Still up after 88 casino sessions ...
I play a very systematic method that's not very much fun, but I can't argue with the results so far.
My question is, what would you consider a reasonable sample size before I can start wondering if this is sustainable?
I know someone like the Wizard of Odds would say "billions" of rolls, but I do not consider that reasonable. I think if a casino had a craps table open for 116 consecutive hours and suffered a net loss like this, they'd be alarmed.
Thoughts?
Quote: ScoopI have now won 681 units over 88 sessions in a row at the casinos playing craps, totaling 116 hours of play and many thousands of dice rolls. Even with the losing sessions, I'm averaging 7.7 units per day, net total.
I play a very systematic method that's not very much fun, but I can't argue with the results so far.
My question is, what would you consider a reasonable sample size before I can start wondering if this is sustainable?
Zero. You don't have the edge with a betting system in craps, you've just been lucky.
Quote:I think if a casino had a craps table open for 116 consecutive hours and suffered a net loss like this, they'd be alarmed.
No, they wouldn't even notice. The average dice table in Nevada makes over $2000/day. Even if your units are $10, you're winning less than $100/day. Just a blip. On the Strip in Nevada, a dice game routinely wins or loses far more than $100 on any single roll of the dice.
Keep playing, but I wouldn't increase your stakes beyond what you're comfortable betting in the hopes that you have a sustainable edge. You don't.
Quote: MathExtremistZero. You don't have the edge with a betting system in craps, you've just been lucky.
Sure, but at what point would I have your attention? Right now I'm at 88 sessions and 116 hours. What if this continues after 200 sessions? 300? That was my original question: what is a reasonable sample size to claim one might be onto something?
Quote: MathExtremistNo, they wouldn't even notice. The average dice table in Nevada makes over $2000/day. Even if your units are $10, you're winning less than $100/day. Just a blip. On the Strip in Nevada, a dice game routinely wins or loses far more than $100 on any single roll of the dice.
You misunderstood my point. Of course they wouldn't notice ONE person winning consistently like that. But you better believe that if the entire table was playing that way and was winning that consistently, they would notice. In other words, it would certainly get their attention if their table wasn't netting over $2,000 per day -- that it was actually LOSING money, 88 days in a row in fact.
Quote: MathExtremistKeep playing, but I wouldn't increase your stakes beyond what you're comfortable betting in the hopes that you have a sustainable edge. You don't.
I hear you. I have already moved up one bet level safely. I am playing with a larger bankroll than necessary because I'm conservative that way.
What makes you think your system is better then actual MATH? Some of the smartest people in the world and the most advanced computers show its mathematically impossible to beat craps under normal circumstances.Quote: ScoopI have now won 681 units over 88 sessions in a row at the casinos playing craps, totaling 116 hours of play and many thousands of dice rolls. Even with the losing sessions, I'm averaging 7.7 units per day, net total.
I play a very systematic method that's not very much fun, but I can't argue with the results so far.
My question is, what would you consider a reasonable sample size before I can start wondering if this is sustainable?
I know someone like the Wizard of Odds would say "billions" of rolls, but I do not consider that reasonable. I think if a casino had a craps table open for 116 consecutive hours and suffered a net loss like this, they'd be alarmed.
Thoughts?
Quote: ScoopSure, but at what point would I have your attention?
Right now I'm at 88 sessions and 116 hours.
What if this continues after 200 sessions?
300?
That was my original question:
what is a reasonable sample size to claim one might be onto something?
# of sessions or time has nothing to do the sample size needed.
Important parameters would be
The actual number of bets resolved, the number and type of bets and average total wagered on each bet
where
ev / sd >=3
for me, it would raise an eyebrow
for you, you may be already convinced
your style of play and your bet selections
are causing you to win after X sessions played
more than just random expectation
maybe win more than everyone else
great
more fun to you
Quote: wrobersonThat's great. Really. I would like to know how many losing sessions there were. Without using math, what causes you to win is that you leave the table with more chips than you started with. What's causing you to lose is leaving the table with fewer chips than you started with. Craps is not my game of choice, but leaving the table with more chips than I started with, is. Anytime you leave the casino with more money than you came in with, you're doing the right thing.
I lost 25 out of the 88 sessions. I lost four sessions in a row at one point. My longest win streak was 15 sessions in a row.
