Overhauling the Betting System Challenge
Quote: MathExtremistYou've got it backwards. You can assert that 2 - 3 = 4, but I don't need to challenge your error by running tests or analyses - you're just wrong. The same is true if you assert that your betting system based on some sequence of -EV bets results in an overall player advantage. I don't need to challenge your error by running tests or analyses - you're just wrong.
The premise behind this whole testing thread was that the system hawker, who is ignorant of this error, feels so confident in their mistake that they're willing to put their money where their mouth is. That's why the past few pages have been about designing the parameters so that the test can't be exploited.
I've never read any of this fellow's writings, and I don't plan on it. If he claims, as you say, that he plays -EV video poker at a theoretical profit by making suboptimal plays and varying his bets, well that's just silly. I don't need to test that assertion to know that it's all hot air. If *you* feel the need to test it, that's a different question. But I doubt you'll get someone to donate the programming resources to do a proper simulation. That would likely be a paid job.
"they're willing to put their money where their mouth is." This seems to be the crux of the issue. We have a controversial player Singer who has already PUT his money where his mouth is, and it made the doubting thomases run away. Now how about giving him the opportunity to do it again if you feel so strongly about the fact that he could not possibly be telling the truth about his strategy's success? Are you really THAT certain that his short term complicated approach does not do what he says it does, other than to continually proclaim that negative games means a loss just because one game is 100.1% and another is 99.9%? That's what's silly to me.
I play negative games and I'm a loser, I admit that. He says he's a winner, and I'd have a tough time believing that if he didn't both explain it so well all the time and if he didn't take such a chance with that big bet. On the vp forums over the years, critics are always fast to attack him but no one has ever come forward as far as I know, to offer to test his method or even understand it enough to test it, in a true simulation. It's like they just want to be able to criticize without end because they're afraid of what that end may be.
Quote: thecesspitCurious Guy : The one thing to realize is that in the short term... your part of the long term. You don't miraclously hit the long term on 1000th birthday. You could be on the long slide -right- now... your next 12 bets could all lose while you push your luck increasing your bets each time.
From what I understand, we're to look at our bets as each one getting us closer to expectation based on pay tables or card/dice mathematics or whatever.
But Curious guy makes a good point: Who's to say someone can't have come up with a way to optimize his relatively short amount of time on that overall journey to give himself the best opportunity to keep on the positive side of the Bell Curve while he attacks the problem of making a consistent profit?
Quote: JerryLoganAre you really THAT certain that his short term complicated approach does not do what he says it does, other than to continually proclaim that negative games means a loss just because one game is 100.1% and another is 99.9%?
Yes. If "what he says it does" involves turning a standard house-favorable VP game into a theoretically-profitable game for the player, yes, I'm certain. And so is every regulatory jurisdiction and electronic game testing lab in the United States. Just like other systems to beat slot games, casino operators don't care if you think varying your bets can beat VP machines. Go for it. If you're having fun, why not? But if you think you're going to beat any gaming machine's RNG (VP, slots, video keno, etc.) without hacking it somehow, think again.
Quote:I play negative games and I'm a loser, I admit that. He says he's a winner, and I'd have a tough time believing that if he didn't both explain it so well all the time and if he didn't take such a chance with that big bet. On the vp forums over the years, critics are always fast to attack him but no one has ever come forward as far as I know, to offer to test his method or even understand it enough to test it, in a true simulation. It's like they just want to be able to criticize without end because they're afraid of what that end may be.
I'm not sure what fear has to do with anything. The people who write books on how to beat unbeatable casino games are doing it because they want to sell books, not because they want to (or even can) actually beat those casino games. It's intellectually dishonest, but so are tabloids and there's nothing illegal about any of it. It's all just entertainment. So is the lottery and its typical disclaimer: "Lottery games should be considered a form of entertainment and should not be played for investment purposes."
But like I said before, if you really wanted to run a test, I'm sure you could hire someone to understand and program the method. It'd be a large job but definitely doable. How serious are you about investigating this for yourself vs. just trusting the explanations of someone who's admittedly out to sell his books?
Quote: JerryLoganFrom what I understand, we're to look at our bets as each one getting us closer to expectation based on pay tables or card/dice mathematics or whatever.
But Curious guy makes a good point: Who's to say someone can't have come up with a way to optimize his relatively short amount of time on that overall journey to give himself the best opportunity to keep on the positive side of the Bell Curve while he attacks the problem of making a consistent profit?
That's the essence of every betting system. The Martingale offers the tradeoff between roughly 99.9% chance of victory with that small, 0.1% chance of a bankroll-destroying loss. If you understand the risks -- betting $5000 to win $5 the vast majority of the time -- then go for it. Unfortunately, most betting system pitches ignore the downside and just claim "win over 99% of the time".
