Negative Progression
Or you could just refer them to this walkthrough.Quote: Mission146That way, I could continue to hang out here and explain to people who actually express a desire to learn how the House Edge works and how they can learn to calculate it for themselves.
link to original post
First of all, your putting "experts" in quotation marks is item #5 on Characteristics of People Who Believe in Betting Systems. You guys are all the same.Quote: tuttigymMy point is that the miniscule percentages of what is referred to as the "house advantage" or "house edge" do not exist. My point is that the "house" advantages far exceed 1.41%, etc., and that it is incumbent on those so-called "experts" to inform the uninformed, the gullible, and the newbies of the real edge they face at any given gambling venue.
link to original post
Next, the house edge is real and is known by (1) calculation, (2) simulation, (3) real-world results. It doesn't get much more solid than that.
Here's a game with a 10% house edge: You have 10 balls, 9 red and 1 green. You bet $1 for each draw, and draw a ball randomly. 90% of the time you win and get your dollar back. 10% of the time you lose your dollar. The 10% house edge can be known by calculation, simulation, and actual real-world results. Here's the simulation.
Here's another game with a 5% house edge, that you can play yourself to confirm the house edge: You bet $1 on each flip of a coin. If it's heads, you pay yourself 90¢, and you get your original dollar back. If it's tails you lose your dollar. By calculation, simulation, and real-world results, the house edge is 10%.
Quote: tuttigymMr. Dieter: I want to thank you for this post. IMHO it took a great deal of courage to put yourself out there with a definitive realistic answer to my question. To be sure, I have no idea if your proposed answer is correct, so I would ask as a follow up: What problem(s) does this solve? Will it solve all the hypothetical equations related to every HA/HE figures proposed in craps "math" such as the 1.41% PL house advantage?
link to original post
None. This is data gathering only. It solves no problems; it provides data for study.
The data gathering could be done at a lower cost, perhaps $10,000 + labor, if you believe that a craps table and dice in your basement will have equivalent characteristics to one in a casino. This presumes that air is roughly the same, the difference between your data gathering cameras and their surveillance cameras doesn't change how the dice land, the lights don't change how the dice land, the ceiling height doesn't change how the dice land, and that you bring in your own stickman to hassle you for taking too long getting ready.
An equivalent simulation could probably be done in an afternoon for around $700 with WinCraps and a 3 year old laptop.
Quote: lilredroosterif you have a winning system or method why would you even care about convincing the mathletes on this site
My play does NOT win all the time. My play is NOT a "system." My play varies from hand to hand (craps). My play is dependent upon how the table and the various players do during any given session. The most difficult "read" is a "choppy" table, but though inconsistent, is manageable. Sometimes just staying even can be a struggle.
Quote: lilroosteryou're never going to convince them
I know, however, there may be some who read what I have to say and re-think their approach and maybe question.
Quote: lilroosterI wouldn't care a whit what Dieter, OnceDear and Mission thought of my system
I don't. Some of their posts bully and seek to domineer, and that is okay. It is who they are.
tuttigym
Your play is play. It's just ordinary -ev gambling. No harm in that.Quote: tuttigymMy play does NOT win all the time. My play is NOT a "system." My play varies from hand to hand (craps). My play is dependent upon how the table and the various players do during any given session. The most difficult "read" is a "choppy" table, but though inconsistent, is manageable. Sometimes just staying even can be a struggle.
There is potential harm in that, if you aspire to persuade anyone here that there is merit in mumbo jumbo.Quote:I know, however, there may be some who read what I have to say and re-think their approach and maybe question.
That is a particularly egregious personal insult. Had you said it about any non moderator, you would be instantly suspended.Quote:Some of their posts bully and seek to domineer, and that is okay. It is who they are.
link to original post
tuttigym
Quote: OnceDearNo-one, not even the Great Evenbob, can tell the difference between the random outcome of a roulette spin or dice throw and the output of a good random number generator such as http://random.org
Some might say that is not true, but they would be wrong.
I believe that is true, however, a craps game simulator and a random number simulator are different because the game has rules and is subject to the limitations of those rules as well as the wagers placed. Perhaps you or someone could link me to a craps simulator that is NOT Wincraps but does offer all the wagers of the game including the hop bets. Forum members have referred to such, but I have yet to see any alternatives.
Quote: OnceDearWhy would it matter. It's simulated. Have a $1,000,000 bankroll if you like. Am i missing some nuance in your question?
It matters because craps in the casino is NOT simulated. The bankroll matters because casino craps takes and pays real money. Simulations don't have to pay rent, buy groceries, and experience the highs and lows of winning and losing. In short, simulations are NOT real.
Quote: OnceDearI am confident that no answer will satisfy you.
Actually Dieter gave me a reasonable answer that I acknowledged.
tuttigym
That's EXACTLY what a system is! A system is a recipe for betting based on previous results. See my article on betting systems. It's right there in the very first sentence. When you haven't graduated past the very first sentence, you can't expect people to take you seriously.Quote: tuttigymMy play is NOT a "system." My play varies from hand to hand (craps). My play is dependent upon how the table and the various players do during any given session.
link to original post
That's also addressed in the betting systems article. I explain how simulations are a good proxy for real-world events. Also, your denial that simulations work is item #14 on the characteristics of believers in betting systems. We've seen that kind of nonsense for decades, it's old. And tellingly, everyone who makes the assertion that computer sims don't work, including you, can't write a computer program (which is #13 on the list). It's funny that you think you know more about what computer programming is about than actual computer programmers.Quote: tuttigymIt matters because craps in the casino is NOT simulated. The bankroll matters because casino craps takes and pays real money. Simulations don't have to pay rent, buy groceries, and experience the highs and lows of winning and losing. In short, simulations are NOT real.