Okay, so let's say that number of sessions is not a good yardstick. How about number of dice rolls then? Or hours at the table?
Yes, I understand the math of the game. (For example, the odds bet is not "free" -- I know that.)
I just want to know if you played systematically, and your system kept winning, and the graph gradually kept going up given the wins and losses ... at what point would you begin to wonder?
Quote: ScoopInteresting that no one wants to answer my original question.
7craps already answered your question when he stated:
"# of sessions or time has nothing to do the sample size needed. Important parameters would be the actual number of bets resolved, the number and type of bets and average total wagered on each bet."
Number of dice rolls and number of hours mean nothing since they contain no information about your actual bets.
Quote: Beethoven9thNumber of dice rolls and number of hours mean nothing since they contain no information about your actual bets.
Good point, fair enough.
My bets consist of the pass/don't pass and one come bet or don't come bet. So those two bets total.
So perhaps one better way to ask is: After how many line decisions would you say there is something meaningful to look at.
Right now, after 88 sessions, I'm up to 1,082 decisions. (Yes, I keep track.)
Thanks for any insights.
Quote: ScoopGood point, fair enough.
My bets consist of the pass/don't pass and one come bet or don't come bet. So those two bets total.
So perhaps one better way to ask is: After how many line decisions would you say there is something meaningful to look at.
Right now, after 88 sessions, I'm up to 1,082 decisions. (Yes, I keep track.)
Thanks for any insights.
You're still asking questions that can't be answered. First you need to tell us exactly which bets you made, the result, and how much they were for. Then the math experts here can go to work.
Quote: ScoopSure, but at what point would I have your attention? Right now I'm at 88 sessions and 116 hours. What if this continues after 200 sessions? 300? That was my original question: what is a reasonable sample size to claim one might be onto something?
The point is that in this case, it's infinite. Appropriate sample sizes are determined by mathematics, at the point where the odds of results being the product of random chance drop below a certain threshold (19:1 is standard). In your case, however, mathematics alone can show that your claim is impossible, so it will never be the case that the probability of your results being random chance (or some issue with the tables you play at, depending on what kind of system you have) drops even below 1. One might, however, arrange a large enough sample size (entirely in advance) to "put money where their mouth is" and fade your system, but for that, one would have to know it.
Line bets.Quote: ScoopSo perhaps one better way to ask is:
After how many line decisions would you say there is something meaningful to look at.
Right now, after 88 sessions, I'm up to 1,082 decisions. (Yes, I keep track.)
Thanks for any insights.
Using (per unit bet)
N = # of bets to be resolved
N = (z*sd/ev)^2
(I think the Wizard and AlanS shows this online)
Say you have 1 million followers because of your success
x,y (data below)
# of resolved bets, # of players out of 1 million on average I would expect to show an overall profit
(0.5 SD) - # of resolved bets, 1,250, 308,537.5
(1 SD) - # of resolved bets, 5,000, 158,655.25
(2 SD) - # of resolved bets, 19,999, 22,750.13
(3 SD) - # of resolved bets, 44,996, 1,349.898
The more wagers one makes against a house edge bet
the less chance one (or many) has in showing a net profit.
looks like 1,350 from
3 standard deviation of 44,996 bets would show a profit and that
would still be just from random results.
They would ALL be invited to be on Ellen or Oprah.
Too many lucky stiffs IMO
(or my 1 million Gorilla Craps player pool)
the pool
Quote: ScoopInteresting that no one wants to answer my original question.
Okay, so let's say that number of sessions is not a good yardstick. How about number of dice rolls then? Or hours at the table?
Yes, I understand the math of the game. (For example, the odds bet is not "free" -- I know that.)
I just want to know if you played systematically, and your system kept winning, and the graph gradually kept going up given the wins and losses ... at what point would you begin to wonder?
You can answer this question with no math at all. The casino system is based on the premise that your results are not sustainable. Casinos still exist, therefore your results are not sustainable.
You're not going to get the answer you want. Regardless, don't let it get to you. You're having the standard deviation thrown at you and I was getting hit with a variance. You won 71.6% of the time. I can't think of a better way to look at it. Leaving the table with more money than you started with is quite an accomplishment 15 times in a row.
