Betting systems never work in the long run - AGREED - lets talk about the short term.
I am not a professional gambler, meaning, I don't make a living from gambling. However, I gamble quite well, I know optimal strategy for almost every basic casino game, have no superstitions, can easily quit when hitting my profit goal/stop loss limits etc.
This being said, for someone who only spends a few days out of the year at the casino and is not looking to make a profit in the "long-run", would applying a betting system to attempt to make profits in the "short-run" make sense?
When using a progressive betting system, it works the majority of the time. Admittedly, the losses are more substantial when they do occur. Therefore, when trying to make a marginal sum of money, while only playing a few hours out of the year, is the risk worth it? Under this scenario, I would argue yes.
What are you thoughts?
Just to reiterate - I am not mathematically challenged - I know that no betting system can work in the long run - I am simply laying our a hypothetical for marginal short-term wins.
Play optimal strategy. Play your bankroll. End of story. ;0
Edit: Also, try not to spam the very same thread in two different sub-categories. Very noobish.
To the extent that systems (usually) don't make you any worse off, you're probably good to manage your bankroll however you want. Personally, I very much prefer a system with several small losses and some small wins to a system with several small wins and occasional gigantic losses.
Quote: MathExtremistLet's be clear: betting systems don't "work" at all, regardless of the timeframe, in the sense that making a sequence of varying bet amounts doesn't change the house edge of what you're betting on. It is true that a betting system can increase your likelihood of a winning session, but that invariably comes with a corresponding increase in the likelihood of a catastrophic loss. Only you can decide whether that risk is worth it.
I think that is kind of what he was asking. Say I have $1,000 to bet and am willing to risk it all. Go to a $3 craps table and martingale all weekend. If you lose you limit you might have lost it anyways. If you win some you won some and can tell all your unknowing friends how the "system" worked.
My position would be as long as you don't extend your limits there is no harm is using a "system" for a session as long as you know it will not work long term.
The trouble comes when these are discussed as systems, because "system" takes on an implication that it is designed to do something that, in reality, won't happen.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThere's nothing wrong with having a strategy, and/or a plan of action.
The trouble comes when these are discussed as systems, because "system" takes on an implication that it is designed to do something that, in reality, won't happen.
Are you saying that these are more like "methods?" ;-)
long term. Its like trying to stick your toe in part of
the ocean, you're in the whole ocean, like it or not.
Because the game itself is in the long term, when
you play it, so are you. It took me awhile to grasp
that all the roulette wheels in the world that spin
every day are connected by the math of the game.
If you see 10 reds in a row on the wheel in front
of you, odds are there are 10 blacks in a row
on another wheel somewhere. The game is always
striving to balance itself. When I play, I'm just a tiny
cog in a very big machine.
Quote: 135stewardby using Oskar's grind, he sat at the blackjack table playing and enjoying several drinks all night long. So, in that case, the system "worked".
Not to be trite, but a stopped clock is right
twice a day. Does that mean it works?
Quote: EvenBobNot to be trite, but a stopped clock is right
twice a day. Does that mean it works?
It's a joke, Bob. He used a slow-erosion system to play and drink all night. So the system, for his purposes, worked. Get it, Bob?
Quote: 135stewardIt's a joke, Bob. He used a slow-erosion system to play and drink all night. So the system, for his purposes, worked. Get it, Bob?
No. What time is it.
1) This holier than thou routine with regards to proper betting etiquette and optimal strategy gets incredibly old. Lest we forget that we are all playing a game with a negative expected return for the player, we all know it, we all accept it and we continue to play. We can hide behind saying things like "I just enjoy playing the game" or "this is what I'm willing to pay for the entertainment value". These casino games are inherently dry and boring; Is it really all that excited trying to collect a sum of cards that add up to 21? No, the excitement comes from winning, from trying to avoid losing, from trying to minimize the house edge as much as possible, from the possibility of walking away with some of the casino's money; its how we keep score. Can you imagine watching a basketball game where no score is kept? No, it would be boring. We try to beat the casino after spotting them some points up front (the house edge) and it's the gambling that is fun, not the game itself. People don't buy scratch off tickets because they enjoy taking a quarter to a piece of cardboard - they enjoy the possibility of winning.
2) When debunking betting systems, it is always said that in the long-run you are no better or worse off than flat betting, the system can't beat the game, you will always approach the house edge. If this is so.......then what the heck does it really matter if someone uses a system???? You are no better or worse off in the long-run! Therefore, the flat bettor and the progressive bettor end up the same eventually, so why does the progressive bettor look like a bonehead and the flat bettor look like a mathematical genius?
3) Shackleford himself admits that a system such as the martingale will see a profit the majority of the time in a given session, however, the few losses far exceed the small wins and cannot beat the house edge in the long-run. I agree with this statement 100%. Granted the losing session can happen right out of the gate, but so can a natural royal flush in video poker. SO...If, in the long-run, the end result is the same (the house edge/expected negative return) and in the short term a progressive system works the majority of the time for a given session, AND a gambler sticks to his set amount that he is comfortable losing, why is it so insulting to the gambling gods to give it a try during a given session?
The individual who only plays one time for 1 hour - doesn't need to win in the long-run
Just a couple thoughts to get people talking again...
But actually, a progressive system will lose more than flat betting. If you're going to bet $10 a hand in blackjack flat, but double after losses, you're going to end up wagering more, therefore losing more.
I'm not sure what the average wager in the martingale system is, but I think another one of the problems is that it increases your average wager, meaning an increased expected loss.
I'm the type of person that would rather wager a little to get a little/a lot, than potentially wager a lot to win a little (progressive betting system)
But, I repeat, you can play however you want, and I really don't care.
Quote: awakefield19832) When debunking betting systems, it is always said that in the long-run you are no better or worse off than flat betting, the system can't beat the game, you will always approach the house edge.
That's not true. Betting systems are not equal. When using a system, you should treat the entire sequence as one bet, since your bets within it are not independent. This results in different house edge between systems.
The house edge of a martingale progression is 1-(1+HA)^n, where HA is base bet house advantage and n is maximum progression depth. So, for instance, martingaling even money roulette bets on a $10-$1,000 table produces a house edge of 43% per resolution, instead of 5.26% for the base bet.
Quote: P90That's not true. Betting systems are not equal. When using a system, you should treat the entire sequence as one bet, since your bets within it are not independent. This results in different house edge between systems.
The house edge of a martingale progression is 1-(1+HA)^n, where HA is base bet house advantage and n is maximum progression depth. So, for instance, martingaling even money roulette bets on a $10-$1,000 table produces a house edge of 43% per resolution, instead of 5.26% for the base bet.
Two points.
A) I agree that not ALL methods are gonna have EXACTLY the same results in the long term, I have stated this 50 times. Why/how do I know this? Through MANY hours/years of playing/testing......there is NO WAY I get the same failed results with every method.
B) When most of these threads are started (from the 'you cant win' crew), its usually (not always) just a person venting because they got burned so bad. Its usually under 48 hours from getting SLAMMED at the casino.......straight to the keyboard.
Ken
Quote: mrjjj
B) When most of these threads are started (from the 'you cant win' crew), its usually (not always) just a person venting because they got burned so bad. Its usually under 48 hours from getting SLAMMED at the casino.......straight to the keyboard.
Ken
No, it's usually (almost always) a person who knows math and/or programming well enough to not need to spend MANY hours/years pissing away their money testing unsound crap in an actual casino.
Quote: awakefield1983Why is this subject so taboo within the elite gambling community?
We are talking about it right now aren't we? It's "taboo" as you say, because since gambling was invented, some idiot thought he could beat the system. Forgive our collective eyerolls.
Quote:1) This holier than thou routine with regards to proper betting etiquette and optimal strategy gets incredibly old. p.q
It isn't a holier than thou attitude. It's called sound advice. You can play the game anyway you want. You can play with systems, methods, it doesn't matter what name you give it. Go ahead. No one's stopping you. Take sound advice, or don't. Who really cares? Not me.
