Betting System Challenge
Quote: mrjjjMaybe I was not clear enough (my fault). I was not talking about the NUMBERS being bias, I know more about RNG than you.
You do? Glad to hear that. What source should I use to get a large number (millions) of randomly generated numbers for simulation? Why that source of another, such as Mersenne twister?
Quote: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
Shrug. The last person I'd want to test a is a "pro-method" person. They'd be biased to show it works :) Joking aside...
I was talking about the ability to apply an unbiased way of testing all methods. Using a simulation with the same starting points for all systems is one way to eliminate a bias (personal bias). The code used is reviewable. The assumptions made are reviewable. We can apply the same rules to all the methods/systems to be tested. Same measuring stick for everything.
Now, you might not like the results, but it's not about liking or disliking the results, that's not the point of testing. It's to measure objectively the system under test.
You might not like the assumptions or the code or the psuedo-RNG or some of the base assumptions. You can discuss those. Maybe we can find errors in the base start point and axioms of the test. In the situation I am talking about, the test should be repeatable by another person (regardless of their bias to methods).
Don't you agree that having a repeatable, clear test method for all systems would be useful and remove bias by the tester?
We can then move to arguments about bias in the RNG (which was not really my point, I was trying to remove discussion about bias in the RNG and the Numbers).
Talk about being silly ? This is a forum, we are not interested in the validity of a system. REALLY
Quote: buzzpaff" Don't you agree that having a repeatable, clear test method for all systems would be useful and remove bias by the tester? "
Talk about being silly ? This is a forum, we are not interested in the validity of a system. REALLY
I'm sorry, Buzz, what was I thinking ;)
Quote: thecesspitI'm sorry, Buzz, what was I thinking ;)
Obviously, you were not thinking LOL
Quote: rdw4potusLOL! We're all doomed........
LOL! Nobody cares what you think.
Ken
Quote: thecesspitYou do? Glad to hear that. What source should I use to get a large number (millions) of randomly generated numbers for simulation? Why that source of another, such as Mersenne twister?
Shrug. The last person I'd want to test a is a "pro-method" person. They'd be biased to show it works :) Joking aside...
I was talking about the ability to apply an unbiased way of testing all methods. Using a simulation with the same starting points for all systems is one way to eliminate a bias (personal bias). The code used is reviewable. The assumptions made are reviewable. We can apply the same rules to all the methods/systems to be tested. Same measuring stick for everything.
Now, you might not like the results, but it's not about liking or disliking the results, that's not the point of testing. It's to measure objectively the system under test.
You might not like the assumptions or the code or the psuedo-RNG or some of the base assumptions. You can discuss those. Maybe we can find errors in the base start point and axioms of the test. In the situation I am talking about, the test should be repeatable by another person (regardless of their bias to methods).
Don't you agree that having a repeatable, clear test method for all systems would be useful and remove bias by the tester?
We can then move to arguments about bias in the RNG (which was not really my point, I was trying to remove discussion about bias in the RNG and the Numbers).
"Now, you might not like the results" >>> Aint that the truth! However, I'll take the extra green paper in my wallet when I leave the casino.
Ken
Quote: mrjjj"Now, you might not like the results" >>> Aint that the truth! However, I'll take the extra green paper in my wallet when I leave the casino.
Ken
Well, you could have enlightened me on RNGs.
But I do agree with you on the the green in the wallet.... I've said this before. All the math does is predict a range of results and probabilities. It's a very useful tool.
BUT your ABSOLUTE VALUE after betting is all that matters once you make the bet. It might be a great +EV bet. You might be correct to make 1,000,000 times. But if you hit under the expected value, you hit under the expected value. That's why it's a gamble.
Lose 19 Win 18
1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512-1024-2048-4096-8192-16384-32768-65536-131072-262144-524288-131072-32768-8192-2048-512-128-32-8-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1
Total Win 174,770 Average per win 9,709 units.
Martingale total win 18, average per win 1 unit.
How many "scalps" do you need on the way down to produce a win there?
Quote: JyBrd0403D'alembert the Martingale 60% progression.
Or, you could Labouchere the Fibonacci.
Quote: tuppOr, you could Labouchere the Fibonacci.
LOL. Thanks, tupp. Couldn't just let the novelty game win outright.
Since, the term outright seems to be a mystery here. I'll give you a scenario.
