Over centuries of casino gambling, people easily conclude that the casino games are invincible only because of negative expectations or house edge/house fees.
This is only partially true. Let us do these reality checks:
1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.
2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.
3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?
Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:
1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.
Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).
So, either have fun with gambling without thinking of losses or quit it. Trying failed ideas or ranting over the house edge won't help.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 06:03:16 AM
1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.
If the game is fair then in the long run you will break even, but even offering a fair game the casino is still likely to win because they have an infinite bank in comparison with any individual player. Look up "Risk of Ruin" for the math.
Quote2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.
That wouldn't prove anything, and it's easy with hindsight to say "I would have quit here" AFTER the session. The truth is in some sessions you will never get ahead.
Quote3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?
Of course, you will win in the long run.
I agree with you that the house edge isn't the ONLY factor; poor discipline and money management certainly contribute much to the casino's coffers which they wouldn't get if gamblers didn't use silly progressions and continually "reinvest" their winnings until they lose everything, but self discipline and sensible money management should be givens; they are necessary but not sufficient for success. The overriding factor is getting an edge in the first place, only then should you focus on MM and discipline, they are certainly not substitutes for an edge. And variance is not the enemy as many gamblers seem to think. If you have no edge it's the only way you can win in the short term, and if you have an edge it's irrelevant.
Quote from: Mike on June 03, 2018, 07:19:55 AM
If the game is fair then in the long run you will break even, but even offering a fair game the casino is still likely to win because they have an infinite bank in comparison with any individual player. Look up "Risk of Ruin" for the math.
That wouldn't prove anything, and it's easy with hindsight to say "I would have quit here" AFTER the session. The truth is in some sessions you will never get ahead.
Of course, you will win in the long run.
I agree with you that the house edge isn't the ONLY factor; poor discipline and money management certainly contribute much to the casino's coffers which they wouldn't get if gamblers didn't use silly progressions and continually "reinvest" their winnings until they lose everything, but self discipline and sensible money management should be givens; they are necessary but not sufficient for success. The overriding factor is getting an edge in the first place, only then should you focus on MM and discipline, they are certainly not substitutes for an edge. And variance is not the enemy as many gamblers seem to think. If you have no edge it's the only way you can win in the short term, and if you have an edge it's irrelevant.
Mike's responses are 100% dead on accurate, not fully explained but totally correct, IMO.
@Mike,
QuoteIf the game is fair then in the long run you will break even, but even offering a fair game the casino is still likely to win because they have an infinite bank in comparison with any individual player. Look up "Risk of Ruin" for the math.
"Will" is a wrong word here. You may be at break even, losing or winning even after a million spins. A perfect equilibrium of all bets may not be possible even after a billion spins. Think over it.
QuoteThat wouldn't prove anything, and it's easy with hindsight to say "I would have quit here" AFTER the session. The truth is in some sessions you will never get ahead.
I never said I will quit or not, I just said I will be ahead with my bankroll, for sure at one point of time or other if it is only about beating house edge alone, be it 185 spins or 1850 spins. Give me any kind of scatter. That is not as easy to do for everyone.
QuoteOf course, you will win in the long run.
Again you are being hasty. The long run, in which you might get to win, you may give up all hopes of winning back your losses. Check #3 of American Zumma book. It kept on so bad for 15k spins, even giving 1 chip for 100 placed bets won't help. The terms, "may" and "will" should never be used as synonyms of each other.
I just mean to say that the house edge alone could be handled in playable sessions. Variance coupled with foolish money management feed casinos. Crying over house edge alone is like saying, a 105 kg wrestler has borne edge over another wrestler of 100 kg weight and that with 100 kg weight is mathematically bound to lose.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 08:06:53 AM
Again you are being hasty. The long run, in which you might get to win, you may give up all hopes of winning back your losses. Check #3 of American Zumma book. It kept on so bad for 15k spins, even giving 1 chip for 100 placed bets won't help. The terms, "may" and "will" should never be used as synonyms of each other.
You didn't say "Guarantee that I will win in X spins", and of course variance is always present, but with an edge you will prevail over time. The necessary bankroll required for severe drawdowns can be calculated.
Quote
I just mean to say that the house edge alone could be handled in playable sessions. Variance coupled with foolish money management feed casinos. Crying over house edge alone is like saying, a 105 kg wrestler has borne edge over another wrestler of 100 kg weight and that with 100 kg weight is mathematically bound to lose.
