Betting System Challenge
Nope. It does not win outright.Quote: JyBrd0403Buzzpaff, could you run a simulation of this system for me. It's for single zero roulette. Only problem is that it has to be a roulette simulator. The system requires that you rebet the last bet whenever a zero comes up. That way the progression itself is 50/50 18 blacks vs. 18 reds. What you do is basically D'Alembert the Martingale, but instead of dropping back down to 1 unit after a win, you just bet half the last bet. So you double the bet every time you lose, and you bet half of the last bet when you win. Like this 1-2-4-8-16-32-64-32-16-8-4-2-1. And, if a zero comes up you bet the same amount again. So, if you bet 32 and a zero come up, you don't double the bet, you just bet 32 again.
If you, or anybody else, can run that simulation you'll see the game wins outright.
Feel free to post the results here. I think the bankroll would be too high to play in real life. If it's playable in real life, I'd be happy to take a Vegas kick back on the winnings :) But, I think the bankroll would be to high, and the casinos won't have a High Roller table that would handle the biggest bets on that progression.
I've got another game that wins outright, and also is playable in real life casino play.
But you will never believe another's simulation results and I charge $250,000 US to show my code and results.
I doubt you would pay me or even understand my code if you did pay me.
So, Roulette Xtreme 2.0 software, I think $30 after 30 days free use, has a basic D'Alembert_System
here is a bit of that code.
"system "D'Alembert_System"
{D'Alembert System
is one of the oldest money management plans there are, for "even chances"
betting, all having in common that you add and subtract a fixed
amount to your bet, after a loss or win.
}
method "main"
begin
While Starting a New Session
begin
Clear All Records;
Clear Record "Initial Bet" data;
Clear Record "Current Layout to Bet" data;
Put 1 on Record "Initial Bet" data;
Call "Setup Layout";
call "Make Bets";
Exit;
end
While Record "Current Layout to Bet" layout has lost each time
begin
"
I even adjusted it to your progression, way too easy, and 1 million players out of 1 million players busted out a $100,000 starting bankroll.
I was pissed off. I thought you said your progression is a winner, oh I see... my code is just flat out wrong.
So I gave them all a $1 million bankroll. and re-ran the simulation after running the first in manual mode to make sure my code was working 100% correctly. It was.
It took 18 hours as the Roulette Xtreme is NOT a super fast sim program.
Again, 1 million players played your progression and ALL 1 million busted out with a $1 million starting bankroll.
Now, some took a long time to bust, but they all busted out.
Good news... Many increased their bankroll, a few 2 to 3 times, but they all busted out...
they ALL crashed and burned.
Go and pay the $30, study the program on how to code it, they give you a FREE help pdf on doing just that,
so you can prove to yourself that my simulation results are all wrong.
Code the program yourself, any 10 year old could do it.
After that, You will have your proof and we will then give both code and results to the Wizard, pay him $10,000 US so he can see who is actually right.
and I will then pay you $500,000 US for your code and proof once the Wizard says I messed up my simulation and yours was perfect.
Easy money
Maybe your other HE beater is even better
This is Java -- it's fantastic for this type of study. All these operations are "string" operations, so the length is bounded only by the maximum string length. You really can't do much in C/C++, using their standard data types, to explore progressions with exponentially increasing wagers.Quote: WizardWhat kind of variable and software supports so many significant digits? Personally, I use C++ and they best I know of is the 64-bit integer, which can support unsigned integers as high as 2^64 -1 =~ 1.84 *10^19.
If you played a regular D'alembert system and just rebet the zeros on a single zero roulette game. The D'alembert would win outright, IF (and here's the part that is pure fantasy) the bets stayed under 18. See, once it gets over 18 the D'alembert rebet the zero would lose. However, what would happen if the bets just never got higher then 18. If you produced 18 reds and 18 blacks and 1 zero every 37 trials. The zero would be the amount you pay to the house, so as long as it's not over 18 that you pay to the house, the game would win outright. Too bad that's not what happens in real life.
D'Alemberting the Martingale wins outright, the math supports it. If you can't do the math I can't help you. What kind of bankroll you would need is beyond me. I can see it getting expensive for a while. But, then again, maybe not too expensive.
It's not personal. It's business.
Quote: teliotHere is a sample run:
42863, -241207412449447036140971876821778455157534251978759957126409300637
42864, -662456579123675782932643987556460184433114633580956402143653210781
42866, 601290920899010457442372344647585003393626511225632932908078519651
42871, 1233164670910353577629880510749607597306997083628927600433944384867
139114, -3466484941094692118866955177500041225330884766622371610520556102223
139115, 3273501725692967829799798594254866443078401339012771509755346460081
139116, 6643495059086797804133175480132320277283044391830343069893297741233
139123, 13383481725874457752799929251887227945692330497465486190169200303537
One more thing, you're results still don't make any kind of sense.
Quote: buzzpaff" You're going to steal my game and pass it off as your own buzzpaff. :) That's mean. Why wouldn't you just kick me down some money from the winnings? "
It's not personal. It's business.
LOL. That's mean, BuzzPaff.
Quote: teliotHere is a sample run:
1, -1
2, 1
5, 3
9, 7
22, 18
43, 40
67, -60
69, 132
109, 353
113, 737
133, -383
134, 1665
136, -1407
137, -5503
139, 6785
168, 13665
197, -11743
198, -44511
201, 53793
205, 119329
210, -134623
212, 258593
218, 520737
274, -533983
275, 1563169
277, 3136033
350, 6298145
577, 12775074
671, 26037922
694, 53825186
703, -42643806
704, -176861534
705, -445296990
706, -982167902
707, -1519038814
710, 360009378
716, 729108130
778, 1646612130
876, 3350793890
1003, 6788183714
1095, 13956249250
1185, 31383582370
1188, -28745959774
1189, -97465436510
1190, -234904389982
1191, -509782296926
1197, 74333255330
1208, 366391031458
1211, 778707891874
1219, -1076717979998
1220, -3275741235550
1221, -7673787746654
1222, -16469880768862
1223, -34062066813278
1226, 18714491319970
1229, 53898863408802
3465, 113930966307550
3488, 297549408146142
3572, 602801323807454
3695, 1206020890596062
3825, 2462590882452190
3849, 4995865672848094
5796, 10107511686181628
5911, -968092278705412
5914, -9975291533446404
5915, -46004088552410372
5918, -64018487061892356
5921, 44067903994999548
5924, -208133675137748228
5925, -496364051289459972
5926, -1072824803592883460
5927, -2225746308199730436
5929, 1233018205620810492
5937, 2962400462531080956
5939, -3955128565110000900
5940, -13178500601964776708
5941, -31625244675674328324
5943, 23714987545454326524
5949, 60608475692873429756
6001, -35444297159684508932
6004, 185916631724830110460
6022, -302922086228473007364
6023, -893217896587178659076
6024, -2073809517304589962500
6025, -4434992758739412569348
6028, 2648556965565055251196
6031, 7370923448434700464892
6056, -18823453136232862829828
6057, -56602384999190024539396
6058, -132160248725104347958532
6059, -283275976176932994796804
6060, 18955478726724298879740
6061, 170071206178552945718012
6071, -415502237697283060780292
6072, -1019965147504597648133380
6073, -2228890967119226822839556
6075, 1397886491724660701278972
6088, -6913478518125914874825988
6091, 7593631317249635221648124
6097, 16056112054552039444591356
6102, -8122404337740544049532164
6103, -27465217451574610844830980
6104, -66150843679242744435428612
6105, -143522096134579011616623876
6106, -298264601045251545979014404
6108, 165962913686766057108157180
6114, 359391044825106725061145340
6144, 833289966114041361545966332
6150, 1916487500488749102082700028
6177, 3928140064327492048793776892
6227, -2815248157482909487717272836
6228, -12718768471765951686910266628
6229, -32525809100332036085296254212
6231, 26895312785366217109861708540
6236, 56605873728215343707440689916
6245, 120978755771055118002195149564
6265, 244772759699593145492107571964
6678, 552759305967525881354840322812
7275, 1113073807816692832584257647356
7289, 2301496245530657896487416902396
7319, -684415129225679326569270725892
7320, -5755017530138596932556083547396
7321, -15896222331964432144529709190404
7324, 14527392073513073491391167738620
7327, -56461041539267772992424211762436
7328, -137590679953874454688213216906500
7329, -299849956783087818079791227194628
7330, -624368510441514544862947247770884
7332, 349187150533765635486520813957884
7339, 714270523399495703117571337106172
7405, 1430493112528445314963208648143612
7453, 2866424329936972169508599204033276
7470, 6395563600972362823275420927800060
7772, -9638317491894475332316179363646724
7773, -30407504926033785846438164680527108
7775, 31900057376384145695927791270114044
7789, 68246135386127939095641265574654716
7832, 146779625371467206977165022554108668
7860, 301250456912878328925947288348406524
7885, 737403393029803849722508980002894588
7889, 1568170890395376270287388392678109948
9697, 3257095002443105183063194543826285308
9714, 6580164991905394865322712194527146748
9917, 14825479597688385382248134268285760252
9946, 30443908548161146888867867226579809020
11509, 69593752932920255082664840136293757692
11552, 148215511964854615033873615553344451324
11558, 297089047492765192799100006304743043836
11571, 701174358211379618161857352629967794940
11573, -319672742551435772228266469665336839428
11574, -1680802210235189626081764899392409685252
11575, -4403061145602697333788761758846555376900
11577, 3763715660499825789332228819515881698044
11618, 9569783546088338322176058058820426806012
11628, -7104052433037646387529297705336215555332
11630, 25563054791372446104954664608113532744444
11646, 66396938821885061720559617499925718119164
