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

TwoFeathersATL
TwoFeathersATL
Joined: May 22, 2013
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 3616
September 14th, 2015 at 7:17:44 PM permalink
Quote: OnceDear

LOL, I get 0.1% comps as cashback


Did I hear that right? One tenth of 1% ?
Really?
Youuuuuu MIGHT be a 'rascal' if.......(nevermind ;-)...2F
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 5386
September 15th, 2015 at 3:42:13 AM permalink
Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Did 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?
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
Donuts
Donuts
Joined: Oct 17, 2014
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 149
September 17th, 2015 at 10:29:29 AM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

no 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?
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 5506
September 17th, 2015 at 10:43:34 AM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

no 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: Donuts

Can 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.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 5506
September 17th, 2015 at 10:53:06 AM permalink
Quote: OnceDear

Quote: 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 :)

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 ;).

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.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
mustangsally
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
September 17th, 2015 at 11:15:27 AM permalink
Quote: Donuts

Can someone translate please?

i think these 3 gals can
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
I Heart Vi Hart
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 5386
September 17th, 2015 at 11:37:21 AM permalink
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
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
Donuts
Donuts
Joined: Oct 17, 2014
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 149
September 17th, 2015 at 11:52:26 AM permalink
Martingales will work most of the time in the short term, you're correct, but when it doesn't work you'll experience devastating losses. In the graph below, I illustrate what a martingale would look like over 100K hands with a $5 unit. You literally bet thousands of dollars to make back your $5 when you lose too many hands in a row.

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.

Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 5506
September 17th, 2015 at 12:13:32 PM permalink
Quote: 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 :) ?

Hah, NO odds! =D

Quote: OnceDear

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.

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: OnceDear

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.

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: OnceDear

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

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?
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 5386
September 17th, 2015 at 12:46:36 PM permalink
Quote: Romes

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...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: Romes

Most 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: Romes

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,



'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.
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.

  • Jump to: