Can You Have a Method/Strategy Without Any Rules or Guidelines?
Thread Rating:
February 22nd, 2012 at 4:18:02 PM
permalink
In the middle of the recent prolonged thread on what to do about Mr. JJJ, a sub-discussion debated the use of words like "system" and "method." One poster suggested that methods do not have rules or, I guess, similar steps to play and not play. The small back-and-forth was lost under the onslaught of the blizzard. But the question remains whether anyone knows of such methods/strategies/systems or whatever?
February 22nd, 2012 at 4:35:17 PM
permalink
That was me that had the method-system comments.
Having no rules is a lot like taking a car trip. You can
plan out every day, have a timeline, know every detail
of whats you want to do. Or you can play it by ear, have
no rules, make it up as you go along. That's what using
a method over a system is, no rules, you make decisions
based on what you see in front of you. Most people don't
like it, they want the decisions already made for them so
they don't have to think.
Having no rules is a lot like taking a car trip. You can
plan out every day, have a timeline, know every detail
of whats you want to do. Or you can play it by ear, have
no rules, make it up as you go along. That's what using
a method over a system is, no rules, you make decisions
based on what you see in front of you. Most people don't
like it, they want the decisions already made for them so
they don't have to think.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 22nd, 2012 at 4:52:51 PM
permalink
I think that's a distinction without a difference. At some point you're going to make a decision on how to bet for the next spin. That decision is going to be based on a set of rules that you're using, even if they're flexible. So using your terminology, maybe a method has a deeper decision tree than a system, but they're both decision processes. Ultimately, every possible roulette betting strategy is a function of one or more of the following:
Result of prior bet(s)
Bankroll
Initial buy-in
Prior number(s)
Win goal
Loss limit
Preferred number(s)
Perceived game bias (wheel or dealer)
where the output is a vector of wagers on each number or number combination that the player will place on the next spin. There's no magic line that delineates a more complicated function (which you'd call a method) from a less complicated function (which you'd call a system).
Result of prior bet(s)
Bankroll
Initial buy-in
Prior number(s)
Win goal
Loss limit
Preferred number(s)
Perceived game bias (wheel or dealer)
where the output is a vector of wagers on each number or number combination that the player will place on the next spin. There's no magic line that delineates a more complicated function (which you'd call a method) from a less complicated function (which you'd call a system).
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
February 22nd, 2012 at 4:57:21 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistThere's no magic line that delineates a more complicated function (which you'd call a method) from a less complicated function (which you'd call a system).
Magic has nothing to do with it. Getting rid of every
rule on when to bet and what to bet on is very hard
to do, we like structure and are drawn to it. So much
so that you can't imagine not having it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 22nd, 2012 at 5:01:10 PM
permalink
Which implies a method is pretty much gambling at random, or what you -perceive- to be the next best bet. However, I may well be misunderstanding you.
If there is a Method, there has to be a strategy about it (short sessions, quit ahead, etc), right?
I think some of the desire to imply a difference between a method and a system is to avoid the moniker of being a "systems seller" as well all know systems don't work.
Besides which going in and saying "Today, I'll track 60 numbers and bet the 3 hottest until I win 30 units or lose 50" is a system. You may change systems day-to-day, but that's a system right there. And nothing wrong with it either if you fancy it. Just don't expect it to work better than playing the 3 coldest numbers, or the 3 numbers that make up the phone number of the girl you met last night.
If there is a Method, there has to be a strategy about it (short sessions, quit ahead, etc), right?
I think some of the desire to imply a difference between a method and a system is to avoid the moniker of being a "systems seller" as well all know systems don't work.
Besides which going in and saying "Today, I'll track 60 numbers and bet the 3 hottest until I win 30 units or lose 50" is a system. You may change systems day-to-day, but that's a system right there. And nothing wrong with it either if you fancy it. Just don't expect it to work better than playing the 3 coldest numbers, or the 3 numbers that make up the phone number of the girl you met last night.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 22nd, 2012 at 5:01:28 PM
permalink
On the few occasions that I have played roulette (none recently), my "method" was strongly based on a non-rule technique known as "whim of the moment". I think that method could be projected to be as effective as any I have since devised or heard of.
February 22nd, 2012 at 5:07:27 PM
permalink
You never get rid of every rule on when to bet and what to bet on. That's my point. Even if you think you're making your bets up as you go along, you're not. Take your friend Ken. He looks at the past 60 numbers and then picks up to 3 of them to bet on. That means his rules include "never bet on outside bets", "never bet on 4 or more inside numbers" and "never bet on numbers that haven't hit within the past 60 spins".
