Quote:Mission146Switch,

I should also like to add that your 20% figure assumes a win on every fifth hand, where my 33.34% figure is a long-run figure.

If you only won 20% of the time, you'd be finished either way, ... ... ...

Not exactly, as long as I don't lose 5 hands in a row then I will win my initial wager. So, for example, the sequence:-

LLWLLLWLLWLLLLWLWLLWLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLLLWLLLWLLLLWLLW wins me 12 units with just a 24% hit rate.

The problem is that it is easy to pick an 'average' sequence in order to make the system look good BUT it's the more extreme outcomes (that will come up eventually) that makes all of these type of systems fail.

Since you asked, the problem with your math is here:

Quote:Mission146It is theoretically impossible for this system to fail to complete, given infinite time, because it requires a winning percentage less than the probabilistic expected winning percentage. For this reason, it is equally theoretically impossible for the Martingale system to fail to return the original amount bet.

This is (almost) factually incorrect. It IS theoretically possible for the system to fail to complete. You could lose every single hand of blackjack you play for the rest of your life. Then your descendents could continue to lose. There is no law of probability that says that some event has to happen eventually, no law that says that the expectation of events will absolutely regress to the mean.

The only reason I have to say (almost) is your qualifier about infinite time. You can argue that given infinite time, every event happens as long-term probabilities nebulously merge into 1. That is, it is both theoretically possible and theoretically impossible for the system to fail... But since you don't have infinite time, and, truly, infinite time doesn't even exist, I stand by the previous paragraph.

By my personal experience AND by the actual laws of probability, your system does not work.

Learn to count cards if you like BJ.

TheCessPit,

I agree with what you have said, and essentially had already made the same point, with all due respect. The point that was making was, with the Martingale, five consecutive losses bust you in that scenario. That's independent of any previous successes or losses. With the Labouchere, five consecutive losses will NEVER bust you independently of past events, it is past-event dependent on the extent that you must have that choppy pattern or single-number or basically anything that results in more previous losses than wins.

DealerWins,

I love the username. In any case, I have already acknowledged that the system WILL eventually fail to successfully complete a line. The system MUST fail to complete a line eventually.

With respect to the 0.5% casino edge, that's basically the edge that the casino has assuming the player plays perfectly, but it's something of a straight up number. The goal of this system is not to Quixotically attempt to chop away at the casino edge, but very simply, to put oneself in a position where one can succeed by winning LESS than one should actually win.

The only way this will be absolutely determined is with extensve experimentation, which I will be undergoing. Keep in mind that this is more educational for me than it is any great free money scheme. If it is proven to work, I will certainly adopt it, but it is my love of mathematics and probability that is driving me to try to develop such a system, not money.

Switch,

Good points. I also agree that the Modified Labouchere MUST eventually fail to complete a line. The mathematical question is whether or not the failure to complete the line(s) when compounded will be negated (and more) by the compounded lines that do complete.

DWheatley,

That was an excellent post. I appreciate the thought that went into it.

Keep in mind that I do not intend to throw this system at the betting system challenge right away. I'm actually in the process of tinkering with a couple of things, so the system is far from complete. (Details in my next post) I'm also going to conduct extensive experimentation on my own before I would even consider paying anyone to code this for me, I'm thinking 10,000 hands. If I am successful after 10,000 hands, then I will pay someone to code this bad boy up into a program in which I will run 1,000,000 Labouchere Lines. Depending on those results, I may or may not take on the challenge.

The infinite time qualifier is fair game. When we say that every slots player WILL eventually lose money playing the slots, we are also including the player that hits for $1,000,000 on a Progressive within an hour of taking his seat. Why is this player included? Infinite time. Eventually, if he continues to put money int the slot machine, the casino's edge will continue to chip away at his profits until he has ultimately lost money.

