MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
October 27th, 2010 at 1:41:58 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

Bluejay's \$1000 challenge!

I'll pay \$1000 to the first person who comes up with a betting system that can beat my proposed rules #1-3 in my original post. You don't have to put up any money; it's free. Just submit a system that can beat my rules, and I'll pay you \$1000.

Note that this wouldn't be a real "winning betting system", since there's no such thing, but rather something that exploits an oversight in my rules. If anyone had a real winning betting system then of course they wouldn't share it for \$1000.

This offer expires November 3, 2010, or sooner if I get overwhelmed with submissions.

Here you go. This has a relatively good chance of beating your proposed rules:

Phase 1:
For each comeout roll, make a \$5000 passline bet.
Continue until lifetime over or until X = \$50,000 in bankroll

Phase 2:
For each comeout roll, make a \$5 passline bet.

Adjustments to X may increase the chances of beating your rules, but the basic structure doesn't change. The expected loss in a lifetime of \$5 passline bets is just shy of \$30k, so I initially used \$50k to be safe.

The exploit is that Phase 1 dramatically shortens the average lifetime without increasing the number of lifetimes simulated.

I offer no guarantees that this "system" will actually show a profit overall, but it stands a much better chance of doing so than one that actually plays out 1000 lifetimes of 420,000 bets each.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
• Posts: 800
October 27th, 2010 at 3:28:36 PM permalink
......
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
• Posts: 800
October 27th, 2010 at 3:28:51 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

What's the definition of "can beat"?

It's plain as day in rule #1.

Quote: coolhandnuke

I wasn't going to hand over to you my beautiful system for \$1000, though I would reconsider if you offered me \$5,000,000.

Like I said: "Note that this wouldn't be a real "winning betting system", since there's no such thing, but rather something that exploits an oversight in my rules. If anyone had a real winning betting system then of course they wouldn't share it for \$1000."

Quote: Ayecarumba

Regarding the, "for systems that involve "sitting out" some rounds in order to wait for presence or absence of streaks, we'll simulate additional lifetimes proportional to the number of rounds that were sat out." How exactly would that work...?

We simply add additional lifetimes so we simulate as many rolls as we would for a system that never sat out. Of course we would look at the number of rounds actually sat out, not a "projected" number of rounds sat out. And of course if any of the additional rounds are also sat out, then we continue to simulate. Don't try to make this complicated. We're simply going to simulate the same number of rounds that we would for a system that never sat out.

Quote: MathExtremist

Here you go. This has a relatively good chance of beating your proposed rules...

Thanks, MathExtremist. I was thinking the very same thing yesterday when I was out but when I got home I forgot to model it. Anyway I just modeled it, and it wins only about 8% of lifetimes, for an average win of ~\$19,230. It loses the starting \$5k bankroll 92% of the time. So it loses \$3100 on average per lifetime. It did even worse for target bankrolls for Phase 1 of \$30k and \$70k, by the way.
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
October 27th, 2010 at 4:03:24 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

Thanks, MathExtremist. I was thinking the very same thing yesterday when I was out but when I got home I forgot to model it. Anyway I just modeled it, and it wins only about 8% of lifetimes, for an average win of ~\$19,230. It loses the starting \$5k bankroll 92% of the time. So it loses \$3100 on average per lifetime. It did even worse for target bankrolls for Phase 1 of \$30k and \$70k, by the way.

That sounds about right. I think the odds of getting past phase 1 are 1/11, or 9.09%, and some of those lifetimes will bust out afterwards, so 8% is plausible. Did you keep track of the total rounds played? What was the average realized lifetime length?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
• Posts: 2349
October 27th, 2010 at 4:21:06 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

It's plain as day in rule #1.

Rule #1 has the definition of "beat". What I am looking for is the definition of "can". Does it mean "will beat every time" (with probability 1)? Or is expected to beat (+EV essentially)? Or has a probability P of showing profit? Or something else?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
• Posts: 800
October 27th, 2010 at 4:40:53 PM permalink
@MathExtremist: I didn't track average rounds played, but I did track the maximum rounds played before a failure, which ranged between 151 to 201 (I ran the sim several times).

@weaselman: As the rules say, we run *a* computer simulation. I'm not going to humor any further nitpicking or attempts to assign strange interpretations of the rules.
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
• Posts: 6763
October 27th, 2010 at 4:52:02 PM permalink
Please model my "magic" crap system in the \$1,000 challenge:

1 - Wait for three consecutive come out seven's, then bet \$400 on Don't Pass.
-- If win, repeat #1.
-- If lose, repeat #1. until bankroll = <\$2,501, then stop.
-- if poinit established, go to #2

2 - Point established, lay max odds
-- if win, repeat #1 until bankroll = \$12,501 or more, go to #3
-- If lose, repeat #1 until bankroll = <\$2,501, then stop.

3 - Bankroll \$12,501+
-- Lay the 10 for \$11, and put \$1 on the hard 10.
-- If win or lose either, repeat #3 until another wager would put bankroll below \$7,501. If bankroll =\$7,501, stop. (attempting to soak up decisions)

4 -- Cross fingers, and hope the variance is with you for these trials to average a \$1 gain.

The only weakness I perceive is a system that somehow burns up "decisions" without bankroll exposure (which the large number of trials should take care of), or the "lightning strike" of the infitisimal chance that any random wager will come out ahead in a limited (albeit large) number of random trials (which is not really a "weakness", just a risk.)
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
JerryLogan
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
• Posts: 1344
October 27th, 2010 at 4:55:36 PM permalink
This could be interesting, if you include video poker into the challenge and if Rob Singer (who's posted results on his website and made a public challenge to LVA people including that arbitrator clause, that he could prove he's won about a million dollars with his system, if that's what it's called, and with documents) gets wind of this.

Are machines included?
Doc
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
• Posts: 6935
October 27th, 2010 at 5:00:32 PM permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba

... -- If lose, repeat #1. until bankroll = <\$2,501, then stop.

Just curious, Ayecarumba, does this part of your "magic" system mean to play for a while and then quit if you are losing? How would that comply with the idea of playing for a lifetime? Does "stop" imply that you forfeit for that lifetime? That doesn't seem reasonable either.
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009