Craps Strategy Investment Opportunity?
Quote: thecesspitActually, it's the only issue that matters for 98steps and his investors. They spin the wheel, and they see what the end result is. That's all that matters... the actual result. In this case it's the opposite of the Wizard's maxim. I'm not really considering the 1 billion samples challenge in my statement, which I agree that it's vanishingly small chance that 98 steps can beat with any system.
Sorry, that "segment" of this thread is indeed about whether the actual play with the investors' money has a shot at coming out ahead.
We should keep in mind, however, the fundamental difference between a probability of overcoming a negative expectation in a relatively small number of trials and the possibility of having a positive expectation due to varying bet amounts, bankroll management, etc. etc.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
I encourage 98 to keep reporting, as we wait for the Central Limit Theorem to bring everything back to normal in the Universe.
Did he state his win goal?
Quote: 98stepsProgress Update....
First night in Vegas sees positive results. My "Base" Strategy is designed to be slow and effective, risking a minimal amount of bankroll. My target earnings for a "Base" Session is only $150. Expected time commitment is an average of 3-4 hours.
October 21. 7:45pm - 11:30pm. El Cortez Casino, Downtown. Gross Earnings $162
Thanks for the update 98steps.
I'm certain you will see many more positive results from your sessions.
Hopefully they will out distance the negative ones that you know will be there.
I do not know what you are working on, still thinking the craps challenge can be won by you.
Good Luck with your adventures!
I will see you in Vegas in the next few weeks to watch you in action.
Quote: mkl654321He accepted the challenge.
He absolutely did NOT accept the challenge. He *inquired* about the challenge, I encouraged him to seek an outside test before actually accepting, and to not accept if his system failed the test, and he took my advice and didn't accept. What is your malfunction?
Quote: mkl654321Anyone with any kind of university background in mathematics--ESPECIALLY statistics--would realize the utter futility of what you're trying to do, and consequently would not waste his time or money attempting it.
Don't forget - he's not betting with his own money. He's using others' funds and taking a portion of their winnings. Based on what I've read so far, he actually does have a +EV. It's just coming at the expense of his investors.
Today was a very disapointing and challenging day. I saw bankroll lows of -650(approx 25% of active bankroll). Table eventually broke down to just me. One of my rules for operation of my investors money is a time constraint so as to make sure that I am mentally fresh and alert and make no mistakes that cost my investors money. That constraint is if one session exceeds 6 hours. Today's session did exceed the time constraint.
October 22. 9:30am - 4:15pm. Eastside Cannery, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings $60.
Quote: AyecarumbaThanks for the update. Will the next session begin tonight, or tomorrow?
I am done for today, with my investor's consent. I am throuroughly exhausted. 6+ hour session closes the day according to my agreements.
Quote: AyecarumbaAlso, is there a win goal? Is there a +gross amount that will stop the operation?
For the "Base" strategy which I am running from now til November 1st, the win goal is $150 per session. with one to three sessions per day depending on time constraints.
Quote: MichaelBluejayHe absolutely did NOT accept the challenge. He *inquired* about the challenge, I encouraged him to seek an outside test before actually accepting, and to not accept if his system failed the test, and he took my advice and didn't accept. What is your malfunction?
OK, so he actually wanted to accept the challenge, but you didn't want to let him do that. I stand corrected. It did seem like he wasted an awful lot of your time, though---but only you know what that is worth to you.
Quote: 98stepsI am done for today, with my investor's consent. I am throuroughly exhausted. 6+ hour session closes the day according to my agreements.
Thanks 98steps. Better luck tomorrow.
Quote: 98stepsFor the "Base" strategy which I am running from now til November 1st, the win goal is $150 per session. with one to three sessions per day depending on time constraints.
So for today's six hour session, you never hit +$150, but dropped your bankroll as much as 25% withouth triggering your "sit out" criteria? Ouch.
Quote: AyecarumbaWere you getting heat?
Heat. That's a good one.
Quote: AyecarumbaI note that you played at the El Cortez yesterday and came out ahead, but switched to the Eastside Cannery today and lost. Why the change of venue? Were you getting heat?