Say it's a dollar slot and you have to bet two credits to achieve the Progressive (if it hits). The guy is $1,000,000 in the good. If you assume he does exactly nothing but lose until the million is gone, you're talking about 500,000 pulls. If we put him at a fair 500 pulls/hour, then you're talking about 1,000 hours of pulling. If you say he pulls eight hours/day, then he would have to pull at that rate for 125 days to lose the million.

That's doing nothing but losing.

If he's a million in the good and the slot pays out at 80%, for simplicity's sake, then you're talking about 500 pulls/hour being $1,000 of which he can be expected to be returned $800. He basically would lose $200/hour.

$1,000,000/200 (loss per hour) = 5,000 hours of pulling. 5,000/8 (hours per day)= 625 days

Your average player, I would argue, is simply not going to play that much in the remainder of his life. Maybe he would, though, I don't know.

It's just, when you make the statement, "Everyone will eventually lose," infinite time is an assumption in that statement. If we can use the assumption to argue the one way, then I would suggest I have the right to use it to argue the other way.

For $499 I will sell you my slot predictor system and you can hit that Progressive within 476.2 spins.

Yes, I do take Paypal !

The majority of my previous notes were illegible, so could not be copied over to here anyway. They were also not detailed. I am going to make the following changes to the system, and will make the following changes to my notes and keep better notes.

Here are the changes:

1.) The player's bankroll will now be $500. That does not mean he only gets $500 once, it just means that when the player has lost $500 in pursuit of the line that the player must start a new line.

2.) The maximum single bet is still $200.

3.) I have to make a hard and fast rule concerning surrendering, or it's not a system. The rule is, quite simply, that I will surrender as dictated by basic strategy.

NOTES:

1.) I will play in sessions and will post data for each session (as they are played) and combined session data at the end of each post. I do not have a great deal of time to sit around and do this all day, or anything, so this will take time.

2.) I will post the final line (without cross-outs), the amount profited on the line, the number of hands played, and the result of each hand.

The legend will be as follows:

W-Win

L-Loss

P-Push

N-Natural

DW-Double Win

DL-Double Loss

SWW-Split Two Wins

SWL-Split, One Win, One Loss

SSWWL- Two Splits, Two Wins, One Loss (You get the idea)

S-Surrender

3.) At the end of the post. I will tally up hours played, overall hand result percentages, money won/lost, and money per hour won/lost.

Does anyone have any suggestions for the legend, or is that about as straightforward as it can get? Finally, does anyone know of a better or more efficient way to conduct the experiment...aside from learning computer programming, which I know zero about?

Cost: Free

I do play on-line slots, however, with free bonus chips. I'll always take free money. The only money I have ever lost is that which I have had to deposit to get what I won.

I am also a better than average card counter, but by no means a professional. The very limited player edge gained from card counting is really not worth it to me, however, unless I was actually going to make a profession out of being a Blackjack player...which is quite doubtful.

Quote:Mission146

It's just, when you make the statement, "Everyone will eventually lose," infinite time is an assumption in that statement. If we can use the assumption to argue the one way, then I would suggest I have the right to use it to argue the other way.

It's not a good statement and hides how things actually work.

Everyone's expected value is negative in these games (if playing without counting or other advantage). You cannot make that expectation positive via a betting system (varying your bets) if each bet result is independent and unrelated to previous events. BUT your result maybe positive. But even if you do go positive, the next bet still has a negative expectation.

Expected Value is for before making a bet. Actual Value is what you have after making those bet(s).

Quote:Mission146I hope that eventually the Wizard may read my post and see what he thinks about the system.

Me too.

I hope mustangsally writes some of her brilliance as well.

First of all, the expectation (Casino Edge) is less player-favorable to begin with in both Craps and Roulette. Furthermore, neither of those games affords the possibility of being able to cross off all five of your numbers with one or two bets.

Additionally, the Labouchere System applied to Craps or Roulette does not afford the opportunity, under any circumstances, to win an amount greater than the sum of the line. With the Modified Labouchere System, such a result is not only possible, but thus far, seem to happen about 1/3rd of the time. I am starting a new study, though, because my records from earlier were not specific enough.