Evenbob's Roulette Thread
Quote: EvenBobCard counting BJ for a few decades cured me from betting on games where I don't have an edge.
It flows with the post and the title so don't BS us with quoting someone.♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Quote: billryanThis is actually fun. Watching wily EB set a mental trap for the unsuspecting forumites.
link to original post
'Mental trap', great play on words. LOL
Quote: AxelWolf
It flows with the post and the title so don't BS us with quoting someone.
link to original post
And others wants to go down the usual road of shoot the messenger, don't attack the statement the messenger is making, discredit the messenger in any way you can. Like that's worked so well in the past.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWuEveryone knows individual events are not affected by the law of large numbers.
link to original post
So you agree that the law of large numbers has absolutely nothing to do with where I should place my next bet in a game like roulette. If everybody knows individual outcomes are not affected in the slightest by the law of large numbers then where I place my next bet is a event completely separate from the law of large numbers and how it applies to roulette. Right? Is that a correct statement? Be careful with your answer because this is obviously a trap I'm setting in case you were curious. So far you walked into it just fine, let's see how much further you will go. Mental doesn't want to walk into it, he wants to blah blah blah and yada yada yada on the finer points of what a large number is.
link to original post
???
Oh, man, now I'm really curious to see what this trap is you think you're setting.... But now you've tipped your hand, so I don't trust your wording. We all know how you like to play word games to say two different things at once to try and trip people up.
I agree with this:
Quote:According to the law [of large numbers], the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value and tends to become closer to the expected value as more trials are performed.... For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. Importantly, the law applies (as the name indicates) only when a large number of observations are considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others.
Emphasis added. Is that what YOU are saying? Because if that's what you are trying to say, then yes, I agree with it.
Is that Wile EB Coyote? Beep Beep.Quote: billryanThis is actually fun. Watching wily EB set a mental trap for the unsuspecting forumites.
link to original post
Quote: TigerWuThere is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value .
link to original post
You say you agree with that statement. That means you also agree with this statement:
"The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events or small numbers of events."
If both statements are true then why would anyone ever EVER mention that the LLN has anything whatsoever to do with any bet a player might make when a player obviously will not even live long enough to ever be affected by the LLN. Yet you cannot have a discussion about roulette with a math person without them bringing this up when you say they all know that individual events have zero to do with the law of large numbers. When they know the bet they make in the present moment is free and independent in and of itself. What is their point of constantly mentioning this if they know it has nothing to do with anything in the present moment. Obviously something is wrong here. Either they're trying to pull a fast one, or they really don't know that the law of large numbers does not apply to individual events. So which is it do they know or do they not know.
The strong version of the LLN only applies to infinitely large numbers. I have found the weak form of the LLN very useful in my career.Quote: EvenBobIf both statements are true then why would anyone ever EVER mention that the LLN has anything whatsoever to do with any bet a player might make when a player obviously will not even live long enough to ever be affected by the LLN.
Quote: MentalThe strong version of the LLN only applies to infinitely large numbers. I have found the weak form of the LLN very useful in my career.Quote: EvenBobIf both statements are true then why would anyone ever EVER mention that the LLN has anything whatsoever to do with any bet a player might make when a player obviously will not even live long enough to ever be affected by the LLN.
link to original post
"In real life and applied statistics, there is not much of a difference. Roughly speaking, what both the strong and weak law of large numbers state is that the more times you repeat a random experiment the closer and closer the average of the empirical results get to the expected value of the random variable. The weak law tells you that you can get as close as you wish to the expected value provided you repeat the experiment a LARGE number of times."
Point being that the number of outcomes required means it has nothing to do with any bet you might make in the extreme short-term, which is the present moment. It has no bearing on the player in the game of roulette because anything can happen in the short term which is the total opposite of what the law of large numbers is about. Yet every time a serious discussion comes up about beating roulette some math person will say, oh you're such a fool you know nothing about the math of the law of large numbers. They'll say your ignorance of the math is just insane. When it's not insane at all, I can jump into the game make a profit and jump out in the extreme short-term because the math of the law of large numbers has nothing to do with it. I can make an educated guess of the next outcome by observing past outcomes because in the extreme short term outcomes are unpredictable. This Is why I'm very careful never to use the term prediction, I can't predict anything. But I can make a guess and a damn good guess if I have a lot of experience observing the outcomes. The outcomes are mathematically unpredictable in the extreme short term, but that does not mean they are observably non useful. And exploitable.
YOU claim..."Card counting BJ for a few decades cured me from betting on games where I don't have an edge."Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolf
It flows with the post and the title so don't BS us with quoting someone.
link to original post
And others wants to go down the usual road of shoot the messenger, don't attack the statement the messenger is making, discredit the messenger in any way you can. Like that's worked so well in the past.
link to original post
You are the messenger. Go back and read the thread that YOU started and the post YOU posted.
EvenBob" Card counting BJ for a few decades cured ME from betting on games where I don't have an edge."
Explain with legitimate reason. You can't... because you got caught, just like before
Makes perfect sense. Also, black is white. Consistency is the is the hobgoblin of little minds.Quote: EvenBobI can make an educated guess of the next outcome by observing past outcomes because in the extreme short term outcomes are unpredictable. This Is why I'm very careful never to use the term prediction, I can't predict anything. But I can make a guess and a damn good guess if I have a lot of experience observing the outcomes. The outcomes are mathematically unpredictable in the extreme short term, but that does not mean they are observably non useful. And exploitable.
link to original post
Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWuThere is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value .
link to original post
You say you agree with that statement. That means you also agree with this statement:
"The law of large numbers does not apply to individual events or small numbers of events."
Okay, sure. I don't have a problem with that at all.
Quote:If both statements are true then why would anyone ever EVER mention that the LLN has anything whatsoever to do with any bet a player might make when a player obviously will not even live long enough to ever be affected by the LLN.
This is not demonstrably true at all.
Quote:Yet you cannot have a discussion about roulette with a math person without them bringing this up when you say they all know that individual events have zero to do with the law of large numbers. When they know the bet they make in the present moment is free and independent in and of itself. What is their point of constantly mentioning this if they know it has nothing to do with anything in the present moment. Obviously something is wrong here. Either they're trying to pull a fast one, or they really don't know that the law of large numbers does not apply to individual events. So which is it do they know or do they not know.
link to original post
No idea. I'm not a "math person," and I've never said the LLN applies to individual events or small numbers of events, and I'm not sure who in this forum specifically has ever said or implied that.
Quote: MentalMakes perfect sense. Also, black is white. Consistency is the is the hobgoblin of little minds.Quote: EvenBobI can make an educated guess of the next outcome by observing past outcomes because in the extreme short term outcomes are unpredictable. This Is why I'm very careful never to use the term prediction, I can't predict anything. But I can make a guess and a damn good guess if I have a lot of experience observing the outcomes. The outcomes are mathematically unpredictable in the extreme short term, but that does not mean they are observably non useful. And exploitable.
link to original post
link to original post
Black is not white, you just trying to obfuscate the issue to avoid addressing this:
"Point being that the number of outcomes required means it has nothing to do with any bet you might make in the extreme short-term, which is the present moment. It has no bearing on the player in the game of roulette because anything can happen in the short term which is the total opposite of what the law of large numbers is about. Yet every time a serious discussion comes up about beating roulette some math person will say, oh you're such a fool you know nothing about the math of the law of large numbers. They'll say your ignorance of the math is just insane. When it's not insane at all, I can jump into the game make a profit and jump out in the extreme short-term because the math of the law of large numbers has nothing to do with it."
Quote: TigerWuNo idea. I'm not a "math person," and I've never said the LLN applies to individual events or small numbers of events, and I'm not sure who in this forum specifically has ever said or implied that.
link to original post
I did.
The weak LLN says nothing about one event. It does say that the average value observed in any number of trials tends towards the theoretical expectation value as more trials are added. The weak LLN does not have a lower bound. EB tried to look up a lower bound below which the weak LLN is invalid. He found none. I assert that the lower bound is one, but only because we cannot have a negative number of trials.
