+ Register

[Babu]

 <iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pjLbNM0jcc4">
</iframe>

[Mike]

Very interesting interview, thanks for posting.

No, mathematicians are not always right, any more than anyone is always right. But for a system to have an edge, it must at least have an edge in theory. Card counting was based on solid theory, but most systems are not. Instead, they're based on false assumptions, such as future outcomes being dependent on previous outcomes when the outcomes are actually independent (the innumerable roulette systems for instance), or that some patterns are morely likely than others (when they're not).

[Gizmotron]

Very interesting interview, thanks for posting.

No, mathematicians are not always right, any more than anyone is always right. But for a system to have an edge, it must at least have an edge in theory. Card counting was based on solid theory, but most systems are not. Instead, they're based on false assumptions, such as future outcomes being dependent on previous outcomes when the outcomes are actually independent (the innumerable roulette systems for instance), or that some patterns are morely likely than others (when they're not).

It is true that no pattern is more likely than any other, except when you factor in the losers in a row pattern. You can make an investment in missing a single winner or loser in order to stay out of multiple losses in a row. Now this applies to 24 numbers bet at a time as being more beneficial than 18 numbers at a time. You are naturally expected to win two out of three bets with 24 numbers. So the losing streak is much rarer than with 18 numbers. Everything has a balance point at which the "House Edge" is slightly favored. You must lose every losing streak in order to have that edge in favor of the casino. You really don't have to play their game or the mathematician's game though. You don't have to lose all the spins in a losing streak.


People try to say that if you sit out bets you can't change things. Is that the truth? Is it? If you know the nature of repeated losing streaks in double dozen bets then you know enough to change the odds. Losing streaks of three or more spins in a row do in fact come in swarms at times. Only common sense says to get the heck out of that situation. You must have losing streaks for the house edge to mathematically work against you. You must have bets down when they happen in order for you to lose a session or week of gambling. On the other hand you can also recognize the win streaks in a row. You can see when they swarm together too. You can attack the coincidences in your favor. Or you can chose to ignore everything and just be sublimely taken for a ride of unaware adventure and risk. Math can not tell you when a streak will occur, what type it is, or how long it will last. Only you can determinate that.


This is not meant to sound argumentative. It happens to be true. Telling people that don't want to hear it is entirely a different topic than actually discussing it. Trying to prevent people from discussing it is an interesting topic of its own. Ed Thorpe was and is a scientist where he is used to sharing ideas. It only took him a few conversations to persuade his peers that objected at first. It has and will take decades here.

[Mike]

Math can not tell you when a streak will occur, what type it is, or how long it will last. Only you can determinate that.

Actually it can. Not exactly of course, because you're dealing with random outcomes, but it can give you probabilities with their attendant dispersions. However, these probablities and statistics can't tell you when to bet because they only offer a bird's-eye view of the PAST.

Gizmo,

You've been plugging your theory for a long long time now. If there was any truth to it don't you think mathematicians like Thorp would have confirmed it years ago? If there was some objective way of proving your edge, as there is in card-counting, it would have been done. The secret would have been out for generations, even hundreds of years. If what you're suggesting is true then it must be capable of being VERIFIED mathematically (even if it wasn't DISCOVERED by using math). There is no asymmetry or bias in the random game of roulette, and past outcomes don't indicate future outcomes. If you can prove these mathematically or empirically then it follows that the ideas you'resuggesting cannot possibly work. And they don't.

If you disagree, then please suggest some OBJECTIVE tests which will prove me wrong. If they do, I will happily eat humble pie and beg your forgiveness. 

[alrelax]

Perception (?).  Same as food posters (advertising pieces) and the actual finished product you wound up with or the side of a tractor trailer say for a supermarket and their full color graphics of food, etc. 

Perception=Enticement.  Enticement=Money for the party selling/advertising, etc.

[Gizmotron]

Mike, if you or anyone must bet the same amount on every spin or hand, flat betting, and that goes for any mathematician too, then math will rule over the results as expected, just as you say.


