Craps Strategy Investment Opportunity?
Quote: 98stepsI have developed a craps strategy that utilizes a combination of 0% wagers and systematic betting progressions. Thru fairly extensive testing it is trending at 95% effectiveness, winning between 500-800 (average win 700) on 19 out of 20 sessions, losing +/-4500 on the one session. I have tested my theories at home as well as on live tables. If a system is proven to be a consistant winner, is there anyone out there that would consider financing its operation?
I'll answer the specific question that was asked: yes, there is almost certainly someone out there who would consider that.
However, your chances of finding that someone on this site are essentially zero. That's because the persons frequenting this site are either a) persons who realize that every betting system ever devised with the goal of defeating a negative expectation game is a steaming pile of horsecrap, or b) persons who believe in such systems, and as a consequence, don't have any money to invest in YOUR system.
Quote: 98stepsI appreciate the suggestion Triplell, even sensing the sarcasm in your post. Regretfully, I do not have the means to run 1 billion sessions. I am seriously open to running a truly extensive testing of it, although I do not have the software necessary to do so. Is there any public domain software that could be utilized to test my theories?
Java/C/C++...or any programming language for that matter.
All you need is a random number generator and to understand the true odds and actual payoffs of the game. I could write you a program to test your system, would you be interested in funding this?
Quote: TriplellJava/C/C++...or any programming language for that matter.
All you need is a random number generator and to understand the true odds and actual payoffs of the game. I could write you a program to test your system, would you be interested in funding this?
Depending on the cost and accuracy, YES I would be. However, it may not be necessary. Thanks to the WizardofOdds website, I got directed to Michael Bluejay's System Challenge. I have offered to accept his challenge and am awaiting response from him.
Quote: 98stepsDepending on the cost and accuracy, YES I would be. However, it may not be necessary. Thanks to the WizardofOdds website, I got directed to Michael Bluejay's System Challenge. I have offered to accept his challenge and am awaiting response from him.
You won't actually accept his challenge; he will demand that you rigorously prove that your system is a winner, and you'll weasel out of the challenge in some way. This is a virtual certainty.
In the extremely unlikely event that you actually fulfill the terms of his challenge, and put up the $3,000, you are absolutely certain to lose.
Quote: mkl654321You won't actually accept his challenge; he will demand that you rigorously prove that your system is a winner, and you'll weasel out of the challenge in some way. This is a virtual certainty.
In the extremely unlikely event that you actually fulfill the terms of his challenge, and put up the $3,000, you are absolutely certain to lose.
Provided that he and I are able to come to agreement regarding the restraints to be applied to the challenge, i.e. odds, vig, and the application of my stop-loss requirements, I most certainly will accept his challenge. I will be accepting his challenge at the offered level of $1000 to $10,000.
I have every confidence that my system will bear out over the long run, provided that real world restraints are in place. It is my intention to use his $10,000 to bankroll my Vegas endeavers, and intend to publish my system in 1-3 years.
If my system is as effective as I project, I will win and have the money necessary to begin serious operations.
If my system proves to be a failure, losing the challenge will save me potentially many thousands of dollars.
Quote: 98stepsI view Bluejay's challenge as a huge opportunity and a win-win situation.
If my system is as effective as I project, I will win and have the money necessary to begin serious operations.
If my system proves to be a failure, losing the challenge will save me potentially many thousands of dollars.
That depends on if you actually accept his challenge, adhere to the conditions, and accept the result. However, I am certain that you won't do all of those things. It won't save you ANY money if you lose the challenge and then manage to convince yourself that your system is a "winner" anyway.
The reason I say that is that if you were inclined to accept the verdict of skilled and knowledgable mathematicians, you wouldn't have concocted your system in the first place--you would already have known that it was a fool's errand to do so.
About the Michael Bluejay challenge, I wouldn't hope for him accepting it, or even responding. He is very busy with other things and knows that such challenges almost never get off the ground.
Bluejay and I both know that after many hours of negotiating terms, when it comes time to put up the money the challenger almost always backs down. When I did my challenge about 100 people wasted my time in this manner, and just one person went through with it.
Quote: 98stepsI appreciate the suggestion Triplell, even sensing the sarcasm in your post. Regretfully, I do not have the means to run 1 billion sessions. I am seriously open to running a truly extensive testing of it, although I do not have the software necessary to do so. Is there any public domain software that could be utilized to test my theories?
WinCraps is shareware. Download it from Cloud City Software. It's highly worth paying the $19.95 license for - much cheaper than hiring someone to write a custom simulator.
Quote: WizardIs there some other forum where I can direct people to go to discuss betting systems? I'm getting sick of it turning this forum into a cesspool.
This subforum is called "Betting Systems". If you don't want that sort of discussion here, it's your site -- take down the subforum. Nobody will mind.
Quote: MathExtremistWinCraps is shareware. Download it from Cloud City Software. It's highly worth paying the $19.95 license for - much cheaper than hiring someone to write a custom simulator.
In order for one to run large "hyper-drive" simulations in Wincraps, you do need to pay the $19.95 for the license.
IF you do not know programming, this software is well worth the $20. One programs using English words and phrases, and that has its advantages. The software is only for Windows.
The site has many auto-bet files already made, and you can download them for free. Then find a bet file close to yours, adjust the bets and progressions and you have your system and its simulation results. It is worth the effort.
Test, not guess.
I'm pretty sure that failure to pay the Shareware fee turns the RNG into a very non-random one.
Quote: WizardIs there some other forum where I can direct people to go to discuss betting systems? I'm getting sick of it turning this forum into a cesspool.
About the Michael Bluejay challenge, I wouldn't hope for him accepting it, or even responding. He is very busy with other things and knows that such challenges almost never get off the ground. I think he expressed to me the intention to take down his challenge.
Bluejay and I both know that after many hours of negotiating terms, when it comes time to put up the money the challenger almost always backs down. When I did my challenge about 100 people wasted my time in this manner, and just one person went through with it.
Wizard- It is in no way my intention to turn your forum into a cesspool. If that is indeed your perception, I do apologize and will go elsewhere, all you need do is ask me.
In regards to Bluejay's challenge, I am indeed serious. I have read and re-read his rules and stipulations, and have no complaint over any of them. My only concerns would be that his programming allows me the same advantages over the game that I enjoy in Vegas.....Vig on Buy and Lay bets taken after wins and the ability to let my system dictate when any session ends. If he is not willing to even entertain serious challengers, is he justified in claiming that no one has ever taken up his offer?
Quote: MathExtremistWinCraps is shareware. Download it from Cloud City Software. It's highly worth paying the $19.95 license for - much cheaper than hiring someone to write a custom simulator.
MathExtremist- Thank you for your genuine input. I am NOT a computer programmer. I will be checking out this software today.
Quote: 7crapsQuote: MathExtremistWinCraps is shareware. Download it from Cloud City Software. It's highly worth paying the $19.95 license for - much cheaper than hiring someone to write a custom simulator.
In order for one to run large "hyper-drive" simulations in Wincraps, you do need to pay the $19.95 for the license.
IF you do not know programming, this software is well worth the $20. One programs using English words and phrases, and that has its advantages. The software is only for Windows.
The site has many auto-bet files already made, and you can download them for free. Then find a bet file close to yours, adjust the bets and progressions and you have your system and its simulation results. It is worth the effort.
Test, not guess.
7craps- thank you also for your serious input. I absolutely agree that it is worth the effort to Test. I have spent hundreds of hours testing my theories with dice, chips, pen and paper. If the software that you and Math Extremist have suggested is able to accomodate my progressions and stop-loss methods, then I will be purchasing it....regardless of weather Bluejay is willing to accept my challenge or not.
Quote: MathExtremistThis subforum is called "Betting Systems". If you don't want that sort of discussion here, it's your site -- take down the subforum. Nobody will mind.
Fair point. The reason I did that is I wanted to corral the betting system faithful into their own little sty. However, it is discouraging to see so much of the forum activity about that topic.
Quote: 98stepsWizard- It is in no way my intention to turn your forum into a cesspool. If that is indeed your perception, I do apologize and will go elsewhere, all you need do is ask me.
In regards to Bluejay's challenge, I am indeed serious. I have read and re-read his rules and stipulations, and have no complaint over any of them. My only concerns would be that his programming allows me the same advantages over the game that I enjoy in Vegas.....Vig on Buy and Lay bets taken after wins and the ability to let my system dictate when any session ends. If he is not willing to even entertain serious challengers, is he justified in claiming that no one has ever taken up his offer?
I appreciate the offer to leave if asked. At this point I'm not asking yet, because once I start down that road, I'll get caught up in requests to ban people for various reasons all the time.
I can't speak for Bluejay, but I'm sure using standard Vegas rules would not be the reason he refused the challenge.
Quote: 98steps7craps- thank you also for your serious input. I absolutely agree that it is worth the effort to Test. I have spent hundreds of hours testing my theories with dice, chips, pen and paper. If the software that you and Math Extremist have suggested is able to accomodate my progressions and stop-loss methods, then I will be purchasing it....regardless of weather Bluejay is willing to accept my challenge or not.
No, you misunderstand. I don't think your betting system is worth the effort to test, and I doubt 7craps thinks so either. Your craps betting system is a combination of individual wagers, none of which have a player advantage. (This is unlike card counting, which works precisely by betting more when there is a player advantage). The title of this thread is "investment opportunity". Each bet you make is a negative ROI investment. A $5 pass line bet has an average ROI of -$0.07, and every other bet on the table is worse (e.g. greater negative ROI). That's your prospectus. No serious investor would invest in that.
It reminds me of the old joke - the accountant was telling his boss that each product they sold resulted in a net loss. The boss replies, "sure we take a loss on every sale, but we make up for it in volume."
Quote: WizardFair point. The reason I did that is I wanted to corral the betting system faithful into their own little sty. However, it is discouraging to see so much of the forum activity about that topic.
I'd wager, no pun intended, that the faith of those who believe in betting systems is in some respects stronger than the faith of those who believe in their chosen deity. At least you can observe a betting system "working". And if you can't dissuade someone from believing in their deity, well, good luck trying to push someone off their faith in their system -- which *they* created, and therefore view less critically than they would otherwise.
I worked with a guy once who was formerly a hardware manager at Aristocrat, or maybe CDS. That didn't stop him from believing that he could spot patterns in roulette and profit from them. It takes a meaningful amount of training to condition one's perception *not* to intuitively believe in patterns or systems because we're hard-wired in precisely the opposite way. Human cognition is terrible at comprehending randomness.
Quote: MathExtremistI'd wager, no pun intended, that the faith of those who believe in betting systems is in some respects stronger than the faith of those who believe in their chosen deity.
I think the levels of faith in betting systems and a deity are about equally strong, because both are about equally absurd. As I've said many times, the more ridiculous a belief is, the more tenaciously it tends to be held.
I've know quite a few strong believers, and they saw evidence for their deity in everything. Say they prayed that the ball would land in red. If it did, praise god, he answered my prayer! If it didn't, then god works in mysterious ways, and he is building my character or punishing me for something.
Quote: WizardI've know quite a few strong believers, and they saw evidence for their deity in everything. Say they prayed that the ball would land in red. If it did, praise god, he answered my prayer! If it didn't, then god works in mysterious ways, and he is building my character or punishing me for something.
I can understand that. The premise, God, is irrational, but the subsequent reasoning is not. I mean, God is described as unkowable, so anything he does is beyond human comprehension. therefore anyhing at all, good or bad, can be an act of God.
But a betting system is far more limited. If it succeeds 11 times out of 10, that's just chance, but it can be seen as evidence that it works. However, if it works 20% of the time and fails 80%, it would take a lot of willful blindness to keep believeing it works.
Quote: MathExtremistNo, you misunderstand. I don't think your betting system is worth the effort to test, and I doubt 7craps thinks so either. Your craps betting system is a combination of individual wagers, none of which have a player advantage. (This is unlike card counting, which works precisely by betting more when there is a player advantage). The title of this thread is "investment opportunity". Each bet you make is a negative ROI investment. A $5 pass line bet has an average ROI of -$0.07, and every other bet on the table is worse (e.g. greater negative ROI). That's your prospectus. No serious investor would invest in that.