I'm only continuing because I sort of associated the negative energy as part of the formula as to why I lost and I wish to clear the air. This site is not where it happened. It's effected the humidity in the casino around the game I was playing, which changed the ball spin parameter. There's a term that was used, I don't remember it exactly, but it wasn't even close to, "you're gambling with magic underwear and it's effecting your brain" because I was refuse to take into account that each spin had about a 32% chance of coming in and looked at it instead as a million+ to one that X would happen 15 times in a row. However I reversed my thinking instead of seeing the situation where the 15th X as a million+1, it's about 32%, but I still find 15X's in a row on a 32% gambit, outside the norm. It starts off as a million to 1 and by the 14th or 15th X, it's 3-1.
I've patted you on the back. I've offered encouragement. I've felt your pain. Now go out there and do it again.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou're still asking questions that can't be answered. First you need to tell us exactly which bets you made, the result, and how much they were for. Then the math experts here can go to work.
I've often wondered how to go about answering a question like Scoop asked.
In an effort to maybe at least get a methodology on how to proceed, here are some actual results employing Oscar's Grind at a single-zero roulette wheel with a 500 unit bankroll.
Number of spins 3704
Number of units bet 14338
Avg bet per spin 3.871 units
Avg bet per series 24.06
Avg spins in a series 6.21
Number of "series" resulting in a 1 unit win 595
I always bet on odd 3704 times in a row.
I was willing to either achieve a 1 unit win in a series or lose my entire 500 unit roll trying obeying the rules of Oscar's Grind.
I believe the probability of success (achieving a 1 unit win) with a 500 unit roll is 99.582%
So I finished 596 units up versus an expected loss of 387 units.
3704 spins might be the equivalent of spending 105 hrs at a full roulette table.
How would I go about figuring out how likely such a result is?
Quote: MoscaYou can answer this question with no math at all. The casino system is based on the premise that your results are not sustainable. Casinos still exist, therefore your results are not sustainable.
This is silly. You're assuming everyone is playing the same.
By your logic, there should be no sports books. But they aren't going away anytime soon even though there are documented professional sports gamblers.
Again, that your system works, with ideal dice, is mathematically impossible. If you are claiming otherwise (i.e., if you're claiming this system would work on any table), there is no amount of trials that would suffice to test this, since working out the number would give you a zero in the denominator. However improbable it is that your results came by chance, it will always be more probable than the alternative.
Quote: ScoopSure, but at what point would I have your attention? Right now I'm at 88 sessions and 116 hours. What if this continues after 200 sessions? 300? That was my original question: what is a reasonable sample size to claim one might be onto something?
Still zero, because the chances that you "might be onto something" are also zero.
You said you're making line bets. Each and every single line bet you make is in the house's favor to the tune of about 1.4%. You've been *lucky* to win more than you've lost. Learn to accept (and respect) positive variance for what it is, rather than jumping to the conclusion that you are somehow responsible for it.
Consider the alternative that there is some combination of line bets that shifts the edge to your favor. Logically, that contradicts one of the following truths:
1) Each line bet is independent from each other line bet; and
2) The house edge on each line bet is equal.
Which of those truths do you believe you have broken?
Quote: ScoopThis is silly. You're assuming everyone is playing the same.
By your logic, there should be no sports books. But they aren't going away anytime soon even though there are documented professional sports gamblers.
Entirely wrong -- sports books involve betting against other humans, not against inviolate random odds. If you have better information than the house's bookie, you have the edge over the house. There is no similar information gap when it comes to dice. Under the assumption of a fair game, everybody knows what the probabilities are. The game itself has a built-in edge.
Quote: ScoopThis is silly. You're assuming everyone is playing the same.
By your logic, there should be no sports books. But they aren't going away anytime soon even though there are documented professional sports gamblers.
How many craps tables in the world have been going 24/7 for how many years? Add that to all the private games. Add that to all the billion roll simulations that have been done with computers. All of those fit into the predictions made by the arithmetic that governs the game.
Do you really think that whatever it is you're doing is unique? All I can say is, you aren't the first, and you won't be the last.
Quote: MathExtremistEntirely wrong -- sports books involve betting against other humans, not against inviolate random odds. If you have better information than the house's bookie, you have the edge over the house.
