MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
September 15th, 2010 at 1:27:24 PM permalink
Quote: 98steps

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?

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: WikiPedia

d'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.

"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
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
• Posts: 6679
September 15th, 2010 at 1:36:48 PM permalink
The fallacy of the concept is that assuming it is a negative EV game, on which paticular 'coin toss' do you have an advantage? By definition, none. So for each individual bet, you will lose whatever the negative EV is. It is a form of Martingale, as when you lose you have to increase your bet to try and 'catch up'. I do not know how you came up with your data, but i can assure you it is flawed. But if you truly believe your system to work, why not just go to a casino and win that 8800?
98steps
Joined: Sep 14, 2010
• Posts: 119
September 15th, 2010 at 1:37:42 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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

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?
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
• Posts: 803
September 17th, 2010 at 11:08:47 AM permalink
Okay, 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.
odiousgambit

Joined: Nov 9, 2009
• Posts: 8260
September 17th, 2010 at 11:49:34 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Is 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.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
• Posts: 2501
September 17th, 2010 at 12:03:13 PM permalink
98steps,
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.
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!
goatcabin
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 664
September 17th, 2010 at 12:37:30 PM permalink
Quote: 98steps

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?

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
Cheers, Alan Shank "How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
98steps
Joined: Sep 14, 2010
• Posts: 119
September 20th, 2010 at 6:42:37 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

Okay, 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-

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
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
• Posts: 3412
September 20th, 2010 at 7:14:46 PM permalink
Can I have some of that action? Laying only 10-1 on a certainty seems like an excellent betting proposition to me.

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.
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: 803
September 20th, 2010 at 8:04:28 PM permalink
Christiaan, I really don't want to see you lose \$1000. Why wouldn't you just hire a programmer for \$50 to \$100 like I suggested if all you want is a test of your system? And even if your goal is really to win my \$10,000, wouldn't you want to spend \$50 first to make sure that you can really win the \$10k, so you don't lose your \$1000 in the process?

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.