It is doubtful that the naive floormen at the El Cortez would have been able to truly appreciate the awesome power of his system.
Quote: mkl654321OK, so he actually wanted to accept the challenge, but you didn't want to let him do that. I stand corrected. It did seem like he wasted an awful lot of your time, though---but only you know what that is worth to you.
No, all this is wrong. I did not refuse to let him accept, I *suggested* he test it first so as not to lose $1000, and *suggested* he not accept if his test shows the system to not work. As I stated repeatedly, if he actually still wants to accept, he's absolutely welcome to do so. He didn't waste my time (other than with the initial gibberish description), and I learned something from all this, so in that sense this has been very valuable.
The main thing I learned is that I should re-do the challenge to make it better reflect real-world conditions. I started the challenge only to pick up where the Wizard left off when he stopped offering his, because I wanted one to be available, somewhere, as testament to the fact that betting systems don't work. So when I started the challenge I mostly copied the Wizard's rules, and made only some minor changes. Now I'm thinking that the rules should be radically different.
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.
Next, simming with an unlimited bankroll is silly. The whole point of the challenge is to prove that there is no system that can win consistently in the real world. Well, in the real world nobody has an unlimited bankroll. If they *did* have an unlimited bankroll, they certainly wouldn't need a winning betting system! So the system require a realistic starting bankroll for each "lifetime" trial. What would be fair, $10,000? $20,000?
Finally, I'll clarify what results I'm allowed to publish. For the daily sessions I'll be able to say the % of sessions that won, the win $ amount, the % of sessions that lost, and the losing % amount. If someone wants to prove that they have a winning system (rather than just paying for a test), they shouldn't object to this. And if they *are* looking for just a test, they're looking in the wrong place, because that's not what I'm offering. I'm offering a betting system challenge, not an expensive test.
What does everyone think of these changes?
[Note: That discussion has been moved to a new thread.]
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?
At a minimum, the parameters should be
a) $ bankroll in one simulated lifetime
b) # simulated lives to run
c) Table min/max
d) minimum # bets per lifetime
Quote: MichaelBluejayWhat does everyone think of these changes?
The changes seem reasonable. However, I have two thoughts:
1- Should there be some earnest money put up front to start this conversation? Perhaps a "registration fee" I think you deserve some compensation for your time and effort.
2- From the challenger's perspective, what constitutes success? 50.000001% "lives" with at least one dollar profit? One "life" with $1,000,000 profit, and 9,999 others with losses that total $999,999?
Quote: MichaelBluejayFirst, 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.
Quote: RonCI 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.
Quote: RaleighCrapsI'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.
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.
Quote: 98stepsTwo 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.
Quote: atlarsonSo 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
Quote: MichaelBluejayAs 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.
Quote: MathExtremistA 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.
Quote: 98stepsFor the "Base" strategy which I am running from now til November 1st, the win goal is $150 per session. with one to three sessions per day depending on time constraints.
With 1 week left in your "Base" strategy, what changes are coming?
A higher win goal?
A higher bankroll? A lower loss limit?
What have you learned so far that you did not expect to happen?
You have had 2 very long sessions, Are there adjustments to your system so the win goal can be made in less hours of play?
Quote: MichaelBluejayAlso, 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.
98 steps still seems to "believe" he has a winning system. He has said he is currently running "primitive" tests in WinCraps and says he may be close in order to beat your challenge.
But, by making the lifetime starting bankroll $3000, that seems to me it would eliminate 98steps next possible challenge since he already says his bankroll needed is $5000.
Am I missing something here about the "lifetime bankroll"?
Quote: MichaelBluejay
As for #2, success for the challenger would be an average profit over all the lifetimes we simulate.
Thoughts?
Seems your challenge has changed too much.
Are not "averages" misleading?
My 2 cents, There should be a set number of winning sessions. Like baseball world series. Best out of 7.
Best out of 700 or even 7000.
"Starting bankroll for each lifetime is $3000."
I also do not understand this point.
98steps beginning bankroll has been stated as $5000. So he would then have to change his system to accept your new challenge rules?
Seems as any challenger should be able to select his starting bankroll.
How do you see the new rules of the challenge?
Are you rested up and ready to win some more money from the Craps table?
Hope so, as the talk here in your thread has turned to talk about fraud and DA and 98steps all in the same paragraph.
By the way, notorious system-peddler E. Clifton Davis said last year that he would accept my challenge, but never did. Here's the link to his forum page. Note that it's screwy and the posts are listed in reverse chronological order, so you have to start reading from the bottom.
http://www.beatthecasino.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5225
Quote: mkl654321There 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.
So rather than fraud, is there a case to be made for breach of implied warranty of fitness by the system seller? And can that case be made even if the buyer knows the product is unfit? Actually, most system vendors do not disclose the "product" until after purchase, so a buyer can only suspect it is unfit. The chain might go like this:
1) System seller pitches "guaranteed winning system." Offers 83% chance of a winning session and guarantees a long-term edge over the casino.
2) You buy it. Upon paying, you receive the instructions.
3) The instructions, however complicated, involve only making standard casino wagers, each of which has a house edge.
4) You go to the casino and play the system, losing $5000.
Given these facts, do you have a claim for breach of warranty? Moreover, are your $5000 in losses part of recoverable damages?
Weaselman, I meant to say this earlier: Your comment here is my favorite post of this entire thread!Quote: weaselmanHe is just planning on getting out after 33 sessions ("short run", remember?) ... and then staring over
Quote: MichaelBluejay
By the way, notorious system-peddler E. Clifton Davis said last year that he would accept my challenge, but never did. Here's the link to his forum page. Note that it's screwy and the posts are listed in reverse chronological order, so you have to start reading from the bottom.
http://www.beatthecasino.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5225
Seems to me that there will always be a stopping point to any challenge.
One side says, "I will code the system", the other says, "I don not trust you and I will code it myself since the coding is rather difficult and mistakes can be made."
OR...
"My point was that people don't play against random generators in casinos. They play against real games. That is why we test that way. I've seen a system beat PHP that could not beat a casino. " from the above mentioned forum.
So, one side wants RNG, another side wants actual casino play simulation.
I was the first to code 98steps "Craps System" in Wincraps, only to be told by another WinCraps programmer that my coding contained many errors.
After looking at his code and mine, I had just coded differently many parts of the same system.
My tests still showed a challenge failure, but to this day I am still told my coding still contains errors. I disagree.
Who, then would be able to tell if one's coding a "system" is 100% accurate?
I have 2 "systems" that could beat a challenge, by my rules not posted here, in a computer for 1 billion trials, but the programming and especially the coding to track statistics is indeed complex, I doubt any 2 out of 10 programmers would end up programming it correctly and one programmer would have a difficult if not impossible time of finding any "errors" in each others coding.
I say instead of having set rules for a challenge, all the rules can be agreed to or changed.
Mr Bluejay and others want to "prove that a system can not turn a negative expectation games into a positive exception game or "whole point of this challenge is to disprove traditional betting systems, where bet size and placement is based on the outcome of previous rounds." from Bluejay's website.
NO system seller has ever claimed that "a negative expectation game can be turned into a positive exception game".
So here again is another disagreement on what a "system" can do and can not do.
I am shocked that 98steps has claimed to have found investors to give him money to gamble with.
His early posted results are pathetic.
Large losses that are inevitable will destroy any winning profits and this thread will be closed sooner than later.
Quote: MathExtremistSo rather than fraud, is there a case to be made for breach of implied warranty of fitness by the system seller? And can that case be made even if the buyer knows the product is unfit? Actually, most system vendors do not disclose the "product" until after purchase, so a buyer can only suspect it is unfit. The chain might go like this:
1) System seller pitches "guaranteed winning system." Offers 83% chance of a winning session and guarantees a long-term edge over the casino.
2) You buy it. Upon paying, you receive the instructions.
3) The instructions, however complicated, involve only making standard casino wagers, each of which has a house edge.
4) You go to the casino and play the system, losing $5000.
Given these facts, do you have a claim for breach of warranty? Moreover, are your $5000 in losses part of recoverable damages?
Yes, you have such a claim, but claiming any damages is problematic. You can certainly recover what you paid for the product/system, etc.
If you bought a defective chainsaw that put you in the hospital instead of cutting your hedgerow, you would be entitled to two different kinds of damages--one, under the implied warranty, and two, under product liability. As a practical matter, courts limit the extent of the damages that can be awarded under the latter type of claim.
The difficulty I see in a case laid out like yours is that the loss of $5000 is not ipso facto proof that the system is ineffective (the way a chainsaw coming apart in your hands would be). Any such proof would have to be in the system's underlying mathematics (which is why I've said that the "challenge" is a faulty way to validate or invalidate a system), and if the system purchaser/user showed that, a court would reasonably ask why he didn't test the system that way before risking any of his money.
Quote: mkl654321and if the system purchaser/user showed that, a court would reasonably ask why he didn't test the system that way before risking any of his money.
How would it be different from asking why you did not test the chainsaw that put you in the hospital?
The answer to both questions is that you trusted the seller's word.
I think, your claim for damages would be perfectly valid, albeit practically impossible to obtain a judgment, and even less likely to collect.
Quote: weaselmanHow would it be different from asking why you did not test the chainsaw that put you in the hospital?
The answer to both questions is that you trusted the seller's word.
I think, your claim for damages would be perfectly valid, albeit practically impossible to obtain a judgment, and even less likely to collect.
Because a chainsaw could pass an initial test (it could run perfectly well for half an hour or so) and still turn out to be defective; a craps system could be irrefutably proved defective before it was ever used.
The system seller could plausibly say that a system does not work all the time, and that your $5000 loss was due to bad luck. The guy who sold you the chainsaw that blew up would have a harder time mounting a similar defense.
Quote: mkl654321Because a chainsaw could pass an initial test (it could run perfectly well for half an hour or so) and still turn out to be defective;
That would be similar to testing a betting system, by running a few rounds of simulation.
That's not how you test a chainsaw obviously. You'd have to inspect it for defects in parts or assembly.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
By the way, notorious system-peddler E. Clifton Davis said last year that he would accept my challenge, but never did. Here's the link to his forum page. Note that it's screwy and the posts are listed in reverse chronological order, so you have to start reading from the bottom.
http://www.beatthecasino.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5225
From one of the early posts at the referenced thread:
Quote: E. Clifton Davis
However, it is not a simple betting system that I would put up to meet your challenge. It is a full fledged Baccarat system. This includes a betting system as well as a bet placement system. It also includes a simple count used to contain the betting system within changing parameters. This will require considerable programming.
Oh man, this ain't no normal betting system - better watch out! this is a full fledged Baccarat system!!! Grown men quake in their boots at the sight! Children cry and run away at the mere mention!
Quote: ElectricDreamsFrom one of the early posts at the referenced thread:
Quote: E. Clifton Davis
However, it is not a simple betting system that I would put up to meet your challenge. It is a full fledged Baccarat system. This includes a betting system as well as a bet placement system. It also includes a simple count used to contain the betting system within changing parameters. This will require considerable programming.
Oh man, this ain't no normal betting system - better watch out! this is a full fledged Baccarat system!!! Grown men quake in their boots at the sight! Children cry and run away at the mere mention!
Grown men and women and children do exactly that.
Try to code and understand this one:
As soon as the cumulative frequency for the #7 for 4 rolls (51.77%) is 2 standard deviations or more (but less than 2.5 standard deviations) below the expected mean (edit: of the cumulative frequency for the #7 for 4 rolls (51.77%))
and the next roll is a come-out roll. Then Lay the 4 and 10 for $40 each , Lay the 5&9 for $60 each, Lay the 6&8 for $60 each. Bet $25 on the pass line.
OR...even easier
As soon as the cumulative frequency for the #7 for 4 rolls (51.77%) is more than 2.5 standard deviations below the expected mean (edit: of the cumulative frequency for the #7 for 4 rolls (51.77%))
and the next roll is a come-out roll and the last roll was a #7. (edit: meaning that while the last roll was a 7 but the cumulative frequency for the #7 for 4 rolls is STILL more than 2.5 standard deviations below the expected mean of the cumulative frequency for the #7 for 4 rolls (51.77%))...