Any decision process has rules. The rules may or may not be codified before you start playing, but they're rules nevertheless.
Any decision process has rules. The rules may or may not be codified before you start playing, but they're rules nevertheless.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
February 22nd, 2012 at 5:22:50 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistYou never get rid of every rule on when to bet and what to bet on. .
Having rules for a game that uses random outcomes
is a foolhardy approach to the game. Its doomed to
failure. You can't apply rules to outcomes that have
no rules.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 22nd, 2012 at 6:37:03 PM
permalink
If we’re splitting hairs on interpretations ….
I interpret “systems” to be more in line with fixed rules.
(If this happens then do this.)
As for “methods” I interpret it to be less restrictive.
( It’s a way of playing with flexible rules.)
YES, it is splitting hairs and I’ve taken some liberties with my definition & simple explanation however, I don’t think it really matters.
Because the dictionary makes a case that they are similar.
I interpret “systems” to be more in line with fixed rules.
(If this happens then do this.)
As for “methods” I interpret it to be less restrictive.
( It’s a way of playing with flexible rules.)
YES, it is splitting hairs and I’ve taken some liberties with my definition & simple explanation however, I don’t think it really matters.
Because the dictionary makes a case that they are similar.
February 22nd, 2012 at 6:46:34 PM
permalink
No, they are not the same thing. If they were the same thing, it would be kinda wasteful, not to mention confusing, to use two different terms to refer to that thing, wouldn't it? (kinda like "weight" and "gravitational force" ;)).
A system is a combination of methods and rules. Take martingale for example. It consists of two methods: (1) "double your previous bet", and (2) "bet the minimum", and two rules: "after a loss, use method 1", "after a win, use method 2".
If you only have "a method", but no "system", that is akin to knowing how to shift gears in a (manual car), but not when (or if) you should be doing it.
This is wrong on several levels. First, random outcomes certainly do have rules. They are called statistics. Second, if the rules did not exist (or were unknown to you), there can still be a strategy (set of rules) devised, that is optimal under the circumstances, or, at least makes more sense than others. Third, the rules sometimes could be random too (think Battleship or rock-paper-scissors). Fourth, lots of games use random outcomes, and still good players employ rules and systems to excel in them.
A system is a combination of methods and rules. Take martingale for example. It consists of two methods: (1) "double your previous bet", and (2) "bet the minimum", and two rules: "after a loss, use method 1", "after a win, use method 2".
If you only have "a method", but no "system", that is akin to knowing how to shift gears in a (manual car), but not when (or if) you should be doing it.
Quote: EvenBobHaving rules for a game that uses random outcomes
is a foolhardy approach to the game. Its doomed to
failure. You can't apply rules to outcomes that have
no rules.
This is wrong on several levels. First, random outcomes certainly do have rules. They are called statistics. Second, if the rules did not exist (or were unknown to you), there can still be a strategy (set of rules) devised, that is optimal under the circumstances, or, at least makes more sense than others. Third, the rules sometimes could be random too (think Battleship or rock-paper-scissors). Fourth, lots of games use random outcomes, and still good players employ rules and systems to excel in them.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
February 22nd, 2012 at 6:54:25 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistI think that's a distinction without a difference. At some point you're going to make a decision on how to bet for the next spin. That decision is going to be based on a set of rules that you're using, even if they're flexible. So using your terminology, maybe a method has a deeper decision tree than a system, but they're both decision processes. Ultimately, every possible roulette betting strategy is a function of one or more of the following:
Result of prior bet(s)
Bankroll
Initial buy-in
Prior number(s)
Win goal
Loss limit
Preferred number(s)
Perceived game bias (wheel or dealer)
where the output is a vector of wagers on each number or number combination that the player will place on the next spin. There's no magic line that delineates a more complicated function (which you'd call a method) from a less complicated function (which you'd call a system).
Exactly what I was going to say. ;) Like I mentioned in the blizzard, a method OR system without any rules, can't exist. Why? Because of the above post that ME laid out pretty much what every gambler does in some way or another, and two, if you just go COMPLETELY random, and I mean COMPLETELY randomly throwing chips everywhere with spit coming out of your mouth, you are still operating under the rule of, not having any rules, therefore, that is your system, or your method.
What you guys haven't realized is the following.
Step 1. Look at every post on page one.
Step 2. Replace every "method" with "system".
Step 3. Realize that they are the same thing, but have different connotations to certain people.