The short answer: Because using a system gives the player an illusion that he can come back to break even or make a GUARANTEED profit, which isn't the case.Quote:2) When debunking betting systems, it is always said that in the long-run you are no better or worse off than flat betting, the system can't beat the game, you will always approach the house edge. If this is so.......then what the heck does it really matter if someone uses a system????
Because it doesn't take long to out bet your bankroll. For most people, this is THREE losses in a row. That is HIGHLY probable.Quote:3) Shackleford himself admits that a system such as the martingale will see a profit the majority of the time in a given session, however, the few losses far exceed the small wins and cannot beat the house edge in the long-run. I agree with this statement 100%. Granted the losing session can happen right out of the gate, but so can a natural royal flush in video poker. SO...If, in the long-run, the end result is the same (the house edge/expected negative return) and in the short term a progressive system works the majority of the time for a given session, AND a gambler sticks to his set amount that he is comfortable losing, why is it so insulting to the gambling gods to give it a try during a given session?
As a side note. Don't call sound advice, a holier than thou attitude, it makes you sound, holier than thou.
Quote: rdw4potusNo, it's usually (almost always) a person who knows math and/or programming well enough to not need to spend MANY hours/years pissing away their money testing unsound crap in an actual casino.
OMG...oh, oh. Is this the part where I run and hide cause ya got me? I won't post anymore, you finally wore me down. I'm sorry man, please let me go in peace, I promise not to bother you again kind sir. (LMFAO, whatever bro) It'll never work hotshot, but a nice effort.
Ken
Quote: rdw4potusNo, it's usually (almost always) a person who knows math and/or programming well enough to not need to spend MANY hours/years pissing away their money testing unsound crap in an actual casino.
I respect your OPINION, thank you.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjI respect your OPINION, thank you.
Ken
No OPINION. It's a measurable thing, and I was making a statement of FACT.
Quote: rdw4potusNo OPINION. It's a measurable thing, and I was making a statement of FACT.
Like I said, your view is much appreciated by all, you're the best !!
Ken
Quote: YoDiceRoll11Dude, you don't have sign every one your posts on a forum, it isn't a letter to an old friend. Yawn.
Been doing it for years and always will....dude. Thank you for the concern.
Ken
This year (we're not even two months in) I have had two sessions where I turned $200 "at risk" into $1200 and $1375. The time I got to $1375 I actually only came to "even" for the trip due to earlier losses; the other win represents an actual "win" for the weekend because I played even most of the trip.
I just haven't seen proof any "system" doing anything more than what happens when I bet within the pattern of presses I use...
Quote: s2dbakerIf you want go have fun, then you can't sweat the losses.
Since when is losing fun. Most people aren't emotionally
caught up in gambling like they are on TV or in the movies.
If you watch their faces its mostly boring, especially slot
players. If you ask most people when they're leaving if
they feel they got real value for their money, most would
say no. What other 'entertainment' venue has that kind
of track record.
Quote: RonCI'm not a math wiz so I am not going to answer from that point of view, but I would say that most systems, patterns, methods, etc. show a positive result at some point based on my experience.
I would argue that they don't. And here is why. Like a person mentioned before, you could see a profit if a "system" was just run to let's say 10,000 resolved bets. But now to prove that the system can consistently make a profit to 10,000 resolved bets, you must run a series of analysis 100,000 times on 10,000 resolved bets........ rather than just ONE time on 10,000 resolved bets and say "Oh it made a profit, lookie lookie".
But, you are correct in that you will see variant ups (and downs) in the short term.
Quote: EvenBobSince when is losing fun. Most people aren't emotionally
caught up in gambling like they are on TV or in the movies.
If you watch their faces its mostly boring, especially slot
players. If you ask most people when they're leaving if
they feel they got real value for their money, most would
say no. What other 'entertainment' venue has that kind
of track record.
