OnceDear's Method
Quote: rainmanBob has clearly hijacked this thread and should serve time!
link to original post
How do you figure. I am doing OD's method to make money, isn't that what the thread is about? Tell me, what do you think it's about if not that. If I am not doing his method maybe he can point out where it's wrong and I will correct it. I'm just following all the great details he's given on how his method works.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: rainmanBob has clearly hijacked this thread and should serve time!
link to original post
How do you figure. I am doing OD's method to make money, isn't that what the thread is about? Tell me, what do you think it's about if not that. If I am not doing his method maybe he can point out where it's wrong and I will correct it. I'm just following all the great details he's given on how his method works.
link to original post
1) OD hasn't given all the details to his method so you can't be using it you don't know it.
You are clearly being deceitful.
2)It's about OD using his method, THAT"S WHAT IT'S ABOUT not Bob using his method and posting his
results in OD's thread to hijack it.
Quote: rainman
1) OD hasn't given all the details to his method so you can't be using it you don't know it.
You are clearly being deceitful.
link to original post
I disagree. I have obviously gleaned enough from what OD has said about his method but I am playing it perfectly. He is welcome to dissect it and tell me where I'm not playing it exactly the way he wants. What more can I do other than that. This whole thread is about encouraging other people to play his wonderful method, I'm sure you understand that.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: rainman
1) OD hasn't given all the details to his method so you can't be using it you don't know it.
You are clearly being deceitful.
link to original post
I disagree. I have obviously gleaned enough from what OD has said about his method but I am playing it perfectly. He is welcome to dissect it and tell me where I'm not playing it exactly the way he wants. What more can I do other than that. This whole thread is about encouraging other people to play his wonderful method, I'm sure you understand that.
link to original post
Not even a chance Oracle Bob. Are you trying to convince me you know the unknown? the unknown being all
the details to OD's method. Because if you don't know all the details then you clearly are not playing his method.
I understand you think your super clever but I don't. I won't be believing any of your BS anytime soon so save it.
I will respond no further in the interest of not participating in your highjack. Mods do your job.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: rainman
1) OD hasn't given all the details to his method so you can't be using it you don't know it.
You are clearly being deceitful.
link to original post
I disagree. I have obviously gleaned enough from what OD has said about his method but I am playing it perfectly. He is welcome to dissect it and tell me where I'm not playing it exactly the way he wants. What more can I do other than that. This whole thread is about encouraging other people to play his wonderful method, I'm sure you understand that.
link to original post
Very amusing. Nice one EB.
Indeed, I have not revealed the details of my Method. I was going to make some significant revelations after session 50. I have now achieved Winning Session 56 of 56, with no losing sessions. That's 30 more consecutive winning sessions since I last reported on 30 August.
I've no intention to discuss what EvenBob thinks he knows.
His play is NOT compliant with OnceDear's Method.
This whole thread is NOT about encouraging other people to play his wonderful method. Don't put words in my mouth EvenBob,
Quote: OnceDear
His play is NOT compliant with OnceDear's Method.
link to original post
Could you please point out exactly where I'm going wrong. If you know I'm not playing your method then you must be able to correct me. I just played again and now I'm back to zero profit. I still have $10 balance to bet with but that's from the bonus. So now I have to start all over again. Please advise me. So far I've waited 117 and have $0 to show for it. I haven't lost but neither have I won.
There is no place in OnceDear's Method for concerning myself with such concepts. What the table is about to do is unknown to me and is not discernible from what it recently did. Since game outcomes are trusted to be random and unknowable, OnceDear happily jumps in on games without any waiting or messing about looking for hot or cold tables.
One decider of which table game to play is whether it has a 'hot' female dealer. Not politically correct, but hey ho.
Also, OnceDear does not make any 'pretend' wagers in his head to test or practice his guessing skills or to assess the table before placing any wager.
OnceDear's Method has no Dollar Value. It's a recreational way of playing.
are we going to be so fortunate to find out exactly what your method is in the near future__________?_________hours, days, months, years________?
.
Quote: OnceDear
One decider of which table game to play is whether it has a 'hot' female dealer. Not politically correct, but hey ho.
link to original post
This makes at least as much sense (maybe more) as speculating on what can be seen on the tote board.
Quote: lilredrooster.
are we going to be so fortunate to find out exactly what your method is in the near future__________?_________hours, days, months, years________?
.
link to original post
Fortunate? You would consider finding out exactly what it is fortunate? To your benefit? Useful?
This is a thread in the BS subforum.
The future is not written yet.
I promise it will be this decade.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: lilredrooster.
are we going to be so fortunate to find out exactly what your method is in the near future__________?_________hours, days, months, years________?
It's a recreational way of playing.
Fortunate? You would consider finding out exactly what it is fortunate?
I promise it will be this decade.
I like recreational playing too - many do - isn't it possible that there are good and bad ways to play recreationally_______?_______that they're not all created equal___?
although I don't do it with real $
I play on the Wiz's free bacc game
well, as long as it's going to be in this decade - I guess I can wait - the next decade is only about 6.33 years away____________(-:\
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: OnceDearQuote: lilredrooster.
well, as long as it's going to be in this decade - I guess I can wait - the next decade is only about 6.33 years away____________(-:\
.
link to original post
That is if you observe normal time. EB has already showed us how time is malleable. If he can change the time by a couple of hours, why not a few months or even years? A man who can overcome math should be able to bend time to his will.The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
Quote: billryanQuote: lilredrooster
well, as long as it's going to be in this decade - I guess I can wait - the next decade is only about 6.33 years away____________(-:\
.
link to original post
That is if you observe normal time. EB has already showed us how time is malleable. If he can change the time by a couple of hours, why not a few months or even years? A man who can overcome math should be able to bend time to his will.
link to original post
he obviously, has powers, abilities, and talents far beyond those of anyone else on this forum
.
Quote: lilredrooster
I like recreational playing too - many do - isn't it possible that there are good and bad ways to play recreationally_______?_______that they're not all created equal___?
I believe there are. To me a good way of playing recreationally is any way that gives a good mixture of pleasure, satisfaction, amusement and even excitement and adrenaline rush, while staying well within my recreation budget.
Personally, I can't get the same buzz out of playing with completely non-cash practice games. Playing with serious bankrolls, without an advantage, can be a bad way. Playing for pin money or beer money can be fun.
Playing -EV games recreationally while being deluded into thinking you are playing an advantage..... That could be bad. Which is why I insist.....
OnceDear's method is -EV, has no dollar value and is for recreation and demonstration purposes only.
I know..... I would not keep you hanging around for, say, twice that time.Quote:well, as long as it's going to be in this decade - I guess I can wait - the next decade is only about 6.33 years away____________(-:\
link to original post
Off to get four more sessions in, I think.... Maybe a change of games.
Quote: OnceDear
OnceDear's method is -EV, has no dollar value and is for recreation and demonstration purposes only.
Off to get four more sessions in, I think.... Maybe a change of games.
link to original post
Oh hum. 4 sessions in today. Each of a single round which won.
Session 57: A Carnival Live Dealer Game : CrazyTime: Stake 10p : Won: Return 20p
Session 58: A Live Dealer Game : Lightning Roulette : Stake 20p : Won: Return 20p
Session 57: A Live Dealer Game : Super SicBo : Stake 20p : Won: Return 20p
Session 60: A Carnival Live Dealer Game : Adventures Beyond WonderLand : Stake 10p : Won: Return 20p
Sessions Played : 60 : Sessions Won : 60 : Sessions Lost : 0
So, let's estimate it.
Probability of winning the next session is approx [redacted] = 99.8%
Probability of winning the next 40 sessions to give me 100/100 is approx 0.998^40 = 92.3%
I can live with that.
Quote: OnceDearI'm just musing what my chances are of reaching 100 successful winning sessions in a row without losing any.....
So, let's estimate it.
Probability of winning the next session is approx [redacted] = 99.8%
Probability of winning the next 40 sessions to give me 100/100 is approx 0.998^40 = 92.3%
I can live with that.
link to original post
Just completed 10 more sessions. All RNG 20p BlackJack.
All sessions ended with a profit. Session 9 saw me dip significantly into the bankroll, but I was never very concerned.
Sessions Complete : 70 : Sessions Won : 70 : Sessions Lost : 0
Estimated probability of continuing up to complete 100 consecutive winning sessions is now 0.998^30 = 94.1%
Why BlackJack, and what other games can OnceDear's Method be applied to.?
BlackJack has one of the lowest house edges in the casino. It's also quite Low Variance. OnceDear's Method works best with low variance as we aspire to get consistent win rate that is near to it's expected probability.
I have applied the Method to both RNG and live wheel Roulette, RNG and live dealer BlackJack, Live dealer Baccarat, Live presenter SicBo, and a few Live Presenter Carnival games of the spin a wheel variety.
So far in this thread, I've experienced some good fortune, which is always nice to have. However, nothing remarkable or unexpected. Session Win Rate results have been in line with the 100% that I anticipated at the outset of the thread.
I'm not saying this is a +EV situation or any sort of advantage play. I'm just having fun winning, session after session after session.
Quote: OnceDearI'm just musing what my chances are of reaching 100 successful winning sessions in a row without losing any.....
So, let's estimate it.
Probability of winning the next session is approx [redacted] = 99.8%
Probability of winning the next 40 sessions to give me 100/100 is approx 0.998^40 = 92.3%
I can live with that.
link to original post
Based on reverse engineering with OD’s rule of thumb, I conclude that you have a starting bankroll of 500 units. As your wins seem to be 20p then your bankroll for this experiment is 100 pounds. 100 consecutive winning sessions would put you up 20 pounds.
From first principles, based on OD’s rule of thumb, we would expect you to get to 20 pound victory before losing your 100 pound stake about 20% of the time.
UNJON, Excellent. Go to the top of the class $:o)Quote: unJonQuote: OnceDearI'm just musing what my chances are of reaching 100 successful winning sessions in a row without losing any.....
So, let's estimate it.
Probability of winning the next session is approx [redacted] = 99.8%
Probability of winning the next 40 sessions to give me 100/100 is approx 0.998^40 = 92.3%
I can live with that.
link to original post
Based on reverse engineering with OD’s rule of thumb, I conclude that you have a starting bankroll of 500 units. As your wins seem to be 20p then your bankroll for this experiment is 100 pounds. 100 consecutive winning sessions would put you up 20 pounds.
From first principles, based on OD’s rule of thumb, we would expect you to get to 20 pound victory before losing your 100 pound stake about 20% of the time.
link to original post
Because of the BlackJack payouts and staking levels, I could end some sessions ahead by as little as 5p ( It happened once ). Also some other games are table min of 10p. But you are in the right Ball Park.
For a bonus, Very roughly estimate the Expected Value of proceeding from Session #001 to session #100. Show workings out.
Quote: unJonBased on reverse engineering with OD’s rule of thumb, I conclude that you have a starting bankroll of 500 units. As your wins seem to be 20p then your bankroll for this experiment is 100 pounds. 100 consecutive winning sessions would put you up 20 pounds.
From first principles, based on OD’s rule of thumb, we would expect you to get to 20 pound victory before losing your 100 pound stake about 20% of the time.
link to original post
A slight error there.
From the start of session #001, Initial Probability of that £20 profit < 100/(100+20) = 83.3 %
From current situation where I am already, approx £8 of the way towards that goal,
From the start of session #071, Probability of that £20 profit < 108/(100+20) = 90 %
Quote: OnceDearQuote: unJonBased on reverse engineering with OD’s rule of thumb, I conclude that you have a starting bankroll of 500 units. As your wins seem to be 20p then your bankroll for this experiment is 100 pounds. 100 consecutive winning sessions would put you up 20 pounds.
From first principles, based on OD’s rule of thumb, we would expect you to get to 20 pound victory before losing your 100 pound stake about 20% of the time.
link to original post
A slight error there.
From the start of session #001, Initial Probability of that £20 profit < 100/(100+20) = 83.3 %
From current situation where I am already, approx £8 of the way towards that goal,
From the start of session #071, Probability of that £20 profit < 108/(100+20) = 90 %
link to original post
Yeah I meant 80% not 20% and agree with your revision. Though to be clear 0.998^100 = 0.81857
Quote: EvenBobUsing OD's wonderful method last night I went from a devastating loss back to an $11 win which was enough to let me cash in the bonus. So I wagered $147 of the casinos money to win a $10 bonus of the casinos money and did not risk a dime of my own. It was fun but I'm bored now and have to move on to other things. If anybody cares I can post the deposit made to my Paypal account by the casino. But I'm sure everybody believes me and I won't have to do that. Here's the final page.
link to original post
You are coming off as quite desperate here.
That's the joys of compounding. A trivial difference. We can call is 80% approxQuote: unJonQuote: OnceDearQuote: unJonBased on reverse engineering with OD’s rule of thumb, I conclude that you have a starting bankroll of 500 units. As your wins seem to be 20p then your bankroll for this experiment is 100 pounds. 100 consecutive winning sessions would put you up 20 pounds.
From first principles, based on OD’s rule of thumb, we would expect you to get to 20 pound victory before losing your 100 pound stake about 20% of the time.
link to original post
A slight error there.
From the start of session #001, Initial Probability of that £20 profit < 100/(100+20) = 83.3 %
From current situation where I am already, approx £8 of the way towards that goal,
From the start of session #071, Probability of that £20 profit < 108/(100+20) = 90 %
link to original post
Yeah I meant 80% not 20% and agree with your revision. Though to be clear 0.998^100 = 0.81857
link to original post
The 0.998 was an approximation too.
And of course We've ignored the house edge. That's why I use < rather than =
Here's a link to OnceDear's Rule of Thumb
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/7/#post1370
Quote: OnceDearThat's the joys of compounding. A trivial difference. We can call is 80% approxQuote: unJonQuote: OnceDearQuote: unJonBased on reverse engineering with OD’s rule of thumb, I conclude that you have a starting bankroll of 500 units. As your wins seem to be 20p then your bankroll for this experiment is 100 pounds. 100 consecutive winning sessions would put you up 20 pounds.
From first principles, based on OD’s rule of thumb, we would expect you to get to 20 pound victory before losing your 100 pound stake about 20% of the time.
link to original post
A slight error there.
From the start of session #001, Initial Probability of that £20 profit < 100/(100+20) = 83.3 %
From current situation where I am already, approx £8 of the way towards that goal,
From the start of session #071, Probability of that £20 profit < 108/(100+20) = 90 %
link to original post
Yeah I meant 80% not 20% and agree with your revision. Though to be clear 0.998^100 = 0.81857
link to original post
The 0.998 was an approximation too.
And of course We've ignored the house edge. That's why I use < rather than =
Here's a link to OnceDear's Rule of Thumb
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/7/#post1370
link to original post
The difference from compounding (much like from the house edge) is trivial . . . until it isn’t.
Quote: billryanQuote: EvenBobUsing OD's wonderful method last night I went from a devastating loss back to an $11 win which was enough to let me cash in the bonus. So I wagered $147 of the casinos money to win a $10 bonus of the casinos money and did not risk a dime of my own. It was fun but I'm bored now and have to move on to other things. If anybody cares I can post the deposit made to my Paypal account by the casino. But I'm sure everybody believes me and I won't have to do that. Here's the final page.
link to original post
You are coming off as quite desperate here.
link to original post
Only desperate to show what a raging success this method that OD has is at winning. You don't seem to understand that I took a lousy $10 of the casinos money and got $147 worth of bets out of that $10. Could you do that? Maybe if you tried it a hundred times with a hundred different $10 bonuses. But using the soon-to-be world famous OD method I did it the very first time! I documented this every step of the way right down to their greetings letter time stamped and when I started betting 2 minutes later. I can show the deposit/withdrawal page in my account to show exactly what happened. All thanks to OD and his wise guidance..
I've now completed 89 consecutive winning sessions with ZERO losing sessions.
Below is a chart of the balance of my online account. There have been TWO buy-ins of £10 each. Buy in is not the same as bankroll.
I've filtered out a very few free bet wagers and bonuses which are out of scope of the method demonstration.
Chart show....
Orange Line : Online Account Balance
Black Line : Peak Online Account Balance (I.e Balance at end of each session)
Pale Blue Vertical lines : These show the end point of each session.
There have been a few sessions where I dipped deep into the account balance, but always the session ended up a win.
Note to Unjon: Average Wager 68p : Total Wagered £126.70 : Highest Wager £4.00
Another insightful question. Thanks. Join UNJON at the front of the class. Ignore the Dunce in the corner.Quote: TigerWuIf this is such a great system, then why are your bets so small?
link to original post
Remember. This is a method of winning multiple times with some high degree of probability. Just like so many systems, it is of ZERO dollar value. It would not do anything to increase my wealth to any significant extent. either in the short term or the long term. OnceDear's Rule of thumb should help you to understand how and why it works well with small bets. There are ways of applying it with large bets, and indeed anyone who wants to apply it with large bets is welcome to do what ever they want to enjoy their own recreation budget.
I bet small, because in the long term, which is not very long at all, I will tend to surrender real cash to the house edge. That would be real cash that would be better spent on me than squandered on some losing gamble.
Expected Loss = House edge x Total action wagered
The Expected Value of my play is as negative as the house edge makes it.
Actually, OnceDear's method DOES get applied when certain +EV situations arise. It HAS helped me to make steady profit from other opportunities. One for discussion on another day.
If and when I place significant wagers, they are not for recreation and they are into AP situations. This is not one of them.
But it's amusing to report on.
Quote: OnceDearI bet small, because in the long term, which is not very long at all, I will tend to surrender real cash to the house edge. That would be real cash that would be better spent on me than squandered on some losing gamble.
link to original post
EB's not gonna like hearing that.... He's been hyping up your system for days now.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: OnceDearI bet small, because in the long term, which is not very long at all, I will tend to surrender real cash to the house edge. That would be real cash that would be better spent on me than squandered on some losing gamble.
link to original post
EB's not gonna like hearing that.... He's been hyping up your system for days now.
link to original post
Now look what you just did. I'm putting my sleep mask on.
$Bo)
Meanwhile......
I just competed 11 more sessions.
That brings me to 100 Consecutive Winning Sessions with Zero losing sessions.
I need to do a final tally.
]]Quote: TigerWuQuote: OnceDearI bet small, because in the long term, which is not very long at all, I will tend to surrender real cash to the house edge. That would be real cash that would be better spent on me than squandered on some losing gamble.
link to original post
EB's not gonna like hearing that.... He's been hyping up your system for days now.
link to original post
Nope, I don't read his post anymore I don't have time.
Because he is a wise gambler. He has stated over and over again in this thread that the OD system is -EV. Betting systems can alter the probability distribution for session outcomes, but they cannot change the -EV nature of the underlying wagers.Quote: TigerWuIf this is such a great system, then why are your bets so small?
link to original post
Quote: OnceDear
I just competed 11 more sessions.
That brings me to 100 Consecutive Winning Sessions with Zero losing sessions.
I need to do a final tally.
link to original post
I'm going to re-read this when I'm feeling blue and need a chuckle.
Quote: EvenBob]]Quote: TigerWuQuote: OnceDearI bet small, because in the long term, which is not very long at all, I will tend to surrender real cash to the house edge. That would be real cash that would be better spent on me than squandered on some losing gamble.
link to original post
EB's not gonna like hearing that.... He's been hyping up your system for days now.
link to original post
Nope, I don't read his post anymore I don't have time.
link to original post
This is a real knee slapper. You don't have time? lol. You have 27,000 posts.
You are comedy gold!
but yeteb respond to itQuote: rainmanQuote: EvenBob]]Quote: TigerWuQuote: OnceDearI bet small, because in the long term, which is not very long at all, I will tend to surrender real cash to the house edge. That would be real cash that would be better spent on me than squandered on some losing gamble.
link to original post
EB's not gonna like hearing that.... He's been hyping up your system for days now.
link to original post
Nope, I don't read his post anymore I don't have time.
link to original post
This is a real knee slapper. You don't have time? lol. You have 27,000 posts.
You are comedy gold!
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearI bet small, because in the long term, which is not very long at all, I will tend to surrender real cash to the house edge. That would be real cash that would be better spent on me than squandered on some losing gamble.
With all due respect OD, unless you or anyone else can properly and accurately define "long term," then the "method" you are employing is actually a +EV. Neither you nor anybody else can produce a number certain which can accurately reflect exact sessions, hands, turns, spins, etc.
"Long term" is a vague canard aimed at discouraging the player and showing the world that if one does win, then at some point his greed or overzealous waging behavior will get the best of him or her. It would be more accurate to simply say: Gambling is a losing proposition; take your chances and have fun. Overindulgence can and will lead to personal disaster.
One other thing: If you would have bought in for 500 pounds (don't have the proper key for the pound) and done the exact same thing betting 10X your current wagers, would you have gone bankrupt or would your profit be 10X what it is now?
tuttigym
p.s. What is the "house edge" with your current waging method, and how will the "house edge" increase by increasing your wagers by 10X as above?
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: OnceDearI bet small, because in the long term, which is not very long at all, I will tend to surrender real cash to the house edge. That would be real cash that would be better spent on me than squandered on some losing gamble.
With all due respect OD, unless you or anyone else can properly and accurately define "long term," then the "method" you are employing is actually a +EV. Neither you nor anybody else can produce a number certain which can accurately reflect exact sessions, hands, turns, spins, etc.
Hi Tuttygym,
Some good questions.
I can see that you are not convinced. The reason being is that I just won. I'm sorry, not sorry that I did not lose my shirt during the demonstration. :o) I took a calculated risk of doing so, for my own amusement. Basically, I took a (roughly) 17% probability of losing about £100 to potentially profit by about £20.
You think this play was +EV. Well there, you were absolutely wrong! EV stands for EXPECTED Value. It ONLY EXISTS BEFORE the wagering is resolved. Quite simply the equations and definitions of what EV is and how it applies are quite explicit. Derived by Blaise Pascal, Pierre de Fermat, Cristiaan Huygens and others in the 1600's. It's also, rather complex in their original derivation, using maths that can get quite advanced.
EV calculation ALWAYS applies ONLY before a sequence of events plays out. What you are proposing is to look at an already won wager and saying "See. you won! It must have been +EV or how could you have won.
I can simplify and paraphrase down to quite simple maths, and I will probably do so later, for your benefit, and for the benefit of anyone approaching this topic with a naivete that is common among gamblers and wannabe rich gamblers.
Yes. I really do care to educate and help the newbies, because I too once believed in systems. However I have to go to work soon and my time is needed elsewhere.
Quote: tuttigym"Long term" is a vague canard aimed at discouraging the player and showing the world that if one does win, then at some point his greed or overzealous waging behavior will get the best of him or her. It would be more accurate to simply say: Gambling is a losing proposition; take your chances and have fun. Overindulgence can and will lead to personal disaster.
Gambling in the absence of an advantage is indeed a losing proposition and can indeed be fun. Actually, 'Long Term' in this exercise was getting approached and I had my own mathematically decided assessment of where it would become uncomfortably close.
Quote: tuttigymOne other thing: If you would have bought in for 500 pounds (don't have the proper key for the pound) and done the exact same thing betting 10X your current wagers, would you have gone bankrupt or would your profit be 10X what it is now?
We could get all philosophical about multiverses where every possibility plays out, but I accept that had I wagered 10 times as much and HAD I HAD THE SAME GAME OUTCOMES, then I would indeed have won ten times as much.
As it was, had I had different outcomes, then I would have lost up to my £100 bankroll. Had I wagered more and had those different outcomes, then I would have lost more.
Quote: tuttigym
p.s. What is the "house edge" with your current waging method, and how will the "house edge" increase by increasing your wagers by 10X as above?
link to original post
The house edge, which is explicitly defined as a percentage, was the house edge of the games I played. Most of the games played were at Blackjack which had a house edge of about 0.5% A small number of wagers were at roulette with its house edge of 2.7% and a tiny number of wagers were at carnival games with approx 5% house edge. The aggregate house edge over the session would have been a weighted average and would have been close to 0.7%. I could show exactly how I derive that weighted average, but that's for another day. Increasing or decreasing the wager size has NO EFFECT on the house edge. OnceDear's Method has and HAD NO EFFECT on the house edge. Increasing wager size without increasing bankroll would have dramatically increased my probability of going bust, as would keeping my bankroll the same and decreasing bankroll. Had I approached the exercise with a bankroll of £10, I would have gone bust in session 2 and it would have been all over. And remember, I was typically wagering 20p and only ever wagered as much as £4 a very few times.
Quote: tuttigym
"Long term" is a vague canard aimed at discouraging the player
no
it is a term used by mathematicians and gambling experts such as the Wizard
they have no intention of discouraging anyone -
the use of the term reflects their intention to deliver a truthful presentation
these same experts will report that expert play at blackjack will cause a player to be a long run winner
this is from the Wizard's blackjack page on his Wizard of Odds site -
"with today's rules, a realistic advantage the counter will have is only 0.5% to 1.5%. Only in the 𝙇𝙊𝙉𝙂 𝙍𝙐𝙉, over hundreds of hours of playing, can you count on 𝙒𝙄𝙉𝙉𝙄𝙉𝙂."
.
At craps I had this one session where I was playing to the absolute limit with the maximum behind and kept hitting number after number. I didn't usually play to the max like that so it was pretty near impossible to give it back.
Quote: OnceDearI can see that you are not convinced. The reason being is that I just won. I'm sorry, not sorry that I did not lose my shirt during the demonstration. :o) I took a calculated risk of doing so, for my own amusement. Basically, I took a (roughly) 17% probability of losing about £100 to potentially profit by about £20.
First, thanks for taking the time to respond, and for not going ballistic as some others might.
Making a 20% profit on an investment is certainly a + outcome and apparently defeated the HA this time.
Quote: OnceDearYou think this play was +EV. Well there, you were absolutely wrong! EV stands for EXPECTED Value. It ONLY EXISTS BEFORE the wagering is resolved. Quite simply the equations and definitions of what EV is and how it applies are quite explicit. Derived by Blaise Pascal, Pierre de Fermat, Cristiaan Huygens and others in the 1600's. It's also, rather complex in their original derivation, using maths that can get quite advanced.
EV calculation ALWAYS applies ONLY before a sequence of events plays out.
OK your explanation and defined statement of EV has simplified and educated, for me, the total concept. So, even though there may be some mathematical process for determining a particular form of EV, it is nothing more than a "crystal ball" guessing game which is what gambling boils down to. For me, it sounds like nothing more than "fortune telling."
Quote: tuttigym"Long term" is a vague canard aimed at discouraging the player and showing the world that if one does win, then at some point his greed or overzealous waging behavior will get the best of him or her. It would be more accurate to simply say: Gambling is a losing proposition; take your chances and have fun. Overindulgence can and will lead to personal disaster.
Quote: OnceDearGambling in the absence of an advantage is indeed a losing proposition and can indeed be fun. Actually, 'Long Term' in this exercise was getting approached and I had my own mathematically decided assessment of where it would become uncomfortably close.
Not sure how to interpret the last sentence here.
Quote: tuttigymOne other thing: If you would have bought in for 500 pounds (don't have the proper key for the pound) and done the exact same thing betting 10X your current wagers, would you have gone bankrupt or would your profit be 10X what it is now?
Quote: OnceDearWe could get all philosophical about multiverses where every possibility plays out, but I accept that had I wagered 10 times as much and HAD I HAD THE SAME GAME OUTCOMES, then I would indeed have won ten times as much.
As it was, had I had different outcomes, then I would have lost up to my £100 bankroll. Had I wagered more and had those different outcomes, then I would have lost more.
So, the straight answer is YES. The questions were not philosophically posed, so expanding the boundaries of the inquiry was not necessary.
Quote: tuttigym
p.s. What is the "house edge" with your current waging method, and how will the "house edge" increase by increasing your wagers by 10X as above?
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearThe house edge, which is explicitly defined as a percentage, was the house edge of the games I played. Most of the games played were at Blackjack which had a house edge of about 0.5% A small number of wagers were at roulette with its house edge of 2.7% and a tiny number of wagers were at carnival games with approx 5% house edge. The aggregate house edge over the session would have been a weighted average and would have been close to 0.7%. I could show exactly how I derive that weighted average, but that's for another day. Increasing or decreasing the wager size has NO EFFECT on the house edge. OnceDear's Method has and HAD NO EFFECT on the house edge. Increasing wager size without increasing bankroll would have dramatically increased my probability of going bust, as would keeping my bankroll the same and decreasing bankroll. Had I approached the exercise with a bankroll of £10, I would have gone bust in session 2 and it would have been all over. And remember, I was typically wagering 20p and only ever wagered as much as £4 a very few times.
Exactly. However, interjecting the term "probability" changes everything including EV and HA/HE simply because while larger bets can sometimes reap big rewards, they will also create larger losses or ROR more frequently. This is because the ODDS of winning any given individual bet favors the house most usually in excess of those meager HE percentages.
Again, I appreciate the conversation and education.
tuttigym
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: tuttigym
"Long term" is a vague canard aimed at discouraging the player
no
it is a term used by mathematicians and gambling experts such as the Wizard
they have no intention of discouraging anyone -
the use of the term reflects their intention to deliver a truthful presentation
these same experts will report that expert play at blackjack will cause a player to be a long run winner
this is from the Wizard's blackjack page on his Wizard of Odds site -
"with today's rules, a realistic advantage the counter will have is only 0.5% to 1.5%. Only in the 𝙇𝙊𝙉𝙂 𝙍𝙐𝙉, over hundreds of hours of playing, can you count on 𝙒𝙄𝙉𝙉𝙄𝙉𝙂."
.
link to original post
"gambling expert"? What is that? "hundreds of hours"? How many exactly? "Count on winning"? How much in relation to one's investment? BTW sign me up. I would pay for that Wizard guarantee. Would he make me whole should that guarantee go south?
Just because the Wizard uses the phrase: "long term" doesn't make it any less vague or real.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigym
"Long term" is a vague canard aimed at 𝘿𝙄𝙎𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝘼𝙂𝙄𝙉𝙂 the player
Just because the Wizard uses the phrase: "long term" doesn't make it any less vague or real.
"𝙂𝙖𝙢𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩"? 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩? "hundreds of hours"? How many exactly? "Count on winning"? How much in relation to one's investment? BTW sign me up. I would pay for that Wizard guarantee. Would he make me whole should that guarantee go south?
tuttigym
it may be vague and not real to you
but to a great many others here it's neither vague or unreal
it has a meaning which is accepted my many, both pros and recreational players
and once again, neither the Wizard or any other legit expert uses the term with the intention of 𝘿𝙄𝙎𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝘼𝙂𝙄𝙉𝙂 anyone
his goal, and the goal of other experts is to present the probabilities truthfully
you seem to question the Wizard's expertise
I don't and most others don't
this is my cue - I'm done - I'm ghosting from this discussion_________not worth my time
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: tuttigym
"Long term" is a vague canard aimed at 𝘿𝙄𝙎𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝘼𝙂𝙄𝙉𝙂 the player
Just because the Wizard uses the phrase: "long term" doesn't make it any less vague or real.
tuttigym
it may be vague and not real to you
but to a great many others here it's neither vague or unreal
it has a meaning which is accepted my many, both pros and recreational players
and once again, neither the Wizard or any other legit expert uses the term with the intention of 𝘿𝙄𝙎𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝘼𝙂𝙄𝙉𝙂 anyone
his goal, and the goal of other experts is to present the probabilities truthfully
.
link to original post
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
Quote:In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value and tends to become closer to the expected value as more trials are performed.
In the face of uncertainty and randomness, you cannot say how any specific event will turn out. Yet the LLN, assures you that your results will approach the expected value in the long run. Probability theory even allows you calculate how long the long run is for a given probability distribution function. People who understand probability theory have internalized all of this. The folks who don't learn this easily cannot be taught, apparently.
Kudos to OD for trying, though.
at the link the Wizard breaks down the Labouchere betting system
he simulated 6 billion sessions of baccarat
as you can see - with a goal of winning 10 units - and a bankroll of 500 units - a BR depth of 50 times the win goal -
the player will realize his goal 97.53% of the time
willing to risk 2500 units to win 10 units_________?__________the player will realize his goal 99.45% of the time
he will still of course lose the house edge in the long run
but what an amazing tease it is - easy to see how it is irresistible to many - but not to APs
from the link:
"The logic behind the Labouchere is that the player needs to only win 1/3 of the time (and not run out of money) for the system to work. Believers might say the Law of Large Numbers states that the more bets are made, the more the ratio of wins to bets will approach the expected ratio. While this is true, a bad string of losses can causes bets to increase quickly, sometimes exhausting the player's bankroll."
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/labouchere/#:~:text=The%20logic%20behind%20the%20Labouchere,will%20approach%20the%20expected%20ratio.
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
at the link the Wizard breaks down the Labouchere betting system
he simulated 6 billion sessions of baccarat
as you can see - with a goal of winning 10 units - and a bankroll of 500 units - a BR depth of 50 times the win goal -
the player will realize his goal 97.53% of the time
willing to risk 2500 units to win 10 units_________?__________the player will realize his goal 99.45% of the time
he will still of course lose the house edge in the long run
but what an amazing tease it is - easy to see how it is irresistible to many
from the link:
"The logic behind the Labouchere is that the player needs to only win 1/3 of the time (and not run out of money) for the system to work. Believers might say the Law of Large Numbers states that the more bets are made, the more the ratio of wins to bets will approach the expected ratio. While this is true, a bad string of losses can causes bets to increase quickly, sometimes exhausting the player's bankroll."
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/labouchere/#:~:text=The%20logic%20behind%20the%20Labouchere,will%20approach%20the%20expected%20ratio.
.
link to original post
Awesome observation LLR. Thanks for posting.
Labouchere's own game of choice was Roulette ( probably single zero) He designed his system around the 'Even Money' wagers.
Remarkably, If one approached the roulette table with 500 units and simply flat bet 1 unit, or if one attacked it with a full blown Martingale one would still achieve a 10 unit win goal over 90% of the time.
As per OnceDear's rule of thumb
Probability of success < 500/510 = 98% ( Which ignores house edge )
Certainly in the ball park of Wizard's 97.53% probability.
With a goal of winning 10 units - and a bankroll of 500 units, we just have to consider that alternate self that never gets 9 units ahead and crashes and burns and loses his entire 500 unit bankroll..... He could go and borrow 500 to try again, but before he can say he's 10 units ahead, he has to first win back the first lost 500
All the time, the Casino is laughing all the way to the bank. For every 33 versions of you that tried this win goal, one would lose enough money to pay out all the winners. And still the Casino would be happy with it's profits. Yes. Some days all 33 versions of you would win. But the casino would be down just 330 units. Other days, 2, 3, or even more versions of you would lose 500 each. One does not need a very 'long term' to see this pan out. Just 30 to 100 sessions would likely see the casino well ahead by the house edge and more, while many 'WannaBe's' got wiped out.
I suspect that the causality runs in the other direction. Folks are advantage players because they are not easily fooled by intuitively attractive betting systems.Quote: lilredrooster.
at the link the Wizard breaks down the Labouchere betting system
he simulated 6 billion sessions of baccarat
as you can see - with a goal of winning 10 units - and a bankroll of 500 units - a BR depth of 50 times the win goal -
the player will realize his goal 97.53% of the time
willing to risk 2500 units to win 10 units_________?__________the player will realize his goal 99.45% of the time
he will still of course lose the house edge in the long run
but what an amazing tease it is - easy to see how it is irresistible to many - but not to APs
link to original post
I aced an advanced course in probability in college and then aced statistical mechanics in grad school. I was a post doc when I placed my first bet ever during a science conference in Reno. On the way to the conference, a physics professor was trying to sell me on Martingale. I gave him the math lecture about why Martingale didn't affect the EV, but he just wanted to go back home from Reno with a winning session. He didn't want to become an AP -- he just wanted to have some fun and probably get bragging rights for winning a dollar in Reno.
Quote: Mental...he just wanted to go back home from Reno with a winning session. He didn't want to become an AP -- he just wanted to have some fun and probably get bragging rights for winning a dollar in Reno.
link to original post
That reminds me of a Works Day Out a few years ago. The company had met some good targets and as a treat, the management paid for us all to have a slap up meal and unlimited booze at 'A Day At The Races'. It was a famous racing event attended by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
We were dining in a Marquee just beside the track and for each race, some of us would step outside, place a modest bet of say £20, and then watch the race and return to the booze and food.
After every race, I'd go back in, with a big grin and flash an ever growing Wad of cash.
By the Time we got on the coach back home, I had pockets overflowing by a few £thousand in £10s and £20.
My Colleague was drunk and angry having lost the precious few hundred he came with.
.
.
.
It was many months before I revealed that I had gone to the event with £2,000 and had never placed a wager above £20. A few small wins and a few small losses. Insignificant. All he ever saw was me cheering on the winner, flashing my supposed winnings.
I could have sold him any old BS.
Sometimes the anecdote trumps the reality.
Quote: OnceDear
I could have sold him any old BS.
Sometimes the anecdote trumps the reality.
link to original post
The myth is sometimes more precious than the facts.
(If I didn't know better, I'd say you set out to troll your dear colleague, ever so gently.)
