When Would A System Be Considered to "Work"?

OK, I know it is said that there is no such thing as a system that works.

My question is, what would be criteria be to "prove" that a system DOES work?

Aslo, if you're having a bad day, system or not, probably going to be a losing day.

For instance....

If your session start amount is 100 and are betting 10, if you lose 10 more than you win, session over.

If you start with 100 using a progression of some sort, like 5, 6, 7, 8, etc increasing on s loss and decreasing on a win, and lose 10 more than you win, session over,

Except, with the progression, every time you win, you win 1 more than you lose when you lose,, so you could actually lose 10 more than you win and still be in the game.

Also, with a flat bet if you win half you break even.

With a progression you come out ahead.

So, in a sense, the progression system would "work" as you would get more play for the same session amount, unless, of course, you hit a bad streak right at the start, where the play would be about the same, 10 bets and done.

But, like I said, if you lose way more than you win in either case it's gonna be a bad day.

Thanks.

Quote: russ451

Also, with a flat bet if you win half you break even.

With a progression you come out ahead.

So, in a sense, the progression system would "work" as you would get more play for the same session amount, unless, of course, you hit a bad streak right at the start, where the play would be about the same, 10 bets and done.

That's part of the problem. Define when a system "works."

I am under the impression that the consensus is, a system "works" if the expected return is positive.

In terms of actual play, no system can possibly work because every system is subject to bad results, no matter how improbable they are - this is pretty much the whole point of the gambler's fallacy. If it is possible for a bet to lose, then it is possible for the losing result to happen every time in any finite time frame.

Quote: russ451

using a progression of some sort, like 5, 6, 7, 8, etc increasing on s loss and decreasing on a win, and lose 10 more than you win, session over,Except, with the progression, every time you win, you win 1 more than you lose when you lose,, so you could actually lose 10 more than you win and still be in the game.

that system has a name. it's called the d'Alembert.

it is named after a famous 18th century mathematician named Jean le Rond d'Alembert.

here is a brief note about him:

"While he made great strides in mathematics and physics, 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."

A system can be considered to work when it can show a profit over "the long run." How long is the "long run," you might ask. I'd be comfortable saying if a system can beat a billion-hand simulation, for most types of casino games, then it can be considered to "work."

You would have to record all those billion rolls or hand simulations looking for the negative dips in the simulation.
Your bank roll plays a huge part in your WORKING system.

If you can comfortably or should I say consistently show a profit from a certain starting bank roll amount, then that should be able to determine many other factors and then finally be able to discover the longevity of the working system average.

The Wizard is correct in saying what he said and any short term system played long enoughwill eventually bite you in the butt. Some systems may require a huge bank roll to overcome such swings such as cold times at the craps tables.

Factor in what you are betting. If you're betting hard ways at the craps table maybe an average bank roll of 5k will do the trick.
(you can't just use a term like 50 times your minimum bet to determine your system bank roll.

A billion hand simulation can pretty much determine how much would be required. That's just the bank roll part.

Now you need to factor in amount of shooters at the table in reality at the craps table. Factor in 14 players are perfect shooters rolling in excess of 15 points average, then also factory the same 14 players PSO.
Come up with a figure then add it in the pot.

Then there is the mood for changing your system to suit the scenario. For example your at the craps table and the shooter still has the dice for more than 30 rolls. Are you still gonna play the same way or will you determine that your bank roll has made enough profit that may make you want to bet more or at a higher level.

A system in general will fail 99% of the time if used in a prolonged period of time.
So in knowing this, you have to factor in, how many times you will win vs. how many times you expect to lose vs. how much do you lose vs. how much losses can you make up from a win vs. average time till your system starts to flop.

some of this stuff can not be determined from a billion roll simulation, It needs to be learned hands on.
99% expectations will result in negative unless proven otherwise.

Now the reality check. Don't you think that if a game of chance could be beat consistently the casino won't notice this and have the game removed? So factor in FEAR vs. a comfortable income, what amount of money can you extract from the casino before they notice and say, hey no more.

If some guy came in to my casino and was constantly winning money, you bet your bottom dollar if the over all profits from that machine did not prove it's ability to draw income, I would have it removed asap.

Bet amount is also a major factor. Assuming your system is consistent, BET MAX and go from there. Don't bet small and allow your system to increase. Instead bet max and allow your system to optimize winnings then do the opposite and run a comparison to find an average bet.

There are other factors to consider also but I don't want to bore you.