Still up after 88 casino sessions ...
Quote: ScoopYes, embezzlement occurred to me, too. I actually felt sorry for the guy --- he looked like a nice guy and it was heartbreaking to see how addicted this guy was. He always pressed everything to the max and took it so hard when a 7-out came.
You're totally right about most people not wanting to really socialize at the dice table! I try and make connections, but most are very guarded. It's kinda tense that way. Part of the problem, I think, is that everyone is standing so close to each other, nearly rubbing shoulders, and that's a little awkward. Plus, you can see everyone's chips and how they're doing. You can't ever really joke with someone who's losing.
I do banter with the dealers, though, when I can. But I feel a little self-conscious doing that because I play such a "dumb," unconventional style of play. For instance, I don't take odds on my do-side bets, which everyone assumes is idiotic. Smartest bet in the casino, right? Take as much odds as you can, right? Um, no. For one thing, every time you take odds, your playing a bet whose odds are now AGAINST you. Sure, I realize the "pro-odds" argument, but what I'm doing is working and I care more about profit than playing. I'm not gonna fix what ain't broke.
Dice players are the most guarded, I think because of the fast pace and the concentration required to track bets, plus the varying payouts. And it's a culture of superstition; no one believes any of it really, but why take a chance? And everyone gets along by following the same etiquette.
Odds bets also pay odds. The problem with odds bets for most players isn't that the odds are against them, it's that they've misjudged how much bank they need to bring to overcome variance. I've brought $500 to a $10 table and been outta there in 10 minutes. It can rock you fast. Of course, the opposite is also true: I've doubled up in 10 minutes, too. But that action doesn't suit my personality. I grew up in a card-playing home, and I like the pace and the sequential nature and rhythm of card games.
Quote: ThermosAnother piece of advice: Tip the dealers. That will accomplish two things: 1) It will make the casino think you are just another square; and 2) It will get them on your side.
I thought about that, and I DO make bets for the dealers from time to time when I'm winning.
But even if they're on my side (and I can tell they like me), I'm under no illusion that they have any power. If management wants me out, the dealers will have nothing to say about it.
But I plan to chat them up to learn more about how things work behind the scenes and whether I need to worry about this kind of stuff or not.
As far as being greedy, well, what qualifies as greed? I show up once a day, play for 30 to 90 minutes, take my winnings or accept my loss, and go home.
Scoop Why do you ignore this question continuously?Quote: AxelWolfScoop you have yet to comment on the CHALLENGE, unless I missed it.
Quote: AxelWolfScoop Why do you ignore this question continuously?
AxelWolf, what is this "Challenge" you're talking about? I just scrolled through the pages of this thread but could not find it. This forum doesn't appear to have a search feature, so if you could reply in here and tell me what it is, I'll be happy to comment. Sorry about that --- not dodging the question. I did not notice it, apparently, with all the side topics going on. Thanks.
(...1,028? Was that meant to be 1,024? 1,028 seems sort of arbitrary...)
Quote: Scoop
This graph further confirms that you have yet to experience a catastrophic loss. Trust me, bro, it's coming. (And I'm not saying that as a taunt or anything)
Quote: 24BingoThe Wizard at one point had a standing offer of your $2,000 against his $20,000 that your system, adapted to a max spread of 1-1,028, would fail in simulation over a billion rolls. This has since been retracted, because too many people were backing out at the last minute. I think someone's set up a similar offer, but I'm not sure who.
(...1,028? Was that meant to be 1,024? 1,028 seems sort of arbitrary...)
Oh, so that's "The Challenge"? LOL. Let me tell you what the REAL "Challenge" is. It's playing craps, with your own money, in a real casino! Not on paper. Not on someone's hard drive. Give me a break.
Besides, why would I reveal this system before I'm more certain about it? That's right, I don't know for sure. If it proves unprofitable, I will gladly tell everyone what happened in here.
But if it keeps going upward, then why would I reveal it for a lousy $20K contest? That makes no sense. It could earn me that much EVERY month if this is not a fluke.
It's like asking Bill Belichick if he wants to join your fantasy football league. Why would he? He's already IN THE GAME, for real.
Quote: ScoopBesides, why would I reveal this system before I'm more certain about it?
So the math experts can explain why it's an ultimate loser.
Quote: ScoopAs far as being greedy, well, what qualifies as greed? I show up once a day, play for 30 to 90 minutes, take my winnings or accept my loss, and go home.
Hey, don't say I didn't warn you.
Quote: ScoopBesides, why would I reveal this system before I'm more certain about it?
Scoop is his own expert.Quote: Beethoven9thSo the math experts can explain why it's an ultimate loser.
They all are.
Very simple process to determine the expected value (-EV) and the standard deviation (SD) of his system
for one trial or two trials or 2^10 trials or even 2^100 trials.
He may have already done just that.
Good Luck
and it
IS
100% Luck
Alternate "Live Casino Challenge"
Some system sellers claim that their systems work in a casino, but they can't beat a computer simulation because "a computer isn't a real-world test". Putting aside the fact that such an idea is ridiculous, I have a challenge to accommodate this particular objection. The challenge is the same as above, except:
It takes place in a Vegas (or other U.S.) casino, with you and me (or my representative) present. You will bank and place your own bets.
You will choose the number of rounds to wager on before we begin (1000 to 10,000 rounds). If your system is played in "sessions" it doesn't matter: you keep track of your "sessions" however you define them, they're irrelevant to me. You win by showing the required overall profit (defined below), no matter how many "sessions" you divided your play into....................................................................................
Axelwolf: it goes on
Since the first would-be challenger who wrote to me was concerned that I would use his winning system in the casinos myself to capitalize on it, I promise in writing to do no such thing. Clearly if I'm able to offer a $30,000 challenge, I already have more money than I need.
AXELWOLF: Why do it..... As you already admitted you don't find spending time in the casinos that fun. If you prove your system you will make millions selling books,doing interviews, you will be and rich famous. If you don't want fame that can be avoided (and it will be I can assure you that)
NO matter how many winning sessions you have. Until you prove with math or your system defies it continuously over and over only with proven documentation only broke fools will believe.
I suggest you follow Ahigh's entire saga then you will get a glimpse of the hard road you face. And he had the advantage of more then just math He had an already established platform to work with, at one point even some of the most respected gambling authorities were on board, because there's a possibility of skill with DI and some real believers.
I swear that's their whole point, and there's just no way of proving to them that it is ridiculous logic. See, scoop, by the time you prove your system works in real life you'll be dead. If you prove it works on paper, like the D'alembert wins on a 50/50 game of chance, they will dismiss it and call it meaningless, and say it only matters if you win in real life. So, you can never prove your point with these guys, because you'll be dead (and extremely rich, but still dead) before you ever prove that your system really works. And, there is just no way in the world to prove to these people that 2 + 2 = 4. It's just not possible when they can always just say, nuh uh. Let's say you put your system in a computer program for 1 million trials, like the D'alembert vs. a 50/50 game of chance, they will just say that it barely won, and barely winning doesn't count. Barely winning meaning, it produces a profit of $450,000 over a million trials (5 years), which is completely meaningless to them. So, you would have to do a million more trials of a million trials to prove that a million trials was, in fact, enough trials to prove that a system winning after a million trials was indeed a winning system. Which, who are we kidding, still would not be enough trials. I'm not making this up, to this day these guys will spew their knowledge of the fact that no betting system can beat a 50/50 game of chance, let alone an HE game *Jean Baptiste le Rond D'Alembert turns in his grave*.
So, to wrap up, enjoy your money, don't worry about the "heat", because the "heat" can't do math. If they give you any sh**, tell 'em you got lucky. That will end it right there, thanks to your new friends at this forum right here. They just want to make sure you're not cheating, that's it. Tell 'em you're not cheating, you're just lucky. Then ask them what 2 + 2 equals, and when they give you that stunned look, like what are you talking about, just laugh. Remember, there are guys betting $10,000 a hand at baccarat (and losing), nobody is going to be looking at you, unless you're digging a screwdriver into the side of a slot machine.
And, hey kid, since the stock market is going to crash this October/November, a winning system may just come in handy.
Quote: JyBrd0403Sounds very D'alembertish, Scoop. Here's the thing to remember, Scoop, these people believe that 2 + 2 = 3.999... Point being, you can't prove your system works. Even if it wins a trillion times there's always a chance that it could lose a bazillion times in a row the next time you play, therefore proving your system doesn't work.
I swear that's their whole point, and there's just no way of proving to them that it is ridiculous logic. See, scoop, by the time you prove your system works in real life you'll be dead. If you prove it works on paper, like the D'alembert wins on a 50/50 game of chance, they will dismiss it and call it meaningless, and say it only matters if you win in real life. So, you can never prove your point with these guys, because you'll be dead (and extremely rich, but still dead) before you ever prove that your system really works. And, there is just no way in the world to prove to these people that 2 + 2 = 4. It's just not possible when they can always just say, nuh uh. Let's say you put your system in a computer program for 1 million trials, like the D'alembert vs. a 50/50 game of chance, they will just say that it barely won, and barely winning doesn't count. Barely winning meaning, it produces a profit of $450,000 over a million trials (5 years), which is completely meaningless to them. So, you would have to do a million more trials of a million trials to prove that a million trials was, in fact, enough trials to prove that a system winning after a million trials was indeed a winning system. Which, who are we kidding, still would not be enough trials. I'm not making this up, to this day these guys will spew their knowledge of the fact that no betting system can beat a 50/50 game of chance, let alone an HE game *Jean Baptiste le Rond D'Alembert turns in his grave*.
So, to wrap up, enjoy your money, don't worry about the "heat", because the "heat" can't do math. If they give you any sh**, tell 'em you got lucky. That will end it right there, thanks to your new friends at this forum right here. They just want to make sure you're not cheating, that's it. Tell 'em you're not cheating, you're just lucky. Then ask them what 2 + 2 equals, and when they give you that stunned look, like what are you talking about, just laugh. Remember, there are guys betting $10,000 a hand at baccarat (and losing), nobody is going to be looking at you, unless you're digging a screwdriver into the side of a slot machine.
And, hey kid, since the stock market is going to crash this October/November, a winning system may just come in handy.
JyBrd, THANK YOU. You not only made me laugh, but you put your finger on exactly what had been nagging me about this entire thread. I couldn't quite articulate it, but you nailed it, brilliantly. Thank you very much.
Quote: ScoopBesides, why would I reveal this system before I'm more certain about it? That's right, I don't know for sure. If it proves unprofitable, I will gladly tell everyone what happened in here.
You've already revealed your system: you make pass and come bets, as well as don't and don't come bets, without taking odds.
Which of your bets has a player edge? If the answer is "none of them", how come you still "don't know for sure" it's unprofitable?
Quote: MathExtremistYou've already revealed your system: you make pass and come bets, as well as don't and don't come bets, without taking odds.
Which of your bets has a player edge? If the answer is "none of them", how come you still "don't know for sure" it's unprofitable?
Because it's winning. Over an extended period of time. In real life, not on paper.
By the way, I never said I had an edge. I said I was winning steadily, even with occasional full sequence losses, over 90 sessions and more than 125 hours of play. I have been playing craps for close to 20 years and I have tried many, many methods of play. And I can tell you that winning this much over this long of a time period is very unusual and perhaps remarkable.
I expect to see the word "billions" in your response, of course. :-)
Quote: ScoopBecause it's winning. Over an extended period of time. In real life, not on paper.
By the way, I never said I had an edge. I said I was winning steadily, even with occasional full sequence losses, over 90 sessions and more than 125 hours of play. I have been playing craps for close to 20 years and I have tried many, many methods of play. And I can tell you that winning this much over this long of a time period is very unusual and perhaps remarkable.
I expect to see the word "billions" in your response, of course. :-)
I'm ahead lifetime too, as a result of some favorable variance combined with good timing. It's entirely possible that we could both continue to win at the dice tables for the remainder of our natural lives; such is short-term variance. But I know better than to think that trend will necessarily continue as a result of the pattern of bets I make. I'm just betting on the passline, after all -- just like you are.
It sounds like you're unwilling to accept that you're one of the lucky coin flippers. If it makes you feel better to believe that you had something to do with it, and that your particular, secret combination of passline bets somehow "overcomes" the house edge, so be it. You're wrong, but it's not my money you're playing with.
SCOOP They have a word for this....it's called LUCKQuote: ScoopBecause it's winning. Over an extended period of time. In real life, not on paper.
By the way, I never said I had an edge. I said I was winning steadily,
Didn't you read the Warren Buffett story posted by MathExtremist? Seriously if you didn't realize something by reading that, then I don't know what to say.
every day, in every casino, on every keno game or video poker game that is played, something with incredible odds of happening, happens. You just don't get paid for it. Every time you get dealt a hand in video poker the odds of having that hand come up in that order in, that suit, at that time is in the 70,000,000 to one shot or more, yet it happens all day long, on each and every hand played. No one notices because you don't get rewarded.
Once again you avoid my question, why not take the challenge and prove your system? Your reasons were you don't want someone to steal it and your's dose not work on paper or computer simulations it only works in the casino. Well He wont steal it bound by contract, you can do it in a casino environment. You will get rich and famous with out having to spend the rest of your life in a dismal casino. Since you seem to dislike them, this would be the perfect for you.
Both extreme good luck and extreme bad luck happen!
This is about as lucky as I got yesterday, though. A royal on a 100-play doesn't require that much luck. But for me, this was my first ever royal flush ever. So that's pretty lucky.
That lasted almost a year, about 1.5-2 years ago. Mrs hadn't been talking about it lately, so I asked her. "Lori hasn't been as lucky lately, she thinks they've changed her machines. She still goes up for breakfast before work, but she hasn't shown me any big tickets."
Well, yeah. That and a Sagamore Card will get you free parking, and a buffet.
Amazing that, in 100 hands holding 3 to a flush, you only got one other than the royal. I would've thought 8 to 10. But I haven't done the math.