Quote: JerryLoganFrom what I understand, we're to look at our bets as each one getting us closer to expectation based on pay tables or card/dice mathematics or whatever.
But Curious guy makes a good point: Who's to say someone can't have come up with a way to optimize his relatively short amount of time on that overall journey to give himself the best opportunity to keep on the positive side of the Bell Curve while he attacks the problem of making a consistent profit?
Well, the single bet theory (I think Bluejay has it on his sight, but it's a lot of places) does just that. Make a single bet and you've got the biggest chance of ending up ahead (*). And that's how weaselman "broke" Bluejay's new rule set (which was under trial, not published)... make as few bets as possible so you have the best chance of leaving ahead.
You can't make a consistent profit though by any of these methods. It's not definitely repeatable, it's putting your hand in the trap and hoping again you get to pull it out in one piece with a few dollars. You see the bell curve or the jagged line of results over a long time from some system... you are on the line somewhere(**)... and there's no knowing where you are... you can only tell by looking backwards. You might be on the 80% of the line that slowly trends upwards, or on the 10% that wobbles around the same level or the 10% that crashes down fast. The long term is just a series of short term events after all.
In short, the person who is to say is the Mathematics of Probability.
(*) It's still a negative EV game..
(**) Well techinically, somewhere at a base bet scenario, but the concept is still there.
Everyone, please stop all discussion of Singer here immediately. If you want to discuss this, start a new thread.
OK, how much do you guys want to look at his strategy? It always comes down to money. PM or e-mail me so no more discussion or "hijacking" will occur here.
Quote: JerryLogan6. If the math is what determines the outcome of casino games, then we are in agreement. So please explain how all these vp AP's are allowed to keep winning & some keep on writing about where and how much they've been winning while absolutely raping the slot clubs on non-stop invites....while BJ card counters are immediately tossed.
The above paragraph contains two assertions that are untrue. First of all, many AP VP players ARE getting barred left and right. The more egregious of them were getting barred five years ago. The casino efforts to bar APs have stepped up, because they're sweating the action more. Also, the VP just about everywhere has gotten so bad that simply canceling the players' cards of APs means they can no longer play at an advantage. For example, the Palms still has $1 10/7 Double Bonus, which is a 100.15% game with perfect play, but if your slot club card doesn't work, the game isn't worth playing--not for about $4/hr. South Point is canceling the cards of ANYONE who plays primarily on double point days. Et cetera. The fact that players who play only in AP territory are getting hunted down left and right should tell you something. Very few players are, as you put it, "absolutely raping" the casinos--but quite a few are still winning, though not as many, as not as much, as before.
Rob Singer may have tried being an AP and failed, but that doesn't mean that being an AP wasn't (back then), a viable option. He may have failed for any one of a number of reasons--short bankroll, simple bad luck, lack of discipline, not learning the strategies properly, poor game selection, etc. etc. etc. Of the preceding, short bankroll is and remains the most common killer. You need about five royal flush cycles to get down to a 5% risk of ruin--so $5000 is the minimum bankroll for a quarter player, and $20K for a dollar player. Even then, that 5% can get you. So he may have been disillusioned, whatever the reason for his failure may have been. But the grind-it-out, play-with-a-small-advantage was and remains the only viable method available. It's not fun, and as i've said, not easy at all. I know it works, though, and not just from my own experience. I have dozens of friends and acquaintances who have made decent livings--some very good livings--from playing AP VP. I also know several who have gone down in flames, and I could usually tell why after talking to them, or watching them play for half an hour. You have to learn the strategies PERFECTLY, keep an ear to the ground, have control of your emotions, and above all else, be DISCIPLINED. I remember one undoubtedly brilliant guy I knew, who I spent about ten hours teaching to play fullpay Deuces Wild. At the time, there was a casino that gave 5X points, which equated to 1.25% cashback, on a game that was already returning 100.7% with optimal play. He could have made a steady $15/hr and built up his $3000 bankroll, but he didn't want to play "only for quarters". Instead, he took his $3000 over to a $1 Double Double Bonus machine and blew it all in two days. Last time I heard about him, his girlfriend had thrown him out of her trailer.
The second assertion that is untrue, by the way, is that BJ counters get constantly harrassed and barred. The GREEDY ones get the heat. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of BJ APs working under the radar this very minute. But they have to be content with moderate bets spreads, short playing sessions, and smaller earnings than in the past. It's a matter of adjusting to current conditions.
In any case, the Singer System, whatever it is in its current incarnation, CANNOT win if it is based on playing -EV games. As you say, the math decides.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThe only thing worse than JerryLogan hijacking my thread is everyone else eagerly letting him do so.
Everyone, please stop all discussion of Singer here immediately. If you want to discuss this, start a new thread.
Sorry, I posted my latest before I saw this.
Not that this thread hasn't itself wandered into irrelevancy, but highjacking someone's thread here seems to be a crime equivalent to raping a man's wife, daughters, and all his household pets, so I won't abet that crime any longer :)
1. Name 4 players who've had their cards cancelled at SP, and produce documentation with dates, and why.
2. Name 4 players who have been banned from playing at any casino anywhere, and produce evidence and dates.
3. Go in to any LV pit and tell them they have "hundreds, if not thousands" of AP's counting cards "at this very moment"....and see who gets the boot!
4. Finally (and please don't duck this one a third time!) explain how Bob Dancer and Jean Scott can constantly write about winning huge amounts at particular casinos over and over again, while collecting ungodly amounts of slot club benefits right under the casino managers' noses, yet they continue to get invited in to do it all over again and again and again. I guess the casino managers just would rather look the other way, and prefer to write it off to bad luck!
You see mkl, you're nothing but a bunch of pretend theories and assertions that you have no real clue about and definitely no true knowledge of, other than the crap you read on the vp forums that you want and need to believe for some strange reason.
Quote: JerryLoganI talked to Rob about those so-called barred and restricted players at the Palms, SP, and other casinos. He said it's a myth and a lie for anyone who cannot produce proof to be asserting such nonsense and I agree. No one has proof of it or else they'd be all over the papers and Internet with copies of letters etc. .
Please honor MichaelBluejay's request and don't garbage this thread up any longer. But for what isn't worth, since the Wizard also asserts that there have been such barrings of VPs, why don't you PM him, and DEMAND PROOF along with videotaped documentation, sworn affidavits, and other "evidence". After all, when Rob Singer says something isn't so, how can it be so? (And I wonder: why do you believe RS's assertions without demanding "PROOF!!!!" from him?? He says it's a "myth and a lie"---does he have any proof of that? Did you demand four copies of everything from him to back up his assertion? We all know how UPSET you get at unfounded assertions, after all--I should hope you held Mr. Singer to the same rigorous standards.)
Getting back on topic, below is what I'm proposing for the challenge. The idea is that the challenger can choose their challenge flavor. Discussion questions:
(1) I'm considering eliminating #B. On the plus side, by including it I show that nobody will challenge me even under a variety of circumstances. The downside is that it's just more clutter, and two options is possibly sufficient. What do you think?
(2) Are these options vulnerable to exploit?
Quote: Proposed challenge options
. . . . . (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.
Quote: MichaelBluejay(1) I'm considering eliminating #B. On the plus side, by including it I show that nobody will challenge me even under a variety of circumstances. The downside is that it's just more clutter, and two options is possibly sufficient. What do you think?
I think you can eliminate (b). The other "flavors" are clearer, and can infer the same circumstances. I suggest the pre-text of option (a), put the "4M session" requirement in context. A typical player will respond to that requirement with, "Unrealistic. I'll never play that many rounds." But when you put it in the contex of "X million rounds are decided at Las Vegas tables each year" Most will be agree that it is a reasonable number (especially if a system is supposed to win with many fewer rounds.)
Quote: MichaelBluejay(2) Are these options vulnerable to exploit?
The minimum sessions or rounds, and the minimum "action" rounds, should allow adequate exposure to the house edge. Let me give this more thought.... (Where did I put my "devious" cap?...).
Quote: JerryLoganHow about a bet that nobody will bother taking the challenge, and all everyone wants to do is create what-if scenarios, offer opinions for the sole purpose of a pat on the back, and input change scenarios faster than a LV hooker will come down in price as the sun's coming up.
I just won my personal bet with myself that you had failed to understand the point of Bluejay's thread in the first place.
Quote: thecesspitI just won my personal bet with myself that you had failed to understand the point of Bluejay's thread in the first place.
Big deal. That bet was a 1000:1 favorite.
But there is a point to his question. If the challenge is restructured so that it's mathematically rigorous, but at the same time, proves "satisfying" to the type of person who challenges the math in the first place, doesn't that set up a contradictory situation? How can you prove to an alchemist that it's impossible to make gold out of lead by showing him the periodic table and explaining the science behind it?
I think that the only purpose a "challenge" would serve is to make some money for the person who accepted it. No matter what the result, it wouldn't sway the "faithful" any--they'd dismiss the normal result as "bad luck".
Then again, some of the criticism I've seen of the challenge is that it's unrealistic, because nobody could play a billion rounds. That's why I want to put it in terms that seem reasonable to a layperson. I think that saying that a challenge is based on average session win/loss makes it seem more reasonable than a billion spins, even if we average only 4 million sessions. There might be some objections to the 4 million sessions, but not nearly as much as the objections to a billion rounds.