11669, 133092282738389000559381040556552287564540
11811, -51001806993834493090177525871094595177732
11812, 297447336733206493496318072139036053353212
11815, 645896480460247480082813670149166701884156
11819, -660787808516156219616544822388823230106884
11820, -2054584383424320165962527214429345824230660
11821, -3448380958332484112308509606469868418354436
11822, -6235974108148812005000474390550913606601988
11823, -11811160407781467790384403958713003983097092
11826, -17386346707414123575768333526875094359592196
11827, -39687091905944746717304051799523455865572612
11828, 4914398491116499565767384745773267146388220
11830, -61987837104475369858839770072171817371553028
11831, 27215143689647122707303103018421628652368636
11832, 71816634086708368990374539563718351664329468
11840, -218093053494189731849589797980710347913415940
11841, -574904976670679702114161290343084132009102596
11842, -1288528823023659642643304275067831700200475908
11844, 852342716035280178944124679106411004373644028
11850, 1922778485564750089737839156193532356660703996
11853, 4777273870976669851854411095092522629426197244
11868, 10307858680212264390955269226709316282909340412
11884, 21369028298683453469156985489942903589875626748
11896, -41429870180378781297407597165834882410965224708
11897, 49913982152802651090322704878932806317530559228
11899, 118421871402688725381120431412508572863902397180
11934, 242592420668107235033191310754614649729201353468
12143, 485436385507506455732944514884618982348575093500
12208, 1102631809622039981798087053798435035388089086716
12211, -1454996055707040125058361403455060249009792863492
12214, 2929508856285668629552693094693788809958004765436
12220, 8044764586943828843265590009200779378753768665852
12226, -12416258335688812011585997648827182896429286935812
12228, 22659780960252858025302438336363609575313094095612
12248, 46043807157547304716561395659824137889808014783228
12281, 92811859552136198099079310306745194518797856158460
12323, 196578475802630305291540933429601288914369066709756
12544, 393259139855734386047128388520802243172072142287612
12809, 958509884194234502241154609576503920722936072123132
12811, -163923373275898938939275341949601438372820120882436
12813, 2080943141664367943421584561102609279818692265128700
12831, -1379892735535210166884741122769548910726555996638468
12832, 4606417970972168186077551952036346337784143699391228
12835, 10592728677479546539039845026842241586294843395420924
12855, 23687783347964436686144861127980137442411998980485884
12863, -1754037154691921313944884439944917363758474727640324
12876, 50626181527247639274475179964606666060710147612619516
12907, 102258111370873777568774957734807512579114932490875644
42190, -185190433890004914126085911366660919849989595567434397
42193, -376752376498241021420879289760449567802331985840384669
42194, -1143000146931185450600052803335604159611701546932185757
42195, 389495393934703407758294223814705024007037575251416419
42196, 1155743164367647836937467737389859615816407136343217507
42204, 2592457733929418641648418075343274475458975063390344547
42220, 5274324930444724143775525372856315546791768527211648355
42228, -3729086372142372899079763411651750906968323815617014429
42258, 11116964179995925416266723413866869309338211430536631651
42262, -11870468932992407459108481993387768444942875402217400989
42265, -24130433259919518325975258210590241913892788379686218397
42266, 24909424047788925141491846658219651961906863530189051235
42268, -48650361913773740059708810644995188851792614334623853213
42270, 98469210009351590342692503961434492775606341395001955683
42276, 221068853278622699011360266133459227465105471169690129763
42377, 476492758503879518575555387049277165928560005799885198691
42382, -111985529188621803034049871376441560581035817118618036893
42384, 1064971046196380840185160645474995892438155828718388434275
42394, -1681260963035291993992997227178358164606624678234626665117
42395, -4819811830728632375910891938782191372657802400466643921565
42396, -11096913566115313139746681361989857788760157844930678434461
42397, -23651117036888674667418260208405190620964868733858747460253
42398, -48759523978435397722761417901235856285374290511714885511837
42401, 26565696846204771443268055177256140707853974821853528642915
42403, 64228307258524856026282791716502139204468107488637735720291
42424, 133276426347778344428476475371786469781594017377742115362147
42444, -117807643067688886124955101556520186862500200400819265153693
42447, -218241270833875778346327732327842849520137887512243817360029
42449, 384360495763245574981908052300093126425688235156303495877987
42460, -871059851314090577785249832341440156794782853736503406701213
42461, -2477997895573080853327211924682602759316985847519296242002589
42462, -5691873984091061404411136109364927964361391835084881912605341
42463, -12119626161127022506578984478729578374450203810216053253810845
42469, -15333502249645003057662908663411903579494609797781638924413597
42470, -28189006603716925261998605402141204399672233748043981606824605
42471, -53900015311860769670669998879599806040027481648568666971646621
42472, -105322032728148458488012785834517009320737977449618037701290653
42475, -156744050144436147305355572789434212601448473250667408430934685
42476, -362432119809586902574726720609103025724290456454864891349510813
42477, 48944019520714607964015575030234600521393509953530074487641443
42479, 254632089185865363233386722849903413644235493157727557406217571
42487, 563164193683591496137443444579406633328498467964023781784081763
42498, 1154517393970899917536885494560954471056669169676091545174988131
42709, 2486675309763338242641935904901201476213991553877471269674341731
42735, 5713406902635390715930195786322255982078575165393319282959504739
42740, -4982372719952448558077103900300522300309207961224949828806453917
42741, -18146409178522096895316857360759326340171094886293588735595326109
42744, -31310445637091745232556610821218130380032981811362227642384198301
42745, 21345700197186848116402403020617085779414565888912327984771290467
42747, 47673773114326144790881909941534693859138339739049605798349034851
42750, -136622737305648931930474638504888562698928077211911338896695175837
42752, 179314137700022628163279444546122734257757208989735994866237756771
42863, -241207412449447036140971876821778455157534251978759957126409300637
42864, -662456579123675782932643987556460184433114633580956402143653210781
42866, 601290920899010457442372344647585003393626511225632932908078519651
42871, 1233164670910353577629880510749607597306997083628927600433944384867
139114, -3466484941094692118866955177500041225330884766622371610520556102223
139115, 3273501725692967829799798594254866443078401339012771509755346460081
139116, 6643495059086797804133175480132320277283044391830343069893297741233
139123, 13383481725874457752799929251887227945692330497465486190169200303537
I usually walk away at $601290920899010457442372344647585003393626511225632932908078519650.
Quote: JyBrd0403Quote: teliotHere is a sample run:
42863, -241207412449447036140971876821778455157534251978759957126409300637
42864, -662456579123675782932643987556460184433114633580956402143653210781
42866, 601290920899010457442372344647585003393626511225632932908078519651
42871, 1233164670910353577629880510749607597306997083628927600433944384867
139114, -3466484941094692118866955177500041225330884766622371610520556102223
139115, 3273501725692967829799798594254866443078401339012771509755346460081
139116, 6643495059086797804133175480132320277283044391830343069893297741233
139123, 13383481725874457752799929251887227945692330497465486190169200303537
One more thing, you're results still don't make any kind of sense.
Make sense to me. He's done what you asked for. They show a clear pattern. You not said what doesn't make sense, so it's hard to help you.
Quote: WizardWhat kind of variable and software supports so many significant digits? Personally, I use C++ and they best I know of is the 64-bit integer, which can support unsigned integers as high as 2^64 -1 =~ 1.84 *10^19.
Apparently, that's 1 thing that doesn't make sense. The computer programming stuff is way over my head. Right?
Maybe, you should send the Wizard that program. If it's better than the one he has, I'm sure he'll appreciate you sending it to him.
Of course this system fails. Every bet is subjected to the same house edge. How would piling on more negative expectation bets result in an expected win instead of a bigger expected loss? What are the odds that a professional gaming mathematician with a PhD messed this up instead of the guy with the insane system messing this up?
Would be way better off moving over to Craps where one can make 4 bets with 0% house edge and even do a progression on those bets only with high enough odds.Quote: rdw4potusI really wasn't sure about this thread. Then I made it through page 5. That was some funny stuff!
Of course this system fails. Every bet is subjected to the same house edge. How would piling on more negative expectation bets result in an expected win instead of a bigger expected loss?
That is so silly!Quote: rdw4potusWhat are the odds that a professional gaming mathematician with a PhD messed this up instead of the guy with the insane system messing this up?
