All mathmatical systems will beat any crap, roulette or other similar game

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

I wasn't mocking you. I was mocking you mocking other people with your choice of words. Like calling people hotshot, and rookie, and coolbreeze. Grow up and quit the name calling, and I won't mock you.

(lol, under 26, I knew it) How about you grow up and lay off with the personal ATTACKS? While you're at it, quit mocking other members, its not appreciated sir.

Ken

Because inferring someone's age isn't a personal attack. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe you. But have a good night anyways.

Quote: Ken

While you're at it, quit mocking other members, its not appreciated sir.

Are you talking to yourself? You were the one mocking other people. Who else am I mocking now other than you?

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

Because inferring someone's age isn't a personal attack. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe you. But have a good night anyways.


Are you talking to yourself? You were the one mocking other people. Who else am I mocking now other than you?

You did not MOCK me on this thread? Do I have to copy/paste it again? 26? 36? 46? 56?, whatever but I'll bet I'm right, under 26 (lol).

I can tell.

Ken

I was mocking you mocking other people, like I said. But you said "other members". I don't remember talking to anyone but you.

What is this number series 26,36,46,56 mean??

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

I was mocking you mocking other people, like I said. But you said "other members". I don't remember talking to anyone but you.

What is this number series 26,36,46,56 mean??

Meaning, I was trying to guess your age. I'm sticking with under 26.

Look out FleaStiff....4,239? Big deal, here I come.

Ken

I'm actually over 26, but I don't see how that has to do with anything. Gotta go. Have a good night.

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

I'm actually over 26, but I don't see how that has to do with anything. Gotta go. Have a good night.

Can you stick around a bit longer? I'm shooting for 1,200 tonight.


Ken

Quote: Whiskeyjack

How, it's simple,

The truth is if you play by the fixed rules of the game as set out you must win with a system. Why is that not possible, because casinos change the rules. Ie there is no rule in craps that sets a house limit. That is a house rule not part of the game of craps. If it were a fixed rule all house limits would be equal. They are not, so they can not be fixed rules of the game.

To be correct in saying no system will work you must use the added on non-fixed modifyed rules. Take away those rules and the "system" can't loose.

Ok, let's look at the Martingale as it's a common system and we'll give it the benefit of an unlimited bankroll and no table limits.

The first question is, does it change the house edge? No. Picture our sample no-limit roulette casino. Every 8 hours they close their shift and tally up their win/loss. If you freeze the table at any given point in time, the win percentage of bets placed (not hold) will, on average, equal 2.7% for a single-zero wheel. As an example of this I made a spreadsheet assuming a 0% edge fair coin-toss game paid 1:1. I listed all 1024 possible combinations of 10 decisions and what the Martingale's win/loss was at the end of the 10 flips along with a flat bettor. The average win/loss at the end of the 10 flips for the flat bettor is $0, no win or loss. The average win/loss for the Martingale player is....$0, no win or loss. This will be just as true over 1,000 or 1,000,000 flips as it is over 10 flips. The house edge is the house edge.

Here's the spreadsheet link again:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjcDN05p54kpdGZjNkNjZXZ0ZTh1SGgwZXdRV3dNRXc

Now that alone doesn't prove that the Martingale isn't a winning system (actually it does, but I'll play along). A systems bettor will point out that the losing Martingale players will just continue to double up on this no-limit table until they win. However, if we're testing infinites then I get an infinite number of Martingale players. One of those (remember, infinite) players will not win a flip for the rest of their natural life. His current loss at the moment he makes his life's last bet will make up for the winners at that point in time, bringing the house edge back to 0%.

Even if we don't worry about the state of the win/loss at a given point in time let's deal with a practical matter. If you continue the Martingale long enough or have enough bettors there will eventually be a loss streak of 43 consecutive flips. The next bet required to win $1 is $8,796,093,020,000. This is more money than currently exists in the US by about 400 billion (http://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world.htm). Even if the bettor has an infinite bankroll the casino won't be able to pay that out so that's a fairly hard cap.

Getting closer to reality let's assume every Martingale player has a net worth near the median of the average American (very roughly $250,000) and decides to liquify all of it to play our even money coin flip game. It will only take 18 losses before he no longer able to place his next bet ($262,144). That number of losses should happen about once per 262,144 flips (go figure). If our sample player plays 8 hours a day, 5 days a week on a 40 flip/hour game so he can scrape by on what would basically be a grocery cashier's wage, he would expect to need to place that $262,144 bet once every 163 weeks (call it three years). Sure, his winnings up to that point might cover his next bet, but then once in 6 years he'll need double that and once in 12 years he'll need over a million dollars, etc.

Show me a different system and I'll show you similar problems.

Mrjjjj: I have a serious, non-troll question for you. I'm not trying to put you on the defensive, with respect, I'm just honestly curious why you think you can change the house edge on a game of independent trials. Do you have an example?

Quote: mrjjj

@Ibeatyouraces >> Still waiting for your answer.

@WongBo >> Still waiting for your answer.

@s2dbaker >> If you so choose, you can re-ask me those two questions, in under 300 sentences please, thanks man.

Ken

Not to worry, I am still waiting for the answer to MY question, MrJJJ.

I'll repeat it for the third time :

Do you or do you not believe that previous spins of a casino wheel help you tell what the next results will be? Not gurantee, but help.

Yes or No will do but you can explain further if you so wish.

Quote: thecesspit

Do you or do you not believe that previous spins of a casino wheel help you tell what the next results will be? .

Of course he does, he just said he tracks the last 60
spins to figure what the next bet is.

deleted

deleted

deleted

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I dont need to prove squat. Damn near everyone here KNOWS 3cp can be beaten and roulette cant.

Actually YES you do, same rule for everyone!!.....WAITING

Ken

Quote: EvenBob

Of course he does, he just said he tracks the last 60
spins to figure what the next bet is.

And 'they' know that if 'they' read most of the posts. As usual, I have to REPEAT myself.

Ken

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I answered. Unlike you, I am at the casino anywhere from 10-20 hours a day making money with the advantages I have. I dont spend all day at home on the computer.

A) I dont spend all day at the computer.

B) Answering is NOT the same as showing PROOF, waiting!

C) Advantages? You keep telling yourself that man. Hey, its not a lie if you believe it. (lol)

Ken

Quote: thecesspit

Not to worry, I am still waiting for the answer to MY question, MrJJJ.

I'll repeat it for the third time :

Do you or do you not believe that previous spins of a casino wheel help you tell what the next results will be? Not gurantee, but help.

Yes or No will do but you can explain further if you so wish.

Let me guess, you'll ask me this AGAIN in two months. You chose the CORRECT word...'help'.

Also, when you say, 'next results'.....that does not mean the NEXT spin, lets not confuse the two. I have NEVER heard of a method player say, they know what the NEXT outcome will be.

"Do you or do you not believe that previous spins of a casino wheel help you" >>> Absolutley 100% !!!!! I'll tell you who I'm not......you asked me a tough question, then I get all nervous and wonder....OMG, what will they say when I post this !?!?!? Oh s**t, now I'm fu***d big time!! I should not of said that, they'll be all over me for that one.

(Laughing my mother fu***n ass off)

Wrong guy, thats not me.

Ken

"I'm just honestly curious why you think you can change the house edge on a game of independent trials" >>> Change? Who's out to change the H.E.? What casino game do you play PopCan? Scratch that, you're an advantage player of course. It must be a nice convenient cover story for alot of the people here, they dont have to show PROOF of kicking a** because they are into AP (cough), they dont have any sort of H.E. against them because they are into AP (cough). At least I have the nuts to post what I do despite the ATTACKS.......and I still post.

Ken

I'll have to agree with Ken here. How can you "beat" 3CP........?

Yep, I post my hometown, what I play (and its 5.26%), the casino I play at, my age, most already know my LAST name, my email address is posted, I do NOT HIDE at other forums....my user names are known thats its ME. I dont PRETEND to be some new guy on the scene and I have never had FAKE user names. What you see is what you get. Dont be haters if I do 'well', I won't apologize for it, never have and never will. Put HUNDREDS of hours into this game and then talk.

9 hours? (lol) Those are my judges?

Ken

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

I'll have to agree with Ken here. How can you "beat" 3CP........?

I dont even care about that part. I just want some consistency....if I have to show PROOF of doing well, then so does EVERYBODY else, same RULE for all.

Ken

To sum it up:

-A few people believe that a martingale will beat a casino. Mathematically, that's been proven wrong on another thread. For me, martingaling's risk just isn't worth the reward.

-One person claims to beat 3CP via cheating. (Holecarding is cheating -- if the casino catches you, they will 86 you, and if you're colluding with the employee who's holecarding, the employee will be canned and you might be charged with a crime).

-Another person mysteriously beats roulette by betting a few numbers based on numbers already hit. For that to happen long term however, the wheel must be biased. If the wheel is not biased, then every single outcome must be random and it would only be by very good luck that roulette could be beaten long term.

"Another person mysteriously beats roulette by betting a few numbers based on numbers already hit" >>> A bit vague but okay.

Ken

Quote: boymimbo

To sum it up:

-A few people believe that a martingale will beat a casino. Mathematically, that's been proven wrong on another thread. For me, martingaling's risk just isn't worth the reward.

The risk is very high for not really that great of a reward (oh yay I just barely broke even).

Quote:

-One person claims to beat 3CP via cheating.

That's just stupid.

Quote:

Another person mysteriously beats roulette by betting a few numbers based on numbers already hit. For that to happen long term however, the wheel must be biased. If the wheel is not biased, then every single outcome must be random and it would only be by very good luck that roulette could be beaten long term.

This is true. If you are using any type of past history betting, and somehow have a "system" the wheel is messed. Muck it up. Try the same system on a Vegas wheel.....or God forbid.....online.

"This is true. If you are using any type of past history betting, and somehow have a "system" the wheel is messed. Muck it up. Try the same system on a Vegas wheel.....or God forbid.....online" >>> Said the guy who has put in 9 total hours. (lol)

I never play on-line. We have 6 wheels here and airball. I dont play systems, I play methods.

Ken

Quote: mrjjj

"This is true. If you are using any type of past history betting, and somehow have a "system" the wheel is messed. Muck it up. Try the same system on a Vegas wheel.....or God forbid.....online" >>> Said the guy who has put in 9 total hours. (lol)

I never play on-line. We have 6 wheels here and airball. I dont play systems, I play methods.

First of all. Where do you get these made up numbers (9 hours)?? Second. You clearly wouldn't play online, you couldn't use your biased wheel to gain an advantage. :)

And thirdly. Why does your signature say AP is stupid, when you yourself, technically, are an advantage player?

deleted

BTW, I dont CHEAT or COLLUDE with ANY DEALER. Just like Dans views, I dont give a crap what the casino thinks but only what the law says. And to Ken, you dont have to prove anything to me, but if you want my proof, come and play, I'd be happy to show you

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

I'll have to agree with Ken here. How can you "beat" 3CP........?

By holecarding. The technique is well-publicized; see the Wizard's page on it.

The difference between holecarding and whatever Ken is doing lies in plausibility, not "proof" (as he continues to insist). The effect of holecarding is understood, and it is plausible that if you have a flashing dealer that you can beat the game. Not that you will -- variance still plays a big part, but that you can. It is not meaningfully different in that regard than card counting: everyone understands that card counting can give you an edge, but having an edge is no guarantee of coming home a winner. Even casinos have losing months.

However, tracking the past 60 numbers on a roulette wheel and expecting to consistently beat the game somehow is far less plausible. It would require a meaningfully biased roulette wheel -- and those just don't grow on trees. Ken has been vociferous of his critics (or those whom he perceives to be critics) but hasn't actually described how he bets when he plays. For example, if he makes all his bets before the ball leaves the croupier's hand (or the mechanical chute), then he's clearly not attempting to exploit any dealer signature. I was in Interblock's Las Vegas office last year and their electromechanical roulette game with the sealed wheel and air release uses varying pressure to release the ball, so that wouldn't have a signature anyway.

In summary, when Ibeatyouraces says he has a 3.48% edge in 3CP, it's easy to know what he's talking about because that's the published player edge for knowing one hole card in 3CP. Similarly, when a card counter estimates they have a 1-2% edge in BJ, it's due to the effects of deck depletion. I'm not going to get into the morality or legality of those techniques, but both of them are well understood. However, Ken has never estimated his edge in roulette, nor the mechanism by which he would realize it.

deleted

Ahhh! Very good. Thanks for the replies guys. Interesting stuff.

Quote: mrjjj

Let me guess, you'll ask me this AGAIN in two months. You chose the CORRECT word...'help'.

Also, when you say, 'next results'.....that does not mean the NEXT spin, lets not confuse the two. I have NEVER heard of a method player say, they know what the NEXT outcome will be.

Nope, I wanted to be crystal clear in this thread that I wasn't about to misreprsetn you, as you got very upset when I originally stated :

This is fine if they are happy to admit that the believe each spin is not independent of the previous spins. It does mean it's pointless arguing from a standard probability model.

Quote:

"Do you or do you not believe that previous spins of a casino wheel help you" >>> Absolutley 100% !!!!!

Thanks. I take this to absolutely corroborate my original statement. IF you believe previous spins can help you predict future spins, this means you reject the simple axiom that all spins are independent. If you reject that, then you cannot calculate the house edge of Roulette as 5.26% (or the 2/38 we talked about however many items ago).

That's fine, I wanted to make it clear that if you try and apply the standard, well known mathematical probability model to what you claim, it's pointless, as one assumes independent, random spins of a wheel (the maths) and the other (your methods where previous spin help predict future results) start at a very different place. Future results meaning in the next spins (not the very next result).

That was my original point. It's like trying to discuss geometry where one person is using the standard, Euclidean geometry and another person is using Hyperbolic Geometry. The axioms are different and you can't explain one using the other.

I understand you don't think this is due to wheel bias. It also means if we can show there is such an effect (which you clearly believe is true, use and profit from) it actually means your house advantage IS NOT 5.26%, any more than the house advantage for a card counting blackjack player is that from using basic strategy. It also does mean, as someone else said, if you do make a profit on roulette due to this idea, and it works for you as you state, you are an ADVANTAGE PLAYER.

Quote:

I'll tell you who I'm not......you asked me a tough question, then I get all nervous and wonder....OMG, what will they say when I post this !?!?!? Oh s**t, now I'm fu***d big time!! I should not of said that, they'll be all over me for that one.

Don't be quite so paranoid Ken. It was not intended to be a trick question. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't about to misrepresent you. You don't like it when it happens, I've noticed. I wanted to make my thesis VERY clear.

I actually don't believe there is any such effect in place, and have yet to see any evidence which would bear investigating to change my mind. This is MY OPINION But I've been wrong before.

Quote: thecesspit

and it works for you as you state, you are an ADVANTAGE PLAYER.

Exactly. And pretty much all of your post is spot on as well.

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

First of all. Where do you get these made up numbers (9 hours)?? Second. You clearly wouldn't play online, you couldn't use your biased wheel to gain an advantage. :)

And thirdly. Why does your signature say AP is stupid, when you yourself, technically, are an advantage player?

9 hours >> Its half a joke and the other half......I'm pretty damn close. Most *LAZY* gamblers have PROBABLY given up on roulette after a short period of time. Sad but not my problem.

"Why does your signature say AP is stupid, when you yourself, technically, are an advantage player?" >>> I didn't say it was stupid and I'm NOT an AP (cough) guy, thank the Lord for that. I've said many times I dont play on-line, I couldn't even if I wanted to.

Ken

"I understand you don't think this is due to wheel bias. It also means if we can show there is such an effect (which you clearly believe is true, use and profit from) it actually means your house advantage IS NOT 5.26%, any more than the house advantage for a card counting blackjack player is that from using basic strategy. It also does mean, as someone else said, if you do make a profit on roulette due to this idea, and it works for you as you state, you are an ADVANTAGE PLAYER." >>>


Another point regarding the silliness of a bias wheel. I have played a few hot number methods on 7 different wheels here and have had some DAMN NICE winning days. Are all 7 wheels bias? (please dont say yes)

Ken

Quote: mrjjj

"I understand you don't think this is due to wheel bias. It also means if we can show there is such an effect (which you clearly believe is true, use and profit from) it actually means your house advantage IS NOT 5.26%, any more than the house advantage for a card counting blackjack player is that from using basic strategy. It also does mean, as someone else said, if you do make a profit on roulette due to this idea, and it works for you as you state, you are an ADVANTAGE PLAYER." >>>


Another point regarding the silliness of a bias wheel. I have played a few hot number methods on 7 different wheels here and have had some DAMN NICE winning days. Are all 7 wheels bias? (please dont say yes)

Ken

I'll quote myself here :

I understand you don't think this is due to wheel bias.

