Quote:onenickelmiracleSomeone just telling me about a betting system for horse racing trifectas yesterday, it was hard not to laugh and I sure did. Laughed even more when I was told it looks better on paper. :) Seems you have to win a 20 to 1 shot first, then bet a hot jockey and a hot horse and hot trainer and you cannot lose because you're starting out winning $40 on the first horse. Me talking about asking how to overcome a 25% edge didn't matter to them, they just went back to the spiel. Maybe I'll ask them to come on to explain it.

That sounds like a sure thing. I would get them to show it to me on paper though :)

Quote:daveyandersen1it seems to me that ANY betting system is dependent on the[ person betting] needing a majority of winning bets for it to erein lies the problem with them..I stay away from any betting system...OR am I being obtuse????

It just depends on the type of system. If you're doing one of the more common negative progression systems like the Martingale (Double up), in which you increase the bet after losing, then you may only need one or a few big wins to make up for all the previous losses. But this short winning streak may not happen before you go broke, so you are in effect risking a lot to win a little.

If it is a positive progression, you raise your bet after wins, so it is important to have more wins than losses. You are risking a little hoping to have a big winning streak. But you have to "know when to quit". Which is the problem. Who actually knows when to quit? It can only be decided retrospectively.

I wouldn't risk any substantial amount on a betting system. It might be ok to do for fun. As part of my "research", I tried using a system at an online roulette game. I have to admit, it was really fun for a while, when I was "winning". Then I lost my whole deposit (about $80) on a short losing streak. That was less fun :)

Quote:daveyandersen1it seems to me that ANY betting system is dependent on the[ person betting] needing a majority of winning bets for it to work...therein lies the problem with them..I stay away from any betting system...OR am I being obtuse????

No. Plenty of betting systems require less than 50% rate of winning bets to come out ahead. That’s the nature of a negative progression. But a long losing streak can quickly wipe out your bankroll still.

I've always said that the secret is to get really good at guessing numbers. Once you've got that down pat: profit!

Quote:SOOPOOjmp.... I guess it’s just simple to me.... the ‘proof’ is that no series of negative expectation bets can ever add up to a positive expectation. I don’t need more ‘proof’ than that!

Maybe there could be a game designed to better illustrate the idea. Like 2 games you play at the same time. One has a positive expectation and the other a negative. To win at the positive you must lose. And as usual, to win at the negative you have to win.

It’s based on the idea that you can see something better with contrast present.

Not sure, if that’s the right way to go about it though.

Quote:rxwineMaybe there could be a game designed to better illustrate the idea. Like 2 games you play at the same time. One has a positive expectation and the other a negative. To win at the positive you must lose. And as usual, to win at the negative you have to win.

It’s based on the idea that you can see something better with contrast present.

Not sure, if that’s the right way to go about it though.

You could play any casino game you want and just play with a full house bank and a player back and see where you end up after 10,000 hands, which might take 25 hours or so, depending on the game. Not much of a time investment to test a brilliant theory. If it wins, do it again.

ZCore13

Quote:SOOPOOjmp.... I guess it’s just simple to me.... the ‘proof’ is that no series of negative expectation bets can ever add up to a positive expectation. I don’t need more ‘proof’ than that!

I agree. I'm not really any more convinced that systems don't work, because I was already convinced. But in my limited reading, all I saw for "proof" was authoritative statements from "PhD mathematicians" assuring that systems can't work (since then I've seen the very good simulations done by Wizard, which should convince anyone). This is the legit kind of appeal to authority, because these people have actually earned their expertise. But appeals to authority only sound good to those already converted. So they rarely do any good. And the one proof I did come across (actually a proof sketch given in the exercises of a probability textbook) is apparently based on a flawed assumption that the amounts won on different trials are independent.

Another question to ask is, what is the justification for thinking expectation tells you whether a bet is good or bad? It's true that a bunch of negative expectation bets add up to one big negative expectation bet, but so what? I believe the reason expectation is a reasonable measure of the favorableness of a bet is the strong law of large numbers, which converts expectations into long term near certainties about the win rate. But I found it hard to apply any of the simple versions of the law of large numbers to general betting systems, where you can change your bet in any way based on previous outcomes. For these reasons, it seemed like an interesting problem.

However, system believers fear math and logic like a vampire fears a wooden cross.