Quote:WellbushQuote:charliepatrickI've added my responses (possibly not the best colour to have chosen).Quote:Wellbush...In reply to CP, there was nothing wrong with your genuine attempt to analyse my strategy, even though I can't reveal it in its entirety.

Let's see what you wrote :

"Firstly this was Punto Banco- I said that up front. Does this mean punto Banco cannot calculate the improved earnings from doubles, splits and BJs, or do you mean something else? I was stating that I had simulated PB not BJ. While BJ does have the opportunity of winning or losing more than 1 unit, my feeling is how the system performs at PB is a reasonable test.I can't comment. I dunno what punto Banco is. Do you think I should look it up in order to help with this?

Please explain the difference between you taking a break where (a) the dealer just stops dealing and waits for your return and (b) the dealer continues to deal for other players and as you arrive back they're just starting a new hand but wait for you to sit down. You need to explain the difference. it's (b) You misunderstood the question: I knew you were doing (b) and I was simulating (a) - do you agree there is no mathematical difference, if not please give your logic.I would say there is a difference because the game ebbs and flows somewhat. Any good player would want to try his luck at a more favourable time in the ebb and flow of the game. I don't know that this can be quantified, though. That's because the player would need to restart again sometime. He may continue to lose too many bets and break again, or start getting more favourable hands and therefore stay in the game. It needs to be said I'm trying to explain the strategy, not adjust the strategy to suit the analysis engine.

......I may choose to drop down...I haven't thought through how to quantify a rule on it yet. Some parts of the strategy haven't been fully thought through...... You must explain your betting strategy in full if you expect rational answers or your system to be believed....I'm not deliberately trying to withhold any info. I would have to think about this more. Even after I think about it more, I'm not sure I will come up with an answer that an analysis engine could use?

...If I decided to include this idea in my strategy, then this variation may not be something the statistical engines can account for? The "engines" do what they're programmed to do, so can take account of any "variations" you state. You make a claim about your system but need to explain, in full, any "variations" for there to be any meaningful mathematical analysis. The way it works is you make an assertion that your system is wonderful; you then state what are the rules for your system; and then people have an opportunity to analyse via simulation or otherwise. There must be two-way respect: you agree to provide the full information; we provide unbiassed analysis. You cannot say there are parts of the strategy you cannot divulge.ok, well, I may be able to come up with a quantifiable answer the computer can analyse. I will need some time to think about it, and probably do some analysis of my own to get a quantifiable variable in this regard. Stay tuned I'm sure that a player can pick up on this idea though, and exit the game when things appear to be going against him/her, and stay in the game when things are going well. If you wish to exit the game, this has to be part of the rules you define upfront.ditto to what I just wrote

...

My additional responses appear in your post

Quote:Wellbush...I dunno what punto Banco is....

...I'm not deliberately trying to withhold any info. I would have to think about this more. Even after I think about it more, I'm not sure I will come up with an answer that an analysis engine could use?...

You can look up Punto Banco or Baccarat - https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/ - essentially the simulation used "Player" as it's an even money bet with about 1.2% House Edge. Roulette or Craps would have been the same idea except they have a higher House Edge.

However I have now run a simulation using the BJ numbers from https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/variance/ and these still show a loss (there are also some really long runs because your bank balance can go up or down quite dramatically if you have a multiple win/loss).

R: 50 L(15) L(25) L(40) W[2](65)

R: 227.5 L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) L[2](105) W(15) L(170) L(275) L(445) L[2](15) L(15) W[1.5](15) L(720) L(1165) L(1885) L(3050) W(4935) W[1.5](1885) L(720) L(1165) L(1885) L(15) L[2](15) L(15) L(15) W(15) L(3050) W[1.5](4935)

R: 77.5 L(15) L(25) L[2](40) L(65) W(105) W(40) L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) W[1.5](105) L(40) L(65) L(105) W(170) L(65) W[2](105)

R: 22.5 W[1.5](15)

R: 15 W(15)

Overall Result: Exp: -0.0023468599033816427 Hands: 2070000 Win: 1064219 Lose: 1069077 Tie: 174936 CHY: 0 BJk: 0

Run Totals: Number Won: 484037 Number Lost: 376 Profits: 13322815 Av(27.52437313676434) Losses: -14117495 Av(-37546.52925531915) Net Gain: -794680 Av(-1.6405009774717028)

You are continuing to evade the question about the full details of your strategy. The answer you give only needs to be understood by people - the skillful part is converting that to code which can be run which, as you've seen, is what I did.

You now need to explain what the undisclosed part of your straegy is, and then give a reason how this overcomes the losses shown above.

Quote:charliepatrickYou can look up Punto Banco or Baccarat - https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/ - essentially the simulation used "Player" as it's an even money bet with about 1.2% House Edge. Roulette or Craps would have been the same idea except they have a higher House Edge.

However I have now run a simulation using the BJ numbers from https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/variance/ and these still show a loss (there are also some really long runs because your bank balance can go up or down quite dramatically if you have a multiple win/loss).R: 50 L(15) L(25) L(40) W[2](65)

R: 227.5 L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) L[2](105) W(15) L(170) L(275) L(445) L[2](15) L(15) W[1.5](15) L(720) L(1165) L(1885) L(3050) W(4935) W[1.5](1885) L(720) L(1165) L(1885) L(15) L[2](15) L(15) L(15) W(15) L(3050) W[1.5](4935)

R: 77.5 L(15) L(25) L[2](40) L(65) W(105) W(40) L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) W[1.5](105) L(40) L(65) L(105) W(170) L(65) W[2](105)

R: 22.5 W[1.5](15)

R: 15 W(15)Overall Result: Exp: -0.0023468599033816427 Hands: 2070000 Win: 1064219 Lose: 1069077 Tie: 174936 CHY: 0 BJk: 0

Run Totals: Number Won: 484037 Number Lost: 376 Profits: 13322815 Av(27.52437313676434) Losses: -14117495 Av(-37546.52925531915) Net Gain: -794680 Av(-1.6405009774717028)

You are continuing to evade the question about the full details of your strategy. The answer you give only needs to be understood by people - the skillful part is converting that to code which can be run which, as you've seen, is what I did.

You now need to explain what the undisclosed part of your straegy is, and then give a reason how this overcomes the losses shown above.

I will get to as many of your questions in due course. My brain's currently faltering but I'm sure it will get back to healthy functioning at some stage soon. As I have previously explained, I won't be able to fully disclose everything about the strategy, but I have already thought of some interesting ideas that may allow for a statistical evaluation regardless.

E.g. for my "everyday gambler" variation, I could run some of my own simulations by hand, which I've already done numerous times. I still have one that I keep and use for analysis purposes. It's a sample of 396 continuous dealt hands, after ties have been removed (I haven't needed ties in my own analyses). The win/loss score (after ties removed) was 181 wins to 215 losses. The figures come reasonably close to the historical ratio (after ties removed).

I can run this sample and compare:

1. the resultant figures without the "everyday gambler variation,"

2. the resultant figures with the "everyday gambler variation."

This would arguably give a reasonable estimation of what effect the "everyday gambler variation" has on the figures, without me revealing the "everyday gambler variation." I can give you this statistical result.

I also have some ideas on how to quantify more rules around the player taking breaks. You've already mentioned the really long runs, both winning and losing, that come up in the data, hence the importance of navigating this fact in the strategy. Some readers have previously scoffed at this suggestion, but you may agree now, that this is an important part of the strategy realising maximum results. You'll just have to wait now, for me to try and come up with some more quantifiable rules we can use for the streaks/breaks. I can't give an exact timeline for this. It could be a day, a month, or anywhere in-between.

If readers haven't realised it by now, I am not suggesting math as we've known it till now, needs re-calibrating. What I am saying is that some variables may not have been accounted for in some gambling strategies. I'm not a math wiz, but I do have an understanding of the scientific method from my qualification in Psychology (BA Psychology). This course included units in probability and statistics. And having knowledge in Psychology helps me understand what kind of environment this readership beholds.

Quote:ChumpChangeWith Fibonacci)

L-L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-W

W1) -4

W2) -7

W3) -10

W4) -13

Win 4 likely occurred at the table limit at -15.

Would need 8 wins in a row immediately to pull this out of a loss.

Without Fibonacci) 20 losses, 4 wins, for -16.

Sorry CC, your analysis here does not give an appropriate evaluation of my strategy. You may have to read through my extensive explanations a number of times, to get it right?

Quote:MichaelBluejayMy stock in trade is making concepts easy to understand. Web forums are valuable to me because they show what people want to know, or what they misunderstand, so I can write about those things. I already have an article on betting systems that unfortunately was of no use to Wellbush. (You can lead a horse to water...) However, based on his idea that the secret sauce to his system was sitting out based on streaks, I just added Myth #3 to my article on The Gambler's Fallacy.

Mr Bluejay, your article debunking betting strategies on your website is the most comprehensive and practical I've found so far. Well done. This is an area of gambling, I believe, that needs more teasing out and clarification, rather than shallow explanations found elsewhere.

Okay, I was previously in attack mode. My apologies. I hope you can also appreciate that contrarian posters on this site don't get an easy time?

As time goes by, I'm happy to accept whatever mathematical and applied proof reveals about my strategy. For now, I'll continue with it to see what unfolds.

Quote:AxelWolfThat is totally incorrect, not even the so-called experts here claim that. There are many examples of other casino games and situations other than card counting where people have an advantage and win consistently and they will keep on winning. The so-called experts claim (with mathematical proof) there is no betting system that can beat a negative expectation game in the long run. You and others may win for a long time using a system, but that doesn't mean your system works. If everyone used your system the net total would be a loss to the system players.

What I'm getting from your post here, AW, is that you're saying there are gamblers who win, but not those using a "negative expected value" strategy. Is that it?