Hi all, specially Mike and Wizard

Quote: pokerface

My understanding is that the $5000 initial bankroll is a condition that carefully put in.
You can't change that.

To OP:
As you already said, most of the time your bankroll goes below 0 at certain point.
If you really want to do a realistic simulation, whenever bankroll reaches 0,
you have to mark the session failed and game over.
If you continue run the simulation and wait for the bankrool comes back to positive.
that's meaningless. That's a fake simulation.

You might be right here. Without the bankroll I was able to win 19 out of 20 times, but with the bankroll only 1 of 20. I think I need to rethink my system.

Seriously speaking, the two main conditions missing from this challenge are:
1) What happens if one of the parties dies before completing it,
2) What happens if both parties die before completing it.
And realistically (1) isn't even required.

I've not given up on this yet, but I'm certainly losing confidence as I am only winning a small amount of attempts after several hours of developing and coding.

Has there been any other post where the challenge was discussed except for the original one from Bluejay?

I thought there was a long discussion started by Bluejay challenging people to break his rules.

Quote: P90

Seriously speaking, the two main conditions missing from this challenge are:
1) What happens if one of the parties dies before completing it,
2) What happens if both parties die before completing it.
And realistically (1) isn't even required.

Why? It would be done by computer simulation, which would take minutes.

Quote: thecesspit

I thought there was a long discussion started by Bluejay challenging people to break his rules.

Yes. About two years ago.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/3194-overhauling-the-betting-system-challenge/

No one ever mentioned it in all this time?

I hadn't realized it was two years, but I don't recall much talk in detail on the challenge, though various people have been pointed to it and not much came of it.

Quote: thecesspit

Indeed. But it is possible to be in the positive after 200,000 outcomes.

Without the bet size restriction, it was also possible to be in the positive enough times, that the 10:1 odds looked like a good bet.

What strategy would you use to be positive after 200,000 spins, with or without the bet size restriction?

I know that no one takes seriously this challenge, but I do. I just finished 100 simulated spins with a flag to stop each attempt when the bankroll hit $0 or $32,000, and these are the results:

11 times I was able to reach $32,000, which means 11 attempts won. (Just flat betting for the rest of the spins with a house edge of 2.7% would make me a winner)

89 times I lost, but 44 times I was able to reach $10,000. That's pretty low considering a $5,000 bet on any 2:1 bet would make me reach 48 approximately.

The conclusion is that I can win 11% of the time with my strategy and a starting bankroll of $5,000, and 25% of the time with a starting bankroll of $10,000. So basically, a starting roll of $10,000 would make me win 10:20 attempts, and an even bigger starting bankroll would make me win the challenge for sure. I am still trying to improve my system, but 11/100 is far from the 11/20 that I need to win the challenge.

Any ideas or suggestions are extremely welcome.

Thanks.

Quote: thecesspit

Why? It would be done by computer simulation, which would take minutes.

Ah, makes sense then.

Made some slight changes to the code, worse than before. From 100 spins:
41 times reached $10,000, from which:
15 times reached $20,000
6 times reached $32,000 (win)

I just realized (or remembered) something:
If I were to reach more than 50% chance of doubling up, then I could play by loops of $0 to $10,000, winning in most cases. I think this was the strategy I was trying to use back when I was trying to beat the original Mike's challenge. This would make sense and make me win in 1 billion spins, but in Bluejay's challenge it would be pure luck.

At first this starting bankroll thing made no sense to me, but I'm starting to realize it's real intention.

Well if you had more than a 50% chance of doubling up, you'd have a positive expectation game.

Have a read on Gambler's Ruin. Wiki page and a more technical treatize.

For an even money game (coin flip with no house advantage), the chance of making a bank roll of N units starting with B units is : B/N

Thus if you have 2 units and want to make 4, it's : 2/4 = 50%. Have 100 Units and want to make it 101 : 100/101. And so on.

And it only gets worse if the house has an advantage (and better if you have an advantage, of course). As you don't have an advantage in any casino game, you can never get over 50% chance of doubling up.

Quote: thecesspit

Well if you had more than a 50% chance of doubling up, you'd have a positive expectation game.

Have a read on Gambler's Ruin. Wiki page and a more technical treatize.

For an even money game (coin flip with no house advantage), the chance of making a bank roll of N units starting with B units is : B/N

Thus if you have 2 units and want to make 4, it's : 2/4 = 50%. Have 100 Units and want to make it 101 : 100/101. And so on.

And it only gets worse if the house has an advantage (and better if you have an advantage, of course). As you don't have an advantage in any casino game, you can never get over 50% chance of doubling up.

Thanks for pointing me there, I'll start reading right away. I understand what you are saying, but let's suppose that you have 98% of winning $1 and 2% of losing $100, the odds are against you but you could win as long as you know when to quit right? That is my way of seeing this challenge, as 200.000 spins seams short term to me, it does not matter how much you win or lose but the attempts won, and I have a progressive system with really low possibilities of losing that seems to be able to beat it if I can make it better.

How do you know when to quit in the game you describe? After a dollar win? Do you never play again? If so, for sure you have a chance of ending up in a profit 98 times out of hundred. But a single play is not what the betting system challenge is about.

Quote: thecesspit

How do you know when to quit in the game you describe? After a dollar win? Do you never play again? If so, for sure you have a chance of ending up in a profit 98 times out of hundred. But a single play is not what the betting system challenge is about.

Whenever you win are winning 11:20 times, regardless of how much you win.

From my latest 100 spins, I got:
50 double ups
16 32k wins

However, by doing so I found I way to beat the roulette on the long run, I will be starting another thread soon.

Thanks for posting on this thread along with me and not making me look like an idiot speaking to himself.

Quote: blaxius

However, by doing so I found I way to beat the roulette on the long run, I will be starting another thread soon.

Thanks for posting on this thread along with me and not making me look like an idiot speaking to himself.

If you think you can now beat roulette in the long run, please, tell me which casino I can come and watch you bring the casino to its knees.
We are very lucky to have a forum member who can do what no one else has been able to do for the scores of years that roulette has been played.
I just hope that the Wiz does not alert the Venetian in advance, because then they will be closing all of their roulette tables.
I wonder what games the casinos will use as replacements for roulette now that it has been beaten?

Quote: blaxius

Whenever you win are winning 11:20 times, regardless of how much you win.

What does that mean? Play 20 times, if I win 11, stop? As soon as I win 11?

Quote:

From my latest 100 spins, I got:
50 double ups
50 32k wins

However, by doing so I found I way to beat the roulette on the long run, I will be starting another thread soon.

Thanks for posting on this thread along with me and not making me look like an idiot speaking to himself.

Chances are, you've made a mistake in your programming. I don't mean that in a nasty way, but 90% of the "I've found a way to win long term" posts are a mistake in the game rules and structure, or a fault in the spreadsheets being used or the code. The other 10% descend into crazy land.

" I wonder what games the casinos will use as replacements for roulette now that it has been beaten? "

That is exactly why I always limit my daily winning sessions to $10,000 or less. However, due to poor health, I am retiring.
as a special favor to forum members I will sell my system for only $49.47. PM me for details and YES I do accept PayPal.

Quote: SOOPOO

If you think you can now beat roulette in the long run, please, tell me which casino I can come and watch you bring the casino to its knees.
We are very lucky to have a forum member who can do what no one else has been able to do for the scores of years that roulette has been played.
I just hope that the Wiz does not alert the Venetian in advance, because then they will be closing all of their roulette tables.
I wonder what games the casinos will use as replacements for roulette now that it has been beaten?

First of all, I didn't said that it would be useful in a casino environment. I just found a win more than 50% of the time with a tremendous progressive system. If you are really so sure about what you say to make fun of me, then I challenge you to bet 100k against 1k that I could win 11 out of 21 attempts of 1 billion rounds each. By they way, thanks for replying to make fun of me and not when I needed help, this will make the forum grow for sure.

Actually, I should edit my break down. 85% are mistakes in code, rules or a spreadsheet, 10% are crazy land and 5% start using infinity in odd ways. Infinity is odd in and off itself. If you aren't using a limited bankroll, then it makes my head hurt and I'm not sure I can comment. :)

As for other posters, slow your roll there... easy to jump on a guy a bit early. I've looked at all sorts of models before, and the very process of working through them means you can learn a lot about probability and maths.

Quote: thecesspit

What does that mean? Play 20 times, if I win 11, stop? As soon as I win 11?



Chances are, you've made a mistake in your programming. I don't mean that in a nasty way, but 90% of the "I've found a way to win long term" posts are a mistake in the game rules and structure, or a fault in the spreadsheets being used or the code. The other 10% descend into crazy land.

Sorry. 16 times 32k wins, was to excited to type it right.

I mean that if you look the challenge like that, you have a great chance of winning 11 out of 20 attempts. Even I don't know what I meant with knowing when to stop.

They say every day, somewhere in the
world, somebody discovers the Martingale
for the first time and thinks they have it made.

Quote: EvenBob

They say every day, somewhere in the
world, somebody discovers the Martingale
for the first time and thinks they have it made.

That happened to me, 6 years ago. But I guess I learnt one or two things in this time. Enough chatting if you are all going to say useless stuff, I need to start coding and probably I reached my daily posting quota.

Quote: blaxius

Sorry. 16 times 32k wins, was to excited to type it right.

I mean that if you look the challenge like that, you have a great chance of winning 11 out of 20 attempts. Even I don't know what I meant with knowing when to stop.

If you quit while ahead playing VP, with a 100-bet bankroll, you will be up about 80% of the time. However, note that the challenge is over 200k, not a just can you get ahead.

If the cost to get ahead is greater than the amount you get ahead, it's not a repeatable system to win. With a -EV game, it's always more expensive to lose than get ahead (you can work a system with a $1 million to get ahead $1. But it'll fail more than 1 time in a million).

A lot of the system sellers will tell you "it's all about discipline and taking a profit". Or "anything can happen in the short term". Both have an element of truth, but if the wheel pays 35:1, but has 38 slots, it's a losing game overall. You -might- win. You can play for a long time and be winning. But each spin is expected loss overall.

Quote: blaxius

If you are really so sure about what you say to make fun of me, then I challenge you to bet 100k against 1k that I could win 11 out of 21 attempts of 1 billion rounds each. By they way, thanks for replying to make fun of me and not when I needed help, this will make the forum grow for sure.

This sounds like an unwise move for someone actually interested in getting a bet placed.
Are you only 1% sure in your system, or are you looking to take advantage of some rich fool, willing to make such a tremendously uneven bet?
Or else, are you simply afraid that someone might just accept your challenge of the terms you suggest were more reasonable?

To OP:

I believe I understand you, maybe because I am a programmer as well.
I've also done trillions of simulations for all kinds of games.
In fact, I like your approach (to the chalenger).

What I want to say is that with the stated conditions (requirements),
I can't forsee that you have a chance to win.

(A side note, if I were BlueJay, I would change the max bet from $5000 to a
more realistic $500, I never see a table with $5 min bet allow you to bet $5000.
With that change, then you would not even think about it in the first place.)

Quote: thecesspit

If you quit while ahead playing VP, with a 100-bet bankroll, you will be up about 80% of the time. However, note that the challenge is over 200k, not a just can you get ahead.

If the cost to get ahead is greater than the amount you get ahead, it's not a repeatable system to win. With a -EV game, it's always more expensive to lose than get ahead (you can work a system with a $1 million to get ahead $1. But it'll fail more than 1 time in a million).

A lot of the system sellers will tell you "it's all about discipline and taking a profit". Or "anything can happen in the short term". Both have an element of truth, but if the wheel pays 35:1, but has 38 slots, it's a losing game overall. You -might- win. You can play for a long time and be winning. But each spin is expected loss overall.

As I said before, I am aiming at 1 billion, and 200.000 seems short to me, that is why I don't like this challenge, it's based on luck. What if I tell you I have a system that can work with $1 million to get ahead $1.01 each spin, but failing 1 time in a million, and with a 50,5% chance rate of winning? In a casino environment it would not be that useful, but it is a winning system after all.

Quote: weaselman

This sounds like an unwise move for someone actually interested in getting a bet placed.
Are you only 1% sure in your system, or are you looking to take advantage of some rich fool, willing to make such a tremendously uneven bet?
Or else, are you simply afraid that someone might just accept your challenge of the terms you suggest were more reasonable?

I just said that so that he shuts up. If he is not scared at all and 100% sure of winning, then he should take my challenge and prove me wrong instead of making fun of me. For now, I am not exactly sure of how effective this system is, I need to finish it first and run a couple of billion spins simulations.

Quote: pokerface

To OP:

I believe I understand you, maybe because I am a programmer as well.
I've also done trillions of simulations for all kinds of games.
In fact, I like your approach (to the chalenger).

What I want to say is that with the stated conditions (requirements),
I can't forsee that you have a chance to win.

(A side note, if I were BlueJay, I would change the max bet from $5000 to a
more realistic $500, I never see a table with $5 min bet allow you to bet $5000.
With that change, then you would not even think about it in the first place.)

I read before that he put that limit because you can move from a small bets table and then move to a larger one.

PD: Probably reached my daily posting quota by now. Will continue answering tomorrow.

I've seen threads like this a hundred times on
gambling forums. They always end up with
the OP eventually saying "Looks like I made
a mistake in my testing, sorry I bothered
everybody. Never mind."

Quote: EvenBob

I've seen threads like this a hundred times on
gambling forums. They always end up with
the OP eventually saying "Looks like I made
a mistake in my testing, sorry I bothered
everybody. Never mind."

Really? Please mention me some other gambling forums. Perhaps people are nicer there than here.

Quote: blaxius

What if I tell you I have a system that can work with $1 million to get ahead $1.01 each spin, but failing 1 time in a million, and with a 50,5% chance rate of winning?

I would tell you that you have a coding error somewhere.

I would also ask how you win 50.5% of the time, but fail 1 in 1,000,000 times?

Quote: blaxius

Really? Please mention me some other gambling forums. Perhaps people are nicer there than here.

Honestly, people here have been quite polite to you.
On a regular gambling forum, they see people who
claim to have found the Holy Grail every other day
and they treat them like crap. You'll see...

Quote: rdw4potus

I would tell you that you have a coding error somewhere.

I would also ask how you win 50.5% of the time, but fail 1 in 1,000,000 times?

It's a progressive system. 1 in 1,000,000 times the progression will fail (Approximately, not sure exactly), but each spin I have 50,5% chance rate of winning.
Kind of like martingale.

Quote: EvenBob

Honestly, people here have been quite polite to you.
On a regular gambling forum, they see people who
claim to have found the Holy Grail every other day
and they treat them like crap. You'll see...

You are right. Sorry everyone, I'm just not in the mood today, all this coding is making my head explode.

I am amazed at how much I can post today.

EDIT: Posting limit for today reached. Will answer anything else tomorrow.

Here's the address of a gambling forum. http://vlsroulette.com/

Quote: blaxius

Yes. About two years ago.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/3194-overhauling-the-betting-system-challenge/

No one ever mentioned it in all this time?

You obviously did not understand and/or read Mr. Bluejay's thread about overhauling his system challenge.

Many members gave ideas to beat his challenge, and a long the way a few did, so he changed many things, the rules of the challenge, so one will not be able to win 11 out of 20 with a $5k bankroll. You need to understand this so you can move forward.

Start by reading what was already done in that thread and it will save you time in your programming.

Enjoy

Sorry if I seem not nice. It is just very frustrating. Many members have made ridiculous claims, and I have always offerred to bet that they cannot repeat them. See recent Dice Influencing thread, or EWjones thread, or mrjjj roulette threads, or jerrylogan VP thread. Of course, none of these bets ever come to fruition.
I am NOT saying that there is a zero percent chance a progressive system cannot periodically beat a negative expectation game, what i am saying is that it will lose in the long run. For you to offer yourself 100-1 odds, well, that speaks for how highly you regard your own system.
I will allow you to propose a challenge to me, one that suits your system. Give me the number of spins, how much you can spread your bet, and maybe we can come to a bet we can agree on.

Just for elucidation--- maybe someone posted this already, but the concept of the "Betting System Challenge" is that there is NO system that is going to beat a negative expectation game in the long run in a real casino with real rules. Period. Might you find a system that will win $1 51% of the time and lose $1000 49% of the time.. sure... I would define that system as aloser, not a winner...

Quote: blaxius

It's a progressive system. 1 in 1,000,000 times the progression will fail (Approximately, not sure exactly), but each spin I have 50,5% chance rate of winning.
Kind of like martingale.

I assume you aren't making a Evens bet on a Roulette wheel is each spin has 50.5% chance of winning. If an evens bet has a greater than 50% chance of winning, you don't need a progression :)

Quote:

You are right. Sorry everyone, I'm just not in the mood today, all this coding is making my head explode.

The Betting Systems sub-forum is a rough and tumble place. The piranhas will circle when they smell blood. And I'm as guilty of that as the next person as soon as they enter crazyland.

But right now, you are doing what I did a few years back. Play with systems to see what they look like over time. I didn't figure to be able to "beat" the casino using them though.

Quote:

I am amazed at how much I can post today.

EDIT: Posting limit for today reached. Will answer anything else tomorrow.

Quote: blaxius

I just said that so that he shuts up.

It does not work like that. If you come to a public forum to sound your ideas, you don't get to make people to shut up.
The most you can do in that respect is shut up yourself. Once you are not talking, pretty soon people will stop talking about you, but not before then.

Quote:

If he is not scared at all and 100% sure of winning, then he should take my challenge and prove me wrong instead of making fun of me.

No. Rather you should stop talking about what he should do, and think about what you can.
If you believe you have a good system, think about ways you could make some money with it. 100:1 is pretty freaking outrageous, but, 10:1, maybe, you could find some takers, if you stopped being so obnoxious. Hell, if you are so sure, you are right, why not offer even money?

Quote:

For now, I am not exactly sure of how effective this system is

Then, could it be, that you are actually the one who should shut up, not SOOPOO, who actually knows what he is talking about?

There is not much pride in making a system that wins about half of the time with unlimited bankroll and unlimited maximum bet. A martingale will do that, and it has been known for long while. The question is can you do better than that. The answer is "no".

Quote: EvenBob

Here's the address of a gambling forum. http://vlsroulette.com/

Thanks, but I think I will stay here for a while longer.

Quote: guido111

You obviously did not understand and/or read Mr. Bluejay's thread about overhauling his system challenge.

Many members gave ideas to beat his challenge, and a long the way a few did, so he changed many things, the rules of the challenge, so one will not be able to win 11 out of 20 with a $5k bankroll. You need to understand this so you can move forward.

Start by reading what was already done in that thread and it will save you time in your programming.

Enjoy

I have read both threads Bluejay started 2 years ago already, in fact I have quoted him here before. And as I have said before, I am improving my system and my chances of winning. I have won 16/100 attempts with two different systems which I keep trying to improve. So I don't think 11/20 is impossible (I remember being discussed in another thread how to calculate the chances of an event with X% of happening once occurring P times in N times but I don't recall which one it was. If you could help me find that thread or teach me how to calculate that, I would be extremely grateful to you).

Quote: SOOPOO

Sorry if I seem not nice. It is just very frustrating. Many members have made ridiculous claims, and I have always offerred to bet that they cannot repeat them. See recent Dice Influencing thread, or EWjones thread, or mrjjj roulette threads, or jerrylogan VP thread. Of course, none of these bets ever come to fruition.
I am NOT saying that there is a zero percent chance a progressive system cannot periodically beat a negative expectation game, what i am saying is that it will lose in the long run. For you to offer yourself 100-1 odds, well, that speaks for how highly you regard your own system.
I will allow you to propose a challenge to me, one that suits your system. Give me the number of spins, how much you can spread your bet, and maybe we can come to a bet we can agree on.

Just for elucidation--- maybe someone posted this already, but the concept of the "Betting System Challenge" is that there is NO system that is going to beat a negative expectation game in the long run in a real casino with real rules. Period. Might you find a system that will win $1 51% of the time and lose $1000 49% of the time.. sure... I would define that system as aloser, not a winner...

I apologize myself too, but you need to understand that it is frustrating for a new member to be made fun of. I just said 100:1 because I knew no one in their right mind would accept it. And I did not mention my system to have that odds, I think you might have misunderstood what I said or I expressed myself incorrectly.

Regarding the challenge, we can make a mini challenge similar to the one Bluejay was offering in the beginning: 10:1 odds, unlimited bankroll, $5 minimum - $5000 maximum, $1 wagers can be placed on any bet, with a minimum of $5 on the outside if any outside wagers are placed, and a minimum of $5 on the inside if any inside wagers are placed, $5000 maximum as the total that can be wagered on one spin, no sit outs (a bet must be placed in every bet), no changing games (in the original Bluejay's thread someone suggested as an idea to start on roulette and after reaching more than 1% of advantage switching to craps that has lower house edge. That was accepted at that time, I don't know if it is accepted in the current challenge but I won't do that, I will only play roulette), but instead of 1 billion spins let's make it 21 attempts (I don't like ties) of 1 million each (I'm not able to beat 1 billion yet =/). An attempt is considered won if I show any profit after the million spin. I don't know how much is ok with you, $500, $1000?

If Mike could be the judge, escrow the funds and do the programming for a fee that would be great.

Quote: thecesspit

I assume you aren't making a Evens bet on a Roulette wheel is each spin has 50.5% chance of winning. If an evens bet has a greater than 50% chance of winning, you don't need a progression :)

I should have not used the word spin here, I should have used "round". 1 "round" would represent a complete circle of the progression; and if a "round" fails, then there is a progression of "rounds" too.

Quote: thecesspit

The Betting Systems sub-forum is a rough and tumble place. The piranhas will circle when they smell blood. And I'm as guilty of that as the next person as soon as they enter crazyland.

I understand, I must be the 1000 person that comes and says he has a winning system, and probably the last 999 people all claiming the same just disappeared later with their heads low. There is nothing I can do to avoid that and the way you feel towards anyone like me.

Quote: thecesspit

But right now, you are doing what I did a few years back. Play with systems to see what they look like over time. I didn't figure to be able to "beat" the casino using them though.

Probably all gamblers have done that before, and it's exactly what I'm doing right now. I'm young, smart, full of ideas, and I have plenty of time. Wish me luck!

Quote: weaselman

It does not work like that. If you come to a public forum to sound your ideas, you don't get to make people to shut up.
The most you can do in that respect is shut up yourself. Once you are not talking, pretty soon people will stop talking about you, but not before then.



No. Rather you should stop talking about what he should do, and think about what you can.
If you believe you have a good system, think about ways you could make some money with it. 100:1 is pretty freaking outrageous, but, 10:1, maybe, you could find some takers, if you stopped being so obnoxious. Hell, if you are so sure, you are right, why not offer even money?


Then, could it be, that you are actually the one who should shut up, not SOOPOO, who actually knows what he is talking about?

There is not much pride in making a system that wins about half of the time with unlimited bankroll and unlimited maximum bet. A martingale will do that, and it has been known for long while. The question is can you do better than that. The answer is "no".

I did not come to this forum to argue, so let's leave it here. I apologize to you if you found what I said offensive, and I have apologized to SOOPOO too. I'll shut up as you suggest, but I'll just say one last thing: I never mentioned unlimited bankroll and unlimited maximum bet.

Quote: blaxius

Regarding the challenge, we can make a mini challenge similar to the one Bluejay was offering in the beginning: 10:1 odds, unlimited bankroll, $5 minimum - $5000 maximum, $1 wagers can be placed on any bet, with a minimum of $5 on the outside if any outside wagers are placed, and a minimum of $5 on the inside if any inside wagers are placed, $5000 maximum as the total that can be wagered on one spin, no sit outs (a bet must be placed in every bet), no changing games (in the original Bluejay's thread someone suggested as an idea to start on roulette and after reaching more than 1% of advantage switching to craps that has lower house edge. That was accepted at that time, I don't know if it is accepted in the current challenge but I won't do that, I will only play roulette), but instead of 1 billion spins let's make it 21 attempts (I don't like ties) of 1 million each (I'm not able to beat 1 billion yet =/). An attempt is considered won if I show any profit after the million spin.



I did not come to this forum to argue, so let's leave it here. I apologize to you if you found what I said offensive, and I have apologized to SOOPOO too. I'll shut up as you suggest, but I'll just say one last thing: I never mentioned unlimited bankroll and unlimited maximum bet.

The concept of the betting system challenge was to show that no system can reliably beat a negative expectation game in the long run. If your system would show a profit of $1 11 times, and lose $10000 10 times, you would want to declare it a success. We both know that those results would really be a failure for the betting system you propose. I am not the math expert that others here are, but it is quite possible that over 1 million spins, if you are just looking to be $1 ahead, and do not care how much you would lose if you are not ahead, that you might be able to succeed more than 50% of the time. That is why the Wiz expanded to a billion spins.
i owed you an apology first, by the way.

Progressive Loss systems work exactly as you describe SooPoo... lots of small wins, and a few huge losses. Being up over 80% of the time is doable. That's not hard to do. It's being up more over those 80% of times than you lose 20% of the time (which is not possible with a -EV game).

RSinger's Video Poker system would boast a 80% success rate (or some similar number), which looked good, until you peel back what that means, and realize it's not hard to have a system to do that. As VP gets muddy with variable payouts, and you can further obfuscate it with mini-wins and interim targets and banking certain values, you can make claims that "the big wins cover the times it losses". As a side note, I could never get the results RSinger claimed via simulation on his multi-level systems, but I suspect this was a coding failure (they did SO badly, I can't believe anyone would use them more than once). One day I'll pick the code back up again.

This an aside to what blaxius is talking about, for sure; but shows that this sort of technique has been considered before. I'd again suggest you work through the Gambler's Ruin material rather than trying to code a 'solution'.

Quote: SOOPOO

The concept of the betting system challenge was to show that no system can reliably beat a negative expectation game in the long run. If your system would show a profit of $1 11 times, and lose $10000 10 times, you would want to declare it a success. We both know that those results would really be a failure for the betting system you propose. I am not the math expert that others here are, but it is quite possible that over 1 million spins, if you are just looking to be $1 ahead, and do not care how much you would lose if you are not ahead, that you might be able to succeed more than 50% of the time. That is why the Wiz expanded to a billion spins.
i owed you an apology first, by the way.

Apology accepted. I understand what you are saying, that is why I am trying to win the challenge, not creating a system that will beat 100% of the time. That's just impossible, but the closer you get to 100% the more likely you are to win. What I am doing is building a system based on rounds, each round consisting of 50.5% chance of winning, and 49.5% of loosing. Obviously, the 50.5% of wins would give you a smaller income than the lost from 49.5%, and that is why I am talking about rounds inside rounds inside rounds. The concept is like creating a cycle of really really slow bets with 50.5% chance of winning. With the other 49.5%, you would use round 2, which is similar to the first one with really really slow bets too but making you win enough to cover the losses from the first round. And by cycling this way up to the maximum bet, there are chances that you can be ahead over 1 billion spins.

What I am aiming at, is to minimize the chance of loosing so much that you would have 1 chance in 10 billions of loosing, and that would be enough to win the challenge of 1 billion spins. Of course if luck is against you, the 1 chance in 10 billions will come get you and make even bill gates homeless.

By the way, I've doing some research, and with the systems that I was using that had a 16% chance of winning and attempt, I would have 0,00615232472362199% chance of winning 11 times out of 20. Is that correct?? The formula I used was the binomial distribution: P(X=20)= (20(n) choose 11(k))(4/25)^11(1-4/25)^(20-11).
I don't understand much of it, anyone here can correct me if I am wrong?

Quote: thecesspit

This an aside to what blaxius is talking about, for sure; but shows that this sort of technique has been considered before. I'd again suggest you work through the Gambler's Ruin material rather than trying to code a 'solution'.

I am not trying to code a solution, I am trying to beat a challenge here. Frankly, I've been taking a look at the link you sent me: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath084/kmath084.htm, but I don't understand most of it.

Quote: blaxius

but I'll just say one last thing: I never mentioned unlimited bankroll and unlimited maximum bet.

Oh? In that case, I misunderstood. So, what are the limits you are proposing for the challenge then?

Quote: blaxius

By the way, I've doing some research, and with the systems that I was using that had a 16% chance of winning and attempt, I would have 0,00615232472362199% chance of winning 11 times out of 20. Is that correct?? The formula I used was the binomial distribution: P(X=20)= (20(n) choose 11(k))(4/25)^11(1-4/25)^(20-11).
I don't understand much of it, anyone here can correct me if I am wrong?

If 4/25 is the probability of a single win, then this formula gives you the probability of winning exactly 11 times out of 20. I doubt that is the number you are looking for though. What you want is the probability of winning 11 or more times, which would be P(11)+P(12)+P(13)...+P(20).

Quote: weaselman

Oh? In that case, I misunderstood. So, what are the limits you are proposing for the challenge then?

As the original challenge, infinite play money and $5 min - $5000max bet. What I meant is that I never mentioned unlimited maximum bet. This plus unlimited bankroll would be ridiculous. With that martingale would win 100% of the time.

Quote: weaselman

If 4/25 is the probability of a single win, then this formula gives you the probability of winning exactly 11 times out of 20. I doubt that is the number you are looking for though. What you want is the probability of winning 11 or more times, which would be P(11)+P(12)+P(13)...+P(20).

Then I would have to sum that 0.006% with 9 more results that would be smaller, even if all were 0.006% that would give me 0.055% the most, which still is pretty low... I though the odds weren't that bad =/

Thanks for the help.

Quote: blaxius

I am not trying to code a solution, I am trying to beat a challenge here. Frankly, I've been taking a look at the link you sent me: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath084/kmath084.htm, but I don't understand most of it.

Code a solution to beat a challenge. I'm saying that the challenge you are trying to beat is -probably- impossible based on the starting requirements set, because the risk of ruin (and amount lost) is for each round/step outweighs the profits on success. If you have a round that wins 50.5% of the time and loses 49.5%, but the amount lost is more than the amount won, all you've done is refine up the problem from being a single spin to a group of spins, but the same laws apply.