link to original post
He's clearly talking about me. Notice he hasn't replied to any of my recent posts where I address his fallacies head-on. See if he denies it.Quote: OnceDearThat is a particularly egregious personal insult. Had you said it about any non moderator, you would be instantly suspended.link to original postQuote: tuttigymSome of their posts bully and seek to domineer, and that is okay. It is who they are.
link to original post
Quote: tuttigyma craps game simulator and a random number simulator are different because the game has rules and is subject to the limitations of those rules as well as the wagers placed. Perhaps you or someone could link me to a craps simulator that is NOT Wincraps but does offer all the wagers of the game including the hop bets. Forum members have referred to such, but I have yet to see any alternatives.
It matters because craps in the casino is NOT simulated. The bankroll matters because casino craps takes and pays real money. Simulations don't have to pay rent, buy groceries, and experience the highs and lows of winning and losing. In short, simulations are NOT real.
Woah! A craps simulator would surely simulate the game and be constrained by the same rules and payout schemes. The simulated bankroll would ebb and flow and get depleted just like a real one. Does wincraps not do that? ( I honestly know little about wincraps) I understand that wincraps can use a number of built in Random Number Generators and can actually import truly random roll results from a simple external RNG such as random.org
Forgive me Tuttigym, I don't see you having posted anything to establish that a decent simulator does not give faithful and representative outcomes that you would get playing the same in a live game.
Quote: DieterDoes a die have 6 sides? Does each side have an equal chance of landing up? That's 1 in 6. Two dice is 1 in 62 to get a given combination; some of those combinations are equivalent for game purposes.
We are now back to 4th grade arithmetic. 36 ways to roll the dice exactly. 30 ways to win and only 6 ways lose. The rest has been filled in by prior posts. No need to rehash as it is quite tedious.
Quote: DieterWheels... does the ball or flapper have an even chance of landing each way?
Yes, no argument here.
Quote: DieterUsing a different source of randomness to simulate these games should have no impact. Are you suggesting that the wheels aren't fair? Perhaps the dice aren't fair? Perhaps the simulation isn't using an adequate source of randomness?
Ah , but it does. You see simulators cannot change the wager with each toss of the dice or each hand that is played. It cannot add or subtract or even withdraw from play during a session. So, yes, the wheels and the dice are fair, but the simulator cannot react to what is actually happening to table conditions of being "hot," "cold," or "choppy."
Quote: DieterComputerized shufflers can be exactly simulated. A computer shuffle takes a computer algorithm random source and methodically restacks the input deck to the output deck, with a convolution based on the computer algorithm. That can all be readily simulated.
link to original post
Hand shuffles can probably be simulated too. It's just a different series of output convolutions.
Card games do not float my boat, but I am sure that you are probably correct on the above.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymI In short, simulations are NOT real.
that is really, really bad news for the astronauts who have to use simulators to learn what moving around in space is like
when they really get up there it's going to be totally different for them
when the trainees read your post they may very well quit the astronaut training program
.
Quote: lilredroosterif you believe that to be true - and I'm not at all agreeing that it is - anyway - why would you believe a human being could predict what a computer cannot simulate?
𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 "𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥"?
Gambling is a guessing game, so humans will try to "predict," but they cannot; they react. Simulators do what they are asked to do and they just repeat the exercise as programed until the exercise reaches conclusion or is terminated. If a variable is introduced in mid-exercise, the calculations change and so do the answers which will skew the ultimate results.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymAh , but it does. You see simulators cannot change the wager with each toss of the dice or each hand that is played. It cannot add or subtract or even withdraw from play during a session.
link to original post
tuttigym
Absolutely a simulator can vary it's bets, increase or decrease wager by whatever amount upon whatever trigger you program. Or it can set wager to zero on certain triggers.
What it cannot simulate is YOUR playing style unless YOU can codify a set of RULES that you play. We cannot simulate a tuttigym because a tuttigym cannot define his way of interpretating the table. Tutygym cannot define what he will see as a hot table on his first ten minutes of session 1 and how that would not be a hot table under exactly the same conditions on a day when Tuttigym has seen a black cat.
If I'm wrong and you can define exactly what you would do after observing the rolls to date at any time, then we can put tenders out to simulate you. While we are at it we could get simulated you, once proven and take it to make some real wagers from your bankroll to make you poorer.
Quote: tuttigym
Ah , but it does. You see simulators cannot change the wager with each toss of the dice or each hand that is played. It cannot add or subtract or even withdraw from play during a session. So, yes, the wheels and the dice are fair, but the simulator cannot react to what is actually happening to table conditions of being "hot," "cold," or "choppy."link to original post
They absolutely can.
You can enter a starting bankroll, place your (fake) bets, and play it out one roll at a time. Watch your mock-bank grow and shrink.
With some savvy, you can probably automate most playing schemes, when to press, when to turn off and turn back on, when to put so much on a hardway, and maybe even periodically decrease your mock-bank with some chips "for the crew".
Resolving addition and subtraction problems based on conditional logic is one of those mechanical tasks that computers can do almost instantly, and have been doing very reliably for over 60 years.
The randomness that drives the conditional tests is trickier, but that's been reasonably addressed since at least 1992.
