for me:
I am talking about that same challenge, and I can assure you that it is beatable without a consistent winning system.
Let's look at single 0 roulette: every bet has a 2.7% (1/37) house edge. So for every $5 table minimum bet, you should expect to lose $0.135. Flat betting 200,000 spins at a $0.135 expected loss per spin results in an expected session loss of $27,000. You'd need a hell of a lot of positive variance to beat that edge, and then you'd need to be able to do it in 11 of 20 200,000 spin sessions...
I'm available to serve as either a judge or escrow the funds, if requested.
Quote: WizardThe OP wrote to me, but my challenge has been retired for years. It isn't that I fear losing, but out of about 100 people who wrote to me expressing an interest in accepting it, 50 just wanted to pick my brain for free, and 49 others fell through based on the terms. So I suggested the OP post the challenge here, to see if there were any takers.
I'm available to serve as either a judge or escrow the funds, if requested.
Mike, can you put up a link to the challenge terms the OP says he can beat?
top of page three.
Quote: NareedHola, bienvenido al foro.
No estoy segura de entender tu problema. Si te es más fácil exponerlo en español, lo puedo traducir al inglés para beneficio de los demás.
وهذا الأمر تحدث المفضلة اليوم لغة أجنبية؟
這是可取的，講一門外語嗎？
Quote: AyecarumbaMike, can you put up a link to the challenge terms the OP says he can beat?
Here are my old rules. Note there is no bankroll requirement. Not that you asked, but here are the Michael Bluejay rules.
Also the OP (blaxius) wrote to me saying he bumped up against his maximum posts per day as a new member (a new rule to combat the spam problem we've been having). I told him he, and we, would have to wait until tomorrow for his return.
Quote: WongBotranslation:
這是可取的，講一門外語嗎？
Bạn đã nhận nó!
(Personally, the 200,000 bets should possibly be "at least 200,000", but you need an upper limit then as well, and it's immaterial anyways, in my opinion).
A common complaint to my challenge was, "Nobody makes a billion bets in real life." Bluejay knew that, so made a more down to earth challenge, and real casino conditions require a bankroll to start with.
However, I have no horse in this race. If anyone wants to accept the challenge, decide on your own rules, makes no difference to me. I just offer both sets as a guideline.
The fact that the OP wants to go against the challenge and modify rules that were carefully crafted to avoid manipulation makes me suspicious.
Quote: WizardBluejay's challenge was meant to be more realistic than mine. I require a system to show a net profit over a billion bets. It was assumed the player had an infinite-credit line, but had to pay up after a billion bets.
A common complaint to my challenge was, "Nobody makes a billion bets in real life." Bluejay knew that, so made a more down to earth challenge, and real casino conditions require a bankroll to start with.
However, I have no horse in this race. If anyone wants to accept the challenge, decide on your own rules, makes no difference to me. I just offer both sets as a guideline.
So good to be able to write back. Where have you seen a casino with a maximum bankroll to spend? As someone said before, that is affecting my progression.
Quote: dwheatleyI don't know... it seems to me like the OP is just trying to game the betting challenge, exactly what MB was trying to avoid. OP has acknowledged he has spent years searching for a betting system that works and hasn't found one. Now he wants to pit a strategy against the betting challenge (not use it in a casino for profit). The whole point of the betting challenge is that it if you can't make it work in a casino, it shouldn't work against the challenge.
The fact that the OP wants to go against the challenge and modify rules that were carefully crafted to avoid manipulation makes me suspicious.
What do you mean by gaming the betting challenge? I do not understand what "game" means in this sentence. Of course I am trying to win it, if that is what you are implying.
Years ago, back when Mike's challenge was on, I remember trying for some time to beat Mike's challenge. At that time, I was able to have winning sessions of over 1 million rounds, but never gotten near 1 billion. When I saw this challenge of only 200.000 per attempt, I was sure that I was able to beat it, both at a casino and with simulated runs. I am not able to overcome the house edge, but I am able to win this by building a bankroll big enough to overcome the 2,7% house edge for the rest of the spins. However, I do not have the necessary money to put this particular system into work in the real life (remember that the starting bankroll is my problem) I am only 23 years old, and it's even difficult for me to find 3k for the challenge,.
Quote: dwheatleyrules that were carefully crafted to avoid manipulation
Quote: MichaelBluejay(2) Starting bankroll. The challenge currently assumes an unlimited bankroll, which is silly. Nobody has an unlimited bankroll in the real world. And if their bankroll is huge, they certainly don't need a winning betting system anyway. Finally, no system seller suggests that their system needs a big bankroll -- in fact they all say the opposite.
Carefully crafted to avoid manipulation? These are the only reasons I've found for Bluejay to put the initial bankroll. Let me know if there is any other.
PD: I am only able to post one time today =(
Quote: blaxiusAt that time, I was able to have winning sessions of over 1 million rounds, but never gotten near 1 billion.
I don't understand your preoccupation with challenges. If
you have a winning method, go and play it and make
money. If you don't have a winning method, how are
you going to win a challenge anyway. Challenges aren't
for people with winning methods, they're for people who
think they have one and don't. If you really have a winning
method, a challenge is the last thing you want to do with
it.
Quote: rainmanWell said Bob. Anybody who has a system that works certainly doesnt need to expose it in a challenge worth only peanuts compared to its real world potential.
This is why people who present the challenges never
get any winners. They claim its because there are no
winning methods. In reality, if you're smart enough
to come up with one, you're certainly smart enough
to stay as far away from challenges as humanly possible.