If I have zero trials, the numerator is 0 and the denominator is zero. The average is undefined. As soon as you have one event, the denominator is one and the average value is closer to the theoretical expected value so long as that expected value can be defined as a non-infinite real number. This result is consistent with the weak LLN in that the average of the experiment has tended toward the expected value.
For some trivial probability distributions, the experimental average converges on the expected value after the first trial. Only one trial is needed to satisfy the weak LLN. The strong LLN only guarantees that this will happen for a subset of all probability distributions in the limit that the number of trials goes to infinity. Some PDFs converge slowly and some PDFs converge quickly.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Okay, I will concede this point.Quote: EvenBob
Black is not white,
Quote: MentalOkay, I will concede this point.Quote: EvenBob
Black is not white,
link to original post
Obfuscation Deluxe just to avoid discussing this:
"Point being that the number of outcomes required means it has nothing to do with any bet you might make in the extreme short-term, which is the present moment. It has no bearing on the player in the game of roulette because anything can happen in the short term which is the total opposite of what the law of large numbers is about. Yet every time a serious discussion comes up about beating roulette some math person will say, oh you're such a fool you know nothing about the math of the law of large numbers. They'll say your ignorance of the math is just insane. When it's not insane at all, I can jump into the game make a profit and jump out in the extreme short-term because the math of the law of large numbers has nothing to do with it."
Quote: Mental
I did.
The weak LLN says nothing about one event.
link to original post
Does not need to because the WLLN is also made up of a LARGE number of trials where it's obvious one event would be meaningless. Like the quote I posted said there's really not that much difference between the LLN and the WLLN.
The only thing to conclude is that Bob has magical powers. The long term should be his friend.
What a thing to argue: that because it's short term, it helps you .
In a series of identical trials, every trial is just as important as any other trial.Quote: EvenBobQuote: Mental
I did.
The weak LLN says nothing about one event.
link to original post
Does not need to because the WLLN is also made up of a LARGE number of trials where it's obvious one event would be meaningless. Like the quote I posted said there's really not that much difference between the LLN and the WLLN.
link to original post
If one trial is meaningless, then the entire collection of trials is meaningless. Therefore, I disagree with your present assertion and basically everything you have to say on the matter of probability.
Quote: Mental
If one trial is meaningless, then the entire collection of trials is meaningless.
link to original post
It's meaningless for it's relation to LLN, but it's meaningful in that it's useful for deciphering where the outcomes are going so that a reasonable guess might be made as to the next outcome.
I thought it was the opposite, and red is more likely.Quote: TigerWuYeah, everyone knows that when a bunch of reds come up, black is due.
link to original post
I guess only EB really knows how to read randomness. The rest of us are just guessing.
Quote: MentalI thought it was the opposite, and red is more likely.Quote: TigerWuYeah, everyone knows that when a bunch of reds come up, black is due.
link to original post
I guess only EB really knows how to read randomness. The rest of us are just guessing.
link to original post
Well, either way you have to hedge your bet and put some money on the zeros. That way you cancel out the house edge.
Quote: TigerWuYeah, everyone knows that when a bunch of reds come up, black is due.
link to original post
All the ploppies know that, just ask them. You can do better than that try a little harder.
Quote: TigerWu
Well, either way you have to hedge your bet and put some money on the zeros. That way you cancel out the house edge.
link to original post
The zeros are the house numbers and they hate it when you win on them. Therefore you should bet them every time. Just ask your ploppy friends, they know.
The house could care less if you bet on zero, double-zero, or your birth date. The house edge and the variance are exactly the same.Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWu
Well, either way you have to hedge your bet and put some money on the zeros. That way you cancel out the house edge.
link to original post
The zeros are the house numbers and they hate it when you win on them. Therefore you should bet them every time. Just ask your ploppy friends, they know.
link to original post
Are you saying the house has come up to you and begged you to stop betting on 00? "Please stop, Mr EB, your killing us!"
Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWu
Well, either way you have to hedge your bet and put some money on the zeros. That way you cancel out the house edge.
link to original post
The zeros are the house numbers and they hate it when you win on them. Therefore you should bet them every time. Just ask your ploppy friends, they know.
link to original post
That's what I'm sayin'! That's how that rich lady won all that money in that Dostoevsky story.
Wait, maybe she LOST all her money betting on zero. I forget.
Either way, I think betting on the zeros is the right move because if that's where the house makes their money, then it HAS to be an AP move. Simple math.
Quote: Mental
Are you saying the house has come up to you and begged you to stop betting on 00? "Please stop, Mr EB, your killing us!"
link to original post
Oh my dear GOD! I'm JOKING! That's what all the poppies say, the zeros are the house numbers the house doesn't want you to win therefore. you should bet on them. Good grief.. Anyway it looks like I made my point, you can't defend the LLN as having anything to do with placing a bet in the present moment in roulette. There is no math that says I cannot use past outcomes to make a good guess as to the next outcome. All it takes is experience and paying attention. The only reason you think it can't be done is because somebody told you it can't be done and you believed them.
I'm going to use this analogy again. In the 1870s a hospital surgeon discovered that if he washed his hands in between surgeries his patients got a lot less sick. When he told his colleagues about this they thought he was nuts because it went against the current everyday thinking. It got so bad for the doctor that his colleagues eventually had him locked up in an insane asylum, that's how much they believed what they were told about where sickness came from. Of course the doctor was correct and 20 years later every surgeon in the world was washing his hands in between surgeries. But he could not convince his fellow doctors it was true because they could not expand their intellectual horizon beyond the point it was stuck at.
That's what's happening here. You cannot prove that I cannot do what I say I'm doing therefore you want to lock me up, you want to say I'm the victim of some kind of magical thinking. Yet I do it everyday, the casino pays me everyday, because I found a way in and a way out of a game they think is impenetrable. And a road map is right there in front of you, the map on how to do it.
Quote: EvenBobThere is no math that says I cannot use past outcomes to make a good guess as to the next outcome. All it takes is experience and paying attention. The only reason you think it can't be done is because somebody told you it can't be done and you believed them.
link to original post
Oh my god....LOL.....somebody help this man.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobThere is no math that says I cannot use past outcomes to make a good guess as to the next outcome. All it takes is experience and paying attention. The only reason you think it can't be done is because somebody told you it can't be done and you believed them.
link to original post
Oh my god....LOL.....somebody help this man.
link to original post
Okay, show me why it can't be done. That's all you people have, is opinion. Uninformed, unenlightened, unprovable opinion. You like to sound like experts but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobThere is no math that says I cannot use past outcomes to make a good guess as to the next outcome. All it takes is experience and paying attention. The only reason you think it can't be done is because somebody told you it can't be done and you believed them.
link to original post
Oh my god....LOL.....somebody help this man.
link to original post
Okay, show me why it can't be done. That's all you people have, is opinion. Uninformed, unenlightened, unprovable opinion. You like to sound like experts but you have no idea what you're talking about.
link to original post
You LITERALLY just described the Gambler's Fallacy, and there is quite a bit of math that backs it up....LOL....math that is not "opinion." Go ahead, feel free to try and disprove any of that math in those links if you think it's all just "opinion." (Spoiler alert: you can't.)
You said you're not a math guy so I'm not surprised you have absolutely no idea what's going on.... Bless your heart....
But the claims are implausible and unsupported by evidence. I choose not to believe them. There are an enormous number of implausible and unsupported claims in the world. I don't see the point in believing any of them when there are so many accepted facts that I need to know for my everyday life.
Quote: MentalI will concede that EB's are difficult to disprove. They would be nearly impossible to disprove without EB's cooperation. He knows that.
But the claims are implausible and unsupported by evidence. I choose not to believe them.
link to original post
And there we have it, finally. You cannot prove that I don't do what I say it's just your opinion, it's just your belief. Not based on facts because you don't have any facts, your belief is based on what everybody else believes. Just like those doctors who locked up that fellow physician for being insane when he was 100% correct all along. They all believed what they were told and that was good enough for them.