To say that the house edge can "be handled in playable sessions" is just to say it doesn't matter, which is absurd. Your analogy with the wrestlers is a poor one. Nobody would agree that weight alone is the deciding factor in a wrestling match, but as I've said, the other factors such as MM and discipline only make a difference AFTER you have gained a real edge; they are not a substitute. And I'm not "crying" over the house edge; even in roulette it can be overcome, just not by nonsensical strategies such as quitting when ahead, or patterns in past numbers, trends, and progressions. These have zero merit in a random game of independent trials.
Quote from: Mike on June 03, 2018, 10:44:40 AM
To say that the house edge can "be handled in playable sessions" is just to say it doesn't matter, which is absurd. Your analogy with the wrestlers is a poor one. Nobody would agree that weight alone is the deciding factor in a wrestling match, but as I've said, the other factors such as MM and discipline only make a difference AFTER you have gained a real edge; they are not a substitute. And I'm not "crying" over the house edge; even in roulette it can be overcome, just not by nonsensical strategies such as quitting when ahead, or patterns in past numbers, trends, and progressions. These have zero merit in a random game of independent trials.
Calling something "nonsensical," as you do, does not actually validate your opinion. It only displays a reliance on an imagined peer review that actually is non-existent. I'm here to challenge your well worn-out dogmatic demagogic "deplorable"-isms. If I do this then you "mathBoyz" will have to rewrite the books. And then a reel peer review will have to take place. Soon, someone will offer you the "Red Pill." Take it.
... ???
Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 06:03:16 AM
Over centuries of casino gambling, people easily conclude that the casino games are invincible only because of negative expectations or house edge/house fees.
This is only partially true. Let us do these reality checks:
1. Play roulette without house edge/without zero/fair payout and try to beat that conclusively in long run, you will fail again. We have lots of no zero spins to try.
2. Give me any session with only the house edge/house fee and any scatter of outcomes in say roulette. Give me a number to beat that comes only with the house edge. Give me a session of 185 spins with a number coming only 5 times, anywhere. I will get in plus at a given point, irrespective of the location of that win.
3. OK. If the negative expectations beat a game alone, I turn the tables for you. I will give u an edge. I will give u 1 chip for free for every 100 bets placed, irrespective of your winning or losses. Can you beat the game in the long run with this positive expectation?
Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:
1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.
Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).
So, either have fun with gambling without thinking of losses or quit it. Trying failed ideas or ranting over the house edge won't help.
Loved it! A wonderful display of logic.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 06:03:16 AM
Over centuries of casino gambling, people easily conclude that the casino games are invincible only because of negative expectations or house edge/house fees.
This is only partially true. Let us do these reality checks:
I hope it's obvious by now that other than variance the only reason we lose is the NE. Of course under variance we include limited funds, limited bets place, poor MM, etc.
E Clifton Davis uses the casino hold figures to "prove" the house is cheating! How can the hold be 20% on a game with a bit over 1 point against? LMAO. If one flat bets forever one will pay ONLY the juice BUT you got to play forever for this to be true. In the meantime one wins or loses as a product of luck - variance. If not flat bet than it's just based on average bet size (ABS) - :zzz:.
While endeavoring to win one must be aware that we are paying "rent" equal to the HA on EVERY bet whether we win that bet or not. The majority (I say majority but got no idea. Casino still offers the game so it's a good assumption) of gamblers lose because they increase their bet to overcome losses from VARIANCE + the HA. So even IF they win as many hands as lose they're still stuck with paying the juice which now is going to be a product of the ABS. In theory with unlimited bankroll and no house limit we only lose to the HA.
But individuals run out of money, reduce their wagers and lose not 1.4% but 100%. LOL We cannot recoup losses by reducing bet size UNLESS we expect to win a significant more wagers than lose.
This is a long way of saying that the HA really is the only reason we lose. More importantly it goes to show that we must profit by paying the rent AND after losing more hands than win, IOW overcoming negative variance. Cause if we just manage to pay the rent we will be even. Which ain't so bad I guess. ???
So let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.
Example soxfan Sure Win can profit with a low of 16% strike rate. Surely if one can profit from such a low strike rate one could devise a method to overcome a 49% strike rate!!!
J
Quote from: Jimske on June 03, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
So let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.
Spot on right. The whole posting was great.
Now for some arithmetic 101. If I bet only on the Black, I'm betting 18 numbers against 19 or 20 numbers that I will win on each spin. But I will only get paid back 1 to 1 on that bet. Example $10 wins $10. The greens give the casino offering the game an advantage. Perhaps this is more "bonehead" arithmetic in nature. That advantage is that they won't pay back on the true odds. Thus the reference to "paying rent." This could be shortened to PR. ... and that could be misunderstood as propaganda. Just digressing. ... or is that de-greasing the dressing?
All this makes it clear to me that if I play 18 numbers against 19 or 20 numbers I should have a win to loss ratio that favors the casino's side of each of those bets. But variance allows for that ratio to fluctuate a little in the sort run irregardless of the imbalance in the payoff ratio. It will do this without the influence of that edge too. I mean the ratio will change as the session goes on. I don't mean that the influence is gone. Randomness is the influence that dictates what variance will produce. So it is easy for me to figure out that I must play a strategy that attempts to process that variance by analytically detecting that relationship between randomness and variance. I can't change the imbalance ratio of the payoffs in the casino having an advantage. But I can react to the difficulty in accessing the current state of variance. That is a thing that I can become skilled at doing. And that is the ground that I am defending. I'm only wasting time if the arguments always fall back to the house's advantage. That is already a stipulated point.
Can a player ride the waves of variance? Can variance be seen as waves? Does that even exist? I not only say that it does, but that it can be an acquired skill.
Quote from: Jimske on June 03, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
Example soxfan Sure Win can profit with a low of 16% strike rate. Surely if one can profit from such a low strike rate one could devise a method to overcome a 49% strike rate!!!
But it's not really the strike rate which is the problem. Just cover 30 numbers on the roulette layout and you have an 81% strike rate, but this doesn't mean it's a better idea than betting 3 numbers (it isn't). And profit over a 16% strike rate doesn't tell you much; over how many hands must this minimum strike rate materialise? It can't be many.
I do concede that perhaps in the majority of cases, gamblers lose not to the house edge, but to variance. One way of countering this is to just place more bets, but the trade off there is that you're exposing more to the HA. Generally speaking if you're playing an NE game the bold plan is the best one. If you have the balls and bankroll then go for it.
Quote from: Mike on June 03, 2018, 03:22:39 PM
I do concede that perhaps in the majority of cases, gamblers lose not to the house edge, but to variance. One way of countering this is to just place more bets, but the trade off there is that you're exposing more to the HA. Generally speaking if you're playing an NE game the bold plan is the best one. If you have the balls and bankroll then go for it.
It appears so. Most gamblers lose as they walk in the door and open their wallets. They all have an amount that they are willing to lose. They can say it is the cost of entertainment or that they owe the casino for that fantastic looking chandelier. They can pay $50 to get $1 worth of comps. It's all a game to get them to sit down and stay. And it is totally the bankroll that takes them out. It's smaller than the variance, based on table layout minimums. As soon as they hit their limit they pull their parachutes and out the door they bounce, happy as a sucker for a happy ending in a chic-flick.
Of course you are right, Alba.
And many replies are accurate, imo.
Providing a zero or a very low negative edge, our main enemy will be the variance that most players try to "control" by worthless methods.
My opinion is that even a part of BJ counters will get the best of it because they increase their wagers JUST on 12-13% of the total hands dealt (that is the average number when a positive count will arise itlr) and only for few hands after their trigger arises.
Nonetheless, even most successful Bj counters may be losing for weeks despite their 2-2.5% (at best) mathematical advantage.
The proof is that casinos will confide on extra mathematical factors is reading their annual records: profits are 12-15% of the total money wagered at their baccarat tables, for example.
That is 10-12 times more than expected by simple math.
Casinos advantages:
- math edge
- infinite bankroll vs limite players' bankrolls
- betting limits
- no emotions involved as they know the final positive outcome
Possible players advantages:
- selecting at most the situations to bet
- adapting a proper MM knowing that losing sessions or losing weeks are inevitable as a strategic plan can only get the best of it in a very diluted fashion. The same is true for casinos which may stay losers for long.
We can't alter the casinos advantages, just working on our possible advantages.
as.
We can not change the payouts decided by casinos. Can change our strategies though and all old strategies are proven failure, so ranting on them or making statement that we can not win, is not fair. If you really feel that, don't gamble at all.
Quote from: Jimske on June 03, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
So let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.
Yes, but in order to have your winning hands accumulate more $ than the losing hands you have to know when to bet big, and when to back off. But how would you know this unless you have an edge? and to have an edge you must win more hands than you lose flat bet... So it's not a case of either/or; the former option is a precondition for the latter.
QuoteSo let's cut to the chase and realize that we either win more hands than lose flat bet and/or have our winning hands accumulate more $ than the accumulation of our losing hands.
Spot on.
I do not believe or expect the former. Flat bet win could only be achieved with a proven advantage play.
Now, how to do the later is very tricky but not impossible. We just do not need to know which hand wins but rather whenever wins come closer to the real expected hit rate,we bet in a manner higher than our previous losing bets and win thereby a net profit.
Take the classic case of martingale:
It can win without knowing when the win comes but it lacked the common sense of remaining within a reasonable limits.
Same goes with martingale or fibonacci. They mathematically win the game but practically not.
They failed to keep in mind the virtual limit of variance that can even make a billion chips lose , the way they suggested to play.
Every progression suggested worked only in one particular type of variance and miserably failed in other.
I believe we can better that. An mm that can sustain the worst and win later in average case confirming "law of large numbers".
Quote from: Albalaha on June 04, 2018, 07:16:23 AM
We just do not need to know which hand wins but rather whenever wins come closer to the real expected hit rate,we bet in a manner higher than our previous losing bets and win thereby a net profit.
This is just gambler's fallacy I'm afraid. :no:
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 03, 2018, 08:39:09 PM
Casinos advantages:
- math edge
- infinite bankroll vs limite players' bankrolls
- betting limits
- no emotions involved as they know the final positive outcome
Possible players advantages:
- selecting at most the situations to bet
- adapting a proper MM knowing that losing sessions or losing weeks are inevitable as a strategic plan can only get the best of it in a very diluted fashion. The same is true for casinos which may stay losers for long.
We can't alter the casinos advantages, just working on our possible advantages.
as.
Asym,
Spot on in summation. There are numerous other Psych/Emotional/Vision/Desires, 'cons' or 'pros' that prey and hamper or pat a positive player on the back and encourage them. Problem is, and a huge one--is almost all players have no clue or idea what those are and when they do set in--the player is usually defensive and resistant to the max--thus, falling prey or just plain being greedy/stupid, or whatever to the casino that is neutral and has that unlimited bankroll and cash for what they need to do, etc.
Problem is, IMO and after decades of playing, experience, family members of management in casinos admissions, etc., etc., is that the players will attack just those things you talked about with probably (unofficial and IMO) upwards of 90% of the time---the very first thing you mentioned: "math edge" and work something out on their computer, paper, test programs, etc., and then attack for years and years knowing inside of them---"This has to work and it will work" therefore, missing what actually will work. Maybe not on paper and maybe not with an elaborate arithmetical and scientific detailed proof statements, analysis and theory---etc., etc., but certainly does work 100% of the approx. 70-80% of the time. The problem is, and maybe it is a quagmire---when we find ourselves in that ugly 20-30% of the time/space/section--we lose all decent and productive thought/goals/knoweldge and the ability to use of our experience, etc. 100% of the 'XYZ' time? No, not double talk--my way of explaining you find what does win--because there is certainly a whole lot of winning going on at the bac tables, just almost everyone gives it back and then drains themselves for countless reasons and excuses as I pretty much wrote about on the board. The entire 'key trigger/trick' is that player hold/realization/consciousness/decision making process outside of your body/and total conscious manipulation of your buy-in and win money without regard to goals, desires and what is sitting in front of you and your eyes in the dealer's rack, etc., etc., etc. Longer and much more elaborately involved as some of us realize and are aware of.
I remain. Thank you for your great experiences you attempt to explain or bring-out here.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 04, 2018, 07:16:23 AM
... Flat bet win could only be achieved with a proven advantage play.
And that advantage play could be situational awareness.
| B R | O E | L H | 0 6 | P | S |
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 17
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 24
| X | X | X | X | | X | -- 13
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 8
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 26
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 17
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 3
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 1
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 19
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 2
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 2
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 26
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 24
| X | X | X | X | X | X | -- 12
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 8
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 28
| X | X | X | X | | X | -- 25
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 7
| X | X | X | X | X | X | -- 32
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 7
| X | X | X | X | X | X | -- 5
| X | X | X | X | X | X | -- 32
| X | X | X | X | | X | -- 20
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 4
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 19
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 34
| X | X | X | X | X | | -- 1
| X | X | X | X | | | -- 8
Can you see it? There's a dominance of repeaters in the even chance variance of this past spin chart. That dominance caries on for quite a while too. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that a player might time all their bet selections perfectly in order to lose every bet selected. And that actually happens too. But it happens very rarely. Most of the time a skilled player will capitalize on a stretch like this because the bets only need to win once in a row to balance every attempt after that in a repeating sequence. And there are for more streaks that go beyond one repeat in a row. There is a huge absence of singles if you jump around to other bet locations.
I'm suggesting that if variance is the culprit that creates the end-of-year bottom-line for the casino's earnings then turning that variance to your advantage is the winning key for the player. It's just a matter of properly evaluating the situational awareness and having a knowledge of expectation that fits these situations. To me that is a skill. I'm saying that this skill can increase your win rate and you could call it an edge. Many here won't want to call it an edge. But if it is a proven advantage they will have to live with that outcome anyway. So for me the task ahead is to prove it. If I can't then the idea of consistently, enough to beat the variance, beating the game with flat bets would also be validated by me as to being ineffective. So that is my challenge. I don't want to put all that into a massive algorithm. I did create a simple AI project that makes independent decisions. It just takes a ton of work to make all the choices. The human brain can do all that easy. So a large sample is the only true test. This is a tried and true method of validating research. And it's purely a set of data based on numbers too.
It shouldn't take long to change the world that has already been changed since yesterday, in my opinion, because of this thread. The implication already implies that more chapters are required now in every gambling addiction and treatment book that I have ever read. And it gives a mathematical reason for understanding a gambler's mind set, when they gamble, as now a necessary part of any effective treatment.
Gizmotron, I like reading you charts.
Working with the ECs's I see a black dominance early, but then red takes most of that back. Evens does take over but black is strong too so only a few spins to take profit from an even dominance. From there a little choppy, but red takes a good hold in the second half of the spin file to ensure a positive result.
Leastways that's how I read it, or would have played it.
Gizmo,
I can see the patterns all right. But now what?
My next bet can be either for the pattern to continue or for it to end. Which do I choose, and more importantly, WHY?
Your proof starts here. :thumbsup:
Quote from: greenguy on June 04, 2018, 01:08:52 PM
Gizmotron, I like reading you charts.
Working with the ECs's I see a black dominance early, but then red takes most of that back. Evens does take over but black is strong too so only a few spins to take profit from an even dominance. From there a little choppy, but red takes a good hold in the second half of the spin file to ensure a positive result.
Leastways that's how I read it, or would have played it.
You read it like a genius. It's easy too. The trick is in noticing that the characteristic, which you noticed, jumps around. Every ending means to jump too. That is because you are noticing a characteristic in dominance. You can't predict where to jump. But you can use a factor of 4's for an example. You ask yourself if a factor of 4's works. You can know if it does just by betting on it. You will get your effectiveness chart just based on your attempts. 4's are any already existing 4 in a rows. Perhaps 3's are better. You can test the water for that. It's just a guess. There is no magic or claim of it working. But it will result in a data track that represents your real variance. And my method is to just get two net wins resulting in three units up. It's so close to the even point that it's a fraction of occurrences that most gamblers need in order to succeed. Nobody is agreeing with me that 3 units up is enough. It's human nature. They all want to summit on Mt. Everest. They just don't want to freeze to death on the Hillary Step.
Quote from: Mike on June 04, 2018, 01:36:38 PM
Gizmo,
I can see the patterns all right. But now what?
My next bet can be either for the pattern to continue or for it to end. Which do I choose, and more importantly, WHY?
Your proof starts here. :thumbsup:
For you the way I play starts here. That will not be the proof. I just explained it a little in my previous post. This is how my school worked. I gave examples and students asked questions and got answers. The point is to gain experience in seeing any characteristic that continues. You see these characteristics continuing. You would need experience in exploiting them. I give examples. Then I give out practicing software so that you can gain experience and actually improve your skills. This is not meant to pull the wool over unsuspecting student's eyes as some form of overloaded information bombing. It's meant to take the students to the next and final level. The bet selection method produces the data track for the variance being experienced. The true trend that matters is the effectiveness trend. It's the only place that you can validate the method. It appears to be the real ground at which any claims can be authenticated too. I teach how to live with the results of your guesses. That is a skill.
Big problem though. School is out. I don't teach anymore. I don't give out practice software any more. I only did it to prove to myself that it could be taught. Just because you want proof does not mean that I must give it. I decide if I want proof out there in the public domain. I decide when. I decide when to shake up the addicted gambling treatment world.
Quote from: Mike on June 03, 2018, 03:22:39 PM
But it's not really the strike rate which is the problem. Just cover 30 numbers on the roulette layout and you have an 81% strike rate, but this doesn't mean it's a better idea than betting 3 numbers (it isn't). And profit over a 16% strike rate doesn't tell you much; over how many hands must this minimum strike rate materialise? It can't be many.
??? When I speak of strike rate I mean win rate. So for instance my strike rate is now 53.2% for 3,019 bets placed.
Doesn't have to be a single bet. Could be a series of bets, as long as the series in question provides a net profit.
QuoteI do concede that perhaps in the majority of cases, gamblers lose not to the house edge, but to variance.
Yes but it's the HA that basically creates the variance. Without it any savvy player would easily determine a winning strategy.
QuoteOne way of countering this is to just place more bets, but the trade off there is that you're exposing more to the HA. Generally speaking if you're playing an NE game the bold plan is the best one. If you have the balls and bankroll then go for it.
You are getting warm! Risk vs. Reward. Not necessarily so risky. Depends if you need to feed a Bulldog or a Chihuahua! :))
Gizmo,
I only mentioned proof because you did :
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2018, 12:36:05 PM
Many here won't want to call it an edge. But if it is a proven advantage they will have to live with that outcome anyway. So for me the task ahead is to prove it. If I can't then the idea of consistently, enough to beat the variance, beating the game with flat bets would also be validated by me as to being ineffective. So that is my challenge.
Ok, so maybe you're not in a position to prove it yet, no problem. But I'm interested in how you could prove it without using some kind of algorithm. Yes it would be a lot of work, but how else could you provide a real proof? You say that the human brain can do it easy, but a computer can keep track of many more variables than a human could, and it would double as a documented proof, if it worked.
Quote from: Mike on June 04, 2018, 02:34:04 PM
Ok, so maybe you're not in a position to prove it yet, no problem. But I'm interested in how you could prove it without using some kind of algorithm. Yes it would be a lot of work, but how else could you provide a real proof? You say that the human brain can do it easy, but a computer can keep track of many more variables than a human could, and it would double as a documented proof, if it worked.
It took a lot of work to just have two characteristics programmed with several variables, including making changes caused by the effectiveness results. It changed bet sizes as well as bet locations. This was all programmed in Object Oriented Programming classes. Big problem though. I'm not motivated at this point to go back into it and keep going with many more characteristics and pattern recognition where the software actually learns on its own. It's kind of fun to teach the program to program itself. For example pattern learning lists. I'd only do it if I'm convinced that I've done it enough in a casino as to eliminate a lucky streak as the cause. I can use a little more for retirement too. Once those two hurdles are done then it makes sense to validate it. It would be easier to write a book and have many others attempt to validate it by using it in a casino. Counting cards was easy. Variable Change was a real concept that could be proved by showing examples of it. This must be executed by people that have self control. I'm sure a test model could be set up as a form of a confined set of conditions.
It's just too soon. But variance and size of bankroll have a huge consideration in writing any book.
Thanks Al, I'm very glad you remain here! ;-)
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 04, 2018, 11:15:56 PM
Thanks Al, I'm very glad you remain here! ;-)
as.
This has to do with topic how?
BTW, I been away a long time not checking in. Did you get the Baccarat book published you were promising?
Quote from: Albalaha on June 03, 2018, 06:03:16 AM
Ranting over the house edge is pretty foolish in my opinion. It helps the casino but it is not the sole culprit for players.
Actually there are three more bigger evils in gambling from gamblers' side:
1) Ignorance of what can happen with any bet, whenever you choose to play;
2) Greed to beat the casino with fistful of chips and in an hour or two
3) Variance and wrong presumptions regarding your betselection and your proven failure money management approaches/strategies.
Reality is, you can never guess or predict with any accuracy as what will happen in your session with your bet. When you win, you win the least(usually) and when you lose, you lose all you have(usually).
So I hope that those with savvy gambling introspect noticed what just happened when this thread was posted? I wonder if Albalaha would like to give credit to an originator or author of this logic or stand for the claim of it's origination himself. Because the world changed forever. All I see is that Al, the great AL, has brought it to my attention. I consider it the most profound revelation in the past 200 years of gambling logic. How the heck would I know that anyway, I'm just 60+ and have not read every gambling book through the ages?
I have been running tests where, with the bone headed plan to just bet on the red numbers, all 18 of them, I end up with a large number test result of almost breaking even for the number of sessions won vs the numbers of session lost. Sounds good, right? But when I use a stop loss, set at the exact same level as a stop win, and add educated guessing to the effort, it changes. I get 3 losses to 7 wins. Now further testing will show a big number value for this ratio. All it takes is a skilled guesser, with the knowledge of coincidence distributions, a coined phrase now, with the ability to exploit randomness changes that offer advantages over an otherwise mathematical expectation or outcome. It's a way to see past the probability expectation of the house's advantage, a once accepted rule, now just a favorite axiom. YEP!. the world has changed. I'm so glad that I saw it. This thread is history being made or it is something that someone else has already made a notion about. I wonder where it originates from?
A skilled guesser huh? ;D
Quote from: Xander on June 06, 2018, 04:09:03 AM
A skilled guesser huh? ;D
Here is how the final resolution of your question will work itself out. Someone or team will validate the skilled guesser method with real peer reviewed data, actual results, or we will argue until that research is done in a real research experiment. The notion of losing at the expectation rate is forever history, just an old belief that is now and forever deFunct. In the words of hipster type people, you are no longer Funky.
Gizmo,
You're just posturing and adding a little meaningless word salad. Common sense, logic, and basic probability say you're living in a fantasy world and perhaps experiencing a bit of mania. ::)
Sorry, but the facts are what they are.
Quote from: Xander on June 06, 2018, 05:46:39 AM
Common sense, logic, and basic probability say you're living in a fantasy world and perhaps experiencing a bit of mania. ::)
Sorry, but the facts are what they are.
Yeah, "fantasy world." Basic probability will of course explain the high 20% return rate in the end of year earnings reports to the IRS. A casino's gambling activities, where an average 4% to 5 % house advantage should have been the common sense, logical, large numbered return rate. I'm sure that those casinos should hear from you that they are living in a fantasy world and should only declare 5% earnings on their books. Let's see if that will fly.
Who's still grand standing? I'm also sorry, but your soapbox is burning.
I did read it. What you are suggesting as being a display of reality is only a fallacy. It's a good bit of sophistry too. It's the greatest lie since casinos ever opened their doors.
The casinos have drop boxes all over the table game areas that must balance against all chips removed and given to players during the days play. Some people that stay for days and take their chips up to their rooms also must be factored in. So a balance of taken in money and paid out money, confirmed by the cashier's desk, must result in a hard number of earnings. If a Blackjack player walks up to a Roulette table with a pocket full of $25 chips and starts playing that pile of chips then the simple balance at the table is thrown off. But the entire table game area is still in balance because only the table games have cash drop boxes and casino chips that need to be cashed in.
Your example of how much a casino takes in is theoretical mambo jumbo. There is a real count. If the average activity of the table game area results in a house edge of say 4% advantage to the house for example. Then over a years time the amount of money actually wagered should result in a 4% take as earnings from the activity of gambling in the table game area. You could say that out of a discovered number of bets placed, at an actual average value of each bet for the entire table playing area, a 4% return on those wagers was realized. That would be a hard and factual number. So where is the book keeping for that? If I were an IRS agent investigating or auditing these enterprises I would want to know the hard real numbers. If the casino was a publicly traded corporation then those real numbers would be published to see. Are you right? Do you know what the casino earns from the table gaming area of a casino?
I don't think it's just the house edge. I believe it is way more, do to human nature and greed. But, I will give you a chance to prove what I believe to be a ridiculous conclusion. I think that the single spin result rate for the Roulette table alone is exactly as expected by the probability numbers. But that the casino takes in far more from a gambler's session because of ignorance on the player's part.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 06, 2018, 06:17:55 PM
I did read it. What you are suggesting as being a display of reality is only a fallacy. It's a good bit of sophistry too. It's the greatest lie since casinos ever opened their doors.
The casinos have drop boxes all over the table game areas that must balance against all chips removed and given to players during the days play. Some people that stay for days and take their chips up to their rooms also must be factored in. So a balance of taken in money and paid out money, confirmed by the cashier's desk, must result in a hard number of earnings. If a Blackjack player walks up to a Roulette table with a pocket full of $25 chips and starts playing that pile of chips then the simple balance at the table is thrown off. But the entire table game area is still in balance because only the table games have cash drop boxes and casino chips that need to be cashed in.