Sally
Quote: teliotThis is Java -- it's fantastic for this type of study. All these operations are "string" operations, so the length is bounded only by the maximum string length. You really can't do much in C/C++, using their standard data types, to explore progressions with exponentially increasing wagers.
you can do the same with c++. just create your own class for big numbers. this is not something java specific. java also doesn't have standard types for this. you could code your own c++ big integer class and define the operators and use it
Quote: rdw4potusI really wasn't sure about this thread. Then I made it through page 5. That was some funny stuff!
I agree. I saw the thread in betting systems, so did my check to see if the poster was a newbie, where I would give my standard Welcome to the Forum, please read the site about betting systems... blah blah blah. He wasn't so I didn't find it necessary.
Then it became the most civilized mudslinging I've seen on here. The OP was very polite about his disagreements and told teliot that there was no way the math could be correct. Nearly every math person has chimed in and said how the system will fail in the future. Yet the OP has questioned the math. Heck, you've got one poster willing to give a LOT of money if it can work...
Okay, back to my regularly scheduled life...
Quote: TiltpoulNearly every math person has chimed in and said how the system will fail in the future. Yet the OP has questioned the math.
This happens all the time on roulette forums. A guy
will chime in that he has the Grail, he just needs
it tested. So a couple mathguys test it and proclaim
it dead in the water. The OP goes batshit berzerk
and calls them names and questions their sanity
and is never seen again. For entertainment value
you can't beat it.
and calls them names and questions their sanity
and is never seen again. "
Possibly the OP has decided not to share his system with ungrateful people.
And now lives on the Isle of Mann to avoid the taxes on his winnings.
I mean that's what my cousin did !
w(n) = wager on n-th bet.
w(1)=1
w(n)=2*w(n-1) if w(n-1) lost, and w(n-1)/2 if w(n-1) won, where n>1. In other words, double your bet after a loss, and cut it in half after a win.
This seems to be the same system you were discussing, but there is no 1 unit minimum.
What is the expecected wager of the n-th bet?
"Possibly the OP has decided not to share his system with ungrateful people" >>> I also agree with this.
In regards to roulette, if you have something 'special' (no such thing as a HG), keep it to yourself and march on. Tweak it along the way ONLY IF NEEDED.
Ken
This forum has people that (like to) test the "cant lose" betting systems.Quote: mrjjjI agree with EvenBob and Buzzpaff. Why? Dont post your method expecting people (math guys, whatever) to test it...
In regards to roulette, if you have something 'special' (no such thing as a HG), keep it to yourself and march on. Tweak it along the way ONLY IF NEEDED.
Ken
It is a simple challenge to accept.
Even "teliot" on Father's Day ran a simulation.
I'm impressed!
Many betting systems can be evaluated over time with just EV and Average Bet, but that is too challenging for most system creators.
I must admit, the OP came up with a good one (different) this time.
But it still remains filed away in the "betting system" folder
Quote: guido111This forum has people that (like to) test the "cant lose" betting systems.
It is a simple challenge to accept.
Even "teliot" on Father's Day ran a simulation.
I'm impressed!
Many betting systems can be evaluated over time with just EV and Average Bet, but that is too challenging for most system creators.
I must admit, the OP came up with a good one (different) this time.
But it still remains filed away in the "betting system" folder
PART of my point is this....lets say an anti-method guy (bias) tested something and the results were not 'terrible' (open to interpretation I guess), I feel that SOME (not all) of the testers would not post the actual results (let the arguing begin). It is my opinion, I'm entitled to it and I was polite.
Also, I have been playing two methods for YEARS (not posted) with GREAT results BUT if the two were 'tested', it would probably end up being filed away in the "betting system" folder. THANK GOD I have never relied on 'buddies' at the various boards to help me pay my bills, I would be fu***d.
Ken
Understandable.Quote: mrjjjPART of my point is this....lets say an anti-method guy (bias) tested something and the results were not 'terrible' (open to interpretation I guess), I feel that SOME (not all) of the testers would not post the actual results (let the arguing begin). It is my opinion, I'm entitled to it and I was polite.
Also, I have been playing two methods for YEARS (not posted) with GREAT results BUT if the two were 'tested', it would probably end up being filed away in the "betting system" folder. THANK GOD I have never relied on 'buddies' at the various boards to help me pay my bills, I would be fu***d.
Ken
But ALL betting systems win sometimes, but not all the time.
When you say you have been playing for YEARS, I would only want to know exactly how many times you actually made that progression bet.
The truth of ALL betting systems is every system will fail in a casino sooner or later and if millions played a system, it would be front page news on how poorly it did overall for everyone, not just how well it did for a few.
We know the few that did win, would hold seminars and charge big bucks to sell the winning system for them. They would just say those that lost using the system did not play it right or come up with a few other good "weasel' clauses.
cute
Testing a system shows its strengths and weaknesses over time.
And time is what we really want to know about,
the number of times a system can be "safely" played until a progression is busted.
(safely is relative of course depending on the bet size and starting bankroll)
Guessing and one player playing a system for years will never give the correct answers that are required to compare systems.
Some betting systems are way better than others.
But we know some are down-right awful.
Quote: JyBrd0403Did you remember to rebet the same amount after a zero hits? $10 million dollars for the D'Alemberting of a Martingale system may be a bit low of a bankroll, don't you think? If you're simulator can't handle a higher bankroll and higher bets you may have to do the math for yourself. Let me help you out.
D'Alemberting the Martingale wins outright, the math supports it. If you can't do the math I can't help you. What kind of bankroll you would need is beyond me. I can see it getting expensive for a while. But, then again, maybe not too expensive.
I enjoyed reading up to this point and was really impressed with the EXTENSIVE help and courtesy given to the OP. I'm willing to take my punishment for this part though...DO YOUR OWN FUCKING MATH! I'm astounded at how dense you are! If you were talking to some rando in the subway about your magic beans and they disagreed I could understand you not getting on board - but check out some of the pedigrees here as well as the voluminous posts about betting systems.
You started the thread suggesting you had a "winner" but needed someone here to run the math - then after multiple well-reasoned and documented responses showing how you're system is not going to win you claim the people you asked to help you are wrong...ROFLMAO!
Quote: mrjjjPART of my point is this....lets say an anti-method guy (bias) tested something and the results were not 'terrible' (open to interpretation I guess), I feel that SOME (not all) of the testers would not post the actual results (let the arguing begin). It is my opinion, I'm entitled to it and I was polite.
Also, I have been playing two methods for YEARS (not posted) with GREAT results BUT if the two were 'tested', it would probably end up being filed away in the "betting system" folder. THANK GOD I have never relied on 'buddies' at the various boards to help me pay my bills, I would be fu***d.
Ken
If we are talking Roulette, and the test uses a RNG (even one using a entropy source, before we start on that route), the method will show the same loss as all the others. 5.26% per bet. It's not bias, it's actually using an unbiased measuring stick. Consistency, Ken, one of your watchwords. You might not like the stick being used, but at least it's always the same one. I would publish if I found something that was "not terrible", as I'd expect I had made an error in my code over finding the holy-grail of gambling
Some folks will argue a psuedo-Random Number Generator will have a bias that is not truly random and is no good. I don't agree with them, but eliminating points of friction in a test is reasonable way to go.
I was going to do a quick test of JyBrd system (which is a betting progression system), but teliot got there first and faster and better.
It is possible (but completely unproven) that using a roulette wheel to provide the source data would give you different results. For a betting progression system, I'd be highly skeptical if that was shown. For a system that looks a previous results (your systems, as I understand them always look at previous spins) such a phenomena would be interesting.
It is very possible that the OP can do the math on his own or even run a simulation on his own.Quote: thecesspitI was going to do a quick test of JyBrd system (which is a betting progression system), but teliot got there first and faster and better.
Maybe he wanted to see what others came up with first.
I even pointed the way to a cheap Roulette simulator that anyone can program any method, with a little learning curve, or even pay the website to do if for you.
For simulations, I have found that even when we hold their hand and walk them through each and every step together, on their own, they are clueless!
They blame the code that someone else wrote on the simulation's failure or the results failure because they do not understand what the sim spit out.
I have seen this many, many times, that the only flaw was they not following every setup instruction to the letter.
Next!
There are millions of actual recorded Roulette spins available on the web. You just have to believe that claim that they are real and in order.Quote: thecesspit
It is possible (but completely unproven) that using a roulette wheel to provide the source data would give you different results. For a betting progression system, I'd be highly skeptical if that was shown. For a system that looks a previous results (your systems, as I understand them always look at previous spins) such a phenomena would be interesting.
I have found most gamblers that have some sense of math knowledge refuse to believe what a computer simulation can show since each spin on a Roulette wheel can never be duplicated by a computer.
That then means a computer simulation for Roulette and the results are useless and meaningless.
Quote: mustangsallyThere are millions of actual recorded Roulette spins available on the web. You just have to believe that claim that they are real and in order.