Step 4. Stop playing Roulette.
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:00:09 PM
permalink
Quote: YoDiceRoll11
Step 3. Realize that they are the same thing, .
They aren't the same thing, no matter
what the dictionary says. 25 years ago
being gay meant you were happy, look
it up in an old dictionary. Use the word
now and nobody but nobody thinks you're
talking about being happy. Words evolve.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:13:55 PM
permalink
Maybe you missed the part where I noted connotations....
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:21:32 PM
permalink
I feel like I need a concrete example of a method...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:36:25 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI feel like I need a concrete example of a method...
I already gave one with the car trip example.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:47:39 PM
permalink
That's not what I'd call a method. That's just winging it as you go. Unless you say "my method is to wing it". I'd call that a general strategy at best.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Best I can tell you are saying "I've been on a lot of car trips, so I now how to do them well, so I don't need to plan out the trip".
Ah well, we are back to arguing semantics as ever. :)
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Best I can tell you are saying "I've been on a lot of car trips, so I now how to do them well, so I don't need to plan out the trip".
Ah well, we are back to arguing semantics as ever. :)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 22nd, 2012 at 9:51:33 PM
permalink
A word is a word is a word. Ok. But in the context we are discussing a "method" and a "strategy" regarding gambling, they are one in the same.
My method is to bet $5 on the pass and 2 $5 come bets.
My strategy is to bet $5 on the pass and 2 $5 come bets.
Whatever. I think the reason this argument even came up, is because, someone, that which cannot be named, would not share their respective mysterious ways.
My method is to bet $5 on the pass and 2 $5 come bets.
My strategy is to bet $5 on the pass and 2 $5 come bets.
Whatever. I think the reason this argument even came up, is because, someone, that which cannot be named, would not share their respective mysterious ways.
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:05:34 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanA system is a combination of methods and rules. Take martingale for example. It consists of two methods: (1) "double your previous bet", and (2) "bet the minimum", and two rules: "after a loss, use method 1", "after a win, use method 2".
If you only have "a method", but no "system", that is akin to knowing how to shift gears in a (manual car), but not when (or if) you should be doing it.
That's a reasonable definition but it's not how EvenBob or mrjjj have been using "method". Bob seems to think a "method" allows you to somehow be "creative" when playing roulette in a way a "system" cannot. Maybe they have reasons for making such a big deal of the distinction between "method" and "system", but I don't really need to know why.
I'm sure there's a system method to their madness. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:12:23 PM
permalink
Here's the dictionary definition that describes method the
way I use it:
method [ˈmeθəd]
The way in which one does something.
Another:
Method: A way of doing something. .A way of proceeding or doing something.
There's no way you can substitute 'system' for method
in this instance.
way I use it:
method [ˈmeθəd]
The way in which one does something.
Another:
Method: A way of doing something. .A way of proceeding or doing something.
There's no way you can substitute 'system' for method
in this instance.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:14:02 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobHere's the dictionary definition that describes method the
way I use it:
method [ˈmeθəd]
The way in which one does something
There's no way you can substitute 'system' for method
in this instance.
The method I use to play roulette is to place the last five numbers.
The system I use to play roulette is to place the last five numbers.
Erm....?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:15:57 PM
permalink
Quote: YoDiceRoll11A word is a word is a word. Ok. But in the context we are discussing a "method" and a "strategy" regarding gambling, they are one in the same.
My method is to bet $5 on the pass and 2 $5 come bets.
My strategy is to bet $5 on the pass and 2 $5 come bets.
Whatever. I think the reason this argument even came up, is because, someone, that which cannot be named, would not share their respective mysterious ways.
Actually a strategy IS different from a method/system/procedure. Strategy are your overall plan for achieving a goal, and don't deal with the details of how you implement the strategy.
A goal would be "to win 20 units playing roulette"
A strategy would be to "use a progressive betting system".
A system/method would be "to press my bets by 50% on a single column every time it wins until I reach my goal or lose my bankroll".
A TACTIC might be "skip the next bet if the spin is a 0 or 00".
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:18:14 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspit
The system I use to play roulette is to place the last five numbers.
A method can be a system, but a method isn't
always a system.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:52:33 PM
permalink
a rectangle is always a square but a square isnt always a rectangle.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:07:46 PM
permalink
Quote: duckmankillaa rectangle is always a square but a square isnt always a rectangle.
Exactly! Method and system can be interchangeable,
but not under all circumstances.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 23rd, 2012 at 5:12:40 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistThat's a reasonable definition but it's not how EvenBob or mrjjj have been using "method". Bob seems to think a "method" allows you to somehow be "creative" when playing roulette in a way a "system" cannot.