It reminds me of the old joke - the accountant was telling his boss that each product they sold resulted in a net loss. The boss replies, "sure we take a loss on every sale, but we make up for it in volume."
Perhaps I am mistaken, but the pass line bet is the only wager I utilize which has an inherent house edge. The 1.41% of the passline I consider to be a cost of doing business, overhead if you will. THe other wagers I incorporate are naturally 0% propositions, akin to a simple coin toss.
The odds wagers that the pass line allows me to take advantage of are truly 0% wagers. The Buy on 4/10 when used in tandem become another 50/50 proposition, with 6 ways to win and 6 ways to lose. The vig, if payed on winning wagers only, becomes another cost of doing business.
Is my math or my logic incorrect?
You've all seen the tee shirts: "We all have to believe in something... I believe I'll have another beer".
It doesn't really mean the wearer's primary belief in life is yet another beer, its simply an adopted attitude for festive occasions wherein a drink is available.
On a battlefield a soldier doesn't really think much about variance, he simply zigs and zags and each time hopes he chooses correctly knowing that he might as well go forward than be shot for cowardice. So he "trusts to his luck" and dwells not on his precise chances.
Usually a visit to a casino is a somewhat festive event and with the absurd phrase "its only money" ringing in his ears, he quaffs down his drink that he knows is not free and places his bet with chips that are really cheques and finds out if Lady Variance has smiled upon him favorably or not.
Just as he knows the drink is offered solely to induce him to engage in more risky betting, he knows the casino is not offering him any sort of sure thing. He knows he has no secret knowledge about that little white ball or those bouncing "bones". Its a question of hope. He hopes that he has some "system" that even if it doesn't quite work all the time will work that night! He hopes that Luck will be a Lady Tonight! The whole atmosphere is one of suspension of logic. He knows that the Tray Lizard is thinking about her high heels rather than about a night in the sack with him. He knows the drink is not likely to be a generous pour. He knows that next spin can be Red or Black or Green.
For some gamblers there seems to be a need to have a more persistent suspension of belief. There has to be some system. And he is the one who has discovered it. He alone will know rather than hope for a certain outcome. Well, its not much different at the gaming tables than at a battlefield or at a party. Beliefs are chosen and one situation represents strongly held and strongly expressed beliefs another situation allows a greater concern for validity, but in reality it is simply a matter of a plausible denial of reality.
Some are satisfied with a tee shirt's slogan. Some want a mathematical proof. Some want more mental comfort than is viewed as realistic. Well, good luck to them. For the others, good variance to them!
Quote: FleaStiffOn a battlefield a soldier doesn't really think much about variance, he simply zigs and zags and each time hopes he chooses correctly knowing that he might as well go forward than be shot for cowardice. So he "trusts to his luck" and dwells not on his precise chances.
There's a difference. A moving target is harder to hit than a stationary one. But a moving target that moves at a constant speed on a fixed course is easier to hit than one which varies its speed and course. So if a soldier can make his course sufficiently random, he makes it harder for the enemy to shoot him.
Quote: 98stepsPerhaps I am mistaken, but the pass line bet is the only wager I utilize which has an inherent house edge. The 1.41% of the passline I consider to be a cost of doing business, overhead if you will. THe other wagers I incorporate are naturally 0% propositions, akin to a simple coin toss.
The odds wagers that the pass line allows me to take advantage of are truly 0% wagers. The Buy on 4/10 when used in tandem become another 50/50 proposition, with 6 ways to win and 6 ways to lose. The vig, if payed on winning wagers only, becomes another cost of doing business.
Is my math or my logic incorrect?
Yes.
You acknowledge the cost of doing business yet admit that your expected profits when you exclude the cost of doing business is zero. In short, you have recognized costs but no recognized path to profit. That's not an attractive investment scenario.
But suppose you simply used a fair coin and wagered on "simple coin tosses" like you mention above. A savvy investor would never "invest" in a 50/50 chance with no expected profits. Given that, and given that you acknowledge your system has greater costs but no greater reward than the coin-flipping scenario, it would seem that any investor would be making a poor investment by funding your system.
Quote: MathExtremistYes.
