March 20th, 2013 at 10:43:43 AM
permalink

I love all of the info on this site, but I don't know why betting systems aren't recommended here.

I may have misunderstood some of the information I've read on here, but I can't seem to figure out why betting systems are a bad idea.

I know you can get house odds down to .28% without counting cards if you're on the right table, but lets just say that you only win 43 percent of the time.

I created a quick computer program to simulate a betting system that follows these rules:

-You win 43% of the time

-initial bet starts at table minimum

-if you lose you double your bet

-if your doubled bet is over the table max, you set the bet at table max.

-once you win, you reset the bet to table min (even if it has been at the table max for the last 5 hands).

-I initial set the program up with a bankroll of 50000 on a $1 min and $500 dollar max

- games is the number of hands played.

Every time I run it, i never get in the red. Obviously starting with 50,000 with an initial bet of 1 dollar, it may take awhile.

Every where I've read in the blackjack section says that progressive betting doesn't really matter except for making things fun and more volatile. But check the stats:

When only placing a 5 dollar bet and never changing that amount on 1,000,000 hands:

Losses: 569878 Wins: 430122

loss ratio: 0.569878

minBank: -648780

maxBank: 50060

streak: 16

ending balance: -648780

Now, with doubling (as mentioned above):

Losses: 569752 Wins: 430248

loss ratio: 0.569752

minBank: 17927

maxBank: 443052

streak: 15

ending balance: 443049

The numbers seem to be pretty consistent every time I run the thing.

If you want to check out the code (its pretty easy to read even if you're not a programmer) here it is:

import java.util.Random;

public class Test {

//the setup variables:

static int tablemin = 1;

static int tablemax = 500;

static int bankroll = 50000;

static int games = 1000000;

static double winPercentage = 43;

static int wins = 0;

static int losses = 0;

static int bet = tablemin;

static int maxBank = 0;

static int minBank = bankroll;

// this just starts the program

public static void main(String[] args) {

startGame();

}

private static void startGame() {

int streak = 0;

int maxStreak = 0;

for (int i = 0; i < games; i++) {

Random r = new Random();

// result is a random number 0-99 add 1 makes it a random

// number 1-100

double result = ((double) r.nextInt(100) + 1);

if (result <= winPercentage) {

wins++;

bankroll += bet;

bet = tablemin;

streak = 0;

} else {

losses++;

bankroll -= bet;

bet *= 2;

streak++;

if (streak > maxStreak)

maxStreak = streak;

if (bet > tablemax)

bet = tablemax;

}

if (bankroll > maxBank)

maxBank = bankroll;

if (bankroll < minBank)

minBank = bankroll;

}

double f = (double) ((double) losses / (double) games);

System.out.print(" Losses: " + losses + " Wins: " + wins + "\n");

System.out.print(" loss ratio: " + f + "\n");

System.out.print(" minBank: " + minBank + "\n");

System.out.print(" maxBank: " + maxBank + "\n");

System.out.print(" streak: " + maxStreak + "\n");

System.out.print(" ending balance: " + bankroll);

}

}

Am I completely missing something, or what?

I may have misunderstood some of the information I've read on here, but I can't seem to figure out why betting systems are a bad idea.

I know you can get house odds down to .28% without counting cards if you're on the right table, but lets just say that you only win 43 percent of the time.

I created a quick computer program to simulate a betting system that follows these rules:

-You win 43% of the time

-initial bet starts at table minimum

-if you lose you double your bet

-if your doubled bet is over the table max, you set the bet at table max.

-once you win, you reset the bet to table min (even if it has been at the table max for the last 5 hands).

-I initial set the program up with a bankroll of 50000 on a $1 min and $500 dollar max

- games is the number of hands played.

Every time I run it, i never get in the red. Obviously starting with 50,000 with an initial bet of 1 dollar, it may take awhile.

Every where I've read in the blackjack section says that progressive betting doesn't really matter except for making things fun and more volatile. But check the stats:

When only placing a 5 dollar bet and never changing that amount on 1,000,000 hands:

Losses: 569878 Wins: 430122

loss ratio: 0.569878

minBank: -648780

maxBank: 50060

streak: 16

ending balance: -648780

Now, with doubling (as mentioned above):

Losses: 569752 Wins: 430248

loss ratio: 0.569752

minBank: 17927

maxBank: 443052

streak: 15

ending balance: 443049

The numbers seem to be pretty consistent every time I run the thing.

If you want to check out the code (its pretty easy to read even if you're not a programmer) here it is:

import java.util.Random;

public class Test {

//the setup variables:

static int tablemin = 1;

static int tablemax = 500;

static int bankroll = 50000;

static int games = 1000000;

static double winPercentage = 43;

static int wins = 0;

static int losses = 0;

static int bet = tablemin;

static int maxBank = 0;

static int minBank = bankroll;

// this just starts the program

public static void main(String[] args) {

startGame();

}

private static void startGame() {

int streak = 0;

int maxStreak = 0;

for (int i = 0; i < games; i++) {

Random r = new Random();

// result is a random number 0-99 add 1 makes it a random

// number 1-100

double result = ((double) r.nextInt(100) + 1);

if (result <= winPercentage) {

wins++;

bankroll += bet;

bet = tablemin;

streak = 0;

} else {

losses++;

bankroll -= bet;

bet *= 2;

streak++;

if (streak > maxStreak)

maxStreak = streak;

if (bet > tablemax)

bet = tablemax;

}

if (bankroll > maxBank)

maxBank = bankroll;

if (bankroll < minBank)

minBank = bankroll;

}

double f = (double) ((double) losses / (double) games);

System.out.print(" Losses: " + losses + " Wins: " + wins + "\n");

System.out.print(" loss ratio: " + f + "\n");

System.out.print(" minBank: " + minBank + "\n");

System.out.print(" maxBank: " + maxBank + "\n");

System.out.print(" streak: " + maxStreak + "\n");

System.out.print(" ending balance: " + bankroll);

}

}

Am I completely missing something, or what?

