Thread Rating:

atlarson
atlarson
Joined: Oct 13, 2010
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 9
October 25th, 2010 at 11:18:57 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

So 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.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
October 25th, 2010 at 11:31:16 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

A 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.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 692
October 26th, 2010 at 5:06:47 AM permalink
@larson, all your questions are answered specifically in my original post.

Quote: thecesspit

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.



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.
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 175
  • Posts: 10053
October 26th, 2010 at 6:54:06 AM permalink
First of all, it seems like you're spinning your wheels needlessly. How many inquiries, serious and otherwise, have you gotten? Are you trying to encourage more inquiries? Are you looking to actually run the challenge?

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?
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁 Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. 🤗
Doc
Doc
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 6859
October 26th, 2010 at 7:07:35 AM permalink
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. ...

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.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
October 26th, 2010 at 7:40:32 AM permalink
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.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 692
October 26th, 2010 at 9:39:56 AM permalink
Thank you very much for all the replies.

@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....
Last edited by: MichaelBluejay on Feb 7, 2017
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 175
  • Posts: 10053
October 26th, 2010 at 9:58:57 AM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

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.

Agreed, but put in a provision to limit virtual table hopping to mimic reality.


Quote: MichaelBluejay

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.

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.
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁 Note that the same could be said for Religion. I.E. Religion is nothing more than organized superstition. 🤗
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 6455
October 26th, 2010 at 10:28:27 AM permalink
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.)

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 692
October 26th, 2010 at 10:42:57 AM permalink
The 60 rounds per hour was mentioned in #1.

  • Jump to: