jmp116
Joined: May 6, 2021
• Posts: 20
May 8th, 2021 at 6:37:50 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

For me, the Central Limit Theorem is all you need to know to prove betting systems not only can't work, they can't even dent the house edge.

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

That's enough for me, too. I really didn't need a formal proof to know that such systems are about as likely to work as perpetual motion machines. But to play devil's advocate just a little, the version of the CLT everyone learns about applies to the sample mean of a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables. If you are allowed to choose your bet sizes in any way based on previous outcomes, then the sequence of amounts won ( or lost) is generally not independent or identically distributed. So if you ran into the unlikely system adherent who knew that much, what do you say?
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
• Posts: 3673
May 8th, 2021 at 6:51:40 PM permalink
Quote: jmp116

Quote: Wizard

For me, the Central Limit Theorem is all you need to know to prove betting systems not only can't work, they can't even dent the house edge.

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

That's enough for me, too. I really didn't need a formal proof to know that such systems are about as likely to work as perpetual motion machines. But to play devil's advocate just a little, the version of the CLT everyone learns about applies to the sample mean of a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables. If you are allowed to choose your bet sizes in any way based on previous outcomes, then the sequence of amounts won ( or lost) is generally not independent or identically distributed. So if you ran into the unlikely system adherent who knew that much, what do you say?

That's all known info. It's why card counting in blackjack works. And why it doesn't work in dice and roulette. Previous results have zero correlation to the next in dice rolls and random ball spins.

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
jmp116
Joined: May 6, 2021
• Posts: 20
May 9th, 2021 at 5:16:20 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

Quote: jmp116

Quote: Wizard

For me, the Central Limit Theorem is all you need to know to prove betting systems not only can't work, they can't even dent the house edge.

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

That's enough for me, too. I really didn't need a formal proof to know that such systems are about as likely to work as perpetual motion machines. But to play devil's advocate just a little, the version of the CLT everyone learns about applies to the sample mean of a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables. If you are allowed to choose your bet sizes in any way based on previous outcomes, then the sequence of amounts won ( or lost) is generally not independent or identically distributed. So if you ran into the unlikely system adherent who knew that much, what do you say?

That's all known info. It's why card counting in blackjack works. And why it doesn't work in dice and roulette. Previous results have zero correlation to the next in dice rolls and random ball spins.

ZCore13

The outcomes of spins of the roulette wheel are independent (thus uncorrelated). The amounts you win on those different spins generally are not. It's the amounts that determine whether you have a get rich quick scheme or not.
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
• Posts: 3673
May 9th, 2021 at 5:51:50 PM permalink
Quote: jmp116

Quote: Zcore13

Quote: jmp116

Quote: Wizard

For me, the Central Limit Theorem is all you need to know to prove betting systems not only can't work, they can't even dent the house edge.

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

That's enough for me, too. I really didn't need a formal proof to know that such systems are about as likely to work as perpetual motion machines. But to play devil's advocate just a little, the version of the CLT everyone learns about applies to the sample mean of a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables. If you are allowed to choose your bet sizes in any way based on previous outcomes, then the sequence of amounts won ( or lost) is generally not independent or identically distributed. So if you ran into the unlikely system adherent who knew that much, what do you say?

That's all known info. It's why card counting in blackjack works. And why it doesn't work in dice and roulette. Previous results have zero correlation to the next in dice rolls and random ball spins.

ZCore13

The outcomes of spins of the roulette wheel are independent (thus uncorrelated). The amounts you win on those different spins generally are not. It's the amounts that determine whether you have a get rich quick scheme or not.

The amounts are created to have a negative expectation. There is no get rich quick scheme that can work unless you have a biased wheel or can "clock" spins that do not vary the speed.

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
jmp116
Joined: May 6, 2021
• Posts: 20
May 9th, 2021 at 6:15:01 PM permalink
Quote:

The amounts are created to have a negative expectation. There is no get rich quick scheme that can work unless you have a biased wheel or can "clock" spins that do not vary the speed.

Sorry, by amounts I didn't mean the payout odds. I'm talking about the actual amount you win or lose on a given trial, which also depends on how much you decided to bet. That depends on what has happened previously, assuming you are following a system.
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
• Posts: 3882
May 10th, 2021 at 4:00:26 AM permalink
.......................

it's fun - for me anyway - to think about a reverse martingale

instead of doubling after a loss - double after any win and keep doubling until you lose

just as in a traditional martingale you will occasionally run into a very long losing streak - if it's a low HA advantage game you would have to at some time - even it's very seldom - run into a very long winning streak

and run into the table limit

at which point you either go home with a juicy win

unless you're really an addict you just go into the high rollers pit and look for a table with a much higher limit and keep doubling

until you can't go home with any money.............................(~:\......................then the progressive system player is finally satisfied............................................(~:\

*
"𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳"______Edgar Allan Poe
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
• Posts: 5528
May 10th, 2021 at 5:01:45 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

.......................

it's fun - for me anyway - to think about a reverse martingale

instead of doubling after a loss - double after any win and keep doubling until you lose

It's actually amusing to actually do it, and is no better or worse than regular marty. Instead of your bankroll chart looking like a nice upward staircase with an eventual but not inevitable plunge, you get a steady downward ramp with a not-inevitable leap.

It shouldn't be, but can be a bit distressing, because you're repeatedly 'letting it ride' and each time you lose, your bankroll drops to an all time low. Unlike a marty, where each win takes you to an all time high.

e.g imagine you start with a bankroll of 16 units Regular marty
wager 1: win => Br=17
wager 1: lose=>Br=16 wager 2 next time
wager 2: lose=>Br=14 wager 4 next time
wager 4: lose=>br=10 wager 8 next time
wager 8: win =>br=18 phew! BR at all time high.

Now do it the reverse way
wager 1: win => Br=17 wager 2 next time
wager 2: lose=>Br=15 wager 1 next time BR at all time low
wager 1: lose=>Br=14 wager 1 next time BR at all time low
wager 1: lose=>br=13 wager 1 next time BR at all time low
wager 1: win =>br=14 phew! let's carry on wager 2 next time
wager 2: win => Br=16 wager 4 next time
wager 4: win => Br=20 wager 8 next time
wager 8: lose => Br=12 wager 1 next time BR at all time low AGAIN

You see your BR hit an all time low and then hopefully recover, time after time.

Funny how psychology applies to these systems.
.
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
• Posts: 3882
May 10th, 2021 at 5:41:32 AM permalink
..........................

one of the most fun systems to me - and of course it's not a long runner winner - is this one:

first bet 3 units - if win next bet 2 units - if win next bet 3 units - if win next bet 4 units

if you win the first bet, then depending on when and whether you tap out you either win 1 or 2 or 4 or (Praise the Lord) 12 units

*
"𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳"______Edgar Allan Poe
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 23294
Thanks for this post from:
May 10th, 2021 at 6:04:37 AM permalink
Quote: jmp116

But to play devil's advocate just a little, the version of the CLT everyone learns about applies to the sample mean of a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables. If you are allowed to choose your bet sizes in any way based on previous outcomes, then the sequence of amounts won ( or lost) is generally not independent or identically distributed. So if you ran into the unlikely system adherent who knew that much, what do you say?

The CLT works just fine even if the bets are based on past events. The outcomes of the bets are still independent of each other, which is all you need for the CLT to hold water.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010