That's not actually true, usually. Typically the bookie's information comes from the clients' betting, so you only have an edge over the other bettors, unless last-minute wagers pile up.
Quote: MathExtremistStill zero, because the chances that you "might be onto something" are also zero.
Don't get mad or anything but how would you go about analyzing a known (losing obviously) system like Oscar's Grind? From the point of view of the likelihood of finishing x ahead after so long of playing?
I mean I can flat bet a losing blackjack game knowing my expected loss and the likelihood that I will lose so much over so long. I know how much 3 standard deviations represent in this case so I know, more or less, what results to expect. Maybe I don't care if my expected loss is one unit every 3 hours at a full table because it's entertainment.
Is there a way you'd approach the OG results I posted ? Or what else is needed? Maybe a sim program to actually figure out stan deviation etc? Maybe impossible without that?
Or, is it enough, if I know my 500 unit roll will win 1 unit 99.582% of the time with OG, how to figure out the likelihood of x winning sessions in a row? Like in my case 595 winning sessions in a row?
Or, maybe put another way, at what point would you bet me $1 that after x series, I'd either be ahead or have lost my roll?
Just looking for a methodology or a reason why it cannot accurately be done.
Quote: 24BingoThat's not actually true, usually. Typically the bookie's information comes from the clients' betting, so you only have an edge over the other bettors, unless last-minute wagers pile up.
Other bettors, but by proxy through the house. You're not getting paid directly by the other bettors. If you know something that the majority doesn't, and the line reflects the majority, you've got the edge. But that's why sports betting is a bad analogy to dice: nothing about the dice odds changes based on what the majority thinks they know.
Quote: Curiousguy11Don't get mad or anything but how would you go about analyzing a known (losing obviously) system like Oscar's Grind? From the point of view of the likelihood of finishing x ahead after so long of playing?
Monte Carlo simulation. Questions like this are exactly what simulation is for (and how it got its name).
And nobody's mad: there's nothing wrong with testing a given system to see the distribution of its performance over n trials. Here's an example of this kind of testing:
http://www.conjelco.com/downloads/elliott-paper.pdf
OG can be solved easily IMOQuote: Curiousguy11Don't get mad or anything but how would you go about analyzing a known (losing obviously) system like Oscar's Grind? From the point of view of the likelihood of finishing x ahead after so long of playing?
Or, is it enough, if I know my 500 unit roll will win 1 unit 99.582% of the time with OG,
how to figure out the likelihood of x winning sessions in a row?
Like in my case 595 winning sessions in a row?
Or, maybe put another way, at what point would you bet me $1 that after x series, I'd either be ahead or have lost my roll?
Just looking for a methodology or a reason why it cannot accurately be done.
using a Markov chain approach.
a good reason to learn about matrix algebra
(SN Ethier in his Doctrine of Chances book explains exactly how this is done -
with other methods - he uses the pass line bet as the example)
"how to figure out the likelihood of x winning sessions in a row?"
for your example
99.582%^595
about 1 in 12
be happy you got one the first attempt
Quote: ScoopYou misunderstood my point. Of course they wouldn't notice ONE person winning consistently like that. But you better believe that if the entire table was playing that way and was winning that consistently, they would notice. In other words, it would certainly get their attention if their table wasn't netting over $2,000 per day -- that it was actually LOSING money, 88 days in a row in fact.
When I was playing poker at Sandia in Albuquerque in 1995 they put in a craps table. They brought in a Las Vegas crew to run the game. Security and Surveillance were Bubba's from down the reservation. The table lost money for three months. They fired the Las Vegas crew and the table started making money.
And combined with unspecified rules of their "system", it is probably impossible to analyze as I suspect the "rules" of their system are maybe not always followed and could not be programmed.
I chose OG because Miplet had a program that would simulate basic stuff like "probability of success" etc on even-money pay-outs, a necessity for OG. The "rules" of the system are followed every time.
So things like average length of series and avg bets per series are basically known.
But I still can't figure out, at least more or less, how lucky it was to win 595 series in a row with a 500 unit roll in a single-zero roulette application of the system.
Is there anyway to at least "ball-park" my luck maybe? Like I can expect success of winning 1 unit 99.58% of the time, how lucky was winning 595 sessions in a row?
What stats would be necessary to figure it out? I can run Miplet's program for a few million spins to generate stuff.
