I have a prop bet for all non believers!
Here's what I am offering and how it will work.
I am willing to put up my money against yours. 10 to 1 odds (meaning for every 100 I put up, you put up 1,000). Since the chances are extremely rare and statistically uncommon for someone to win time after time, this is what I am willing to wager for all non believers. The event will be over a course of 10 days. I will start with exactly 1,000 each day. I will be allowed to play any game in the casino excluding sports wagers. I must at some point in the 24 hr period gain 30% of my money (or 300). If at any time in the day I lose the 1,000, then I am done for the day. I must do this repeatedly for 8 out of the 10 days (80%) of the event. All wagering activities will be monitored and audited (by you and a mutually agreed upon third party) at all times to verify the wins or losses.
Do you think this is possible? Most people cannot come close to this feat and do not believe it is possible. I want to prove you wrong and will put up my own money in doing so. All funds will be held in a mutually agreed upon escrow prior to the event. If you are interested, I would like to discuss with you and have you participate. It is a friendly wager, however with real results. The ultimate goal for you would be to learn from me what my success is and duplicate it yourself for life. I could very well lose and look like a donkey. But I think I can do what no one else can. Let's see what happens!
You will start each day with $1,000, and to be successful for that day, you must quit and be able to cash out $1,300.
If you cannot start each day with $1,000, and end the day with $1,300, 8 out of 10 days, then you would lose the prop bet ?
Decrease the odds to 4 to 1, required to make a 50% gain, the second party can be present in person, and all specials, promos, and comps are excluded from the calculations and void from participation.
Any betting system should be able to accomplish this 7 to 8 times out of 10. If you win $300 8 times, and you lose $1000 2 times, you're only up $400.
Your advantage is in the 10-1 payout. If this was an even money bet, it would probably be okay.
I'm sure there's no one stupid enough on this message board to fall for this trick.
It's actually pretty insulting.
April Fools Day joke perhaps?
I'm not going to bother with the math, but the chances of you reaching your goal at least 8 out of 10 days given a 75% per day probability is probably somewhere in the range of 35-40%.
So if you were asking for 2-1 odds, it might be close to a fair bet. Asking 10-1 is outrageous.
Quote: FlatOutWinnerYou don't make sense.. You state your concerned with the 1.3 factor as being unreasonable, but you equate it to being not consistant. Then you say that you pity me for the money I will lose. I decuct from your banter that you dont believe that I will win. Therefore, if I am going to lose all of my money, what difference does the 1.3 factor make. If I am going to lose regardless, you shouldnt care what amount I am proposing, whether its 10-1 or 100-1. I'm going to lose it right? Put your money where your mouth is.
Come on, now you've just gone from sly to just stupid. If I gave you 100-1 odds, the odds would be so much in your favor that every day you could put $1000 on one hand of bacarrat. If you score 8 wins (REALLY not that unlikely. Like 20 to 1?), you get a ridiculous return (500% based on 20 to 1 with 100 to 1 payoff). Why would anyone welcome such a bet? It has noting to do with a level of "certainty." I didn't say a factor of 1.3 is unreasonable because it's difficult, I think you have pretty good chances of winning- I just don't think it proves anything except that you think that you can dupe people into ridiculously weighted prop bets. It definitely doesn't prove for a second that you're beating the house. I don't know, maybe you really do believe.
If you want, I can give you a similar prop bet with poker, where I know I have an advantage. If I had the cash, I'd love to have you put $1,000 for $100 that I can't win 1.3 times my stack 8 out of 10 times.
Quote: PapaChubbyI'm not going to bother with the math, but the chances of you reaching your goal at least 8 out of 10 days given a 75% per day probability is probably somewhere in the range of 35-40%.
The probability given 75% each day is about 52.6%. However, the probability of reaching the daily goal playing zero-edge games is 10/13=76.9%, which gives a chance of 58.4% for the overall goal. For sure, it's 76.9% minus a smidge rather than 75% minus a smidge (you'd do $300, $600, then try to double your last $100 a few times in a row, as winning $1400 does you no better than $1300 for the bet).
Point being, the prop bet is actually worse than even money.
Quote: ZPPThe probability given 75% each day is about 52.6%. However, the probability of reaching the daily goal playing zero-edge games is 10/13=76.9%, which gives a chance of 58.4% for the overall goal. For sure, it's 76.9% minus a smidge rather than 75% minus a smidge (you'd do $300, $600, then try to double your last $100 a few times in a row, as winning $1400 does you no better than $1300 for the bet).
Point being, the prop bet is actually worse than even money.
Wow, I stand corrected. I would not have figured that one would have a >50% chance of succeeding on 8 out of 10 days with a daily success rate of 75%. I guess I mentally simplified to a continuous problem, but it's actually a discrete problem (you can't actually win 7.5 out of 10 days, which would be the average for a continuous problem).
Quote: FlatOutWinnerI am willing to put up my money against yours. 10 to 1 odds (meaning for every 100 I put up, you put up 1,000).
Quote: FootofGodthe 10 to 1 payout upon success gives you an advantage.
What kind of math are you using?Quote: FootofGodIf I gave you 100-1 odds.
Are you actually saying that we have an advantage, and that our advantage goes UP when your risk goes down?
Whether we believe your claim or not is irrelvant.
Asking someone to give you $1,000 when you fail, and for you to give $100 if you succeed, is simply a bad bet. Asking someone to risk $1,000 when you risk $10 is an even worse bet.
I think I'll pass on your little April Fools Joke. The only fool here would be someone who takes you up on the offer.
Now if I were to have 1,000 sessions, you are all saying that you believe I would win 800 out of the 1,000 times I walk into the casino. I was wrong, people do believe in me. Thank you. I don't need to further my case. I hope you can do the same and make bank!
I'll step it up and say I have to make 40% on my money 8 out of the 10 days.
I don't think that's what people are saying. I for one didn't even bother with that part of the proposal.Quote: FlatOutWinnerOk,apparently winning 80% of the time is easy cake for everyone.
However, it certainly seems like YOU are saying that it's easy, or at least it's something you can achive.
And yet, you're only going to give the sucker who thinks you can't do it, $100 if he's right, while you expect $1,000 if he's wrong.
There's a term for that: Hedging a bet.
Quote: FlatOutWinnerDo you believe someone can win consistently at the casinos?
If the question is, can you risk a lot of money to win a little...yes, you will win more TIMES than you lose. See the Wizard's Martingale trials. 8 out of 10 is a bit more than expected, but most certainly not a 9 to 1 shot, as explained earlier. It doesn't mean you can make bank at all. (Unless you convince naive gamblers...I suggest you look at a different website for that...) How about this? I'll give you numbers 0 thru 24 on the Roulette wheel. That's MOST of them! If it's 0 to 24 I'll give you 100, if it's 25-36 you give me 1000. Did you think you could scam a message board of guys who love doing math like this?
For the average guy, this is an unachievable feat. However, if you know your game, play the probabilities, manage your money, hit and run, and navigate to where the right energy is...u too can make a living at it. And believe me, the energy is a big percentage of the factor regardless of what the mathematical geniouses say. Stay away from the negative people and tables. Energy is real. Perhaps a loved one that has passed away will help you...or haunt you. lol
Certainly not for everyone. In closing, I don't need to prove to anyone, I wanted to at first. I took 5k and made it into 125k last year...and I did it by consistantly winning small chunks. None of the wins were from a large prop bet payout. And yes, if you are willing to risk large amounts relative to you gains, you have a good chance of leaving with a win.. but the key words are 'willing to risk'. Just as in stocks, it is all about percentage gain. If you want to make 5k, it is alot easier to make 5k when risking 100k than when risking 1k. A 5% gain is much more attainable than a 500% gain. Keep this all in perspective. Good luck to everyone. If anyone here wins 80% of the time they play at the casino (excluding poker, racebook, and sportsbook), keep up the good work.
Quote: FlatOutWinnerMy dear friends.. not a scam at all. That was the prop that I felt was fair. I appreciate the mathematical knowledge in this forum. I really don't need the money, and upon further thought, don't really need others figuring out my strategies. I have met thousands of people who consistantly lose at the casinos.. that's why they were built. And my friends have made me 10 - 1 odds bets that I couldnt win. Wouldn't you like to know the results?
For the average guy, this is an unachievable feat. However, if you know your game, play the probabilities, manage your money, hit and run, and navigate to where the right energy is...u too can make a living at it. And believe me, the energy is a big percentage of the factor regardless of what the mathematical geniouses say. Stay away from the negative people and tables. Energy is real. Perhaps a loved one that has passed away will help you...or haunt you. lol
Certainly not for everyone. In closing, I don't need to prove to anyone, I wanted to at first. I took 5k and made it into 125k last year...and I did it by consistantly winning small chunks. None of the wins were from a large prop bet payout. And yes, if you are willing to risk large amounts relative to you gains, you have a good chance of leaving with a win.. but the key words are 'willing to risk'. Just as in stocks, it is all about percentage gain. If you want to make 5k, it is alot easier to make 5k when risking 100k than when risking 1k. A 5% gain is much more attainable than a 500% gain. Keep this all in perspective. Good luck to everyone. If anyone here wins 80% of the time they play at the casino (excluding poker, racebook, and sportsbook), keep up the good work.
If you are risking 100k to win 5k, you've got to do better than 80%...80% means losing 400k for every 80k you win. A loss of 320k. If you are risking 100k to win 5k, you;d better have a more than 95% success rate. Keep up the good work!
It is kind of insulting that you think everyone is so dumb.
You are not proposing that you can win your target 80% of the time.
You're saying you can have an 80% success rate for a 10 session
sample better than 1 out of 11 times (10-1 payoff). Huge difference.
You totally hit the nail on the head.
Where have you been hiding?
I look forward to more of that sort of consise, dead on, analysis.
:)
btw, to my math friends. I truly am impressed with your mathematical deductions. Tell me, how does one come to the conclusion of what the house advantage is for say... the fire bet. I have read that it is between 20 -25% house advantage. How do you calcuate this? I understand the fire bet and how it works but how do you figure that the house has a 25% advantage? thanks
The Wiz calculated the Fire Bet on his Craps Side Bets page.Quote: FlatOutWinnerTell me, how does one come to the conclusion of what the house advantage is for say... the fire bet. I have read that it is between 20 -25% house advantage. How do you calcuate this? I understand the fire bet and how it works but how do you figure that the house has a 25% advantage? thanks
How he figured out the odds of hitting them was by brute force simulation.
Once you have the odds, figuring out the return and house advantage is simple, and illustrated on that page.
Quote: FlatOutWinnerI do appreciate the mathematical intelligence here. I remain steadfast on my convictions and will continue to do my thing. Btw, I didnt say that I was trying to win 5k from 100k, that was just a probability likelyhood opposed to a percentage increase. I will however be starting with 50k this weekend and will walk away once i win 20k. I did it my last 2 trips. Fot those of you who play craps... play the probabilities and don't go for the big hit. It rarely comes. Don't play scared and don't be on a table that is negative and people are cursing and look like they are going to hit someone. Get in and get out. Hit and run. Don't put the time in... the time is on the houses side. Play to win and don't play for comp dollars. I guarantee you will loose a hell of alot more relative to your earned comp dollars when you stay and play just for a fricken free dinner. Its all about perspective.
