Thread Rating:

## Poll

2 votes (20%) | |||

1 vote (10%) | |||

1 vote (10%) | |||

2 votes (20%) | |||

1 vote (10%) | |||

3 votes (30%) | |||

2 votes (20%) |

**10 members have voted**

NOTE: This thread not a recommendation or a winning system. It's debunking one.

Hi,

I have a betting system. it's amusing but totally worthless in terms of profitability. I commend it to you to dissect and bebunk. Try it if you like. It's fun and has limited downside. and unlimited upside

:o) Prove me wrong

And I actually do this for occasional amusement. This week I'm up over £1K ( System players always are at the time of publication)

RNG Blackjack online is my game of choice: House edge about 0.55% Playing good Basic Strategy.

OK. Online casino. Pop in £250 of credit.

Playing Blackjack at £5 or £10 as the mood takes me. Sometimes I flat bet sometimes I Marty with £2 base bet, That it is all academic. I play till I bust out or until I have reached £275. I will myself to hit that target and I usually do. Sometimes I say to myself, I'll pack up if I lose £200, but on the rare occasions where I'm that unlucky, I don't stop till I bust or recover. Heck, sometimes I recover.

Sometimes it bobs downward, but about 85% - 90% of the time I quickly reach my modest target of 10% profit

:o) Prove me wrong.

So, it was easy to reach £275

I set a new modest target £300 or bust...

Sometimes it bobs downward, but about 85% - 90% of the time I reach that modest target because, lets face it, £300 is closer and more likely than £0

:o) Prove me wrong.

So... £300 is only a short stroll to the next target of £330. That's my new target, far more likely to be hit than for me to crash and burn. I may up my max bet to £15 for added excitement but it's usually short lived as I breeze through to target. Sometimes a BJ or a double lurches me ahead :o)

Sometimes it bobs downward, but about 85% - 90% of the time I reach my new modest target

:o) Prove me wrong.

Rinse and repeat. Each new target is just about 10% above where I stand

Each new target is easily reached with 85%-90% probability.

If I bust out, I lick my wounds for a week and return with a new £250

If I don't bust out, I cash out when I have £750. I cash out often

:o) Prove me wrong.

I swear it;s amusing

.

Thank you for sharing. Most winners like to keep this sort of thing to themselves.

Quote:Sabretom2Hey, thanks buddy. I've been looking for a proven money maker for a long time.

Thank you for sharing. Most winners like to keep this sort of thing to themselves.

It's all about not being greedy. a 10% profit is easy to reach and likely to be achieved 85% - 90% of the time. I didn't make that bit up :o) You could even set a lower target for more certainty.

Quote:OnceDearIt's all about not being greedy. a 10% profit is easy to reach and likely to be achieved 85% - 90% of the time. I didn't make that bit up :o) You could even set a lower target for more certainty.

It's a bit of a step to say 85-90% of the time you'll reach your small profit, but even pretending that's correct, it's the other 10-15% of the time that you'll lose enough to lose that profit plus more.

You're short terming the "profits" and as you play more and more you'll reach your true EV of the game. In the short run there are many ups and downs. You're always leaving on an up, but that won't stop your overall bankroll and EV from caring about where you'll ultimately end up when you're 500,000 hands in.

AvgAdvantage = -.55%

AvgBet = $7.50 (mix of your $5 and $10 bets you said).

EV in any situation = (NumHands)*(AvgBet)*(HouseEdge)

Standard Deviation for 1 hand of blackjack is 1.1*AvgBet = 1.1*(7.50) = 8.25 ...so let's look at the math of your "system" and where you'll be at after X hands?

Hands | Expected Value | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|

1 |
-$0.04 |
$8.25 |

100 |
-$4.13 |
$82.50 |

1,000 |
-$41.25 |
$260.89 |

10,000 |
-$412.50 |
$825.00 |

100,000 |
-$4125.00 |
$2608.88 |

500,000 |
-$20625.00 |
$5833.63 |

This shows conclusively, that playing your "system" betting if you keep playing you WILL eventually lose. You will sucum to the natural house edge and EV of the game. After 500,000 hands (very doable for a part time blackjack player over their life), your EV is -$20,625... with a Standard Deviation of $5,833.63. This is one standard deviation (68% confidence). Even if we stretch this to 99.9% confidence with 3 Standard Deviations, that means you're going to be -$20,625 +- $17,500.89. So with 99.9% certainty the best you can possibly do is be down a few grand, and that's if you're lucky. If you're unlucky, you're going to be down $38k... Even at 100,000 hands you have a 95% chance of losing money.

The betting system never changes the house edge, thus you can never overcome it with any kind of betting. Card counting changes the house edge, which is why the game is beatable over time. This betting system you described can not, and will not, make ANY money over time. #math =)

no it does not show conclusivelyQuote:RomesThis shows conclusively, that playing your "system" betting if you keep playing you WILL eventually lose.

haha

all you did was post a bunch of numbers

numbers here and there...

so what?

are YOU saying

that the probability of showing a profit after 500k rounds = 0?

exactly 0?

this is what gambling experts, like Frank Scoblete, says and wants all to believe

it looks to me you are

you are , you are,

in that camp of you will ALWAYS lose the house edge (or be close to it)

this is so wrong

in other words

YUCK O!!!!

it must be right

given that a player DOES show a profit after 500K rounds played

what IS the average win given a win?

of course there is no average return from a lifetime of play over 500k rounds unless you due the math

x/1

thank you for sharing'

fun to see the world is still so messed up

and i had nothing to due with it

MullY

Quote:RomesIt's a bit of a step to say 85-90% of the time you'll reach your small profit, but even pretending that's correct, it's the other 10-15% of the time that you'll lose enough to lose that profit plus more.

You're short terming the "profits" and as you play more and more you'll reach your true EV of the game. In the short run there are many ups and downs. You're always leaving on an up, but that won't stop your overall bankroll and EV from caring about where you'll ultimately end up when you're 500,000 hands in.

