The Samonte System
Quote: pacomartin
When people say "betting systems don't work" technically they are saying that there is no reason why they should work.
When people (the Wizard, the sound forum members, ourself) say "betting systems don't work", they specifically mean that "no particular sequence of bets and/or wagers can alter the built-in house edge of the game". More particularly, you cannot transform a negative expectation game into a positive one.
As you can see, there are two loopholes.
1. If you mean "betting system" to signify something else, like card counting or outright cheating, etc.
2. If you mean "work" to signify something else, like reducing/increasing your variance or your probability of winning (regardless of the cost) or any other measure than house edge.
In those instances, the motto "betting systems don't work" may indeed be incorrect.
For positive expectation games, I have seen Wizard promote the Kelly Criterion, or Half-Kelly, depending on the circumstances and that is essentially a betting system. The difference is that it is a betting system applied to a positive expectation.
I read a "sample" of the Samonte system book. In the sample the author states that any system can't come out ahead if tested through millions of hands by computer. But he says his system is the only winning system available in his advertising. This just goes to show you the trickery of the guys selling systems. I do a good enough job losing money myself. I don't need to pay someone to tell me how to lose it lol.
Quote: Mission146Just for the record, Wizard refers to betting systems as, "Equally worthless," rather than simply stating that they don't work. His statement refers to the fact that no betting system will succeed in the, "Long run," in a negative expectation game and that betting systems do not change the house edge of the game.
For positive expectation games, I have seen Wizard promote the Kelly Criterion, or Half-Kelly, degpending on the circumstances and that is essentially a betting system. The difference is that it is a betting system applied to a positive expectation.
How long is the "Long Run" ? If each spin is random just how is it calculated with " Certainty " ?Aren't we just guessing ?About 80 years ago Keynes said that "in the Long Run we are all dead ". Must we wait until we are dead before we can tell with "Certainty " ?
Quote: scepticusHow long is the "Long Run" ? If each spin is random just how is it calculated with " Certainty " ?Aren't we just guessing ?About 80 years ago Keynes said that "in the Long Run we are all dead ". Must we wait until we are dead before we can tell with "Certainty " ?
Naturally, because the only certain things are death and taxes.
In terms of, "The long run," I think it's a somewhat subjective and inexact term. In the Wizard's case, I think he simply means that you would eventually lose everything if you play a negative expectation game long enough, and that can be said with certainty.
Variance does play a factor, however, so those games with extreme Variance are going to possibly take longer for someone to get to the point where a loss is all but guaranteed than other games. For example, if you start with a bankroll of $1,000 in Roulette betting $5/spin on Red, but then you do the same thing betting $5/spin on an individual number, the individual number bet has more Variance.
What you are going to see with the individual number bet is that some players are going to last significantly longer than anyone betting on Red, but at the same time, you're going to see more players also go down and lose all $1,000 within x spins (to a point) betting the single number compared to those just betting on red. For example, if you have 1,000,000 players all playing $5/spin on an individual number, if it goes 200 spins without hitting, then a player would be done:
(37/38)^200 = 0.004826424201587205 = 1/0.004826424201587205 = 1 in 207.1927286605149 = 1000000/207.1927286605149 = 4826.424201587205
So, 4826.424201587205 players are expected to fail within 200 spins, out of 1,000,000.
In contrast, playing Red, in 200 spins:
(20/38)^200 = 1.775332932931731e-56
In other words, not going to happen. Because it is not going to happen, the expected number of failures in 1,000,000 attempts will be extremely close to zero.
Anyway, this is what gambling systems do: They take a bet, or series of bets, and they change the way the results are going to be distributed.
For example, the Martingale owes its high rate of success in individual trials to the fact that the player is (potentially) betting a huge number of units all for a win of one unit.
However, there are other bets in which you could try to win one unit on a particular outcome with an even greater probability of success than even a seven-step Marty!!!
For example, let's look at the probability of losing seven decisions in a row on red:
(20/38)^7 = 0.01118728735197209 which means a 1-0.01118728735197209 = 0.988812712648028 or 98.8813% success rate.
But, let's take a look at tonight's FDU v. Iowa line from 5Dimes:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/lines
If you use this calculator:
http://sportility.net/oddsconverter/
The MoneyLine of -60000 implies a 99.83% probability of Iowa winning, if you lay the money.
The difference is that you will have to lay 60000/20 = $3,000 in order to profit $5 on a win while the Roulette Seven-Step Marty costs you $635 on a loss.
The Expected Return for Roulette, overall:
.988813 * 5 = 4.944065 - (.011187 * 635) = -2.1596800000000007 per Martingale run.
The Expected Return of your Sports bet:
5 * .9983 = 4.9915 - (.0017 * 3000) = -0.10849999999999937 per such a bet.
Usually Sports Betting carries a much higher HE that Roulette, I suppose not, in the case of this particular bet.
The point that I am making here is that all a betting system accomplishes is that it changes the distribution of your results. In the long-run, the results will still approach the House Edge of the game in question.
When the Wizard speaks of a system being, "Worthless," I tend to believe he means from a standpoint of Expected Return on a bet. Betting systems can also have a certain subjective value, depending on what you are trying to accomplish. For example, if you are going for a very small win with a high probability of success, then the Martingale is a system that may have value to you and the Reverse Martingale would be a terrible system. The opposite is true if you want to go for a huge win with a low probability of success.
As for variance, isn't this what the case for the Long Run is based on ?
The 2.7% disadvantage has to be overcome but ,each spin being random, wouldn't it still be difficult to win on a 36 numbered table with fair odds of 35 / 1 ? Toss a coin etc.. Even with a 2,7% advantage there would still be no guarantee of profit due to Random. Gambling is gambling is gambling.
