$1000 reward to find exploits in my betting system challenges

As many of you know, I offer a $30,000 betting system challenge on my website, Easy Vegas. I recently overhauled the rules to make them more palatable to laypersons (e.g., instead of requiring a billion spins, it now requires only 200,000). But I'm worried that there's some loophole in my rules that someone could exploit to win my $30k. So I'm offering a $1000 reward to anyone who can come up with a system that would beat my revised challenge rules. That means you send me your idea, without having to put any money up, and if your idea beats my challenge rules then you win $1000. The caveat is that if it's clear to me that a system has no chance of exploiting my rules then I'm free to reject it on sight without wasting my time coding a simulation for it.

I should point out that the first time I offered such a $1000 reward here, weaselman won it handily -- though he graciously declined the prize! I've also gotten great advice on this forum from MathExtremist, and also good suggestions from mkl654321, AyeCarumba, atlarson, thecesspit, DJTeddyBear, Doc, SOOPOO, and RiverTern -- thanks to all!

In addition, for a long time I've wanted to offer an alternate, additional "live challenge" that takes place in a casino, to placate those who think that a computer simulation isn't a real-world test (because of their superstitious belief that the results are somehow different). The main problem in doing so is that it's hard to make a real-world test sufficiently long enough to always see it fail. But I'm making a stab at it. As you'll see in my proposed rules below, I've made a number of changes to try to account for the short-term nature of the test. However, it could still be vulnerable to exploit, because of something I didn't think of, so to motivate folks to help me find the flaw, I'm offering another $1000 reward to anyone who can come up with a way to beat the proposed Live Challenge rules (with the same caveat as above). Here are those proposed rules in full:

Quote: Proposed "Live Challenge" rules

The challenge is the same as the regular challenge, except:

1. It takes place in a Vegas (or other U.S.) casino, with you and me (or my representative) present.
2. It's an even-money bet between you and me (not 10-1 odds), for any amount up to $30,000, with a minimum of wager of $50 per hour of play. (Time you spend not betting while waiting for "streaks" or other conditions counts as playing time.)
3. You will choose the number of rounds to wager on before we begin (1000 to 10,000 rounds).
4. All play must be completed within one month.
5. Starting bankroll is half the number of total rounds, in dollars. (e.g., a 1000-round challenge means a starting bankroll of $500.)
6. You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average (roughly equivalent to $15 per hour of play).

Ideas for beating the live challenge will be tested by computer simulation, not in the casino, to save time.

Thoughts?

6. You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average (roughly equivalent to $15 per hour of play).>>>

So if I'm betting $15 on red or black, after 50 bets I need to be ahead by just one unit?

Bob, read the stipulation that the minimum number of rounds is 1,000 with a max of 10,000. That means you'll have to show a profit of at least $300 after 1,000 rounds ($15 per every 50 rounds which would mean 20 X 50 rounds to complete the 1,000 round minimum). The minimum profit at 1,000 rounds with a $500 bankroll would be $300, which is a 60% increase over your starting bankroll. So yes, you're right, you'd only need to be ahead by one unit after 50 rounds BUT you'd have to do it consistently for 20 times that many rounds.

I've been aware that some "rules for a challenge" thread existed, but I've not read it. Partly due to laziness and partly due to the level of senseless bickering that was appearing on the forum at the time. (I think everyone realized that No Stinking Badges was amongst us, despite his having been repeatedly banned elsewhere and the subject of much discussion elsewhere for his incessant off-topic bickering and baiting).

Your Rule 6 should probably worded a bit more clearly to emphasize that it is a final figure and not that every fifty rounds must produce that figure. Obviously the system being tested must not allow for some final ridiculously high bet that just might wind up with a few trials that do meet the fifteen dollar per hour test.

I would suggest you simply provide a hurdle such as a fee for testing that will keep the nutcases away.

As for the "digital simulation versus live testing in a casino", there have already been quite a few posts on "the buzz" in a casino having an effect on players. We would hope that a formal test such as this 30k challenge would be immune to such emotional influences but I fear our hopes might be misplaced. Quite frankly, I would suggest a rule that requires a session or two of digital simulation to have been successful before a "live test" would even be considered.

Your Rule 1 obviously has a need to be tightened up a bit since most strip casinos are not in "Vegas" at all and you want to be able to veto a particular selection of a casino even if you contemplate never really exercising that veto power.

I think you might give some thought to the fact that although some Live Session is unlikely to take place due to any system being similar to all other systems (an absurd concoction of a positive figure out of a series of negative ones), such an event would be crucial from both a financial and publicity viewpoint. Therefore some thought should be given to a casino's willingness to allow photography and to provide a suitable roped-off area free of other players who might be acting in collusion with the system-owner.

If we went to a roulette table for the challenge, the first thing I would say is you're allowed to write down my wins or losses but not the numbers as they appear OR the bet I make. You can deduce if I'm making $15 an hour from my wins and losses and the chip count. There is no where in the rules where it says you get to record anything else.

Betting $1 per round for 50 rounds an hour would satisfy your rules and one would only expect to lose $1.35 per hour on a roulette at this rate, or $27 for the whole challenge. Betting on Baccarat would have an expected loss of half that amount! If one were to bet a lot the first few rounds and bet very little until the end they would have more than 50% chance of winning your challenge. Another way to win would be to make to make small but high variance bets like inside bets on roulette, high payout bets on craps, tie/pair on baccarat, etc. This would make it very likely to be up 60% despite the high house edge. I think you should either forbid flat betting small units, create a maximum spread between minimum and maximum bets, and ask for at least a 100% increase in the bankroll: increasing your bankroll by 60% will happen more than half of the time with the right strategy and your even bet would have a negative EV for you even though the betting system would still lose in the long run. You should also define what you mean by wager. Doubling in games like video poker or placing certain bets in craps carries no house edge. If you consider doubling up as a wager, then one could simply double several times since the bet has no house edge and has a very low variance (only 6 chance out of 13 to lose). This would also make the chances of being up 60% after 1000 rounds rather high!

Here are some ideas that might beat your challenge more than half of the time: Betting $250 on Baccarat until I am up $250 (about 67% chance of happening), then bet $50 and martingale until I am up another $50 (about 96% chance of happening), and then bet $1 a hand, after which I would only be losing only 44% of my hands since baccarat gets many ties. The chances of being up $300 before being down $500 are rather high! Some casinos pay 9:1 on ties, which happen 9.5% of the time. Although the HE is higher the variance would make it very likely for someone betting $25-$30 a hand to be up $30 quite fast and then betting $1 a hand would minimize the loses. Betting very small units in video poker and doubling up as much as possible would also make it rather likely to be up $300. Making any long shot bet would also have a high chance of defeating your challenge since a single successful bet might win more than enough to cover all the loses combined.

Forbidding people to make small bets after a series of big bets would help prevent this kind of exploits but you would still be vulnerable to systems that win often at the cost of infrequent loses since 1000 rounds is not long enough to be absolutely confident a system would fail. Here is an example that would probably bet your 1000 hands challenge more than half of the time: Start by betting a unit on the banker in Baccarat. If you win and are up a unit, start over. If you lose, record the number of units you lose and bet the same number of units again. If you win, raise the next bet by a unit unless winning the next bet would make you up by more than a unit. If this is the case, bet enough to be up by exactly a unit. Here is how it would go: Bet 1, Win, start over. Bet 1, lose, (down 1), bet 1, lose, (down 2), bet 1, lose, (down 3), bet 1, win,(down 2), bet 2, win, (down 0), bet 1 since betting 3 is too much to be up 1, win, start over. Using this system on a high variance bet like tie would make it even more likely to be up after 1000 hands since a single hand could significantly influence your total. This system would have a high chance of beating your challenge since big bets only happen after you win so a big losing streak would only cost a few units but a big winning streak would get the player ahead. Since your challenge requires the player to be ahead 60% after 1,000 hands a system like this would be ideal since only winnings are 'reinvested', making it quite rare for the player to risk many units of his original bankroll. The only thing that would kill a player would be a win-lose-win-lose streak, and this would not be very likely in a game with many ties. I don't know if this would survive 10,000 hands but 1,000 hands should be a breeze.

To summarize my previous post: 1,000 hands is too little and your betting rules are too loose. Any system in which one can make a few long shot bets and then bet the minimum for a few hundred hands would beat it more than half of the time. Any system that increases bet size after winnings would also be very likely to beat it since the player would bet very little most of the time and be up a lot once he hits a winning streak, again making the probability of winning over 50% if one only plays 1,000 hands.

I agree with everyone here, although there are no successfull bet system in the longterm I believe that 1000 hands is too hard to risk. There could be 'lucky streaks' in this small gap.

Quote: aluisio

I agree with everyone here, although there are no successfull bet system in the longterm I believe that 1000 hands is too hard to risk. There could be 'lucky streaks' in this small gap.

There maybe ways of being up after a 1000 hands. However is it a 50/50 shot? Probably not. I also think people under estimate the difficulty of getting ahead and staying there, especially with a small bank roll.

Quote: aluisio

I agree with everyone here, although there are no successfull bet system in the longterm I believe that 1000 hands is too hard to risk. There could be 'lucky streaks' in this small gap.

There maybe ways of being up after a 1000 hands. However is it a 50/50 shot? Probably not. I also think people under estimate the difficulty of getting ahead and staying there, especially with a small bank roll.

Quote: thecesspit

There maybe ways of being up after a 1000 hands. However is it a 50/50 shot? Probably not. I also think people under estimate the difficulty of getting ahead and staying there, especially with a small bank roll.

I think it might be important to consider why someone might be interested in taking on the challenge and whether they might do it with less than a 50/50 shot.

Suppose someone did not really want to try to make a living playing against the house at a casino table. Also, perhaps they do not consider the amount of money they might possibly get from Mr. Bluejay to be all that exciting. However, they might think they could make a whole bunch of money selling books or DVD's or training courses on how to beat the casino.

If they could promote their book/DVD/course with the validated claim that they had beaten Mr. Bluejay's challenge, live and in a real casino, that might be of significant value to them, perhaps enough to risk a little money at less than a 50/50 shot at winning. If someone is considering that kind of scheme, they might start by accepting the challenge at a low stake -- perhaps taking the challenge several times until they wind up a winner even once by chance -- before they even start writing the book or producing the DVD or organizing the course. Whadya think?

"they might start by accepting the challenge at a low stake -- perhaps taking the challenge several times until they wind up a winner even once by chance"

I do not believe Mr. Bluejay is offering the live challenge more than once to the same person and certainly not for the same system. If the challenge fails at the low stakes, then that's it.

Plus, I'm sure that anyone promoting a book, etc would not want Mr. Bluejay to become linked to as he will probably denounce any of the systems mentioned in the book, unless they actually produced valid results.

In the original (computer simulation) challenge, I think that Mr. Bluejay had agreed (1) to keep details of the system confidential and (2) in the case of a system successful against the challenge, to publicly acknowledge that on his web site. Maybe I got that wrong, or maybe those features do not apply to the live challenge. If they do, and if someone were to offer a series of low-stakes responses to the challenge -- each with slightly-different-but-equally-bogus strategies -- there might be an opportunity for them to win by chance and get this public "endorsement" by Mr. Bluejay for their system. Such a scam could be viewed as more costly to Mr. Bluejay than the actual cash he placed at risk.

A quick look at worst case gaming the challange exploits gets me at best a 5.3% chance to beat your challange. Anything legit should be much worse.

Note if I started adding in odds for craps this number might go up, but it doesn't seem worth the math, since I'm fairly certain your challange is safe.

The confidentiality was the choice of the challenger, if I remember correctly. And yes, he agreed to publicly acknowledge the system.

But it would have to work within the one month period of the challenge. He's not going to sit in a casino with you(or his representative) for months on end while you wait to get lucky to pigeonhole him into an endorsement.

Quote: crazyiam

A quick look at worst case gaming the challange exploits gets me at best a 5.3% chance to beat your challange. Anything legit should be much worse.

Note if I started adding in odds for craps this number might go up, but it doesn't seem worth the math, since I'm fairly certain your challange is safe.

Like I said earlier, if you bet a lot early you have more chances of being up 60% than being down 100%. Following a few large bets with many minimum bets would then satisfy the challenge without incurring significant losses. 1000 hands is too little, there are many ways to win this challenge more than 50% of the time.