"I had a nickel (That's five hundred dollars) on a pony (a horse) to show in the 5th (this means the 5th race). The damn thing won outright. (Means the horse won the race. This is also a funny joke. You laugh here. He's upset he didn't bet the horse to win)." They probably had the damn thing juiced up (means they gave the horse an illegal substance to make it run faster, also a funny joke, you laugh here). I should have dropped a dime(should have bet one thousand dollars) on her (does not indicate the sex of the horse, horses are commonly referred to as female). (this is also a funny sentence, you laugh here)."
Funny way of talking gamblers have isn't it. You see a lot of it on this forum.
Quote: JyBrd0403Somehow, I knew there wasn't going to be much interest in a betting system that can beat an HE game on this forum.
It can't beat the HE. You haven't done anything to change the HE, so you don't beat the HE. It's a constant.
silly
Sally
I say it is just right.Quote: JyBrd040315% of the winnings sound about right? or, is that too high?
But you should pay at least 85% of the losses too. What, you want NO risk!
As a matter of fact, send me $10,000 and I will pay you 50% over any winnings of $5,000.
I will play just as you have outlined in this tread and will offer the Wizard also 50% of the winnings to watch and record the spins and wagers.
Then a big dinner to celebrate after.
Enjoy!
Quote: mustangsally
You will find out that your system does not win outright in single 0 roulette.
Once in the positive it will be there only for a short while. Then into the negative to never return to the positive.
I have found it works way better in Craps with and without odds on the line bets.
Wake up and do the work yourself.
That way, you can trust yourself and no one else.
Your method, and your variants, that can easily be simulated in Excel also has a house edge on every win and loss.
Here is a graph showing the average of 10,000 sessions playing your first method with an unlimited bankroll. Total casino credit.
Does not look to me you will ever get back into the black. Downhill slide all the way.
That's not for the D'Alemberting of the Martingal, right?. That wins outright. That's for the 50% trinket I threw out there, right? Just trying to show how to keep the bankroll down. Did you figure out what needs to be changed to make it win?
So, that means there is math showing the D'alembert wins outright on a 50/50 game?
Exactly as you instructions say.Quote: JyBrd0403
That's not for the D'Alemberting of the Martingal, right?. That wins outright. That's for the 50% trinket I threw out there, right? Just trying to show how to keep the bankroll down. Did you figure out what needs to be changed to make it win?
So, that means there is math showing the D'alembert wins outright on a 50/50 game?
UP 2X on a loss, and after a win 0.5 times on a win and same bet with a 0 spin.
I used unlimited casino credit, meaning NO bankroll was required.
Some bets and losses were so astronomical large that could never be made in a casino BTW.
You have NO PROOF your method wins outright.
It does not and never will according to those who have shown some results.
Time for you to show the proof.
We are all waiting and can wait a long time.
Sally
Quote: JyBrd0403
So, that means there is math showing the D'alembert wins outright on a 50/50 game?
SN Ethier in his Doctrine of Chances book, Betting System chapter,
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.
infallible = wins outright
Playing the D'alembert every win gains 1 unit. If after 200 trials, you have 95 wins and 105 losses. You've got a total of 95 profit. You just have to subtract what you're at on the progression. If you're next bet is 11 in the progression. You've lost 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 = 55 units. 95 -55 = profit 40 units.
After a million trials. If you're at -300 on a 50/50 game of chance, and you're next bet on the progression is 301, you lost approx. -45,000 units. You've won 499,850 units. Makes the game an outright winner.
"I made a couple of dimes (two thousand dollars) on the Bears last week. They had 'em as the dog (underdog means they weren't expected to win). They won the game outright."
Quote: mustangsallyFrom 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.
infallible = wins outright
They liiieeed, Sally. They're going to be in trooooouuuuubbbbllllleeee. LOL.
What you have shown is NO proof, only a specific sequence out of possible 100 billions of possible sequences.Quote: JyBrd0403I'll play a little give and take. I'll show you my secret for the D'Alembert.
Playing the D'alembert every win gains 1 unit. If after 200 trials, you have 95 wins and 105 losses. You've got a total of 95 profit. You just have to subtract what you're at on the progression. If you're next bet is 11 in the progression. You've lost 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 = 55 units. 95 -55 = profit 40 units.
After a million trials. If you're at -300 on a 50/50 game of chance, and you're next bet on the progression is 301, you lost approx. -45,000 units. You've won 499,850 units. Makes the game an outright winner.
"I made a couple of dimes (two thousand dollars) on the Bears last week. They had 'em as the dog (underdog means they weren't expected to win). They won the game outright."
Simulate it
so 10 million players will play and you will see that even a $100,000 bankroll is way to small to start with.
Simulate it so we can see the results from billions of sequences, not just the one's you cherry pick.
Google the book and read the pages.Quote: JyBrd0403
They liiieeed, Sally. They're going to be in trooooouuuuubbbbllllleeee. LOL.
The math is right there.
Simple stuff. 2 + 2 / 0.012
You now have math homework!
Quote: mustangsallyWhat you have shown is NO proof, only a specific sequence out of possible 100 billions of possible sequences.
Simulate it
so 10 million players will play and you will see that even a $100,000 bankroll is way to small to start with.
Simulate it so we can see the results from billions of sequences, not just the one's you cherry pick.
Huh? I thought a million trials was sort of a standard. If the game wins after a million trials, it's a winner. Or, as it is usually, if it loses outright after a million trials, it's a losing game. What's the 10 million players stuff about?
Just to clarify, are you saying the D'Alembert on a 50/50 game is a loser?
No, just a incredible waste of time and financial resources .
Quote: buzzpaff" Just to clarify, are you saying the D'Alembert on a 50/50 game is a loser? "
No, just a incredible waste of time and financial resources .
So, then it's an outright winner, mathematically speaking? Anyone who says it isn't would be mathematically challenged. I believe that's a quote from the heading of this forum.
Just ignore those losers and look out for your own best interests.
Do not let their negative thoughts prevent you from winning.
Good luck, but I doubt you will need it.
silly
I offered 50% over $5,000 winnings as long as OP puts up some cash.Quote: mustangsally
You want someone to pay you to play your method in a casino
and you want 15% of the winnings and will not put up any money to play.
Chicken!!
I guess I would be chicken too!
"Honey, what's for dinner?"
"You're favorite"
"Thanks Honey, you know how much I love your chicken!"
Quote: JyBrd0403I'll play a little give and take. I'll show you my secret for the D'Alembert.
CONGRATULATIONS!! YOU DID IT!
You found a way to beat a HE game and make it a player advantage! The fact that we are all doubting you is ridiculous. I know I would be very interested in paying you money and giving you a cut of my profits, since you've shown infallible evidence that your system wins... OUTRIGHT! It sounds like a great system and anybody who wouldn't be interested in your secrets is ridiculous. Of course nobody on this forum doesn't want to know; they're jealous that you came up with it.
I, of course, don't have any money right now, since the way I've been gambling lately has been at a HE, so unfortunately, I can't send you the money, but feel free to send me the information anyways. I promise I'll get you paid as soon as I turn a profit on the game.
By the way, I updated my new profile line... I had to substitute the last word of the quote since the original word could be considered offensive...
Not done yet.Quote: rainmanThanks to sally the sim is in, and the nay sayer's win out right.
The OP uses Enron accounting math.
We know the purpose of that.
I am sure he will come up with a simulation showing all his methods wins outright for as long as one wants to play them.
Even on 50/50 games!
Then we are back to square one.
Quote: mustangsally
You have yet to show any simulation results, just useless "here is a winning sequence" that will happen once every 1,000 years.
All betting systems win on a 50/50 game.
Please point out the 50/50 games that exist in a casino(s), so I can go there and play.
You seem to know them all. You always talk about these 50/50 games.
You want someone to pay you to play your method in a casino
and you want 15% of the winnings and will not put up any money to play.
Chicken!!
Better off drinking and staying home watching the Cubs play baseball.
Hey, during my lunch break, I played your method...
here is a photo of the Roulette Xtreme software.
I suggest you buy it and play your methods.
You will be shocked how many times you can bust a $1million bankroll
If you look close enough, you can see I needed at least $8,000 at one point.
All of us were too chicken to play that much. Look how much I won.
Yes, in the very short run, your method can and does win outright.
I better cash in now and keep my winnings before it goes into the red never to see day light again!
Sally, there's already one simulation that showed the game winning and the moving into the red and then winning and moving into the red again. It shows it as a 50/50 game basically, sometimes in the black and sometimes in the red. It's not an outright loser. I claim it's an outright winner.
The 15% of the winnings is a gambling thing, just asking for a kick back on the information. The million dollar bankroll may not be enough, but hey, it's a novelty game. Means it's not playable in a casino, but shows how to beat an HE game.
Didn't roulette used to be just red vs. black in the old days. I wonder when the zero got added on, a guess is after some guy named D'alembert came along.
You think there's a way to calculate the average win on this system, and the expected amount your suppose to be down after a million trials. Wouldn't you multiply the average win amount by the number of wins, and subtract the amount you're down on the progression, to come up with the total profit? I know you have to give the house $5 million when a zero comes up and you bet $5 million, but if you win the next bet for $5 million. You just covered the HE (vig. or vigorish) didn't you? If you lose the next $5 million dollar bet and then win the next $10 million dollar bet, you just covered the HE (vig) again, right?
Quote: JyBrd0403It shows it as a 50/50 game basically, sometimes in the black and sometimes in the red...I claim it's an outright winner.
Yep, that sums up this thread pretty well right there;-)
Quote: rdw4potusQuote: JyBrd0403It shows it as a 50/50 game basically, sometimes in the black and sometimes in the red...I claim it's an outright winner.
Yep, that sums up this thread pretty well right there;-)
Problem, Sally has it as an outright loser. Somebody grab a mathematician. Old pen and paper now.
going. On a roulette forum, it would have died the first day.
There you go again, being a naysayer. Just wait until I wire him that $15 million dollars.
Then we will show you math guys a thing or two.
Quote: buzzpaffI am willing to incest $15 million cash.
Can I watch? This might as well be a joke thread.
Quote:
Problem, Sally has it as an outright loser. Somebody grab a mathematician. Old pen and paper now.
I just lost playing your system on the Bovada european wheel - 3 times. Fortunately it was in the practice section so you only owe me $2,765 practice dollars - I assumed I'd win OUTRIGHT!
Quote: WoldusJyBrd0403
I just lost playing your system on the Bovada european wheel - 3 times. Fortunately it was in the practice section so you only owe me $2,765 practice dollars - I assumed I'd win OUTRIGHT!
Stop using that word outright, that's my word. LOL.
Quote: RogerKintCan I watch? This might as well be a joke thread.
This is serious money. However, you may attend and watch from the VIP section for $1,000.
Or simply wait until the DVD is released.
Quote: WoldusJyBrd0403
I just lost playing your system on the Bovada european wheel - 3 times. Fortunately it was in the practice section so you only owe me $2,765 practice dollars - I assumed I'd win OUTRIGHT!
You were doing it wrong outright. Bovada has the members of this forum interests at heart, so of course the system won't work on that. 3 times isn't enough to win outright either, that varies based on a lot of factors... it's 90 degrees here today so I don't think that will work.
Btw, I'm still waiting for the OP to send me a copy of his system. I could really use the extra money, I just need some guidance to get going.
Quote: JyBrd0403Stop using that word outright, that's my word. LOL.
Hmm... I searched all the patent websites I could find outright and didn't see you laying a claim to that word, outright, so I guess we can all use it outright then.
Right?
banner " the perfect gift for a gambling family member "
Quote: TiltpoulHmm... I searched all the patent websites I could find outright and didn't see you laying a claim to that word, outright, so I guess we can all use it outright then.
Right?
That's a joke. Tiltpoul, you laugh there. It's from Jerry Mcguire. "Stop using that word Quan, that's my word."
Quote: TiltpoulBtw, I'm still waiting for the OP to send me a copy of his system. I could really use the extra money, I just need some guidance to get going.
What kind of bankroll do you have to play with? What kind of minimum bet are you talking about?
Quote: JyBrd0403What kind of bankroll do you have to play with? What kind of minimum bet are you talking about?
Once I get going, I'm pretty sure I'll have enough of a bankroll. I thought I'd start at the lowest table minimum I could find (like maybe $3) and go from there. What do you suggest?
I need something that will produce a winner; I've got to stop playing these games with such an HE that can't be overcome...
Quote: JyBrd0403Quote: rdw4potusQuote: JyBrd0403It shows it as a 50/50 game basically, sometimes in the black and sometimes in the red...I claim it's an outright winner.
Yep, that sums up this thread pretty well right there;-)
Problem, Sally has it as an outright loser. Somebody grab a mathematician. Old pen and paper now.
Lol. Sally is a mathematician. So is Teliot...