So that's what it is here, I could do this forever and you would still never believe it no matter what evidence I provided. You would always find some way to slither out of it. I could take you to the casino and win right in front of you and you would say oh that's a one-off, can't do that 100 times knowing full well I would never show it a hundred times. So you win, I give up. But actually you don't win it all, I'm the one that wins every day. Every damn day.
Quote: TigerWu
You said you're not a math guy so I'm not surprised you have absolutely no idea what's going on.... Bless your heart....
link to original post
But you also said you're not a math guy, so what the hell are you talking about. What I know is what I do at the casino on a daily basis, so double bless your heart you little prince..
So let me summarize the situation.Quote: EvenBobQuote: MentalI will concede that EB's are difficult to disprove. They would be nearly impossible to disprove without EB's cooperation. He knows that.
But the claims are implausible and unsupported by evidence. I choose not to believe them.
link to original post
And there we have it, finally. You cannot prove that I don't do what I say it's just your opinion, it's just your belief. Not based on facts because you don't have any facts, your belief is based on what everybody else believes. Just like those doctors who locked up that fellow physician for being insane when he was 100% correct all along. They all believed what they were told and that was good enough for them.
So that's what it is here, I could do this forever and you would still never believe it no matter what evidence I provided. You would always find some way to slither out of it. I could take you to the casino and win right in front of you and you would say oh that's a one-off, can't do that 100 times knowing full well I would never show it a hundred times. So you win, I give up. But actually you don't win it all, I'm the one that wins every day. Every damn day.
link to original post
(A) It is really super-duper important to you that people on this forum believe your prowess and claims.
(B) Nobody believes your claims.
Did I miss anything?
For all practical purposes, 0% of gamblers are winnersQuote: DRichQuote: EvenBob"In 2013, The Wall Street Journal gained access to a private gambling database, which revealed that just 13.5% of gamblers end up winning."
No way 13.5% of gamblers are winners.
link to original post
Using even money 00 roulette an example of a bet the average gambler would make and looking at 100 such gamblers over the course of a three-day trip to Vegas, already like 98 are losers. Taken to a slightly longer period, 99.99% are losers
13.5% might be accurate if no one is allowed to gamble for more than four hours total in their lifetime
I took a look at the raw data for the study. There is no information about free slot play or bonuses. It is not possible for a researcher to figure out how many of the players were successful AP players. If a team was running a stable of newbie deposit bonus hustlers through an online casino, almost all of them would show up as lifetime losers at the site, yet the team could be extremely profitable with myriad $1000 or $2000 newbie bonuses completely missing from the data set.Quote: Ace2For all practical purposes, 0% of gamblers are winnersQuote: DRichQuote: EvenBob"In 2013, The Wall Street Journal gained access to a private gambling database, which revealed that just 13.5% of gamblers end up winning."
No way 13.5% of gamblers are winners.
link to original post
Using even money 00 roulette an example of a bet the average gambler would make and looking at 100 such gamblers over the course of a three-day trip to Vegas, already like 98 are losers. Taken to a slightly longer period, 99.99% are losers
13.5% might be accurate if no one is allowed to gamble for more than four hours total in their lifetime
link to original post
I don't get the obsession with beating casino games. I know BJ and and some hole-card games can be beaten without resorting to any bonuses. Persistent state games can also be beaten sometimes. I respect the people who figured this stuff out. But this represents such a small fraction of AP play that I see in my world.
Quote: MentalThe strong version of the LLN only applies to infinitely large numbers. I have found the weak form of the LLN very useful in my career.Quote: EvenBobIf both statements are true then why would anyone ever EVER mention that the LLN has anything whatsoever to do with any bet a player might make when a player obviously will not even live long enough to ever be affected by the LLN.
link to original post
Insurance actuaries have used the LLN in determining rates for various types of casualty insurance contracts, and it has come back to haunt them. Andrew in 1992 wiped out at least 7 insurance companies and basically changed/compromised property insurance coverages. As far as gambling, the only really large numbers posted are those from the "math" folks touting their "edge's" and "EV's" from computer simulations not from anything real.
tuttigym
I don't think there is anything about the LLN that insurers rely on for their underwriting. Insurers issue 'cat bonds' because they know they can have catastrophic losses in any one year. Some of the insurers that were wiped out operated in only one or two states. They did not take advantage of the LLN, so they are toast.Quote: tuttigymQuote: MentalThe strong version of the LLN only applies to infinitely large numbers. I have found the weak form of the LLN very useful in my career.Quote: EvenBobIf both statements are true then why would anyone ever EVER mention that the LLN has anything whatsoever to do with any bet a player might make when a player obviously will not even live long enough to ever be affected by the LLN.
link to original post
Insurance actuaries have used the LLN in determining rates for various types of casualty insurance contracts, and it has come back to haunt them. Andrew in 1992 wiped out at least 7 insurance companies and basically changed/compromised property insurance coverages. As far as gambling, the only really large numbers posted are those from the "math" folks touting their "edge's" and "EV's" from computer simulations not from anything real.
tuttigym
link to original post
I have personally placed over $200M in wagers. The weak LLN has served me just fine. Since the math deniers on this forum cannot define a large number, I will assert that this is a large number.
I don't control the outcome of my next bet and I don't worry about it. I have $1250 bet on NCAAF today and I will not watch any of the games. I just know that the weak LLN will guarantee my success over any period where I place a sufficient number of wagers. The same probability theory that was used to prove the weak LLN can also be used to inform me how long the long-term is for me. I just need to know my theoretical edge and the approximate PDF for the wager. My risk of ruin is infinitesimal. I have not had a losing quarter in the last 11 quarters. I did lose money in 2020, but that was only because I did not have sufficient volume for the LLN to kick in due to COVID shutdowns. My last losing year prior to COVID was in 2003. That was the last year I was still working a day job, so I had much lower throughput than subsequent years. Apparently, the LLN kicks in for me over periods of less than one year.
Gambling is a mathematical contest scored using real money. You can sneer at "math" guys and call us touts, but we know whether or not we are winning the contest. Our financial records tell us that. But thanks for donating to the casinos so the casinos can afford to keep providing us "math" folks with so many juicy opportunities. We could not do it without you.
Quote: MentalI don't think there is anything about the LLN that insurers rely on for their underwriting. Insurers issue 'cat bonds' because they know they can have catastrophic losses in any one year. Some of the insurers that were wiped out operated in only one or two states. They did not take advantage of the LLN, so they are toast.
"cat bonds"? As in catastrophic? Insurance carriers purchase RE-INSURANCE from specialty insurance companies to cover catastrophic events. Those re-insurance policies have huge deductibles which must be absorbed by the base carrier prior to being eligible for compensation.
Virtually all of insurance underwriting, pricing, and risk management is based on the LNN. That is what actuaries do.
tuttigym
What Is a Catastrophe Bond (CAT)?Quote: tuttigymQuote: MentalI don't think there is anything about the LLN that insurers rely on for their underwriting. Insurers issue 'cat bonds' because they know they can have catastrophic losses in any one year. Some of the insurers that were wiped out operated in only one or two states. They did not take advantage of the LLN, so they are toast.
"cat bonds"? As in catastrophic? Insurance carriers purchase RE-INSURANCE from specialty insurance companies to cover catastrophic events. Those re-insurance policies have huge deductibles which must be absorbed by the base carrier prior to being eligible for compensation.
Virtually all of insurance underwriting, pricing, and risk management is based on the LNN. That is what actuaries do.
tuttigym
link to original post
A catastrophe bond (CAT) is a high-yield debt instrument that is designed to raise money for companies in the insurance industry in the event of a natural disaster. A CAT bond allows the issuer to receive funding from the bond only if specific conditions, such as an earthquake or tornado, occur. If an event protected by the bond activates a payout to the insurance company, the obligation to pay interest and repay the principal is either deferred or completely forgiven.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/catastrophebond.asp
Lloyds insured many one-off risks.
Quote: MentalWhat Is a Catastrophe Bond (CAT)?Quote: tuttigymQuote: MentalI don't think there is anything about the LLN that insurers rely on for their underwriting. Insurers issue 'cat bonds' because they know they can have catastrophic losses in any one year. Some of the insurers that were wiped out operated in only one or two states. They did not take advantage of the LLN, so they are toast.
"cat bonds"? As in catastrophic? Insurance carriers purchase RE-INSURANCE from specialty insurance companies to cover catastrophic events. Those re-insurance policies have huge deductibles which must be absorbed by the base carrier prior to being eligible for compensation.
Virtually all of insurance underwriting, pricing, and risk management is based on the LNN. That is what actuaries do.
tuttigym
link to original post
A catastrophe bond (CAT) is a high-yield debt instrument that is designed to raise money for companies in the insurance industry in the event of a natural disaster. A CAT bond allows the issuer to receive funding from the bond only if specific conditions, such as an earthquake or tornado, occur. If an event protected by the bond activates a payout to the insurance company, the obligation to pay interest and repay the principal is either deferred or completely forgiven.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/catastrophebond.asp
Lloyds insured many one-off risks.
link to original post
Thanks for the info. I am fairly confident that insurance carriers would not be the investors. Especially because those are "junk" bonds and very high risk. The definition above does not make sense to me in that if the insurance company is not obligated to repay the principal where is the risk assumption for the carrier or the investor? In any event, insurance companies rely on re-insurance to bail them out in catastrophic covered events.
Can I PM you on your online play? I am deathly fearful of compromise possibilities. For instance, how can one be sure that the wagers made will not be adversely impacted by the casino's ability to effect the dice?
tuttigym
Have you checked whether your online site is regulated? DK provides a list of all of their regulators. They claim that their games are tested by independent experts. https://casino.draftkings.com/meet-our-regulatorsQuote: tuttigym
Can I PM you on your online play? I am deathly fearful of compromise possibilities. For instance, how can one be sure that the wagers made will not be adversely impacted by the casino's ability to effect the dice?
tuttigym
link to original post
DK provides a transaction log that lists all of the cards that are dealt in their BJ games. You can also see all the rolls of dice. If you study the frequencies of the dice rolls and the statistics look shady, you have all the evidence you need to crucify them with the regulators. You don't have this in a B&M casino. Why would the casinos take a chance on cheating when you are allowed to record every card and every roll to keep them honest.
I have wagered over $100M online, and I am quite happy with my results. Most of my online play is on slots. If the game rules say that a slot game has a 96% RTP, I think you can count on it. At least, if is a game from a well-known game developer in a regulated casino.
Quote: EvenBobI'm cleaning my basement this week and I came across a box today from 2009 full of notebooks with my roulette practice sessions. Hundreds of pages, an entire box full of paper. And that's just up to 2009, I had boxes and boxes from later dates but I threw most of them away. I thought I'll take a picture of this box and post it then I thought why bother they'll just say I just made it up, it's all fake. LOL. I'm looking through the stuff and thinking I must have really been obsessed but then it got me to where I am today. So yeah, I actually 100% totally believe in my prowess because it took me a long long long long time to get here.
link to original post
I decided to keep the box and I took some pictures just for fun. The first two pictures are notebooks and various things I kept track of my practice sessions in. By my calculations there are over 1,000 pages here, well over 1,000. Each of the notebooks is 100 pages but I use both sides so it's 200 pages. This is all 2009 back to 2005. About 10 years ago I switched over to using graph paper notebooks that are 100 pages each I can buy 10 at a time from Walmart.
The second two pictures are score cards that I used at Four Winds Casino which opened in 2007 and for two years was my closest casino one hour and 15 minutes away. There has to be over 200 cards here because I went there about twice a week for a couple of years. Looking back I can't believe I drove all that way so many times. On the scorecard in the margins you can see numbers, those are the roulette numbers as they appeared and in the center is me keeping track of the patterns. In 2009 the Casino in Battle Creek opened which was closer to me and then in 2011 my local casino opened and it was only 30 miles away so I rarely went to Four Winds or the Battle Creek Casino after 2011.