Quote: HKrandom

Like I said earlier, if you bet a lot early you have more chances of being up 60% than being down 100%. Following a few large bets with many minimum bets would then satisfy the challenge without incurring significant losses. 1000 hands is too little, there are many ways to win this challenge more than 50% of the time.

I wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree. If this were the case and it was really that easy, I don't think anyone would be wasting their time putting up their cash in an even money proposition bet against MB - you'd be out making money on the craps tables.

The object here is to increase your starting stack by 60%. Anyone who says they can do that 50% of the time should be playing craps full time. It's easy to say that it's a simple challenge to beat but that's the whole point; MB is putting up his money against yours and he's confident that more often than not he'll win your money.

If you bet big at the start and lose then you're not only going to lose $1,000 to MB but you'll also be down the $500 you began with. If you hit early then you have to hang on for the next 990 or so wagers and keep at least a $300 profit. Look at it this way - you're basically saying that more than 50% of the time you'll get up over $300 early in the challenge. That simply defies the odds of the game you're playing so why do you think you can do it? What bet is there on the craps layout that gives you better than even odds to win?

I'm asking because I've spent a fair bit of time looking at this since MB offered the "live" challenge. He's not asking you to be up $1.00 after 1,000 rounds... that would be tough enough but you've got to be ahead 60%! Come on. It's no different than simply playing craps against the house except that now MB has the same advantage over you that the house has and he's only offering even money. You'll probably end up beating MB the same percent of times that you'd beat the house... which as you know will be less than 50%.

Quote: TheNightfly

I wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree. If this were the case and it was really that easy, I don't think anyone would be wasting their time putting up their cash in an even money proposition bet against MB - you'd be out making money on the craps tables.

The object here is to increase your starting stack by 60%. Anyone who says they can do that 50% of the time should be playing craps full time. It's easy to say that it's a simple challenge to beat but that's the whole point; MB is putting up his money against yours and he's confident that more often than not he'll win your money.

If you bet big at the start and lose then you're not only going to lose $1,000 to MB but you'll also be down the $500 you began with. If you hit early then you have to hang on for the next 990 or so wagers and keep at least a $300 profit. Look at it this way - you're basically saying that more than 50% of the time you'll get up over $300 early in the challenge. That simply defies the odds of the game you're playing so why do you think you can do it? What bet is there on the craps layout that gives you better than even odds to win?

I'm asking because I've spent a fair bit of time looking at this since MB offered the "live" challenge. He's not asking you to be up $1.00 after 1,000 rounds... that would be tough enough but you've got to be ahead 60%! Come on. It's no different than simply playing craps against the house except that now MB has the same advantage over you that the house has and he's only offering even money. You'll probably end up beating MB the same percent of times that you'd beat the house... which as you know will be less than 50%.

You don't get my point. The chances of winning $500 are less than the chances of losing $500, however the chances of winning $300 are higher than the chances of losing $500. If I get up $300 60% of the time and down $500 40% of the time I still lose in the long term, making it impossible to make a living playing. However, if I were to make an even money bet of $1000 that I will be up, the EV would be +180 since I would have a 40% chance of losing $1,500 and a 60% chance of winning $1,300.

I do get your point but I disagree that you'll be up 60% of your starting stack more than 50% of the time... over 1000 hands. If you believe you will be I'm asking you to show how this can be proven mathematically. I don't believe it can. As I said, it's easy to say that it can be done but (which you've done twice now) but I don't see how you can. If you make a $500 bet on the first hand/spin/roll then you'll be ahead slightly less than half the time and you'll be broke slightly more than half the time. So, slightly less than half the time you'll be up and now you have to stay up over $300 for the next 999 rounds. How does this win you the bet more than half the time?

Playing $1 a hand would have an expected loss of $10 over 999 hands of Baccarat since the house edge is around 1% and 1% of 1000 is 10. You can stay up after over 1000 hands by betting $1 per hand.

You've lost on average $10... how do you get to +$300 over 50% of the time?

Simply enough... put together a method, and 1K can be yours.

Quote: HKrandom

Playing $1 a hand would have an expected loss of $10 over 999 hands of Baccarat since the house edge is around 1% and 1% of 1000 is 10. You can stay up after over 1000 hands by betting $1 per hand.

