Thread Rating:

JyBrd0403
JyBrd0403
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 548
Joined: Jan 25, 2010
June 3rd, 2013 at 9:10:07 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

LOL. that's an odd number of events. How is that proof that things even out? We can all cherry pick results, and we can all make half-assed slanted arguments. The difference here is that you're the only person in this conversation who is actively trying to do those things.



The end. Nice talking to you guys as usual. 1 billion trials produces a 500 million unit win and you say that's proof the game breaks even. You do know anyone can run a million trial simulation of the D'Alembert on a 50/50 game and get the results. Popcan already did this on another thread. The game wins, period. I'm not the one B.S.ing anyone here. Don't believe me, run the simulation yourself. Give the results, I'm now very interested in what kinda B.S. your going to pull on this one. Amazing.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
June 3rd, 2013 at 9:12:41 PM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

The end. Nice talking to you guys as usual. 1 billion trials produces a 500 million unit win and you say that's proof the game breaks even. You do know anyone can run a million trial simulation of the D'Alembert on a 50/50 game and get the results. Popcan already did this on another thread. The game wins, period. I'm not the one B.S.ing anyone here. Don't believe me, run the simulation yourself. Give the results, I'm now very interested in what kinda B.S. your going to pull on this one. Amazing.




waaaaait, the trial produced a 50% rate of return and that doesnt set off a GIANT red flag for you? like, something must be wrong there? Really, 500 million profit in a billion spins. I'm glad this is the end. Go lose your money playing this way in the casino now.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28575
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
June 3rd, 2013 at 9:28:01 PM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

You do know anyone can run a million trial simulation of the D'Alembert on a 50/50 game and get the results. Popcan already did this on another thread. The game wins, period.



I don't get your point, this is like roulette 101. Even
the newest rookie knows you can beat a 50/50 game
with almost any progression. The problem is, no casino
offer a 50/50 game. So again, whats your point. Use
a d'Alem on bac, you have a tiny house edge and you'll
still lose.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Zcore13
Zcore13
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3808
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
June 3rd, 2013 at 10:37:45 PM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

The end. Nice talking to you guys as usual. 1 billion trials produces a 500 million unit win and you say that's proof the game breaks even. You do know anyone can run a million trial simulation of the D'Alembert on a 50/50 game and get the results. Popcan already did this on another thread. The game wins, period. I'm not the one B.S.ing anyone here. Don't believe me, run the simulation yourself. Give the results, I'm now very interested in what kinda B.S. your going to pull on this one. Amazing.



I think the thing that you don't understand is that in a Casino you (the player) does not have unlimited money and even if you did, there is something called a table maximum. That little feature puts an end to ALL progressive betting systems. You can not recover from hitting the table max and losing. You can't go up one more unit at that point. System fails.

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
ewjones080
ewjones080
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 456
Joined: Feb 22, 2012
June 4th, 2013 at 4:13:28 AM permalink
I think a lot of you are missing the point of what Jy is saying. While I'm not defending him, I think there's still a shred of validity in what he's saying. Lets say a million trials doing d'lambert.. I "should" have 500,000 wins and 500,000 losses, producing 500,000 units ahead. There are two problems, one of which Jy hasn't addressed, which is what happens when early in your progression you get a bunch of wins at 1 unit... You can't go down.. This in effect raises where your bet will be when you hit your last bet by how many times you hit at min.. That's one thing that cuts your overall win.. Zeros increase even further.

I tried to do some primitive math at work to figure out the flaw in Jy's modified system, but its just too much to do easily (at least for me)... But at least I see what he's getting at. I haven't seen any real mathematical reasons why he's wrong (while I'm sure he is)....
wrongway
wrongway
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 101
Joined: May 16, 2010
June 4th, 2013 at 6:39:52 PM permalink
Thanks for sharing this. I have been waiting for someone to finally share a true winning system. Just told the boss to kiss my behind and packed the moving van for Vegas!!!
Alembert
Alembert
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 57
Joined: Jan 14, 2013
June 4th, 2013 at 7:02:16 PM permalink
Quote: ewjones080

I think a lot of you are missing the point of what Jy is saying. While I'm not defending him, I think there's still a shred of validity in what he's saying. Lets say a million trials doing d'lambert.. I "should" have 500,000 wins and 500,000 losses, producing 500,000 units ahead. There are two problems, one of which Jy hasn't addressed, which is what happens when early in your progression you get a bunch of wins at 1 unit... You can't go down.. This in effect raises where your bet will be when you hit your last bet by how many times you hit at min.. That's one thing that cuts your overall win.. Zeros increase even further.

I tried to do some primitive math at work to figure out the flaw in Jy's modified system, but its just too much to do easily (at least for me)... But at least I see what he's getting at. I haven't seen any real mathematical reasons why he's wrong (while I'm sure he is)....



One adjustment to address the multiple minimum win concern.....start at a unit count of greater than 1, that way you have room to move both up and down. for example: Start at 10 units, second bet will be either 9 or 11 depending on the outcome. If you are looking at an extremely large trial (like a million bets) the starting point would also have to be extremely large ( like 10,000 units).

Unfortunately, the Zero is still the death knell of a d'Alembert progression on roulette.
24Bingo
24Bingo
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
June 5th, 2013 at 5:49:13 AM permalink
If he (you?) were right that the d'Alembert progression could give you an edge, he would be right that the zero could be overcome. "Unfortunately" (though I'd rather live in a coherent universe than have a new way to AP roulette), he's not, so it can't.

It occurs to me that a simulation of a 50/50 game would be incredibly easy to write. Here, I can throw most of it together in this window (hey, kids, count the bad habits):

#include <stdlib.h>

long trial(long session) {
long bet, total, i;

bet = 1;
total = 0;

for (i = 0; i < session; i++) {
if (rand() % 2) {
total += bet;
if (bet > 1) bet--;
} else {
total -= bet;
bet++;
}
}
return total;
}

I can't be arsed to do it, but I don't think a million hands would take long this way. (Of course, I'd have to think about overflow if I actually planned to run this, it being unlikely but not impossible that the progression should get into the tens of thousands, but screw it.)
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.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
June 5th, 2013 at 11:51:17 AM permalink
I could simulate this, but the OP wouldn't accept my results, as he doesn't accept 0.999... = 1, so no doubt he would suspect my programming to be flawed.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
June 5th, 2013 at 11:53:14 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I could simulate this, but the OP wouldn't accept my results, as he doesn't accept 0.999... = 1, so no doubt he would suspect my programming to be flawed.



You'd think the bar would be set pretty low, since he accepted a sim showing a win of $500MM in 1B spins as valid. But you're still probably right.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28575
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
June 5th, 2013 at 11:55:58 AM permalink
edited
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
jgodin
jgodin
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 2
Joined: Dec 1, 2012
June 5th, 2013 at 1:53:14 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Yep, math is absolute. And 48.65/51.35 is not equal to 50/50. In roulette every bet you make has a 48.65% chance of winning. Your system attempts to overcome that by making additional bets with different dollar values. But they all also have a 48.65% chance of success. It's not hard to see how and why this will fail.



That is the only proof you need to guarantee that absolutely no betting system on roulette will work. That and the fact that each decision is independent from one another.

If you want to win at roulette, read American Roulette by Richard Marcus.
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
June 5th, 2013 at 2:15:24 PM permalink
Jy you realize the simulation your basing this working on simply was on the lucky side of the coin. Winning 500 mil in 1 bil trials seems awesome but in reality you are betting on average 3431 units so even with a single dollar bet to start you are on average risking 3431 and obviously some times much more. This leads to a players edge of only .0014%. He stated that he ran this simulation multiple times and at one of those he had a house edge of .2% assuming average bet size stayed the same, no reason to believe it went down and given this is negative progression it was probably actually higher given it was a losing set, this would mean you lost about 7 million dollars probably wiping out any former winnings. The notion that the d'alembert works is based on a massively flawed assumption that things tend to equilibrium . If I get 10 heads in a row that does not mean my next 10 flips will be tails. Given that tending towards equilibrium is flawed the fact is you eventually stand to reach a hole you can't dig yourself out of assuming you don't have an infinite bankroll and the casino does it loses even in a 50 50 game. If you do have an infinite bank roll its still not guarenteed to win over any finite number of flips or an infinite number of flips.
Twirdman
Twirdman
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
June 5th, 2013 at 2:54:04 PM permalink
Oh another reason this system is impractical is the rate of return is ridiculously low. You win 500,000,000 over 1 billion rolls a whopping 50 cents per roll or about 20-30 per hour. In comparison with simple counting you could make 20 an hour betting 5 dollars on don't pass line and making appropriate, odds bets this is only 100 dollar max bet for anything, on card craps. Obviously more if your willing to bet more. So its silly as a practical thing to bet the d'Alembert on a 50-50 game if you could ever find one will to allow you to bet anything you wanted, as the rate of return is lower then far simpler bets you could make given the same bankroll requirements and willingness to bet high levels.
Alembert
Alembert
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 57
Joined: Jan 14, 2013
June 5th, 2013 at 4:43:34 PM permalink
The d'Alembert progression can be a very powerful and profitable tool if used effectively.

It is necessary to establish target win goals and proper bankroll size that you are willing to part with. Say a win goal of 200 units, bankroll of 1000 units. Start your progression at some set point that allows you to adjust both up and down to avoid the multiple minimum concern, say 10 units. Establish a positive stop point as your progression reduces, say 3 units.

Finally, you need to apply it to a bet that truly approximates 50/50 (or at least has a house edge of less than 2%).

The strength of the d'Alembert progression seems to lie in the intermediate run (20 - 500 bets). In the extreme short run, anything can and will happen (read: streaks). In the long run, the law of large numbers comes into play and will almost assuredly crush the progression.

If applied intelligently to the correct bet, with the appropriate stops in place, it is very reasonable to expect a success rate of around 90% or better, which can be extremely profitable. It won't make you independently wealthy, nor will it break the casino, but it can provide a rather steady flow of considerable income.
supermaxhd
supermaxhd
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 95
Joined: Apr 22, 2012
June 5th, 2013 at 7:27:42 PM permalink
Quote: Alembert

The d'Alembert progression can be a very powerful and profitable tool if used effectively.

It is necessary to establish target win goals and proper bankroll size that you are willing to part with. Say a win goal of 200 units, bankroll of 1000 units. Start your progression at some set point that allows you to adjust both up and down to avoid the multiple minimum concern, say 10 units. Establish a positive stop point as your progression reduces, say 3 units.

Finally, you need to apply it to a bet that truly approximates 50/50 (or at least has a house edge of less than 2%).

The strength of the d'Alembert progression seems to lie in the intermediate run (20 - 500 bets). In the extreme short run, anything can and will happen (read: streaks). In the long run, the law of large numbers comes into play and will almost assuredly crush the progression.

If applied intelligently to the correct bet, with the appropriate stops in place, it is very reasonable to expect a success rate of around 90% or better, which can be extremely profitable. It won't make you independently wealthy, nor will it break the casino, but it can provide a rather steady flow of considerable income.



I think I will try this strategy. When I play I always bet on black. However every time I play roulette my evil twin from an alternate universe always shows up. He always only matches my bet (edit: same strategy) on red. He just tries to piss me off. Will we both be successful 90% of the time?
gambling problem? split tens!
Alembert
Alembert
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 57
Joined: Jan 14, 2013
June 5th, 2013 at 7:37:50 PM permalink
Quote: supermaxhd

I think I will try this strategy. When I play I always bet on black. However every time I play roulette my evil twin from an alternate universe always shows up. He always only matches my bet on red. He just tries to piss me off. Will we both be successful 90% of the time?



Vs. roulette with a double Zero, NO. You will both lose. Furthermore, if his bets always match your bets, then NO he would not enjoy the same success rate as you.

However, if you each take opposite sides of a 50/50 wager and run independent progressions, then yes I would expect both could anticipate a success rate around 90%, AND you could both expect to end up winning during the same session(s).
nezbit
nezbit
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 179
Joined: Apr 1, 2013
June 5th, 2013 at 9:01:14 PM permalink
This is an insta facepalm. Even kids...lolololololololol. as they say in football c'Mon man!!!
24Bingo
24Bingo
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
June 6th, 2013 at 2:23:48 AM permalink
So somehow the progression stops working if someone else is opposite-betting you with a similar progression? How does that work?
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.
Alembert
Alembert
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 57
Joined: Jan 14, 2013
June 6th, 2013 at 5:02:36 AM permalink
Obviously, I did not express myself clearly.

Opposite bettors on a 50/50 proposition can both expect to be successful IF they are running independent progressions. Given the concept of the Evil Twin that always just matches bets, then the evil twin's progression is not independent and will not be moving in the appropriate directions to take advantage of the progression. Given the evil twin is matching your bets, then his loss would equal your profit or vice versa.

Example: Coin Flip: 10 trials H H H T T H T T T H

Head bettor progression: 10 win, 9 win, 8 win, 7 lose, 8 lose, 9 win, 8 lose, 9 lose, 10 lose, 11 win.
Result: Win 47 units, lose 42 units, net 5 units profit.

Tail bettor progression: 10 lose, 11 lose, 12 lose, 13 win, 12 win, 11 lose, 12 win, 11 win, 10 win, 9 lose.
Result: Win 58 units, lose 53 units, net 5 units profit.

Notice, only very occasionally do the bets ever actually match value.
Zcore13
Zcore13
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3808
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
June 6th, 2013 at 10:38:23 AM permalink
This is quite funny. But assuming it's true, please tell me about a wager in the casino that you can use this system on that is 50/50?

Also, if you can not find one, and you are saying you can use this system on a game that is close to 50/50 and overcome the small house edge, please tell me about the game that has no table maximum, so that when a bad streak does come, the table max doesn't ruin your progression.

Thanks,

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
Buzzard
Buzzard
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
June 6th, 2013 at 11:40:40 AM permalink
Quote: 24Bingo

So somehow the progression stops working if someone else is opposite-betting you with a similar progression? How does that work?




It depends on who that other person is. Particularly if he is Statman oe EvenBob !
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
24Bingo
24Bingo
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
June 7th, 2013 at 3:06:38 AM permalink
Quote: Alembert

Notice, only very occasionally do the bets ever actually match value.



And that's the problem.

I see your system is a little different from mine, in that you start well above one unit, so that you can absorb quite a few wins in excess of losses. That's actually good, because under the assumption that your base bet, we'll call it x, is high enough that you never have to bet one unit (or even if you start betting the opposite in a similar positive progression), the math gets much simpler:

If your wins outstrip your losses, you will be ahead by (wins + (2*base bet - wins + losses - 1)*(wins-losses)/2).
If your losses outstrip your wins, you will be ahead if ((2*base bet + losses - wins + 1)*(losses-wins)/2) is less than your total number of losses, by the difference. You'll be behind by the difference if it's greater.
(And of course, if you have an equal number of wins and losses, that's what you'll be up by.)

Add it up and you'll find you break even.
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.
Alembert
Alembert
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 57
Joined: Jan 14, 2013
June 7th, 2013 at 4:53:54 AM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

This is quite funny. But assuming it's true, please tell me about a wager in the casino that you can use this system on that is 50/50?

Also, if you can not find one, and you are saying you can use this system on a game that is close to 50/50 and overcome the small house edge, please tell me about the game that has no table maximum, so that when a bad streak does come, the table max doesn't ruin your progression.

Thanks,

ZCore13




Moving from theoretical to practical application, table Maximum is almost irrelevant. If you are running off a finite bankroll that approximates 2 standard deviations your bets will never approach any tables maximum. The highest bet I have ever had to place (on my way to a losing session) was 350.

I have tinkered with playing against Pai Gow Poker, Bacarat, Craps
KingFX
KingFX
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 3
Joined: Sep 7, 2013
September 7th, 2013 at 7:10:44 AM permalink
There is a one by Martin Blakey.

  • Jump to: