WatchMeWin's craps betting system

if blue jay is out there listening.... how many live craps sessions would it take for you to put your money up ? Meaning, If I told you I would consistantly win in real life craps (we will talk winning %'s later), how many actual live craps sessions in a casino would be enough to satisfy your doubt that someone can consistantly win? 10? 20? 50? 100? 200? 1000? 200,000? I would go up to 20x. Any amount after that would take to long.

I'm sure Bluejay will go for that. Just as long as the 20 sessions contain the 1 billion decisions that are required for the test...

So lemme get this straight:

You have a system that you say is basically printing money and you need an investor?

What am I missing here?

I think I am going to summarize the next 100 posts here. Watchmewin will keep saying he can win by piling up a bunch of bets, each one more likely to lose than win. The regulars will try over and over to explain why it won't work. The regulars will ask for his 'system' He will give it. A regular will do some simulations, and show that the system will fail. WatchmeWin will say that 'in real life' his system works, he has played it for years and of course is a big winner. Someone will tell him, if he is telling the truth, that he is just on the extreme edge of variance, and that if he keeps playing that way he will likely lose eventually. He won't belive you. I am ready for the show, though. Let's keep it civil.

This is a bit of a thread jack from 97steps original investment thread... best peel off a new one, WatchMeWin :)

[I moved this discussion to a new thread. -Mod.]

I wonder if part of the system is in German :P

Im not looking for an investor at all... dont need one. I simply love the challenge.

JL sockpuppet?

Watch- are you from Phoenix?

Wait. In your other post you say you don't consistently win. I'm confused or you are. At least one of us is.

Quote: WatchMeWin

if blue jay is out there listening.... how many live craps sessions would it take for you to put your money up ? Meaning, If I told you I would consistantly win in real life craps (we will talk winning %'s later), how many actual live craps sessions in a casino would be enough to satisfy your doubt that someone can consistantly win? 10? 20? 50? 100? 200? 1000? 200,000? I would go up to 20x. Any amount after that would take to long.

WatchMeWin, given that you didn't define any of your terms (especially "consistently win" and "session"), your question is impossible to answer. I also don't know what you mean by "I would go up to 20x". 20x of what? Your starting bankroll? If so, then what do you need my challenge for? Just take $1500 to a casino and 20x it to $30,000.

In any event, I went ahead and added the terms for a Live Betting System Challenge to my betting system challenge page. Here are the new rules as they now stand, though since they're brand new I might wind up tweaking them.

Quote:

Live Betting System Challenge
Challenge is the same as the computer-simulated 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 between $1000 to $30,000, with a minimum of $50 per hour of play (including time you spend at the table not betting while waiting for "streaks" or other conditions).

(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).

Basically, someone wins if they can win at least about $15 an hour starting with at least $500. This is generous, since every system seller I'm aware of claims that their customers win lots more and need less starting capital (if a starting bankroll is even mentioned at all).

Incidentally, the chances of winning this challenge over 1000 rounds by flat-betting the pass line in craps is 1.1%.

How do these people end up here and not expect to be told they are;

a) deluded
b) liars
c) a little bit of (a) and (b)

Quote: WizardofEngland

How do these people end up here and not expect to be told they are;

d) frauds

The new rules intuitively sound beatable. How do you define "rounds to wager on"? And you're basically saying that if I start with $500 and end with $800, I've beaten the challenge?

Quote: MathExtremist

That intuitively sounds beatable. How do you define "rounds to wager on"?

As it says in the rules, a round is an event where any bet is resolved. The first line above says that the live challenge is the same as the computer-simulated challenge, with some mods, and there's a link straight back to the challenge page in my post.

Quote: MathExtremist

And you're basically saying that if I start with $500 and end with $800, I've beaten the challenge?

Absolutely not. The actual rules I posted are much more specific.

Does it need to be at least +15 for every sequence of 50 rolls, or just averaging that win rate overall?

Yet again, clearly spelled out in the rules.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Yet again, clearly spelled out in the rules.

Actually, it's not clear to me either. The word on average doesn't make what you mean clear, and I also had the same question as ME when reading them.

Here's what it says: "You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average."

If it's not exceptionally clear by saying "on average" that I mean "on average", then how exactly do you suggest I word the sentence to make it so?

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here's what it says: "You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average.

If it's not exceptionally clear by saying "on average" that I mean "on average", then how exactly do you suggest I word the sentence to make it so?

do you mean to say $15 for every $50 ?

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here's what it says: "You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average.

If it's not exceptionally clear by saying "on average" that I mean "on average", then how exactly do you suggest I word the sentence to make it so?

do you mean to say $15 for every $50 ?

I dont want to answer for him but, I think the rules state. You must bet at least $50 per hour.( I think this is so the test doesn't take 10 days to complete lol) There has to be 1000 bets resolved and you must average a $15 profit for every 50 bets resolved. So basically you need to average at least a $15 profit for 20 straight 50 bet resolved, betting "sessions".

Although I could also be reading the rules totally wrong

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here's what it says: "You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average.

Quote: OdiousGambit

do you mean to say $15 for every $50 ?

No, I meant exactly what I said: $15 for every 50 rounds played, on average.

Quote: vert1276

I dont want to answer for him but, I think the rules state. You must bet at least $50 per hour.

No. That is not what the rules state. The wager between me and the challenger is for a minimum of $50 per hour of play.

Why say "on average" at all? If seems to be confusing some pretty intelligent people, which bode well for what it'll do to the minds of the system proponents who'll take the challenge. It looks like all you mean is that the total win must exceed $15 per 50 rounds played. Maybe we can define an additional term? Let 50 rounds = 1 flight. The challenger wins when: total win >($15 * number of flights)

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here's what it says: "You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 for every 50 rounds, on average.

If it's not exceptionally clear by saying "on average" that I mean "on average", then how exactly do you suggest I word the sentence to make it so?

I know what "on average" means, I just don't know what you're applying it to. Do you apply "on average" to
(a) the entire 1000-round trial in aggregate, or
(b) each clump of 50 rounds individually?

I buy in for $500 and agree to play 1000 rounds. Suppose I alternate win/loss of $1 for 998 rounds, then lose $1, then win $301 on the final round. I have won $300 over 1000 rounds and now have $800, which is an average of +$15 per 50 rounds. Do I pass?

If not, I submit that your wording needs to reflect that you're not so much interested in a single trial of 2*bankroll but 20 smaller trials of bankroll/10, each of which must be profitable at the rate you require.

I normally don't like to comment on these challenge things, because I don't quite understand them. However, I would just say at this point that while I found that the original set of challenge rules seemed rather straight forward to me, it's obvious that other people don't seem to think so. The problem I see with that is that other people, those who would take you up on the challenge, will probably use these vague misunderstandings of the rule to try to get around them.

Anyway, I think simplifying things would be easier. For example, the person can choose the number of rounds between 1,000 and 10,000. I would argue that you should limit this to multiples of 1,000. Just to make things easier.

Then it becomes easier to state that the person must show a profit of $300 per 1,000 rounds at the end of all rounds played.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if not then it seems to me that for whatever reason you're not understanding plain English.

Of *course* "on average" applies to the entire trial. If I meant that *each* clump of 50 rounds had to be profitable, without averaging, then I wouldn't have added the words "on average". It's the addition of the words "on average" that tells the reader, clearly, that I'm not talking about *each* clump of 50 rounds in isolation of everything else.

Nevertheless, the other posters are right: I need to make the wording even clearer. While I was rewording I realized that I could improve the terms: Requiring $15 per 50 rounds on average isn't the best criterion, it's best to be direct and say $15 per *hour*, since the whole point is that the challenger should have to show that their system is practical, and the best way to do that is by showing that it can reliably produce $x per hour. With that in mind, here's my rewording for the various items in question.

Quote:

Revised items

(2) You will choose the number of rounds to wager on in the casino before we begin (1000 to 10,000 rounds).

(3) The challenge is an even-money bet between you and me (not 10-1 odds). The amount wagered between you and me is any amount you choose, between $1000 to $30,000, with a minimum of $50 per hour of play (including time you spend at the table not betting while waiting for "streaks" or other conditions). Yes, you won't know the exact number of hours you'll be playing in the casino to finish your X number of rounds, so you should estimate well to make sure you meet the minimum challenge wager. Roulette, craps, and baccarat are typically played at around 40, 50, and 70 rounds per hour respectively, but if you're waiting for streaks or other conditions then your play will be slower.

(6) You win if you achieve a profit of at least $15 an hour on average. (Win must be ≥ total hours played X $15.)

Incidentally, here's how a challenger would fare under various scenarios, betting on the Pass Line in craps.