I understand you are trying to get in such that you can win 11 from 20 'runs' over 200,000 spins, and this is why I said 'probably'. I think the bet size restrictions will always get you.

As for the article, try the wiki page on Gambler's ruin as a first pass. If that's not clear, I'd suggest going backwards into probability theory until you can work forwards again.

Quote: thecesspit

Code a solution to beat a challenge. I'm saying that the challenge you are trying to beat is -probably- impossible based on the starting requirements set, because the risk of ruin (and amount lost) is for each round/step outweighs the profits on success. If you have a round that wins 50.5% of the time and loses 49.5%, but the amount lost is more than the amount won, all you've done is refine up the problem from being a single spin to a group of spins, but the same laws apply.

I understand you are trying to get in such that you can win 11 from 20 'runs' over 200,000 spins, and this is why I said 'probably'. I think the bet size restrictions will always get you.

It's not the bet size restrictions that are getting me, it's the starting bankroll. But I am assuming that if I were to try the challenge with 1 billion spins the starting bankroll should increase as well, at least to cover a few rounds of losses in a row so that my system could start increasing my net with no risk of hitting $0.

Quote: thecesspit

As for the article, try the wiki page on Gambler's ruin as a first pass. If that's not clear, I'd suggest going backwards into probability theory until you can work forwards again.

I think I will try that another day, trying to understand the binomial distribution has already exhausted me.

Bet size restrictions or bankroll. It doesn't matter which. Bankroll can be counted in the number of minimal unit bets ($5000 is just 1000 $5 bets).

Quote: blaxius

I think I will try that another day, trying to understand the binomial distribution has already exhausted me.

It is not that hard to understand.
try this page.
Binomial Probability Distribution

It helped me a year ago. Even has a free calculator. Now I just use Excel.

Good Luck to you!
Sally

Quote: mustangsally

It is not that hard to understand.
try this page.
Binomial Probability Distribution

It helped me a year ago. Even has a free calculator. Now I just use Excel.

Good Luck to you!
Sally

Thanks, that's one of the pages that I came up with and I used that calculator to know the chances I said before, but as it happened to me, it only gives you the exact number, not the sum of all that are need. Could you tell me the formula you use on Excel?

Thanks again!

Quote: thecesspit

Bet size restrictions or bankroll. It doesn't matter which. Bankroll can be counted in the number of minimal unit bets ($5000 is just 1000 $5 bets).

He is talking about limited bet size (1000 units), but unlimited bankroll, so, if you lose one sequence, you can continue betting.
It is not that outrageous actually (and not entirely unrealistic - you lose your entire "session bankroll" sometimes, but still come back to casino and play after that).
1000 unit (let's say 1023) is enough to place 10 martingale bets. In a single zero roulette, you'd lose about every 605th sequence. The average length of a sequence would be 2.11 spins. So, you'd need to play about 95K of them to complete 200K spins. To end up in the positive territory, you have to lose less than 94 of them. The probability of that happening is about 1 in 826,753 if I am not mistaken in my huge number math ...

The calculator that page links to shows the cumulative probabilities.
Both greater than or less than.

Excel is real easy to use with the BINOMDIST function (up to 2007)
as one can just make a large table in a few minutes or less.

Here is Microsoft page for the function
Excel statistical functions: BINOMDIST

I can show you how I do it much later tonight, that is US California time.

Quote: weaselman

He is talking about limited bet size (1000 units), but unlimited bankroll, so, if you lose one sequence, you can continue betting.
It is not that outrageous actually (and not entirely unrealistic - you lose your entire "session bankroll" sometimes, but still come back to casino and play after that).
1000 unit (let's say 1023) is enough to place 10 martingale bets. In a single zero roulette, you'd lose about every 605th sequence. The average length of a sequence would be 2.11 spins. So, you'd need to play about 95K of them to complete 200K spins. To end up in the positive territory, you have to lose less than 94 of them. The probability of that happening is about 1 in 826,753 if I am not mistaken in my huge number math ...

You are right, that's what I meant. But we have to stick to the terms of the challenge.

Quote: mustangsally

The calculator that page links to shows the cumulative probabilities.
Both greater than or less than.

Excel is real easy to use with the BINOMDIST function (up to 2007)
as one can just make a large table in a few minutes or less.

Here is Microsoft page for the function
Excel statistical functions: BINOMDIST

I can show you how I do it much later tonight, that is US California time.

I really appreciate your help, but I can't today. I will read that later, thanks.