I've not looked recently, but I'd figure there also is a "true" random source of noise somewhere available on the internet.
Quote:I have found most gamblers that have some sense of math knowledge refuse to believe what a computer simulation can show since each spin on a Roulette wheel can never be duplicated by a computer.
That then means a computer simulation for Roulette and the results are useless and meaningless.
Hmm, are you saying IT IS useless or YOU believe it to be useless or OTHERS believe it to be so?
Quote: JyBrd0403Apparently, that's 1 thing that doesn't make sense. The computer programming stuff is way over my head. Right?
Maybe, you should send the Wizard that program. If it's better than the one he has, I'm sure he'll appreciate you sending it to him.
He doesn't need to send it. He published it for all to see.
Someone pointed out that there was an offer of $500,000 if the game is a winner. I don't think that's a real offer, but I'll of course take the $500,000:) I know there's a real offer from MichaelBlueJay out there. I've got a little change I can make to this game that will make the math for this game extremely simple to do. I'm curious if it shows the game to be and outright winner (at some point winning and never going into the negative again) will that win the challenge? I mean the game obviously won't meet the table limit qualifications, but if it wins outright, showing that a betting system can indeed beat a HE game. Does that win the challenge?
I'll post the change I'm making to the system tonight or tomorrow, either way, but I'm just curious if that wins the challenge or not? Anyone else want to throw monies on the table?
I haven't heard much talk about the math on this game, except the regular every bet is subject to a HE so the game would lose.
Here's something 3 losses 2 wins D'alembert Lose 16-17-18 Win 19-18 Total loss of 14 units.
3 losses 2 wins D'alembert the Martingale Lose 16-32-64 Win 128-64 Total Win of 80 units.
That's a negative HE isn't it? 3 losses and only 2 wins? That would count as an HE, right?
Quote: JyBrd0403The system requires that you rebet the last bet whenever a zero comes up. That way the progression itself is 50/50 18 blacks vs. 18 reds.
Sure, the progression is 50/50 on the blacks & reds. And it loses the value of the last bet whenever a zero comes up. and that happens 1/37th of the time. And 1/37th is the house edge in single-0 roulette.
Quote: rdw4potusSure, the progression is 50/50 on the blacks & reds. And it loses the value of the last bet whenever a zero comes up. and that happens 1/37th of the time. And 1/37th is the house edge in single-0 roulette.
Exactly.
Quote: JyBrd0403Exactly.
So you accept now that it's a loser?
Lose 5 win 4 1-2-4-8-16 = -31 16-8-4-2-1 = 31. Broke even on that scenario. There's other scenarios, of course, win 1 lose 2 win 1 lose 3 win 2 etc. Question becomes how rare is lose 4 in a row, have a zero hit, then win 4 in a row vs. win 1 lose 2 win 1 lose 3 win 3 etc. have a zero hit somewhere there. Somebody grab a mathematician. LOL But I personally come up with, the game wins outright.
Try this lose 5 win 4 zero lands on first bet.
1-1-2-4-8 total loss of 16 units
16-8-4-2 Total win of 30 units.
Net profit 14 units vs the 1st scenario where the zero landed on 16 and that ...... broke even, right? Those 2 scenarios produce a profit of 14 units, right?
I can make a change to the system that will make the math easier to do.
Quote: JyBrd0403Did you remember to rebet the same amount after a zero hits? $10 million dollars for the D'Alemberting of a Martingale system may be a bit low of a bankroll, don't you think? If you're simulator can't handle a higher bankroll and higher bets you may have to do the math for yourself. Let me help you out.
If that's too low of a bankroll, I have absolutely zero use for your system, even if it works. I suspect the same would be the case for some 99.9999%+ of gamblers.
Quote: Mission146If that's too low of a bankroll, I have absolutely zero use for your system, even if it works. I suspect the same would be the case for some 99.9999%+ of gamblers.
It's just a novelty game Mission146. But, it shows a betting system can beat an HE game, outright.
Quote: JyBrd0403It's just a novelty game Mission146. But, it shows a betting system can beat an HE game, outright.
Have you read this thread? It shows just the opposite, its
a loser. Why do you keep using the word 'outright'? What
do you mean? Either it wins or it doesn't, whats outright got
to do with anything.
Quote: JyBrd0403It's just a novelty game Mission146. But, it shows a betting system can beat an HE game, outright.
If you really want to know one of the major reasons the system fails (even aside from basically ignoring a loss on zero) it is because when you take your biggest theoretical loss on a roll, you can no longer double the bet due to Table Maximum. Furthermore, losing streaks, however small and spread out, will eventually run you into the table limit.
