All betting systems are worthless?
Even the Wizard, when and if (I assume he plays) he sits down to play blackjack - is playing a system . His website encourages you play the betting system of using basic strategy.
In fact, if you don't gamble, you are using the "No Betting" strategy. That doesn't seem worthless to me.
Plus, mustangsally in another thread astutely points out that certain systems increase the standard deviation of your losses/wins and swings of bank roll- that may have value as well.
I've made this point before, it just seems to be a strange statement.
Quote: slackyhacky
In fact, if you don't gamble, you are using the "No Betting" strategy. .
Thats a bit of a stretch. I don't scuba dive, am
I using a strategy there to?
Your problem is you got hung up on the fact that they have been called "worthless" and ignored exactly what it was that was getting that description.Quote: slackyhackyI think someone needs to define "worthless" for me.
There is a difference between a betting system and strategy.
Betting systems are worthless.
Strategies are priceless.
You can play a "system" all you want. It doesn't harm you nor does it give you an advantage.
Best system...when you are going to win, bet your bankroll. When you are going to lose, bet the minimum(or not at all)....
Quote: DJTeddyBearYour problem is you got hung up on the fact that they have been called "worthless" and ignored exactly what it was that was getting that description.
There is a difference between a betting system and strategy.
Betting systems are worthless.
Strategies are priceless.
I hate when people take a statement, change one of the terms, and then stick to the guns that this new phrase is what makes all the difference...It's all semantics...be smart enough to understand what the OP is referring to...
(an example is in another thread, the difference between "systems" and "methods"...)
Quote: TriplellBetting systems simply don't change the house edge of the game. Many people often claim that they have a system which allows them to beat the casino with xx% success.
You can play a "system" all you want. It doesn't harm you nor does it give you an advantage.
Best system...when you are going to win, bet your bankroll. When you are going to lose, bet the minimum(or not at all)....
I hate when people take a statement, change one of the terms, and then stick to the guns that this new phrase is what makes all the difference...It's all semantics...be smart enough to understand what the OP is referring to...
(an example is in another thread, the difference between "systems" and "methods"...)
Uh...
Betting a strategy is using a betting system. That is my point. I'm not changing a term. Betting systems - a large umbrella term. betting strategy - a system under the umbrella of all systems.
I'm not smart enough to know what the OP is referring to. That is the point of the post.
Using a system is NOT synonomous with thinking you can beat the house.
And systems do change the house advantage. A bad systems gives the house a larger advantage. A better system (like playing basic strategy) minimizes the house advantage. They are not all worthless, right? So again, what is the point of the heading?
Quote: DJTeddyBearYour problem is you got hung up on the fact that they have been called "worthless" and ignored exactly what it was that was getting that description.
There is a difference between a betting system and strategy.
Betting systems are worthless.
Strategies are priceless.
Define "betting system" for me. Perhaps that is my hang up.
Quote: EvenBobThats a bit of a stretch. I don't scuba dive, am
I using a strategy there to?
First off, you should. It is pretty amazing really.
Second, I don't get the statement. Not scuba diving is a strategy of something...it depends on what you are taking about. Not scuba diving could be your strategy to avoid sharks, or to stay dry, or to avoid breathing compressed air. Again, it depends on the context.
In this context, a betting system - is a way someone bets, and depending on what happens in the game, makes decissions on how they change or make future bets (ie...hit on a 12?).
Spawn of The Thread That Wouldn't Die....
A betting system dictates what your next bet should be based upon prior results. The most famous is the Martingale system where you keep doubling after each loss.Quote: slackyhackyDefine "betting system" for me. Perhaps that is my hang up.
A strategy dictates how you should play the hand based upon the information about the cards you have and any other cards you have seen.
Note that certain strategies, most notably card counting, also affect the next bet, but it is regardless of prior wins and losses.
Quote: slackyhackyDefine "betting system" for me. Perhaps that is my hang up.
I think for the purposes of this forum you can assume "betting system" means a system of varying your bets in a way that will beat the house when playing a negative expectation game. These are deemed "worthless" because it is mathematically impossible for them to change the expectation. If you find a system that increases variance to be valuable to you then "worthless" might be too strong a word.
Blackjack basic strategy is not a betting system because it doesn't tell you how much to bet, it tells you what play to make. Because BJ has an element of skill you need to learn the strategy to minimize the house edge. A betting system can be used even with a game that is 100% luck, like roulette or a craps bet.
The reason the subtitle to the forum mentions "worthless" and "mathematically challenged" is because there are continually people claiming they have developed a way of varying their bets in such a way that they can beat some casino game. This is clearly impossible to anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics and probability. The system developer that lacks that understanding can never be convinced otherwise so these claims tend to result in never ending arguments.
Quote: DJTeddyBearA betting system dictates what your next bet should be based upon prior results. The most famous is the Martingale system where you keep doubling after each loss.
A strategy dictates how you should play the hand based upon the information about the cards you have and any other cards you have seen.
Note that certain strategies, most notably card counting, also affect the next bet, but it is regardless of prior wins and losses.
Thanks for defining this. Is this your definition, or is this a universal thought?
And to make sure I understand correctly, let's say I want to place odds on my line bet but only on a 6 or 8. So I wait, and based on the prior result of the last roll (6 or 8), I bet max odds if it comes up one of those numbers. That is called a system (because I decided what to do based on the last result).
But if I decide just to place max odds no matter what the point is, then that is a strategy because my decision had nothing to do with the last result.
Interesting indeed....
Quote: jml24I think for the purposes of this forum you can assume "betting system" means a system of varying your bets in a way that will beat the house
And I agree with this...they all are worthless in that context.
But that should then be stated - "systems with the goal of beating the house long term"
Quote: DJTeddyBearNote that certain strategies, most notably card counting, also affect the next bet, but it is regardless of prior wins and losses.
Card counting is much different than a betting system IMO. You are not trying to produce a win from a negative expectation game. Rather, you are taking advantage of a feature of the game that allows you to have a postitive expectation at certain times.
and you must win $15,000 or more your first month. If you do not, simply supply your documented bets and I will refund the entire $99.
This offer is limited to the first 35 replies.
(and yes, you can be pedantic on that statement if you so desire).
Quote: thecesspitThe keyword isn't "system" it's "betting". Changing your BETS cannot change the Expectation of the game.
(and yes, you can be pedantic on that statement if you so desire).
No way, that's a good statement. And thanks, I've never been accused of being a pedant before. Although I would argue that the person saying that all betting systems are worthless is being more pedantic than I who question the statement.
Quote: slackyhackyNo way, that's a good statement. And thanks, I've never been accused of being a pedant before. Although I would argue that the person saying that all betting systems are worthless is being more pedantic than I who question the statement.
I wasn't accusing you of being a pedant. I was more pointing out what I said you could argue against (there are cases where you can change (increase/decrease) your bet during the play of a hand which will improve you absolute EV... see doubles and splits).
Quote: thecesspitI wasn't accusing you of being a pedant. I was more pointing out what I said you could argue against (there are cases where you can change (increase/decrease) your bet during the play of a hand which will improve you absolute EV... see doubles and splits).
Oh okay.
I do like your statement about the key word being changing your BETTING.
Quote: slackyhackyOh okay.
I do like your statement about the key word being changing your BETTING.
Thanks. I missed a smiley somewhere.
We all go into a casino with a betting system, like it or not. Some of us are plain old flat betters and let the variance of the game take us up or down. Others are folks who bet more when they're down or start pressing bets after winning a few times in a row. That's a betting system, like it or not, loosely defined, mind you, but a system nonetheless.
The effect of your particular system will give you more or less probabilities of ending your betting session with certain outcomes. For example, the martingaler goes home completely broke or up a few bucks -- that much is pretty well guaranteed -- not worthless. Some people enjoy winning 90% of the time but going broke 10% of the time, hoping that the variance will be on their side. Other people are much more conservative and will bet $10 a blackjack hand, every hand, and play basic strategy, knowing that in the end, they are likely to come out pretty close to the expected value of $7 / hour (assuming 0.7% HA) for playing and hopefully coming out on top. Plenty of players play with loss limits, time limits, win limits -- these are all betting systems that manage your bankroll based on your gambling persona. The key to this is variance. It's far more likely that a person playing a single number in roulette will come out ahead in a night vs someone playing even money bets, because even though the HA is the same, the variance is much higher on the single numbers.
A betting system, however, that claims a win 100% of the time, is completely worthless.
In the end, from a casino's point of view, they will win whatever the house advantage for the game times the average bet, with quite a bit of variance built in.
The other side of the pie is gaming strategy -- how to play the game so that the true house advantage is minimized based on the the best strategy for the game. Of course, this is not worthless either. Keep in mind however that variance plays so much of a force when playing that even though the Megamillions game that takes you on average for $.45 / spin will, over the long term, kill you vs the same play at blackjack at $.07/hand, there is a possibility that playing the MegaMillions will get you the jackpot that is impossible to get in blackjack. Over time, the HA will get you and your returns will likely put you close to expected value, but in the short term, even a stupid gaming strategy and a bad betting system can get you out of a casino a winner -- but your probability of doing so is less.
your loss level to a crawl and let you play far longer than
somebody without one. If you love comps, you can use a combination
of systems that make you look like a big player, but cost you
very little money. You'll still lose, but you just might break even
on comps.