I'll clarify further to help you though :

I don't think your methods win due to wheel bias either

Finally, a coherent argument from you. Ok that actually makes sense. Well than that is some very good luck. But you are still an AP if you are utilizing any system of betting or playing, otherwise you would be a random flat bettor. You don't have to play online to be an AP.

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

Finally, a coherent argument from you. Ok that actually makes sense. Well than that is some very good luck. But you are still an AP if you are utilizing any system of betting or playing, otherwise you would be a random flat bettor. You don't have to play online to be an AP.

Not everyone would agree with you on this.

"you are still an AP if you are utilizing any system of betting or playing" >>> ?? Any person playing a method is an AP guy?

Ken

As a side note, I have always thought of mathematics as a way to "model" reality. For instance if we model gravity as a one directional force, and we throw a projectile (i.e. baseball), the resultant arc is a parabola. The true trajectory is subject to minor fluctuations due to air gusts, and variable wind resistance on the laces of the ball. But the mathematics is a "model" of reality. We consider the deviations to be because of second order effects that are not modeled.

In the same way the mathematical models of " betting systems" must necessarily reflect the true underlying reality that cards and roulette balls are incapable of knowing or caring what happened previously.

The idea of using mathematics to "beat" an underlying reality goes inherently against the concept of a mathematics model.

Quote: pacomartin

The idea of using mathematics to "beat" an underlying reality goes inherently against the concept of a mathematics model.

Do you mean using math to defeat something math constructed?

Quote: mrjjj

Not everyone would agree with you on this.

"you are still an AP if you are utilizing any system of betting or playing" >>> ?? Any person playing a method is an AP guy?

Ken

Ah, what I meant was, using a system of betting that reduces the house edge by use of knowledge of past events or card history.

That definitely makes you an AP, since you yourself, say you use past spins to influence your future betting.

Quote: pacomartin

The idea of using mathematics to "beat" an underlying reality goes inherently against the concept of a mathematics model.

Not if you can produce a different model that better models the underlying reality (lets see wave/particle duality).

In this case, I see no compelling evidence any other model would be better, mind.

Quote: mrjjj

"I'm just honestly curious why you think you can change the house edge on a game of independent trials" >>> Change? Who's out to change the H.E.? What casino game do you play PopCan? Scratch that, you're an advantage player of course. It must be a nice convenient cover story for alot of the people here, they dont have to show PROOF of kicking a** because they are into AP (cough), they dont have any sort of H.E. against them because they are into AP (cough). At least I have the nuts to post what I do despite the ATTACKS.......and I still post.

Ken

I'm sure you think I'm sock-puppeting for another user, but I actually am new to these boards. I do love the study of gambling and, along with that, advantage play, but I'm not an advantage player. My game is nickel craps with max odds, come bets, and $27 across. I know the approximate house edge I play at and I accept it as the cost of a great time.

I read all of your complaints about people trashing you and your systems which is why I tried asking, as politely as possible, why you think you can beat a negative expectation game with independent trials. I'm not even flat-out dismissing it as impossible, as stranger things have happened, I was just honestly curious. I offered a proof of why I believe no betting system works on roulette and you didn't reply with a reasonable answer. If you need me to restate it in simpler terms I will: What system have you developed that you believe will provide you with a long term win on the game of roulette?

LOL PopCan, nice post, but I and others have tried the same approach. A soft opening, a personable introduction, a retraction of other users rudeness, and than a simple question.....

And yet, it hasn't been answered yet... other than alluding to using past spins to predict future spins by saying that future numbers MUST balance out the distribution created by past numbers.

Maybe we will find out after the 7 days. Maybe we won't. Only time will tell.

Quote: boymimbo

To sum it up:

-A few people believe that a martingale will beat a casino. Mathematically, that's been proven wrong on another thread. For me, martingaling's risk just isn't worth the reward.

.

I hope this isn't referring to me.

No offense to anyone in particular, but the roulette system guys are definitely some of the wildest, conspiracy minded, manic posters around. When the mania strikes them, the flurry of incomprehensible posts can be staggering yet entertaining.

Really?
I hadn't noticed....