Overhauling the Betting System Challenge

i agree with the spelling and grammer issues but could someone tell me a way to test a system

Two ways that I know of: theory and experiment. Theory is pretty simple here -- you will tend to lose $1 of every $19 that you wager at double-zero roulette, and no system will change that. For experimental tests, take your money to a casino and play roulette until you are completely broke. That will be one data point. Repeat as necessary for a convincing test. Some people also recommend computer simulations, but they will lead to the same conclusion.

i actually found a computer simulation and would have to admit that i had made a mathmatical error

Quote: atrain

i actually found a computer simulation and would have to admit that i had made a mathmatical error

Excellent! It is truly refreshing to have a "system" advocate come to this forum and quickly understand that he has made an error. Usually, they will argue adamantly for weeks that they are correct, disappear, then reappear later promoting the same argument anew.

atrain, you now have my sincere compliments.

i have no problem admitting when im wrong but thank you anyway

Quote: atrain

i have no problem admitting when im wrong ..

If you hang around here for a while, you may find that makes you fairly unique.

but it does seem for the most part people on here are highly educated

Quote: atrain

i have no problem admitting when im wrong but thank you anyway

Your error was not a mathematical one, but a conceptual one, in trying to do the impossible (construct a roulette "system" that will produce a result that is better than -5.26%). If you realize why it can't be done, then you won't waste your time (or ours) beating your head against the wall.

Quote: mkl654321

Your error was not a mathematical one, but a conceptual one, ...l.

mkl, as I indicated above, I'm willing to cut atrain a bit of slack here, since he has admitted his error. I actually think he probably did make a mathematical error that led him to think that there was a wager, or combination, that did not have that -5.26% problem. He wouldn't be the first person to miscalculate the return on a combination of street, column, and corner wagers or some such. I remember the first time I saw a crap table showing a hard 6/8 as having a 10 for 1 payout and interpreted it as 10:1. That error made me think there was no house advantage, so I do understand how math errors creep into the head, leaving one believing you have found a better-than-normal wager.

After seeing his calculation error, atrain openly admitted he was wrong, which I thought was distinctly different from what we have seen from others. Would you not be willing to cut him some slack, too, for a first-timer's error and just welcome him to the forum? I don't get the sense that he is actually one of those system fanatics who tend to waste our time with their ravings.

atrain- since you are new, and may need some 'introductory' information, try the Wiz's other site, called wizardofodds.com, and read his take on betting systems. Once you understand those concepts, if you want, you can then read about and try and learn about 'advantage play'. Advantage play is the concept that there are certain casino games that under certain circumstances allow the player to actually have an advantage over the casino. The most commonly known example is counting cards and altering your bets during blackjack. Another example is certain video poker games, when an 'optimal strategy' is used, over time, will tend to be in the player's advantage. The web site I mentioned has info on all of this. Good luck.

Would everyone please take this to a new thread? Thanks.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Would everyone please take this to a new thread? Thanks.

Michael: If you would start a new thread with the current challenge in full, it would be appreciated. I have a couple of questions regarding the bet limits.

Sorry that I've been MIA for a while. Anyway, based on the awesome advice I've received here, and my own testing, I finished my overhauling and then tweaking of the new challenge rules, and posted them on my site. As insurance against the $30,000 I'm risking, I'm offering a $1000 reward to anyone who comes up with a way to beat these new rules (with the caveat that if it's clear to me that an idea is worthless upon submission, I'm free to reject it rather than waste time writing the computer simulation for it).

Since 98steps thought his system could work in a shorter run but not for 1 billion rounds, I'll invite him to have a look at the revised challenge. However, he seems to be MIA as well. I suspect he lost his investors' bankroll and that's the end of his system. Even if he's still game, I'll include my standard advice that he do a proper computer simulation of his system before risking his $1000 with me.

In other news, for a long time I've wanted to offer an alternate, additional "live challenge" that takes place in a casino, to placate those who think that a computer simulation isn't a real-world test (because of their superstitious belief that the results are somehow different). The main problem in doing so is that it's hard to make a real-world test sufficiently long enough to always see it fail. But I'm making a stab at it. As you'll see in my proposed rules below, I've made a number of changes to try to account for the short-term nature of the test. However, it could still be vulnerable to exploit, because of something I didn't think of, so to motivate folks to help me find the flaw, I'm offering another $1000 reward to anyone who can come up with a way to beat the proposed Live Challenge rules. Here are those proposed rules in full:

Quote: Proposed "Live Challenge" rules

The challenge is the same as the regular challenge, except:

1. It takes place in a Vegas (or other U.S.) casino, with you and me (or my representative) present.
2. It's an even-money bet between you and me (not 10-1 odds), for any amount up to $30,000, with a minimum of wager of $50 per hour of play. (Time you spend not betting while waiting for "streaks" or other conditions counts as playing time.)
3. You will choose the number of rounds to wager on before we begin (1000 to 10,000 rounds).
4. All play must be completed within one month.
5. Starting bankroll is half the number of total rounds, in dollars. (e.g., a 1000-round challenge means a starting bankroll of $500.)
6. You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average (roughly equivalent to $15 per hour of play).