* 18% chance of winning -- Bet 1/2 each time until 150% of starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $15 per 50 rounds
* 39% chance of winning -- Bet 1/2 each time until double the starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $15 per 50 rounds
* 31% chance of winning -- Bet 1/2 each time until 250% of starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $15 per 50 rounds

* 35% chance of winning -- Bet 1/2 each time until double the starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $20 per 50 rounds
* 38% chance of winning -- Bet 1/3 each time until double the starting bankroll, then bet the table min; must win $15 per 50 rounds

That's a little too high for comfort, but I'm not sure the best way to increase the chances that a losing system will lose the challenge. I'm loathe to increase the win requirement above $15 or $20 an hour, and going from $15 to $20 results in only a negligible difference anyway. Perhaps granting a starting bankroll of only 1/3 the number of rounds (rather than 1/2) is the way to go...

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Maybe I'm missing something, but if not then it seems to me that for whatever reason you're not understanding plain English.

Of *course* "on average" applies to the entire trial. If I meant that *each* clump of 50 rounds had to be profitable, without averaging, then I wouldn't have added the words "on average". It's the addition of the words "on average" that tells the reader, clearly, that I'm not talking about *each* clump of 50 rounds in isolation of everything else.

That's what I thought at first, but when I asked yesterday whether it was sufficient to win $300 (start with $500, end with $800) over the course of the trial, you said no. At that point, I was at a loss as to what the other requirements were. I still don't know, but the change of rules seems to make it moot.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's what I thought at first, but when I asked yesterday whether it was sufficient to win $300 (start with $500, end with $800) over the course of the trial, you said no. At that point, I was at a loss as to what the other requirements were. I still don't know, but the change of rules seems to make it moot.

The words "on average" also caught me for the exact same reason. Your question seemed reasonable but when it was shot down (with no further explanation why_ I was also not sure why it would not have been appropriate. If you make 1000 bets and end up $300 up, then you've met the terms and condition of the bet as describe originally.

In the original rules, the term "on average" for me is unnecessary.

Okay, I see where we went wrong. When you asked if a $300 win was sufficient with a starting bankroll of $500, I thought "No, because the requirement is $15 per 50 rounds of play, and we don't know how many rounds because the challenger chooses the number of rounds beforehand." But actually we *do* know the number of rounds, because the starting bankroll is determined by the number of rounds. If we started with $500, then there were necessarily 1000 rounds, meaning the required win had to be at least 1000 ÷ 50 x $15 = $300. So this was my error and I apologize. In any event, I hope the new rules are easier to understand.

So how come this never happened, this challenge. We have a 6 year record of wins according to the poster. SOOPOO if you read this, why would you ask if WMW is from Phoenix?

we need a "hit and run" challenge

is it not true that any win goal whatsoever, if stated in advance, can not create player advantage?

I like OnceDear's criteria, which is either double your money or lose that starting bankroll. But it could be something else as a criteria.

If WMW is willing to take on a challenge, yes, why hasn't it happened?

Quote: odiousgambit

we need a "hit and run" challenge

is it not true that any win goal whatsoever, if stated in advance, can not create player advantage?

I like OnceDear's criteria, which is either double your money or lose that starting bankroll. But it could be something else as a criteria.

If WMW is willing to take on a challenge, yes, why hasn't it happened?

I'd be up for a light hearted wager. Pretty much any wager, so long as I don't have to play craps or baccarat $:o)

Hit and run session betting can be fun. Only this last week, I had several hit and run sessions where I made nice pocket money. Same last weekend.

But they neither add nor detract from a player's probability of turning bankroll X into bankroll Y.

Quote: odiousgambit

we need a "hit and run" challenge

I predict that WatchMeWin won't subject himself to any meaningful challenge where we might reasonably expect to WatchHimLose.

If you read the thread you will notice "WatchMeWin" never replied again in the thread after Michael Bluejay replied. He went awal

Quote: OnceDear

I'd be up for a light hearted wager. Pretty much any wager, so long as I don't have to play craps or baccarat $:o)

Hit and run session betting can be fun. Only this last week, I had several hit and run sessions where I made nice pocket money. Same last weekend.

But they neither add nor detract from a player's probability of turning bankroll X into bankroll Y.

Good job mate! Im sure you know that if you hadnt hit n run you wld have lost by end of trip. You r learning! Im proud of you!

Im absolutely up for a challenge. Ill be back in vegas in feb/march... or atlantic city anytime.

Ill disclose terms at later time. Got to catch train now.

Quote: WatchMeWin

Good job mate! Im sure you know that if you hadnt hit n run you wld have lost by end of trip. You r learning! Im proud of you!

Or he could have won more. Or stayed about the same. One of those three things definitely would have happened.


ZCore13

Quote: MichaelBluejay

WatchMeWin, given that you didn't define any of your terms (especially "consistently win" and "session"), your question is impossible to answer. I also don't know what you mean by "I would go up to 20x". 20x of what? Your starting bankroll? If so, then what do you need my challenge for? Just take $1500 to a casino and 20x it to $30,000.