I have written a computer program that has artificial intelligence, that can select when to bet, where to bet, and how much to bet. It was for demonstrating how my methods work for students in my closed for enrollment school. It could be modified to accommodate my version of swing trading technique I have recently suggested.  That would take a very short afternoon to adjust it. That algorithm would be mathematical proof of concept. It is not my ambition to get peer reviewed validation from strangers in the Maths field. I'm not an academic with a job at MIT. I could actually use extra money. So, I know I've been somewhat cryptic yet revealing with regards to what I have discovered, and I did share it anyway.


My validation will be when others use it and the casinos have had just about all they can stand of it. I hope I get there firstest with the mostest. But I might not. That does not really matter much. The question of proof looks like it will be a kind of too-late-to-exploit of kind of revelation. When you are convinced it's a valid, in my opinion, as an advantage it will be too late.


I began posting my thesis 11 years ago because the MathBoyz declared  themselves absolutist in argumentative nature. I'm actually glad everyone has passed on it. That makes the story more interesting. I will have the proof of concept algorithm in my back pocket all the way. I could dump it into the hands of mathematicians any time I want to mess with their heads.


All you have to do is prove that being good at guessing as an advantage has a consistent positive results aspect to it. Once that happens the mathematicians will have to explain it. Let's be real here. They haven't proven it yet because they haven't thought of it yet. They don't even bother to look because they don't think there will be anything worth it for them. So where were they before 1961 when Ed Thorp published his book? Where they right until proven wrong more than 50 years ago. Scientists are almost always wrong before they are right. Your argument only holds water because the argument has not been properly challenged. That is because of fear of being humiliated by their peers. That makes the community weak.


You ask good questions. But to me, they don't add up to proof that what I have shared does not work.

[Bally6354]

Scientists are almost always wrong before they are right. Your argument only holds water because the argument has not been properly challenged. That is because of fear of being humiliated by their peers. That makes the community weak.

That's actually a fair point. There are many instances where researchers/scientists have either lost funding or their job (or at least threatened with it) by opposing the mainstream consensus. Therefore it can be very hard for alternative views/ideas to get out into the mainstream. The herd mentality would suggest that the mainstream view is the most popular until eventually proven otherwise. At least Tabone is right in one aspect and that's that people should do their own research and not necessarily take someone else's word for gospel.

To quote Edgar Allan Poe  'Believe only halve of what you see and nothing that you hear'.

[Gizmotron]

Just to prove I have it as an algorithm. Here's a single run at my AI algorithm before the changes needed from the suggestion above.