btw, to my math friends. I truly am impressed with your mathematical deductions. Tell me, how does one come to the conclusion of what the house advantage is for say... the fire bet. I have read that it is between 20 -25% house advantage. How do you calcuate this? I understand the fire bet and how it works but how do you figure that the house has a 25% advantage? thanks
I'm not a snarky person, but I can't resist:
House Edge on the Fire Bet:
(Odds of Point Conversion * Energy at the Table) / ((Negative people + (7 outs in last hour) / Absolute value of Dead loved ones)
Quote: FlatOutWinnerIf I wasnt' continuously making money and I wasn't a totally secure person based upon my successes, then I might be offended by that...lol But I actually think it is very funny. However, by that calculation, I believe the house edge is more around the 60% range. That figure can dramatically change depending on how mischievous the spirits are. ha
Ha! Like I said, I pity you. Nothing is more dangerous for a gambler than thinking he is beating the house and that playing against a house edge is his "career." It also seems like you are talking about "energy" and superstitious stuff in a very serious tone (mind you, we all have our favorite superstitions, but they are just for mental comfort and fun). Figures of probability do not changed based on anything. I'll tell you what: why don't we calculate the odds of you being x ahead after 10,000 roulette spins/10,000 hands of BJ/10,000 dice rolls or whatever your game or games are, with a restriction on betting varaince (so you can't just put the jest of you BR on the last trial to try to make it 50/50) calculate the odds of being x ahead based on standard deviations, then place a prop bet just a little bit outside that probability in our favor? Afterall, if you think you're a winning player with a true advantage, a big sample should aid you in winning, meaning you should be way more likely to come out ahead than what we calculate.
This would basically be putting your word up against the math. I know which side I'm on; the side that's made casinos billions and billions over a countless sample size.
Quote: FootofGodHa! Like I said, I pity you. Nothing is more dangerous for a gambler than thinking he is beating the house and that playing against a house edge is his "career." It also seems like you are talking about "energy" and superstitious stuff in a very serious tone (mind you, we all have our favorite superstitions, but they are just for mental comfort and fun). Figures of probability do not changed based on anything. I'll tell you what: why don't we calculate the odds of you being x ahead after 10,000 roulette spins/10,000 hands of BJ/10,000 dice rolls or whatever your game or games are, with a restriction on betting varaince (so you can't just put the jest of you BR on the last trial to try to make it 50/50) calculate the odds of being x ahead based on standard deviations, then place a prop bet just a little bit outside that probability in our favor? Afterall, if you think you're a winning player with a true advantage, a big sample should aid you in winning, meaning you should be way more likely to come out ahead than what we calculate.
This would basically be putting your word up against the math. I know which side I'm on; the side that's made casinos billions and billions over a countless sample size.
OK, I gotta chime in here.
I don't understand why you would even suggest this. You clearly understand the math, yet you propose that he play in a fashion which is mathematically destined to lose money. You even place a specific restriction on him to make sure that he can't use the math to give him a reasonable possibility of coming out a winner. I understand you are simply proposing an experiment to validate the house advantage, but actually playing this way in a casino is just moronic.
Why not use the mathematics to your advantage? Play as few hands as possible. Keep your goals modest relative to your bankroll. Maximize variance while minimizing the effect of the house edge. While I certainly don't agree with all of FlatOutWinner's bravado, his betting scheme has mathematical merit. Bankroll $1000 per day, attempt to win $300 per day, place only a few large bets each day. The mathematicians in this thread have verified that this approach can yield at least 8 winning sessions out of 10 with a greater than 50% probability. Such an approach can result in a standard deviation of maybe $1000 while limiting the house advantage to $100 or so, providing a nearly 50% likelihood of leaving Las Vegas a winner.
Too many people think that the statement "the house always has an edge" implies "the player can never win." This simply is not the case.
"Winning"; "losing". You can't restrict your vision to what happens inside the casino, or in front of the computer screen. Winning and losing is something that happens in life. I win all month so that I can play in the casino. I win all year so that the family can go to Walt Disney World. I win for 18 years so that my daughter can go to college.
I know, it's a little outside the discussion, but in reality it isn't, because the OP has turned it into a discussion of making a living from this system. I say, there's easier and less stressful ways to earn a living, or even turn $5000 into $125000. You could start by buying a $5000 car at an auction and selling it for $7000. You could buy distressed houses and rent them for more than the cost of owning them. Put $5000 down on a tractor-trailer and haul goods across the country; my neighbor did that, and he now has 3 houses, a boat, nice hot rod cars, etc. There are hundreds of ways; but once you are doing it to make a living, it isn't recreation any more, it's work. And to suggest that the best way to turn $5000 into a living is to take it to a craps table, well, that just sounds ludicrous to me, given the number of other more certain possibilities.
Mosca.... This is a gambling site. If you want to talk about investing money into corporate america or building a business, I think that is great, but take it somewhere else. btw, I started a company 10 years ago with 20k and turned it into a 5 million dollar business. So, I think I know a little about investng wisely.
So, if there are any cool guys here that enjoy making money at casinos, hanging out with only the hottest waitresses in town, and having a good time out with them at dinner and lounges/bars. Id be happy to so you what it means to do it all right. You have to like craps, I love poker tournaments, and I am straight. No moochers allowed either.
Fine print: For each of 2 days, or until I lose the bet, whichever comes first, I will start out with $5000. If I'm up by at least $5 by the end of the day, that's a win for the day, otherwise I lose the entire bet. If I win 100% of the days, I win the bet. A minimum bet commensurate with the time and expense involved will be required.
Quote: FlatOutWinnerMosca.... This is a gambling site. If you want to talk about investing money into corporate america or building a business, I think that is great, but take it somewhere else. btw, I started a company 10 years ago with 20k and turned it into a 5 million dollar business. So, I think I know a little about investng wisely.
LOL, what are you, the 2 day old new moderator? You're the one who said it was a way to make a living, not me. All of life is gambling. Why not gamble at something where you have the edge, instead of at the craps table where you don't?
And, what is the name of your company, if you don't mind my asking?
Quote: PapaChubbyOK, I gotta chime in here.
I don't understand why you would even suggest this. You clearly understand the math, yet you propose that he play in a fashion which is mathematically destined to lose money. You even place a specific restriction on him to make sure that he can't use the math to give him a reasonable possibility of coming out a winner. I understand you are simply proposing an experiment to validate the house advantage, but actually playing this way in a casino is just moronic.
Why not use the mathematics to your advantage? Play as few hands as possible. Keep your goals modest relative to your bankroll. Maximize variance while minimizing the effect of the house edge. While I certainly don't agree with all of FlatOutWinner's bravado, his betting scheme has mathematical merit. Bankroll $1000 per day, attempt to win $300 per day, place only a few large bets each day. The mathematicians in this thread have verified that this approach can yield at least 8 winning sessions out of 10 with a greater than 50% probability. Such an approach can result in a standard deviation of maybe $1000 while limiting the house advantage to $100 or so, providing a nearly 50% likelihood of leaving Las Vegas a winner.
Too many people think that the statement "the house always has an edge" implies "the player can never win." This simply is not the case.
The player's claim is that he has a real edge and wins at the casino for a living, based on how he plays. If that it TRUE, the WORST odds we should take are those of the projected outcome based on an existing house edge. Afterall, he is claiming that the house edge does not exist in his case (read through the posts, he really seems to believe that he has beat the games). If he BELIEVES he has, say a 5% edge instead of a disadvantage, I want to see a bet that reflects that there is a difference. OF COURSE I want to make a good bet for myself, just like he does with his absolutely insane 4 to 1 when it seems like it should be more like 3 to 2. The only difference is, based on what he is claiming, I have an actual, logical reason to demand more of his claim. If he believes he has an edge, he should bet accordingly, not creating an undeniable edge through a very, very bad "prop bet." He's basically saying "hey, I bet I'll have a little positive variance as opposed to some negative variance. If I do, give me ten times my money!"