Thanks Romes.

It is a bit of a step to say that 85%-90% probability applies to reaching bankroll+10% x bankroll. But I nonetheless assert that it is true, for what it is worth.

I bet you, or Mustang Sally, or I could prove it quickly enough, and I'm willing to try to prove it if no-one else cares to.

Even without mathematical proof or simulation, I'm confident that it's in the right ballpark based on my own experience and simulations. I believe that its very close to 90% probability, even with a house edge of 1%. Tricky to demonstrate from first principles, I'll grant you.

I've no other issue with your response except to say that it is not dumbed down enough for the noobies that we see here every day, and the large number of like minded noobies we've met recently.

I do have a reasonable understanding of standard deviation, but that goes 'whoosh' over the head of average noobie. I feel mostly justified in ignoring house edge in this instance, because it's tiny compared to the variance that I inevitably encounter. If you like, we can pretend that I applied my "winning system" to a sequence of fair coin tosses and we can debunk it from there..

This is an exercise in striking up a valid debate about progressive betting. I'm trying to show that it works to en extent where your objective is just a tiny percentage profit, and it fails if your objective is to multiply your starting bankroll by a significant number. Short term or long term does not come into it for me.

OK. I didn't lie in my assertion that each 10% goal was achievable about 85%-90% of the time. I didn't prove it either. I still assert that it's in the right ball park and will take the time to prove it soon enough. I assert that with Marty and base bet of £1 that it's probably far better than 85% for each goal and that 85% more than accommodates house edge..

But where I was totally (and deliberately) delusional was in demonstrating that I could repeat the good fortune time after time with impunity. That's where it all quickly goes pair shaped in reality.

Each step to the next target was dependent on not having crashed and burned the time before. Let's look at what's involved in reaching £750 (We'll call it £778 for neatness) from my initial £250

I'll modestly assert that each goal had 85% chance of success. I'll also calculate those 10%s more accurately. I will ignore house edge for now, but this debunking will hopefully tend to show that is not the big issue.

Probability of reaching goal 1 of £275= ( Approx ) 85% I could, instead, have bet my £250 on a single 1 in 11 fixed odds bet and either gained £25 or lost £250.

Probability of reaching goal 2 of £302= ( Approx ) 72% Because I have to multiply my probability of being this far by the probability of reaching next goal

Probability of reaching goal 3 of £332= ( Approx ) 61% ditto

Probability of reaching goal 4 of £365= ( Approx ) 52%

Probability of reaching goal 5 of £401= ( Approx ) 44%

Probability of reaching goal 6 of £441= ( Approx ) 38%

Probability of reaching goal 7 of £485= ( Approx ) 32%

OK. I already seem to have a far worse than 50% chance of (not quite) doubling my £250! A single coin toss would have been safer so far than these 7 steps.

Probability of reaching goal 8 of £533= ( Approx ) 27%

Probability of reaching goal 9 of £586= ( Approx ) 23%

Probability of reaching goal 10 of £644= ( Approx ) 20%

Probability of reaching goal 11 of £708= ( Approx ) 17%

Probability of reaching goal 12 of £778= ( Approx ) 14%

OK £778 is not exactly £750 but that's not the issue. Neither would be a fair or reasonable return on my 14% probability wagering session..

With all the pessimistic estimates so far, I got a crappy deal. By my own estimation, I stood a 14% chance of turning £250 into £778. That's rubbish value as wagers go, A 14% chance is like betting my original £250 on a 14% probability, or 1 in 7 fixed odds bet. But if I had bet on such a 14% bet, then there would have been two fair payments possible: £0 if the bet lost or 6*£250 plus my £250 stake back if I won. That's £1750 that I should have expected for such a win. My progressive betting gave bad value. I stood an estimated 100-14 = 86% chance of leaving with nothing.

The longer I play this system, the worse my chances get. As Romes would point out, the more I would also sacrifice in house edge.

It's simply not an 85% to 90% probability of reaching a higher target ( like £778 ) It's an ever diminishing chance.

Simple fact is that the longer I play, the greater my POSSIBLE winnings, but the greater my probability of crashing and burning. There is some middle ground, where target is very close to starting bankroll

If you have £250 and you NEED either £275 or £zero, then my system is for you. E.g. £25 short of the price of a flight out of a war zone, where not playing has the same deadly outcome as losing.

Now. Please feel free to improve on my own debunking. Simple as possible for the noobies out there.

Quote:Romes

Hands Expected Value Standard Deviation 1 -$0.04 $8.25 100 -$4.13 $82.50 1,000 -$41.25 $260.89 10,000 -$412.50 $825.00 100,000 -$4125.00 $2608.88 500,000 -$20625.00 $5833.63

I can pretty much guarantee that I would have met my £750 goal, or crashed and burned to zero well before reaching 1000 hands at £7.50 and that I'll be nowhere near EV of -£42 ( I do it in proper money :)

Quote:mustangsallyno it does not show conclusively

haha

all you did was post a bunch of numbers

numbers here and there...

LOL. Thanks Sally

Quote:mustangsally

given that a player DOES show a profit after 500K rounds played

what IS the average win given a win?

Quote:Romes

This betting system you described can not, and will not, make ANY money over time.

What about..... If I promise to quit betting after reaching goal 1 of £275, which I assert is 85% to 90% likely ? !!!

I assert that my average bankroll at that end point is either £0 or something greater than or equal to £275.

The average value of my bankroll at that time will never be anywhere between £0.01 and £274.99.

It CANNOT be, by definition. No maths required.

;o)

Kidding, just kidding..

Quote:TwoFeathersATLDid you figure in the comps in your totals, or was it just simply bankroll?

Kidding, just kidding..

LOL, I get 0.1% comps as cashback

Quote:OnceDearLOL, I get 0.1% comps as cashback

Did I hear that right? One tenth of 1% ?