I don't think there can be certainty in gambling so think the Wizard overstates his case.
Quote: scepticusWhat I am questioning, I suppose , is the assumption that because roulette has a negative expectation then we are certain to lose our bankroll. The reference to Keynes was meant to imply that the long run might not kick in until after we are dead.
I followed that. We don't know how long we are going to live, so we go with the next best thing, which is long-term expectation. You also have certain expectations over a finite number of bets, but other than people who only plan for a finite number of bets in their whole lives, the long-run expectation is what you go with because you don't know how many bets you'll make.
Someone could make a single bet, win, and refuse to ever bet again and that person will be a lifetime winner, but that's not really what's going on when you look at betting systems.
In fact, betting systems are benefitted in these simulations by way of there not being any artificial reduction of bankroll. What I mean is, people who want to use these betting systems are likely not trying to win money just for the sake of winning money, they're looking to do something with it. When they do something with the money they have won, they have less money to devote to the system which will increase the risk of ruin over whatever number of trials.
Quote:You seem to accept my point when you say" a loss is almost guaranteed ". This differs from a "certainty ".
As for variance, isn't this what the case for the Long Run is based on ?
Different bets, even with the same House Edge will have differing degrees of Variance.
Quote:The 2.7% disadvantage has to be overcome but ,each spin being random, wouldn't it still be difficult to win on a 36 numbered table with fair odds of 35 / 1 ? Toss a coin etc.. Even with a 2,7% advantage there would still be no guarantee of profit due to Random. Gambling is gambling is gambling.
I don't think there can be certainty in gambling so think the Wizard overstates his case.
It's not about certainty, it's about expectation, if losses were absolutely certain, nobody would gamble.
Roulette that pays fair odds has a long-term expectation of zero, but the Risk of Ruin will lie with the side that has an inferior bankroll. Eventually the side with an inferior bankroll, especially a greatly inferior bankroll, will often experience a swing that taps that side out, though that won't always be the case.
If you have the advantage, there can still be a Risk of Ruin without the bankroll to successfully realize your advantage.
"Expectation" I understand and accept.It's the "Certainty" I am opposed to because it encourages fundamentalism. This, in turn , leads to closed minds and situations where rational discussion is impossible .
Many people gamble on all sorts of things and should be encouraged to take odds on offer into consideration when making their bets. Telling them that they can only lose -even in the Long Term - leads them to the view that only "Luck " matters .
Incidentally, being from an older generation and not up to speed in these things , how did you manage to put your selected quotations in "blue " ?
Thanks.
It is fundamentally true that in American roulette, there is NO WAY to reduce the house edge regardless of your bet selection, money management or past results. This is the point being made and this fundamental truth applies to all casino games (barring of course games where a player may find an advantage through various means - collusion, hole carding, counting and so on...). Of course it is possible to win money at roulette, or any casino game for that matter, and it happens every day in casinos around the world. The fact is these wins are happening against the odds. No matter what number you might choose on the roulette layout, the odds of hitting that number remain a constant 38/1 and the payout remains a constant 35/1. If your number hits, you will always be paid less than fair odds.Quote: scepticusHi Mission
"Expectation" I understand and accept.It's the "Certainty" I am opposed to because it encourages fundamentalism. This, in turn , leads to closed minds and situations where rational discussion is impossible .
Many people gamble on all sorts of things and should be encouraged to take odds on offer into consideration when making their bets. Telling them that they can only lose -even in the Long Term - leads them to the view that only "Luck " matters .
Incidentally, being from an older generation and not up to speed in these things , how did you manage to put your selected quotations in "blue " ?
Thanks.
Every game is the same - either the house is more likely to win the event or you are paid less than fair odds - the casino has a built in house advantage that cannot be overcome in any one event. This gives the player a negative expectation for every unique event and therefore it matters not how the player chooses to combine these unique events, he will always be at a disadvantage.
This, scepticus, is the certainty. The certainty that although you may from time to time defy the odds of the game due to variance, you will ALWAYS be at this same disadvantage, no matter what you do.
He'll be releasing Samonte .2 early 2014 which will be free to WoV members. Yes, you heard me right. Again, he is very thankful for the forums support for the groundbreaking work that was done in the original Samonte system.
I'll keep the forum updated.
Quote: BuzzardIf you fly to the Philippines, do not carry any cash. You are definitely on the FEDS " NO FLY " list.
Yeah, I know....hence telephone conversations. I'm on the "no nothing" list.
Quote: BuzzardHave you been going over past tax returns ? the FEDS have, believe me!
Do you think your telling me something I don't know? I'm a sitting duck. Easy target.
Quote: scepticusWhat I am questioning, I suppose , is the assumption that because roulette has a negative expectation then we are certain to lose our bankroll. The reference to Keynes was meant to imply that the long run might not kick in until after we are dead. The maths indicate that we can expect to lose our bankroll in some unspecified "Long Run" but an expectation is not the same as a certainty as many in the finance industry found out. Long Term Capital Management was a classic example of this - and that human failings are the main cause of financial loss. You seem to accept my point when you say" a loss is almost guaranteed ". This differs from a "certainty ".
As for variance, isn't this what the case for the Long Run is based on ?
The 2.7% disadvantage has to be overcome but ,each spin being random, wouldn't it still be difficult to win on a 36 numbered table with fair odds of 35 / 1 ? Toss a coin etc.. Even with a 2,7% advantage there would still be no guarantee of profit due to Random. Gambling is gambling is gambling.
I don't think there can be certainty in gambling so think the Wizard overstates his case.
I'm glad to see someone else who has read LTCM.
Are you aware of the Bear Sterns/Lehman connection?
How about BCCI?
