Craps Strategy Investment Opportunity?
Quote: 7winnerFrom Mr. Bluejay's own website:
"I realize that we all want to believe that there's a way to beat the casinos, because knowing a guaranteed way to win would be a lot of fun.
But no such way exists, and wanting something else to be true doesn't make it so. "
could it be said any better?
maybe mlk could!
No, I don't think I could say it any better. Thanks for your earlier compliments, by the way.
There actually have been, and are, ways to beat the casinos, but usually only incrementally, and often for only a short period of time. You could also argue that someone who plays against a very small edge, slurps down a bunch of free drinks, and loses only small amounts of money, while having a good time, is beating the casinos.
I would imagine that if there were actually such a thing as a guaranteed way to win, there wouldn't be any casinos to do that winning in.
Quote: WizardI highly doubt Michael Bluejay will retreat from his position on a billion rolls (with at least one bet resolved), and I wouldn't either. The greater the sample size, the more you eliminate random variation from the results, and the more the actual ratio of money won/lost to money bet will approach expectations. If there were such a thing as a winning betting system, it wouldn't fear a billion trials. For those who think a billion bets is unrealistic, think of a billion bet simulation as the average results of a 10,000 people using a system for 100,000 bets.
While I agree that the total must be 1B rolls, I would enjoy seeing the splits of every 100k rolls (or some other subset). Kind of like looking at the per-mile splits of a marathon, or the per-leg splits of a triathlon. Basically, I want to see the exact point in time when fate turned against 98Steps in the challenge...
Quote: MathExtremistThere are two more tests I'd do prior to kicking off the sim:
1) Game result distribution test. Do a distribution of random(6) + random(6) and test for the appropriate probabilities for each sum [2..12] (1/36, 2/36, etc).
2) Serial correlation test. Do a distribution of (random(6)+random(6), random(6)+random(6)) and test for appropriate probabilities for each sum following each other sum. In plain English, make sure that the chances of rolling a 7 aren't greater after certain numbers than certain others.
Okay, here are the results:
Distribution of totals for 10M rolls:
2 = 277201
3 = 556344
4 = 833206
5 = 1111726
6 = 1391033
7 = 1667568
8 = 1387488
9 = 1109305
10 = 832629
11 = 555589
12 = 277911
Serial correlation for the same 10M rolls (number of times the total in the 2nd column was rolled after the total in the 1st column was rolled):
2 > 2 = 7662
2 > 3 = 15362
2 > 4 = 23125
2 > 5 = 30880
2 > 6 = 38503
2 > 7 = 46608
2 > 8 = 38492
2 > 9 = 30731
2 > 10 = 22853
2 > 11 = 15380
2 > 12 = 7605
3 > 2 = 15343
3 > 3 = 30858
3 > 4 = 46400
3 > 5 = 62220
3 > 6 = 77542
3 > 7 = 92734
3 > 8 = 77143
3 > 9 = 61512
3 > 10 = 46346
3 > 11 = 30745
3 > 12 = 15500
4 > 2 = 22951
4 > 3 = 46260
4 > 4 = 69213
4 > 5 = 93054
4 > 6 = 116237
4 > 7 = 138461
4 > 8 = 115814
4 > 9 = 92215
4 > 10 = 69353
4 > 11 = 46314
4 > 12 = 23334
5 > 2 = 30758
5 > 3 = 61900
5 > 4 = 92580
5 > 5 = 123729
5 > 6 = 154694
5 > 7 = 186363
5 > 8 = 153948
5 > 9 = 122755
5 > 10 = 92299
5 > 11 = 61748
5 > 12 = 30952
6 > 2 = 38549
6 > 3 = 76755
6 > 4 = 116014
6 > 5 = 155029
6 > 6 = 193977
6 > 7 = 231705
6 > 8 = 192750
6 > 9 = 154439
6 > 10 = 115952
6 > 11 = 77372
6 > 12 = 38491
7 > 2 = 46455
7 > 3 = 93581
7 > 4 = 138664
7 > 5 = 184638
7 > 6 = 231111
7 > 7 = 277862
7 > 8 = 231616
7 > 9 = 184839
7 > 10 = 139648
7 > 11 = 92619
7 > 12 = 46535
8 > 2 = 38217
8 > 3 = 77255
8 > 4 = 115760
8 > 5 = 153977
8 > 6 = 193240
8 > 7 = 231479
8 > 8 = 192403
8 > 9 = 154337
8 > 10 = 115374
8 > 11 = 76917
8 > 12 = 38529
9 > 2 = 30821
9 > 3 = 61483
9 > 4 = 92799
9 > 5 = 122917
9 > 6 = 153948
9 > 7 = 185191
9 > 8 = 154029
9 > 9 = 123245
9 > 10 = 92357
9 > 11 = 61650
9 > 12 = 30865
10 > 2 = 23262
10 > 3 = 46439
10 > 4 = 69506
10 > 5 = 92328
10 > 6 = 115727
10 > 7 = 138657
10 > 8 = 115271
10 > 9 = 92631
10 > 10 = 69276
10 > 11 = 46651
10 > 12 = 22881
11 > 2 = 15448
11 > 3 = 31081
11 > 4 = 45848
11 > 5 = 62164
11 > 6 = 77370
11 > 7 = 92551
11 > 8 = 76990
11 > 9 = 61736
11 > 10 = 46023
11 > 11 = 30888
11 > 12 = 15490
12 > 2 = 7735
12 > 3 = 15370
12 > 4 = 23297
12 > 5 = 30790
12 > 6 = 38684
12 > 7 = 45957
12 > 8 = 39032
12 > 9 = 30865
12 > 10 = 23148
12 > 11 = 15305
12 > 12 = 7728
Quote: rdw4potusWhile I agree that the total must be 1B rolls, I would enjoy seeing the splits of every 100k rolls (or some other subset).