Really?

Quote:TwoFeathersATLDid I hear that right? One tenth of 1% ?

Really?

Yes. that's right. through the comps points system I get 0.1% of what I stake (Action, not buy in) added to my account as unrestricted cash, even if I'm staking restricted bonus funds. The comp point system is useful for measuring how much action I've placed in any time slot and thus tells me how I'm doing with wagering requirements.

Do you think that's good, bad, or indifferent?

Quote:mustangsallyno it does not show conclusively

haha

all you did was post a bunch of numbers

numbers here and there...

so what?

are YOU saying

that the probability of showing a profit after 500k rounds = 0?

exactly 0?

this is what gambling experts, like Frank Scoblete, says and wants all to believe

it looks to me you are

you are , you are,

in that camp of you will ALWAYS lose the house edge (or be close to it)

this is so wrong

in other words

YUCK O!!!!

it must be right

given that a player DOES show a profit after 500K rounds played

what IS the average win given a win?

of course there is no average return from a lifetime of play over 500k rounds unless you due the math

x/1

thank you for sharing'

fun to see the world is still so messed up

and i had nothing to due with it

MullY

Can someone translate please?

Quote:mustangsallyno it does not show conclusively

haha

all you did was post a bunch of numbers

numbers here and there...

so what?

are YOU saying

that the probability of showing a profit after 500k rounds = 0?

exactly 0?

this is what gambling experts, like Frank Scoblete, says and wants all to believe

it looks to me you are

you are , you are,

in that camp of you will ALWAYS lose the house edge (or be close to it)

this is so wrong

in other words

YUCK O!!!!

it must be right

given that a player DOES show a profit after 500K rounds played

what IS the average win given a win?

of course there is no average return from a lifetime of play over 500k rounds unless you due the math

x/1

thank you for sharing'

fun to see the world is still so messed up

and i had nothing to due with it

MullY

Quote:DonutsCan someone translate please?

Sure...

All jokes aside I do respect Sally, but I find it quite hypocritical that I'm going to get called out for "throwing numbers around" when I clearly connected all the dots between the numbers and yet Sally (of all people) is more guilty of "throwing numbers around" sometimes than anyone I've ever seen on this board. If you can prove mathematically (not with a crazy sim where you could just be writing whatever numbers you want down) then I will concede because I'm not above mathematics.

Sally, if you'd like I'll program an open source simulation (that you can see the code with your eyes to ensure no cheating). I'll make a large wager with you that after $500k hands the simulation will show the player in the red 10 out of 10 times we run it. If you're going to say I'm wrong, try using mathematics and logic instead of poorly constructed sentences.

Your odds of reaching $750 before 1,000 hands with the "system" you laid out is very very unprobable. At 1,000 hands giving 3 SD's, thus with 99.9% certainty, the best you could do would be EV + 3(SD) = -41.25 + 3(260.89) = -41.25 + 782.55 = 741.30. You'd need a FOURTH SD to get to $750+, which is approaching impossibility (note at no point am I saying your chances are 'literally' zero, as sally tried to put those words in my mouth). However, it depends where you round... If you take 5 decimal places to be relevant and everything after to not be, then you could effectively 'round' to zero as your chances. This is another bet I'd take ;)... 1K hands I'll bet you that 10/10 times we run that through a sim you won't be up $750 or more... and you said "well before reaching 1000 hands." So let's say 750 hands? 500 hands? For your convenience I added the EV/SD of 500 hands ;).Quote:OnceDearQuote:Romes

Hands Expected Value Standard Deviation 1 -$0.04 $8.25 100 -$4.13 $82.50 500 -$20.63 $184.48 1,000 -$41.25 $260.89 10,000 -$412.50 $825.00 100,000 -$4125.00 $2608.88 500,000 -$20625.00 $5833.63

I can pretty much guarantee that I would have met my £750 goal, or crashed and burned to zero well before reaching 1000 hands at £7.50 and that I'll be nowhere near EV of -£42 ( I do it in proper money :)

EDIT - I hope EVERYONE see's this isn't a "system" at all. It's literally just playing blackjack at an average of $7.50 per hand. The game, your bankroll, your lifetime hands DO NOT CARE if you leave after making 10%, etc... At the end of your life you will have played X number of hands with an Average Bet of Y and a House Edge of Z. That's all you need to calculate EV. At no point in there is there ANYTHING about "leaving after 10% 3 days a week" or something like that. You are literally just playing BJ for $7.50/hand over X hands of your life. The EV is actually very, very easy to calculate.

i think these 3 gals canQuote:DonutsCan someone translate please?

wow!

HOT!!!

to sing and have the looks of talent!

the girl (!) on the left is a daughter of Telly Savalas

I kissed a girl and I liked it

the cherry chap stick that is

i love donuts 2 BIG TIME (all of them)

so do my hips and ass

Sally

Quote:Romes...If you can prove mathematically (not with a crazy sim where you could just be writing whatever numbers you want down) then I will concede because I'm not above mathematics.

... the simulation will show the player in the red 10 out of 10 times we run it. If you're going to say I'm wrong, try using mathematics and logic instead of poorly constructed sentences.

Hi Romes,

Please note from the outset, that I believe that you and I and Sally could use different methods to show the same results. I doubt any of us would deny the maths in any shape or style. We are not, IMHO in fundamental disagreement.

I don't think that was one of Sally's more eloquent replies, though. Sorry Sally.

Running your trials would very nearly almost certainly yield failure 10 times out of 10. A safe bet by you. No takers here. Hang on, what odds were you offering :) ?

Where I'm,possibly, slightly in disagreement with you is in the final assessment that Martingales and daft target betting systems like the one I offered are sure fire totally useless losers. Long term, of course they are, and long term may not be many wagers at all. BUT, if the objective is to increase a bankroll by a ( rather pointless) INsignificant proportion, then such systems have a high probability of success. Even very high probability of success. Of cause that is always countered by a low probability of massive and pointlessly devastating loss.

Where I believe that such systems are fundamentally bad/EVIL and ill advised is that they encourage a belief that one can win so consistently that it is possible, or in some way acceptably likely, that one can multiply his initial bankroll.

Note that I haven't mentioned house edge because for such low house edge as I'd gone up against, that was not very significant over the target number of wagers (subjective, true) compared to the compounding and growing risk of disaster.

Maybe we should reconsider my system up against a zero edge game:

With such a target betting system, or maybe a simple marty, over the long term of thousands of wagers, the expected value would amount to a push: Zero loss: Zero gain. But we all know that that is an average of (sum( many many zeros)+sum(a few big wins)/(number of trials).

The average is 1, but the median is sure as hell 0. The Min is 0 and extremely likely. The Max is unlimited unless the player quits or busts. High value wins become absurdly unlikely. Sure we all agree.

Silly progressives, can and do lead to profits most of the time where one sets a goal which is once only and proportionally tiny. Damned pointless in my opinion. Possibly amusing. A bit like a once in a lifetime massive sh1t or bust wager on 35 numbers on a roulette wheel. We could not tell such a bettor that he was sure to go bust because we would be wrong. If he then turns round and says that this is to be his only bet in the entire long term of his lifetime what could we say?

Best regards,

B

To clarify, the odds of you winning a positive amount of money in the short term is greater than losing money in the short term, but the amount you lose if you DO lose is enormous, which is why it's still a -EV play.

Hah, NO odds! =DQuote:OnceDear...Running your trials would very nearly almost certainly yield failure 10 times out of 10. A safe bet by you. No takers here. Hang on, what odds were you offering :) ?

I wasn't assessing the Martingale so much as your regular play (leave up 10%) you discussed. The martingale would VASTLY change your average bet, and therefor your short term variance/standard deviations. If you Marty from $10 and frequently get up to having $640 or $1280 on the table, your average bet will SHOOT WAY UP from $7.50 to who knows, something like $200. With this average bet your Standard Deviations would be wayyyyy bigger and thus it would be quite possible to be up a lot after a little amount of hands (though your EV would also skyrocket downward what you're looking for is the window of Standard Deviations because it would up that window). For a rough "educated" example... Say your EV after 500 hands goes from -$20 to -$1,000... but your SD goes from +- $180 to +- $3,000... Then it's quite possible for you to be up $2k in 500 hands (because your average bet is so much higher, jacking up your standard deviations).Quote:OnceDearWhere I'm,possibly, slightly in disagreement with you is in the final assessment that Martingales and daft target betting systems like the one I offered are sure fire totally useless losers. Long term, of course they are, and long term may not be many wagers at all. BUT, if the objective is to increase a bankroll by a ( rather pointless) INsignificant proportion, then such systems have a high probability of success. Even very high probability of success. Of cause that is always countered by a low probability of massive and pointlessly devastating loss.

Most flaws with people and marty system is they don't get you have to have an unlimited bankroll. Even on a zero edge game and a $5 starting level all it takes is a streak here or there until you get up to having massive money on the line. The number of trials is the only thing to consider. A streak of 15 in a short session is less likely. However if you're going to run 1,000 trials, then it's almost certain to happen... at that point you're going to lose 5+10+20+40+80+160+320+640+1280+2560+5120+12,400+24,800+49,600+99,200 = $196,235... and let's point out that this means you need to put up a $200k bet if you chose to continue. This is only in short order as well. Over the longer of the short term (10,000 hands) this will happen more than once or even more than a 15 streak. Even on a zero edge game the problem of bankroll and having enough, and a person whom will take "any bet" (i.e. no table limit) is another problem.Quote:OnceDearMaybe we should reconsider my system up against a zero edge game:

With such a target betting system, or maybe a simple marty, over the long term of thousands of wagers, the expected value would amount to a push: Zero loss: Zero gain. But we all know that that is an average of (sum( many many zeros)+sum(a few big wins)/(number of trials).

The average is 1, but the median is sure as hell 0. The Min is 0 and extremely likely. The Max is unlimited unless the player quits or busts. High value wins become absurdly unlikely. Sure we all agree.

I want to caution the verbiage used in this last paragraph. Progressives do not lead to profits "most" of the time. They will all lead to a bust, even in the short span of ONE NIGHT most of the time. I challenge you to find a $1 table of anything with a "50/50" bet and play marty on it for 3 hours one night with a $100 or $200 bankroll. More than not just from ONE night you'll bust. How many people do you know play a progressive, win $100 tonight, and never ever play the game again? They think "I did it once, I can do it again." The only time it would work is if you played it a small small handful of times, were up, and NEVER played the game again. In that case, why progressive since it's just luck anyways? Why not just bet huge and hope to get lucky on one hand?Quote:OnceDearSilly progressives, can and do lead to profits most of the time where one sets a goal which is once only and proportionally tiny. Damned pointless in my opinion. Possibly amusing. A bit like a once in a lifetime massive sh1t or bust wager on 35 numbers on a roulette wheel. We could not tell such a bettor that he was sure to go bust because we would be wrong. If he then turns round and says that this is to be his only bet in the entire long term of his lifetime what could we say?

Best regards,

B

Quote:RomesIf you Marty from $10 and frequently get up to having $640 or $1280 on the table, your average bet will SHOOT WAY UP from $7.50...Then it's quite possible for you to be up $2k in 500 hands

Cannot happen. If I lose my bankroll, I am out. If I have £750 I leave :o)

Quote:RomesMost flaws with people and marty system is they don't get you have to have an unlimited bankroll.

Really???? If the objective is to win £10, isn't a bankroll of £1000 very likely to be enough? Not for Certainty, of course, but enough to be confident of winning.