No big deal - just wish I could a handle on it as I'm used to knowing what to expect from whatever.
It felt like I was pretty lucky lol. But, you know, 2 standard deviations down in BJ can feel like the house is cheating for sure (say on the internet).
I wasn't really expecting an answer I guess.
C'mon Spock - was I more than 1 SD lucky lol.
Thanks for your time.
I was wondering if it was that simple. In other words, knowing stan dev per avg series or whatever is irrelevant?
That's where I get confused. Can't I go, maybe, total variance=14338*.99927 (variance I get for one spin) and get 120 for stan dev?
But then it seems like I'm many SD's over expected value since I'm 982 units over expected value?
How are the 2 reconciled?
Don't worry, it's me, not you.
that simple for the question you askedQuote: Curiousguy11thx 7craps
I was wondering if it was that simple.
In other words, knowing stan dev per avg series or whatever is irrelevant?
winning x times in a row
to double your bankroll would be P^500
about 12.31465% or about 1 in 8 sessions on average would be successful
12% success to double is about all you want??
Yuck!
I hope it is more fun playing this way, but I do not see more fun in losing more.
Using the standard deviation over 595 winsQuote: Curiousguy11That's where I get confused.
Can't I go, maybe, total variance=14338*.99927 (variance I get for one spin) and get 120 for stan dev?
But then it seems like I'm many SD's over expected value since I'm 982 units over expected value?
How are the 2 reconciled?
Don't worry, it's me, not you.
I would say the distribution has too much Skew and your values would be meaningless
because the distribution is not normal, if you understand what is a normal distribution
A high probability of winning a small amount
and a low probability of losing a large amount, almost all the bankroll
is not normal
But now that I have safely moved up a couple bet levels using this method, I'm beginning to wonder something ....
Should I be concerned about getting banned if I keep winning consistently? I'm trying to spread my play around to the few local casinos in my area, but I'm clearly playing a method no one else does and I'm concerned it will draw attention.
I know casino personnel LOVE it when they hear players talk about a "system" they're playing because they know all systems fail.
But if this keeps up, my buy-in will increase with my bankroll and I don't know if they pay much attention to how much people are winning or losing (because everyone loses in the long term, right? So why would they track?)
I've been reluctant to color up at the table, preferring to cash in at the cage, because I don't want them to see how consistently I've been winning.
So my question is: Do you think they are noticing I'm winning and should I take steps to stay under the radar as much as possible?
P.S. I won another 31 units yesterday, bringing me to a running total of +712 units over 89 sessions for an 8.0 daily win average.
No and NoQuote: ScoopShould I be concerned about getting banned if I keep winning consistently?
So my question is: Do you think they are noticing I'm winning and should I take steps to stay under the radar as much as possible?
now it sounds like you are trolling IMO
Excellent!Quote: ScoopP.S. I won another 31 units yesterday, bringing me to a running total of +712 units over 89 sessions for an 8.0 daily win average.
still, Useless information contained in your session summary
What is your first bet after your buy-in and how much
next roll
what is your next action?
next roll
what is your next action?
next roll
continue to end of session
anyone can and do get lucky playing Craps over many sessions.
You seem to be saying because
no one else plays like you do
that is the reason for your continued and sustainable success.
Good Luck
Quote: 7crapsNow it sounds like you are trolling IMO
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm not trying to sell anyone on anything, if that's what you mean.
Quote: 7crapsUseless information contained in your session summary
Well, sure, but I'm not going to detail my exact system because I honestly believe I MIGHT be onto something here. How could I NOT, after averaging 8 units a day after more than 1,000 decisions and 124 hours of play? You have to admit, that's compelling.
I've already said that I use one line bet and one come bet. Sometimes I increase my bet and sometimes I drop back down. There is no guesswork and no hunch betting. And that makes it no fun to play at times, believe me. I can't tell you how many times I want to join in on a hot table and join the fun, but I stick with my method and in the long run (SO FAR) it has worked out very well.
Yes, I can hear the smirking and laughter from all the mathematical types, and I'm one of them too, but I can't deny what I've experienced so far.
Quote: 7crapsYou seem to be saying because no one else plays like you do that is the reason for your continued and sustainable success.