After 2009 there were boxes and boxes of notebooks but I just threw them away as I accumulated them because they take up too much room. I'm glad this one made it to the basement somehow because I'm going to keep it.
Quote: EvenBob
I decided to keep the box and I took some pictures just for fun. The first two pictures are notebooks and various things I kept track of my practice sessions in. By my calculations there are over 1,000 pages here, well over 1,000. Each of the notebooks is 100 pages but I use both sides so it's 200 pages. This is all 2009 back to 2005. About 10 years ago I switched over to using graph paper notebooks that are 100 pages each I can buy 10 at a time from Walmart....
After 2009 there were boxes and boxes of notebooks but I just threw them away as I accumulated them because they take up too much room. I'm glad this one made it to the basement somehow because I'm going to keep it.
link to original post
Thanks EB. This has made my day. It explains so very much about why you keep harping on about your skillful 'Guessing'
Sunk Cost: Lost Invested Time and Effort.
It is THE biggest and best example of Sunk Cost that I've ever seen in any walk of life. god only knows how many thousands of hours you've squandered on these scribblings. It's no wonder that you seek some sort of validation on the forums:-
Either your hard work and intense study was precious or it was worthless. No middle ground.
If it were precious, the stories you could tell: The adulation you would deserve.
If it were a worthless waste of time, what an admission of failure it would be.
You REALLY do believe it! I see it now! You have invested so much into it that you cannot NOT believe it. The pain would be too much.
And here we are some 14 years later and your claims draw nothing but ridicule. They were ridiculed on other forums and as far as I can see, you've withdrawn from those places.
I have read many of your posts over on betselection.cc You said many things that were right. Your dismissal and rebuttal of systems was really solid. You debates with JL were sharp.
I couldn't say it better than you did yourself all those years ago.
Quote: EvenBob/Spike from 2012But why is being taken seriously so important? Who cares?
What difference does it make. You can either win or you can't,
that's the serious part. To so overwhelmingly care what people
on a board think of you seems just a little odd. You seem obsessed
with it and its imbedded in every post you make. You want to be
a roulette authority so badly that you actually beg people to believe
you. All you have is your work, that stands alone and determines
peoples opinion ultimately. Constantly pleading to be taken seriously
is off putting, to say the least/
EvenBob can either win or he can't. He can demonstrate that to the casinos. Who else cares? Who else matters?
I no longer question EvenBob's motivation for touting his unbelievable and unbelieved roulette prowess.
Those notes were pretty clear.
Quote: OnceDear
You REALLY do believe it! I see it now! You have invested so much into it that you cannot NOT believe it.
link to original post
I really really do believe it because the casinos believe it. They believe it because they pay me everyday. As far as the rest of your ramblings go I didn't even read them, I skimmed them, it's just more blah blah blah yada yada yada that I don't have time for. It's not my job for me to separate what you think is reality from what's really reality. That's a job way above my pay grade.
16-12
14-11
17-3
13-12
14-10
25-18
26-18
16-8
24-7
27-12
36-7
23-16
30-5
29-3
Some days we're really good and some days not so good but I had yet to realize in those days that I should be waiting for the outcomes to be playing my game like I do now. But this is 16 to 14 years ago, the years would be 2007 08 and 09. This is why I kept going all that distance a couple times a week because I was making money. Not a lot of money but this was all still pretty new to me. This was the learning stages. I see one there where I want 13 and lost 12 and made one unit. I don't think there were any losing sessions because if it was going badly I would just quit when I was ahead one or two units.
Quote: EvenBob/Spike from 2012But why is being taken seriously so important? Who cares?
What difference does it make. You can either win or you can't,
that's the serious part. To so overwhelmingly care what people
on a board think of you seems just a little odd. You seem obsessed
with it and its imbedded in every post you make. You want to be
a roulette authority so badly that you actually beg people to believe
you. All you have is your work, that stands alone and determines
peoples opinion ultimately. Constantly pleading to be taken seriously
is off putting, to say the least/