Quote: tuttigym. My play is NOT a "system." My play varies from hand to hand (craps). My play is dependent upon how the table and the various players do during any given session.
aha__________you don't have a system_________but you have a "method"
and you are claiming it's a winning "method"
and that simulations showing that a house game with a negative expectancy cannot be beat in the long run are false
lucky, lucky you
you can beat the house with your "method"
you must be filthy rich by now________________betting huge
too, too bad for everybody here that your winning "method" cannot be documented or proven so we can all learn it too and get rich from it
no problem at all_________everybody here will just have to take your word for it
.
Quote: Once DearI understood Dieter's time estimate was an experiment run as a real person at a real game. A computer simulator would do that in a few minutes with the same conclusion. The computer could also repeat the experiment many times to establish the conclusion more reliably and forcefully. Unlike the notional playing human.
And you know that how? Could you provide a footnote for authentication?
Quote: OnceDearExperiments don't solve hypothetical equations. They derive solutions within defines margins of error at statistical confidence levels.
E.g. Experiment might determine that 7 is rolled 1 time in 6.1 rolls with a margin of error of 0.3 with 95% confidence.
A longer experimental run might determine that 7 is rolled 1 time in 6.001 rolls with a margin of error of 0.002 with 99.99% confidence.
By golly, that is 4th grade arithmetic which I seem to remember was involved in a previous post of mine. Thank you for the affirmation. Do you suppose that we might agree on some of the other 4th grade arithmetic I suggested using "actual calculated precise solutions with no ambiguity"?
tuttigym
Quote: MichaelBluejayIt's not the percentage of winning sessions, it's the total return on *all* sessions. The Martingale can win 80% of 1-hour sessions, but is still an overall loser, because the losing 20% of sessions lose more than the the wins in the winning sessions
That is a very correct statement, but suppose you change the math below showing the winning sessions averaging $350 and the losing sessions at $500. That big red number would change to a big green number. I guess it is always great to create your own numbers to make your point.
tuttigym
Quote: lilredroosterif you have a winning system or method why would you even care about convincing the mathletes on this site of that
Quote: tuttigym
I don't. Some of their posts bully and seek to domineer, It is who they are.
really?__________then why would you continue conversing with them?
you've got to admit it's pretty strange
carrying on a long conversation with people whose opinions you don't care a whit about and who seek to bully and domineer
most people wouldn't be bothered
.
Quote: tuttigymAnd you know that how? Could you provide a footnote for authentication?
You want me to provide a footnote authenticating that computers are faster than humans? OK.
Footnote: I hereby authenticate that computers are faster than humans
I've given up on trying to reason with you. I can't even determine what you are asserting apart from 'Simulations aren't like reality'. I go back to my suggestion. Mortgage everything. Take your non-system playing 'method' to the casino and get incredibly rich. Nothing can go wrong. Just Do It.Quote:By golly, that is 4th grade arithmetic which I seem to remember was involved in a previous post of mine. Thank you for the affirmation. Do you suppose that we might agree on some of the other 4th grade arithmetic I suggested using "actual calculated precise solutions with no ambiguity"?
link to original post
tuttigym
Goodbye.
Quote: tuttigymAnd you know that how? Could you provide a footnote for authentication?
link to original post
Dieter's estimate was for testing on a live table.
Trust me on this.
Although, to revise, the $250k figure assumes a basic pass or don't pass only. If you're getting creative on the wagers, it could cost more.
Quote: DieterThey absolutely can.
link to original post
You can enter a starting bankroll, place your (fake) bets, and play it out one roll at a time. Watch your mock-bank grow and shrink.
With some savvy, you can probably automate most playing schemes, when to press, when to turn off and turn back on, when to put so much on a hardway, and maybe even periodically decrease your mock-bank with some chips "for the crew".
Resolving addition and subtraction problems based on conditional logic is one of those mechanical tasks that computers can do almost instantly, and have been doing very reliably for over 60 years.
The randomness that drives the conditional tests is trickier, but that's been reasonably addressed since at least 1992.
Exactly, and that is what I do when I use a craps simulator. However, the forum participants are not doing that to determine their "math" to create their results that produce HA outcomes. Their MO is to repeat exactly every bet for every roll of the dice for every hand played. How is that real?
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymlink to original post
Exactly, and that is what I do when I use a craps simulator. However, the forum participants are not doing that to determine their "math" to create their results that produce HA outcomes. Their MO is to repeat exactly every bet for every roll of the dice for every hand played. How is that real?
tuttigym
How much you bet does not change the house edge.
The house edge for any given wager is determined by the rules of the game and the ways that the dice can land.
Betting more or less does not change the rules of the game.
Betting more or less does not change how the dice land.
Quote: tuttigymSuppose you change the math below showing the winning sessions averaging $350 and the losing sessions at $500....
The above two quotes, which appeared back to back, ought to win a gold medal for hypocrisy. You pulled some random numbers out of your @$$ and then immediately complained that (you thought) I made up my own numbers.Quote: tuttigymI guess it is always great to create your own numbers to make your point.
link to original post
So, first of all, I didn't. They come straight from my article on the Martingale (which you likely haven't bothered to look at). Those numbers are reality, unlike yours, since no betting system can actually produce those numbers. Of course, if you have actual evidence to the contrary, I'm sure we'd love to see it. But that's like asking to see your evidence that the average of a set of negative numbers can be positive.
