## 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**

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