Betting System Challenge
Quote: JyBrd0403You 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?
Why do you think black is a positive expectation? there are 18 blacks on a normal roulette wheel and there's an obvious house edge there...
If black and red both pay 1:1, red is very very obviously a better play when there are 19 reds and 18 blacks.
Quote: rdw4potusWhy do you think black is a positive expectation?.
I didn't say black was a positive expectation game. I said, it doesn't matter, either way you'll lose your bankroll, right?
What I mean is that it's a positive expectation game for the Player, not the House.
Quote: JyBrd0403I didn't say black was a positive expectation game. I said, it doesn't matter, either way you'll lose your bankroll, right?
What I mean is that it's a positive expectation game for the Player, not the House.
Red is a positive expectation game for the player, black is a positive expectation for the house. One is more likely than not to win, the other is more likely than not to lose, and they both pay 1:1.
Yes, either way you're very likely to lose your bankroll, especially if it's really only 4 bets worth of money.
Quote: rdw4potusRed is a positive expectation game for the player, black is a positive expectation for the house. One is more likely than not to win, the other is more likely than not to lose, and they both pay 1:1.
Yes, either way you're very likely to lose your bankroll, especially if it's really only 4 bets worth of money.
Too bad the house isn't making the bets. The Player is. That makes it a positive expectation for the Player, outright.
Quote: JyBrd0403Too bad the house isn't making the bets. The Player is. That makes it a positive expectation for the Player, outright.
You must be kidding... The house isn't making the bets? Of course they are... When the player bets on black, the house effectively bets on not-black... The house banks the player's bet, and black is a negative expectation bet for the player. If a player bets on black, it's a positive expectation for the house. I still have no idea what you mean by outright.
Quote: rdw4potusYou must be kidding... The house isn't making the bets? Of course they are... When the player bets on black, the house effectively bets on not-black... The house banks the player's bet, and black is a negative expectation bet for the player. If a player bets on black, it's a positive expectation for the house. I still have no idea what you mean by outright.
You're right, the house did make a bet. It took the opposite of whatever the player bet. The Player made the decision. Logically, the player will bet red. That makes the game a positive expectation for the Player. Outright, for the 4th or 5th time, means, the Player will at some point, always show a profit, and never show a loss. Let's say after 100,000 trials or so.
adv.
1. Without reservation or qualification; openly: finally responded outright to the question.
2. Completely and entirely; wholly: denied the charges outright.
3. At once; straightway: were killed outright in the crash.
4. Without additional payments owing, constraints, or stipulations: owns the property outright.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outright
Quote: JyBrd0403You're right, the house did make a bet. It took the opposite of whatever the player bet. The Player made the decision. Logically, the player will bet red. That makes the game a positive expectation for the Player. Outright, for the 4th or 5th time, means, the Player will at some point, always show a profit, and never show a loss. Let's say after 100,000 trials or so.
The odds of making it to the 100,000th trial with a $20 starting bankroll on a $5 table are 0%. And, with more money, you're also not guaranteed to "always show a profit" after 100,000 trials. I think the part that's confusing the rest of us (maybe it's just me), is that you're using "outright" to mean it's a guaranteed win. It isn't guaranteed. Variance exists.
Not the case here. There IS a chance of failureQuote: JyBrd0403out·right (outrt, -rt)
adv.
1. Without reservation or qualification; openly: finally responded outright to the question.
what would an incomplete win look like?Quote: JyBrd04032. Completely and entirely; wholly: denied the charges outright.
What would a gradual win look like on a game with only one decision point? "Oh, you bet red and that hit. I'll give you your $5 in $.01 increments over the next 500 years?"Quote: JyBrd04033. At once; straightway: were killed outright in the crash.
I don't see how this one would apply to our situation.Quote: JyBrd04034. Without additional payments owing, constraints, or stipulations: owns the property outright.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outright
Quote: rdw4potusNot the case here. There IS a chance of failure
what would an incomplete win look like?
What would a gradual win look like on a game with only one decision point? "Oh, you bet red and that hit. I'll give you your $5 in $.01 increments over the next 500 years?"
I don't see how this one would apply to our situation.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outright
That's the dictionary definition of the word outright. It's a gambling term, like saying someone is on tilt.
If there is no max bet, and no bankroll limit, you don't need anything more complex than Martingale to win "outright" any even money game.
(as to what "outright" means in this context ... I don't think it means anything, the OP is just hoping it would give more weight to the meaningless claim).
Quote: JyBrd0403
That's the dictionary definition of the word outright? It's a gambling term, like saying someone is on tilt.
I must gamble in the wrong places. I played about 1500 hours last year across about 300 casinos. Don't go a day without hearing "on tilt," but I've never heard anyone use outright the way you're trying to force it to be used here. Is it more associated with system selling than it is with the actual act of gambling?
Quote: JyBrd0403We call that an outright winner.
I call it outright lunacy;-)
Quote: rdw4potusI call it outright lunacy;-)
Taught you a new word, huh?
Quote: rdw4potusI call it outright lunacy;-)
They used to call a ponzi scheme outright lunacy. Now that call it Social security.
Quote: JyBrd0403Here's the change you can make to the system. Instead of rebeting the zero, just skip 1 bet after a win. This will make the progression 60% or so, instead of 50/50. Like this, 1-2-4-8-16-32-8-2-1. Win at 32 and skip the 16 bet and bet 8. Win the 8 bet and skip the 4 and bet 2 etc. This will 100% guarantee the progression will return to 1. Whenever you are at 1 in the progression you're at a profit. Since the progression is 60%, you're 100% guaranteed the progression will return to 1. We call that an outright winner.
Whose this we, kemosabe?
Making up a variety of scenarios isn't a mathematical proof of anything. It's not "doing the math", it's just generating a small sample of what may happen.
Quote: JyBrd0403Taught you a new word, huh?
Yep, only it actually fits here;-)
Quote: weaselmanWhat are you guys arguing about?
If there is no max bet, and no bankroll limit, you don't need anything more complex than Martingale to win "outright" any even money game.
Everyone keeps forgetting that if you come to a table with an infinite bankroll, you can't ever win[1]. If you have an infinite bankroll and you win a finite amount as a result of a bet, you still have an infinite bankroll. So why are you playing roulette?
[1] to be fair, you can't lose either.
That does not seem right !
Quote: MathExtremistEveryone keeps forgetting that if you come to a table with an infinite bankroll, you can't ever win[1]. If you have an infinite bankroll and you win a finite amount as a result of a bet, you still have an infinite bankroll. So why are you playing roulette?
[1] to be fair, you can't lose either.
I'll try to explain it a little better.
If you flat bet a red or black on a single 0 roulette game, there's a definitive limit to the amount of money you could ever win. Let's say you flat bet $1 on red the most you could ever win would be let's say $351. That's a rough guess. What I can tell you with 100% certainty is, that you could never ever win $100,000 flat betting red on single zero roulette. There's a definitive limit to the amount of money you can win. So playing more trials won't help you go pass that limit. There's a definitive limit on how much you can win, because of the HE. So, somewhere between the rough guess of $351 and the 100% certainty of $100,000 is where the limit is.
The system is 60% to return to 1. There's a definitive limit to how high the betting can get. Playing more trials won't change that limit, just like playing more trials won't help you win more money flat betting red. You're still subject to the HE. In this case you're still subject to the 60%. Playing more trials won't do anything about that, the progression is still 60%. There's a definitive limit on how high the betting will get, and it won't go past that point. That's 100% guaranteed.
Since there's a limit on how high the betting can get for this game, there's a limit on how high your losses can go. At some point, the profits will cover the highest losses, and at that point, you will always be in the black and never be in the red again. It's an outright winning system vs. an HE game.
If you have a simulator and would like to run the simulation, that would be great. I can let you know if the simulator has a bug in it or not. :)
So, it's not an infinite bankroll. But, it might be very high, then again, maybe not so high.
Are we talking about a theoretical game where there are 19 reds and 18 blacks, or are we talking about a betting system that will never win in the long run on a real single-zero roulette game? If we are talking about a betting system on the theoretical game, then red has the player advantage...
I don't normally follow betting system threads, since let's see, last time I checked, THERE IS NO BETTING SYSTEM THAT CAN BEAT A NEGATIVE EXPECTATION GAME!!!!
Quote: buzzpaffDoes that mean if I bet my entire infinite bankroll on a hand of BJ, and get 11 versus a dealers 6, I will not be able to Double Down.
That does not seem right !
Buzz, you're mistaken. You can ask your friend next to you if you can borrow his infinite bankroll and use that to double-down. Now you're into infinity x 2. The unfair thing is if you want to split, THEN double...
Get the system right, Buzz! ;)
SN Ethier in his Doctrine of Chances book, Betting System chapter,Quote: MathExtremistEveryone keeps forgetting that if you come to a table with an infinite bankroll, you can't ever win[1]. If you have an infinite bankroll and you win a finite amount as a result of a bet, you still have an infinite bankroll. So why are you playing roulette?
[1] to be fair, you can't lose either.
shows the math and proofs for 6 different popular betting systems.
From page 295
"If we also assume unlimited credit and no house limit (as is not typical),
the martingale, Fibonacci, and Labouchere systems are infallible, while
the other three systems are not" (Oscar, d’Alembert, Blundell)
I say the math does not lie and Mr. Ethier's math speaks for itself.
Sally
Quote: TiltpoulBuzz, you're mistaken. You can ask your friend next to you if you can borrow his infinite bankroll and use that to double-down. Now you're into infinity x 2. The unfair thing is if you want to split, THEN double...
Get the system right, Buzz! ;)
That shouldn'e be a problem. Infinity X 2 = Infinity.
What's more Infinity X 0.0000...01 also equals Infinity.
So you can't win and you can't lose, as no matter what happens you always have an infinite bankroll.
The question is: if you play with an infinite bankroll, how much richer will the casino be when you're done playing? :P
Quote: JyBrd0403
If you flat bet a red or black on a single 0 roulette game, there's a definitive limit to the amount of money you could ever win.
No, there isn't.
Quote: JyBrd0403Let's say you flat bet $1 on red the most you could ever win would be let's say $351. That's a rough guess. What I can tell you with 100% certainty is, that you could never ever win $100,000 flat betting red on single zero roulette.
Sure you can win that much. It's not impossible. It's ridiculously improbable, but it's not impossible.
Quote: JyBrd0403If you have a simulator and would like to run the simulation, that would be great. I can let you know if the simulator has a bug in it or not. :)
Of course you can. That's easy. Simulate 1,000,000 spins. If the realized loss approaches 2.7% of the total amount wagered, the simulator worked:-)
Quote: JyBrd0403Has anyone heard from 7craps, and MichaelBlueJay?
I'm pretty sure they're working hard on fixing all the math bugs you pointed out in their work...
Quote: rdw4potusNo, there isn't.
Sure you can win that much. It's not impossible. It's ridiculously improbable, but it's not impossible.
Anyone seen the Wizard?
Quote: JyBrd0403Anyone seen the Wizard?
Did you search behind the curtain?
Quote: IbeatyouracesMaybe he made it back to Omaha.
I think that's the Oracle rather than the Wizard.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf he's like me, he's laughing and shaking his head everytime a betting system question comes up.
I usually start out that way, then I decide to try to "help," then I get sucked in.
Quote: JyBrd0403The system is 60% to return to 1. There's a definitive limit to how high the betting can get. Playing more trials won't change that limit, just like playing more trials won't help you win more money flat betting red. You're still subject to the HE. In this case you're still subject to the 60%. Playing more trials won't do anything about that, the progression is still 60%. There's a definitive limit on how high the betting will get, and it won't go past that point. That's 100% guaranteed.
This statement is incorrect.
I'm not even sure there is an asymptotic limit.
The martingale wins 1 unit every win. D'alemberting the Martingale, makes the average win much higher. That's what makes the game profitable.
Lose 10 in a row Win 10 in a row.
1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512-1024-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 = +10 Average win 1 unit
1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512-1024-256-64-16-4-1-1-1-1-1= +345 Average win 34.5 units.
The point was that the losses are limited. The average wins outpace the potential losses.
Lose 11 Win 10
1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512-1024-2048-512-256-128-64-32-16-8-4-2-1 = +958 Average win 95.8 units. Average wins cover the losses, so at some point, you're profits will cover your potential losses. They don't just keep pace with the losses like the Martingale.
You brilliant gamblers (and math guys) always get sucked into this stuff....makes me laugh....and think about Borat.
I think our man the OP has won....outright even...lol
Quote: guido111Understandable.
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.
"I would only want to know exactly how many times you actually made that progression bet" >>> As reported quite a few times, I rarely play progressions on an actual wheel these days, mostly flat betting. I do have ONE 'decent' method I play (with a progression) on Roulette Evolution. There are a few benefits I get using a progression on RE.
"Some betting systems are way better than others.
But we know some are down-right awful" >>> Interesting statement. I might of read on THIS BOARD at least 700 times....ALL METHODS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME !!!! Hmmmm and now I read this. I assume you have been attacked or corrected for posting this, right?? Same rule for all.
Ken
Quote: hook3670Look there is no system to overcome a 2.7% house edge unless you know for a fact the wheel has a biased or is rigged or everyday is 500x cash back on table games losses. Can you win over the short term of course but not permanently.
"there is no system to overcome a 2.7% house edge" >>> Yes but there are some methods that do much better than others. (?)
Ken
Quote: TiltpoulBuzz, you're mistaken. You can ask your friend next to you if you can borrow his infinite bankroll and use that to double-down. Now you're into infinity x 2. The unfair thing is if you want to split, THEN double...
Get the system right, Buzz! ;)
I would just take a short break if I were you. In no time, you'll have 31 different posters on you 24/7, loads of fun. You wanna see what 31 different bored guys looks like?
Ken
Quote: thecesspitIf 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.
Maybe I was not clear enough (my fault). I was not talking about the NUMBERS being bias, I know more about RNG than you.
I was referring to the ANTI-method person as POSSIBLY being bias for the testing. He/she is the LAST person I want to do testing.
Ken
Quote: mrjjj @ thecesspitI was not talking about the NUMBERS being bias, I know more about RNG than you.
LOL! We're all doomed........
Not in the public domain. At least not yet. My system will only be revealed upon my death.
Until that time, I will not issue my proof.