And those people shouldn't be gambling. I'm never blase or malaise when leaving a casino. I'm either happy, or sad. If your emotions are so flatlined, you belong in a hospital, not a casino.
I can take a $20 bankroll to the craps table, yes you heard that correctly, $20, and I have made it last two hours. One time I was up to $180, and came back down to $35. I left thinking that was a good value for my time because I had fun.
Quote: EvenBobSince when is losing fun.
Losing isn't fun -- making the bet is fun. If making the bet and anticipating the outcome weren't fun, nobody would do it. It's no coincidence that the most popular games in casinos are the ones that are the most suspenseful.
You seem to think that there's a tradeoff between winning and losing and that the entertainment value cancels out. That's not true. When you're walking down the sidewalk, your money is in your pocket. You're neither winning nor losing, and there is no suspense around what's going to happen with that money. But when you place a wager, three factors come into play
a = The chance of you winning, the feeling you get from winning, and the extra money you get from winning
b = The chance of you losing, the feeling you get from losing, and the loss of your wager
c = The suspense of waiting for a or b
For lack of a better phrase, I'll use "Entertainment Value" and co-opt "EV" for this discussion.
a is obviously +EV.
b is obviously -EV.
c is very personal and will vary widely among people for many reasons.
Therefore, if the sum of all the EV (a, b, c) is positive, you like gambling. If it's negative, you don't.
Quote: MathExtremist
a = The chance of you winning, the feeling you get from winning, and the extra money you get from winning
b = The chance of you losing, the feeling you get from losing, and the loss of your wager
c = The suspense of waiting for a or b
For lack of a better phrase, I'll use "Entertainment Value" and co-opt "EV" for this discussion.
a is obviously +EV.
b is obviously -EV.
c is very personal and will vary widely among people for many reasons.
Therefore, if the sum of all the EV (a, b, c) is positive, you like gambling. If it's negative, you don't.
HAH! I friggin love it!!!!!!
Very good! This should be saved somewhere in a thread for good posts.Quote: MathExtremistBut when you place a wager, three factors come into play
a = The chance of you winning, the feeling you get from winning, and the extra money you get from winning
b = The chance of you losing, the feeling you get from losing, and the loss of your wager
c = The suspense of waiting for a or b
For lack of a better phrase, I'll use "Entertainment Value" and co-opt "EV" for this discussion.
a is obviously +EV.
b is obviously -EV.
c is very personal and will vary widely among people for many reasons.
Therefore, if the sum of all the EV (a, b, c) is positive, you like gambling. If it's negative, you don't.
a = The chance of you winning, the feeling you get from winning, and the extra money you get from winning
b = The chance of you losing, the feeling you get from losing, and the loss of your wager
c = The suspense of waiting for a or b
For lack of a better phrase, I'll use "Entertainment Value" and co-opt "EV" for this discussion.
a is obviously +EV.
b is obviously -EV.
c is very personal and will vary widely among people for many reasons.
Therefore, if the sum of all the EV (a, b, c) is positive, you like gambling. If it's negative, you don't.
well put...As I mentioned earlier. Without the element of the wager/betting, the casino games themselves are dry and boring at best. Its how we keep score, the money, that makes it fun and exhilirating.
Quote: MathExtremistLosing isn't fun -- making the bet is fun. If making the bet and anticipating the outcome weren't fun, nobody would do it. It's no coincidence that the most popular games in casinos are the ones that are the most suspenseful.
Losing is the ultimate end of the day outcome
of making the bet, most of the time. Ask people
when they're going to the casino why their going
and they will answer 'to win'. Thats the primary
motive. When you see somebody happy and smiling
on the way out, its because they won, not because
they had so much whizbang 'fun' punching a button
for 3 hours.
They're lying--if not to you, then to themselves. They're going there to bet, and to get the rush that comes from making the bet and the suspense of a random outcome. They know they can't win, especially if they've been going to the casino a lot.Quote: EvenBobAsk people
when they're going to the casino why their going
and they will answer 'to win'.