Quote:RomesI want to caution the verbiage used in this last paragraph. Progressives do not lead to profits "most" of the time. They will all lead to a bust,

'ALL' is a big word.

To keep playing is to guarantee failure.

To make each session bankroll $200 and to always go home at say, $250 or zero could be fun. Sure, your lifetime bankroll would go down.

Quote:OnceDear...To make each session bankroll $200 and to always go home at say, $250 or zero could be fun. Sure, your lifetime bankroll would go down.

That's the debunking sentence... "On average" every single time you play your lifetime bankroll goes down. It's called CE (Certainty Equivalent). Doesn't matter if you leave after making $10 each night. When you come back and play more you will dampen the variance and hit your EV, a losing EV.

I enjoyed your thought/thread and the lessons/approaches to debunk though. I hope a lot of people are learning from this!

Quote:RomesThat's the debunking sentence... "On average" every single time you play your lifetime bankroll goes down.

Tee Hee. Your long term average outcome will approach bankruptsy. Just make sure you don't play long enough for the long term to assert itself. No-one says you must or that you will.

Just like in russian roulette with 1 bullet in a six chamber gun, your long term outcome is probably death: Heck your medium term outcome is probably death too.

But over the short term of 1 shot at russian roulette, your outcome is alive 5 times more often than dead. Since life or death is quantized and cannot be fractional, on average, you would be alive after that one round.

If Life=1 and death=0 and we play to no decimal places

average = 5/6 = 1 = alive

Your pants would be full though. :)

Quote:RomesI enjoyed your thought/thread and the lessons/approaches to debunk though. I hope a lot of people are learning from this!

Great. I hope so too.

Quote:OnceDear

I can pretty much guarantee that I would have met my £750 goal, or crashed and burned to zero well before reaching 1000 hands at £7.50

Quote:Romes

Your odds of reaching $750 before 1,000 hands with the "system" you laid out is very very unprobable. At 1,000 hands giving 3 SD's, thus with 99.9% certainty, the best you could do would be EV + 3(SD) = -41.25 + 3(260.89) = -41.25 + 782.55 = 741.30. You'd need a FOURTH SD to get to $750+

I suspect that your maths might have made a certain assumption too many. It assumes 1000 hands. That is not a given. Could be well less. besides I said...

Quote:I can pretty much guarantee that I would have met my £750 goal, or crashed and burned to zero well before reaching 1000

My target was to only triple my money from £250 to £750. That's not likely, but it's not much of a stretch either. Only this week I turned £250 into £2000 with piddly £5 to £25 bets, just messing around. I'm not saying about what happened with previous sessions :)

Quote:romes... which is approaching impossibility...

I still assert that just with some messing around with bets of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and maybe the odd Marty in steps 2,4,6,8,reset... or some similar, typical play, I would have approximately 1 in 5 chance of getting from £250 to £750. Still rubbish, but not very, very improbable.

Of course, in the other four 'life-times' I'd bust out and lose my £250

Quote:romesEDIT - I hope EVERYONE see's this isn't a "system" at all.

Seconded. Just in case anyone thinks I'm advocating it as such.

Quote:OnceDear...I still assert that just with some messing around with bets of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and maybe the odd Marty in steps 2,4,6,8,reset... or some similar, typical play, I would have approximately 1 in 5 chance of getting from £250 to £750. Still rubbish, but not very, very improbable....

I disagree entirely from a mathematical stand point that any amount of "shuffling bet sizes" and "marty" would get youto a 1 in 5 chance in accordance to EV/ER. If it got you to a 1/5 chance that night, then it could get you to a 1/5 chance the next, etc, thus your "system" using the above would give you a 1/5, 20% chance, which according to my numbers even at 1,000 hands (a very small sampling size) is "near" impossible... I'm talking less than .001. No way you'd get anywhere near .2.

Quote:RomesQuote:OnceDear...I still assert that just with some messing around with bets of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and maybe the odd Marty in steps 2,4,6,8,reset... or some similar, typical play, I would have approximately 1 in 5 chance of getting from £250 to £750. Still rubbish, but not very, very improbable....

I disagree entirely from a mathematical stand point that any amount of "shuffling bet sizes" and "marty" would get youto a 1 in 5 chance in accordance to EV/ER. If it got you to a 1/5 chance that night, then it could get you to a 1/5 chance the next, etc, thus your "system" using the above would give you a 1/5, 20% chance, which according to my numbers even at 1,000 hands (a very small sampling size) is "near" impossible... I'm talking less than .001. No way you'd get anywhere near .2.

Sorry Romes. Your maths is wrong somewhere, or we are arguing different things... Or I'm an unusually lucky sod.

I can say that in my lurch from £250 to £2k, the initial wagers were mostly £50s till I reached £1K. Naturally, those bigger wagers gave much greater variance and Standard deviation, which fits in with your observation. Small bets would need more of them and bankroll would take a steadier path to ER.

I just rolled through my player history for the last three days (video available). Would you like me to show you by skype screen share? Would take maybe 10 minutes. there were many early 50 bets and some double ups. ( there was one bonus card of 100 ) I took a starting bankroll of 250.50 and took it to 2k of which I've now cashed out 1500. my skype address will be in pm.

Why should any betting scheme not have a 1/5 chance of tripling my money. the 'system' doesn't destroy EV on its own, does it? Only house edge was against me.

So we gotta figure out how much "steps" (going up 10%) we gotta do to turn $250 into $750. Okay, simple enough.

1) 250 * 1.1 = 275

2) 275 * 1.1 = 302.5

3) 302.5 * 1.1 = 332.75

4) 332.75 * 1.1 = 366.025

5) 366.025 * 1.1 = 402.6275

6) 402.6275 * 1.1 = 442.89025

7) 442.89025 * 1.1 = 487.179275

8) 487.179275 * 1.1 = 535.8972025

9) 535.8972025 * 1.1 = 589.48692275

10) 589.48692275 * 1.1 = 648.435615025

11) 648.435615025 * 1.1 = 713.279176528

12) 713.279176528 * 1.1 = 784.607094181

---- You never gave the % chance of increasing your current bankroll by 5%...so we'll just say you're shooting for 784 as your end up target. ----

So you gotta win your mini-session goal 12 times. Each mini-session (winning 10% of current BR) occurs 90% of the time. If you succeed, you win $534.607094181. If you lose, you lose $250. Ok.

