Betting System Challenge
Quote: TiltpoulOnce I get going, I'm pretty sure I'll have enough of a bankroll.
I can PM you a system, but you need to have the bankroll for it. You can play it without the bankroll and hope you don't run into a bad streak, but it's your risk without a proper bankroll.
Quote: rainmanHook line and sinker!
Nevermind, I'll post it here, Tilt.
Basically, instead of betting 100% more after the loss, you can bet 25% more, if that is too much, you can go as low as 10% more on the next bet. 5% is too low it wouldn't work, that way. Anything, 10% or higher will win. Remember, when you skip it keeps the progression 50/50 or more depending how often you skip. If you skip the Martingale every win it doesn't matter it wins when it returns to 1. That's not the case when you skip a 10% game.
10% progression skip every win
Lose 18 Win 18
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-18-20-22-18-15-13-11-9-7-5-3-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 = a total loss of -62.
You can skip bets to keep the progression 50/50 or higher and keep the betting down, but don't get overly aggressive with it. 3 skips every 108 trials on roulette is 50/50. So, 6 skips would be 51.5% progression.
10% progression just 2 skips
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-18-20-22-18-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-1 Total loss of -11
So, the more times you skip the more it keeps the progression in your favor, but the more it costs you in profits. So, you have to be a bit of a PLAYER here, but, remember that was lose 18 win 18 we haven't included all the "scalps" on the way down, that's where the system makes its profit.
So, you can eyeball how many scalps you need to take, 3 skips per 108 trials for single 0 roulette is 50/50. 4 or more skips every 108 trials keeps the progression in your favor on single 0 roulette. So, you can basically control the game yourself. Decide when you want to skip and how often, and you control the game. One more thing, obviously, when you skip at higher bets you're paying the house more. I try to skip after a winning streak brings the game down.
10% progression with 2 lower skips.
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-18-20-22-20-18-16-15-(skip)13-12-11-(skip)-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-1-1 Total win of 2 units.
It doesn't really matter, but will help produce a bigger profit if you can guess the right time to skip. So, there you have it. Whatcha think?
It is easier if you guess the right time to double up as well.
Quote: JyBrd0403Nevermind, I'll post it here, Tilt.
Basically, instead of betting 100% more after the loss, you can bet 25% more, if that is too much, you can go as low as 10% more on the next bet. 5% is too low it wouldn't work, that way. Anything, 10% or higher will win. Remember, when you skip it keeps the progression 50/50 or more depending how often you skip. If you skip the Martingale every win it doesn't matter it wins when it returns to 1. That's not the case when you skip a 10% game.
Oh, all these games also win outright on a 50/50 game of chance without having to do any skips or anything, they all win just like the D'Alembert does on a 50/50 game.
Quote: rdw4potusQuote: 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...
JyByrd0403, the mathematicians have spoken, debunked your system, and you ignored them.
Teliot simulated it with an infinite bankroll and unlimited time, and you claimed the results were unintelligible. He was trying to show that with unlimited money, sure you can keep playing forever, and it will just keep betting astronomical amounts of money. The total amount won/lost will continually flip back and forth positive/negative over and over, the absolute value of your total win getting bigger and bigger each time. At NO POINT does the simulation continually show winnings climbing in the positive direction (which I would consider winning "outright").
mustangsally simulated it with an infinite bankroll, but limited to 10,000 sessions, and your system was a total loser.
Talking about 50/50 games of chance may be interesting from a mathematical point of view, but getting back to the original topic of this thread (MichaelBluejay's betting system challenge), it's not relevant. That system challenge doesn't allow an infinite bankroll either, so.....
Quote: mustangsally
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.
Sally, could you elaborate on what this graph is showing again? I don't quite understand "average of 10,000 sessions with an unlimited bankroll;" if you take the average wouldn't it just be a single number not just a graph? Also, if you played 10,000 sessions with an infinite bankroll, when did you stop each of those individual sessions?
I agree with you about the conclusion, but just trying to clarify this graph and the simulation used to get it.
Quote: JyBrd0403Playing 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.
This is called math. Can you do that?
Quote: JyBrd0403This is called math. Can you do that?
Yes, it is doing math on one specific result that does not do anything to prove your system. You need about 999,999 more of those, then add them all up. That is the math that has already been done in this thread to show that the game is not a winner.
Quote: AcesAndEightsYes, it is doing math on one specific result that does not do anything to prove your system. You need about 999,999 more of those, then add them all up. That is the math that has already been done in this thread to show that the game is not a winner.
That -300 is the low side of a range of results. On a 50/50 game of chance you could be between +300 and -300. +300 after 1 million trials = winner. -100 after a million trials = winner +200 after 1 million trials = winner. I took the low estimate of -300 and it is still an outright winner.
1,000,000*0.5*0.5 = 250,000Quote: JyBrd0403That -300 is the low side of a range of results. On a 50/50 game of chance you could be between +300 and -300. +300 after 1 million trials = winner. -100 after a million trials = winner +200 after 1 million trials = winner. I took the low estimate of -300 and it is still an outright winner.
square root of 250,000 = 500
1 standard deviation = 500.
2 SD = 1000
3SD = 1500
4SD = 2000
I say around 2,000 is the low side
now do a weighted average and see what you get.
300 is useless
you needs to retake basic stats class
Quote: guido1111,000,000*0.5*0.5 = 250,000
square root of 250,000 = 500
1 standard deviation = 500.
2 SD = 1000
3SD = 1500
4SD = 2000
I say around 2,000 is the low side
now do a weighted average and see what you get.
300 is useless
you needs to retake basic stats class
Let me guess.
5 sd = 2500
6 sd = 3000
7 sd = 3500
8 sd = 4000
9 sd = 4500
10 sd = 5000
Until you could easily lose 1 million in a row, thus disproving that a system bet could ever win.
By the way what's the weighted avg. my guess is 0 on a 50/50 game. That's an outright winner.
Quote: JyBrd0403This is called math. Can you do that?
Sure. And the math for the other 1023 possible outcomes of a 10 bet sequence. Sure seems like you're focusing on one (or, maybe, the ones) that make it look like your system works.
Quote: rdw4potusSure. And the math for the other 1023 possible outcomes of a 10 bet sequence. Sure seems like you're focusing on one (or, maybe, the ones) that make it look like your system works.
Good point, what percentage of the time will it win in 1 million trials. I know that 1 million losses in a row would lose for a test of 1 million trials, of course, if you carry it out past that it would win outright.
So, for a million trials. 50% of the time you'd be on the positive side of the wins/losses. I think it would be within -1 and -500, what another 45% of the time. That's right there about 95% of the time it would win in a million trials. And, as I said if you carry out past there it would win outright since the expected win/loss for the game is 0. You can challenge the bankroll requirements, but you can't challenge the fact that it's an outright winner.
Quote: JyBrd0403You can challenge the bankroll requirements, but you can't challenge the fact that it's an outright winner.
This goes for the D'Alembert the Martingale 60% progression(where you skip 1 bet after every win). You're guaranteed a profit when you return to 1, and since the progression is 100% certain to return to 1, the system beats the HE and is a guaranteed winner.
Quote: JyBrd0403since the progression is 100% certain to return to 1
You've said that a couple times. Why do you think that? It's surely not true. At all.
Quote: JyBrd0403This goes for the D'Alembert the Martingale 60% progression(where you skip 1 bet after every win). You're guaranteed a profit when you return to 1, and since the progression is 100% certain to return to 1, the system beats the HE and is a guaranteed winner.
What do so many math people have a problem with that simple statement ?
Quote: rdw4potusYou've said that a couple times. Why do you think that? It's surely not true. At all.
Grow up.
If you flat bet red on single 0 roulette, because the HE is in the houses favor at some point you'll be down 100,000, that's 100% certain. The bankroll is guaranteed to go lower and lower and lower.
This progression is 60% to return to 1. Because the percentage is in the Players favor, when you lose a bet the betting gets higher, but, because the progression is 60%, the betting will go lower and lower and lower and will for certain return to 1.
Quote: JyBrd0403Grow up.
lol. Just prove it if you think it's true. It isn't true and you (should) know it.
Quote: JyBrd0403If you flat bet red on single 0 roulette, because the HE is in the houses favor at some point you'll be down 100,000, that's 100% certain. The bankroll is guaranteed to go lower and lower and lower.
This progression is 60% to return to 1. Because the percentage is in the Players favor, when you lose a bet the betting gets higher, but, because the progression is 60%, the betting will go lower and lower and lower and will for certain return to 1.
Quote: only1choiceFor Gods sake, can we put this thread to bed.
I think by this point you need to shoot it with a wooden stake fired from a silver gun.
how to use a system to lose less.
This thread is about how to use a system to win more .
I find that to be remarkable !
Quote: only1choiceFor Gods sake, can we put this thread to bed.
You see this on gambling forums all the time. The OP will
keep it going as long as you keep taking his bait. He knows
the system is a loser, all he's doing now is yanking your chains.
