Overhauling the Betting System Challenge
I want to radically overhaul my betting system challenge, and with this thread I'm soliciting input from the community about whether my proposed revisions are good, and other revisions I should make.
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 the systems hawked by system sellers don't work. So when I started the challenge I mostly copied the Wizard's rules, and made only some minor changes. But on reflection, the rules don't seem that practical and relevant to real-world situations, hence the proposed overhaul.
(1) What constitutes a win. In the original challenge, any profit at all after a billion hands would constitute a win. But few people would consider a system that won $0.01 after a billion rounds to be a successful system, in practical terms. So I propose that the system must show a profit of at least $7 per hour of play (i.e., per every 60 rounds). [Nixed this idea after several others disagreed.]
(2) Starting bankroll. The challenge currently assumes an unlimited bankroll, which is silly. Nobody has an unlimited bankroll in the real world. And if their bankroll is huge, they certainly don't need a winning betting system anyway. Finally, no system seller suggests that their system needs a big bankroll -- in fact they all say the opposite. So I'd like to require a starting (virtual) bankroll. What would be fair? $3,000? $5,000? $10,000? This would be the initial bankroll for each "lifetime" trial, as described below.
(3) Short term vs. Long term. 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, this is 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. (Not just the objection of would-be challengers, but also the general public who would otherwise think that the challenge is unrealistic because it's based on long-term rather than short-term results.)
(4) Accepting the challenge. As it stands the challenger has to send me the system rules *before* we sign the contract. Many challengers would assume that I would then secretly simulate the system and if it showed a profit I would then decline the challenge, and then go play the challenge in the casino. So I want to change the order so that we sign the contract *first*, and *then* I get the system rules. I think the Wizard asked for the system rules first in order to weed out anyone trying to find and exploit a loophole in the terms (i.e., trying to beat the *Wizard* rather than proving that they have a legitimate betting system). If we sign contracts first then I run that risk, but I think if the contract is worded properly, I'll have enough protection. Below are the sample terms I'm proposing so you can see what I mean.
(5) What I can publish. I'd like to 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.
Here are the proposed changes:
Quote: Proposed Challenge Terms
Note: These terms have changed since originally posted, as I've revised them to reflect input from the community.
1. The Challenge. I will wager my $30,000 against your $3,000 (or my $10,000 against your $1,000, if you prefer) that your betting system cannot beat a game of roulette (single- or double-zero), baccarat, or craps (3-4-5 odds), as the player, using common Vegas rules, in a computer simulation, as per the additional terms below. You win the challenge if your system shows any profit at the end of the simulation, I win if it does not.
2. Pick your test. You can choose any of the following for your test. In craps, a "round" is any roll in which at least one bet is resolved.
. . . . . (a) Win by showing an average profit of at least $1 and win at least 25% of sessions, averaged over 4 million sessions. Each session as 120 rounds (equivalent to two hours in the casino), and your system must play at least 30 rounds per session. Start each session with any bankroll amount up to $500.
. . . . . (b) Win by showing an average profit of at least $1 per lifetime and win at least 25% of lifetimes, averaged over 1 million lifetimes. A lifetime is 360,000 rounds (60 rounds per hour x 10 hours/weekend x 20 weekends/year x 30 years). (This assumes your system places a bet every round; for systems that involve "sitting out" some rounds in order to wait for presence or absence of streaks, we'll simulate additional lifetimes to make up for the difference. That is, we simulate as many rounds in total as we would if your system never sat out.) Starting lifetime bankroll of $5000.
. . . . . (c) Win by showing any profit over 100 million rounds, starting with an unlimited bankroll. Your system can sit out to wait for "streaks" or other conditions, but must place a bet on at least 5% of total rounds. Also, if sitting out some rounds, we'll simulate additional rounds until 100 million rounds have been wagered on.
3. Table Limits. The table limits are $5 minimum and $5000 maximum ($1 minimum on inside bets in roulette, with a total inside minimum of $5 if any inside wagers are placed). In craps, the Table Max refers to the Pass Line bet, so a Free Odds bet can exceed the table max.
4. Real betting systems only. Your system must be one that could actually be used in a typical Vegas casino, since the point of your challenge should be to prove that you can win in a casino environment. So, for example, methods that attempt to exploit the computer's random number generator are specifically disallowed. Any system that wins by screwing with the RNG cannot win in a real casino. Similarly, any system that cannot be actually be employed by an average person with nothing more than a pen and paper is disallowed, since if a system can't be used in the real world then it's worthless. Also, card-counting systems in baccarat are disallowed, because the whole point of this challenge is to disprove traditional betting systems, where bet size and placement is based on the outcome of previous rounds.
5. Contract. We'll execute a contract, and then deposit our money in escrow up front with a neutral, mutually-agreed-upon third party who will also act as judge. After signing the contract, any party who backs out or fails to proceed as specified below will forfeit. Either party may appeal any decision made by the judge by our employing a mutually agreed-upon neutral professional arbiter to decide the issue, with the losing party in the arbitration paying the arbiter's fees.
6. System Rules. You will email me your system rules within one week of our both signing the contract. If I feel the rules are not clear I will ask you to clarify within 48 hours of my receiving the rules, and you will have 48 hours to reply. After two weeks from your initially sending me the rules, if I feel the rules are still not clear, then at my option I can ask to the judge to rule that you forfeited by failing to submit an understandable betting system, and if the judge rules against you then you can appeal via arbitration as per above.
7. Simulation. I will program a computer simulation and provide you with the results as well as the source codeso you can have your own expert(s) verify its accuracy. If you convince me of an error with my code I will correct the error and run the simulation again, with the new test being the official one. This will repeat as many times as you find errors that I agree are errors and fix. If you believe my code to be in error and I disagree, you can ask the judge to rule for you. If the judge rules against you, you may submit the case to arbitration as per above.
8. Promise to not use the system.. Since the first would-be challenger who wrote to me was concerned that I would use his winning system in the casinos myself to capitalize on it, I promise in writing to do no such thing. I have more money than I need anyway.
9. Free advertising. In addition to the $30,000 (or $10,000), a winning challenger will also receive, on the front page of VegasClick.com, a prominent ad on the front of VegasClick.com for the system along with my statement that the system beat my challenge, for a period of at least one year from the date of the test.
10. Reporting the results. I will not disclose the challenger's contact information or the specific rules of the system without the challenger's permission. I will be allowed (but not required) to publish:
(a). The address of the website selling the system, if it is for sale to the public.
(b). The name of the challenger, if it appears on the challenger's own website about the betting system (otherwise, I need the challenger's permission to publish his/her name).
(c). A general description of the system, 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.)
(d). The overall results, including the percentage of weekend sessions won/lost, the average profit/loss for won & lost sessions, and the average lifetime profit/loss.
What does everyone think of these changes?
http://vegasclick.com/gambling/betting-system-challenge.html
Mr Bluejay, those words at your website that I placed in this post are so true.
Why do you even want to waste your time and continue this?
What do you get from doing this? if I may so ask?
As for the "lifetime" bankroll... That is a tricky definition, since a player who wins early will have "house money" to re-stake, and possibly expand his next session, and may never have to touch his original stake in a, "lifetime". Alternately, the vast majority of players will lose the original stake, save up, and try again. Over the course of 30 years (or 35 as stateed in another place), that could easily add up to $90,000+ "cycled" for an "average" player ($3,000 year). I am not sure what is fair here, but a few thousand for a "lifetime" is way too low.
Quote: Ayecarumba$7 an hour seems reasonable. Alternately, the win could be proportional to the starting bankroll, since a player with a starting bankroll of $200 will have very different definitions of a "win" vs. a $10k player.
As for the "lifetime" bankroll... That is a tricky definition, since a player who wins early will have "house money" to re-stake, and possibly expand his next session, and may never have to touch his original stake in a, "lifetime". Alternately, the vast majority of players will lose the original stake, save up, and try again. Over the course of 30 years (or 35 as stateed in another place), that could easily add up to $90,000+ "cycled" for an "average" player ($3,000 year). I am not sure what is fair here, but a few thousand for a "lifetime" is way too low.
I don't think you need to define a lifetime bankroll or a minimum per hour win. Both, while realistic, should be meaningless in the large scale you are talking about, and we can work out the per hour and total mximum bank roll required for each lifetime after running the results.
You should win any challenge without these limitations (I've not looked at it hard enough, but there is one possible loop-hole that could work if you did have a limited bankroll). If the challengee wants to state "if you are ever $xxxx in the hole, stop using the system" as one of it's variables.... would that not be a fair enough rule?
Quote:I am not sure what is fair here, but a few thousand for a "lifetime" is way too low.
Not according to the system sellers. Those that bother to say how much of an initial bankroll is required, always give a very low one. $5000 should be sufficient for any system to start winning, and then the system can simply play with "won" money. If the system can't start winning money with $5000, then it's impractical...and that's the point.
Quote:If the challengee wants to state "if you are ever $xxxx in the hole, stop using the system" as one of it's variables.... would that not be a fair enough rule?
It wouldn't. The casino doesn't let you play for free and get in the hole, and so neither does my challenge. Remember, I'm trying to have the challenge mirror the real-world as much as possible. I also see no advantage of letting the player be in the hole vs. having them start with an initial bankroll, which is how we all expect a player is going to start playing.
(And yes, casinos will let you play on credit if you've of sufficient means, but let's not nitpick here.)
Quote: MichaelBluejayQuote:I am not sure what is fair here, but a few thousand for a "lifetime" is way too low.
Not according to the system sellers. Those that bother to say how much of an initial bankroll is required, always give a very low one. $5000 should be sufficient for any system to start winning, and then the system can simply play with "won" money. If the system can't start winning money with $5000, then it's impractical...and that's the point.
Agreed. $5,000 should be plenty to "prime the pump" in the first session. A winning system should have not problem building from there.
Is $7 an hour a reasonable minimum win for a player who stakes $5k in their first session? Given the current parameters (10 hrs./day) that's $70 walk away each day. I'd be happy with it, but as I have never staked $5k in a single session, I don't know if that player would consider it a "win".
Quote: MichaelBluejayIt wouldn't. The casino doesn't let you play for free and get in the hole, and so neither does my challenge. Remember, I'm trying to have the challenge mirror the real-world as much as possible. I also see no advantage of letting the player be in the hole vs. having them start with an initial bankroll, which is how we all expect a player is going to start playing.
(And yes, casinos will let you play on credit if you've of sufficient means, but let's not nitpick here.)
Sorry, what I meant was would a system that had a rule "if you bankroll is now $2,500, STOP" (or even "if your bankroll is now $100,000, STOP") be fair game within our system.
I was referring to in the hole meaning being in a net loss situation.
Quote: thecesspitSorry, what I meant was would a system that had a rule "if you bankroll is now $2,500, STOP" (or even "if your bankroll is now $100,000, STOP") be fair game within our system.
I was referring to in the hole meaning being in a net loss situation.
The averages in #1 should solve these. If they play 50 rounds out of 5000 that would have occurred over a lifetime, the total won is still divided by 5000 and not 50. To prevent just a random lucky streak I see that 1000 lifetimes are averaged out.
Stop losses and protecting winnings is extremely common even for gamblers that know they will lose, so I don't know why someone couldn't integrate that into a system.
One option is if the system does include a STOP, then the system is restarted for the rest of the lifetime. At the end of the lifetime any previous STOPs with profits(or losses if they have a stop loss) are added back into the bankroll.
And yes, soulhunt79 is right, the win for the year would still be averaged over the total lifetime hours for the year, including the hours they intentionally sat out, not just the hours they played.
And point of order, we're looking at 12,000 rounds a year, not 5000. (60 rounds x 10 hours/weekend x 20 weekends/year) And that's 360,000 rounds for a lifetime.
Quote: MichaelBluejaySo I propose that the system must show a profit of at least $7 per hour of play (i.e., per every 60 rounds).
That makes the challenge a bit more difficult, but not dramatically. If the average bet is around $10, and the house edge is around 1%, then they're already losing about that much per hour already. So you've ~doubled the depth of the hole they must dig themselves out of. If they're betting more then the effect is smaller.
Quote: MichaelBluejay(2) Starting bankroll. The challenge currently assumes an unlimited bankroll, which is silly. Nobody has an unlimited bankroll in the real world.
I'd have assumed that the original challenge permitted an unlimited bankroll because there was no reason not to. A negative-expectation game will lose money over time, even if the player faces no risk of ruin. So why complicate things?
Quote: MichaelBluejay(3) Short term vs. Long term. 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.
How did you choose the billion-round requirement? Or, equivalently, how did you choose the maximum allowable spread, and the maximum-variance games allowed (e.g., no 100x odds)? You can bound your risk of losing theoretically, for any sequence of bets; for example, you can use Chebyshev's inequality, but that bound is not very tight. Or you can construct the best betting system you can personally, and simulate that, and measure where roughly it starts failing, and then add a couple of orders of magnitude for safety; but that's not very satisfying.
Quote: MichaelBluejayA system can certainly set stop parameters for a playing session, but it can't stop a *lifetime*. Well, it *could* in theory sit out for the rest of the lifetime, waiting for the right combination of previous wins/losses to come up, but that's unlikely. And if someone's "system" is to quit while you're ahead FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, then that's not really a betting system, is it? What kind of system makes you quit for your whole life just because you get a ahead a little bit?
I am merely trying to game your system :) I was trying to work out if there's a certain set of bets I could make that would give me a -chance- to end up ahead enough that 10:1 bet would be worth while. E.g there's a greater than 10% chance that 1000 trials could end up in profit (where you'd have a lot of losing trials at your stop loss, and some winning trials of large sums). I haven't even got close to running the numbers on it, fully expect it to not be able to work.
Quote:And yes, soulhunt79 is right, the win for the year would still be averaged over the total lifetime hours for the year, including the hours they intentionally sat out, not just the hours they played.
And point of order, we're looking at 360,000 rounds a year, not 5000. (60 rounds x 10 hours/weekend x 20 weekends/year x 30 years)
60x10x20 = 12,000 rounds per year... 360,000 for a lifetime. 6,000 hours of play. No worries. I like the idea, it makes sense, I am merely trying to find loopholes, cos if I can find them... someone else might too.
I still don't think meeting a certain per hour "wage" matters in terms... do the above 1000 times and if it still ends up a net winner, then... well, something is odd, even if it's a 25c/hour.
Quote: thecesspitI am merely trying to game your system :) I was trying to work out if there's a certain set of bets I could make that would give me a -chance- to end up ahead enough that 10:1 bet would be worth while.