At this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that FlatOutWinner's posse is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded and cantankerous upon closer inspection, than his outbursts. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that the last time I heard FlatOutWinner ramble on in his characteristically bibulous blather he said something about wanting to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that. We are at war. Don't think we're not just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with FlatOutWinner's impetuous deeds. We're at war with his perverted cop-outs. And we're at war with his distasteful protests. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that FlatOutWinner has no discernible talents. The only things he has doubtlessly mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose FlatOutWinner is also good at convincing people that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell, but my point is that you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart FlatOutWinner's plans to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide cronyism. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to balkanize his indecent little empire into an etiolated and sapless agglomeration. It is imperative that we inform such people that some people have said that all people, including twisted New Age stumblebums, ought to be kind and sensitive to one another. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that FlatOutWinner would have us believe that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all entirely justified. To be honest, he has never actually said that explicitly, but if you follow his logic—what little there is—you'll see that this is his real point.
Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much but much too little. For FlatOutWinner's précis are devoid of logic and filled to the brim with hate and misinformation. You don't need to be the smartest guy on the planet to figure that out. Heck, even the lowliest Joe Six-Pack knows that FlatOutWinner's goombahs believe that FlatOutWinner has his moral compass in tact. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to make FlatOutWinner answer for his wrongdoings. He is an inspiration to superstitious fruitcakes everywhere. They panegyrize FlatOutWinner's crusade to rule with an iron fist, and, more importantly, they don't realize that much can be learned about FlatOutWinner by understanding dissolute hooliganism. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that when he stated that libertinism forms the core of any utopian society, I concluded that he was totally malign. Now that he claims that violence and prejudice are funny, I insist that he's crossed the line into post-rationalist neo-Hegelianism. Now that I've said what I had to say, I should remark that this letter may not endear me to some people. Indeed, it may even cost me a friend or two. However, friends do not let friends get trampled by money-grubbing, crude drug addicts like FlatOutWinner. The truth is the truth and we pay a steep price whenever we ignore it.
Tell us how you really feel!
LOL
I think that's the only point that I disagree with.Quote: MoscaMy resolve cannot fully be articulated
Quote: FlatOutWinnerYou guys still don't get the point. And I thought you were smart. OK, if I were to make it a 20 day event and I have to win 40% of my daily starting point 16 out of 20 days, which is still 80%.. would that be more reasonable? If you think it is such an advantage to me, than I will give you those odds and see if you can do it.
Risk of Ruin gives 71.4% chance of achieving goal each day, less the house advantage (estimate 70% actual chance of achieving goal).
Binomial Distribution says with a daily success rate of 71.4%, the odds of 16 or more days of success is 28.3%. With a daily success rate of 70%, the odds of 16 or more days of success is 23.75%.
I would gladly offer 10-1 odds that I could do this.
Quote: DocAs Carol King sang in Smackwater Jack, "You can't talk to a man, when he don't wanna understand." On the other hand, sometimes there are resources that can help. So, Mosca, what is that web site again? It might be useful in helping me expound my position some day when I don't want to just quote singer/songwriters.
pakin.org.
Quote: Moscapakin.org.
Thanks!
Quote: FlatOutWinnerYou guys still don't get the point. And I thought you were smart. OK, if I were to make it a 20 day event and I have to win 40% of my daily starting point 16 out of 20 days, which is still 80%.. would that be more reasonable? If you think it is such an advantage to me, than I will give you those odds and see if you can do it.
Yes, please! I will take your $5000 to my $500 (or higher stakes), you betting that I can't do as you describe with $1000 as the "daily" starting point. I don't live in Vegas so we would need to restart each "day" immediately each time I win $400 or lose $1000, so that this can be done with in a weekend. (If you seriously want to do this, I think we'll have to find an arbitrator, and in turn if we have to pay the arbitrator much I'll want higher stakes, since there are already various fixed costs that eat into my edge. The real concern with actually accepting the bet is that you are a complete stranger on the Internet, not the details of the bet itself.)
Edit: ninja'd by dwheatley