Quote: Ahigh
This is about as lucky as I got yesterday, though. A royal on a 100-play doesn't require that much luck. But for me, this was my first ever royal flush ever. So that's pretty lucky.
That puts you one RF ahead of me, if we're only accounting for Video Poker. Nice hit!
Quote: beachbumbabsNice one, Ahigh! Congrats on your first royal! I still haven't had one, ever.
Amazing that, in 100 hands holding 3 to a flush, you only got one other than the royal. I would've thought 8 to 10. But I haven't done the math.
There are 47 cards remaining in the deck, so you need (2/47 * 1/46) = .00092506938 or 1/00092506938 = 1 in 1,081
That's given one chance to do it, so the probability of not getting any in 100 attempts of one game is effectively the same as the probability of failing on 100 individual attempts with one hand.
The probability of failure is: (1 - .00092506938) = 0.99907493062
Thus, the probability of failing in 100 consecutive attempts: (0.99907493062)^100 = 0.9116038556537959 or 91.16% not to get any.
So, he still got pretty lucky to even get one...or not...I don't know how many times, lifetime, he has seen this situation, so he may have been, "Overdue."*
(.99907493062)^749 = 0.499974769399736
Thus, 749 consecutive attempts is when you get over 50% to at least see one RF. So, if you experience this Three-to-a-Royal scenario on 100-Play eight times, you should see a Royal by then.
*There is no such thing as being, "Overdue," I was using the phrase strictly in the colloquial sense.
So, we take the probability of Any Flush and subtract the probability of a Royal Flush. There are 47 cards left, and ten Flush Cards left:
(10/47 * 9/46) - (2/47 * 1/46) = 0.04070305272895467, so you're about 4.07% to see a Flush other than the Royal, per hand.
I think I'm right about this, though I could be wrong, but I think that also means you expect to see 4.07 Flushes per hundred hands, which rounds down to 4 expected Flushes.
Quote: Ahigh
This is about as lucky as I got yesterday, though. A royal on a 100-play doesn't require that much luck. But for me, this was my first ever royal flush ever. So that's pretty lucky.
Nice -- I've still yet to hit a royal. And I notice you were down to your last bet before you won.
The sad thing about hitting a Royal on 100-play is it only pays you 8x your wager.
On that round I only had five hands going.
That's when I just said "screw it" and went for full 100-play. I played a total of five hands with $25.00 per draw action starting with 1800 credits or about $90. So I went $90 down to $36 before cashing out with $236 IIRC.
Not much luck. But I did want to hit the royal and was lucky enough to hit it that quick.
I am a lifetime winner at Video Poker without even knowing a damn thing about AP for it (I know I suck at this game .. just lucky).
Quote: ScoopBecause it's winning.Quote: MathExtremisthow come you still "don't know for sure" it's unprofitable?
It can't be unprofitable because you're winning? I love this answer. lol!
Quote: AhighAbout five hands earlier, I had a nearly exact same setup with two queens I had to ditch to go for it (3/5ths of a royal held).
On that round I only had five hands going.
That's when I just said "screw it" and went for full 100-play. I played a total of five hands with $25.00 per draw action starting with 1800 credits or about $90. So I went $90 down to $36 before cashing out with $236 IIRC.
Not much luck. But I did want to hit the royal and was lucky enough to hit it that quick.
I am a lifetime winner at Video Poker without even knowing a damn thing about AP for it (I know I suck at this game .. just lucky).
You were lucky you were just playing five hands when you played the RF3 over the pair of Queens. On a nickel hundred play the pair of Queens has an ER of $39. The RF3 has an ER of about only $34. It's a $5 mistake.
Ooch, yeah. Learn basic strategy, bro!Quote: mickeycrimmYou were lucky you were just playing five hands when you played the RF3 over the pair of Queens. On a nickel hundred play the pair of Queens has an ER of $39. The RF3 has an ER of about only $34. It's a $5 mistake.
Quote: ScoopI have been playing craps for close to 20 years and I have tried many, many methods of play. And I can tell you that winning this much over this long of a time period is very unusual and perhaps remarkable.
This discussion has gone very quiet.
Scoop, could you possibly furnish a status update? Thanks.
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?
Hi Scoop, to know wether succeeding 88 sessions involves a certain skill you posses we should analize each bet you made.
Separate by size and probability of success.
In case you´ve broken the +3sd threshold you might believe there was something else but pure luck.
Quote: ybotHi Scoop, to know wether succeeding 88 sessions involves a certain skill you posses we should analize each bet you made.
Separate by size and probability of success.
In case you´ve broken the +3sd threshold you might believe there was something else but pure luck.
This is a two year old thread, where the OP hasn't been on in two years.
