It's not a betting system. The whole point of a betting system is that the bets aren't based on return.
I guess that does make sense. I just wondered since a lot of the garbage Baccarat systems claim to involve some form of counting.
Gee, why6 didn't I think of that ?
Sweetheart, did you read what the Wizard has to say about betting systems? Whether you read his info on it or just simiply use a calculator you'll find out that your math is flawed. Unless there is luck and PURELY luck involved, your system will not and cannot work. If you're interested in making a profit off of gambling do like many others have done and learn how to count cards.Quote: JyBrd0403
But, you do realize when you skip 1 unit after each win the system will produce a profit, as well as keep the bankroll down.
I'm curious as to why these betting system challenges have regulations on bankroll amount and maximum units bet for these challenges. Everyone here is 100% certain that no game could win, even with an infinite bankroll, right. So, why the regulations? MichaelBlueJay's challenge requires a real life casino game with a table limit of $5000. In real life, if you're betting a system and you reach the table limit, wouldn't you just move to a higher limit table and place the next bet at that table?
I'm just now seeing this thread, which is why I'm so late in replying. In any event, a question about my rules would have been better directed towards me, rather than to everybody *but* me.
Anyway, one answer to the question is right there on my challenge page: all one has to do is read it. Here's an excerpt:
Quote: Bluejay's Challenge page
[Critics] are missing two things. First, I'm offering a whopping 10 to 1 odds. With such generous odds, even a system with a lousy 11% chance of beating the challenge is a good bet for the challenger (and a bad bet for me and my $30,000). Their system could lose 89% of the time in the real world but still beat my challenge. And a system that loses 89% of the time in the real world is the farthest thing from a "winning betting system". So I've got to make sure we play long enough that a challenger doesn't have even a lousy 11% chance of winning.
Next, my criteria for what constitutes a "winning system" is really soft: In the real world, a system that showed a measly $5 profit after 200,000 rounds (less than a penny an hour) would be considered a miserable failure, but that would be enough to win a test in my challenge rules. My challenge does not require the system to win a meaningful amount (say, $20 an hour); it counts even tiny, pathetic amounts as wins.
And before anyone complains that that section referred to the number of rounds and not betting limits, the point is that the answer re: betting limits is *exactly the same*.
Also, I never saiid that "no game could win, even with an infinite bankroll". Depending on how you define your terms, a system *could indeed* win with an infinite bankroll. Which is completely beside the point, because here in the real world nobody actually *has* an infinite bankroll. My goal in offering the challenge, as stated explicitly on the challenge page, isn't to evaluate systems that can't actually be played in this universe. My *actual* goal is...well, go read it. You don't have to go far, it's the very first sentence on the page. And for those who somehow didn't get it, I repeat the goal again right in the first paragraph.
In roulette, the minimum is either for a single inside bet, or the total of all outside bets.
Isn't the minimum on a roulette table for each outside bet individually, or all inside bets combined?