mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
• Posts: 3412
October 23rd, 2010 at 12:25:54 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

First, the billion-round requirement just begs people to protest that their system can work in the short-term of a lifetime but not for a billion rounds of a computer sim. So I'm thinking of saying that we run the sim for the same number of rounds you could play in a "lifetime" -- 10 hours (for a weekend trip) x 20 weeks a year x 30 years. And because sometimes the sim might show a profit and sometimes it might show a loss for such a small sample, we run that lifetime test 1000 times and take the average Yes, it's really no different from running a gazillion rounds all at once, but for folks who don't get that, maybe this will remove their objection.

What does everyone think of these changes?

There's a chain of logic that already existed: you never needed to run ANY "rounds" of a simulation to prove that the (or any) system doesn't work. The math (second-grade elementary school math, at that) already shows that. Therefore, the number of trials you choose is unimportant, in terms of provenance. If you choose a small enough number that it reflects a person's "real world" experience, you risk skewing the results. There is an increasing danger, as the number of trials decreases, of an anomalous outcome. Of course, this mirrors the real-life experience of the person who "always wins at craps!!!!"---and maybe he does. The statistician shrugs at this. The player writes and sells a book.

Conversely, if you run a large enough simulation to flatten out the results, it will be looked at by someone like 98steps as "unrealistic". It all comes back to definitions and terminology. What is a "winning system"? If you say, "a system that CAN win" or "sometimes DOES win" or some other such dissembly, the whole debate becomes GIGO. Unless you do something like bet the Pass and Don't Pass simultaneously, just about every system can and does win SOME of the time--even if that systme is "always bet the hard ten". So the only "proof" would be "shows a consistent profit over a timespan long enough to rule out the effects of random fluctuation"--a fact which 98steps, and his predecessors, 97steps, 96steps, 95steps, etc. have uniformly failed to acknowledge.

So I guess I'm saying that the changes make sense, but they were never necessary in the first place. You won't affect the POV of those who know there's no such thing as a viable craps system, and likewise, you won't budge the convictions of the faithful by one micron--no matter how you tweak things. The thing you have to realize is that the protestations of 98steps and other system advocates are NOT based on your methodology---that is only a PRETEXT. Like someone trying to come up with a logical proof for the nonexistence of God, you are attempting to counter FAITH with REASON. It doesn't matter how elegant your proofs are--the faithful will just cover their ears and go "LALALALALICANTHEARYOU" until you give up and go away.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
• Posts: 3412
October 23rd, 2010 at 12:33:06 PM permalink
Quote: RonC

I think the Wizard and Mr. Bluejay have both been very straightforward in their practice of discouraging challengers from"wasting" money on the challenge. The only way to beat a game over the long haul is to have the mathematical advantage. All of us hit upon a "system" that "works" for a session or two (or maybe more) but the casino's advantage (they have more chips, more time, and the math on their side, too) will eventually get us.

So...while card counters may make money because they have a mathematical advantage, how would any system ever beat a game where the casino has the edge over the long haul? The thing is that one person "might" have the random aspects of the game fall their way much more often than another betting the same way at a different time and they could get the impression that their "system" or "pattern" is a winner. Not so fast...a "system" is not "beating the casino" UNLESS everyone that plays it correctly can beat the casino. How the heck do you simulate that?

That shows why "results" are a terrible way to assess the efficacy of a system, method, etc. The card counter does not, in fact, know whether his particular set of outcomes came about because of his skill level, the power of his system, or simply random fluctuation. Similarly, the ploppie who has a big winning session doesn't know if he played the game "correctly" or he just got lucky. Because our lives are finite, we don't have the ability to produce a mathematically significant number of decisions (enough to rule out fluctuation as the primary determinant of our results).

Referring to "everyone CAN beat the casino"--well, that's true with or without a system. The real question is whether a person CAN BE EXPECTED to beat the casino---just like the casino "expects" to win a given hand of blackjack. In a random set of outcomes, "expectation" is all we have as an assessment tool. But those who generally leave their brains in the glove compartment aren't satisfied with such an "ambiguous" concept---to them, either it "works" or it doesn't.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
• Posts: 800
October 23rd, 2010 at 5:27:43 PM permalink
(The contents of this post have been moved to a new thread.)
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
• Posts: 2501
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:20:11 PM permalink
I'm not sure a Bankroll limit on a session is appropriate, however, if you insist on having one, it needs to be 100,000 or so. There are some whales that would have that as a bankroll, so they should not be excluded. Also, Vegas does not limit the amount you can bring to the table, so neither should you. The rules of the game (in the form of a max bet) have the limiting affect. If my system is to martingale my losses, the only thing that should stop that is the table limits. JMHO
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
• Posts: 800
October 23rd, 2010 at 11:26:40 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

I'm not sure a Bankroll limit on a session is appropriate, however, if you insist on having one...

It's not a session bankroll, it's a lifetime bankroll.

Also, I think you're missing the whole point of the challenge. It's to disprove the run-of-the-mill claims that someone has a winning system -- especially ones that are being *sold* as winning systems. Have you ever heard of a system seller saying, "I've got this great system I can sell you, but it requires a \$100,000 bankroll"? Anyone who's got that kind of cash lying around is already wealthy and has no need for a winning betting system.

This does bring up a good point, though. For betting systems that are sold, how much of a starting bankroll do the sellers claim is required? Here's what I could dig up, which wasn't much. This leads me to believe that the \$3000 I'm thinking of specifying is generous. What other system bankroll requirements can you all find?

