D'Alembert Success
No one has had overall "long term" success with it.
Quote: Walkinshaw30tHi just wondering if anyone here has had any overall long term success using D'Alambert progression?
Depends on what you're playing. A modified d'Alem
can be useful at times. If you're betting $10, go up
in $5 increments as you lose, instead of $10. If
you're staying around even on your wins and losses,
you can get ahead using this method sometimes.
$10-lose. $15-lose. $20-win. $15-win. Net profit, $10.
And you broke even on wins/losses.
Quote: Walkinshaw30tHi just wondering if anyone here has had any overall long term success using D'Alambert progression?
The answer is "no". Replace "here" with "anywhere in the history of the universe" and the answer is still "no". Just, "no".
Replace "long term" with "short term" and the answer is probably "yes".
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe answer is "no". Replace "here" with "anywhere in the history of the universe" and the answer is still "no". Just, "no".
Replace "long term" with "short term" and the answer is probably "yes".
Wow, nobody has ever won in the long run using D'Alambert. Nobody? I did not know that.....
Quote: treetopbuddyWow, nobody has ever won in the long run using D'Alambert. Nobody? I did not know that.....
Who cares about the long run when they're
playing, who even thinks about it. The casino
will only pay you on your current bet, that's
it. They won't pay you on bets you made
last week, or bets you make next week, they
only pay for the one that's out there right now.
Therefore, all your attention should be on that
bet. The long run will take care of itself.
Quote: treetopbuddyWow, nobody has ever won in the long run using D'Alambert. Nobody? I did not know that.....
Well, not at a negative expectation game. I suppose you could use a betting system like this when you have the edge, but, since the provably optimal system is rather well-known, that would be silly.
Maybe you are using a different definition of "long run" than I am though. Actually, by my definition, no one has ever played long enough to have "long run" results.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceActually, by my definition, no one has ever played long enough to have "long run" results.
You won't live long enough to be in the
long run betting. This is what I was saying
in the HE thread. You lose $100 in roulette
in 5 bets, the HE had nothing to do with
you losing that money. You can't play long
enough for the HE to have any real effects
on your bets.
Quote: EvenBobYou won't live long enough to be in the
long run betting. This is what I was saying
in the HE thread. You lose $100 in roulette
in 5 bets, the HE had nothing to do with
you losing that money. You can't play long
enough for the HE to have any real effects
on your bets.
The house edge doesn't affect your bet outcomes. It affects how much money you end up with. If there was no house edge, your winning bets would pay more, and your losing bets would lose less. You would be risking $18 to win $20 instead of risking $19 to win $19. After 100 of these bets, you would have an extra $100, regardless of how many you won or lost.
Quote: EvenBobYou can't play long
enough for the HE to have any real effects
on your bets.
False. The HE in sports betting is the vig money paid by opposing bets. Ask anyone who bets sports a lot, those -110's add up not only over +100's, but even over -105's. The edge in BJ that pay 6:5 instead of 3:2 is very noticeable.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe house edge doesn't affect your bet outcomes. It affects how much money you end up with. .
So you really think if you lose $100 in 5 bets
in roulette, it's because the HE prevented
you from being paid fairly? Seriously, you
really think that?
Quote: EvenBobSo you really think if you lose $100 in 5 bets
in roulette, it's because the HE prevented
you from being paid fairly? Seriously, you
really think that?
You realize house edge is just a measure of expectation. Just because variance exist in a game doesn't magically mean you are unaffected by the house edge.
Quote: TwirdmanJust because variance exist in a game doesn't magically mean you are unaffected by the house edge.
OK, how much was losing $100 if 5 bets in
roulette do to the unfair payouts of the HE?
Is this question too hard?
Quote: EvenBobSo you really think if you lose $100 in 5 bets
in roulette, it's because the HE prevented
you from being paid fairly? Seriously, you
really think that?
I know that for a fact.