Thoughts?

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Thoughts?

What exactly do you mean by "beat the rules"?

Welcome back, by the way.

Good question. For winning the $1000 reward for finding an exploit of the Live Challenge, I mean that you'd submit a system idea which I'd test via a computer simulation. Though again, I'm free to reject any obviously worthless submission without spending the time writing a computer sim.

I want to make certain I understand your challenge. First, does the word "round" mean something like "hand", or is it more like "session"? I think you mean "hand" and that the 1,000 to 10,000 hands might be a session or maybe several sessions.

If I am reading this correctly, are you suggesting that the I've-got-a-winning-system people need to have a technique that can reliably increase their total bankroll by 60% in a session of pre-defined length in order for it to be considered a "winning" system? Did I calculate that percentage wrong?

If I interpret this correctly, then I would view it as a challenge that most would avoid, even if they had a pretty good technique. If I had a "system" that would reliably increase my total bankroll by even 25-30% each session, I think I would be happy with it. Unless, of course, it occasionally presented big losses.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Good question. For winning the $1000 reward for finding an exploit of the Live Challenge, I mean that you'd submit a system idea which I'd test via a computer simulation. Though again, I'm free to reject any obviously worthless submission without spending the time writing a computer sim.

Also, is this a craps simulation only? Or can it use some other game, as long as that game is -EV?

Quote: MichaelBluejay

In other news, for a long time I've wanted to offer an alternate "live challenge" that takes place in a casino, to placate those who think that a computer simulation isn't a real-world test (because of their superstitious belief that the results are somehow different). The main problem in doing so is that it's hard to make a real-world test sufficiently long enough to always see it fail. But I'm making a stab at it. As you'll see in my proposed rules below, I've made a number of changes to try to account for the short-term nature of the test. However, it could still be vulnerable to exploit, because of something I didn't think of, so to motivate folks to help me find the flaw, I'm offering another $1000 reward to anyone who can come up with a way to beat the proposed Live Challenge rules. Here are those proposed rules in full:


Thoughts?

1K rounds could be a long time in a casino. You are approximating 50/rounds per hour, so it requires at least 20 hours of "play".

What if the, "system" is, "$301 passline after two points established and made?" When does the count start? When you color in, or when the first bet is actually placed? If you start counting during the waiting period, and end after 1,000 rounds, it is possible that you will only have three or less opportunities to actually put money on the table. It is nearly a coin flip.

Quote:

Also, is this a craps simulation only? Or can it use some other game, as long as that game is -EV?

Well, like it says, the rules are the same as for the regular challenge, except for the specific differences noted, and the regular challenge rules say roulette, baccarat, or craps.

Quote:

I want to make certain I understand your challenge. First, does the word "round" mean something like "hand", or is it more like "session"?

A "round" is an event where any bet is resolved.

Quote:

If I am reading this correctly, are you suggesting that the I've-got-a-winning-system people need to have a technique that can reliably increase their total bankroll by 60% in a session of pre-defined length in order for it to be considered a "winning" system?

No. A challenger have to increase his bankroll by 60% over *the entire test*, not over an individual session. The test would undoubtedly take several sessions. In a 1000-round test, at 50 rounds per hour, we're looking at 20 hours. If each session was an hour, that would be 20 sessions. Therefore the challenger need only increase their bankroll by an average of 3% each session (not 60%).

Quote: Ayecarumba

When does the count start? When you color in, or when the first bet is actually placed?

Already addressed in the proposed rules.

Quote:

If you start counting during the waiting period, and end after 1,000 rounds, it is possible that you will only have three or less opportunities to actually put money on the table.

No. The player has to *wager* on at least 1000 rounds.

I've been MIA, from this forum, also. It was a little disturbing to learn that your challenge is changing. The old wording was not as complicated as the new. It was easier for me to understand. I was willing to lose a thousand dollars, even though I believed I would win, just to have my system evaluated. The new wording makes it seem like you really don't want to discover a valid system or strategy to beat the casinos. I do, and feel that I am close. I will test it with real money in the casinos in March.