March 20th, 2013 at 11:01:39 AM
permalink

It's pretty stable after a million hands and you want to set you cap at 128 (min bet of 1), but in the short term (1000 hands) it's all over the place (starting bankroll = 500):

Losses: 591 Wins: 409

loss ratio: 0.591

minBank: -2643

maxBank: 560

streak: 12

ending balance: -2127

Losses: 568 Wins: 432

loss ratio: 0.568

minBank: -655

maxBank: 675

streak: 10

ending balance: -167

Losses: 574 Wins: 426

loss ratio: 0.574

minBank: -2251

maxBank: 594

streak: 12

ending balance: -1661

Losses: 570 Wins: 430

loss ratio: 0.57

minBank: -295

maxBank: 716

streak: 10

ending balance: 382

Losses: 587 Wins: 413

loss ratio: 0.587

minBank: 3

maxBank: 877

streak: 9

ending balance: 877

..etc..

Losses: 591 Wins: 409

loss ratio: 0.591

minBank: -2643

maxBank: 560

streak: 12

ending balance: -2127

Losses: 568 Wins: 432

loss ratio: 0.568

minBank: -655

maxBank: 675

streak: 10

ending balance: -167

Losses: 574 Wins: 426

loss ratio: 0.574

minBank: -2251

maxBank: 594

streak: 12

ending balance: -1661

Losses: 570 Wins: 430

loss ratio: 0.57

minBank: -295

maxBank: 716

streak: 10

ending balance: 382

Losses: 587 Wins: 413

loss ratio: 0.587

minBank: 3

maxBank: 877

streak: 9

ending balance: 877

..etc..

March 20th, 2013 at 11:43:22 AM
permalink

You're kidding, right?

Who has time to sit for a million hands? Where can you find a table with a $1 minimum and $500 max? Who sits down with 100 times the max?

Hell, even your short term of 1,000 hands is fairly long term!

On a side note, your "easy to read" program looks like Greek to me. And I have over 35 years of programming experience!

Who has time to sit for a million hands? Where can you find a table with a $1 minimum and $500 max? Who sits down with 100 times the max?

Hell, even your short term of 1,000 hands is fairly long term!

On a side note, your "easy to read" program looks like Greek to me. And I have over 35 years of programming experience!

I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁

March 20th, 2013 at 11:47:08 AM
permalink

P.S. Systems are not recommended for a simple reason: They don't work.

I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁

March 20th, 2013 at 4:46:36 PM
permalink

There is nothing wrong with betting systems for fun - for instance when buying lottery tickets one way is to use car registration numbers to pick the numbers - or if picking horses use a name you like.Quote:chillin221...I can't seem to figure out why betting systems are a bad idea...

However the forum is aimed towards doing the best you can, using the best strategy to reduce the advantage to the house to a minimum, identify profitable scenarios, make your money last longer etc.

There are typically three types of games

(a) those where there is always a player edge, albeit using a fixed/complicated strategy.

(b) those where sometimes an advantage can be occur or be determined and bets increased or strategy changed.

(c) those where there is always a house edge.

For (a) games, the best idea is to bet as much as you can as often as possible (subject to bankroll and ruin analysis).

For (b) games, the best idea is to bet minimum (or not at all) during adverse conditions and increase bets during favourable conditions: Blackjack counting falls into this category; lotteries after rollovers or jackpot style bets also apply if the top prize is large enough.

Most casinos games fall into class (c), i.e. in the long run the house wins; thus the strategy is to play the minimum bet, usually avoid side-bets, and adopt the strategy that minimises the house edge. Any betting systems for these games is rather like finding perpetual motion, they don't work! For instance you can create a series of bets than win $1 (e.g. double your bet each loss) and while every (say) 999 times you win $1, house edge says that the 1000th time you lose much more than $1000; thus in the long term any system loses.

March 20th, 2013 at 5:16:23 PM
permalink

Your system may have a very low chance of putting you in the red, but if that's the case, you'll walk away down much further than you would have walked away up. The sum of the possible outcomes of any strategy will always be negative, since expected values always add. That's why systems are discouraged.

(You'll also find that "system," on this board, is restricted to those proposed by those who don't understand this fact, which seems to include you.)

(Yours in particular is just a simple Martingale variant - it's old as the hills, and infamous for just this reason.)

(You'll also find that "system," on this board, is restricted to those proposed by those who don't understand this fact, which seems to include you.)

(Yours in particular is just a simple Martingale variant - it's old as the hills, and infamous for just this reason.)

The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.

March 20th, 2013 at 5:33:48 PM
permalink

Quote:chillin221

The numbers seem to be pretty consistent every time I run the thing.

The system you describe is actually called a Martingale:

Martingale Betting System

The program written in java looks reasonably intelligible to me. However, the results don't make sense: the 430,248 wins means that only 37,199 wins were required to offset the 569,752 losses. Seems highly improbable.

March 20th, 2013 at 5:34:45 PM
permalink

Quote:DJTeddyBearP.S. Systems are not recommended for a simple reason: They don't work.

Not true. They all work, some for quite awhile. They

just all lose eventually, thats the rub.

"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail."
Gore Vidal

March 20th, 2013 at 11:58:57 PM
permalink

Quote:DJTeddyBearOn a side note, your "easy to read" program looks like Greek to me. And I have over 35 years of programming experience!

Some indenting would help, but other than that it looks readable to me. If you want to make fun of him for believing in systems that's hard to argue with, but why be harsh about his program? Or maybe you don't work in languages descended from C?