There is no casino I know of (remember, this is a live challenge) where you can bet $1.00 per hand. The actual house edge is 1.06% so even at only $5.00 per hand you'd expect to lose about $75 after 999 hands. Setting that small point aside, you still haven't adressed my point about being down on your first big bet MORE than 50% of the time and being up on that first bet LESS than 50% of the time. I agree that once you're up $500 or so early on that staying above the $300 threshold shouldn't be too tough but seeing as you're going to be ahead LESS than 50% of the time, how do you expect to beat the challenge with that strategy?

Quote: TheNightfly

There is no casino I know of (remember, this is a live challenge) where you can bet $1.00 per hand. The actual house edge is 1.06% so even at only $5.00 per hand you'd expect to lose about $75 after 999 hands. Setting that small point aside, you still haven't adressed my point about being down on your first big bet MORE than 50% of the time and being up on that first bet LESS than 50% of the time. I agree that once you're up $500 or so early on that staying above the $300 threshold shouldn't be too tough but seeing as you're going to be ahead LESS than 50% of the time, how do you expect to beat the challenge with that strategy?

You don't have to be up $500, since the EV of the 900+ hands is -75 you only have to be up $375 to have a reasonable chance to win. Betting $250 would leave you with around 2/3 (less the house edge) chance of winning $250 and about 1/3 chance of losing $500. After that the chances of winning $125 before losing $750 get rather high and you also use up many hands trying
The chance of losing a banker bet is also less than the chance of winning it, so betting everything on the first hand would indeed give you more than 50% chance of winning since ties result in a push, and winning $475 would give you very big chances of being up after 999 bets of $5.

The computer sim is too long and the live challenge too short to get meaningful results so...

Maybe the simplest solution is to combine the two challenges.

If you can beat the computer simulation, then you must further prove your system works in a live casino.

I would think if someone did beat the computer sim, then there would be the wish to see it work in reality. And this would prohibit someone from creating a system that exploits the challenge but still cannot beat the casino over time.

And Mr. Bluejay would not have to spend an entire month in a casino for a measly grand.

Quote: HKrandom

You don't have to be up $500, since the EV of the 900+ hands is -75 you only have to be up $375 to have a reasonable chance to win. Betting $250 would leave you with around 2/3 (less the house edge) chance of winning $250 and about 1/3 chance of losing $500. After that the chances of winning $125 before losing $750 get rather high and you also use up many hands trying
The chance of losing a banker bet is also less than the chance of winning it, so betting everything on the first hand would indeed give you more than 50% chance of winning since ties result in a push, and winning $475 would give you very big chances of being up after 999 bets of $5.

It looks like you've got a winner there HK. Ignoring ties I calculate the odds of winning on the Banker side are about 2.7% better than on the Player side. So, you play $400 on the first hand and if you win, you'll receive $380 and ride out the remaining hands to hold on to at least a $300 profit. With a slightly better than 50% chance of winning the first hand you'll win MB's challenge more than 50% of the time. Of course if you lose the first hand you're in dire straits but this will happen les than 50% of the time AND you've still got $100 left to at least have a shot at making the money back.

So, MB, has HKrandom found a flaw? It looks like it to me and is almost too obvious... is something missing here?

I ran a simulation using this algorithm for bet sizing in Baccarat :

if(credits < 400 ) { betSize = credits} // (bet everything is almost out!)
if(credits <=500 && credits >= 400){ betSize = 400} // (if you have 400 credits, bet big)
if(credits > 500){ betSize = 1; } // (if your above 500, bet 1 at a time)

You could easily make this more complex. Over 10,000 attempts, 50.93% of the attempts ended up above $800. The average loss was -$6.68.

This attack is similar to the first one weaselman made... shit or bust early, then grind out (his was sit out, but the difference is minimal).

If you try :

if(credits <=500 ){ betSize = credits}
if(credits > 500){ betSize = 5; }

I only got 40.5% winners.

Quote: thecesspit

I ran a simulation using this algorithm for bet sizing in Baccarat :

if(credits < 400 ) { betSize = credits} // (bet everything is almost out!)
if(credits <=500 && credits >= 400){ betSize = 400} // (if you have 400 credits, bet big)
if(credits > 500){ betSize = 1; } // (if your above 500, bet 1 at a time)

You could easily make this more complex. Over 10,000 attempts, 50.93% of the attempts ended up above $800. The average loss was -$6.68.

This attack is similar to the first one weaselman made... shit or bust early, then grind out (his was sit out, but the difference is minimal).

If you try :

if(credits <=500 ){ betSize = credits}
if(credits > 500){ betSize = 5; }

I only got 40.5% winners.

Betting all your bankroll at the beginning is not a good idea since you are taking too much risk for very little additional reward; if being up 60% by the end is enough to win the challenge then the second system is not appropriate. You could also increase your chances of winning with the first system by betting big every time you are down in the last few rounds (e.g. if there you have a bit over $700 and there are 3 rounds left the optimal strategy would be to bet $100 and martingale until you reach $800 or bust).
Requiring to double a bankroll rather than getting a 60% return would make these systems much less likely to win.

The biggest difference is once you get into maintenance mode... if you can bet $1, your okay, as soon as it got to $5, not so successful.

The second was just a rough test to see the effect of a simple approach. There's plenty of different changes I had a try at but they all came in around 40-45% if the grind bet had to be $5.

What if you only try 1,000 rounds like proposed in the initial live challenge? 10,000 round would mean an initial bankroll of $5,000, which would be much easier to preserve with $5 bets.

I am running 1000 hands. Just repeating the test 10000 times to estimate a win/lose ratio.

Any news?

I played maybe 3000 hands on Sat. and I'm up enough where I won't ever be behind by 10,000 hands playing the same method.

Quote: darkoz

The computer sim is too long and the live challenge too short to get meaningful results so...

Maybe the simplest solution is to combine the two challenges.

If you can beat the computer simulation, then you must further prove your system works in a live casino.

I would think if someone did beat the computer sim, then there would be the wish to see it work in reality. And this would prohibit someone from creating a system that exploits the challenge but still cannot beat the casino over time.

And Mr. Bluejay would not have to spend an entire month in a casino for a measly grand.

Excellent compromise.
Since many, many players do not "see" or believe that computer simulations can show actual real world results, because seeing "is" believing, a computer and casino challenge win would be the ultimate testament to one's claim.
I second darkoz's idea.

And if I am allowed more than one vote, then I third it.

I know this was posted more than a year ago, but I need to ask you some questions:

1) Has this offer expired?

2) What's the max number of spins that I can sit out to wait for a certain condition?

3) Is it acceptable to switch games at any given time?

Okay, given the lack of interest, let me revive the $1000 reward to anyone who can exploit the new rules.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Okay, given the lack of interest, let me revive the $1000 reward to anyone who can exploit the new rules.

BlueJay,

I read your website years ago. I haven't recently.

Also, I haven't read this whole post - I read the first page and the last page.

You are offering $1000 if someone can come up with a betting system that will last for 200,000 turns, correct?

What is the starting bank roll?

What is the cost to the applicant?

Will you sign a NDA to not reveal the money management program?

I'm sorry, I revived the wrong thread. I'll reply in the proper thread.

Ill take up your challenge. $5000. Any casino on the east coast.

I'm not convinced that all betting systems are worthless and think that Bluejay is taking a big risk. I recently collaborated with Dr. Ilya Bluskov of the University of Vancouver and was able to show that using two of his lottery wheels in two actual state lotteries was able to increase the player's expected return by 2%. A lottery wheel is purely a betting strategy.

I suspect that if anyone wins or even accepts his challenge he will not admit it. I recently submitted the following betting system to him and he responded with contempt. It may be trivial but obviously it will work.

1. Establish a line of credit at a casino. I once was offered unlimited credit at the Las Vegas Sands.

2. Play the table limit for a very short time. Either you will end up way ahead or way in the hole.

3. If you win, take the money and stop playing.

4. If you lose, don't pay up.

No, they don't send a hit man to rough you up. Perhaps when the mob owned Vegas but not any more. Gambling debts are not enforceable in the courts.

Quote: kratchik

I'm not convinced that all betting systems are worthless and think that Bluejay is taking a big risk. I recently collaborated with Dr. Ilya Bluskov of the University of Vancouver and was able to show that using two of his lottery wheels in two actual state lotteries was able to increase the player's expected return by 2%. A lottery wheel is purely a betting strategy.