I know, they think that, I am just saying that they are wrong :). There are artistic systems, stage play systems, writing systems, speaking systems. Of course, they allow creativity.
Quote:Maybe they have reasons for making such a big deal of the distinction between "method" and "system", but I don't really need to know why.
Oh, their reason is very clear. It's their standard answer to when everybody tells them that no system can beat roulette :)
"Of course, by mine is not a system!"
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:48:41 AM
permalink
Stupidest
Thread
Ever
Thread
Ever
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief.
- Proverb.
February 23rd, 2012 at 7:51:23 AM
permalink
Quote: WongBoStupidest
Thread
Ever
2nd stupidest actually.
February 23rd, 2012 at 10:08:52 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobA method can be a system, but a method isn't
always a system.
MrJJJ is obviously using systems even by this definition, as he uses a prescribed set of instructions when he approaches the wheel, regardless of whether he has a generalized method (trial and error over time). If he decides today that "hot numbers over the last 60 spins" are the best approach and will work he's applying a system, even if he discards it the next week. His overall approach may well fit into "method" by this definition.
I'm not disputing what you yourself play at roulette, EvenBob, as I don't know the details.
At the end of day, if you call a cow a horse, but it still provides milk, leather, manure and fine Prime Rib if you look after it properly, it doesn't matter what you call it, but what you were doing to make sure it produces well. I'm more interested in animal husbandry than etymology.
Honest, even if I am a pedantic, British gitface :)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
February 23rd, 2012 at 10:35:29 AM
permalink
Surely someone here uses the John Patrick methods/systems : Bet more when the dealer is cold and less when the dealers is hot.
And remember to ALWAYS chart the table before sitting down.
And remember to ALWAYS chart the table before sitting down.
February 23rd, 2012 at 10:36:54 AM
permalink
" I'm more interested in ANIMAL HUSBANDRY than etymology." I thought marrying a cow was illegal.
PS Even Bob Don't say it !
PS Even Bob Don't say it !
February 23rd, 2012 at 11:00:48 AM
permalink
Words might evolve, but it seems as if you are taking the word "method" and making a meaning for it. A method is a way of doing something. Saying that a method means that the way of doing something must not be structured (random) is your own definition.
It's like if I took the word lamp, and said it's a light that sits on the ground. That is true for some cases, but there are desk lamps and table lamps, and headlamps. If I was taking your ground on things, I would argue to the death that when someone says lamp, it must sit on the ground, while the majority of the population would agree that there are different types of lamps.
There are different types of methods.
Speaking of evolving, it looks like your definition for the word has evolved (to what the dictionary told you it meant, which is what we have all been saying this whole time)...
It's like if I took the word lamp, and said it's a light that sits on the ground. That is true for some cases, but there are desk lamps and table lamps, and headlamps. If I was taking your ground on things, I would argue to the death that when someone says lamp, it must sit on the ground, while the majority of the population would agree that there are different types of lamps.
There are different types of methods.
Quote: EvenBobA method can be a system, but a method isn't
always a system.
Speaking of evolving, it looks like your definition for the word has evolved (to what the dictionary told you it meant, which is what we have all been saying this whole time)...
February 23rd, 2012 at 11:23:33 AM
permalink
In defense of Even Bob:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
February 23rd, 2012 at 12:24:41 PM
permalink
If you say 'a method is a way of doing something',
everybody knows what you mean. If you say 'a
system is a way of doing something', it makes no
sense. So the two words are not interchangeable
in some circumstances.
everybody knows what you mean. If you say 'a
system is a way of doing something', it makes no
sense. So the two words are not interchangeable
in some circumstances.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
February 23rd, 2012 at 12:52:57 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIf you say 'a method is a way of doing something',
everybody knows what you mean. If you say 'a
system is a way of doing something', it makes no
sense. So the two words are not interchangeable
in some circumstances.
A system is not a way of doing anything. A system is a way to organise something (ways of doing something in particular). When you play a game, you are rarely using just one single method. Even for something as simple as roulette, most people have superstitions like "win goals", "stop loss" etc - those are all methods. A combination of these methods you use while playing (with the help of the rules you use to decide which method to use when and how to apply it) - that is your system.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
February 23rd, 2012 at 1:04:17 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanA system is not a way of doing anything. .
But a method is a way of doing something, look it up
in the dictionaries that you all seem to cherish so much.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