Well, of course. What else would it be due to? Oh, I know: LUCK. Yes, that's possible. But if I am still posting in this thread a few months from now, having safely moved up to higher bet levels because it continues to win, well, then we'll see.
That is where you are 100% wrong.Quote: ScoopI can't tell you how many times I want to join in on a hot table and join the fun,
but I stick with my method and in the long run (SO FAR) it has worked out very well.
The long run is about degree of certainty.
you ain't even close to the long run
You need at least 45,000 resolved bets to be considered into the long run
That is 3 standard deviations for line bets.
Do you realize that?
The more you keep playing by getting short payoffs the less chance you have of winning going forward
into the long run.
Here is a picture of a possible 45k lifetime session
Your drift is downward from the house edge (the short pays on a win)
You are still up early on and can go down and up but over time, expect to be down
and enjoy the ride
looks good
above the horizontal line (x-axis) is a net win after N resolved wagers
Now you may be gifted in when to increase your wagers and also when to lower them.
Now you keep that a secret to the world so only you can laugh on your way to the bank with every session win
see you after 45k bets
may your winnings be more than 10 standard deviations from expectation
My Craps God is watching
Quote: 7crapsYou need at least 45,000 resolved bets to be considered into the long run
Finally, someone answers my original question!! Thank you.
Quote: ScoopWell, sure, but I'm not going to detail my exact system because I honestly believe I MIGHT be onto something here. How could I NOT, after averaging 8 units a day after more than 1,000 decisions and 124 hours of play? You have to admit, that's compelling.
I've already said that I use one line bet and one come bet.
Questions: (a) are your come bets always immediately after your line bets, or does your system include something like pass-wait-come?; (b) do you ever follow up pass with don't come, or don't pass with come?; (c) What level of odds, if any, do you put on your line and come bets (or does it vary based on your system)?; (d) You use the term "units"; is this in terms of your line bet being 1 unit?
Quote: ScoopWhat else would it be due to? Oh, I know: LUCK. Yes, that's possible. But if I am still posting in this thread a few months from now, having safely moved up to higher bet levels because it continues to win, well, then we'll see.
And we'll be right here, reiterating our stance that it's because of luck. It would help if we knew a few more details, like how your average bet compared to your "8 unit a day average win".
I can't tell if this is sarcasmQuote: AlanDid you see my thread of how lucky I was? Initial bankroll/buy in of $60, left the table with $130(winning $70). $70 isn't a lot of money, but it sure beats losing. I feel extremely lucky.
Quote: AxelWolfI can't tell if this is sarcasm
None intended.
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuestions: (a) are your come bets always immediately after your line bets, or does your system include something like pass-wait-come?;
They are immediately after. But I don't consider that crucial. If I happened to miss the next come bet opportunity (which rarely happens because I pay attention), then I just bet on the next opportunity
Quote: ThatDonGuy(b) do you ever follow up pass with don't come, or don't pass with come?;
Yes, I use any and all combinations, depending on what my bet selection method tells me. Sometimes I'm on the don't pass with a come bet, sometimes I'm on the don't pass followed by a don't come bet, etc. etc. They are independent of each other in that respect. There is no relation between the two; essentially, they are separate sequences following their own progressions.
By the way, I USED to play this system only using a line bet. Then I reasoned that a come/don't come bet is basically the same thing as the pass/don't pass, which would double the rate of my play, so I incorporated that and it has held up just the same.
I have tried adding a third bet (a second come/don't come bet), but it's been too difficult to keep up with all the tracking I have to do and so I've kept it to two bets so far.
Quote: ThatDonGuy(c) What level of odds, if any, do you put on your line and come bets (or does it vary based on your system)?;
I don't use odds at all. Flat betting only.
Quote: ThatDonGuyYou use the term "units"; is this in terms of your line bet being 1 unit?
Yes. My line bet and come/don't come bet all start at one unit.
Quote: ScoopFinally, someone answers my original question!! Thank you.
Um...that wasn't your "original question". If it was, then the math guys could have answered it immediately.
Uh...no.Quote: ScoopShould I be concerned about getting banned if I keep winning consistently? I'm trying to spread my play around to the few local casinos in my area, but I'm clearly playing a method no one else does and I'm concerned it will draw attention.