Kind of like looking at the per-mile splits of a marathon, or the per-leg splits of a triathlon.
Basically, I want to see the exact point in time when fate turned against 98Steps in the challenge...
Many others want to know the answer to those questions.
I am sure 98steps will not allow Mr. Bluejay to publish that information.
Raw data can be turned into information that can well be valuable.
And Mr. Krebs will own that information.
I have run 2 simulations and a friend 3 and the data and information we have gathered remains property of Mr. Krebs as far as I am concerned.
That is what we agreed upon at the beginning.
Quote: 7crapsWe seem to be getting away from the topic of the thread and the challenge.
1 person attempting to "win" 1 billion wagers
10,000 people trying to "win" 100,000 wagers
and 1 billion people trying to win 1 wager. they are not one and the same.
Au contraire mon frere.
Each of these scenarios is EXACTLY the same. They all amount to 1 billion wagers and will produce the same result - that result being that once the 1 billion wagers have been resolved, the house will show a profit of approximately 1.4% which is approximately the house advantage.
THIS is EXACTLY the point that is lost on all of those who buy the books and programs from those snakeoil "systems" salesmen. This is EXACTLY the point that those like Singer et al. would try to cover up.
Singer and his shyster brethren would love to have you buy into the fact that neither you nor I will ever be able to see a billion rolls or hands or comeouts in our lifetime and therefore the "long run" cannot possibly apply to us. They will harp on this fact in a number of different ways until someone actually believes it and buys their book or procedure or system or program or whatever it is they may be promoting.
Here's the deal kids, pure and simple. I send an e-mail to 1 billion people and tell them that they should immediately go to their nearest casino and bet black. If those 1 billion people place an even money wager on roulette (red/black, etc...), approximately 47.37% of those individual spins will come up red, 47.37% will come up black and 5.26% will come up green.Therefore approximately 473, 370, 000 players will win their bet on black and double up, and the rest will lose their wager. If you were to ask those winners if they thought they had a winning strategy (listen to the mystery e-mail), some of them might be foolish enough to say yes. The fact remains that 5.26 of the money wagered by the 1 billion players ended up in the hands of the casino. Once again, math prevails.
If we do the same for 100 million players for 10 spins though, a strange thing happens. At the end of 10 spins we find that FEWER than 47.37% of the players are ahead. Those who are ahead are probably well ahead but over those 10 spins they've each given the house edge 10 chances to eat away at their bankroll. With 10 million players at 100 spins the results become even more skewed in the favour of the house. 1 million players at a thousand spins... you get the idea.
To say that one player could never play 1 billion spins alone is IRRELEVANT. If I walk up to a table and place one bet and win I have done nothing more than buck the odds and won a wager where I was the underdog going in. At roulette it happens about 47.37% of the time for every wager placed... big deal. To suggest that you can buck the odds for 10 or 100 or 1,000 or 1 million spins is in direct conflict with not only common sense but with reality and physics. Could it be done? Yes, of course. (an infinite number of monkeys, hamlet, blah, blah, blah...) Could it happen to YOU? Yup. Is it going to happen to you? Not likely so don't spend the rent money.
Now we get these crooks and pitch men who say that they can beat the house by knowing when to begin and end a session and that discipline and money management are the key. What a crock. The session never ends my friend... it just has larger and smaller breaks between spins. My favourite part is when they say, "Be willing to settle for a small win and don't be greedy". Well, they don't tell you what to do when your first session results in a loss, do they? Now you're in the hole and how do you remedy that situation. Oh, I see, just take a few small wins to recoup your money. Well, what if your next session is also a loss? Whoops, there's nothing in the book for that one. Hey, wait a second, this system only works when I'm guessing correctly and winning... but that only lasts for so long. Once you're in the hole, no amount of guessing and money management is going to get you out of that hole unless you happen to be the very fortunate one in a (million, billion...???) who happens to hit that streak of all streaks.
Once you're in the hole it's just a game of "get even, or even worse" and anyone who has played that game will tell you how it ends.
For the Jerry Logans of the world, get you head out of your crack, stop being a dupe and stop this insanity. For the Rob Singers of the world, I hope you contract a severe STD and get hit by a bus on the way to the pharmacy.
For the rest of you, why do you continue to repeat the same things over and over to these morons. The either don't know, don't care, are too stupid to understand or they know that there are enough fools out there who will part with their hard earned money to buy a worthless "system". Let the trolls be and don't feed them - THEY WILL NOT CHANGE and you will look more the fool yourself.
By the way, a system that keeps you ahead for 1 million spins but falls apart at 1 billion is just as worthless as the rest... it just had a few fortunate winning sessions at the start which obviously got crushed over time.
Quote: TheNightflyTHIS is EXACTLY the point that is lost on all of those who buy the books and programs from those snakeoil "systems" salesmen. This is EXACTLY the point that those like Singer et al. would try to cover up.
For the rest of you, why do you continue to repeat the same things over and over to these morons. The either don't know, don't care, are too stupid to understand or they know that there are enough fools out there who will part with their hard earned money to buy a worthless "system". Let the trolls be and don't feed them - THEY WILL NOT CHANGE and you will look more the fool yourself.
Yeah, you're right. It is a waste of time to try to talk an idiot out of his idiocy, especially with logic. One of the signal characteristics of a fool--indeed, what makes him a fool in the first place--is a pathetic clinging to a point of view, even in the face of its obvious incorrectness--it is how I THINK GOLDURNIT and NO ONE IS GONNA CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE.
What is behind all the quasi-religious belief in gambling systems is, quite simply, wishful thinking, and the tendency for many people to, when they perceive an unpleasant reality, to ignore that reality and construct an alternate one. I want to wiiiiiiiiiin. I don't win. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. I'll read this guy's columns on gambling. Oh, shit, he says that winning is mathematically impossible. Well, he must be wrong. And an asshole. Oh, cool, look at this awesome dude, Rob Singer! He tells me what I knew all along! I can wiiiiiiiiin!!! WHEE!! So much more satisfying than the truth! In many respects, this thinking is quite similar to religion, which is an alternate reality constructed to counteract the true reality of death and eventual nonexistence (which is certainly a bummer).
So where we're at is, I'm waiting for either the Wiz or MathExtremist to say whether the random data I generated is of sufficient quality for the test, and I'm waiting for 98steps to accept the contract. I wonder where he is, by the way? Were getting so close...
Quote: MichaelBluejayThere's been a lot of very interesting discussion here, but since this thread is already huge, let me suggest that future posts be limited specifically to 98steps' acceptance of my challenge. Tangential topics could easily be discussed in a new thread.
Amen, brother.
Quote: TheNightflyAu contraire mon frere.
Each of these scenarios is EXACTLY the same. They all amount to 1 billion wagers and will produce the same result - that result being that once the 1 billion wagers have been resolved, the house will show a profit of approximately 1.4% which is approximately the house advantage.
This depends, of course, on your point of view. From the point of view of the observer, relative to the overall results, they are the same thing. However, it is ludicrous to equate a billion people each making one bet to one person making a billion bets. From the point of view of those billion people, or the one, there is no similarity at all.
I addressed this general issue in my first blog, "Two Million Players", which you can read at https://wizardofvegas.com/member/goatcabin/blog/2/#post7.
If two million players each made 10,000 $5 passline bets, taking 3, 4, 5X odds, we would expect something in the neighborhood of 38% of them to be even or ahead. That certainly doesn't mean they have a winning system. Some of these people would get ahead and stay ahead; others would fall behind at some point and then catch up. Many would fall behind and never catch up. If these players all played at the same casino, then from the casino's point of view it would just be 20 billion bets, but from the individual players' points of view it certainly wouldn't. Don't try to tell that to the poor schmucks that came out -3 Sigma and lost over $8000.
As far as keeping track of how long the system keeps the player ahead, that is not a valid point, either, it seems to me. Any system with a high percentage of winning sessions is going to be subject to some sessions of large losses. It's just a matter of random chance when those losses occur. If you ran the simulation twice, using different seeds, of course, you might get the big loss right away, and the system would never be ahead. Or, you might not get it for quite a while, and the system would "look good" for a while. The billion rounds are to get at the *expectation*, which is always going to be negative.
It is not hard to design a strategy that will yield a large majority of winning sessions; it is impossible to design one that will yield a positive expectation.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
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.
Mr Krebs quote from page 2 of this thread.
He says he sees this challenge as a win-win situation.
I missed reading or understanding that post the first time around.
i have yet to hear from 98 steps since Friday. I hope all is OK.
Quote: goatcabinThis depends, of course, on your point of view. From the point of view of the observer, relative to the overall results, they are the same thing. However, it is ludicrous to equate a billion people each making one bet to one person making a billion bets.
Uh, no, it actually doesn't. If the question is the effectiveness of the system, all that matters is the number of trials and the aggregate results, not the number of people making the bets. One billion outcomes is one billion outcomes.
Quote: MichaelBluejayIncidentally, the betting system is extraordinarily complex. I'm skeptical that the average person could actually execute it in a live casino. But I'll concede that point because it doesn't make the system any likelier to win, in my opinion.
But complexity does tend to cloud intuition; that's what's happening here. After all, nobody in their right mind would say "I have a guaranteed winning system! I put $5 on the passline and take 2x odds, but only when my friend tells me to!" It's obvious (intuitively) that flat pass-line betting some of the time isn't a "winning system."
However, I've already pointed out that every system, no matter how complex, can always be broken down into two or more component parts each of which is simply an occasional flat-bet on a given proposition. As a result, each betting system is equivalent to two or more individual players, each assigned one specific amount and proposition and only making their bet when instructed by a third-party overseer.
Those individual players would never have the intuition that their occasional flat bets are "beating" the casino. Even if they all talked to each other about their play they would not have the intuition that their combined play is beating the casino. Were it otherwise, at least one of the individual players would have to think that they, by themselves, already had a winning bet. Only by failing to examine the component parts of a betting system -- and being dazzled by its complexity -- can one's intuition fail to accept the constancy of the house's edge.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThere's been a lot of very interesting discussion here, but since this thread is already huge, let me suggest that future posts be limited specifically to 98steps' acceptance of my challenge. Tangential topics could easily be discussed in a new thread.
But we still haven't determined whether men and women can get along!
Quote: MathExtremistOnly by failing to examine the component parts of a betting system -- and being dazzled by its complexity -- can one's intuition fail to accept the constancy of the house's edge.
I think what clouds many persons' reasoning is an undue focus on RESULTS.
The moment you place a $100 chip on the Pass Line, you have lost $1.41. This is true whether that particular wager wins or loses. This is so counterintuitive that it makes most persons' heads explode--because we all focus on results. That's why the simulation's results will not be the ideal refutation of the system--the rather simple mathematical reality that the system is a series of zero-expectation and negative-expectation bets is the "perfect" refutation.
At the risk of trangression of the proscription against digression, I remember some time ago observing a friend play Double Bonus video poker. When dealt two pair, Aces and another pair, she would invariably throw the second pair away. Since the full house paid 10 coins in this game, that was a serious error, and I told her that she was losing about 40 cents every time she did that (I'm guessing at the actual number, but it was something close to that). She looked at me like I was crazy. "But what if I get four Aces?" she asked me. I choked back the proper answer, "That's irrelevant", and just smiled. Needless to say, about ten minutes later, she got dealt AA55x, discarded the fives, and got four Aces for $800. I congratulated her.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI'm willing to hear what MathExtremist says about my RNG results.
98 just sent me the description of the betting system, and it's exceptionally easy to understand. I'm ready to execute a contract. As promised, I'll post my proposed contract wording below to get input from the community (and especially from 98steps) before I submit it to an attorney for review. I tried to make it as generic as possible, and put the exceptions to the generic version all the way at the end, so I can use this contract again in the future if need be.
Incidentally, the betting system is extraordinarily complex. I'm skeptical that the average person could actually execute it in a live casino. But I'll concede that point because it doesn't make the system any likelier to win, in my opinion.Quote:(1) Parties. This contract is between Michael Bluejay and Christiaan Krebs.
(2) The Wager. Krebs will supply Bluejay with the rules for a gambling betting system (with limits described below), and Bluejay will program a computer simulation to test it. If the system shows a profit after 1 billion simulated rounds, Bluejay will pay Krebs $10,000. If it does not, Krebs will pay Bluejay $1000. A round is any roll or hand in which at least one wager is resolved.
(3) Money. Each party will deposit his funds with a mutually-agreeable third party who will also act as judge. The judge and escrow agent is Michael Shackleford ("The Wizard of Odds").
(4) System Rules. The betting system must:
. . . . (a) Be based on a game of craps, roulette, or baccarat, as the player (not the casino), using common (not exceptional) Las Vegas rules. In craps, free odds allowed are 3-4-5X and commissions on Buy and Lay bets are paid only on wins. In roulette, single-zero is allowed.
. . . . (b) Utilize a betting spread of no more than 1 to 500. (The largest bet can be no more than 500 times the smallest bet.)
. . . . (c) Place a bet at least once every 100 rounds. (While "sitting out" and not betting in craps, a sitting-out round is a completely resolved come-out roll, including making a point or sevening out, if a point has been set.)
. . . . (d) Be playable by an average person in a typical casino, with no special equipment required other than a pen and paper.
. . . . (e) Be a bona-fide betting system where bet timing and/or amount is based on previous wins or losses. Any attempts to exploit the computer's RNG (random number generator) or a loophole in these rules, rather than trying to prove the viability of a betting system for use in a casino, is specifically disallowed.
. . . . (f) Be explained clearly.
(5) Forfeiture. Once the contract has been signed, any party who backs out will forfeit. Krebs forfeits if he does not submit a betting system as described above to Bluejay within one week of the signing of this contract. Bluejay forfeits if he does not supply Krebs with the results of the simulation within one week of receiving the system from Krebs.
(6) Bluejay's promises. Bluejay asserts that:
. . . . (a) He has not yet programmed the simulation, so he is not privy to the simulation's results.
. . . . (b) If the system proves to be a winner, he promises not to use the system for profit.
. . . . (c) If the system proves to be a winner, he will publish a prominent statement of such on the front page of VegasClick.com, for a period of at least one year from the date of the results, along with a prominent link to the sale website if the system is for sale on the web.
. . . . (ed) He will not disclose Krebs' name, contact information, or the specific rules of the system without the challenger's permission. He may, however, name the system and the seller if the system is available for sale to the public, and may describe the system in general terms. (e.g., "This is a standard positive-progression system," "This system is based on betting on red after a certain pattern of red/black hits has been established," etc.)
(7) Recourse for Krebs. Bluejay will provide the results and source code to Krebs, and Krebs will have one week to dispute the results (to allow time for his own experts to verify the source code). If Krebs does not explicitly dispute the results, he forfeits. If he disputes, he must immediately point out why he thinks the source code is flawed. If Bluejay agrees that the code is in error then he will fix the code and run the simulation again, with the new results replacing the old ones. The one-week acceptance/repair period will repeat as many times as Krebs disputes and Bluejay agrees that the code is in error. At any point that Bluejay disagrees that the code is in error, Krebs' recourse shall be to submit the case to a professional arbiter, agreeable to both parties, with the losing party in the arbitration paying the arbiter's costs.
(8) Recourse for Bluejay. If Bluejay feels that the system submitted by Krebs does not meet the System Rules specified here, he may appeal to the judge to declare a forfeit. If the judge declines to forfeit, Bluejay may submit the case to a professional arbiter, agreeable to both parties, with the losing party paying the arbiter's costs.
(9) Amendments.
. . . . (a) Bluejay agrees that the system shared by Krebs on Oct. 2, 2010 satisfies the System Rules conditions.
. . . . (b) Krebs agrees that if the system fails, Bluejay may publish the rules for the system.
A few suggestions to alter the contract........
4c. a sitting out round should be a 7-out.
7. I beleive that my review of your programming BEFORE running the actuaql challenge would be beneficial to both of us, in order to eliminate any problems prior to the challenge run.
9b. Unless it is being considered a deal breaker, I prefer not to publish my system at this time, win OR lose.
Quote: mkl654321As much as I hate to acknowledge it, this places an undue burden on Krebs. When the simulation is finally run (and I am still mentally laying -500 that the challenge will never be accepted to the point of the contract being signed and funds deposited, but...), it will, of a certainty, show that the system is a loser, not a winner. At this point, Krebs will not accept the results, arguing that your coding methodology is flawed---but how could he possibly detect a specific flaw, even if there was one? I know enough about programming to know that quite frequently, even an expert in the same programming language cannot unravel another's code. Yet, Krebs would have to be able to detect the putative error, while lacking the expertise to do so.
In case of a dispute, it also seems unfair to unilaterally put the burden of payment to the arbiter on Krebs. The cost of the arbiter should be paid by the LOSER of the dispute (once again, it would almost certainly be Krebs, but that is not relevant).
The possibility also exists of Krebs simply surrendering at that point, due to the cost of finding a suitable arbiter (who would, after all, have to be both a computer programmmer AND conversant with contract law, thus, expensive), which would resolve the wager but not the underlying dispute. This would not be an ideal outcome.
The contract otherwise seems very well thought out. I am just troubled by the fact that the whole process seems to shift the burden of proof to the correctness of the source code used to run the simulation and away from the correctness of the system.
I have no expectation of any decision going to arbitration, however, I think that mkl654321 makes a valid point that if one of us does choose to go to arbitration, that the cost of that arbitration should lay with the loser of the disputed point.
Quote: guido111Quote: MichaelBluejay
(9) Amendments.
. . . . (a) Bluejay agrees that the system shared by Krebs on Oct. 2, 2010 satisfies the System Rules conditions.
. . . . (b) Krebs agrees that if the system fails, Bluejay may publish the rules for the system.
My, my.
98steps if you are looking for any advice.
(b) should not be agreeable to you.
You may fail the challenge but would like the results to be for you only. It still may be valuable to you for what ever purpose.
Reason:1 Billion rounds is unfair, because no one EVER could actually accomplish it.
Bluejay wants you to meet rules that can actually be done in a casino but yet can never be done by someone in their lifetime.
It would take you well over 3000 years to actually play 1 Billion rounds if your bet was the pass line bet playing 24/7. impossible, could never happen in this universe.
It would take you well over 1000 years to actually play 1 Billion rolls if your bet was the field bet playing 24/7.
I vote to keep the rules to yourself.
I have no quarrel with the one billion rounds. That is the primary idea behind the challenge. A ridiculously large sample of results to unequivocably prove the viability of the system. If it can only beat the game for a little while, it is of limited use and limited value, but if it is proven to be effective over a 1000 lifetimes, then it is of immeasurable value and will eventually cause Vegas to change the rules of the game.
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, I'm sorry, I did ask for opinions. It's just kind of grating when someone says I'm creating a "burden" for 98 when in fact I've tried to be exceptionally fair. And when the idea of a burden seems just ridiculous to me.
mkl64321, you talk about this alleged burden, but you don't suggest an alternative...even though I asked. I'm giving 98 a way to challenge the results. You think that's burdensome because he's not competent to challenge my code. Okay, so in your universe, how exactly *would* 98 challenge the results?
As for this...
No, it doesn't. The judge decides whether the test was conducted fairly or not. 98 has the option of challenging that ruling if he wants. That he might not *personally* understand the code is not my fault. Nor my problem.
Oh, I thought you meant the loser of the wager, not the loser of the arbitration. Okay, this is a really good suggestion. I'll edit the contract.
I feel it is only fair to agree with Bluejay that my ignorance of coding is not his problem. That is the reason I would request to see the coding prior to the challenge, that way I can have an opportunity to manually put it thru its paces, observing each discrete decision point to verify that his programming performs according to my instructions.
Quote: guido111Points well taken.
Then who sets the rules as to what is "worthless"?
After 500,000 rolls or 1 million rolls, 2,3 4 million is a more realistic rule? Less worthless?
But the rule using an unlimited bankroll, now that is not realistic. I say that rule of the challenge is "worthless" because any results from it would not be realistic.
Hey it is football time!
It seems to me that the whole idea behind the challenge is absolute truth. Is a system valid given Unlimited Time And Unlimited Money. If one is of those variables is uncapped, then it would be necessary for the other to be also. On the other hand, if we want to challenge the viability of the system being run for a profit over a realistic and reasonable amount of limited time, then it would also be appropriate to put a limit on the bankroll.
Quote: mkl654321No, I don't think I could say it any better. Thanks for your earlier compliments, by the way.
There actually have been, and are, ways to beat the casinos, but usually only incrementally, and often for only a short period of time. You could also argue that someone who plays against a very small edge, slurps down a bunch of free drinks, and loses only small amounts of money, while having a good time, is beating the casinos.
I would imagine that if there were actually such a thing as a guaranteed way to win, there wouldn't be any casinos to do that winning in.
I think the point that a lot of our members have missed is that while I expect my system to be successful, it is not powerful enough to "Break" Vegas. It won't make me a Billionaire, and I won't end up owning casinos because of it. BUT, it is powerful enough to generate a very comfortable living. Limits to its effectiveness are probably around $2000 PER DAY. Enough that it will dramatically affect my standard of living, not enough to really hurt the casino industry.
Also, it was never billed as a "guaranteed" winner, but rather a consistant winner. Giving a high winning percentage of sessions, with an occasional loss to be expected.
My contention is that my system can beat dice on felt. Not that it can beat a computer. Therefore, my desire for the RNG would be for one that most closely resembles real life outcomes.
If I understand RNG correctly, depending on the size and complexity of the program, it creates a "sequence" of numbers with a finite quantity of outcomes. Example.....is the total sequence is only 36, then the quatity of 7's would be 6, quantity of 6's would be 5, etc......is my understanding corrrect?
If this is the case, it is NOT representative of actual dice on felt. From my understanding, that sequence and quantities are reset with re-seeding......my cause some numbers to defy expectation a little, but over 1 billion decisions, i expect that they would all come in line.
Again, my question is what is the most random way to use the RNG so that it more closely resembles the results of Dice on Felt.
Quote: 98steps
If I understand RNG correctly, depending on the size and complexity of the program, it creates a "sequence" of numbers with a finite quantity of outcomes. Example.....is the total sequence is only 36, then the quatity of 7's would be 6, quantity of 6's would be 5, etc......is my understanding corrrect?
No, that's not how it will work. A good RNG simulating dice rolls might throw twelve 7s in a row and then six 5s. The goal is to have the probability of each outcome match the real-life probability (e.g. 6/36 for 7, 5/36 for 6, etc), NOT that in any given 36 rolls there will be exactly six 7s and five 6s.
Quote: 98stepsLimits to its effectiveness are probably around $2000 PER DAY. Enough that it will dramatically affect my standard of living, not enough to really hurt the casino industry.
Also, it was never billed as a "guaranteed" winner, but rather a consistant winner. Giving a high winning percentage of sessions, with an occasional loss to be expected.
Gee, is that all? Hardly seems worth doing, then.
"Guaranteed" is actually the same thing as "consistent", in terms of results. It doesn't mean "always", just that the system will show an overall positive result over time. No one will be saying your system doesn't work because it doesn't produce a "guaranteed" winner every time; they will say it doesn't work because it LOSES. And it will lose, steadily, consistently, with periodic upticks, but always trending down, down, down, down, down.
I really hope, for your sake, that you accept the results of the simulation, and don't dismiss it and march down to the casino anyway, expecting to score your daily $2000. You will be disappointed, and more importantly, broke.
Quote: mkl654321Uh, no, it actually doesn't. If the question is the effectiveness of the system, all that matters is the number of trials and the aggregate results, not the number of people making the bets. One billion outcomes is one billion outcomes.
Which, if you read my post, is exactly what I said: "From the point of view of the observer, relative to the overall results, they are the same thing."
So, I don't understand the purpose of your post.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Quote: 98steps
Limits to its effectiveness are probably around $2000 PER DAY.