0.9 ^ 12 = 0.28242953648 or 28.24% -- frequency of winning $534.607094181.

1 - 0.28242953648 = 0.71757046351 or 71.57% -- frequency of losing $250.

(Win% * Win$) - (Lose% * Lose$)

(0.28242953648 * 534.607094181) - (0.71757046351 * 250) =

Congrats on a losing system.

. LOL.

System:=

Turn large amount of money into zero money: Say nothing.

Repeat

Repeat

.

.

.

Repeat

Repeat

Turn small amount of money into large amount of money: Show how you did it.

Video evidence available to selected members.

Oncedear he say. Target betting and progressive betting 'systems' can 'succeed'. Shock, horror!

It's all about how you define 'succeed'.

Rome's having none of it.

Sally's stirring the pot.

All good clean fun.

At least one of the dice was a bloody two :o)

Quote:RS

1 - 0.28242953648 = 0.71757046351 or 71.57% -- frequency of losing $250.

(Win% * Win$) - (Lose% * Lose$)

(0.28242953648 * 534.607094181) - (0.71757046351 * 250) =-28.403782069

Congrats on a losing system.

Indeed I already did that very exercise earlier in the thread. it was buried in a spoiler. I used more conservative 85% chance at each goal and came up with an even worse 14% chance of success.

The daft thing is, I've actually done this successfully. Over the last three days I turned £250.50 into £2000 , including a £100 bonus card but excluding a few comp pounds. Seriously. I can happily share visibility of my wager history by skype. But I was playing for amusement and was absurdly lucky THIS TIME. Many previous times have comfortably negated this success, just as we should expect them to.

That's half of what I'm trying to illustrate. This ONLY works where you are risking massive loss for insignificant reward. To rinse/repeat for significant increase is doomed to fail 0.9x0.9x0.9x0.9 etc, etc........ tends towards zero chance in the long term.

But equally, I'm challenging those who COMPLETELY deny that a large wager on a likely outcome with a tiny reward and massive stake is indeed likely to succeed.

It's just that failure/loss would be devastating.

I would not advocate this for a second, because it was dumb luck and amusing play. I've had plenty of sessions losing my £250 buy in :o)

Quote:OnceDearReadi

....

At least one of the dice was a bloody two :o)

Aaaauuuggggghhhhhhhh!!!!! (Runs from the room screaming in horror)...lol

Quote:beachbumbabsAaaauuuggggghhhhhhhh!!!!! (Runs from the room screaming in horror)...lol

It's seeing AM's avatar that did it. Waking up screaming again. need therapy.

HIQuote:OnceDearHi,

I have a betting system. it's amusing but totally worthless in terms of profitability.

ok

so why read more?

looks like turning 250 into 275 is a blast

so cool

and a betting system is cool too

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

the chance that happens in a 0% HE game = 250/275 or close to 90.9%

no matter how you bet

at 91 out of 100 you win 25 = 2275

9 out of 100 you lose 250 = 2250 for a net profit of fun = 25 on average

but BJ has a HE so we round even lower

say you win 90 out of 100 at best

at 90 out of 100 you win 25 = 2250

10 out of 100 you lose 250 = 2500 for a net loss of fun = 250 on average

any number of average wins and losses can be calculated

I guess it is fun!

**********************************

I hope my Angel game goes to the official game status as I bet again BIG $$$ on the OVER at 9 runs

hope the rain stays away for a few hours more, off to Vegas to collect me winnings

i think

Sally

Quote:mustangsallyHI

ok

so why read more?

Promoting FUN. Debunking 'Hit and Run'

I wrote it for two reasons: There are always target bettors and streak bettors convinced that they could turn a modest bankroll into a huge bankroll just by targetbetting or Marty 'hit and run' or 'not getting greedy' I wanted to show such misguided folks why repeating such simple 10% victories is not helpful long term.

But I also wanted to confess that such (near) 90% probabilities do exist, as you have confirmed.

It all happened to coincide with me having a long winning streak myself where I turned £250.50 into what is so far £2100. ( I won another 100 with 1x£50 doubling hand yesterday while chasing a bonus opportunity)

It was and still is a fun way to win and lose money. I like fun and will surely lose the money back with just as much fun. The probability of having done it, when you have done it, is 100% :o)

Quote:sally

The chance that happens in a 0% HE game = 250/275 or close to 90.9%

no matter how you bet.

I love that formula and that fact. I don't think it's understood or used enough.

Absolutely best case probability of success = bankroll / (bankroll + target profit)

and that House edge reduces that probability.

Realistic probability of success = bankroll / (bankroll + target profit +( total action x house edge))

and that such a number, which is smaller than 1 is multiplied by itself at every mini-session.

I'm a bit annoyed at my winning streak as it defeated my argument against promoting this style of play.... Because it WAS fun.

Thanks.

Remember in this thread, I said that I had taken a £100 bonus card. The wagering requirements on those bonuses are rubbish, so I consider them expendable.

Well, after my winning streak, after withdrawing £1500 of my bankroll/account balance, I had £50 of real money and £450 of bonus money and restricted bonus winnings. I messed about with small £10 to £25 bets and about an hour ago was at £751.50 total. (701.50 is locked in bonus funds)

£750, I thought.... lets see if we can take that to £900. After all that stands a chance of very roughly 750/900 = 83% ( from my rule of thumb.

So... I decided £20 and then £50 flat bets.

.

.

.

Promptly found myself down to £251.50 Doh! I had actually passed through £900 I was getting my come-uppance and that EV was to prevail today.

.

.

.

How I wish I had started a screen grab.

£50 flat betting still, I clawed my way up to £801.50..... from £251.50...... And I have some comp pounds for that and have pushed towards those stupid wagering requirements.

I couldn't make this sh1t up :o) About to screen grab the last hour's betting record as evidence for y'all ( will edit this post to add link.)

http://www.oncedear.com/silly_run_of_luck_2.mp4

Don't try this at home !

I'm going for the Grand now. Screen grab will be on and I'll let you watch me hit goal (~80% probable) or crash and burn. :o)

.

.

.

Edit.... I Went for it.

I couldn't make this sh1t up: £801.50 to £1026.50 in ten wagers.

I know: I know: It's not sustainable and 'long term' I cannot end up ahead.

I'm going to reign it back now, to spin out the agony of my inevitable downfall.....

..... or shall I push on?

I actually have to push on, to meet the wagering requirements of that pesky £100 bonus card.

Remember: This started at just £250.50 and I'm now sat with £50 real cash balance, £1500.50 withdrawal in pending and £976.50 of restricted funds. Not bad for 3 days play.

All, total luck, of course. Normal variance which happened to favour me, this time.

.

.

.

Well £1250.50 is the next obvious target. What happens next ? :o)

Read the spoiler above. Use probability theory to predict what happens next. Really. What was likely to happen? What has happened.

If you're average bet was $50, or even higher if you were doing a mix of $50/$100 then of course (as you stated) it's going to jack up your EV (to a bigger loss) but more importantly your SD's so that you CAN in fact get to $1k or $2k or whatever it was you said. We were arguing different things I believe. I was referring to your original $7.50 bet saying there's no way in 1k hands with THAT average bet you could get to $750+ as it would be in the 4th SD out.

Quote:OnceDear

Don't try this at home !!!!!!!!

I'm going for the Grand now. Screen grab will be on and I'll let you watch me hit goal (~80% probable) or crash and burn. :o)

.

.

.

Edit.... I Went for it.http://www.oncedear.com/pushing_my_luck.mp4

I couldn't make this sh1t up: £801.50 to £1026.50 in ten wagers.

I know: I know: It's not sustainable and 'long term' I cannot end up ahead.

I'm going to reign it back now, to spin out the agony of my inevitable downfall.....

..... or shall I push on?

I actually have to push on, to meet the wagering requirements of that pesky £100 bonus card.

Remember: This started at just £250.50 and I'm now sat with £50 real cash balance, £1500.50 withdrawal in pending and £976.50 of restricted funds. Not bad for 3 days play.

All, total luck, of course. Normal variance which happened to favour me, this time.

.

.

.

Well £1250.50 is the next obvious target. What happens next ? :o)

Read the spoiler above. Use probability theory to predict what happens next. Really. What was likely to happen? What has happened.I don't want to tell you yet, but what followed involved a LOT of £50 flat bets and one tiny bet.

OMFG I don't believe it !!! I cannot wait for you to read and respond to the spoilers above.

So, I went for the grand from £801.50 breezed that in 10 bets.

So, then I was at 1026.50 and set the next target at 1250.50. After all, my rule of thumb said that objective stood (nearly) a 1026/1250=82% probability from where I was sitting.

That was a grueller. Flat betting £50, I bobbled between about £750 and £950 for very many bets and I thought 'No bl00dy chance' But, I eventually made it to £1250.00 A quick £2 wager and my objective of £1250.50 had been met with £1.50 to spare. I had £1252.00 as balance!

Bear in mind that is mostly being treated as restricted funds by the casino, because I'm still playing through the wagering requirements of that pesky bonus card. But hey-ho, I was now about half way through the stupid betting requirement. If I achieve that, all funds become unrestricted cash.

So what kind of idiot would set a new goal of £1500.00

.

.

.

.

.

Yup. What a plonker. I went for it. Upped my flat bet to £75. I have to get some action in to finish those wagering requirements, so what the heck.

.

.

.

.

Here's me trying to prove that I can't keep re-risking my bankroll because I'm multiplying fractional probability by fractional probability time after time.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I know it cannot work. I should not have got this far. this is bl00dy stupid.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

£1252.00 to £1500.00 flat betting £75. What were my chances. Rule of thumb anyone?

.

.

.

.

.

.

Well. You'll be pleased to hear that things really went bad. I mean REALLY bad. So bad in fact that I found myself heading south

That bad!

I knew that Those wagering requirements and my goal would soon be history. I was truly screwed.

.

.

.

.

.

Down 75

Down

Down

Down

Balance = £239.50

oh hum. Thank goodness the universe is doing as it should. It's such a relief.

Maybe fate had smiled on me and I'd met those wagering requirements. Maybe I was able to actually cash out these 239 pathetic pounds.

.

.

.

I checked my comp points to see.

.

.

.

So, I carried on flat betting at £75 to put myself out of my misery.

.

.

.

.

FFS!!!!!!!

.

My balance now stands at £1552.00 !!!!!!! ( No I hadn't topped up. I really REALLY did flat bet from £239.50 back up to £1552.00 )

And I've earned £30 in comp points !!!!!!!

Please. will somebody fix the universe. This aberration is ridiculous.

I invite Mike, Romes, RS or Sally to PM me for proof ( in as much as anything can be proved.)

It seems that in practice, I'm crap at debunking 'systems'.

Quote:RomesNow now, just because I'm not at my computer in the evenings doesn't mean I "want none of it" lol =).

We were arguing different things I believe.

I agree. I had muddied the waters in my excitement. It was only that I went back to betting history that I realised how much variance I'd unleashed with my mostly £50 bets. Sorry about any confusion. Your maths is fine, given the correct input.

Total action up to that time was 41484. So, I should have expected to lose 0.55% x 41484 =£228

Up to that time I'd won £2150.50 + £100 bonus card

by my rule of thumb

probability, ignoring house edge and ignoring bonus card =250.50/2400.50 = 10.4%

considering house edge as 0.55%

probability of success ~ 250.50/(2400.50 + 228) = 9.5%

That's over the whole exercise so far. But I play on till wagering requirement has been met on that bonus card, or until I bust out.

I'll be interested to see what Romes makes of that. I won't steal his thunder

.

.

.

.

Edit.

It's now session over. Either I busted out or I met the wagering requirement on that pesky bonus card

:o)

This never was a system. Just a means of playing. It far from went how I expected.

actually that is not accurate to use that way as variance again is left outQuote:OnceDearRealistic probability of success = bankroll / (bankroll + target profit +( total action x house edge))

and if it is accurate in some examples it is only by luck

there are formulas for house edge Risk of Ruin and Target hitting (Win Goal)

Alan Krigman had an Excel sheet that i updated (he is dead these days)

so here is a link to it in Google Docs

use sheet 1

https://goo.gl/J5KFzc

the more skewed the average bet (and variance) is the worse the results

simulations come in handy in that case

just an example

the survival values from the number of rounds is independent from RoR and Success meaning RoR/Success no matter the number of rounds played.

RoR/Success with a limit on rounds is another different formula

Sally

Quote:mustangsallyactually that is not accurate to use that way as variance again is left outQuote:OnceDearRealistic probability of success = bankroll / (bankroll + target profit +( total action x house edge))

and if it is accurate in some examples it is only by luck

Sally

Thank's Sally. I should have referred to that workbook.

Do you concur with my simple rule of thumb which I derived from the following first principles

My rule of thumb

Best probability of success, ignoring HE is (Initial bankroll)/(initial bankroll+ target profit) ?

I base this on the following two rules or assertions

'No betting system can improve the average return or average EV.'

'Fair rate of return on a wager with known probability is directly calculated from that probability and by implication, vice versa'

I add into the mix that 'no bet is made that can lead to exceed the goal'. IMHO That's important.

So the 'session' becomes equivalent to a single, fair, fixed odds wager.

I then modified the formula to approximately account for expected loss to the house advantage.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge. But I believe my rules of thumb to be workably realistic.

And I LOVE Variace. I would never neglect her, for she is the angel that allowed my £250.50 to end it's 3 day outing as

By Romes' assertion that was pretty darned lucky. We both estimate it as a >2SD event. Romes asserts that would have been extremely, almost impossibly unlikely if I'd used smaller bets than I did. I don't disagree with him on that.

Quote:lilredroosterThere is absolutely no doubt that you can make a small fortune with your system. But to do it you would have to start with a large fortune.

Indeed :o)

The safest way is always to start with a large fortune. If you have a large fortune, you would surely only play for amusement..... Or to p155 those naysayers who swear blind that 'target betting', 'progressive betting' and Marty will always leave you bankrupt in your lifetime.

If Bill gates played Marty from a $5 base and always walked out when he had won enough to buy dinner, how many days would he be able to do that, with 99% confidence of surviving I wonder?

There's a spreadsheet for that :o)

If I had a gazillion dollars, I'd make a point of sitting down next to a naysayer and martingale or system bet at $5 stakes just for fun. I'd keep saying ( about the long term ) 'Are we there yet'

:o)

Seriously though..... It wasn't meant to be proposed as a winning system. Just the opposite in fact. Sadly I won £3350 in the 3 days I did it. That wasn't supposed to happen.

Quote:RShttp://youtu.be/ds2YvLWVcbQ

Oh I know that and I'm not disagreeing for one second.

I suppose you are referring to Expected Value.

But I was damned unlucky to have completely not received expected value, probably because 3 days and some 1500 wagers does not qualify as 'in the long term'.

It's a sad fact that I increased my starting bankroll about fourteen-fold over the lifetime of the experiment.

That does not disprove anything that you, or Romes, or others are saying. I ended up in the tail end of the distribution curve where the sun was shining down on me and the birds were (ARE) singing..

It was unlikely at the outset. but the probability that I am in profit at this moment is 100%.

And from all this, I learned a few things, some mathematical and some not.

Thanks to Romes : If my wagers are relatively small, I'm going to tend to be closer to EV, and so, less likely to meet any win target. I stood a better chance of multiplying my bankroll by wagering substantially and less often. (50 rather than 5-10 ) Because fewer, larger bets broadens out and flatten out the distribution curve and less action exposes me to less house edge.

Again Thanks to Romes:-

Overall Standard Deviation = (wager count)^0.5 x (SD for one wager) * (wager size)

Thanks to Sally : There's that handy spreadsheet that I'd overlooked.

Thanks to fate : Empirical evidence supports my rule of thumb. Romes and yourself haven't disputed that yet to my satisfaction.

Thanks to experience : Remember to screen-grab when something interesting might happen.

Thanks to my current financial situation : Playing can be fun. Bankroll management 'systems' can be fun too.

Thanks to MangoJ in an unrelated thread :

"For that gambling purpose you should maximize variance as much as possible (for same EV), because it is the variance which gives the gambler the utility to play"

Thanks to post experiment wagering : Easy come, easy go :o)..... But not all of it.

It never was promoted as a winning system, short, medium or long term: Just a way to play for fun.

For clarity, I added this to the original post.

Edit ->>>

NOTE: This thread not a recommendation or a winning system. It's debunking one.

It shows that you can't use your results at this time scale as proof or disproof of a winning system.

It demonstrates nicely the fact that there is a results curve, and some people might win big even with a long term losing system.

That bugs me more than those who voted that I'm pants at statistics.

$:o)

Quote:OnceDearWhich muppet voted "I cannot see a flaw to this system"?

That bugs me more than those who voted that I'm pants at statistics.

$:o)

Just for the record, I have not voted. It shows I still have the option to vote.

I chose not to vote.