Quote: EvenBobYou see this on gambling forums all the time. The OP will
keep it going as long as you keep taking his bait. He knows
the system is a loser, all he's doing now is yanking your chains.
But Bob, he did offer proof, or am i missing something here ?
Quote: EvenBobYou see this on gambling forums all the time. The OP will
keep it going as long as you keep taking his bait. He knows
the system is a loser, all he's doing now is yanking your chains.
I'm with Bob. Either poster is trolling, or to dumb to learn.
I believe his last attempt ended up in ban for swearing about 0.9999... != 1.
He is nothing the only person to swear at that thread, although most of us did it verbally. LOL
Quote: JyBrd0403-100 after a million trials = winner
Quote: JyBrd0403This progression is 60% to return to 1. ... and will for certain return to 1.
I think, I get it now.
Just call -100 "a win", and 60% "a certainty" ... and you are an outright winner!
Quote: weaselmanI think, I get it now.
Just call -100 "a win", and 60% "a certainty" ... and you are an outright winner!
You could also do the math. I said earlier in this thread, if you can't do the math I can't help you. Now you see why.
Quote: JyBrd0403I said earlier in this thread, if you can't do the math I can't help you. Now you see why.
No, not really. I don't see why you said that. Did anyone ask for your help? I must have missed it.
Quote: weaselmanI don't see why you said that.
I can't help you, Weasel.
Quote: weaselmanNo, not really. I don't see why you said that. Did anyone ask for your help? I must have missed it.
I thought JyBrd's statement was hilariously correct. You, weaselman, really could do the math. Were you not able to do so, JyBrd would certainly be unable to help you. It's all true, just probably not as intended:-)
Quote: JyBrd0403I can't help you, Weasel.
I know that. If I thought you could, I'd be worried about myself.
I think you're right, Buzzpaff. Starting bankroll of $34,000. Sounds about right? Bye, Buzzpaff.
Quote: JyBrd0403If by some off chance, a real gambler stumbles upon this site. .
Thats the crux of this thread. He said in his first
post: "how interested you are in a betting system
that can beat an HA game."
He's absolutely convinced he has a winning system
and a mountain of silly facts to the contrary will not
deter him. These guys are a dime a dozen on roulette
forums, only the name calling would have started 200
posts ago. He can't get away with that here. Nothing
you say will ever convince him, so why bother saying
anything.
Quote: EvenBob
He's absolutely convinced he has a winning system
Nah ... He just like to rattle your chains.
Quote: weaselmanNah ... He just like to rattle your chains.
Because he thinks it wins.
Quote: EvenBobBecause he thinks it wins.
My hero EvenBob, the master of understatement. HE BELIEVES IT WINS>
So I just wrote a program to run this betting system.
Out of 1,500 sessions playing 500 spins each and starting with a $35,000 bankroll.
No session was able to reach 500 spins because the bet became larger than the bankroll.
On average, 147.36 spins were achieved.
Total Wins: 67,939 (spins)
Total Losses: 80,095 (spins)
The session bankroll was increased 846 times.
The session bankroll was decreased 654 times
Of the times that the bankroll was increased, on average, it increased by $3,990.90
Of the times that the bankroll was decreased, on average, it decreased by $16,936.76
The average bet was $104.79
The largest bet was $163,840.00
At a $5 starting unit, you're looking at a spread of 1:32768
I think I'll stick to blackjack......
Quote: HotBlondeIf I was on a date and a guy told me he had a great betting system that he uses that works, I would promptly get up and walk away from the table and never speak to the guy again.
Even if he offered you half his winnings LOL
Quote: heatherI've actually been curious about something regarding the rules of this challenge for a while. Why is counting cards at Baccarat disallowed? Is this just an "I wouldn't rule out the possibility ...." situation? Since it specifies all normal rules for games, shouldn't counting for the Tie (enough to win the challenge) be just barely outside of the realm of possibility because of the cut card?
If I remember correctly, only negative EV bets are allowed. The answer would be the same if you asked why not include blackjack card counting.
Well, now, for that I could always make an exception! ;)Quote: buzzpaffEven if he offered you half his winnings LOL
Quote: HotBlondeWell, now, for that I could always make an exception! ;)
Evidently not all blondes are dumb !!
Quote: heatherI've actually been curious about something regarding the rules of this challenge for a while. Why is counting cards at Baccarat disallowed? Is this just an "I wouldn't rule out the possibility ...." situation? Since it specifies all normal rules for games, shouldn't counting for the Tie (enough to win the challenge) be just barely outside of the realm of possibility because of the cut card?
It's not a betting system. The whole point of a betting system is that the bets aren't based on return.