Quote: mkl654321Gee, is that all? Hardly seems worth doing, then.
I really hope, for your sake, that you accept the results of the simulation, and don't dismiss it and march down to the casino anyway, expecting to score your daily $2000. You will be disappointed, and more importantly, broke.
$2000 does not seem to bad a a daily win but at the risk of losing $5000?
Ouch is right.
So, please continue on agreeing to the rules of the challenge.
Instead of "this is stupid" and "no it is not stupid" comments flying back and forth.
I bet Bluejay is kicking himself for even getting involved.
Moved to HEREQuote: WizardI put the probability of the failed simulation convincing him not to use it in a casino at about 25%.
His fellow believers will tell him to not be discouraged.
They will say if it takes a billion rolls to kill his system then why worry, because he won't that long anyway.
Hopefully common sense will prevail, but, alas, it usually doesn't.
Quote: WizardI'd like to suggest we move theoretical discussion about betting systems and what if and why 98steps will lose to the "Will 98steps prevail?" thread. Let's try to keep this one focused on the contract and the RNG.
great Idea, but that thread has also been hijacked by video poker.
(1) You now have the option to have the system sit out for 100 seven-outs.
(2) I'll provide the source code before the test. I think that last point is fairly irrelevant, since you the contract provided recourse if the turned out to be flawed, but I don't mind providing the code and sample output first, so I updated the wording.
(3) It's not a deal-breaker if you want to keep the details of the system or the simulation secret (other than the final results, which I can publish). I'd already conceded that earlier in this thread, but I know the thread is long and stuff is easy to miss. Anyway, I specified that I may reveal only the final results of the sim and nothing else unless I have your permission to do otherwise.
(4) Yes, I agree that the loser of any arbitration should pay for the arbitration. In fact, I already agreed to this when someone else made the suggestion, and I'd already updated the contract.
So if the contract is agreeable to you, I'm ready to sign it today and send my copy to you and to the Wizard.
If there are RNG issues, we can deal with them separately. Speaking of that, Wizard and MathExtremist, does either of you want to weigh in on the results of the RNG test I ran? (BTW, Wiz, you might want to ask James to either set forum links to be underlined or a brighter shade of blue. It's not easy to see that links here are actually links.)
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, 98, I made the changes to the contract you asked for. (Here's a link to the contract.)
(1) You now have the option to have the system sit out for 100 seven-outs.
(2) I'll provide the source code before the test. I think that last point is fairly irrelevant, since you the contract provided recourse if the turned out to be flawed, but I don't mind providing the code and sample output first, so I updated the wording.
(3) It's not a deal-breaker if you want to keep the details of the system or the simulation secret (other than the final results, which I can publish). I'd already conceded that earlier in this thread, but I know the thread is long and stuff is easy to miss. Anyway, I specified that I may reveal only the final results of the sim and nothing else unless I have your permission to do otherwise.
(4) Yes, I agree that the loser of any arbitration should pay for the arbitration. In fact, I already agreed to this when someone else made the suggestion, and I'd already updated the contract.
So if the contract is agreeable to you, I'm ready to sign it today and send my copy to you and to the Wizard.
If there are RNG issues, we can deal with them separately. Speaking of that, Wizard and MathExtremist, does either of you want to weigh in on the results of the RNG test I ran? (BTW, Wiz, you might want to ask James to either set forum links to be underlined or a brighter shade of blue. It's not easy to see that links here are actually links.)
I would be a little concerned with the Wizard getting too involved with evaluating test criteria prior to the contract execution since he has already been assigned the roles of impartial "holder of the cash/judge". His weighing in on other points could be perceived as a conflict of interest.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Distribution of totals for 10M rolls:
2 = 277201
3 = 556344
4 = 833206
5 = 1111726
6 = 1391033
7 = 1667568
8 = 1387488
9 = 1109305
10 = 832629
11 = 555589
12 = 277911
The above distribution looks fine:
Chi-squared statistic = 11.48378726
degrees of feedom = 10
p value = 0.32108803
MathExtremist was the one who asked for the pairs of numbers. He probably has some particular test in mind for that, so I'll leave that one to him.
Quote: foxfan20This is probably overkill, but I thought I'd suggest it anyway. Is it possible for you to use random.org as your source of randomness in XTalk? Random.org provides true random numbers rather than pseudo-random ones, because it uses a physical source of randomness rather than a PRNG algorithm. From their front page: "RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs."
It's a good idea, but Random.org doesn't generate the quantity we need for the test. They collect and generate one mebibyte of binary data per day. At that rate I estimate we'd need over 100 years' worth of daily data.
Even if they could generate as much as we need, it would fill several DVD's.
In theory, I could use the limited data they have and just repeat it, or use clever ways to get "new" random data out of the existing data. (e.g., For successive runs, randomize the sequence in the list before using it.) But yeah, that's probably overkill.
Ideally I would just code a really good RNG like Mersenne Twister or Multiply with Carry, but my math skills are weak and I don't have the skills to do so. It might work if I got some help with it. However, even if I could get it running, it might come with a huge performance hit which would mean that it would take days to run the simulation. I could get around *that* by coding the sim in Java rather than XTalk, but I haven't used Java in years and I'm not very good at it and I really prefer XTalk.
So yeah, all the alternatives come with baggage which we could try to work around somehow, but I prefer to keep it simple and go with the path of least resistance.
I'm keen on hearing what MathExtremist says about the RNG test I ran. And from 98steps on whether he's ready to sign the contract.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
7 > 2 = 46455
7 > 3 = 93581
7 > 4 = 138664
7 > 5 = 184638
7 > 6 = 231111
7 > 7 = 277862
7 > 8 = 231616
7 > 9 = 184839
7 > 10 = 139648
7 > 11 = 92619
7 > 12 = 46535
This "after 7" distribution fails Chi-square with p=0.03113. The rest of the "after N" distributions pass. Similarly, the "before 5" distribution fails (p=0.0425). I'd say it's probably good enough, but perhaps run it again and check the "after 7" and "before 5" distributions a second time.
I heard back from the Runrev.com folks - they didn't know much about the internal RNG other than it has a range of -2^31 .. 2^31-1.
Quote: MathExtremistThis "after 7" distribution fails Chi-square with p=0.03113. The rest of the "after N" distributions pass. Similarly, the "before 5" distribution fails (p=0.0425). I'd say it's probably good enough, but perhaps run it again and check the "after 7" and "before 5" distributions a second time.
I'd give that test a passing grade now. You cherry picked the worst two segments, and even those were not that bad. What worries me is the distribution of one-die results, which were nearly flat.
Quote: WizardI'd give that test a passing grade now. You cherry picked the worst two segments, and even those were not that bad. What worries me is the distribution of one-die results, which were nearly flat.
Right, that was the whole point of breaking it down. Aggregation covers up a lot and many craps systems are based on "if the last roll was X, bet on Y". I just want to make sure that the probability of Y winning is uncorrelated to whatever X was.
Quote: MathExtremistRight, that was the whole point of breaking it down. Aggregation covers up a lot and many craps systems are based on "if the last roll was X, bet on Y". I just want to make sure that the probability of Y winning is uncorrelated to whatever X was.
It seems to me the die rolls are almost equally represented, but the order is fairly randomized. I'm just an amateur at random numbers, but my inclination is to say that MB's RNG is good enough for the purpose at hand. However, I'd leave it up to you to give the final thumbs up or down.
Quote: AyecarumbaGreat news. This has been a very interesting thread, and I am excited to see that the question will finally be resolved.
I must agree.
I check in every day, to see the newest.
The RNG posts were interesting but I do not think that it will be an issue with 2-3 billion dice rolls.
No system with a house advantage can withstand 1 billion anything.
Good luck with WinCraps simulations.
I hope you learn something that has value for you.
Quote: 98stepsFriday 3:30pm. As of my last conversation with 7craps, he is hopeful of having the system fully programmed and ready to test in WinCraps by tomorrow. I should be able to run my personal tests over the weekend and be ready to proceed (hopefully) by Monday.
Great news 98steps. If your test should show a profit one time, and have a loss the next, will you still proceed with the challenge?
Quote: AyecarumbaGreat news 98steps. If your test should show a profit one time, and have a loss the next, will you still proceed with the challenge?
I'm interested in how they propose to test it in WinCraps. It they just run it as one big session, then it will either show a gain or a loss, period. But it seems to me to make more sense to run it as a long series of sessions, just like you would play it. WinCraps keeps track of the results of every session, as well as the total. That way, you can see the distribution of all the session outcomes, so you can see what percentage of sessions will come out winners, etc. I generally simulate sessions of about two hours' play, perhaps with a matrix of stopping conditions, and run 10,000 to 20,000 of them.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Quote: 7crapsAlan, you are correct that one simulation will be run as per the challenge rules. gain or loss. And most already know what that outcome will be.
Yes, but that is not really very interesting, for that very reason. I am much more interested in the distribution of outcomes of sessions ended by some combination of stop conditions. Even if the system is doomed to be a long-term (i.e. longer than anyone could possibly play during his/her life), if it yielded a high enough percentage of winning sessions someone might want to try it, hoping to be lucky enough to avoid one of the big losses.
Quote: superrickyes, Alan again you are correct.
That has currently been completed as sessions of 100, 1000, 10,000, 20,000 and 50,000 on each section of the "Krebs Craps System".
Not sure I understand. Do you mean that you simulated the different bets of the system separately?
Quote: superrickI will send you my completed WC auto-bet file as soon as it is totally completed, as just one system without known errors and you may look over my efforts.
Thank you for the advice of how to use "while" vs. "when"
I will be glad to look it over.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Quote: 98stepsThe contract appears to be acceptable to me. At this time I am just waiting to get a finished version of the WinCraps programming from 7craps so that I can run a few test simulations and we should be ready to go.
The challenge is doomed, as many of us feared. 98steps will essentially do his own challenge, find out that it loses, and never pay off Mr. Bluejay. I would have paid an admission fee to watch the actual challenge......