You acknowledge the cost of doing business yet admit that your expected profits when you exclude the cost of doing business is zero. In short, you have recognized costs but no recognized path to profit. That's not an attractive investment scenario.
But suppose you simply used a fair coin and wagered on "simple coin tosses" like you mention above. A savvy investor would never "invest" in a 50/50 chance with no expected profits. Given that, and given that you acknowledge your system has greater costs but no greater reward than the coin-flipping scenario, it would seem that any investor would be making a poor investment by funding your system.
I acknowledge that over the long run, my wins vs. losses would approximate 50/50, not that profit would. Over 1000 such coin toss wagers, is it reasonable to anticipate approximately 500 wins and 500 losses?
Now suppose that I could move from a flat betting scenario (which would indeed be a losing proposition due to the cost of doing business), to a scenario where I could be fairly certain of wagering one more unit on every win than I wager on every loss. Assuming 50%, then would I be expecting profit of 500 units less the accumulated cost of doing business?
Quote: MathExtremist
I worked with a guy once who was formerly a hardware manager at Aristocrat, or maybe CDS. That didn't stop him from believing that he could spot patterns in roulette and profit from them. It takes a meaningful amount of training to condition one's perception *not* to intuitively believe in patterns or systems because we're hard-wired in precisely the opposite way. Human cognition is terrible at comprehending randomness.
That's the tragedy of the human condition--our technology has outrun our perceptive abilities. We have managed to construct a world which our primate brains are ill-equipped to comprehend.
The pattern-seeking behavior you mention is what keeps people buying racing forms and common stocks. It also grossly influences the behavior of our legislators, who now more than ever are desperately looking for patterns that they can follow, in their futile attempts to extricate us from the current mess.
The sad truth is that our brains will not be modified by evolution in nearly enough time to enable us to cope with the world we've created. As you say, rational thought requires both extensive training and a strong effort of the will. Most people are either disinclined or unable to make such an effort.
Quote: 98stepsThe vig, if payed on winning wagers only, becomes another cost of doing business.
Is my math or my logic incorrect?
Aren't you saying this yourself--that all your wagers are breakeven, with the exception of the pass line bet, which is a "cost"? So the logical expected result would be the sum of all the costs of your pass line wagers, +0 (the net effect of all your other wagers).
To use the business analogy, this would be like running a restaurant where the price of all the food, drinks, etc. you served exactly paid costs+overhead, i.e., no profit or loss, EXCEPT that you lost ten cents on every cup of coffee you served. Your loss at the end of the day would be (.10)(number of cups of coffee served). You would inexorably go broke, although the VOLUME of business and the amount of money you had on hand might obscure that fact for quite some time.
Quote: 98stepsNow suppose that I could move from a flat betting scenario (which would indeed be a losing proposition due to the cost of doing business)
You agree that flat betting is "indeed a losing proposition".
However, all betting systems are equivalent to multiple players flat betting at different wager levels and at different times. Each of them, by your admission, has a losing proposition. Combining their results won't change that.
Quote: SOOPOOYou use the words 'fairly certain'. My guess is you are using some form of Martingale system, which allows for many smaller wins and the rare huge loss. And over time.. the smaller wins add up to less than the fewer huge losses. In other words you may have a system that will win $100 99% of the time but lose $20000 1% of the time. I am guessing that the Wizards site wizardofodds.com probably addresses Martingale systems. If not there are many here who can chime in.
I do sincerely appreciate all of the reasoned and valuable input.
My progression has nothing to do with a Martingale, except in the sense that they are both negative progressions. THe martingale is a deviously deceptive progression as it exposes you to ridiculously large risk for minuscule gain.
The progression I am working with, on paper, reduces the exposure while increasing the potential returns.
Like all negative progressions, as you noted it allows for many smaller wins vs. 1 larger loss. My data suggests a profit of $700 95% of the time and a loss of $4500 5% of the time. +700(19) - 4500(1) = +8800
The obvious danger being that if it can lose 5% of the time, there is no law that will prevent that 1 in 20 chance from occuring in consecutive sessions (much like the possibility of 12 being rolled 2 or 3 times in a row)
The best way I can explain my progression would be: flip a coin 100 times, start from 5units on the first toss. If lose go up one unit. If win go down one unit. Over a large enough sample, the winners and losers will balance and you will show profit of 1/2 unit per toss. Is my logic sound? Where is the fallacy of this particular concept?
Quote: MathExtremistYou agree that flat betting is "indeed a losing proposition".
However, all betting systems are equivalent to multiple players flat betting at different wager levels and at different times. Each of them, by your admission, has a losing proposition. Combining their results won't change that.
Math Extremist- I have already developed a healthy respect for your logic and input, thank you. Can you please explain this idea, multiple flat bets, in more depth?
Quote: 98stepsThe best way I can explain my progression would be: flip a coin 100 times, start from 5units on the first toss. If lose go up one unit. If win go down one unit. Over a large enough sample, the winners and losers will balance and you will show profit of 1/2 unit per toss. Is my logic sound? Where is the fallacy of this particular concept?
Excellent. That's the d'Alembert system, named after the 18th century French mathematician and physician. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_le_Rond_d'Alembert
Quote: WikiPediad'Alembert is also famously known for incorrectly arguing in Croix ou Pile that the probability of a coin landing heads increased for every time that it came up tails. In gambling, the strategy of decreasing one's bet the more one wins and increasing one's bet the more one loses is therefore called the D'Alembert system, a type of martingale.
Quote: MathExtremistExcellent. That's the d'Alembert system, named after the 18th century French mathematician and physician. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_le_Rond_d'Alembert
Very interesting. Thank you. I guess unknowingly I am using a variation of D'Alembert, although I have never before now heard of it. And if wikipedia can be trusted, I was incorrect in stating that I do not use any variation of Martingale. Where can I find more detailed information regarding D'Alembert's work?
First off, I'm skeptical that paying the commission only on winning Lay bets is typical Vegas rules. On Buy bets? Maybe. On Lay bets? I doubt it. My Challenge terms state unequivocally that we use *standard* rules. Regarding Buy bets, the Wizard says on his Craps page, "I have heard of some casinos only charging on a win on the 5 and 9 too, but have never seen that with my own eyes." That doesn't sound very standard to me.
Now, there's still a house edge even if we used this special rule, so any challenge would still fail the billion-round test. But I'm still not inclined to accept the challenge anyway because the millisecond I allow a challenge with a non-standard rule, I open the floodgates to people banging on my mailbox wanting to challenge with atypical, exceptional player-favorable rules. I have enough of that already *without* ever having agreed to non-standard rules. My terms are *generous*. I allow single-zero in roulette, I allow a bet spread of a whopping 500 to 1 (how many mortals are capitalized to take advantage of that?), and I offer an incredible 10 to 1 odds, with a $3000 limit. And people *still* whine to me that they want more favorable rules. So in a word, no.
Now, if someone can convince me that paying a commission only on winning Lay bets is common, then I'll have to agree that the challenge is brought according to the terms and I'll accept. What would be fair, 8 out of the 74 casinos in Vegas offering that option?
But anyway, since 98steps' position is that he doesn't *know* whether his system really works and all he wants is a test, the challenge is the wrong way to go about it, because it's too expensive (to him). Instead of blowing $1000 on the challenge, he could pay $50 to $100 to a programmer to write a simulation -- which is *exactly* what I suggest on the challenge web page.
By the way, 98steps' assertion that he's making no-house-edge bets besides the pass line is wrong. When a bet pays true odds but you pay a commission when you win, the commission is the house edge.
Quote: WizardIs there some other forum where I can direct people to go to discuss betting systems? I'm getting sick of it turning this forum into a cesspool.
I get a kick out of how the Wizard responds to these things. It seems to be the one subject that not protected by the very liberal Wizard "free speech" policy.
As has already been mentioned, the program WinCraps can be customized to any betting scheme or system you can invent. In addition, it also allows you to customize all rules and all payouts. It recognizes trigger points, like was the last roll a winner, or a loser, or a hardway, or any other criteria you want to use. I play in Biloxi, where they do an automatic buy on the 5 and 9, vig only paid on the win, so my craps ideas use that payout. You can set your 6 and 8 to pay out 7.5:6 if you want. The program is VERY STRONG.
Quote: 98stepsI do sincerely appreciate all of the reasoned and valuable input.