Unless you provide us with information detailing your EXACT bets, it's not compelling at all.Quote: ScoopWell, sure, but I'm not going to detail my exact system because I honestly believe I MIGHT be onto something here. How could I NOT, after averaging 8 units a day after more than 1,000 decisions and 124 hours of play? You have to admit, that's compelling.
That isn't the "long run". Let's put it this way, there are guys who have won $1 million at craps (during longer winning streaks than yours), and they all lost it back.Quote: Scoopbut I stick with my method and in the long run (SO FAR) it has worked out very well.
Not laughter. Headshaking.Quote: ScoopYes, I can hear the smirking and laughter from all the mathematical types...
You don't seem to understand the fact that this site has newbies posting all the time talking about how they've defeated mathematics.
Quote: AxelWolfI can't tell if this is sarcasm
It's not, he was extremely lucky. I ran simulations based on the amount of time he played, and determined a fair estimate of how many total bets he made based on the number of players at the table and the average number of rolls per resolution. He fell to the right of the third Standard Deviation.
Fortuna is fickle and soon asks back what it has given.
HAPPY WINNINGS just the same.
WASHOO2
It's not compelling at all. What you're experiencing is the right side of the tail.Quote: ScoopWell, sure, but I'm not going to detail my exact system because I honestly believe I MIGHT be onto something here. How could I NOT, after averaging 8 units a day after more than 1,000 decisions and 124 hours of play? You have to admit, that's compelling.
Here's a little parable coined by Warren Buffett in the Superinvestors of Graham and Doddsville to explain what getting lucky really looks like:
Quote: Warren BuffettI would like you to imagine a national coin-flipping contest. Let's assume we get 225 million Americans up tomorrow morning and we ask them all to wager a dollar. They go out in the morning at sunrise, and they all call the flip of a coin. If they call correctly, they win a dollar from those who called wrong. Each day the losers drop out, and on the subsequent day the stakes build as all previous winnings are put on the line. After ten flips on ten mornings, there will be approximately 220,000 people in the United States who have correctly called ten flips in a row. They each will have won a little over $1,000.
Now this group will probably start getting a little puffed up about this, human nature being what it is. They may try to be modest, but at cocktail parties they will occasionally admit to attractive members of the opposite sex what their technique is, and what marvelous insights they bring to the field of flipping.
Assuming that the winners are getting the appropriate rewards from the losers, in another ten days we will have 215 people who have successfully called their coin flips 20 times in a row and who, by this exercise, each have turned one dollar into a little over $1 million. $225 million would have been lost, $225 million would have been won.
By then, this group will really lose their heads. They will probably write books on "How I turned a Dollar into a Million in Twenty Days Working Thirty Seconds a Morning." Worse yet, they'll probably start jetting around the country attending seminars on efficient coin-flipping and tackling skeptical professors with, " If it can't be done, why are there 215 of us?"
By then some business school professor will probably be rude enough to bring up the fact that if 225 million orangutans had engaged in a similar exercise, the results would be much the same - 215 egotistical orangutans with 20 straight winning flips.
The moral of the story: don't confuse your results with skill or think you've "beaten the math". You're just one of the lucky coin flippers. My advice is to keep your money; don't give it back by betting too large and getting greedy, because your good luck is not sustainable. No good luck ever is -- that's why it's luck.
Quote: ScoopFinally, someone answers my original question!! Thank you.
Answered wrongly. "The long run" is only an expression - you're never "into" it. What he gives is a number when you have an extremely low chance of being up, but this tiny probability is still infinitely larger than that of the negation of the null hypothesis - which is zero.
what are you talking about? Did i miss something? I must have missed his original post where he said something like.... I was with 20 hot college girls and "Did you see my thread of how lucky I was? Initial bankroll/buy in of $60, left the table with $130(winning $70). $70 isn't a lot of money, but it sure beats losing. I feel extremely" lucky.Quote: Mission146It's not, he was extremely lucky. I ran simulations based on the amount of time he played, and determined a fair estimate of how many total bets he made based on the number of players at the table and the average number of rolls per resolution. He fell to the right of the third Standard Deviation.
In the post I just seen I was only seeing the following "how lucky I was? Initial bankroll/buy in of $60, left the table with $130(winning $70)."
I guess i should have went back and read the other post. thinking about it now he probably had some system that was working at first then bet big and gave lot a lot back and quit up $70