Then Lay the 4 and 10 for $100 each , Lay the 5&9 for $120 each, Lay the 6&8 for $150. Bet $50 on the pass line.
Too many simpletons "laugh" because they imagine the world is oh so simple and easy...ALWAYS,
after $5 pass line lost once, bet $10 on the pass line.
Must be nice to live in a perfect, simple world.
Quote: thecesspitI'm not sure if he's reporting gross per day or gross overall.
It appears 98 is posting daily results.
October 21. 7:45pm - 11:30pm. El Cortez Casino, Downtown. Gross Earnings $162
October 22. 9:30am - 4:15pm. Eastside Cannery, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings $60.
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.
October 24: I am taking Sunday OFF
$550 is the total gross earnings to date as posted by 98steps.
98steps should include that in a nice table so everyone can see the results.
example:
| Date/Time/Location | Day | Session Hours | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| October 21. 7:45pm - 11:30pm. El Cortez Casino, Downtown. Gross Earnings $162 | Thurs | 3.75 | $162 |
| October 22. 9:30am - 4:15pm. Eastside Cannery, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings $60. | Fri | 6.75 | $60 |
| October 23. 1:30pm - 4:30pm. Eastside Cannery, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings $153. | Sat | 3 | $153 |
| October 23. 5:45pm - 5:30am. Boulder Station, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings $175. | Sat | 11.75 | $175 |
| October 24.I am taking Sunday OFF | Sun | 0 | 0 |
| October 25.Coming Soon | Mon | ||
| Totals | 25.25 | $550 |
Quote: weaselmanThat would be similar to testing a betting system, by running a few rounds of simulation.
That's not how you test a chainsaw obviously. You'd have to inspect it for defects in parts or assembly.
My point is that a chainsaw's fitness for use can be empirically tested; that of a betting system cannot (at least, not in a sufficiently small timespan).
Quote: nope27
Try to code and understand this one:
As soon as the cumulative frequency for the #7 for 4 rolls (51.77%) is 2 standard deviations or more (but less than 2.5 standard deviations) below the expected mean and the next roll is a come-out roll. Then Lay the 4 and 10 for $40 each , Lay the 5&9 for $60 each, Lay the 6&8 for $60 each. Bet $25 on the pass line.
OR...even easier
As soon as the cumulative frequency for the #7 for 4 rolls (51.77%) is more than 2.5 standard deviations below the expected mean and the next roll is a come-out roll and the last roll was a #7. Then Lay the 4 and 10 for $100 each , Lay the 5&9 for $120 each, Lay the 6&8 for $150. Bet $50 on the pass line.
Too many simpletons "laugh" because they imagine the world is oh so simple and easy...ALWAYS,
after $5 pass line lost once, bet $10 on the pass line.
Must be nice to live in a perfect, simple world.
You calling me a simpleton, nope27? My sensibilities are offended!
Also, what does your craps system have to do with my opinion about E. Clifton Davis' Baccarat system anyway?
Furthermore, your system is a good way to hedge bets, I guess. I'll stick with pass line and odds, because I do like living in my perfect, simple, world, thankyouverymuch.
Quote: nope27It appears 98 is posting daily results.
Date/Time/Location Day Session Hours Result October 21. 7:45pm - 11:30pm. El Cortez Casino, Downtown. Gross Earnings $162 Thurs 3.75 $162 October 22. 9:30am - 4:15pm. Eastside Cannery, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings $60. Fri 6.75 $60 October 23. 1:30pm - 4:30pm. Eastside Cannery, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings $153. Sat 3 $153 October 23. 5:45pm - 5:30am. Boulder Station, Boulder Highway. Gross Earnings $175. Sat 11.75 $175 October 24.I am taking Sunday OFF Sun 0 0 October 25.Coming Soon Mon Totals 25.25 $550
Those numbers show over $21 per hour played.
Then he has to split that 3 ways, himself, his investors and more for the bankroll.
I think his "Base" betting the first 2 weeks is to see if he can stand the grind and make it through each session still in one piece.
It is now Monday and we should see Monday's results tonight.