In any event, I went ahead and added the terms for a Live Betting System Challenge to my betting system challenge page. Here are the new rules as they now stand, though since they're brand new I might wind up tweaking them.

Quote:

Live Betting System Challenge
Challenge is the same as the computer-simulated 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 between $1000 to $30,000, with a minimum of $50 per hour of play (including time you spend at the table not betting while waiting for "streaks" or other conditions).

(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).

Basically, someone wins if they can win at least about $15 an hour starting with at least $500. This is generous, since every system seller I'm aware of claims that their customers win lots more and need less starting capital (if a starting bankroll is even mentioned at all).

Incidentally, the chances of winning this challenge over 1000 rounds by flat-betting the pass line in craps is 1.1%.

There is only one way and only one way to prove a system challenge and if you have to use any kind of simulation software or free online game to prove it,
FORGET ABOUT IT!
The only way to prove a 100% legitimate consistent system in any challenge is to SHOW THEM THE MONEY!
Show them a real online casino with more than a $250,000 real money account balance from a $500.00 buy in with proof of an original deposit and that's plenty enough to prove your system works. so SHOW THEM THE MONEY.
Besides, who the heck cares about a 30k challenge anyway. they just gonna take your system and use it at the casino for themselves to make the bigger bucks.

$15.00/hr are you kidding me. I know regular casino gamblers averaging more than $300/hr why do you guys even waste your time.

Quote:

they just gonna take your system and use it at the casino for themselves to make the bigger bucks.

IIRC he addresses this in his challenge rules. I don't remember exactly what he said but it sounded as if this shouldn't be a concern.

If people are making money off their craps system and they are concerned other might find out or whatever, why the hell are they posting about their system anyway?

I'm just curiouse why all the surveillance guys are not swimming in money? You would think they would notice WMW (or whoever)always leaving a winner and replicate the system on their own.

I said it before and I'll say it again. How much have you won and how many hours have you played? If you're not logging it down, you're just another 'gambler' who is blinded by selective memory of short term wins who disregards any of the losses and then tells himself he's a winner.

Quote: OnceDear

I predict that WatchMeWin won't subject himself to any meaningful challenge where we might reasonably expect to WatchHimLose.

Many highly educated WoV members offer themselves as "completely uninvolved, unbiased (ha!) observers" capable of accurately reporting the success or failure of a craps player's ability to win money at a craps table. Even if these "observers" could perform in such a capacity, there remains a major problem.

As well-trained researchers know, the Observer Effect virtually guarantees the act of observing affects the outcome, even for inanimate phenomena. For the clueless, here is a reasonably scholarly, readable example. If you observe, you affect the process, regardless of whether the observer is a person or a machine.

But, how do such observers affect the process? Just as a mean-spirited Mr. Ugly spewing swear-words after every roll by another shooter that does not win for Mr. Ugly can pollute the table energy, so also can the so-called "unbiased observer." Their mental self-talk ("Four points in as row? What's going on here?? Longest roll by anyone at the table in over an hour??? Where's the seven? How lucky can someone get? Etc.), though unspoken, cannot be assumed to have no effect. In fact, those who study observer effect and how it occurs understand it cannot help but have an effect. And, because the "unbiased observer" is not unbiased, their energy detracts from the success of the craps shooter being tested.

I tip the Dealers. I do it because I want them in the game and on my side. I want their positive energy, and my tips help to cultivate it. Similarly, I expect Laymedown's surprise bets on behalf of a shooter also enhance overall table energy. But, energy is delicate. When Mr. Whale shows up with a boatload of money, saying, "Watch this, everyone! I'll show you numbskulls how to roll," his "all about me" selfish energy can torpedo good energy at a craps table. Same for Mr. Ugly. Those who play craps have seen this, even if they do not associate it with table energy. (On a really Hot table, they may sometimes feel THAT table energy, however they describe that feeling.)

If anyone wants to judge whether another WoV member can win at craps, please suggest a double-blind experiment where data collected during the "performance" is analyzed only after the test is completed. if I may be so bold, please allow me...

If there is no such thing as positive or negative table energy that some claim an ability to sense and/or affect, then, let the shooter being tested have a table with eight or ten others who also share the same views about table energy. Provide a competent crew that isn't consumed by their own personal, job, or financial problems, so they can minimize negative energy they bring to the table. Have surveillance record (but not observe) all the play using only one or two overhead cameras, and provide those DVDs for later analysis. Since so many -- from the Wizard on down -- apparently believe such energy does not exist, they should have no problem with such a test environment.