Quote: JyBrd0403No, you're helping me prove it's a winner. 18 reds vs 18 blacks and 1 zero, and all you have to pay the house is whatever the zero lands on.
Lose 5 win 4 1-2-4-8-16 = -31 16-8-4-2-1 = 31. Broke even on that scenario. There's other scenarios, of course, win 1 lose 2 win 1 lose 3 win 2 etc. Question becomes how rare is lose 4 in a row, have a zero hit, then win 4 in a row vs. win 1 lose 2 win 1 lose 3 win 3 etc. have a zero hit somewhere there. Somebody grab a mathematician. LOL But I personally come up with, the game wins outright.
Try this lose 5 win 4 zero lands on first bet.
1-1-2-4-8 total loss of 16 units
16-8-4-2 Total win of 30 units.
Net profit 14 units vs the 1st scenario where the zero landed on 16 and that ...... broke even, right? Those 2 scenarios produce a profit of 14 units, right?
I can make a change to the system that will make the math easier to do.
It seems like you don't trust the math or programming of the experts who have responded so far. Let's try this general scenario.
You might win, you might lose. If you ignore 0, winning and losing are a 50/50 shot. Your bet might be 1, it might be 100; so, you might win or lose 1, you might win or lose 100. On average, your average bet will be some number n. Since (ignoring 0) wins and losses are equally likely to occur, that average bet n applies equally to your wins and losses. That's a break even game, not a winner. Then, you accept an average loss of n units when a 0 hits. A 0 hits 1/37th of the time. That makes this progression a loser at a rate of exactly 1/37th of the total wager per spin. And that's exactly what's expected to happen, since the house edge in roulette is a constant and not a variable.
Quote: EvenBobEither it wins or it doesn't, whats outright got
to do with anything.
It means you're not ahead some of the time, and behind some of the time. The game ,after a certain point, is always ahead. In other words, it's profitable, unlike the martingale. The martingale just eventually breaks even, it's not a profitable system.
Quote: tuppI usually walk away at $601290920899010457442372344647585003393626511225632932908078519650.
This is the best post in this thread. I award you one internets!
Quote: rdw4potusSure, the progression is 50/50 on the blacks & reds. And it loses the value of the last bet whenever a zero comes up. and that happens 1/37th of the time. And 1/37th is the house edge in single-0 roulette.
We are having an intelligent discussion here. Please do not muddy up the waters with facts. Thanks for your co-operation.
Quote: buzzpaffWe are having an intelligent discussion here. Please do not muddy up the waters with facts. Thanks for your co-operation.
LOL.
Quote: WizardWhat kind of variable and software supports so many significant digits? Personally, I use C++ and they best I know of is the 64-bit integer, which can support unsigned integers as high as 2^64 -1 =~ 1.84 *10^19.
Sounds like you are looking for a BigInt library.
Quote: JyBrd0403The game ,after a certain point, is always ahead.
Yes, thats every system players fantasy. And thats what it is, a fantasy.
You can only get ahead and stay ahead by making correct bets, not
goofing around with the money managment.
Quote: EvenBobYou can only get ahead and stay ahead by making correct bets, not
goofing around with the money managment.
I'll give you a $20 bankroll and a $5 minimum table. 19 reds and 18 blacks on a roulette table. Do you need a higher bankroll, or do you win that game outright?
Does making the correct bets matter, in this situation?
Quote: JyBrd0403I'll give you a $20 bankroll and a $5 minimum table. 19 reds and 18 blacks on a roulette table.
Can you post a pic of that table, I'd like to see it.
Quote: EvenBobCan you post a pic of that table, I'd like to see it.
Use your imagination. Or make the damn table yourself. Ya know.
price of the training package. And yes, i do take paypal.
Quote: JyBrd0403I'll give you a $20 bankroll and a $5 minimum table. 19 reds and 18 blacks on a roulette table. Do you need a higher bankroll, or do you win that game outright?
Does making the correct bets matter, in this situation?
You need a higher bankroll. What happens if you get unlucky and lose the first 4 spins in a row? Also, yes, making the correct bets matters. Would you bet on black on that table?
Quote: rdw4potusYou need a higher bankroll. What happens if you get unlucky and lose the first 4 spins in a row? Also, yes, making the correct bets matters. Would you bet on black on that table?
You just said it didn't matter (you need a higher bankroll). In that case why not bet for black? It might just win. Either way, you're going to lose your bankroll on this positive expectation game. Bet black or red in this situation and see what happens, right? I mean it doesn't matter, right?