It's too bad that so many people have wasted your time that you have to separate yourself from people like me. I will review your challenge once all the smoke settles and the revisions are completed, and decide if I still want to challenge in the spring, as planned.

Quote: chifool55

The new wording makes it seem like you really don't want to discover a valid system or strategy to beat the casinos. I do, and feel that I am close. I will test it with real money in the casinos in March.

It's too bad that so many people have wasted your time that you have to separate yourself from people like me. I will review your challenge once all the smoke settles and the revisions are completed, and decide if I still want to challenge in the spring, as planned.

It's not that at all. His old challenge was susceptible to systems which could beat his challenge, even though they admittedly could not "beat the casinos". I think you'll agree that betting $5000 on one spin of a roulette wheel to win $175,000, and then just making $1 bets thereafter, isn't a "valid system or strategy to beat the casinos." That's basically like making one bet and hoping you hit a long shot.

The new wording is much less vulnerable to high-variance, low-frequency exploits and does a much better job uncovering the question of whether your particular system actually beats the house in a meaningful way. If the system you're working on has to do with changing your wager by a few units (up or down) based on the past few results, I'd be surprised if the challenge wouldn't be open to you.

Michael -

Are you asking for someone to submit their "system" at no risk with a $1000 payoff if they beat it as insurance that your rules are well written?

I'm interested because I do have a system which I am interested in testing.

I begin actual testing at the casinos in January(I'm waiting for the holidays to end since I'm gonna start testing it at the minimums.)

The game would be double zero roulette.

I was considering your system challenge once I was able to have some success at the live casino(I've already spent several weeks there testing it with virtual betting so I'm not completely coming out of the gate dark.)

It's a challenge so I understand I may lose the money live at the casino, but my observations lead me to believe otherwise.

Thanks.

Darkoz, I am always intrigued by those who make such a proposition. If you don't mind answering a few questions, what is your math background? Do you understand that each roulette bet returns on average about 95 cents on the dollar? If you do, which bet that returns around 95 cents on the dollar will help you make money? Keep us informed.....

If you offer odds of 30:1 and the player only has to wager 1000 times then it would make it profitable for any system that has a 3% chance of being ahead after 1000 games; not a very difficult thing to do.

Mathematically, I'm not that strong-I failed Algebra the first time and barely passed the second time(although I maintained a B average in Geometry and an A in Trig. Never could figure that out.)

I ended up working in the motion picture business in post production specifically a math-challenging aspect of the process and became a top professional in my field.

I certainly don't consider myself a math expert. I spent the last 15 months working on this system and am ready to make a go for it. I'm interested in the challenge by Michael.

But my system is for his eyes only, at least until I see that it fails. If it succeeds, no one but he and I will know how it works.

Thanks for the explanation. I never considered people trying to exploit the challenge because that was not my intentions. I was looking for someone, a smart person, who could validate my strategy which seems logical to me and works. I go to the casinos and watch the roulette wheel for hours and copy down the numbers. It doesn't cost me a dime that way. My strategy regularly works for each three hour period (with the American roulette wheel - rapid roulette version). Next year, after I get an attorney out of my pocket, I will put my strategy to work with money. After about 20 three hour sessions, if the majority were successful, I planned on challenging. Now I have to wait for the final version of the challenge. It won't be hard to wait. I developed my strategy a few years ago but I don't enjoy playing roulette. It's just a game that I can beat. I seem to get more satisfaction losing at games that offer big payouts that rarely happen.

Quote: chifool55

my strategy which seems logical to me

There is no strategy which is logical which will beat a game that has a house edge built in, here referred to as 'negative EV' games. Since on each and every bet you make, the house has an advantage, with which bet that the house has an advantage are you going to win more money than you will lose? Others articulate this concept better than I do. I believe that on the companion website, wizardofodds.com, you can read why your betting system will not work against roulette, and it does not matter what your system is. If you are playing essentially 60 hours of roulette, you will most likely lose quite a sum of money. Also, as has happened here before, I would guess that this will never come to a challenge. And my question to you... if you REALLY had such a system, why not just go take the casino's money in anonymity for imperpetuity? As I always finish... good luck, and keep us informed.

To answer the last part of your post soopoo, it is my intention to go to the casino and utilize this system as I stated in the first post. I begin in January for a few reasons, one I wish to avoid the holiday crowd and the higher minimums. Two, I have a few things I must deal with in December through the holidays before I can start in earnest.

If the system fails, then thats my bad. I've been doing live research at the casinos and have seen pretty good(virtual) results. Of course, this is short term so I am interested in the systems challenge.

I'm not ready to lay money down for the challenge until I can prove in a live casino my system so I was interested in this insurance challenge. I'm waiting for a response from Michael to that.

If a strategy was created that beat the challenge and could consistently turn a profit, then it would be logical even if it defied probability. But that would be for the challenge to determine.

I know you are fishing for how my system works, but I refuse to give out details. If I end up part of this insurance challenge, then Michael will be the only one to see it. It is not for sale or free offer.

Darkoz, nice to see you back. I hate to see you wasting your time and money on betting systems.

At least Michael Bluejay will have somebody who can write properly this time.

Thanks, Wizard. It's a pleasure.

Time I have plenty of. It's a pet hobby. But after plenty of time at the casino, I honestly am excited about this system.

If it fails, I'll have had some fun trying it. I'm aware of the implausibility of coming up with a successful system. But after seeing what I have, I would be remiss in not making the attempt.

Perhaps I've just seen some amazing short term results, but I sure could use some of those as well, LOL.

Quote: chifool55

IIt was a little disturbing to learn that your challenge is changing. The old wording was not as complicated as the new. It was easier for me to understand. I was willing to lose a thousand dollars, even though I believed I would win, just to have my system evaluated. The new wording makes it seem like you really don't want to discover a valid system or strategy to beat the casinos.

I'm perplexed as to why you feel this way. Really, the only thing that changed is that instead of running the sim for a billion rounds once, we run it for 200,000 rounds 20 times. Is that really so much more complicated? The challenge is likely actually easier to beat this way. But anyway, if you really prefer the 1 billion spins, you're still welcome to challenge under those rules.

If there's something else you object to then you'll need to be specific. You didn't give any clue as to what you thought was onerous about the rewrite.

Maybe you thought the live challenge was intended as a replacement for the computer challenge? It's not. It's an additional alternative for those who claim that the challenge is valid because "a computer simulation isn't a proper real-world test". (I got just one such complaint last week, calling my challenge "idiotic".)

Quote: darkoz

Are you asking for someone to submit their "system" at no risk with a $1000 payoff if they beat it as insurance that your rules are well written?

Exactly. But again with the caveat that if it's immediately obvious to me that a submitted system is worthless then I'm under no obligation to waste my time programming the simulation. And I have to tell you, I'm already certain your system is worthless. I know you haven't said very much about it, but trust me, you've said enough.

Quote:

I'm not ready to lay money down for the challenge until I can prove in a live casino my system...

You're going about this backwards. Your first test should be on a computer simulation before you lay down any money in the casino. As I say on my challenge page, you can hire a programmer at places like Elance or craigslist, likely for $50 or so. And in ny event, you can't play enough rounds in the casino to know whether your system is truly a long-term winner.

"Exactly. But again with the caveat that if it's immediately obvious to me that a submitted system is worthless then I'm under no obligation to waste my time programming the simulation. And I have to tell you, I'm already certain your system is worthless. I know you haven't said very much about it, but trust me, you've said enough."

Welcome Michael.

Since you believe that all systems are worthless in gambling I'm confused how anyone could submit one that is not worthless in your eyes. I took it to mean you would not program something that was ridiculous(like betting $5000 on red and then playing nickels if it wins). I'm saddened that you've already determined you will not accept the challenge because you are certain my system is worthless based on me "saying enough" when all I've said is I refuse to give the details of the system to anyone. It's not very encouraging.

So, are you up to this challenge for the $1000 payoff or not. You do want to test the system, right?

"And in any event, you can't play enough rounds in the casino to know whether your system is truly a long-term winner. "

That also doesn't sound right, Michael. I thought your argument was always that the simulation would be similar to real world situations. If my playing live in a casino cannot test whether the system is truly a long-term winner then whats the point. I intend to use this in a casino. If I win consistently in the short term, then I will continue to play until it becomes long-term. So your comment has me confused.

Quote: darkoz

Since you believe that all systems are worthless in gambling I'm confused how anyone could submit one that is not worthless in your eyes.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said I believe that all systems are worthless, the Wizard is the one who says that, and I've disagreed with him publicly about it for years. The reason I disagree is that the wording is too ambiguous. If your goal is to increase your chances of winning in the short term, and you're prepared to suffer big losses occasionally, then a betting system isn't worthless at all. It can't overcome the house edge, but it's not "worthless".

In the context that *I* used the term "worthless" in my earlier post, I thought it was clear that I was referring to a system that couldn't hope to exploit my challenge. Others on this forum readily came up with systems that beat the earlier challenge rules I had proposed. Those systems weren't "worthless" for the purpose of exploiting my challenge, even though they're long-term losers in the casino.

Quote:

I'm saddened that you've already determined you will not accept the challenge because you are certain my system is worthless based on me "saying enough" when all I've said is I refuse to give the details of the system to anyone.

You've said quite a bit more than that. In any event, I'm happy to take a look at your system, just don't get your hopes up that I'll decide to code it for the $1000 reward, since likely I won't. But as I keep saying, when you can hire anyone to code it on the cheap, don't pretend that you have no way to get your system tested at little cost. And certainly, if you want to put it up to the actual challenge (where you put your own money up), then you're certainly welcome to do so, and then I'll have no choice but to code it. Though again, I'd strongly suggest you spend $50 to $100 to get someone else to code it before risking at least $1000 with me.

Quote:

So, are you up to this challenge for the $1000 payoff or not. You do want to test the system, right?

If you keep putting words in my mouth then don't expect me to be cooperative. I already told you I likely DON'T want to test your system.

Quote:

"And in any event, you can't play enough rounds in the casino to know whether your system is truly a long-term winner. "

That also doesn't sound right, Michael. I thought your argument was always that the simulation would be similar to real world situations. If my playing live in a casino cannot test whether the system is truly a long-term winner then whats the point.

No, my simulation cannot exactly mimic real-world conditions. With the computer simulation we play more rounds than anyone actually would, and in the live-challenge version we play far *fewer* rounds than anyone actually could. We play so many rounds in the computer sim version because I'm offering a whopping 10-1 odds and because I generously consider a system a winner if it wins even a single penny after 200,000 rounds. We play fewer rounds in the live version because I don't want to be stuck in a casino for months on end (or have to pay a representative to be there). It's unlikely that someone could beat the live challenge with a month of full-time play, but it's certainly *possible*. The one-month limit is a compromise. With any -EV game, the longer you play, the more likely you are to lose. I simply can't simulate the long-term in an actual casino, so I do the best that I can.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said I believe that all systems are worthless, .

Could you name a few that are worthwhile, in your opinion. Systems that are worth using in a casino.

Michael. I am not putting words in your mouth.

You offered a $1000 insurance challenge to your system. You've confirmed that the system is at no financial risk to myself.

Now you state you would not likely wish to do the coding unless forced to by my accepting the main challenge. This is not a misunderstanding of english nor is it me putting words in your mouth. Either you are offering the $1000 challenge because you want to do it(unless you are claiming the $1000 challenge is because you don't want to which is nonsensical) or you don't wish to make the challenge.

If you are so certain you don't want to do the coding as per your own challenge and feel you will only be forced to if I pay the $1000 or $3000 then fine. But remove the Insurance challenge you have up.

I discussed my experience with math schooling. I have not mentioned a single thing about how my system works so how you came to any conclusion as to its viability is upsetting to me. I was forthcoming with my not considering myself a math expert. Perhaps you think I am stating I cannot do simple math. All of my calculations as to payoffs in Roulette are accurate(I'm not going to make simple mistakes like 3 for 1 instead of 2 to 1 and thinking I am making an extra chip). I am simply not someone who can do the complicated math like the Wizard does.

I saw an opportunity to take the challenge without putting up a grand(at the loss of the 10:1 payout). This was because you offered the opportunity. Since without seeing the system you are already likely to turn it down, I can only assume you didn't really expect anyone to take you up on it. You are the one who came out the gate rude stating unequivocally that based on some posts and without having actually seen the system, you are certain it is worthless. Again, the point of the challenge is to prove that one way or the other.

"don't pretend that you have no way to get your system tested at little cost"

And the hilarious thing is you put words in my mouth. I never stated I have no way to test my system at little cost. In fact, I stated I intended to test my system at considerable cost, live in the casino. So don't put words in my mouth, please.

Darkoz, I've seen a multitude of Roulette systems and just for kicks I've applied a few of them myself. Roulette is a fairly simple game and the concept a fairly straightforward. The payouts (apart from the "basket" 5-number wager) all have the same lousy 5.26% house edge.

Considering that there are only so many ways you can place a wager on the layout this means that there are only so many ways to achieve the same outcome. Almost all Roulette systems follow the same (flawed) logic. You could continue betting a certain number, street or section until it hits, which will then pay back everything you've lost on that section, plus a small win. This will kill your system eventually because eventually the number or section you're betting will miss so many times in a row that you'll either hit the table limit or you'll simply run out of money. The other type of system is to wait and watch the wheel, tracking the numbers (or sections) that haven't hit for a certain period of time and then when enough time has passed that you've satisfied yourself that they are now more likely to hit than the other numbers or sections. The theory behind this system is that every number or section is bound to hit eventually so if you see that a certain number or section hasn't hit for long time then it's a good time to put money on that number or section. Of course you must realize that even if the number or section you're watching hasn't hit for an extended (and seemingly unlikely) number of spins, it could still miss for another 100 spins once you've begun to bet on it.

Neither of these systems can possibly be a long term winner. In other words, the longer you play either of these systems, the more likely you are to lose an amount (or portion of your bankroll) equivalent to the house edge. Taking all of this into account, it is obvious that it is impossible to use either of these two systems (or any other system) to beat the game of roulette.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of players who are not familiar with the gambler's fallacy or the basic concept of losing because the house has an edge. What happens is that they'll come up with one or another variation on a system and when, after a while (be it hours, days, weeks or months) they find themselves ahead, they invariably believe that they've discovered a winning system. The sad truth is that they've found nothing new and chances are that they're doing something that has been tried many, many times before. They've just been fortunate enough to come out on the positive side of things during their trial.

I don't mean to put words into anyone's mouth but I think it's very possible that MB is well aware of this and has seen many people who have had the same or similar experiences to what you've experienced and he's growing tired of going through the same drudgery of having to prove to someone what he already knows - that this system will not and cannot beat the house. He also knows that many of these systems can show a short term profit as with most progressive systems so he's looking for a way to simulate the "real world" and still prove that a system will not work. Now, you come along and say that you believe it will work and you want him to spend his time and effort creating a program to show whether or not it does. If this is the case, MB has probably created this or a similar program many times before and the result has always been the same... it doesn't work. So, what reason would he have to do it all over again, just to come up with the same result - the result he knows you will find.

Good luck playing live and I don't want to see you lose your money at Roulette - actually, I'd love to see you and everyone else have a great stretch of good fortune - but if you do happen to be so fortunate that you are ahead after a while, take your winnings and buy something nice for youself or someone you love or stick it into an interest bearing account... because if you put it back on the table, you will eventually lose it all regardless of what system you have come up with.

Best of luck.

Thank you Nightfly. I am aware of all that you have said.

I've even stated in the previous comments that if my system does fail, I will not be utterly surprised. I am going by the results I have witnessed so far. We are in total agreement you and I. I wish to test the system further based on that until it once again proves to fail(or glory be if it truly succeeds.)

However, to answer why MB should waste time making the program to test my system which may be something he has seen before, its because he offered to do it.

His words:
"As insurance against the $30,000 I'm risking, I'm offering a $1000 reward to anyone who comes up with a way to beat these new rules."

My question to him:
"Are you asking for someone to submit their "system" at no risk with a $1000 payoff if they beat it as insurance that your rules are well written?"

His reply:
Exactly. But again with the caveat that if it's immediately obvious to me that a submitted system is worthless then I'm under no obligation to waste my time programming the simulation. And I have to tell you, I'm already certain your system is worthless.

And then more of his words in the next post:
"In any event, I'm happy to take a look at your system, just don't get your hopes up that I'll decide to code it for the $1000 reward, since likely I won't"

And finally, his words(same post):
"I already told you I likely DON'T want to test your system."

Huh? He's offering the challenge that he most likely won't agree to?

And the following quotes(notice I put no words in his mouth) also make one suspicious.

"In the context that *I* used the term "worthless" in my earlier post, I thought it was clear that I was referring to a system that couldn't hope to exploit my challenge"

Okay, but then he states:
"I'm happy to take a look at your system, just don't get your hopes up that I'll decide to code it for the $1000 reward, since likely I won't. But as I keep saying, when you can hire anyone to code it on the cheap, don't pretend that you have no way to get your system tested at little cost. And certainly, if you want to put it up to the actual challenge (where you put your own money up), then you're certainly welcome to do so, and then I'll have no choice but to code it"

So, according to him, if he refuses to accept the system because it "couldn't hope to exploit" his challenge, he will then accept the same system that "couldn't hope to exploit" the challenge as he's forced too by my putting up the $1000 or $3000 challenge money? Why would he accept a system he's deemed worthless for exploiting his challenge earlier. It makes it seem he really only wants to do the coding if he get the full systems challenge.

And that is alright!! He probably doesn't want to waste his time in his opinion. But take the insurance challenge off the table then.

Again, I don't want to put words into his mouth, however...

I believe he's looking for someone to help him find if there's a way for a person to circumvent his new challenge rules. He knows that no Roulette system will win in the long run (which is why he's willing to pay out 10-1 against anyone who has the guts to put up their money against his) but he also knows that someone might be able to find a flaw in his challenge (neither he nor I know what that might be so don't ask...) that would put his 10-1 wager at risk. He's willing to pay $1,000 if someone can point out what this flaw might be but he's not interested in creating another program to simply find out what he already knows.

That's what this all looks like to me anyway. He's looking for a flaw in his new challenge rules and you're claiming that you've found a system that beats Roulette. Two different things.

Yes, Nightfly. I want to believe that is the real misunderstanding.

But again, I questioned him on it and here is the exchange.

My question:
Are you asking for someone to submit their "system" at no risk with a $1000 payoff if they beat it as insurance that your rules are well written?

His response:
Exactly.

I fail to see how any system that is not believed in by the person supplying it could be a true test to his written rules. It would have to be a "real" system to make the insurance bet valid. So, once again, his statement that he really doesn't want to do the test is at odds with his challenge.

Again, if you just propose a system that is similar to any of the systems I've suggested then I'm sure he'll be pretty confident that his new challenge rules will overcome any likelihood of that system winning his challenge. If that is the case then he won't bother testing your system because he already knows the outcome... that being that there's about a 2% (or less) chance of you winning which makes it worth his while of putting up his money against yours.

What I think he's looking for is a system that's not necessarily designed to win in the long run but to come out ahead after 10 "lives" at 200,000 rounds. He knows that it's always possible for someone to be ahead according to his new challenge rules so he's looking for something he hasn't seen before or hasn't thought of. Keep in mind that this is not a wager he's making but a "reward" of $1,000 out of his own pocket with no risk to you. Basically, if your system is no different than other systems he's seen before then he won't waste his time and he's told you as much. If your system is significantly different (for whatever reason) then he would possibly be willing to test it.

He's certainly not said that he won't test your system but if if he's seen it before (in one form or another) then he probably won't bother with it. So, show him your system and see what happens.

By the way, you do know that your system can't win don't you? (I mean in a casino for the "long run - not against his challenge.) How can you not?

Quote: darkoz

Now you state you would not likely wish to do the coding unless forced to by my accepting the main challenge. This is not a misunderstanding of english nor is it me putting words in your mouth. Either you are offering the $1000 challenge because you want to do it(unless you are claiming the $1000 challenge is because you don't want to which is nonsensical) or you don't wish to make the challenge. If you are so certain you don't want to do the coding as per your own challenge and feel you will only be forced to if I pay the $1000 or $3000 then fine. But remove the Insurance challenge you have up.

darkoz, screw off. When I made my original post offering the $1000 challenge, I actually made two of them (one for the computer sim and one for the live challenge). When I did that I pondered whether I should put the disclaimer that I'm not actually *required* to test every single system anyone might want to submit, because obviously one person could submit 1000 systems all with slight variations on the other (or 10,000 people could just submit their wacky ideas, because they have nothing to lose and $1000 to win). I thought this would be obvious to everyone who wasn't a complete idiot, but I went ahead and put in the disclaimer anyway when I made the first $1000 offer. When I got to the second $1000 offer, I pondered whether I needed to repeat the obvious disclaimer, but I decided that once was enough. Clearly it wasn't. Even now when I've clarified the obvious for you, there's no end to your whining about it. The cherry on top was when you commanded me to "remove the insurance challenge you have up." You know what? No. It will remain there for the purpose I put it there, for the people who understand why it's there. And I'm not replying to any more posts you make in this thread. In fact, unless the Wizard overrules me, I'll likely delete them.

Nightfly, you were spot on, of course.

Since we got pretty far afield since my $1000 reward offer, let me make it here again so it's fresh.

Based on the awesome advice I've received here, and my own testing, I finished my overhauling and then tweaking of the new challenge rules, and posted them on my site. As insurance against the $30,000 I'm risking, I'm offering a $1000 reward to anyone who comes up with a way to beat these new rules (with the caveat that if it's clear to me that an idea is worthless upon submission, I'm free to reject it rather than waste time writing the computer simulation for it).

In other news, for a long time I've wanted to offer an alternate, additional "live challenge" that takes place in a casino, to placate those who think that a computer simulation isn't a real-world test (because of their superstitious belief that the results are somehow different). The main problem in doing so is that it's hard to make a real-world test sufficiently long enough to always see it fail. But I'm making a stab at it. As you'll see in my proposed rules below, I've made a number of changes to try to account for the short-term nature of the test. However, it could still be vulnerable to exploit, because of something I didn't think of, so to motivate folks to help me find the flaw, I'm offering another $1000 reward to anyone who can come up with a way to beat the proposed Live Challenge rules (with the same caveat as above). Here are those proposed rules in full:

Quote: Proposed "Live Challenge" rules

The challenge is the same as the regular challenge, except:

1. It takes place in a Vegas (or other U.S.) casino, with you and me (or my representative) present.
2. It's an even-money bet between you and me (not 10-1 odds), for any amount up to $30,000, with a minimum of wager of $50 per hour of play. (Time you spend not betting while waiting for "streaks" or other conditions counts as playing time.)
3. You will choose the number of rounds to wager on before we begin (1000 to 10,000 rounds).
4. All play must be completed within one month.
5. Starting bankroll is half the number of total rounds, in dollars. (e.g., a 1000-round challenge means a starting bankroll of $500.)
6. You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average (roughly equivalent to $15 per hour of play).

Thoughts?

[deleted]

Quote: MichaelBluejay
No, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said I believe that all systems are worthless, .>>>



Could you name a few that are worthwhile, in your opinion. Systems that are worth using in a casino. Hey, I still want to know.

Quote: darkoz

you want proof your statements are unclear. Here is Nightfly's comment:
What I think he's looking for is a system that's not necessarily designed to win in the long run but to come out ahead after 10 "lives"

notice he said the words "I think he's looking for". Even he was not completely sure of your intent although he suspected it.

Hey, I'm not taking anyone's side here but my own. darkoz, I certainly knew what he meant but as I said from the outset, I don't want to put words in someone's mouth. I could have said, "What MB means is this" but that would have been a little too presumptive. I was simply doing my best to point out to you, someone who didn't seem to grasp the spirit of the "reward" part of MB's post that he knows what anyone who understands the simple math behind Roulette knows - that your system cannot beat Roulette in the long run.

He has set up certain rules that must be followed including a minimum bet per hand and a minimum number of rounds. Without these rules, anyone could tell him they have a system to beat roulette and put up their $1,000 against his $10,000 and then place one, solitary wager on red. Of course, they'll win that bet almost 50% of the time (even on 00 Roulette) and of course that means they'd win his $10,000 about 47% of the time and lose only $1,000 about 53% of the time. He'd be very unwise to make that wager, as would anyone else. The fact is that he knows the house edge will eventually grind anyone down no matter what system they may use over 200,000 hands and following those stipulations and a minimum wager requirement. He knows that he'd win the $1,000 about 98% (or more) of the time and lose his $10,000 less than 2% of the time. Now that's a good bet and he knows it.

Now that you know this too, I'm sure you understand why he wouldn't bother wasting his time testing any system that he's seen before because they'll all end up very close to the percentages that he has already calculated. If you can find a flaw in his challenge rules however, he's said he'll pay you $1,000 for coming up with a system that will "beat" his challenge as that's a small price to pay if the alternative is for someone else to actually use such a system against his challenge rules and take him for $30,000.

In other words, lighten up, don't get bent out of shape and move on with life. If your system really is profitable, go play it live, build up a bankroll, increase your bets over time, create a collossal financial empire, buy the internet, close down MB's site and put a billboard on the moon that tells the world MB is nothing but an insulting weasel. They'll listen then, I promise.

Quote: EvenBob

Could you name a few that are worthwhile, in your opinion. Systems that are worth using in a casino. Hey, I still want to know.

No, because for starters, you clearly didn't understand my explanation, second, because both the Wizard and I already cover betting systems in detail on our sites, and most importantly, because it's unrelated to this thread. You want to discuss betting systems in general, go start another thread.

I'm going to start a new thread for the $1000 offers, so they're easy to find in the first post of that thread -- even if they subsequently get buried by pages of extraneous posts.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

because both the Wizard and I already cover betting systems in detail on our sites .

This is from your site: "no betting system can overcome the house edge. You don't gain an advantage just because you're using a betting system."

You ARE saying all betting systems are worthless, which is why it confused me when you said in this thread you aren't saying that. It doesn't matter, never mind..