Code Select Expand


| 1  2  3 | A  B  C | 0  3  6 | P |
|    X    | X       |       X |   | -- 22
| X       |    X    |    X    | P | -- 11
|    X    |       X |       X |   | -- 21
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
|       X | X       | X       | P | -- 28
|    X    |       X |       X |   | -- 21
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 23
| X       |    X    |       X | P | -- 5
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 26
|    X    | X       |       X |   | -- 22
|    X    |    X    |       X | P |  # 0 -- (No Bet)17 -- 0 -- (No Bet) -- ( A & B to win next) @ 0 -- Sleepers
|    X    |    X    |       X | P |  # 17 -- Won -- 0 -- ( A & B to win next) @ 0 -- Sleepers
| X       |    X    |       X | P |  # 5 -- Won -- 0 -- ( 3's & 6's to win next) @ 0 -- Sleepers
|       X |    X    |    X    |   |  # 29 -- Won -- 0 -- ( A & B to win next) @ 0 -- Sleepers
|       X | X       | X       | P |  # 28 -- Won -- 0 -- Singles
|       X |    X    | X       |   |  # 0 -- (No Bet)26 -- 0 -- (No Bet) -- ( 1 & 3 to win next) @ 0 -- Sleepers
|    X    | X       |       X |   |  # 22 -- Lost  -- 0 -- (2 & 3 to win next) @ 0 -- Sleepers
| X       | X       |    X    |   |  # 7 -- Lost  -- 0 -- ( B & C to win next) @ 0 -- Singles
|       X | X       | X       |   |  # 25 -- Lost  -- 0 -- ( 1 & 2 to win next) @ 0 -- Singles
|       X |    X    | X       |   |  # 35 -- Lost  -- 0 -- ( 1 & 2 to win next) @ 0 -- Singles
|       X |       X |       X |   |  # 33 -- Lost  -- 0 -- ( 1 & 2 to win next) @ 0 -- Singles
|    X    | X       |       X |   |  # 19 -- Won -- 0 -- (2 & 3 to win next) @ 1 -- Sleepers
| X       |       X |    X    | P |  # 3 -- Lost  -- -24 -- ( A & B to win next) @ 0 -- Singles
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   |  # 23 -- Won -- -24 -- ( A & C to win next) @ 1 -- Singles
| X       | X       | X       | P |  # 1 -- Won -- -12 -- ( B & C to win next) @ 1 -- Singles
|       X |    X    |    X    |   |  # 29 -- Won -- 0 -- ( A & C to win next) @ 2 -- Singles
| X       | X       |    X    | P |  # 4 -- Won -- 24 -- ( A & B to win next) @ 2 -- Sleepers
|    X    | X       | X       |   |  # 13 -- Won -- 48 -- ( A & B to win next) @ 2 -- Sleepers
| X       | X       |    X    | P |  # 4 -- Won -- 72 -- ( A & B to win next) @ 2 -- Sleepers
|       X | X       |       X |   |  # 34 -- Won -- 96 -- ( A & C to win next) @ 2 -- Sleepers
|    X    |       X |       X | P |  # 18 -- Won -- 120 -- ( 1 & 3 to win next) @ 2 -- Singles
|       X |    X    |    X    |   |  # 29 -- Won -- 144 -- ( 1 & 2 to win next) @ 2 -- Singles
|       X |    X    |    X    |   |  # 29 -- Lost  -- 96 -- (2 & 3 to win next) @ 0 -- Sleepers


[Babu]

That's actually a fair point. There are many instances where researchers/scientists have either lost funding or their job (or at least threatened with it) by opposing the mainstream consensus. Therefore it can be very hard for alternative views/ideas to get out into the mainstream. The herd mentality would suggest that the mainstream view is the most popular until eventually proven otherwise. At least Tabone is right in one aspect and that's that people should do their own research and not necessarily take someone else's word for gospel.

To quote Edgar Allan Poe  'Believe only halve of what you see and nothing that you hear'.

Very true.  Some mistake last over centuries before proven wrong.  Even Einstein is no exception.  I once tried to question of his theory while studying Modern Physics.  Before even getting a chance practically everyone refuse to even listen.

Even if the math was true, there are ways around it.  I'll give one small clue to my system.  For years, my approach has been subjective, both bet selection and money management.  That seemed like the only way to even give me a chance to winning something.  The problem with a subjective approach is human factor.  You don't always have patience, composure and often you have the greed involved.  I came up with a least a dozen mechanical systems but many failed almost immediately.  Like Mike said, try to tweak it where it fail and it will fail elsewhere.

I've gave up on mechanical systems for years but tried to force myself to work on one after a streak of losses.  This new system actually came by accident but I did have add a few tweak.  I believe there can be many systems that will work.  Let's say you have a system that you tested rigorously and for certain you know that it will never produce a losing streak of more than 7.  You can use the Marty scheme but most people don't like to go that deep into the progression.  To reduce that, you what after 3 virtual losses.  I've seen many people wait after 5 or 6 hands and consider at their virtual losses before betting against a streak or chop.  The only problem is the streak is capable of going well into the teens and even into the twenties.  So, this will only work if you know the ugly side of your system.

[Babu]

Very interesting interview, thanks for posting.

No, mathematicians are not always right, any more than anyone is always right. But for a system to have an edge, it must at least have an edge in theory. Card counting was based on solid theory, but most systems are not. Instead, they're based on false assumptions, such as future outcomes being dependent on previous outcomes when the outcomes are actually independent (the innumerable roulette systems for instance), or that some patterns are morely likely than others (when they're not).

I personally don't think you need to have an edge to win.  I know in BJ card counting, you wait for the edge to bet large.  In Baccarat, you can overcome it with a progression if you can come up with a mechanical system that you know does not produce more than x amount of losses in a row.