Quote: teddysVery good! This should be saved somewhere in a thread for good posts.
I second that. In fact, ME, please do a blog post.
BTW I gamble infrequently and for entertainment. Winning is good. Losing is bad because it means you can't play as much. When I get a decent win, like last trip I was up about $200 for a while, I use up the money in something other than gambling. Last time it was mostly books.
Suspense isn't necessarily something I enjoy. Certainly not if it goes on for too long, as then it becomes boring (like a story with a very long buildup). But when I get a good PGP hand, i do enjoy a little the anticipation of winning, sometimes I even win ;)
BTW Alfred Hitchcock defined suspense, in film, as the state when the audience knows something is about to happen, but the characters on the screen don't. I suppose this works even if you don't quite know what will happen.
Quote: teddysThey know they can't win, especially if they've been going to the casino a lot.
Actually, this isn't true. The vast majority of casino
patrons have no idea they can't get ahead and
stay ahead. They're fuzzy and vague about it in
their heads, they just assume if you get on the
right winning streak, you can stay ahead of the
game. I've been talking to people in casinos since
1975 and for every player who knows whats going on,
there are a hundred who have no idea. I've been
lecturing my own wife about slot machines for years
and had her read articles. She knows the 'facts' but
in her heart believes she can win and stay ahead.
Its maddening.
Quote: EvenBobActually, this isn't true. The vast majority of casino
patrons have no idea they can't get ahead and
stay ahead.
That's because they can - they're just not expected to. Don't confuse what might happen with the average or aggregate result. The whole reason people play is because they want to test their luck -- to see if they're going to do *better* than the average result. Everybody with two grey cells to rub together knows the average result is the casino wins. The average result in roulette is what you get if you put one chip on all the numbers, but nobody sane plays that way. The vast majority of players go into a casino hoping to get lucky and surpass the average. Very few go in expecting to (APs and/or pro poker players notwithstanding).
Quote: MathExtremistThe vast majority of players go into a casino hoping to get lucky and surpass the average. Very few go in expecting to (APs and/or pro poker players notwithstanding).
Good summary.
And I would add what is probably obvious to most people
on this forum, that even if you play a 100 % + VP machine
perfectly, in the short term you can still very easily
come out behind.
Quote: JohnnyQGood summary.
And I would add what is probably obvious to most people
on this forum, that even if you play a 100 % + VP machine
perfectly, in the short term you can still very easily
come out behind.
This is equally true, if not more so, for other +EV games: blackjack, poker, etc. In the early 90s I knew a skilled card counter and poker player who brought his roll to Vegas and busted out. He definitely had +EV, but he got unlucky and lost. He probably overbet his bankroll. I don't know all the details, but for most people it's much more about luck than skill. And that's the point, really.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's because they can - they're just not expected to.
Only in the very beginning of your gambling career
can you maybe get ahead and stay there for a
little while. But very soon the losses outweigh the
wins and you're chasing for the rest of your life.
The casino knows the math of this right down to
the n'th decimal point. Thats why you have to play
4 hours before they rate you for comps. Thats enough
time for the HE to start working its magic and for
you to be sufficiently in the hole to the point where
they can refund some of your money in comps. I
believe its called compounding risk and casinos have
made a science out of it.
Just because the house always has an edge doesn't mean that the house always wins.
Over the total number of players that a casino caters to over a given period of time, the casino can be reasonably confident in the amount of money that they will make due to the compounded house edge. But it is not necessary that they beat every patron, every time. It is not even necessary that they beat every patron over the career of that patron. In fact, I believe this would have a negative impact on the casino. I think that casino business would drop off sharply if there were not at least anecdotal evidence of winners.
Quote: PapaChubbyBut it is not necessary that they beat every patron, every time. It is not even necessary that they beat every patron over the career of that patron.
Nobody said it was necessary to lose every time. As
far as 'over the career', do you know anybody who
doesn't have the edge ever to beat the casino for any
length of time, let alone a lifetime?