But anyway, let's think outside the box and try to come up with yet another way to make the challenge palatable that we haven't already discussed. What we really need to do is to show that a betting system won't work even in the *short term*. There's got to be a way to make that clear to laypeople. Looking at average session win/loss was a step in that direction, but with the 4 million sessions requirement, I'm still a little far from my goal of making the challenge idea seem reasonable to laypeople who think that a system can win in the short term but not the long term.
Maybe we could focus on a one-year period, because then we wouldn't have to simulate as many years as we would sessions, so the 4 million number could come down. I could also explain the ramifications better: Before someone complains that nobody could play for X years, I'd explain that if a system loses 90% of years, that means that 90% of the people employing it will have a losing year, even if they play only for one year. So here's a proposal:
Win by showing a profit of at least $1 for a year's worth of play, with an unlimited bankroll. A year is 60 rounds/hour x 10 hours/weekend x 20 weekends/year = 12,000 rounds. We run the simulation 10,000 times and take the average. This means that if a system loses 90% of time in those 10,000 simulations, then 90% of the people employing the system will lose in a given year.
I'd still need to address the problem of systems which like to sit out for some number of rounds to wait for streaks, but maybe we can get the basic idea down before we tweak it to work in the details. Thoughts?
Quote: MichaelBluejayWin by showing a profit of at least $1 for a year's worth of play, with an unlimited bankroll. A year is 60 rounds/hour x 10 hours/weekend x 20 weekends/year = 12,000 rounds. We run the simulation 10,000 times and take the average. This means that if a system loses 90% of time in those 10,000 simulations, then 90% of the people employing the system will lose in a given year.
This looks good, but you'd better make it CRYSTAL clear that the criterion for winning or losing the challenge is the average of all session RESULTS, not the absolute number of winning sessions. With a relatively small number of decisions/session and an unlimited bankroll, I'm sure that someone could construct some kind of Martingale or D'Bozo or one of those other variations on the theme, that would produce a majority of winning sessions.
I like the idea of 10,000 simulated player-years. That actually smooths out the variance, meaning the result produced will be that much closer to expectation, yet it mirrors the "real-life" results that the believers demand.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWin by showing a profit of at least $1 for a year's worth of play, with an unlimited bankroll. A year is 60 rounds/hour x 10 hours/weekend x 20 weekends/year = 12,000 rounds. We run the simulation 10,000 times and take the average. This means that if a system loses 90% of time in those 10,000 simulations, then 90% of the people employing the system will lose in a given year.
I think with something like this, phrasing is everything. Rather than "run the simulation 10,000 times", say something like "I'll simulate you and 9999 of your friends and family playing this system for the next year and see how you all do." And then take the average but also show the distribution. How much you lose when you lose is important.
I simply do one long session like the Wizard did. But where he used an unlimited bankroll and a whopping 1 billion rounds, I'll have a $5000 starting bankroll, which means I can simulate for far fewer rounds. 200,000 rounds ought to do it. That's far less than can be played in a lifetime.
Part of the problem I had was that even worthless betting systems could beat my proposed challenge rules, since if they had only a lousy 10.1% chance of winning, they could still beat my 10-1 odds. I solved that by saying that we run the sim 5 times, and the challenger wins if his system wins at least 3 of the 5 runs. A system that could win 10% of the time wins only a fraction that many 3-out-of-5 tests.
Also, if the system sits out rounds, I tack on the additional rounds we need to play *at the end of the one long session*, rather than simulating additional sessions. Weaselman's idea of betting the farm on a single number on the first spin, and playing only the first spin of a lifetime won't work now. We're doing only 5 lifetimes no matter what.
I tested six flavors of betting systems, and here are the results. All the parameters are with a $5000 starting bankroll, 200k rounds, a made-up 1% house edge game (player wins a round if random(1000)+1 <=495), challenge won if at least 3 out of 5 sims are won, unless otherwise noted. Incidentally, I modeled each challenge (set of 5 sims) at least 3000 times.
(a) Flat Betting. Bets the table min of $5 every round. It won 0 sims (and therefore 0 challenges). The longest it lived before going bust was 173,963 rounds. The EV of that many rounds is -$6582.
(b) Stayin' Alive. My idea here is to always bet enough so that I'll be ahead 10 units if I win. This is the most effective idea I tested. It won 12.4% of sims and 1.4% of challenges. This seems to be an anomoly to me, because I figured that the chances of winning 3/5 sims based on the 12.4% of times a sim is won should be 12.4% x 12.4% x 12.4%, but the 1.4% challenge win rate is much higher than that. Any thoughts?