I have a background in Electrical and I know my math is weak.  I don't want to believe in this or that so maybe the math jocks can help.  I think I'm not the only one to believe this because I read it somewhere in the forum.  If I'm correct, Baccarat is not equivalent to the flip of a coin as it depends on a certain card that favors the player and a certain card that favors banker.  Once used, the card is taken out of the shoe box, unlike a coin. 

The 2nd point may apply not only to Baccarat but even in coin flipping.  While coins may not have memory of what happened in the past,  is it correct to say the probability or perhaps statistically an event of 4 heads occur more frequent that 5 or 6? Let's say the probability of getting six 6 streak of heads in 50 hands is extremely low and statistically you see no more than 3 in a fairly large sample.  So would it give you an edge if you are approaching the 50th hand and it already show five of those streaks and you're betting against the 6th event not being a streak of 6?

[Babu]

Very interesting interview, thanks for posting.

No, mathematicians are not always right, any more than anyone is always right. But for a system to have an edge, it must at least have an edge in theory.

I've posted these 5 shoes before and this attachment is how I play it.  While the outcome of this shoes proves nothing, I just want to point out how I am trying to overcome to prevail by using progressions.  This was an actual session that I played at a live casino.

I can see that by using this mechanical bet selection, it did not improve my win rate. The longest losing streak during this session was 8 in a row.  By playing multiple progressions at the same time and nesting my mechanical money management (Marty), I have reduces the losses to 5 in a row as shown by the 32 unit bet.  I don't put numbers on the score cards that I play but I did it here.  If you can see, it required me to use 32 units.  I know 32 units is frown upon especially considering that this session gave me only a win of 26 units.  I don't know about everyone but I much rather win 20-30 units consistently over winning a lot of 50-100 units and then losing several 500 unit sessions.  If I play about 2 or more shoes during this session, I could have won a little more.  If I want to reduce the number of losing streak, I just need to play the right column and ignore the left.  I also have a tweak that will not reduce the number of losses in a row but it will reduce the frequency of those long losses in a row.  At this point, I just can't use that tweak as it is just not practical in the live casinos where I play.  It may be practical elsewhere.

[Babu]

System on some of Alrelax's fake shoes.

[Mike]

Mike, if you or anyone must bet the same amount on every spin or hand, flat betting, and that goes for any mathematician too, then math will rule over the results as expected, just as you say.

So it's a progression which makes the difference? At least you acknowledge that there is no consistently winning bet selection. As any experienced system player will know, a progression will increase the variance in BOTH directions. So it may give the illusion of winning, for a while. But "both directions" means that when you DO lose, the losses will be far greater than if you'd been flat betting, just as the wins will be greater than flat betting when you're winning.  A progression only magnifies the swings, both up and down. The basic symmetry of the wins and losses has not been overcome merely by manipulating stakes.

To be successful you can't ignore the selection process, because in order for the progression to prevail only in one direction (the wins), there must be more wins than losses, relative to the probability of the bet. The old chestnut that you will win by putting more money on the winners than the losers is false if you don't know when the winners are coming, which again puts the stress on the bet selection. And since you agree that there is no selection process which will consistently win with flat bets, it follows from the above that a progression applied in the absence of a flat bet edge won't win either.

[Mike]

I personally don't think you need to have an edge to win.  I know in BJ card counting, you wait for the edge to bet large.  In Baccarat, you can overcome it with a progression if you can come up with a mechanical system that you know does not produce more than x amount of losses in a row.

But's that's just to demand that you DO have an edge, analogous to the edge gained by counting cards in blackjack. In the random game, you can't count on there being a limit to the number of losses in a row, at least not a limit within which you can survive given the house limits. To limit the losing run to say, 7, represents a significant edge in your favor. It makes no sense to say that you have no edge and yet you've reduced the length of losing runs, or the length of the longest losing run. One goes with the other: if you reduce the length of the losing runs then you have an edge, and conversely, if you have an edge then you reduce the length of the losing runs.

[Gizmotron]

So it's a progression which makes the difference? At least you acknowledge that there is no consistently winning bet selection. A

There is only one thing that works for me and that is as old as the hills. Bet big when you are doing well and bet small when you aren't.