Betting "systems" are implied to be specific strategies to guarantee a win, merely by altering the bet as prescribed. As such, they are worthless in the effort to overcome the house edge.
Quote: DJTeddyBearAs such, they are worthless in the effort to overcome the house edge.
I wasn't talking about winning, I was talking
about slowing down how much you lose an
hour. Some systems do this very well, they
don't win, but they don't lose very fast either.
I have a good one for roulette on the dozens
and columns that works like a charm for losing
slowly. It works by paying attention to the
sleeping dozens and columns and betting the
non sleepers.
I understand what you're saying, but I think that is categorized as a money management system rather than a betting system.Quote: EvenBobI wasn't talking about winning, I was talking
about slowing down how much you lose an
hour.
And money management is always a smart idea.
you spend half your time walking around. LOL
Quote: slackyhackyThanks for defining this. Is this your definition, or is this a universal thought?
And to make sure I understand correctly, let's say I want to place odds on my line bet but only on a 6 or 8. So I wait, and based on the prior result of the last roll (6 or 8), I bet max odds if it comes up one of those numbers. That is called a system (because I decided what to do based on the last result).
But if I decide just to place max odds no matter what the point is, then that is a strategy because my decision had nothing to do with the last result.
Interesting indeed....
This thread is based on semantic arguments so let me to try explain it without using the words "systems" or "strategy".
The subtitle of this forum is referring to those who believe that the house edge on a game of independent trials either does change or can be changed. The most common of those beliefs is that altering the amount of one's bets from round to round can somehow produce a positive expectation for the player. A subset of that belief is that the outcome of one independent trial has an effect on another, such as hot and cold roulette numbers. The subtitle of this forum is not referring to altering of the amount of one's bets to change the variance of a gaming session.
Choosing to make the optimum PLAYING decision in a single round of a game where the player is allowed to make decisions has nothing to do with any sort of initial betting methodology.
Now that that's taken care of...
In your craps examples the first case would be the sort of betting that the Wizard is referring to. Call it whatever you want but it doesn't change the house edge per bet. Sure, you could technically call the second case a "betting system" as well but "system" generally implies that the user/seller of such system believes that they will alter the house edge/player expectation.
If you still don't understand the difference please let us know.
Quote: PopCanChoosing to make the optimum PLAYING decision in a single round of a game where the player is allowed to make decisions has nothing to do with any sort of initial betting methodology.
Whats does 'optimum playing decision' mean? Give an example.
Quote: EvenBobWhats does 'optimum playing decision' mean? Give an example.
Splitting two aces vs. dealer 3 in blackjack, as opposed to standing or surrendering. Contrast "playing decision" with "betting decision". There are no playing decisions in roulette, craps, or most slot games -- you bet, the game plays without your input, you win or lose. Games like blackjack, video poker, pai gow poker, pai gow tiles, and most poker-derivative banked games require some player strategy after the wager is made but before it is resolved.
Edit: there is something to be said for having a good betting strategy, but that presumes you're not being truly optimal. In craps and roulette, the optimal betting strategy is to put your money back in your bank account.
Quote: MathExtremistThere are no playing decisions in roulette,
You're wrong. For instance, if you're tracking
dozens, its a fact that one of the dozens will
often sleep for varied lengths of time. It happens
constantly. Its not unusual for a dozen to
sleep for 25 out of 30 spins. Its not an illusion,
its not fantasy, it actually happens. Betting the
other two dozens while that dozen is sleeping
is an optimum playing decision.
It's called a hunch. It isn't the same AT ALL.
Quote: WongBoNo discernible start and stopping point, no accurate predictability, no math, no science.
It's called a hunch. It isn't the same AT ALL.
Its the same as seeing a high count in BJ and
not knowing if you'll get the 10's or the dealer
will get them. No accurate predictability.
Quote: EvenBobYou're wrong. For instance, if you're tracking
dozens, its a fact that one of the dozens will
often sleep for varied lengths of time. It happens
constantly. Its not unusual for a dozen to
sleep for 25 out of 30 spins. Its not an illusion,
its not fantasy, it actually happens. Betting the
other two dozens while that dozen is sleeping
is an optimum playing decision.
Do you actually believe that the probability of a given dozen changes from 12/38, on every spin, to something less than 12/38 at some point?
Quote: EvenBobIts the same as seeing a high count in BJ and
not knowing if you'll get the 10's or the dealer
will get them. No accurate predictability.
It most certainly is not. Each roulette spin is independent; each hand in a blackjack shoe is decidedly not. That's the whole premise behind counting. Do you dispute the independence of roulette spins? You must, or you can't possibly claim to know "when a dozen is sleeping".
In roulette they are exactly 5.26...% all day every day.
Quote: MathExtremistDo you actually believe that the probability of a given dozen changes from 12/38, on every spin, to something less than 12/38 at some point?
Nothing changes. But its a playing strategy you can use
for roulette that slows your losses and makes your money
last longer.
Quote: MathExtremistIt most certainly is not. Each roulette spin is independent; each hand in a blackjack shoe is decidedly not.
Yet you still don't know who'll get the 10's, you
or the dealer. Roulette has systems that slow
down the losses, which is a good thing for the
average player.
Quote: WongBo
In roulette they are exactly 5.26...% all day every day.
Yup. Eventually....
Quote: EvenBobNothing changes. But its a playing strategy you can use
for roulette that slows your losses and makes your money
last longer.
This is a contradiction. If it does indeed slow your losses (as opposed to betting on the "sleeping dozen"), then the odds actually would be changing. As your friend is fond of saying, "you can't have it both ways."
If you really want to slow your losses, come to grips with the fact that each spin of a roulette wheel is independent -- and then come to grips with the ramifications of that independence. The first of which is that "sleeping dozens" don't exist except in hindsight where you can't bet on them.
Unless you know of a roulette game that lets you bet on the last spin instead of the next one...
Quote: MathExtremistThis is a contradiction. If it does indeed slow your losses (as opposed to betting on the "sleeping dozen"), then the odds actually would be changing. ..
How do you figure that? You're betting twice as
much as you'll win, thats the factor that levels
the bet. Do you actually think that you lose money
at exactly the same rate in roulette no matter
where you place your bets? You can't be serious.
Have you ever investigated the game at all, or
do you just blindly believe everything you're told.
Here's a picture of a roulette wheel with each dozen's location highlighted:
What on earth would cause a particular dozen to "sleep"? Does the ball magically avoid landing in a particular pocket only to land in the pocket a maximum of 2 pockets away? If (and this is a giant if) the wheel was horribly biased AND the dealer trained for years for precise spins AND the dealer initiated the spin at the same point every time AND he only initiated a spin when the rotor was at the same point and speed each time, I could possibly acknowledge a sector/section hitting more or less often. How can you possibly justify hitting a given dozen more or less than the other?
Quote: EvenBobHow do you figure that? You're betting twice as
much as you'll win, thats the factor that levels
the bet. Do you actually think that you lose money
at exactly the same rate in roulette no matter
where you place your bets? You can't be serious.
Have you ever investigated the game at all, or
do you just blindly believe everything you're told.
You are taking a low variance bet. Betting sleepers, or hot columns, or whatever is nothing to do with it. Selecting 24 numbers to win has plenty to do with it.
BUT the rate of loss is exactly the same on average. The rate of decline is 5.26% of your bet. The bet by bet change in your bankroll ISNT 5.26%, naturally. With a two column bet youll tend to get closer to that expected rate quicker than making a single number straight up.
And thats why every bet on the roulette wheel isnt the same.
Quote: EvenBobYou're wrong. For instance, if you're tracking
dozens, its a fact that one of the dozens will
often sleep for varied lengths of time. It happens
constantly. Its not unusual for a dozen to
sleep for 25 out of 30 spins. Its not an illusion,
its not fantasy, it actually happens. Betting the
other two dozens while that dozen is sleeping
is an optimum playing decision.
An optimum playing decision effects the house edge. Playing basic strategy on BJ versus making the standard mistakes lowers the house edge by 1-2%. Playing with basic strategy on Three Card Poker has a house edge of around 3.5% depending on the paytable while playing blind has a house edge of around 7.8%.
Playing the dozens on roulette is a BETTING decision and not a playing decision. Once the bets are placed there are no further decisions to make. The average loss per session given the same average bet is also the same. Like thecesspit said, you're only changing your variance: How far from the house edge you'll tend to be.