(c) Safety Dance. Bet 1/4th of the bankroll each round until a safety limit is reached (3x the starting bankroll), then grind by betting the table min. If we fall below the 3x threshold, bet enough to get back to it. It won 14.2% sims (and 0 challenges).
(d) Weaselman Bust. Bet the farm on a single number in roulette on the first spin, then grind if we win. No longer works against my revised challenge, since his chances of not going bust on the first spin of 3 out of 5 challenges should be 1/37 x 1/37 x 1/37. It wins 2.7% of sims (as expected -- that's 1/37), but only 0.1% of challenges.
(e) Martingale, modified. If we can't bet as much as the system dictates because of the table limit, we'll bet the table max, or our maximum bankroll, whichever is less. After setting that in motion, if we get close to our goal of being ahead by 1 unit, we'll bet only as much as is necessary to get there if we win. On the 1% edge game this wins only 11.2% of sims and 1.2% of challenges on a *tiny* run of only 12,000 rounds.
(f) Martingale, Craps. Over 12,000 rounds with no odds, it wins 12.2% of sims and 1.6% of challenges. But when I take odds (betting 1/6 as much on the Pass Line as I would were I not taking odds, so I can take full odds if a point is set and then bet up to 5x what I did on the Pass), it wins only 1.8% of sims and 0 challenges. I thought it should do better by taking odds, since the effective edge is lower per money put on the table. Any thoughts on this?
So with all this in mind, here's my proposed challenge rules:
Quote: Latest Proposed Challenge Rules
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, starting with a generous $5000 bankroll, 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. The simulation will run for 200,000 rounds. It's fine for your system to sit out sometimes to wait for "streaks" or other conditions, but 200,000 rounds must be wagered on (unless you go bust fist). We'll run this simulation five times, and you win if your system wins at least 3 out of the 5 times. (For those who think this is a bad test because "nobody plays 200,000 rounds", see the explanation further below.)
...
...."But nobody plays 200,000 rounds!" The best betting system I tested actually last showed a profit after 54,000 rounds on average, which is easily playable in real life. I'm using 200,000 rounds in my rules so that if someone wins we know they won because their system really works, not because they just got lucky.
Also, the reason a system can last some thousands of rounds is because of the generous $5000 bankroll I let it start with, not because it's a good system. You can go thousands of rounds with $5000 by flat-betting, too.
Anyway, it's actually easy to play this 200,000 rounds. If you played 60 rounds per hour for 10 hours a weekend for 20 weekends a year for 16.7 years, that's 200,000 rounds right there. If you play for 33 years it's double that.
Incidentally, here's the median last round in which each system above showed a profit on the made-up 1% house edge game, after 250,000 sessions:
Flat betting: 11,387
Stayin' Alive: 35,686
Safety Dance: 54,427
Martingale: 1,678
I do think this refutes the Wizard's idea that betting systems are "worthless". His criteria is kind of limited. If you're talking about beating the house edge, then sure, no betting system can do that. But if you want to increase your chances of winning in the short term (in exchange for losing more when you do lose), or want a better shot at having your money last longer, a betting system can certainly do that better than flat-betting.
Anyway, I'm happy that I think I've finally got some challenge rules that I think satisfy all three of my criteria, so now I'd like to ask everyone again to try to shoot it full of holes and bring it down, especially because the short 200,000 rounds period kind of scares me. Should I offer another unconditional $1000 prize as an incentive?
Quote: MichaelBluejayAnyway, I'm happy that I think I've finally got some challenge rules that I think satisfy all three of my criteria, so now I'd like to ask everyone again to try to shoot it full of holes and bring it down, especially because the short 200,000 rounds period kind of scares me. Should I offer another unconditional $1000 prize as an incentive?
Well, what are the chances that a trial consisting of 200,000 outcomes will show a result a sufficient number of standard deviations to the right that it will report a false positive, as it were?
Quote: MichaelBluejay
(b) Stayin' Alive. My idea here is to always bet enough so that I'll be ahead 10 units if I win. This is the most effective idea I tested. It won 12.4% of sims and 1.4% of challenges. This seems to be an anomoly to me, because I figured that the chances of winning 3/5 sims based on the 12.4% of times a sim is won should be 12.4% x 12.4% x 12.4%, but the 1.4% challenge win rate is much higher than that. Any thoughts?
Given: your system wins P = 12.4% of individual trials and therefore loses Q = 87.6%.
Q: What are the chances of it winning 3 or more out of 5 trials?
A:
p(win 3) = combin(5,3) * P^3 * Q^2 = 1.46%
p(win 4) = combin(5,4) * P^4 * Q^1 = 0.103%
p(win 5) = combin(5,5) * P^5 * Q^0 = 0.015%
Total = 1.58%. So 1.4% is in the ballpark.
Question - did you cut a series of 5 trials short if you had already won 3? That'll skew your results downward.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWell, in my testing, exceptionally rare. And remember, it's not a single 200,000 session, it's 3 out of 5 of those, which makes the challenge much tougher to beat. But I've tested only a handful of attacks against the challenge. Folks here thought of a pretty good exploit of my last idea in short order. Maybe there's some other kind of exploit that will work against my newest idea -- or at least just a little more effective betting system.
Try this:
1) In single-zero roulette, bet $500 each on numbers 1 through 10. Your rules still say a bust ends the trial:
Quote:200,000 rounds must be wagered on (unless you go bust fist).
2) If win, flat-bet $5 on single-deck baccarat banker (about 1.01%) for the next 199,999 hands.
The idea here is that you have a 10/37 chance of turning your initial $5000 into $18000, a win of $13000. That's more than enough to cover the expected loss over the remainder of the lifetime if you bet the table minimum at baccarat. Under the assumption that a first-bet winner goes on to win the trial, I peg the chances of hitting at least 3/5 first-bet winners at around 1 in 8. If you're paying me 10-1 on that, I'll take it.
Point is, I think you should probably design the challenge so that you see the rules of the system first, and then if it's not an obvious exploit then use your normal challenge, but then also disqualify any system like the above which clearly isn't in the same vein as what "winning system" hucksters are trying to pitch.
Edit: version 2: bet $455 on numbers 1-10, bet $450 on number 11. Gives you a higher chance of winning on the first spin, lower chance of surviving the lifetime (but still > 50%).
I think my fix is that I say the system has to win 6 out of 10, rather than 3 out of 5. That drops the chances of winning to 1.84%. Thanks for the explanation about the percentages, by the way. I forgot that the odds of winning 3 consecutive bets is harder than winning any 3 out of 5. I understand that only conceptually, the math itself is over my head.
I'll model your idea #2 tomorrow.
I agree that it would be good to have some wording to prohibit people trying to simply take advantage of my 10-1 odds rather than proving a real system, but the more words I add, the more complicated I make it, and the more it looks like I'm trying to weasel out and make exceptions because I'm scared of betting systems. The simpler the challenge, the more impressive it is. I'll probably add some wording about that anyway, but I still prefer to combat such potential exploits by making sure the challenge itself is robust enough to withstand petty potshots at it, rather than relying exclusively on contract wording.
I definitely don't want to say that I get to see the system before we sign the contract. Challengers would suspect that if I would then program my own sim before we signed the contract, and then if the system was a winner I'd decline to proceed and go use the system myself in Vegas, and so the only way I'd proceed is if I'd already tested the system and saw it was a loser, so the challenger would be in a lose-lose situation.
Quote: JerryLoganI guess I just can't get hot & bothered over a challenge that at first looked real, but then we discover it was only put out there to solicit page after page of theories, options, and stupid questions.
Who's "we", Jerry? You and who else?
MichaelBluejay is just trying to make sure that if the challenge is accepted, the system author won't try to weasel out of the challenge by deliberately distorting one or more clauses in the agreement. The challenge is definitely real, and I would like to point out that by saying (without any basis) that the challenge is not real, you are calling MichaelBluejay a liar. Not that you seem to have any problem with behaving that way.
And the whole point of this thread/discussion/challenge was not, you may be surprised to know, to get you hot and bothered.
Getting back on topic, MathExtremist's variation #2 won 7.2% of the challenges when it had to win 3 out of 5, but only 0.9% of the time when it had to win 6 out of 10. I think the 6 out of 10 is really the key to thwarting someone who's trying to exploit the 10-1 odds.
And I can include a little inside joke: I can state that for those who object to having to win 60% of sims, since even a system that wins 51% of the time would be considered a winner in the real world, I'll be happy to agree to a win of 51 out of 100 sims instead of 6 out of 10. Of course, in reality, it's harder to win 51 out of 100 than 6 out of 10.
One thing confuses me about the combin() function. I plugged it into Excel, and a prop with a 70% chance of winning one time has a 44% chance of winning 2 out of 3, but with an 80% chance of winning one time, the chances of winning 2 out of 3 fall to 38%. Why does the higher chance of winning once mean a lower chance of winning the set? 70% seems to be the pivot point -- below that, the chances of winning the set drop as expected, but above that, the chances of winning the set also drop -- as unexpected.
Anyway, that aside, I think (hope) my challenge with the 6 of 10 requirement is now robust and unexploitable. Should I make the revised challenge live now, or should we try to attack it some more? By the way, I greatly appreciate the help folks have provided here in helping me make the challenge foolproof!
Quote: mkl654321Who's "we", Jerry? You and who else?
MichaelBluejay is just trying to make sure that if the challenge is accepted, the system author won't try to weasel out of the challenge by deliberately distorting one or more clauses in the agreement. The challenge is definitely real, and I would like to point out that by saying (without any basis) that the challenge is not real, you are calling MichaelBluejay a liar. Not that you seem to have any problem with behaving that way.
And the whole point of this thread/discussion/challenge was not, you may be surprised to know, to get you hot and bothered.
So you agree. There IS no point to this thread other than as a sound-off for those who still have slide rules that are in working order.
When I see a title called "Overhauling The Betting System Challenge" I take it at face value, not as some theoretical mind game. It's the difference between actually gambling at a casino mkl....and posting about it on a forum all the time.
BTW geeks don't lie. They just argue with their wives a lot.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
One thing confuses me about the combin() function. I plugged it into Excel, and a prop with a 70% chance of winning one time has a 44% chance of winning 2 out of 3, but with an 80% chance of winning one time, the chances of winning 2 out of 3 fall to 38%. Why does the higher chance of winning once mean a lower chance of winning the set? 70% seems to be the pivot point -- below that, the chances of winning the set drop as expected, but above that, the chances of winning the set also drop -- as unexpected.
The first case shows a higher probability, because it has lower probability of winning all three. Consider the probability of a win being 1. Then the chance of winning 2 out of three is exactly 0.
Why are you even looking at the probability of winning exactly two trials? Shouldn't you be interested in two or more?
BTW, you don't need the combin() function or this. There is another function in excel, that does exactly what you are looking for (the opposite actually), it's called binomdist(). I don't remember the order of the parameteres, so you'll have to verify that, but the idea is that binomdist(K,N,P,1) gives you the probability of winning K or less trials out of N with the single win probability being P (the 1 in the end is a boolean flag, telling it to give the cumulative answer rather than the probability of winning exactly K). So, the probability of winning 2 or more out of 3 would be 1-binomdist(1,3,0.7,1), and the probability of winning exactly 2 is binomdist(2,3,0.7,0)
So do you think the overhauled challenge is now ready for prime time?
Quote: MichaelBluejay
So do you think the overhauled challenge is now ready for prime time?
Well, it doesn't look like a good bet from the system owner side anymore, but, to my taste, still kinda high risk from your side.
I did not do any analysis myself, by looking at your numbers, ~2% chance of losing 10K to prove a point that doesn't require any proof seems way too high for me . And even if 10K isn't a large amount for you, 2% chance of having to publicly endorse a betting system (and pretty much ruin your reputation) still seems too risky.
You make a good point about my reputation, but I actually wouldn't have to "endorse" the system, just say that it won. And if it wins only by exploiting the 10-1 odds, rather than being an actual consistent winner, I can certainly say so.
Thanks also for the lesson in combin() and binomdist(). My math skills are not so hot but I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around why it's harder to win 6/10 rather than 3/5, but the best I can figure is that it's kind of like increasing the number of rounds in a sim, making it more long term, and increasing exposure to the "edge".
You also make a good point that 2% is still possibly too high for comfort. Using the binomdist() function, I can drop the 1.84% down to 0.35% by requiring 11 out of 20 successes. That has the advantage of actually *looking* like it's easier to beat the challenge (only 55% win rate required instead of 60%), but it's actually harder. So I'm inclined to do that.
Thoughts?
Quote: MichaelBluejayMy math skills are not so hot but I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around why it's harder to win 6/10 rather than 3/5, but the best I can figure is that it's kind of like increasing the number of rounds in a sim, making it more long term, and increasing exposure to the "edge".
Exactly. It's the Central Limit Theorem - the more trials you do, the closer your result is to the expectation. If the probability to win one session is P, then the expected number of sessions won out of N is N*P, and in your experiments P is quite low (way lower than 0.6).
So, the more trials (sessions) you do, the more likely you are to end up close to the expected number of wins (which is somewhere around 5 or 10%).
Here's a slightly different wording for your interpretation -- one that's not really correct, but it helps me feel more comfortable with the conclusion: having to win 6 out of 10 is sort of like having to win 3 out of 5 twice in a row -- if it's hard to do once, it's even harder to do twice in a row.Quote: MichaelBluejay... I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around why it's harder to win 6/10 rather than 3/5, but the best I can figure is that it's kind of like increasing the number of rounds in a sim, making it more long term, and increasing exposure to the "edge". ...
Yes, I know that you could win 4 of the first 5 and only 2 of the next 5 and still get 6 of 10, but this (erroneous) thought process helps me feel more "comfortable" with the conclusion.
Quote: MichaelBluejayOne thing confuses me about the combin() function. I plugged it into Excel, and a prop with a 70% chance of winning one time has a 44% chance of winning 2 out of 3, but with an 80% chance of winning one time, the chances of winning 2 out of 3 fall to 38%. Why does the higher chance of winning once mean a lower chance of winning the set? 70% seems to be the pivot point -- below that, the chances of winning the set drop as expected, but above that, the chances of winning the set also drop -- as unexpected.
There is the probability for 0 to 3 wins both ways.
| Wins | p=0.7 | p=0.8 |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 34.3% | 51.2% |
| 2 | 44.1% | 38.4% |
| 1 | 18.9% | 9.6% |
| 0 | 2.7% | 0.8% |
| Total | 100.0% | 100.0% |
The reason the probability of going 2 out of 3 is less at p=0.8 is that the probability of going 3/3 is signficantly higher, which cuts into the 2/3 share. I could also explain it as the expected wins at 0.7 is 2.1, and at 0.8 is 2.4. So exactly two wins is closer to expectations at p=0.7.
Quote: MichaelBluejayYour comments are very helpful, thank you.
You make a good point about my reputation, but I actually wouldn't have to "endorse" the system, just say that it won. And if it wins only by exploiting the 10-1 odds, rather than being an actual consistent winner, I can certainly say so.
Thanks also for the lesson in combin() and binomdist(). My math skills are not so hot but I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around why it's harder to win 6/10 rather than 3/5, but the best I can figure is that it's kind of like increasing the number of rounds in a sim, making it more long term, and increasing exposure to the "edge".
You also make a good point that 2% is still possibly too high for comfort. Using the binomdist() function, I can drop the 1.84% down to 0.35% by requiring 11 out of 20 successes. That has the advantage of actually *looking* like it's easier to beat the challenge (only 55% win rate required instead of 60%), but it's actually harder. So I'm inclined to do that.
Thoughts?
I don't think there is anything wrong with 51 out of 100 trials. 100 is a nice, round, "Las Vegas" number. Anyone who believes they have a winning system, instead of a "challenge buster", should have no qualms about the minimum number of trial wins. They will expect to win all of them.
Quote: thomeven to someone like myself. i am a lost person in these sites. but to think that maybe i found a advantage, only to fear tryin to find the help. proving it right or wrong. im not a gambler. it came out of a hobby. were do i go from here. thanx
Quote: MichaelBluejay1. 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, starting with a generous $5000 bankroll, 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. The simulation will run for 200,000 rounds. It's fine for your system to sit out sometimes to wait for "streaks" or other conditions, but 200,000 rounds must be wagered on (unless you go bust fist). We'll run this simulation five times, and you win if your system wins at least 3 out of the 5 times. (For those who think this is a bad test because "nobody plays 200,000 rounds", see the explanation further below.)
I think this should be safe, with the 6 of 10 you modified it to in a later post.
Over 200,000 rounds, the minimal expected loss is from playing single-deck baccarat banker, min-bet
200,000 rounds * $5 * 1.01% = 10,100.
So, you would need to turn your $5000 stake into $15,000, to be able to survive this. You can do this a little bit less than 1/3 of the time. (If you had a bet with no edge, it would be exactly 1/3 of the time.) Even if we assume that a system which gets to $15,000 always wins, that's a cap of 1/3 wins.
So, I don't think it's possible for any system to win more than 1/3 of the lifetimes. A system which wins exactly 1/3 of the trials, will win 6 of 10 trials 7.65% of the time.
(It would win 3 of 5 trials 20.98% of the time)
Quote: atrainI am a college student at unlv i believed I have cracked a system to beat roulette
Its not a belief, like a religion. Its easily proved with math if you have or have not. If you have, why aren't you at the casinos right now?
I just lost all respect for UNLV.Quote: atrainI am a college student at unlv
Quote: atraincuz i am a broke college student and would need a bank roll to start the process
I just lost all respect for UNLV, because there were three misspellings in that sentence.
For me, that happened when they put up with Jerry Tark for all those years -- a coach who brought NCAA sanctions against every college he ever coached. What a legacy. It suggests a university that will tolerate anything for sports wins. Perhaps that assessment is too harsh, but I think it is more significant than one student who can't understand negative expected value. And who has some issues with grammar/spelling.Quote: teddysI just lost all respect for UNLV.
Quote: DocFor me, that happened when they put up with Jerry Tark for all those years -- a coach who brought NCAA sanctions against every college he ever coached. What a legacy. It suggests a university that will tolerate anything for sports wins. Perhaps that assessment is too harsh, but I think it is more significant than one student who can't understand negative expected value. And who has some issues with grammar/spelling.
Aw c'mon. As long as you have a great basketball team and constantly churn out MBAs from your Hotel Management program, nothing else matters, right? I mean, what makes a university great is the success of its sports franchises--what possible other evaluative criteria could one use????