As usual, wrong. I've programmed simulations that vary the bets based on previous outcomes or on some other betting recipe. Others here have done so, also.Quote: tuttigymHowever, the forum participants are not doing that to determine their "math" to create their results that produce HA outcomes. Their MO is to repeat exactly every bet for every roll of the dice for every hand played.
link to original post
Absolutely, completely, ludicrously 100% wrong, as usual. Again, it's ridiculous that you're criticizing computer programs when you have no clue how to write one. If you did you'd know that your statements were pure B.S. Do you know more about medicine than your doctor? Do you know more about science than scientists? Do you know more about carpentry than carpenters? Because we first saw that you think you know more about math than mathematicians, and now, that you know more about computer programming than actual computer programmers.Quote: tuttigymYou see simulators cannot change the wager with each toss of the dice or each hand that is played. It cannot add or subtract or even withdraw from play during a session. So, yes, the wheels and the dice are fair, but the simulator cannot react to what is actually happening to table conditions of being "hot," "cold," or "choppy."
But sure, continue to lecture us computer programmers about computer programming.
Quote: tuttigymMy play does NOT win all the time. My play is NOT a "system." My play varies from hand to hand (craps). My play is dependent upon how the table and the various players do during any given session. The most difficult "read" is a "choppy" table, but though inconsistent, is manageable. Sometimes just staying even can be a struggle.
That's all fine. You can't lose any(more) money if you don't stay. If you don't feel like playing, then quit playing.
Quote:I know, however, there may be some who read what I have to say and re-think their approach and maybe question.
Yeah, instead of playing a losing game the way they currently do, they can play a losing game a different way: good plan.
Quote:I don't. Some of their posts bully and seek to domineer, and that is okay. It is who they are.
link to original post
tuttigym
You mess with the bull...
Quote: tuttigymI believe that is true, however, a craps game simulator and a random number simulator are different because the game has rules and is subject to the limitations of those rules as well as the wagers placed. Perhaps you or someone could link me to a craps simulator that is NOT Wincraps but does offer all the wagers of the game including the hop bets. Forum members have referred to such, but I have yet to see any alternatives.
BeatingBonuses.com---you can customize paytables on it, so you can put whatever probabilities and payouts you want for anything. You might have to calculate the House Edge by hand to make sure that jives, as that seems to have occasionally been off, but as long as that checks out---there you go.
Quote:It matters because craps in the casino is NOT simulated. The bankroll matters because casino craps takes and pays real money. Simulations don't have to pay rent, buy groceries, and experience the highs and lows of winning and losing. In short, simulations are NOT real.
Coming from someone who doesn't think the House Edge is real, I'd suggest that everyone take your statement with a grain of salt. I'm not so certain I would look to your posts as being the arbiter of reality.
Quote:Actually Dieter gave me a reasonable answer that I acknowledged.
link to original post
tuttigym
Nothing to add here, just didn't want to trim off such a small part of the post in my quote.
Quote: tuttigym
We are now back to 4th grade arithmetic. 36 ways to roll the dice exactly. 30 ways to win and only 6 ways lose. The rest has been filled in by prior posts. No need to rehash as it is quite tedious.
I'm glad we finally agree.
Quote:Yes, no argument here.
That's a first.
Quote:Ah , but it does. You see simulators cannot change the wager with each toss of the dice or each hand that is played. It cannot add or subtract or even withdraw from play during a session. So, yes, the wheels and the dice are fair, but the simulator cannot react to what is actually happening to table conditions of being "hot," "cold," or "choppy."
What is your background in computer programming? I can't make a siimulator for you that does this sort of thing, but there are many people who could. They would probably charge something for it, though.
(Quotes partially clipped, relevance)
Quote: lilredroosteraha__________you don't have a system_________but you have a "method"
link to original post
and you are claiming it's a winning "method"
and that simulations showing that a house game with a negative expectancy cannot be beat in the long run are false
lucky, lucky you
you can beat the house with your "method"
you must be filthy rich by now________________betting huge
too, too bad for everybody here that your winning "method" cannot be documented or proven so we can all learn it too and get rich from it
no problem at all_________everybody here will just have to take your word for it
.
He would probably be rich, but for the time he spends here trying to convince all of us that we're wrong.
Quote: DieterQuote: tuttigymlink to original post
Exactly, and that is what I do when I use a craps simulator. However, the forum participants are not doing that to determine their "math" to create their results that produce HA outcomes. Their MO is to repeat exactly every bet for every roll of the dice for every hand played. How is that real?
tuttigym
How much you bet does not change the house edge.
The house edge for any given wager is determined by the rules of the game and the ways that the dice can land.
Betting more or less does not change the rules of the game.
Betting more or less does not change how the dice land.link to original post
In a recent post, he has flatly denied that the house edge exists...so he's probably going to see your point as moot.
I don't think so. CheersQuote: AxelWolfWellbush, you are wasting time debating all this. Instead, you could be on your way to making millions online with just a little investigation and a plane ticket. A plane ticket isn't needed but it certainly gets around your assumptions regarding the legality.
link to original post
I stand to be corrected by those more in the know LRR. I don't think my initial interest in IS says anything about my intelligence or my willingness to learn 🤷Quote: lilredroosterQuote: Wellbushi found this site giving an interesting view point into bj comp simulations and results:
https://saliu.com/blackjack
the writings of Ion Saliu are considered worthless or worse by those that have made major contributions to the game of blackjack and are members of the Blackjack Hall of Fame
if you are interested, which I tend to doubt you are, "Blackjack Attack" by Don Schlesinger is considered by virtually all blackjack experts to be an authoritative treatise on the game and its probabilities
here are some thoughts about Ion Saliu from elsewhere:
"Ion Saliu authors and sells varied useless gambling books and software. He makes delusional claims that he founded mathematical principles taught in any grade school before he was born.
Ion Saliu (aka Parpaluck) is banned from almost all forums. His only followers are desperate gamblers dazzled by his verbal nonsensical diarrhea.
He claims everyone who debunks his quackery is part of an outrageous conspiracy to stop him beating casinos. Ion has never achieved any measure of success in the real world of professional gambling.
Ion Saliu is accurately described as a keyboard warrior. A charlatan behind a keyboard, and who routinely spams his website links on forums to sell his books which are riddled with errors and poor understanding.
He seeks attention by denouncing recognized professionals and promoting his own theories of conspiracy, with grandiose fabricated tales of his gambling exploits. His manic attacks on industry experts are more a cry for attention. Nobody credible takes him seriously.
His knowledge of fundamentals is amateurish at best. He's a classic narcissistic troll with a delusional sense of knowledge and self-importance. He seeks attention and thrives on creating controversy.
His Fundamental Formula of Gambling stems from his poor understanding of basic probability, mixed with delusion and arrogance. He "rediscovered" basic statistics and believes he made a breakthrough.
His statement about his Fundamental Formula of Gambling:
"The degree of certainty DC rises exponentially with the increase in the number of trials N while the probability p is always the same or constant."
"Simultaneously, the opposite event, the losing chance, decreases exponentially with an increase in the number of trials."
A practical example of his axiomatic rediscovered hypothesis is the more you toss a coin, the greater the chance heads will eventually appear. This hypothesis is nothing new. It's fundamental statistics.
[meaning that if you toss a coin ten times there is a greater chance that heads will appear than if you toss a coin 3 times
it does not mean that if you have tossed a coin 9 times without heads appearing that it now has greater likelihood to appear than at any other time]
[the bracketed statement above is from the OP]
His denouncement of proven advantage play like card counting makes his poor knowledge axiomatically clear.
His websites and books are inundated with similar "axiomatic rediscoveries" he claims to have founded, mixed with classic gamblers fallacy.
Ion Saliu is not an expert in gaming. He is an internet troll. A liar and fraud. A keyboard warrior with no real experience in gambling. A theorist, with incorrect theories.
This much is clear to most of the gambling community, which is why he's banned on almost all forums."
at this point, I would have to say, that I doubt whether you are truly interested in finding accurate info on this subject
.
link to original post
I don't quite get your comment here UJ. A gambler losing his first bet would be immediately in negative territory. So how can the probability approach be from a positive number?Quote: unJonAs the runs get longer, the probability of showing a profit gets smaller. At the limit of the run approaching infinite, the probability of showing a profit approaches zero. But that probability approach is always from a positive number so there’s always some (increasingly shrinking) probability of showing a profit.
link to original post
Quote: WellbushI don't quite get your comment here UJ. A gambler losing his first bet would be immediately in negative territory. So how can the probability approach be from a positive number?Quote: unJonAs the runs get longer, the probability of showing a profit gets smaller. At the limit of the run approaching infinite, the probability of showing a profit approaches zero. But that probability approach is always from a positive number so there’s always some (increasingly shrinking) probability of showing a profit.
link to original post
link to original post
If I understood his post correctly, then he was saying that after n number of trials (including one trial as n can be one) that there will always be some non-zero probability of showing a profit, though it becomes an increasingly smaller probability as you approach infinity such that many calculators would even just call it zero.
Think of Craps as an example, if I bet the Pass Line, then there is a .4929 or 49.29% probability that I will be showing a profit after one outcome.
However, even if I lost, then the probability of my eventually showing a profit would still be a positive number. For example, I could immediately win two Pass Line bets in a row, in which event, I would be showing a profit.
More simply put, an event cannot have a negative probability. The probability is either zero or something (however infinitesimal as infinity is approached) greater than zero.
I am on my smartphone replying, so I may have already replied to this post. If not, here's my reply.Quote: unJonQuote: Wellbushwell, it's pointless me giving exact figures because i'm proposing an overarching theory. if you're after an answer to one gambling scenario or another, it's you guys that have the formulae for EV. It's you guys who are saying that -EV will provide a loss to the gambler in the long run, no matter which way he plays without AP.Quote: SOOPOOThe problem with your post is that ‘the long run’ is not a term that is actually defined. Define ‘the long run’ and I can tell you what the likelihood of a gambler being ahead, assuming I know the EV and variance of the game you are playing. As well as the ‘system’ you are using. If the ‘long run’ is 100 trillion spins, then the likelihood of you being ahead at roulette is so close to zero as to not be worth it to figure out exactly. If the ‘long run’ is 500 spins, you will have a bunch of people ahead out of 100 gamblers.
link to original post
NO ONE is saying it is impossible to win at negative EV games. It’s just MORE LIKELY that you will lose.
If i gave you the game of bj, for example. say 300,000 hands. has the gambler been using a progressive strategy? what kind of progressive strategy? what are the size of his bets? is he flat betting?
what's the point of giving you something definitive if the math community believe no strategy, without AP, is going to win eventually? he MAY win in the short term. some may win for a longer period of time than others. but eventually, if they play long enough, they all lose if they're playing a -EV game. true, or not?
if it's not true, how can the math community say "all betting systems are worthless?" the Wizard doesn't even want to answer qs about betting systems.link to original post
With inputs, the math could give you outputs. If for example, you gave inputs like BJ starting bet $10 and bankroll $25,000 and play the following Fibonacci betting sequence and stop after (a) bankroll $0, (b) bankroll $50,000 or (c) 200,000 hands.
Then the math could give an output that looks like a chart. And the chart shows the probability of being up or down or broke. And if one million people actually followed the inputs and played for real. We would see that the million results would fill in and look very close to that chart.
Then the question for you is which one of those million might you be.
link to original post
I couldn't care less about possible mathematical results of various scenarios. Here's why: Grand Martingale...$5L (T-$5), $6L (-$11), $13W (+$2). However long the gambler continues along the Grand Martingale sequence, theoretical math shows the gambler will always end up in profit, as I just showed with one simple example. As long as the gambler has just one win, he will beat the casino. True, or not?
Discovering E=m x c squared, will not change the facts I've enumerated above.
I don't know how OnceDear can think I am not being scientific on this issue, but he is? I have always referred to simple, proveable, primary school math to make my point on the WB Paradox, as I've done here.
And OD saying that playing a -EV game in the short term, can give the gambler a profit, is his argument for debunking the paradox? Does OD seriously think the paradox is about the short term?
If OD believes the theory of -EV means that most gamblers will beat the house in the long run, then he needs to state that now. If OD believes the theory of -EV means most gamblers will lose to the house in the long run, then he cannot say he is using this argument to debunk WB's paradox.
Quote: Wellbush
I couldn't care less about possible mathematical results of various scenarios. Here's why: Grand Martingale...$5L (T-$5), $6L (-$11), $13W (+$2). However long the gambler continues along the Grand Martingale sequence, theoretical math shows the gambler will always end up in profit, as I just showed with one simple example. As long as the gambler has just one win, he will beat the casino. True, or not?
link to original post
There are two limits to any progression.
The first is your bankroll.
The second is the table limit.
If you cannot continue the sequence, you may not end in profit.
thanks 146. I'll get back to you. I'll continue going through the thread methodically, and at my own pace. I think a historical post of yours is coming up.Quote: Mission146If I understood his post correctly, then he was saying that after n number of trials (including one trial as n can be one) that there will always be some non-zero probability of showing a profit, though it becomes an increasingly smaller probability as you approach infinity such that many calculators would even just call it zero.
Think of Craps as an example, if I bet the Pass Line, then there is a .4929 or 49.29% probability that I will be showing a profit after one outcome.
However, even if I lost, then the probability of my eventually showing a profit would still be a positive number. For example, I could immediately win two Pass Line bets in a row, in which event, I would be showing a profit.
More simply put, an event cannot have a negative probability. The probability is either zero or something (however infinitesimal as infinity is approached) greater than zero.
link to original post
😊I think MB is due for a post!
in the first part of your historical post here 146, I'm going to cut in here so that we're on the same page. My recent post above to UJ, should have answered your queries to this point in your historical post. I will carry on with the rest of your post eventually, but I wanna make sure we're good to continue, first?Quote: Mission146Quote: Wellbush]okay UJ. i take it your serious then. if you sat on the believer's side of the fence, you may be sceptical of naysayer requests also.
link to original post
Wellbush paradox:
1. negative progression sequences mean the gambler continuing along the sequence will always return to a profit (this is theoretical math. it does not take into account table minimums/maximums, nor the size of the player's bankroll).
2. -EV says the gambler always loses.
the above two statements cannot co-exist. it's a paradox.
Okay, you're getting the quick version of my counterarguments since you managed to offer a premise.
1.) To your first point, I would like to discuss the following three things:
A.) If we instead ground ourselves and have a discussion based on an actually possible reality, this argument is screwed. The reason why it is screwed is because you could pick any finite number of consecutive losing decisions that you want to, and that would eventually come to fruition. Thus, the first assertion in your, "Paradox," literally calls for an impossible scenario which makes it, well, not a paradox.
I'm going to do you a favor and actually make your argument better. If you had a player with a bankroll of some 1.5 BILLION dollars and a casino that would let him start Martingaling with a bet of $0.01 and no maximum, after 36 consecutive losses the next bet would be $687,194,767.36 and if that bet lost, the system would fail.
We're going to make this Pass Line Craps for the purpose of this postulation, so you have a .4929 win probability against a .5071 loss probability. The probability of losing 37 consecutive times is (.5071)^37 = 1.2259241e-11 or 0.000000000012259241 which is roughly a 1 in 81,571,118,473 shot against. Assuming forty decisions per hour and eight hours per day played, you would not expect to see such a result in more than 254 million days, or 698,382.86 (Rounded) years.
In other words, I admit that one individual player would be extremely unlikely to run into a series that fails in his lifetime.
Now, let's discuss the downsides...even ignoring the fact that no casino is going to ever accept a bet in the hundreds of millions of dollars:
a.) Why are you, as a billionaire, running a system with the goal of making one penny in profit on every successful run?link to original post
yeah, I know that Dieter. What has one's bankroll and table limits got to do with the mathematical theory?Quote: DieterThere are two limits to any progression.
The first is your bankroll.
The second is the table limit.
If you cannot continue the sequence, you may not end in profit.
link to original post
I will get into the idea of creating a 'negative progression sequence' that is much less likely to hit table limits, and much less in need of a significant bankroll. For now, I'm looking at proven theory.
Quote: Wellbushyeah, I know that Dieter. What has one's bankroll and table limits got to do with the mathematical theory?Quote: DieterThere are two limits to any progression.
The first is your bankroll.
The second is the table limit.
If you cannot continue the sequence, you may not end in profit.
link to original post
I will get into the idea of creating a 'negative progression sequence' that is much less likely to hit table limits, and much less in need of a significant bankroll. For now, I'm looking at proven theory.
link to original post
Theories are generally more useful if they can be put into practice.
yes, but if you're gonna put something into practice, as I am trying to do, isn't it good to know if it stacks up theoretically?Quote: DieterQuote: Wellbushyeah, I know that Dieter. What has one's bankroll and table limits got to do with the mathematical theory?Quote: DieterThere are two limits to any progression.
The first is your bankroll.
The second is the table limit.
If you cannot continue the sequence, you may not end in profit.
link to original post
I will get into the idea of creating a 'negative progression sequence' that is much less likely to hit table limits, and much less in need of a significant bankroll. For now, I'm looking at proven theory.
link to original post
Theories are generally more useful if they can be put into practice.
link to original post
I think it's possible to put the theory into practice. That's the second endgame here. Unfortunately, many seem to immediately think "Martingale! Martingale!" "Bankroll! Bankroll!" "Table limits! Table limits!" and the discussion is scuttled before any headway.
So the first thing is getting people to accept the theory. Then we can make a start on the practicalities of WB's Paradox.
Quote: Wellbushyes, but if you're gonna put something into practice, as I am trying to do, isn't it good to know if it stacks up theoretically?Quote: DieterQuote: Wellbushyeah, I know that Dieter. What has one's bankroll and table limits got to do with the mathematical theory?Quote: DieterThere are two limits to any progression.
The first is your bankroll.
The second is the table limit.
If you cannot continue the sequence, you may not end in profit.
link to original post
I will get into the idea of creating a 'negative progression sequence' that is much less likely to hit table limits, and much less in need of a significant bankroll. For now, I'm looking at proven theory.
link to original post
Theories are generally more useful if they can be put into practice.
link to original post
I think it's possible to put the theory into practice. That's the second endgame here. Unfortunately, many seem to immediately think "Martingale! Martingale!" "Bankroll! Bankroll!" "Table limits! Table limits!" and the discussion is scuttled before any headway.
So the first thing is getting people to accept the theory. Then we can make a start on the practicalities of WB's Paradox.
link to original post
Going into metaphor; if you've got a hammer, try to find a nail that isn't bent.
I have an idea to float ten balls in the air simultaneously. Unfortunately, many seem to immediately think, "Gravity! Gravity" "Physics! Physics!" "Reality! Reality!" and the discussion is scuttled before any headway.Quote: WellbushUnfortunately, many seem to immediately think "Martingale! Martingale!" "Bankroll! Bankroll!" "Table limits! Table limits!" and the discussion is scuttled before any headway.
link to original post
yes, with inputs, one can get a gazillion answers. It means nothing to me right now! Why?Quote: unJonWith inputs, the math could give you outputs. If for example, you gave inputs like BJ starting bet $10 and bankroll $25,000 and play the following Fibonacci betting sequence and stop after (a) bankroll $0, (b) bankroll $50,000 or (c) 200,000 hands.
Then the math could give an output that looks like a chart. And the chart shows the probability of being up or down or broke. And if one million people actually followed the inputs and played for real. We would see that the million results would fill in and look very close to that chart.
Then the question for you is which one of those million might you be.
link to original post
No negative progression strategy I have come up with YET, has proven itself to be a winner over the long term. So what gives?
What gives is why would I be even endeavouring to come up with a negative progression strategy if I haven't found one that works? Well, just because I haven't found something that works doesn't mean it's not possible. So, at this point in time I do think it's possible to overcome the house edge using a negative progression sequence.
I've given pretty simple mathematical examples of addition and subtraction, to prove it. You guys prove me wrong with that same simple math?
Furthermore, I've already seen enough retorts on WOV to know most posters don't have a clue about underlying theoretical constructs. Just asking for some strategy to input into a computer, to prove whether a theory works, or not, tells me posters are in number heaven.
And that computer simulation may well give the person the answer it was 'programmed' to provide!
Number crunching is pretty irrelevant for another glaring reason anyway. YOU GUYS PROBABLY ALREADY PROVE TO YOURSELVES (hi-fiving, and all) THAT THE NUMBERS SHOW MOST GAMBLERS LOSE TO THE HOUSE IN THE LONG RUN!!! AND, YOU SAY IT'S DUE TO -EV!!!
Alright then you lot! You get all the numerical results proving -EV means nearly all gamblers lose in the long run. TRUE, OR NOT!!!????
If you agree, then we can take the next step. If WOV doesn't agree, then cough up with what you really stand for!!!!
It wasn't too far back in this thread you tried to convince people that:
1. People in Australia are allowed to gamble casino slots and table games online; and
2. That the term 'race' doesn't include a person's nationality.
This was despite clear evidence I provided to you showing otherwise! Well, you can look for some small crack in an argument, or some obscure slant in perception, to hold onto your defenses all you like. I won't be arguing with you.
Go on. Saturate this thread. It will just tell everyone what you and WOV are really like! If WOV don't like me saying that, then maybe they are quite happy for MB to saturate threads with counter arguments, for some obscure psychological reasoning?
Why don't the forum community concentrate on the discussion, however hot it gets? That discussion being the scientific evaluation of WB's Paradox!
Forget trying to find something to suspend WB over. Just follow through on the discussion. See what answers we can come up with.
Great News Wellbush: ANY progressive system that you can devise will not make the House edge any worse. Nor will it make it any better. You will just be devising a fun way to lose your money.Quote: Wellbushyes, but if you're gonna put something into practice, as I am trying to do, isn't it good to know if it stacks up theoretically?
I think it's possible to put the theory into practice. That's the second endgame here. Unfortunately, many seem to immediately think "Martingale! Martingale!" "Bankroll! Bankroll!" "Table limits! Table limits!" and the discussion is scuttled before any headway.
So the first thing is getting people to accept the theory. Then we can make a start on the practicalities of WB's Paradox.
link to original post
I don't know what you mean by seeing if 'it stacks up theoretically'. Whatever progressive system will stack up perfectly as a system that subjects you to the self same house edge as flat betting. No more. No less.
Scuttled before headway? Knock yourself out. Nobody here, except maybe a few misguided ignorant* souls, are going to 'accept the theory' if you have a theory that your progressive system is a winner.
*Ignorant, not meant as an insult. Ignorant as in "Unaware or uninformed."
Well be informed. The 'Many' are right.
And still there is no WB paradox. WB chooses not to accept that. That is his mistake and his loss. Wellbush chooses to be unaware or uninformed. He has the forum here with 1 to 1 instruction and he has the whole 't'interweb of educational material.
To that end. He is doomed to remain 'Unaware or uninformed.'.
May he one day have an epiphany. I won't hold my breath. But I'll also scream less. "Your System Has No Merit"
yes, I must admit 🤷, you've debunked everything!!!Quote: OnceDearGreat News Wellbush: ANY progressive system that you can devise will not make the House edge any worse. Nor will it make it any better. You will just be devising a fun way to lose your money.Quote: Wellbushyes, but if you're gonna put something into practice, as I am trying to do, isn't it good to know if it stacks up theoretically?
I think it's possible to put the theory into practice. That's the second endgame here. Unfortunately, many seem to immediately think "Martingale! Martingale!" "Bankroll! Bankroll!" "Table limits! Table limits!" and the discussion is scuttled before any headway.
So the first thing is getting people to accept the theory. Then we can make a start on the practicalities of WB's Paradox.
link to original post
I don't know what you mean by seeing if 'it stacks up theoretically'. Whatever progressive system will stack up perfectly as a system that subjects you to the self same house edge as flat betting. No more. No less.
Scuttled before headway? Knock yourself out. Nobody here, except maybe a few misguided ignorant* souls, are going to 'accept the theory' if you have a theory that your progressive system is a winner.
*Ignorant, not meant as an insult. Ignorant as in "Unaware or uninformed."
Well be informed. The 'Many' are right.
And still there is no WB paradox. WB chooses not to accept that. That is his mistake and his loss. Wellbush chooses to be unaware or uninformed. He has the forum here with 1 to 1 instruction and he has the whole 't'interweb of educational material.
To that end. He is doomed to remain 'Unaware or uninformed.'.
May he one day have an epiphany. I won't hold my breath. But I'll also scream less. "Your System Has No Merit"
link to original post
Huh???
Quote: WellbushHuh???
link to original post
The house edge is a way of expressing how likely to win or lose a player is.
The house edge is a product of the rules of the game and the way that the winner is determined.
Does betting more or less change the rules of the game?
Does betting more or less change where the ball lands, where the wheel stops, how the dice land, or how the cards come out?
If the answer is "No*", the house edge is intact.
*The answer is usually no.
?? I've already shown a post covering this detail. I would have to find the actual law, I think, to answer your request for that. I'm not in a hurry to do that, but if you want me to, I may or may not do it. It's a q of time and resources. The post did point out that Australians in Australia needed to use a site that had an Australian licence. It also said, no online australian gaming licence permitted casino games/slots. So any loopholes have effectively been scuttled.Quote: AxelWolfI haven't seen anything other than it being illegal to operate and market online casinos and games that are restricted there. Perhaps I missed it. Please copy a law that specifically states it's illegal for players to gamble online(not racing or sports betting or lottery) at casinos that are located outside Australia.Quote: Wellbushi'm quite comfy with the info that i've provided, showing casino gaming (not racing or sports betting or lottery) online in australia is illegal. what's wrong with the info that i provided? i would certainly be uncomfortable, as has been highlighted by your fellow american posters, to go against that info.Quote: AxelWolfWellbush, you are wasting time debating all this. Instead, you could be on your way to making millions online with just a little investigation and a plane ticket. A plane ticket isn't needed but it certainly gets around your assumptions regarding the legality.
link to original post
it's kinda moot anyway, when i can just wander down to my local casino and gamble anytime i wishlink to original post
So how can an Australian, living in Australia, access an oversees (non-australian) gambling site legally? Australians can travel to an overseas jurisdiction, where it's legal to do so. There's no argument there. But that's not the scenario I'm referring to.
i am happy to try my strategy, and I've already done so about 4 or 5 times at my local casino in Perth, western Australia! And I lost each time. But, I'm not convinced I can't eventually develop a winnable system. Sorry if that irks!😊Quote: AxelWolfIt's not moot because you haven't proven to yourself that you can beat anything aside from online software. If you're confident your system will work at B&M's as well... let me rephrase.
Wellbush, you are wasting time debating all this. Instead, you could be on your way to making millions by just wandering down to your local casino and gambling anytime you wish.
link to original post
I will probably try again! Geez, I'm REALLY pushing the dial now!!! The GALL of me!
What's more, I don't even think I'm wasting my time discussing theory!!!! Now, after all that, is this post nuke-worthy???!!!
For example with my bankroll, the house limits I am allowed, and the way I play, I may often get ten to thirty thousand ahead. But if my goal is to always try to win 100K, I will probably lose more often than not.
Similarly you see people come up to the 100 or even 300 minimum table with just a thousand dollars and expect to win twenty thousand. More often than not they will lose the thousand than win twenty.
Chasing - trying to recoup a large loss all at once, is another way of saying that people are trying to win more money than could be reasonably expected from their bankrolls, because typically the chasing happens after the bankroll has been depleted, and now a player is trying to win a lot with what little is left.
Even on a coin toss with no house edge but a set limit, if the bankroll is too small, the house limit is too low, and the goal is too high relative to the bankroll and house limit, the chance of success will be lower than the chance of blowout.