* \$29(!): http://www.angelfire.com/ca/rskubic/ (\$25 cost)
* \$50(!): http://www.gambling-systems.com/roulette.html (\$35 cost)

* \$500 per session (total not specified): http://www.68crapsstrategy.com/ (\$68 cost)
* 20 units per session (total not specified): http://www.kanzen.com/system.html (\$30 cost)

* "Very small bankroll" http://www.spin4profits.com/ (\$47 cost)
* Not specified: https://ssl4.westserver.net/gambling-systems.com/order.html (\$20 cost)
* Not specified: http://www.maxprofit.ws/ (\$47 cost)
* Not specified: http://www.roulettekiller.com/ (\$49.95 cost)
* Not specified: http://www.davelessnau.com/ (\$94 cost)
* Not specified: http://www.thedoverpro.com/craps.htm (\$9.95 cost)

As a side note, the purveyors of these systems should really be prosecuted for fraud. Years ago I wrote to one Attorney General about a system seller, and the Wizard offered to be an expert witness, but I never heard back from the AG's office. I think the take away is that the government is willing to tolerate small-scale crooks.
98steps
Joined: Sep 14, 2010
• Posts: 119
October 24th, 2010 at 7:13:05 AM permalink
Progress Update.....

Two sessions on Saturday. One Easy, never used more than \$100 of bankroll. One a 12 hour freezeout that went deep. All in all a successful day. I am taking Sunday OFF.

October 23. 1:30pm - 4:30pm. Eastside Cannery, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings \$153.
October 23. 5:45pm - 5:30am. Boulder Station, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings \$175.
atlarson
Joined: Oct 13, 2010
• Posts: 9
October 24th, 2010 at 8:17:51 AM permalink
Quote: 98steps

Two sessions on Saturday. One Easy, never used more than \$100 of bankroll. One a 12 hour freezeout that went deep. All in all a successful day. I am taking Sunday OFF.

October 23. 1:30pm - 4:30pm. Eastside Cannery, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings \$153.
October 23. 5:45pm - 5:30am. Boulder Station, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings \$175.

If you quit when you win \$150, or when you lose \$5000, then ignoring the house edge (which cuts in, but not too much if you're careful) you expect to win about 97% of your sessions. So on average, you'll have about 34 sessions before you lose it all. So we're all going to be here for a while, unless you're unlucky.

It would be great if you could answer my question about what part of the math you disagree with, or the Wizard's about the central limit theorem, and why it doesn't apply here.
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
• Posts: 2349
October 24th, 2010 at 8:40:54 AM permalink
Quote: atlarson

So on average, you'll have about 34 sessions before you lose it all. So we're all going to be here for a while, unless you're unlucky.

It would be great if you could answer my question about what part of the math you disagree with, or the Wizard's about the central limit theorem, and why it doesn't apply here.

He is just planning on getting out after 33 sessions ("short run", remember?) ... and then staring over
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
October 24th, 2010 at 7:57:53 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

As a side note, the purveyors of these systems should really be prosecuted for fraud. Years ago I wrote to one Attorney General about a system seller, and the Wizard offered to be an expert witness, but I never heard back from the AG's office. I think the take away is that the government is willing to tolerate small-scale crooks.

A couple of things on this. First, fraud requires intentional misrepresentation. Nobody here (a group of gambling hobbyists, some highly-educated) has been able to convince 98steps that he's intentionally misrepresented his system to his investors. The average AG or DA would have at least as difficult a time with the typical system salesperson[1]. Second, the amount of money involved can't possibly be worth going after relative to the costs of running a prosecution, or even from a public policy standpoint. I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying for the prosecution of gambling system sellers when they're better used going after child traffickers and meth labs. Sometimes, you just have to accept "caveat emptor".

[1] I'm admittedly not an attorney, and I wonder if there's any caselaw on fraud where the seller through his ignorance believes in a product's efficacy even though it can be objectively demonstrated not to work.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
• Posts: 3412
October 24th, 2010 at 8:08:30 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

A couple of things on this. First, fraud requires intentional misrepresentation. Nobody here (a group of gambling hobbyists, some highly-educated) has been able to convince 98steps that he's intentionally misrepresented his system to his investors. The average AG or DA would have at least as difficult a time with the typical system salesperson[1]. Second, the amount of money involved can't possibly be worth going after relative to the costs of running a prosecution, or even from a public policy standpoint. I wouldn't want my tax dollars paying for the prosecution of gambling system sellers when they're better used going after child traffickers and meth labs. Sometimes, you just have to accept "caveat emptor".

[1] I'm admittedly not an attorney, and I wonder if there's any caselaw on fraud where the seller through his ignorance believes in a product's efficacy even though it can be objectively demonstrated not to work.

There is the "doctrine of implied fitness for use", which states that offering a product or service for sale amounts to a statement that such product or service actually performs the function implied--for instance, a "mosquito spray" would be inferred to be a mosquito repellent, not a compressed, concentrated stream of mosquitoes in a can. Calling something "food" implies that it is edible, unless it is "dog food" or "cat food".

The critical element in proving a fraud case would depend on, as you say, whether the seller KNEW that his product did not perform the service implied. That, in turn, could be inferred rather than explicit---in 98steps' case, if he is a statistics teacher as he claims, selling a craps system would be fraudulent, because he could be expected to know that it could not possibly work. It would be like a doctor selling copper bracelets as an arthritis cure.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw