Taking exception to this forum's "subtitle"

"All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own."

Hmmm...

I think a lot of us have a strong distaste for betting systems mostly because of the hucksters who try to pass them off as "winners".

But still, whether a betting system is "worthless" or not really depends on your definition of "worth," doesn't it? None of them can change the expected value of a game, but who's to say that EV is the only metric that's worthwhile?

For example, we all know that the Martingale doesn't really change one's expected loss in the long-run. All it really does is shift things around so that you have greater chance of winning a small amount, but at the expense of losing a whole lot more during those times you do loose. Well maybe that's a desirable approach for some people. Maybe the added excitement of those large bets increases the game's utility for a particular gambler. Who's to say?

Also, a discussion of betting systems is (as we have already seen) not just for the "mathematically challenged." In fact, sometimes exploring a betting system, regardless of that system's merits, can involve some very interesting mathematical problems. In any case, the best way to employ a betting system is with a mathematically-realistic concept of what it really does, which can take some skill to cultivate.

What do you guys think?

JJ

My thought is that from the Wizard's perspective, all betting systems ARE useless. He likely has heard them all and has been asked to test countless betting techniques and methods in an effort to beat the casino. His point rings true: none of them work.

I think that the attempt here is to make a forum where betting systems can be discussed but that the Wizard strongly believes that you can't overcome house advantage with betting systems at all. Talk about them all you want, but none of them can work.

The only *systems* that do work, over time, in my opinion, is taking advantage of a great count in Blackjack, seeing a sports bet that is an obvious example or can be demonstrated using trends, or by taking advantage of an offer or a temporary advantage (a million dollar payout on Carribean Stud, being able to buy an advantage bet in Craps (don't pass odds) or Blackjack (a double), or a video poker machine with a payout greater than 100%.

Quote: boymimbo

My thought is that from the Wizard's perspective, all betting systems ARE useless.

I wouldn't want to speak for the great and powerful ...

The following is MHO:

The product that the ordinary gambler purchases is a certain amount of volatility. The wrapper for that product is the specifi game: blackjack, craps, roulette, whatever. In craps you can take odds to increase volatility. In roulette you can play a bet straight up or play black/red to vary the volatility. Lucky Ladies on Blackjack is another example of variance coupling. Most good games have built in features that allow the player to vary the amount of variance they experience in real time. That's not the only way though to variance shop.

Most betting systems greatly increase volatility and therefore offer a way for the player to have the experience he wants at the tables. Given that the experience the player is after is *not* making a profit, betting systems are a great way for some to get the volatility experience the player wants at the tables. That's good. The market and the consumer meet at a product.

I agree with the utility argument.

Quote: boymimbo

My thought is that from the Wizard's perspective, all betting systems ARE useless. He likely has heard them all and has been asked to test countless betting techniques and methods in an effort to beat the casino. His point rings true: none of them work.

I think that the attempt here is to make a forum where betting systems can be discussed but that the Wizard strongly believes that you can't overcome house advantage with betting systems at all. Talk about them all you want, but none of them can work.

Again, that depends on how you define your terms.

Bettings systems do actually "work" at doing something, even if that something isn't reducing the house edge. Who's to say that what they do do has no inherent worth to any gambler, ever?


JJ

Yep, betting systems do work at parting money from one's wallet.

Actually, every single player at every casino uses a betting system whether they realize it or not. From pressing the maximum bet button at the slot machine to betting flat at the blackjack table to always martingaling, everyone has some sort of system. Even the Wizard himself probably uses a "betting system" (he might bet the same amount every time at Video Poker and does a counting strategy at Blackjack).

I think the Wizard is just putting the disclaimer that Betting Systems will not change the house advantage at the casino and that those claiming that they do are mathematically challenged - read any claims with a grain of salt. I don't think the Wizard wants to advocate the proliferation of betting systems (those that claim to make money) on his forums, given what he writes on the Wizard of Odds.

I think the problem is that when someone describes a "betting system" it is always presented as a way to gain an advantage over the casino. This is never true of course.

I think there are money management techniques that can help you accomplish certain things, like extending play time or maximizing the possibility of winning a certain amount. I don't consider these betting systems though, just money management techniques.

I agree,

We are all tired of the hucksters but probably of all the systems, the martingale is most likely used because of the excitement issue. It is incredible to see how much the casinos rake in. If I did have a system that won I would not mess my time with trying to sell it. I would give it away. The casinos are not going to change the payouts because a few people come in with a winning system there are thousands that would not use it. The only real luck I have had is working the probability curve.

Slim

I said in a different thread that the Martingale system is understandably tempting for the mathematically challenged. I really didn't intend that as an insult. I realize that the vast majority of gamblers (and society as a whole) can't analyze a betting system and determine if it's better or worse than any other. My point was that using a small amount of logic, it seems like a surefire way to win, but on careful inspection, it doesn't improve EV (just like all other betting systems).

I know that I have tried to convince several friends (many of whom I would consider to be very intelligent) that betting systems don't improve your EV, and that no system will guarantee a win. I'm guessing many of the other posters here have been in the same situation.

I fully agree that most gamblers are not to seeking to maximize EV. So betting systems can be useful. And I agree that everyone has to have some system to determine their bets--even if it is as simple as "bet the table minimum until I lose my $100 or get tired of playing".

I am a big proponent of matching up your goal (what you're trying to accomplish by gambling) with the betting system that gives you the best chance to achieve that goal.

Quote: JupiterJones

whether a betting system is "worthless" or not really depends on your definition of "worth," doesn't it? None of them can change the expected value of a game, but who's to say that EV is the only metric that's worthwhile?

I would agree that any system which imposes disciplined behavior can be said to have value. The system still results in a negative expectation but time at table might be maximized.

I think the term "worthless" was meant to indicate a sensible selling price of a system that touts itself as consistently producing wins.

Thanks for bringing some sanity to the issue.

As many of you seem to understand, I measure "worth" as the ratio of money won or lost to money bet. I define a "betting system" as a strategy that determines the bet amount by past wins or losses. I know that betting systems can help if the goal is to have more small wins at the expense of fewer, but bigger, losses, or vise versa. If your goal is to minimize variance, then flat betting is the way to go, which is what I do at games where the expected value is constant. Indeed, I claim that is no better or worse than the Martingale, or any other system, looking only at expected value.

The reason I'm cynical is I know thousands of people are duped by con men selling betting systems. The victims write to me all the time, asking me to issue a warning about particular salesmen or systems. Rather than list each culprit individually, I tell people to not spend a dime on any system.

If I continue to see the kind of intelligent remarks posted already, I'll consider changing the subtitle. When I wrote that I was in my usual jaded mood about betting systems.

It's kind of a joke where I work but when someone says they have a betting system we always agree, almost comically "oh yeah, that's a good system". Our favorite system is any one a player believes will work. Of course I work on the other side of the table.

A "winning" system dose not have to win all the time, just more often than not.

Quote: demson79

A "winning" system dose not have to win all the time, just more often than not.

A Martingale system works "more often than not" assuming a reasonable bankroll and quitting after one win, but I wouldn't consider it a "winning" system.

A winning system by my definition would have to improve EV, which (as has been previously discussed) is not possible in a negative EV game.

Yes. A winning system is one that on average will win money. With most games there is no system. The only ones that I know of are:

(1) counting cards at blackjack and knowing how to you adjust your play and bets based on the game and the count.

(2) Positive expectation video poker games with perfect play, or somewhat negative video poker games where your player's card brings the expectation into the positive.

(3) Sports betting where you can take advantage of trends that the casinos and sportsbooks do not take into account.

(4) Taking advantage of casino promotions, including bonus points, match play, that temporarily give you an advantage.

(5) (dubiously) Controlled shooting at craps where you can adjust your Sevens Rolled Ratio to about 16% or less (and change your betting appropriately).

>counting cards at blackjack and knowing how to you adjust your bets ...
I would add that one would also have to know how to avoid detection since paranoid casino floor or surveillance people might simply restrict your play. So it would have to be perfect memory and perfect acting skills all exercised despite distractions from floor person and waitresses.

>Positive expectation video poker games with perfect play, or somewhat negative video poker
I think the new M-resort started out that way and then wised up. VP machines may be getting hogged by a few but overall, I doubt the machines are really disgorging in the positive expectation range.

>Sports betting where you can take advantage
Sure, but how often do KNOW of some event and KNOW that the odds have not already moved?

>(dubiously) Controlled shooting at craps
Here, far too many people try to sell seminars. If it worked, all those seminar-sellers would be making a mint at the tables rather than selling seminars.

I like the wizard and his site, but the subtitle sounds pretty stuck up, and he's not telling the whole story.

Obviously, the wizard himself and all of us know the house has the advantage - period - and that's all there is to it. However, the reason he made this site and the reason why we are interested is because we enjoy playing the games. So betting systems should really be called betting strategies (to walk away ahead in the short run hopefully). Some of us want to win even money bets while some want to do 'long shots' There may be 'strategies' that make us feel good such as pressing methods etc. in order to win and be able to walk away in the short run. Obviously, betting the same unit over and over in blackjack isn't really going to do anything for anyone after a 2 hour session. So instead, any clever methods of pressing, etc. may be fun to read and try - but of course should never be deemed as a 'full proof winning method.' But instead, fun stuff to try in the short run.

PianoKing -

I think, for the most part, we're all on board with what you're saying, and even agree with the Wiz that all systems are worthless.

The Wiz put that subtitle up there, simply because, in his profession, he's heard them all. People tend to seek him out to tell him about their fantasic "Can't miss" system.


But we all continue to seek out a better system.


Heck, even on the Craps Hardways System that I put up (and you commented on), my first sentence was "Yes, I know what you're going to say, and yes, I agree that all systems have their flaws."

Maybe you're right that it was too judgmental. People write to me all the time, claiming they have a system to beat games like roulette, and ask me to do a random simulation to prove it. Through the years, the topic has become a sore subject with me, to say the least. However, I know some players use them with a healthy respect that in the long run, all systems fail. So I asked my webmaster to change the subtitle.

...and it has now been changed.

Quote: JB

...and it has now been changed.

"Warning: Betting systems can't decrease the house edge."

How about:

"Warning: Betting systems can't change the house edge."

After all, they can't increase the house edge either.

Nitpickingly yours,

--Dorothy

Quote: DorothyGale

Quote: JB

...and it has now been changed.

"Warning: Betting systems can't decrease the house edge."

How about:

"Warning: Betting systems can't change the house edge."

After all, they can't increase the house edge either.

Nitpickingly yours,

--Dorothy

Wow, so picky, but once again I completely agree with Dorothy's wisdom.

Betting systems are not worthless to casinos. The belief in them has made them billions. But how many people don't play at the highest expected value. My friend always draws to inside straights in video poker because she considers it a challenge. She gives me grief and calls me a wimp for playing it safe.
---------
Betting systems are based on the belief that you can control the uncontrollable. The concept is fundamental to the human psyche. They also give people a thrill. As unrational as it would be, I probably would join the crowd in betting on a craps player who was setting a record number of throws. I feel more in control when I hold the dice then when I am betting on someone else. Since gaming is fundamentally a stupid pastime, if it wasn't for the illogical thinking no one would do it.