Let's say that we are playing at the same table. I'm pretty charming, so the casino likes me, so they get rid of the house edge for me. I get paid 10:9 on my red/black bets. On the other hand they know you well enough to dislike you, but are still nice enough to give you the same even money odds on red or black that they give to everyone else. I try to convince them that they should only pay you 9:10 but I'm unsuccessful.
So, say you start betting $19 per spin on red or black. You win $19 for each win, and lose $19 for each loss. I left my bet-selection crystal ball at home, so I just make the same bets that you make, except I only bet $18 each spin. Of course I win $20 when I win.
Are you denying that, if we do this for 100 spins, I'll have $100 more than you at the end? You may get lucky and win, or unlucky and lose, but I'll still have $100 more than you. That $100 is the house edge. That's it; that's all there is to it. You may win or lose, but either way the house edge is screwing you out of an extra $100.
Quote: EvenBobOK, how much was losing $100 if 5 bets in
roulette do to the unfair payouts of the HE?
Is this question too hard?
It's really easy if you tell me how much you are betting.
If you bet $100 each spin, and you lost 3 and won 2, then the house edge cost you a little over $26.31. If not for the house edge, you would have been betting $94.7368 to win $105.2631 instead of just betting $100 to win $100. Instead of being down $100, you would have been down less than $74 (and, had you won, you would have won more too)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI know that for a fact.
Let's say that we are playing at the same table.
Nooooo, you don't get to cherry pick your
hypothetical bets to curve fit them into
your scenario. Five average ploppie
bets on the inside and outside, you really
think he lost $100 because of the HE?
The HE had no effect on those bets whatsoever,
if there was no HE he STILL would have lost.
Quote: EvenBobNooooo, you don't get to cherry pick your
hypothetical bets to curve fit them into
your scenario. Five average ploppie
bets on the inside and outside, you really
think he lost $100 because of the HE?
The HE had no effect on those bets whatsoever,
if there was no HE he STILL would have lost.
I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm just saying that if you can bet less to win more, you will do better.
But fine, let's say that you bet $100 per spin no matter what the payout is. Say you lose 3 and win 2.
If the payout is 1:1 you are down $100
If the payout is 10:9 you are down $77.77.
What is so hard to understand? The guy playing against the house edge walks away broke; the guy playing with no house edge walks out with $22 and change in his pocket.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI'm not cherry picking anything. .
lol, sure you are. You just did it again. Some guy
bets five times and loses all five bets, the HE had
zero effect on that. It has no effect on bets in
the short term. You're playing a game with no
winning bet selection, against an opponent that
has a bottomless BR & an endless amount of
time to wear you down with your poor bet
selections.
Quote: EvenBobThe HE had no effect on those bets whatsoever,
if there was no HE he STILL would have lost.
The house edge doesn't "have an effect" on bets. The edge is a property of a game itself, not of any specific bet on that game. The house edge on the Red bet in American roulette is -2/38 regardless of whether you bet $5 or $50,000, and regardless of whether the next spin is a red number, a black number, or a green one. In fact, the house edge on the Red bet would be is -2/38 even if Roulette had just been invented and nobody had ever played it before. I've done math on plenty of table games that have never seen the inside of a casino, but the edge is still there (or should have been).
Quote: EvenBoblol, sure you are. You just did it again. Some guy
bets five times and loses all five bets, the HE had
zero effect on that. It has no effect on bets in
the short term.
What if the guy had won one of the bets?
This isn't a short term vs long term thing. All that you're saying is that if someone loses every single bet that they ever make for their entire life, then it doesn't matter how much the bet would have paid had they won. And this statement is true. But it doesn't mean that the house edge doesn't affect you in the short term.
If you only had time to play 5 spins of roulette, and there were 2 tables with the same limits, but one paid even-money for red, and the other paid 1:2 for red (ie, win $50 for a $100 bet), which one would you choose? Why?
Quote: MathExtremistThe house edge doesn't "have an effect" on bets. The edge is a property of a game itself,
Nobody is arguing that. The problem is,
people think they lose because of the HE,
and they don't. They lose because of poor
BS and not enough money to stand against
the casinos bottomless vault of money.
Quote: treetopbuddyWow, nobody has ever won in the long run using D'Alambert. Nobody? I did not know that.....
I believe it was successfully combined with charting the dealer to break a casino in AC by John Patrick
Poor BS?Quote: EvenBobNobody is arguing that. The problem is,
people think they lose because of the HE,
and they don't. They lose because of poor
BS and not enough money to stand against
the casinos bottomless vault of money.
People lose because of many reasons, the most important one is HE. No amount of money or money management will give a player an advantage on a -EV situation. Some will win, most will lose. How fast you lose is the only thing you can try to control. The less bets you make the better.
Quote: AxelWolfPoor BS?
People lose because of many reasons, the most important one is HE. .
No, it's because of poor bet selection. Nobody
loses because of the HE. The edge is more
of a commission the casino charges, it's not the
reason they lose. You couldn't beat craps or
BJ or roulette if you played straight up against
the casino without them having an edge. They
would beat you down and take all your money
just like they do now.
Quote: EvenBobNo, it's because of poor bet selection. Nobody
loses because of the HE. The edge is more
of a commission the casino charges, it's not the
reason they lose. You couldn't beat craps or
BJ or roulette if you played straight up against
the casino without them having an edge. They
would beat you down and take all your money
just like they do now.
But, only in the long term, which you keep telling us doesn't matter.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceBut, only in the long term, which you keep telling us doesn't matter.
Poor BS and not a big enough BR is why
you lose in the extreme short term, the
HE has nothing to do with it. Watch
people play roulette. They buy in for a
hundred bucks and 7 spins later they're
gone. They would be gone if there
was no edge, that's a fact.
Quote: EvenBobPoor BS and not a big enough BR is why
you lose in the extreme short term, the
HE has nothing to do with it. Watch
people play roulette. They buy in for a
hundred bucks and 7 spins later they're
gone. They would be gone if there
was no edge, that's a fact.
I just find it amusing that you accidentally made one correct statement up above.
I don't get your strategy. Why not go into the casino only when you win, and stay home when things are against you?Quote: Dicenor33BS is at the core of winning and loosing. Every game is beatable if you increase your wins and flat bet when you loose. It's what separates winners from losers. You bet it all when things go your way and only part of your bankroll when things are against you.
Quote: Dicenor33Win, win, press. Now your pressed bet wins twice, and you press again. If your final bet is 15 times your original bet, than you can call yourself a gambling master.
I'm not sure if this would be funnier or less funny if I didn't think he was serious.
Quote: Dicenor33Win, win, press..
The way everybody played roulette 150
years ago in Eur, was the parley. By
pressing their winning bets, they could
make the BR last much longer and
never risk more than one unit of their
own money. Sometimes they got lucky.
Quote: kubikulannI don't get your strategy. Why not go into the casino only when you win, and stay home when things are against you?
No you simply have to choose a game where you can pick one of the only two options. Clearly you play baccarat and bet player when player will win and banker when banker will win. I leave the figuring of which is which as an exercise for the reader.
Quote: Walkinshaw30tHi just wondering if anyone here has had any overall long term success using D'Alambert progression?
Yes, systems sellers.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI just find it amusing that you accidentally made one correct statement up above.
Yeah,well. I'm sure you know if a player
could manage a good enough BS to stay
around even, he'd never lose a session.
Bac, for instance. If you could stay within
3 bets of even all the time, never have
winning or losing streaks, just wlwlwwll
wwwllwlwllw etc, you could use any neg
progression and always win ever session
you played. And the casino would still
have the edge. Where's your 'edge effects
every bet' theory in that scenario.
And don't think there aren't players doing
this, there are, and they're the casinos
worst nightmare. They don't cheat and they
don't have an edge, they're just very crafty
players.
Quote: EvenBobYeah,well. I'm sure you know if a player
could manage a good enough BS to stay
around even, he'd never lose a session.
Bac, for instance. If you could stay within
3 bets of even all the time, never have
winning or losing streaks, just wlwlwwll
wwwllwlwllw etc, you could use any neg
progression and always win ever session
you played. And the casino would still
have the edge. Where's your 'edge effects
every bet' theory in that scenario.
And don't think there aren't players doing
this, there are, and they're the casinos
worst nightmare. They don't cheat and they
don't have an edge, they're just very crafty
players.
Not this nonsense again
Quote: EvenBobYeah,well. I'm sure you know if a player
could manage a good enough BS to stay
around even, he'd never lose a session.
Bac, for instance. If you could stay within
3 bets of even all the time, never have
winning or losing streaks, just wlwlwwll
wwwllwlwllw etc, you could use any neg
progression and always win ever session
you played. And the casino would still
have the edge. Where's your 'edge effects
every bet' theory in that scenario.
And don't think there aren't players doing
this, there are, and they're the casinos
worst nightmare. They don't cheat and they
don't have an edge, they're just very crafty
players.
Your right and if I could just be constantly dealt winning hands on VP I'd be way ahead. What you are saying is vacuous. If you don't lose too much you won't lose too much. I mean unless you can find a shoe that guarantees the type of streaks you are talking about it is meaningless.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNot this nonsense again
Its hardly nonsense. Bac is basically a 50/50 game,
in the long run you'll have about as many wins as
losses. You just get good enough where you do
around 50/50 all the time, about as far from
nonsense as you can get.
Quote: EvenBob
Bac, for instance. If you could stay within
3 bets of even all the time, never have
winning or losing streaks, just wlwlwwll
wwwllwlwllw etc, you could use any neg
progression and always win ever session
you played. And the casino would still
have the edge. Where's your 'edge effects
every bet' theory in that scenario.
And don't think there aren't players doing
this, there are, and they're the casinos
worst nightmare. They don't cheat and they
don't have an edge, they're just very crafty
players.
Here is where the HE matters. Higher HE means less money at the end of the session BY DEFINITION. Now if you wish to move this argument to progression systems that shows the weakness in your original argument.
Quote: endermikeHere is where the HE matters. Higher HE means less money at the end of the session BY DEFINITION. Now if you wish to move this argument to progression systems that shows the weakness in your original argument.
No it doesn't. The whole point of bac is that it's
almost a 50/50 game. If you really do play close
to that, any progression handily wins every
session and the house still has the edge. I'm
sure you'll now say nobody can play around
50/50 in a 50/50 game.
However, the issue is that bac has HE around 1%. When they win half their bets (ignoring ties and adjusting for bank v. player) they end up with 99% of the money they gambled in that session. On the other hand, if they were paid less than what they currently are even money plus commission on banker, they WILL have less money at the end for the exact same bets than with the standard pays. If they were paid more than even money they would have more at the end for the same bets. This is indisputable an exactly how we consider HE.
If your response is anything related to feel for the shoe I know that you have no scientific/mathmatical (provable) backing to your opinion on this matter. It will simplify my responses.
Quote: EvenBobNo it doesn't. The whole point of bac is that it's
almost a 50/50 game. If you really do play close
to that, any progression handily wins every
session and the house still has the edge. I'm
sure you'll now say nobody can play around
50/50 in a 50/50 game.
Again though its not 50/50 its 46/45/9 so discount ties since no money changes hands then its a (50.55,49.45) game. Where the banker only pays .95 on a win. When you get that expected proposition then you are losing. I mean if we let ourselves be all fluffy and say well its almost 50/50 so your results should be about 50/50 then yeah it doesn't work out since in a 50/50 game that pays even money there is no house edge to fight against.