My progression has nothing to do with a Martingale, except in the sense that they are both negative progressions. THe martingale is a deviously deceptive progression as it exposes you to ridiculously large risk for minuscule gain.
The progression I am working with, on paper, reduces the exposure while increasing the potential returns.
Like all negative progressions, as you noted it allows for many smaller wins vs. 1 larger loss. My data suggests a profit of $700 95% of the time and a loss of $4500 5% of the time. +700(19) - 4500(1) = +8800
The obvious danger being that if it can lose 5% of the time, there is no law that will prevent that 1 in 20 chance from occuring in consecutive sessions (much like the possibility of 12 being rolled 2 or 3 times in a row)
The best way I can explain my progression would be: flip a coin 100 times, start from 5units on the first toss. If lose go up one unit. If win go down one unit. Over a large enough sample, the winners and losers will balance and you will show profit of 1/2 unit per toss. Is my logic sound? Where is the fallacy of this particular concept?
Unfortunately, craps is not a coin flip. On the passline, the probability of winning is .4929. On buy and lay bets, the wins and losses are balanced by the payoffs, but you still have the vig to pay, regardless of whether it's collected only on a win or up front.
I am a retired "C" programmer, and I can simulate this, but I promise you that, no matter how high a percentage of winning sessions you get, the losing ones will over-balance them. Of course, if you play this system you can always hope that you have fewer of these losing sessions than the math suggests you will. OTOH, you could start off with one!
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, here I am.
First off, I'm skeptical that paying the commission only on winning Lay bets is typical Vegas rules. On Buy bets? Maybe. On Lay bets? I doubt it. My Challenge terms state unequivocally that we use *standard* rules. Regarding Buy bets, the Wizard says on his Craps page, "I have heard of some casinos only charging on a win on the 5 and 9 too, but have never seen that with my own eyes." That doesn't sound very standard to me.
Now, there's still a house edge even if we used this special rule, so any challenge would still fail the billion-round test. But I'm still not inclined to accept the challenge anyway because the millisecond I allow a challenge with a non-standard rule, I open the floodgates to people banging on my mailbox wanting to challenge with atypical, exceptional player-favorable rules. I have enough of that already *without* ever having agreed to non-standard rules. My terms are *generous*. I allow single-zero in roulette, I allow a bet spread of a whopping 500 to 1 (how many mortals are capitalized to take advantage of that?), and I offer an incredible 10 to 1 odds, with a $3000 limit. And people *still* whine to me that they want more favorable rules. So in a word, no.
Now, if someone can convince me that paying a commission only on winning Lay bets is common, then I'll have to agree that the challenge is brought according to the terms and I'll accept. What would be fair, 8 out of the 74 casinos in Vegas offering that option?
But anyway, since 98steps' position is that he doesn't *know* whether his system really works and all he wants is a test, the challenge is the wrong way to go about it, because it's too expensive (to him). Instead of blowing $1000 on the challenge, he could pay $50 to $100 to a programmer to write a simulation -- which is *exactly* what I suggest on the challenge web page.
By the way, 98steps' assertion that he's making no-house-edge bets besides the pass line is wrong. When a bet pays true odds but you pay a commission when you win, the commission is the house edge.
Michael-
Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.
As I stated previously, I would like to accept your challenge. My $1000 to win your $10,000.
In the terms of your challenge, you propose that my betting system cannot beat a game of craps (3-4-5 odds), as the player using standard Vegas rules over one billion random computer-simulated rounds. I apologize for previously misquoting you. My question here is what defines a round? One roll of the dice? One point? One shooter? Or one completed system session? I accept whichever definition of round you propose as the distinction between any of the options would be inconsequential over that large a sample, provided that the final session of the trial is allowed to complete once the 1 billion rounds have been run.
Despite being able to play with 10X odds (or better) at many Las Vegas casinos, I accept your offered 3-4-5 odds.
The rules regarding the payment of Vigorish on Buy and Lay bets is of great importance to the success of my system. When in Vegas, I would choose a table accordingly.
The payment of Vig only on winning Buy 4 or Buy 10 wagers is very common throughout Vegas. You will find this to be true on Buy bets of $20 or more at Binion's, the Gold Nugget, all Harrah's properties (including Rio, Bally's, Harrah's, Flamingo, Ceasar's, and Paris), the Wynn, all Station Properties (including Boulder Station, Santa Fe Station, Texas Station, Palace Station, and Sunset Station), Sam's Town and the Eastside Cannery. These are only some examples of locations of which I have knowledge. This is a necessary requirement for running my system.
I acknowledge that the Payment of Vig only on Winning Lay wagers is not as common. The Station Properties (8 Casinos) do offer this advantage to their players. I could confirm at least the 8 locations that you specify in your post, however, I am willing to surrender that point to you if it will help induce you to accept my challenge.
The only other considerations I would require in order to accept your challenge is regarding Bankroll Management. I accept your 500 - 1 bet spread, it is very generous and the full spread would never be required in the operation of my system. What is required by my system is the one advantage that every player has over every casino craps table, the ability to set win and loss limits. The billion rounds would necessarily need to be broken up into sessions, the end of each determined by my Bankroll management stop-loss points. A positive session being stopped when profits surpass $800, or when my primary wager reaches a plus 5 point. A losing session being terminated when losses surpass $4800. I would then stipulate a maximum # of rounds to be sat out (100 by the terms set forth in your challenge) before the next session begins.
With these stipulations in place, it is my contention that my system will indeed prove itself and win your challenge.
I am VERY serious about accepting your challenge. I only hope you are equally sincere in offering it.
Please let me know at your earliest convenience how you would like to proceed on this.
Sincerely,
Christiaan Krebs
98steps
By the way, the system test should not include any odds wagers at all, since the sum of all such wagers is +0. Large odds wagers would only serve to skew the results, without providing any meaningful data re the efficacy of the "system".
The bet size ranges should be restricted for a similar reason.
However, if you're really determined to proceed despite my warnings, then the rest of this message is about how we'd continue.
I'll trust you that you can indeed pay the vig on Buy and Lay bets only when you win at the casinos you mentioned. So unless someone corrects me on that count, you've satisfied the "typical Vegas rules" requirement.
A round of craps is universally defined as the resolution of a come-out roll (instant win, instant loss, making a point, or sevening out). However, Buy and Lay bets are independent of regular craps rounds, and since you intend to employ these bets, that muddies things a bit as to how we should count a round. It won't make any difference in the outcome (your system will will on lose no matter how we define a round), but you're right, we do need to nail down exactly what we're testing. My first inclination is to say that the resolution of *any* bet should constitute a round. So in theory you could complete multiple rounds through one come-out roll cycle by making various wagers. The problem there is that decreases the length of the trial, so the test would not be as robust as I initially imagined, especially since some bets are correlated. Still, even 333 million traditional craps rounds ought to be plenty. What does the community think about how we should measure a round for the 1 billion round requirement?
Once we've defined a round, and nobody has provided evidence that the rules you suggested aren't commonly available in Vegas, we would execute a contract, and deposit our respective sums in escrow with a mutually-agreed upon attorney who would also serve as judge. Then you'd provide me the system instructions, I'd write the simulation, and the judge would pay whomever wins.
By the way, the Wizard offered to hold the money in escrow and to serve as judge, but I assume you wouldn't agree to him given my relationship with him. However, if you do, he's my pick. He's honest and competent, and he understands the exact nature of the test and the wager.
mkl654321, odds wagers are allowed precisely because they're allowed in the casino. The whole point is to test a betting system that could be used in a casino, and you can certainly make odds bets in the casino. Yes, it lowers the house edge, but it doesn't eliminate it -- which is why any system will still fail a billion-round test. The bet spread is limited for the same reason: it's limited in the casino. My rules offer a 1-500 spread (not to be confused with Free Odds, which are limited to 3-4-5).
Christiaan said he's willing to wager $1000 against $10,000, but he started this whole thread to find investors, so maybe he'll wager $3000 against my $30,000 if enough people invest with him. But if you were suggesting that you wanted in on my side, absolutely not. This whole thing is already too much hassle for only $1000. I didn't put up the challenge in order to make money, I put it up in order to show to the world that betting systems can't win.