I suspect that if anyone wins or even accepts his challenge he will not admit it. I recently submitted the following betting system to him and he responded with contempt. It may be trivial but obviously it will work.

1. Establish a line of credit at a casino. I once was offered unlimited credit at the Las Vegas Sands.

2. Play the table limit for a very short time. Either you will end up way ahead or way in the hole.

3. If you win, take the money and stop playing.

4. If you lose, don't pay up.

No, they don't send a hit man to rough you up. Perhaps when the mob owned Vegas but not any more. Gambling debts are not enforceable in the courts.

There's some misinformation here. Re: the challenge, it appears you didn't read the challenge rules, which included something about 200,000 bets/spins/hands. This would not qualify. So I'm not surprised you didn't get much of an answer from MB.

More importantly, (to the best of my knowledge ) at least in LV, when you take markers against a LOC, you sign a chit that functions legally as a check. You cannot walk away from that debt. It is legally enforceable in court, at least civilly, and possibly criminally if they can prove you're kiting. Please don't anyone try this.

Quote: kratchik

I'm not convinced that all betting systems are worthless and think that Bluejay is taking a big risk. I recently collaborated with Dr. Ilya Bluskov of the University of Vancouver and was able to show that using two of his lottery wheels in two actual state lotteries was able to increase the player's expected return by 2%. A lottery wheel is purely a betting strategy.

I suspect that if anyone wins or even accepts his challenge he will not admit it. I recently submitted the following betting system to him and he responded with contempt. It may be trivial but obviously it will work.

1. Establish a line of credit at a casino. I once was offered unlimited credit at the Las Vegas Sands.

2. Play the table limit for a very short time. Either you will end up way ahead or way in the hole.

3. If you win, take the money and stop playing.

4. If you lose, don't pay up.

No, they don't send a hit man to rough you up. Perhaps when the mob owned Vegas but not any more. Gambling debts are not enforceable in the courts.

You are wrong. A betting pattern, lottery wheel or even praying to your God has no effect on the chance to beat a house edge over the long run.

ZCore13

Quote: beachbumbabs

There's some misinformation here. Re: the challenge, it appears you didn't read the challenge rules, which included something about 200,000 bets/spins/hands. This would not qualify. So I'm not surprised you didn't get much of an answer from MB.

More importantly, (to the best of my knowledge ) at least in LV, when you take markers against a LOC, you sign a chit that functions legally as a check. You cannot walk away from that debt. It is legally enforceable in court, at least civilly, and possibly criminally if they can prove you're kiting. Please don't anyone try this.

Thank you BBB! I was also thinking,"This seems like a really bad idea! Really? "Lose money and don't pay up, it's not legally enforceable? " That's
BEGGING for big trouble! At BEST you get seen as a shady, sketchy welcher! At worst, you end up in an ICU at a nearby hospital, clinging for your life! In the middle is court and possible incarceration.

Max out your cash advances

Put money on player or banker

If you win, cash out

If you lose, try again in 7 years

Quote: kratchik

I'm not convinced that all betting systems are worthless and think that Bluejay is taking a big risk. I recently collaborated with Dr. Ilya Bluskov of the University of Vancouver and was able to show that using two of his lottery wheels in two actual state lotteries was able to increase the player's expected return by 2%. A lottery wheel is purely a betting strategy.

I suspect that if anyone wins or even accepts his challenge he will not admit it. I recently submitted the following betting system to him and he responded with contempt. It may be trivial but obviously it will work.

1. Establish a line of credit at a casino. I once was offered unlimited credit at the Las Vegas Sands.

2. Play the table limit for a very short time. Either you will end up way ahead or way in the hole.

3. If you win, take the money and stop playing.

4. If you lose, don't pay up.

No, they don't send a hit man to rough you up. Perhaps when the mob owned Vegas but not any more. Gambling debts are not enforceable in the courts.

By the way, you are wrong about gambling debts not being enforceable in court as well. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, like the casino offering you credit when you are intoxicated or some sort of deceit, you are in financial and legal trouble if you try and skip out.