Quote: rainmanHe just sent me a pm explaining he doesnt have a system for long term continued success. he states he is just trying to employ tactics that in a short term may exploit the rules and have success.
That makes no sense. All challenges are for
huge numbers of outcomes. You can't exploit that
with short term wins.
Quote: rainmanHe just sent me a pm explaining he doesnt have a system for long term continued success. he states he is just trying to employ tactics that in a short term may exploit the rules and have success.
Exactly what I thought. Try and find a way to beat the challenge is the aim here, not break casino games. I think it's been well crafted to avoid such an event happening (I recall that Bluejay proposed a series of rules and challenged people to game them, which happened at least once, so extra restrictions were put in, to avoid a "bet big once or twice, then nickle and dime out to a win), but then, they said the Titanic was unsinkable.
Quote: rainmanHe just sent me a pm explaining he doesnt have a system for long term continued success. he states he is just trying to employ tactics that in a short term may exploit the rules and have success.
There's a breakdown here somewhere. 200,000 outcomes is a LOT of gambling. At 60 decisions per hour, 24 hours per day, it's 139 days' worth of play. And the trial is 20 200,000 outcome series. That's 7.6 years of continuous play in a casino environment.
200,000 outcomes is NOT the short-term...
Quote: rdw4potusThere's a breakdown here somewhere. 200,000 outcomes is a LOT of gambling. At 60 decisions per hour, 24 hours per day, it's 139 days' worth of play. And the trial is 20 200,000 outcome series. That's 7.6 years of continuous play in a casino environment.
200,000 outcomes is NOT the short-term...
Indeed. But it is possible to be in the positive after 200,000 outcomes.
Without the bet size restriction, it was also possible to be in the positive enough times, that the 10:1 odds looked like a good bet.
Quote: thecesspitIndeed. But it is possible to be in the positive after 200,000 outcomes.
Without the bet size restriction, it was also possible to be in the positive enough times, that the 10:1 odds looked like a good bet.
Understood. I wonder what the relationship between bet size, bankroll, and trial length looks like for the OP's system. It sounds like a betsize of $5-$5000, bankroll of $1,000,000, and trial length of 20x200,000 would be acceptable to him? With a table limit of $5,000, I wonder how often the bankroll is stressed by the system over 200,000 outcomes.
There is not betting system that can win all the time. Even tough there’s a small chance, in a random series of numbers you can get 1.000.000 number 0's in a row. So there is no betting system that can work all the time.
I have acknowledged this long time ago, so what I do in most of my systems is to calculate an amount that can be won with a high percent rate (usually 75% or more) on a short term, but with a big loss if it fails.
For example, to beat Bluejay’s challenge all I would have to do is to bet high and reach an amount in which I can do any kind of betting system that will lose 2,7% all of the time. But by betting high, it’s very probable for me to go below the starting $5.000 bankroll. For example, if I bet $5000 to any number twice and I win both times, I could win the challenge by betting $5 on any even money bet for 199.998 spins. You may think this is exploiting or cheating the challenge, but for me is all about winning.
Bluejay already said it: If your goal is to increase your chances of winning in the short term, and you're prepared to suffer big losses occasionally, then a betting system isn't worthless at all. It can't overcome the house edge, but it's not "worthless".
I don't have the necessary bankroll to play for real any of the systems I make, because to have a higher percentage of winning probability you need to bet big.
As I said before, my systems are based on calculating possibilities and goals. I used to try to beat Mike’s 1 billon spins challenge, and even tough I was never near that amount., I know that 200.000 spins is really short term compared to that, and I am certain that it is reachable without the $5.000 initial bankroll. It may still be possible with it, I am looking into it now.
I need to ask this: If I were to create a system based on two parts (following all the rules, including the starting bankroll), the first one reaching a high net profit by risking suferring big losses, and a second part just doing plain bets, would it be acceptable for the challenge?
I am sorry I am not able to answer to each one of you individually, but as I am a new member my posts per day are extremely limited.
You try to get up big early and then grind later.
For example, with a $100k bankroll, you can try to get to $115,000 with $5,000 bets (roughly 84% with a game with a 1% house edge), then grind out $5 bets (200,000 bets at $5 = $1million bet, at 1% House edge = -$10,000). You have therefore about 84% chance of winning each set.
And that's why there is a limited bankroll to avoid gaming the system (which doesn't prove you have a winning system at all, and that is what it's all about). This was discussed when Bluejay put the rules up (as was a rather neat "win or bust" system someone suggested).
You can't change that.
To OP:
As you already said, most of the time your bankroll goes below 0 at certain point.
If you really want to do a realistic simulation, whenever bankroll reaches 0,
you have to mark the session failed and game over.
If you continue run the simulation and wait for the bankrool comes back to positive.
that's meaningless. That's a fake simulation.
Quote: blaxiusHello everyone, let me introduce myself. My name is Andres and I'm from Argentina.
I came here suggested by Michael Shackleford. Recently I have exchange some emails with both him and Mike, trying to take the 30k challenge.
After reading plenty of threads here, I realize why Michael Bluejay was not happy with my questions, so I apologize to both you and Michael Shackleford.
Event tough I am not an expert like most of you here, I would love to exchange ideas with you guys.
I have thought of a system that is sure to beat the challenge, if it wasn't for the starting bankroll. The main reason for this term said in another post by Michael Bluejay is that "no system seller suggests that their system needs a big bankroll". What if I have one that does? I think I am just unhappy because that is preventing me from winning 30k, sorry about that.
I will not share the system for now because I am trying to improve it so that my bankroll does never hit 0.
I hope that we can get along well, as we all share the same passion for gambling.
Regards!
What game?