Good job! I should have clarified in my original post: The feedback I'm looking for is to see whether my changes make the challenge seem more reasonable and more life-like to the layperson (and what other changes could help in that area), but also to see if I'm missing something which could allow someone to game the system.
And sorry, I did mess up the 12,000 vs. 360,000 numbers. I fixed that in my earlier post.
BTW, I chose $7/hr. because if a system can't make at least that much then it's not worth playing, and $7 isn't even minimum wage. However, I'm toying with the idea of setting it to $1, because it looks better to the public (and the media) if I can say "No one has ever submitted a betting system that can win even a measly dollar an hour." Of course that makes the challenge 7x easier to win.
And why the option of a discount challenge? If someone truly beleives they have a winner, then the $3,000 risk shouldn't be an issue. Whether it's $1,000 or $3,000, you'll put the same amount of work into it. How much is your time worth? For the record, I'd get rid of both options and make it a $2,500/$25,000 challenge - but that's only because I like round numbers.
About your changes:
(1) What constitutes a win.
While I understand the rationale behind the $7/hr profit (or even the revised $1/hr profit), I'm not sure that's a good idea.
I frequently tell the story of my first trip to a horse track. I counted my money when I left the house. I paid for parking, entrance, program, beer, dogs, bets, etc. When I got home I counted again and found that the evening cost me ten cents. Every time I tell that story, the response is some variation of "That sounds like a win!"
Most gamblers, knowing that they are destined to lose, would be happy to break even. I think most gamblers would jump at any system, even if it guaranteed nothing more than breaking even. Therefore, I'd leave it at $0.01, or if you must $1, but make it per 'weekend'.
Your sim can't account for comps. But if this was live, that player would be swimming in comps. Therefore, a system that only breaks even, is still a winner.
(2) Starting bankroll.
Whatever number you choose, it should probably be some standard multiple of the table minimum.
Additionally, do tables with $5 minimums and $5000 maximums exist? I don't pay attention to the maximum, so I don't know, but that seems like an unrealistic spread. Oh, sure, there are higher limit tables. But they also have higher minimums. There should be a provision that if the sim turns an early profit and moves to a higher limit table, that it must stay there for some specified minimum period. No rapid table bouncing.
(4) Accepting the challenge.
I think your 48 hour thing could come back to haunt you. Don't you have a life? Do you really want to be contracturally bound to drop everything to get out a response within a 48 hour window?
I think it would certainly be reasonable to allow bets to run $5 to $5000 over a lifetime and probably even over a session -- table hopping either frequently or rarely should be permitted. System players might even be working as a team, with one at a low-limit table and another in a high-limit room, though I don't know why. The thing that I would consider as unrealistic is having very different wagers ($5 and $5000) in play at the same time on the same roll of the dice, spin of the wheel, or turn of the card. I doubt that it would make any difference to the long-term result, but I don't think it represents the way I have seen any brick and mortar casino operate.Quote: DJTeddyBear... Additionally, do tables with $5 minimums and $5000 maximums exist? I don't pay attention to the maximum, so I don't know, but that seems like an unrealistic spread. Oh, sure, there are higher limit tables. But they also have higher minimums. There should be a provision that if the sim turns an early profit and moves to a higher limit table, that it must stay there for some specified minimum period. No rapid table bouncing. ...
Quote: MichaelBluejay
BTW, I chose $7/hr. because if a system can't make at least that much then it's not worth playing, and $7 isn't even minimum wage.
This is not quite true. My "system" (flat betting) does not make me any money at all, in fact, it makes me lose about 5 cents on every $10 bet pretty consistently, yet I still play it. If there was a way to play for free, I'd certainly jump on it.
Besides, I think that setting up a per-hour limit significantly weakens your point. It is one thing to say a "winning betting system does not exist, period", and quite another - "you can't make $7 per hour" ... How about $6.99? Would that be possible? What if I double every bet now? Will that turn $6.99 into $13.98?
It's like saying I bet you cannot show me a "perpetuum motion" machine, but it has to produce at least a kilowatt per hour in addition to being able to run indefinitely on its own.
Same goes to the bankroll size limitation - it's arbitrary, and does not really change anything except for making the message weaker.
@DJTeddyBear:
I'm not trying to encourage more inquiries. I'm trying to show the public that betting systems hawked by system-sellers don't work, because if one *did* work, then someone would accept and beat my challenge.
I agree that making only a dollar after a weekend of gambling would be a good result -- very cheap entertainment. But the point of the challenge is to disprove the idea that betting systems can be truly profitable.
Comps are really a side issue. The point of the challenge is to show that betting systems can't win at the tables.
You're right that $5 to $5000 tables are rare, but $5-$500 and $25 to $5000 tables are common. A bettor could move from one table to the other in a casino, so they can do the same in my challenge.
I don't like the 48-hour rule either but this is the kind of thing that has to be specified in a contract. Otherwise one side could stall forever.
@weaselman:
The Wizard's challenge required that the challenger only show any profit. I was trying to make the challenge more practical, because a $0.01 profit after a billion spins is completely impractical. It's the kind of thing that would be impressive to a statistician but completely unimpressive to a gambler. However, I agree that it makes my case stronger if I'm able to say that a system can't even average a penny of profit over a lifetime. My concern there is just that someone will figure out a way to exploit the challenge and get that result, even if they don't truly have a winning betting system. So I guess it's incumbent on me to just make sure that my challenge can't be exploited....
Agreed, but put in a provision to limit virtual table hopping to mimic reality.Quote: MichaelBluejayYou're right that $5 to $5000 tables are rare, but $5-$500 and $25 to $5000 tables are common. A bettor could move from one table to the other in a casino, so they can do the same in my challenge.
Also, agreed. My point was not that the time limit concept is bad, but that the specific 48 hours could be a problem. I'd suggest one week.Quote: MichaelBluejayI don't like the 48-hour rule either but this is the kind of thing that has to be specified in a contract. Otherwise one side could stall forever.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
And point of order, we're looking at 12,000 rounds a year, not 5000. (60 rounds x 10 hours/weekend x 20 weekends/year) And that's 360,000 rounds for a lifetime.
Sorry, I'm not sure which language is the "overhaul" since point #3 quoted below does not mention the 60 "rounds" per hour in the 'lifetime" calculation:
Quote: MichaelBluejay
(3) Short term vs. Long term. 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, this is 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. (Not just the objection of would-be challengers, but also the general public who would otherwise think that the challenge is unrealistic because it's based on long-term rather than short-term results.)
This is described as a "proposed change" in your original post:
Quote: MichaelBluejay
1. I will wager my $30,000 against your $3,000.... A "lifetime" is 60 rounds per hour X 12 hours per weekend X 20 weekends per year X 35 years....
But this is described as the "overhaul":
Quote: MichaelBluejay
(3) ... 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....
Is the final language intended as: "60 rounds/hour X 12 hours/weekend X 20 weekends/year X 35 years" or, "60 rph X 10 hpw X 20 wpy X 30 years"?
Quote: MichaelBluejay@larson, all your questions are answered specifically in my original post.
I don't see where you explain how you chose the duration of a billion bets resolved (whether those are considered as belonging to a single person over a long session, or to multiple people over many shorter sessions). How did you choose the billion? Why not ten billion, or a hundred million? (Obviously, because you want to get enough "into the long run" for the system to lose. But how do you define that?)
Essentially, how do you convince yourself that the bet you're offering is to your advantage? For a thousand bets, it obviously isn't, and for a billion bets, you're fairly confident that it is; but how did you calculate that?
@Ayecarumba. I don't think it matters much whether a weekend lasts 10 hours or 12 hours. That's a minor detail which I can decide on later.
@atlarson: Your question is answered in my original post, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence.
@everyone: Before I make this live, I'd like to hammer on it to make sure I'm not missing something that would leave it vulnerable to exploit. So, I'm making a special offer...
Bluejay's $1000 reward!
I'll pay $1000 to the first person who comes up with a betting system that can beat my proposed rules #1-3 in my original post. (i.e., A >10% chance of winning.) You don't have to put up any money; it's free. Just submit a system that can beat my rules, and I'll pay you $1000.
Note that this wouldn't be a real "winning betting system", since there's no such thing, but rather something that exploits an oversight in my rules. If anyone had a real winning betting system then of course they wouldn't share it for $1000.
This offer expires November 3, 2010, or sooner if I get overwhelmed with submissions.
Quote:1. I will wager my $30,000 against your $3,000 (or my $10,000 against your $1,000, if you prefer) that your betting system cannot show an average lifetime profit of even $1 in a game of roulette (single- or double-zero), baccarat, or craps (3-4-5 odds), as the player, using common Vegas rules, in a computer simulation, as per the additional terms below. You win the challenge if your system shows any profit at the end of the simulation, I win if it does not. A "lifetime" is 60 rounds per hour X 10 hours per weekend X 20 weekends per year X 35 years. In craps, a "round" is any roll in which at least one bet is resolved. Since you could show a profit for one lifetime out of pure luck, we'll simulate 1,000 average lifetimes and take the average profit or loss for all lifetimes. This assumes your system places a bet every round; for systems that involve "sitting out" some rounds in order to wait for presence or absence of streaks, we'll simulate additional lifetimes proportional to the number of rounds that were sat out.
2. Your system must be one that could actually be used in a typical Vegas casino, since the point of your challenge should be to prove that you can win in a casino environment. So, for example, methods that attempt to exploit the computer's random number generator are specifically disallowed. Any system that wins by screwing with the RNG cannot win in a real casino. Similarly, any system that cannot be actually be employed by an average person with nothing more than a pen and paper is disallowed, since if a system can't be used in the real world then it's worthless. Also, card-counting systems in baccarat are disallowed, because the whole point of this challenge is to disprove traditional betting systems, where bet size and placement is based on the outcome of previous rounds.
What perplexes me is you run a simulation generated by a computers algorithm (or even from true randomness from noise, radioactive decay, thermal changes, blah blah blahdy blah). Then you state any system submitted must be a system that can be employed in the real world in a real casino (like on a real roulette table?).
My question, in my mind is, you can't have SIMULATED data to find a systems REAL TRUE outcome on a real physical mechanical roulette wheel device combined with human interaction ball spinning dealer as you are not getting data from a GENUINE SOURCE.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
I'll pay $1000 to the first person who comes up with a betting system that can beat my proposed rules #1-3 in my original post. You don't have to put up any money; it's free. Just submit a system that can beat my rules, and I'll pay you $1000.
What's the definition of "can beat"? If my betting system has negative expectation (obviously) but the probability of showing a profit after 1000 "lifetimes" under your rules is more than 10%, is it good enough?
What if it is less than 10%, but only slightly? Even if it is as low as 8.6%, it'd be a losing proposition for your challenger, but still a better bet than playing double-zero roulette.
What if it is even lower? Say, 5%, would not make sense mathematically for a challenger, but is 5% an acceptable risk level for you?
Quote: coolhandnukeMy question, in my mind is, you can't have SIMULATED data to find a systems REAL TRUE outcome on a real physical mechanical roulette wheel device combined with human interaction ball spinning dealer as you are not getting data from a GENUINE SOURCE.
That turns out to be wrong. Gaming regulatory agencies, the ones that test and approve new games, sometimes do so using computer-based random number generators and other software. They don't require "REAL TRUE" outcomes dealt from a deck of cards or spun on a slot machine. In most cases games can be analyzed and solved directly, but software-based simulation is accepted when required. And there's no fundamental difference between a slot machine reel, a roulette wheel, or a deck of cards when it comes to random simulation. The RNG can be the same in all cases.
Quote: MichaelBluejayYou're right, it would be best to use real-world casino data. But that's impossible. So we make do with what we have. And it's really only a problem for people who think that casino results or a computer sim is less random than the other -- of which you seem to be one. But there's no way I can placate you, so sorry.
There's no need to be sorry MBJ, I wasn't going to hand over to you my beautiful system for $1000, though I would reconsider if you offered me $5,000,000
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Bluejay's $1000 challenge!
I'll pay $1000 to the first person who comes up with a betting system that can beat my proposed rules #1-3 in my original post.
Regarding the, "for systems that involve "sitting out" some rounds in order to wait for presence or absence of streaks, we'll simulate additional lifetimes proportional to the number of rounds that were sat out."
How exactly would that work, if for example my "magic" craps system requires waiting for three consecutive come out seven's, then betting it all on Don't Pass. If win, Stop. If lose, have to stop.
1 - Would the additional "lifetime" requriement be one lifetime for every 360,000 (or portion thereof) rolls that were "sat-out"?
2 - Is this determined before (based on a projection of the average number of "sit-outs") or after, using the actual sit-outs encountered in the initial 1k lifetime run?
3 - if using the actual 1k lifetime run sit-out count to determine additional lifetime requirement, do the sit-outs required for the additional lifetime(s) result in even more lifetimes, and so on, and so on?
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Bluejay's $1000 challenge!
I'll pay $1000 to the first person who comes up with a betting system that can beat my proposed rules #1-3 in my original post. You don't have to put up any money; it's free. Just submit a system that can beat my rules, and I'll pay you $1000.
Note that this wouldn't be a real "winning betting system", since there's no such thing, but rather something that exploits an oversight in my rules. If anyone had a real winning betting system then of course they wouldn't share it for $1000.
This offer expires November 3, 2010, or sooner if I get overwhelmed with submissions.
Here you go. This has a relatively good chance of beating your proposed rules:
Phase 1:
For each comeout roll, make a $5000 passline bet.
Continue until lifetime over or until X = $50,000 in bankroll
Phase 2:
For each comeout roll, make a $5 passline bet.
Continue until lifetime over.
Adjustments to X may increase the chances of beating your rules, but the basic structure doesn't change. The expected loss in a lifetime of $5 passline bets is just shy of $30k, so I initially used $50k to be safe.
The exploit is that Phase 1 dramatically shortens the average lifetime without increasing the number of lifetimes simulated.
I offer no guarantees that this "system" will actually show a profit overall, but it stands a much better chance of doing so than one that actually plays out 1000 lifetimes of 420,000 bets each.
It's plain as day in rule #1.Quote: weaselmanWhat's the definition of "can beat"?
Like I said: "Note that this wouldn't be a real "winning betting system", since there's no such thing, but rather something that exploits an oversight in my rules. If anyone had a real winning betting system then of course they wouldn't share it for $1000."Quote: coolhandnukeI wasn't going to hand over to you my beautiful system for $1000, though I would reconsider if you offered me $5,000,000.
We simply add additional lifetimes so we simulate as many rolls as we would for a system that never sat out. Of course we would look at the number of rounds actually sat out, not a "projected" number of rounds sat out. And of course if any of the additional rounds are also sat out, then we continue to simulate. Don't try to make this complicated. We're simply going to simulate the same number of rounds that we would for a system that never sat out.Quote: AyecarumbaRegarding the, "for systems that involve "sitting out" some rounds in order to wait for presence or absence of streaks, we'll simulate additional lifetimes proportional to the number of rounds that were sat out." How exactly would that work...?
Thanks, MathExtremist. I was thinking the very same thing yesterday when I was out but when I got home I forgot to model it. Anyway I just modeled it, and it wins only about 8% of lifetimes, for an average win of ~$19,230. It loses the starting $5k bankroll 92% of the time. So it loses $3100 on average per lifetime. It did even worse for target bankrolls for Phase 1 of $30k and $70k, by the way.Quote: MathExtremistHere you go. This has a relatively good chance of beating your proposed rules...
Quote: MichaelBluejayThanks, MathExtremist. I was thinking the very same thing yesterday when I was out but when I got home I forgot to model it. Anyway I just modeled it, and it wins only about 8% of lifetimes, for an average win of ~$19,230. It loses the starting $5k bankroll 92% of the time. So it loses $3100 on average per lifetime. It did even worse for target bankrolls for Phase 1 of $30k and $70k, by the way.
That sounds about right. I think the odds of getting past phase 1 are 1/11, or 9.09%, and some of those lifetimes will bust out afterwards, so 8% is plausible. Did you keep track of the total rounds played? What was the average realized lifetime length?
Quote: MichaelBluejayIt's plain as day in rule #1.
Rule #1 has the definition of "beat". What I am looking for is the definition of "can". Does it mean "will beat every time" (with probability 1)? Or is expected to beat (+EV essentially)? Or has a probability P of showing profit? Or something else?
@weaselman: As the rules say, we run *a* computer simulation. I'm not going to humor any further nitpicking or attempts to assign strange interpretations of the rules.
1 - Wait for three consecutive come out seven's, then bet $400 on Don't Pass.
-- If win, repeat #1.
-- If lose, repeat #1. until bankroll = <$2,501, then stop.
-- if poinit established, go to #2
2 - Point established, lay max odds
-- if win, repeat #1 until bankroll = $12,501 or more, go to #3
-- If lose, repeat #1 until bankroll = <$2,501, then stop.
3 - Bankroll $12,501+
-- Lay the 10 for $11, and put $1 on the hard 10.
-- If win or lose either, repeat #3 until another wager would put bankroll below $7,501. If bankroll =$7,501, stop. (attempting to soak up decisions)
4 -- Cross fingers, and hope the variance is with you for these trials to average a $1 gain.
The only weakness I perceive is a system that somehow burns up "decisions" without bankroll exposure (which the large number of trials should take care of), or the "lightning strike" of the infitisimal chance that any random wager will come out ahead in a limited (albeit large) number of random trials (which is not really a "weakness", just a risk.)
Are machines included?
Just curious, Ayecarumba, does this part of your "magic" system mean to play for a while and then quit if you are losing? How would that comply with the idea of playing for a lifetime? Does "stop" imply that you forfeit for that lifetime? That doesn't seem reasonable either.Quote: Ayecarumba... -- If lose, repeat #1. until bankroll = <$2,501, then stop.
Quote: DocJust curious, Ayecarumba, does this part of your "magic" system mean to play for a while and then quit if you are losing? How would that comply with the idea of playing for a lifetime? Does "stop" imply that you forfeit for that lifetime? That doesn't seem reasonable either.
Yes. The stop-loss is 50% of bankroll. Remember that this system is specifically designed to take a shot a the "average lifetimes". It would make for a long grind in actual play.
I think the current challenge is specifically for -EV table games. I don't play video poker and have never paid attention to Rob Singer, but I assume he emphasizes those few VP machines that have a theoretical payout of over 100%. If that is what you are referring to, I don't think it would fit with this challenge.Quote: JerryLoganThis could be interesting, if you include video poker into the challenge and if Rob Singer (who's posted results on his website and made a public challenge to LVA people including that arbitrator clause, that he could prove he's won about a million dollars with his system, if that's what it's called, and with documents) gets wind of this.
Are machines included?
Quote: MichaelBluejay
@weaselman: As the rules plainly say, we run *a* computer simulation. I'm not going to humor any further nitpicking or attempts to assign strange interpretations of the rules.
I am not trying to interpret the rules of your original challenge. I am talking about the second challenge, where you were asking for a system, that could beat the first one by exploiting some sort of a loophole in the original rules.
I am simply saying, that if one can come up with a system, that can show a profit under your rules 10% of the time, it would still be a complete loser in the casino, but would make a pretty good bet against your challenge since you are offering 10:1 odds. Yes, you will run only one simulation, but if I had a system that has 10% chance of beating it, and accepted your challenge, it would be a +EV bet for me. I think that if it is indeed possible to create a system like this, it would constitute exploiting a loophole in your rules, wouldn't it?
I'll shut up now if it still doesn't make sense to you. Just wanted to be helpful...
Then I don't think your stop play conforms to the rules of playing for a lifetime. I think if a stop play is allowed, it must increase the number of lifetimes to be played. Is that what you meant to have happen? It seems to me that you are declaring that lifetime to be a "loser" and asking for another one with -EV, rather than shooting for the chance for the "down" lifetime to recover. Is that a good plan?Quote: AyecarumbaYes. The stop-loss is 50% of bankroll. Remember that this system is specifically designed to take a shot a the "average lifetimes". It would make for a long grind in actual play.
Quote: DocThen I don't think your stop play conforms to the rules of playing for a lifetime. I think if a stop play is allowed, it must increase the number of lifetimes to be played. Is that what you meant to have happen? It seems to me that you are declaring that lifetime to be a "loser" and asking for another one with -EV, rather than shooting for the chance for the "down" lifetime to recover. Is that a good plan?
Yes, Doc. That is the plan. Stop if you cannot lay max free odds, and move on the next full lifetime. Hope that the winning "lives" can soak up enough decisions to give the averaging a shot to come out ahead by $1.
Note that the name of my system is "Magic Crap". I think the name speaks for itself.
Quote: DocThen I don't think your stop play conforms to the rules of playing for a lifetime. I think if a stop play is allowed, it must increase the number of lifetimes to be played. Is that what you meant to have happen? It seems to me that you are declaring that lifetime to be a "loser" and asking for another one with -EV, rather than shooting for the chance for the "down" lifetime to recover. Is that a good plan?
This is the way I would try and 'break' the system. You'd then add in X new rolls (where X is the number left from the previous life time). The idea being to limit losses while making several outlier shots at big wins. Once your ahead by enough, eke out the rest of the lifetime making patty-cake flea bite bets. As the best way to beat the casino is by variance, go big or go home would seem to be the best way to break this...
Luckily the challenge doesn't allow you to sum the total of all your lifetimes, or it might be even more prone to abuse.
Quote: DocIt seems to me that you are declaring that lifetime to be a "loser" and asking for another one with -EV, rather than shooting for the chance for the "down" lifetime to recover. Is that a good plan?
Actually, it may not be as bad as it seems ...
How about this system (for roulette):
Bet $5000 on zero. If lost, this lifetime is over, start the next one. If won (+$175,000), stop, and "sit out" the rest of the lifetime (if the condition has to be formulated in terms of the roulette events, just wait until number thirteen hits 359,999 times in a row).
If you win, say, 28 "lifetimes" out of the initial 1000 (about 40% chance to win 28 or more), and lose the other 972, you'll have +$40,000 total, and 28 additional lifetimes to go. If you win one of those 28 (about 50% chance to win at least one), you'll have made another +$40,000 (for the total of +$80,000), and just one more lifetime left. Just bet 5K on zero, lose, and you are done with the total of $75,000 profit.
That's more than 20% chance of beating the challenge with 10:1 odds. Looks pretty good if you ask me.
O.K., I guess I see what I was overlooking (and perhaps Mr. Bluejay was, too.) Perhaps is comes down to refining definitions. If you blow your entire bankroll on the first wager, I don't really view that as playing for a lifetime. Perhaps it is necessary to require that you play enough wagers to represent playing for a full lifetime (even if it requires several lifetimes and coming up with additional bankrolls). Would that require the rules to be rewritten? Would that stop your "magic"?Quote: weaselman...How about this system (for roulette):
....
Quote: DocO.K., I guess I see what I was overlooking (and perhaps Mr. Bluejay was, too.) Perhaps is comes down to refining definitions. If you blow your entire bankroll on the first wager, I don't really view that as playing for a lifetime. Perhaps it is necessary to require that you play enough wagers to represent playing for a full lifetime (even if it requires several lifetimes and coming up with additional bankrolls). Would that require the rules to be rewritten? Would that stop your "magic"?
I think, simply removing the bankroll limitation should do the trick. The simple fact is, that the more you play, the more you lose. Limiting your ability to make bets makes you lose less than you otherwise would (except for limiting the size of the individual bet - that one is necessary to have).
Quote: DocI think the current challenge is specifically for -EV table games. I don't play video poker and have never paid attention to Rob Singer, but I assume he emphasizes those few VP machines that have a theoretical payout of over 100%. If that is what you are referring to, I don't think it would fit with this challenge.
Singer identifies that he plays -EV games because that's all that's available at the denominations he plays. He's also not one who adds in extras from the slot clubs or marketing depts. to build EV to a theoretical positive %. So he does play a true -EV "system". But it's all a moot point if machines are not included. I also didn't realize there were a bunch of table game systems since short term results cannot be "influenced" the way Singer says vp results can.
I make your chance of this schema working 16.3%
45% chance of hitting 28 or more winners on the first and 36% chance of hitting one or more winners on the second stage. = 16.2%
There's also the chance of having less than 28 winners on the first stage, but hitting more than 1 winner on the second stage.