ZCore13

Quote: kratchik

I'm not convinced that all betting systems are worthless and think that Bluejay is taking a big risk. I recently collaborated with Dr. Ilya Bluskov of the University of Vancouver and was able to show that using two of his lottery wheels in two actual state lotteries was able to increase the player's expected return by 2%. A lottery wheel is purely a betting strategy.

I suspect that if anyone wins or even accepts his challenge he will not admit it. I recently submitted the following betting system to him and he responded with contempt. It may be trivial but obviously it will work.

1. Establish a line of credit at a casino. I once was offered unlimited credit at the Las Vegas Sands.

2. Play the table limit for a very short time. Either you will end up way ahead or way in the hole.

3. If you win, take the money and stop playing.

4. If you lose, don't pay up.

No, they don't send a hit man to rough you up. Perhaps when the mob owned Vegas but not any more. Gambling debts are not enforceable in the courts.

If you take up the challenge, make sure the simulator is not breaking the Law of Large Numbers.

Simply check every 100 trials to see if the average wins is getting closer to the mean. 200 trials should be closer to the mean than 100 trials. 300 trials should get closer to the mean than 200 trials. 400 trials should get closer to the mean than 300 trials etc. etc. You should rarely have times when more trials will lower the average win percentage.

Most of these simulators cheat the LLN so if you're going to put money on it, make sure the average win rate is continuing to get closer and closer to the mean. You may be surprised at how badly they cheat the LLN on these things.

Talk is cheap, but if you'r putting money on it, make sure you're not getting cheated.

I just flagged the posts for condoning illegal activity.

Quote: kratchik

I suspect that if anyone wins or even accepts his challenge he will not admit it. I recently submitted the following betting system to him and he responded with contempt. It may be trivial but obviously it will work.

1. Establish a line of credit at a casino. I once was offered unlimited credit at the Las Vegas Sands.

2. Play the table limit for a very short time. Either you will end up way ahead or way in the hole.

3. If you win, take the money and stop playing.

4. If you lose, don't pay up.

No, they don't send a hit man to rough you up. Perhaps when the mob owned Vegas but not any more. Gambling debts are not enforceable in the courts.

Let's just say you could get away with it.
This is not really a betting system. Even if it was legal, you would not be beating the game itself, it's taking advantage of a loophole in their system. It would be an illegal advantage situation where you are free rolling wins. It's kind of like a loss rebate promo. It's obvious there would be an advantage in that situation. That's not the point of his challenge. I can see why he scoffed at it.

The entire point of his challenge is for someone to prove they can beat A CASINO GAME with a BETTING SYSTEM. Not with special promotions, not with the casino player rating system, not with mail, not with loopholes and not by cheating.

Quote: kratchik

I'm not convinced that all betting systems are worthless and think that Bluejay is taking a big risk. I recently collaborated with Dr. Ilya Bluskov of the University of Vancouver and was able to show that using two of his lottery wheels in two actual state lotteries was able to increase the player's expected return by 2%. A lottery wheel is purely a betting strategy.

Wait a minute. Don't state lotteries carry about a 50% house edge? So, you saying that, with your methods, you were able to increase the return to player from $0.50 on the dollar to $0.51? And you're saying that this system is not worthless?

A reference on the enforceability of gambling debts is to be found at

www.aabri.com /manuscripts/131679.pdf.

The Nevada legislature made gambling debts enforceable in that state in 1983, however most Nevada gamblers are from out-of-state and the Nevada court would have trouble acquiring jurisdiction over the deadbeat once he had left the state. Suing the deadbeat in his home state would likely prove futile because of the common law doctrine against enforceability of gambling debts. With more and more states legalizing gambling, this may change. Beachbumbabs correctly points out that giving a bad marker in Nevada may be prosecuted as a criminal act and in that case jurisdiction could be acquired by extradition but in my experience it can be difficult to get state prosecutors to budge.

The casinos realize that aggressive collection methods would cost them more in bad publicity than they could hope to gain in a recovery. I knew people in New York whose job it was to collect for a Nevada hotel and in such cases they merely told the deadbeat that he no longer would be welcome.

I recognize Bluejay's good motive in attempting to debunk those who sell worthless betting systems for money and I wouldn't have made this post except for his rudeness.