For example I wrote a few quick sims of a player playing a million 3 hour (120 total spins) sessions (source code here). One where he bets two different dozens at one unit each, one where he bets one dozen at 2 units, and one where he bets the 19-36 at 2 units. Each has the same average bet. Here are the results:
2Dozens - Average Bet: 2
2Dozens - Win per Session: -6.489081
2Dozens - Loss Per Unit Bet: -0.0270378375
2Dozens - Win Count: 307820 (30.782%)
2Dozens - Average Win: 11.4004970437269
2Dozens - Loss Count: 692180 (69.218%)
2Dozens - Average Loss: -14.4447715912046
1Dozen - Average Bet: 2
1Dozen - Win per Session: -6.485976
1Dozen - Loss Per Unit Bet: -0.0270249
1Dozen - Win Count: 375602 (37.5602%)
1Dozen - Average Win: 24.774069360653
1Dozen - Loss Count: 624398 (62.4398%)
1Dozen - Average Loss: -25.2902251448595
19to36 - Average Bet: 2
19to36 - Win per Session: -6.486312
19to36 - Loss Per Unit Bet: -0.0270263
19to36 - Win Count: 348648 (34.8648%)
19to36 - Average Win: 16.8097450723939
19to36 - Loss Count: 651352 (65.1352%)
19to36 - Average Loss: -18.9559500853609
The only things that changed were the win rate and variance. This may or may not be good for the player depending on his goals.
Quote: EvenBobDo you actually think that you lose money
at exactly the same rate in roulette no matter
where you place your bets? You can't be serious.
Yup, see the above. On average you'll lose the same amount for any session length at a given average bet.
Quote: EvenBobRoulette has systems that slow
down the losses, which is a good thing for the
average player.
Time to be pedantic. Roulette has ways of betting that will lower the variance, not slow the losses.
Quote: EvenBobIts the same as seeing a high count in BJ and
not knowing if you'll get the 10's or the dealer
will get them. No accurate predictability.
There's a huge difference here. Yes, you don't know who will get the 10s. However, the 10s are far more valuable to the player due to doubles and blackjacks than to the dealer who will more frequently bust in a 10 heavy deck.
Quote: PopCanSleeping dozen?!?
Here's a picture of a roulette wheel with each dozen's location highlighted:
What on earth would cause a particular dozen to "sleep"? Does the ball magically avoid landing in a particular pocket only to land in the pocket a maximum of 2 pockets away? If (and this is a giant if) the wheel was horribly biased AND the dealer trained for years for precise spins AND the dealer initiated the spin at the same point every time AND he only initiated a spin when the rotor was at the same point and speed each time, I could possibly acknowledge a sector/section hitting more or less often. How can you possibly justify hitting a given dozen more or less than the other?
From Your picture above, I've noticed that there are twice occurences on the wheel where dozen 2 does not appear for 6 spots.
Does this in some way inbalance it? Im just asking, i dont know.
Quote: thecesspitBUT the rate of loss is exactly the same on average..
And that average takes a long long time to reach.
Every bet you place has an eventual loss rate of
5.26%. For every $100 you wager, you'll get back
about $95 eventually. The key word here is eventually.
The average person with no strategy will be all over
the map with it. They'll lose the $100 almost right
away. Then win back $150. Etc. If they track their
play for years, they'll be losing at the house edge.
A player with a practiced method, strategy or
whatever, will still lose at the house edge, but
their variance will be very tight. They won't have
the wild swings the average player has. This is
exactly what Ken (MrJJJ) does. Does he win all
the time? Hardly. But right now, he wins more than
he loses. Eventually, the math says he'll lose more
than he wins.
If he lives long enough. He's found a way to play
very close to the HE in every session. This means
he doesn't have the huge high roller coaster peaks
and valleys of the average player. His variance
sine wave is almost flat lining.
Right now he's on the positive part of the sine wave,
above the line. He could stay there theoretically
for decades. Eventually the losses will start to overtake
the wins and he'll lose more than he wins for a very
long time. Why don't more people play this way?
Because its too much work, it takes over your life,
it becomes an obsession.
So you're right, the HE effects every bet. And it takes
its toll. Eventually.
at the sine wave of the average player, with his
BR as the baseline, the curve goes way up on a win
and crashes way below the line on a loss. There
are players in bac who have strategies that do just
what Mrjjj does, and their curve is even longer than
his, they stay ahead longer. This is what all the crazy
bac players strive for, but they don't have the patience
or discipline to achieve it.
Quote: buzzpaffPM me and I will sell you my guaranteed system for beating horse races, blackjack, and roulette. You can start with a $27 bankroll
and you must win $15,000 or more your first month. If you do not, simply supply your documented bets and I will refund the entire $99.
This offer is limited to the first 35 replies.
Only 12 left. Don't miss out on this great opportunity. Or you will be working while the buyers are vacationing around the world and amassing great wealth.