After all, this is for science, right? Or, is it just for bragging rights and the opportunity to say, "After a trillion rolls, my simulation proves you lose"? Hmmm?

Quote: LuckyPhow

Quote: OnceDear

I predict that WatchMeWin won't subject himself to any meaningful challenge where we might reasonably expect to WatchHimLose.

Many highly educated WoV members offer themselves as "completely uninvolved, unbiased (ha!) observers" capable of accurately reporting the success or failure of a craps player's ability to win money at a craps table. Even if these "observers" could perform in such a capacity, there remains a major problem.

As well-trained researchers know, the Observer Effect virtually guarantees the act of observing affects the outcome, even for inanimate phenomena. For the clueless, here is a reasonably scholarly, readable example. If you observe, you affect the process, regardless of whether the observer is a person or a machine.

But, how do such observers affect the process? Just as a mean-spirited Mr. Ugly spewing swear-words after every roll by another shooter that does not win for Mr. Ugly can pollute the table energy, so also can the so-called "unbiased observer." Their mental self-talk ("Four points in as row? What's going on here?? Longest roll by anyone at the table in over an hour??? Where's the seven? How lucky can someone get? Etc.), though unspoken, cannot be assumed to have no effect. In fact, those who study observer effect and how it occurs understand it cannot help but have an effect. And, because the "unbiased observer" is not unbiased, their energy detracts from the success of the craps shooter being tested.

I tip the Dealers. I do it because I want them in the game and on my side. I want their positive energy, and my tips help to cultivate it. Similarly, I expect Laymedown's surprise bets on behalf of a shooter also enhance overall table energy. But, energy is delicate. When Mr. Whale shows up with a boatload of money, saying, "Watch this, everyone! I'll show you numbskulls how to roll," his "all about me" selfish energy can torpedo good energy at a craps table. Same for Mr. Ugly. Those who play craps have seen this, even if they do not associate it with table energy. (On a really Hot table, they may sometimes feel THAT table energy, however they describe that feeling.)

If anyone wants to judge whether another WoV member can win at craps, please suggest a double-blind experiment where data collected during the "performance" is analyzed only after the test is completed. if I may be so bold, please allow me...

If there is no such thing as positive or negative table energy that some claim an ability to sense and/or affect, then, let the shooter being tested have a table with eight or ten others who also share the same views about table energy. Provide a competent crew that isn't consumed by their own personal, job, or financial problems, so they can minimize negative energy they bring to the table. Have surveillance record (but not observe) all the play using only one or two overhead cameras, and provide those DVDs for later analysis. Since so many -- from the Wizard on down -- apparently believe such energy does not exist, they should have no problem with such a test environment.

After all, this is for science, right? Or, is it just for bragging rights and the opportunity to say, "After a trillion rolls, my simulation proves you lose"? Hmmm?

Hogwash! Craps shooters are being observed all the time. Other players, table staff, surveillance. And you really think that affects anything?

Some people do things better when being observed. I would venture to say Michael Jordan was better in a big moment being observed by millios then on a playground alone.

Saying being observed can or will throw off the results is a cop out. Easy to say, but everyone who knows about physics and mathematics knows nobody can roll any better than anybody else.


ZCore13

I make no observation or judgement of LuckyPhow.
However, if what he wrote was meant to be humourous or sarcastic or tongue in cheek, I completely miss the joke.
If it was meant to be at all serious or was meant to invite critical discussion or analysis, then I bring this 'negative energy' to the topic.

BS. Total BS. And I don't mean basic strategy.

Quote: OnceDear

I bring this 'negative energy' to the topic.

Line forms to the left of the cashier window... And, good luck positive variance in your gaming adventures.

delete

Quote: Zcore13

everyone who knows about physics and mathematics knows nobody can roll any better than anybody else.
ZCore13

Wow! There you have it. Replication is not possible.

Quote: DeMango

Wow! There you have it. Replication is not possible.

Right. Not on a craps table and not intentionally. Just having the arm swing off .000000000001th of an inch will give different results.

DI/DC is a scam!

Someone should build a dice-throwing robot...and a camera with some computer vision to record the results automatically...

Quote: AcesAndEights

Someone should build a dice-throwing robot...and a camera with some computer vision to record the results automatically...

How many times has this been asked? Or similar.....

Quote: DeMango

How many times has this been asked? Or similar.....

It's a joke because ex-forum member Ahigh did exactly this, using his in-home craps table. If I remember correctly, he wasn't able to show any bias using his dice-throwing robot. But I don't recall how big his sample size got.

The YouTube videos are probably still out there.