Your example of how much a casino takes in is theoretical mambo jumbo. There is a real count. If the average activity of the table game area results in a house edge of say 4% advantage to the house for example. Then over a years time the amount of money actually wagered should result in a 4% take as earnings from the activity of gambling in the table game area. You could say that out of a discovered number of bets placed, at an actual average value of each bet for the entire table playing area, a 4% return on those wagers was realized. That would be a hard and factual number. So where is the book keeping for that? If I were an IRS agent investigating or auditing these enterprises I would want to know the hard real numbers. If the casino was a publicly traded corporation then those real numbers would be published to see. Are you right? Do you know what the casino earns from the table gaming area of a casino?
I don't think it's just the house edge. I believe it is way more, do to human nature and greed. But, I will give you a chance to prove what I believe to be a ridiculous conclusion. I think that the single spin result rate for the Roulette table alone is exactly as expected by the probability numbers. But that the casino takes in far more from a gambler's session because of ignorance on the player's part.
You inspired me to write the following this afternoon, and I tried my best from my experiences, knoweldge and talking with industry people to write something, rather than cutting and pasting from the UNLV or other published sources, etc., et al:
#1) What you said.
#2) Checks and Balances. For casino and regulatory purposes. However, IMO, magazines, websites and industry journals have offered the various statistical figures in the wrong context to the general public and writers/authors have latched onto them for whatever reason to enhanced their stories/points/topics for credibility and official 'back up' of sorts to their content, etc.
#3) Numerous people inflict their reasoning and purposes for interpretation of what the industry makes use of for other accounting and governing reasons.
#4) But at each casino in comparison to another, there can be vast differences of generated revenue from player's losses or player's wins.
For example: Casino '1' with players 'A-H' could lose $1.5 Million dollars on baccarat one month and lose for several continuing months as well.
While Casino '2' with players 'I-P' could win $6.5 Million dollars on baccarat for the same month and continuing such win from the players for several months as well.
While both of the examples will reflect the 'hold' of the table games section of each casino, neither one will reflect the figures each realizes upon the other or the industry for sake of statistical wins or losses. Unless it is within and through a research paper that addresses that subject only for the point of what a game makes or losses in a certain geographical area or a period of times, etc. But once again, will have no effect on what a player is compelled to do or does.
#5) I give an unknown/uncertain amount of my win chips or buy-in chis to another player, which wins or loses those at the same table or another table, etc. Numerous other scenarios similar to that will always restrict the casino figures from staying internal for accounting procedures regarding their chips inventory and the cash player drop, etc., rather than a detailed and accurate accounting of what each player does or does not do, as far as wins and losses. Casinos do have a much handle on the high-rollers/or CTR'd type of players 'wins and losses' with pretty close accuracy concerning those players wins and losses as compared to non CTR'd type of players, but once again, those figures are not filters back into the industry and available to be input to the large masses of table game players in order to label each one as to what they will or can do, etc.
#6) If what Xander and a few other members claim is 100% gospel and accurate with the reported numbers, that means I would always in the long run score the set and published, 'loss' or '-HA' amount no matter what. Which will not happen in reality. In fallacy and theory you can say it will, but pretty much it will not.
#7) HA's and everything else associated with those are not totally accurate because there most certainly are much larger losses and wins in relationship to the statistical '-HAs' published and set accordingly to various industry sources, conclusions and experts, etc., etc.
#8) Statistical results over millions or billions of testing results do not change, agreed. However, wins and losses are a total different and separate picture. So many writers, people, message board authors, etc., grab a number that a test result yields for whatever reason and then claim, that same percentage is what a player will realize over the proverbial long-run.
For example. Casino '3' might have one player for 5 days and that player brings $20 Million dollars and losses it all. Likewise casino '4', might have the same player or even different players for a period of time and that/those players win $20 Million dollars from that casino in contrast as to the other one. This events do happen and will never reflect within the industry 'HAs' for the game in question.
Bottom line is, if 1 billion shoes were dealt and the results produce a certain amount of bankers and players and ties, which the percentage will still remain the same no matter what 100 billion casino players won or lost at baccarat. If you believe that a casino player will be governed to a certain definitive extent because of what the test results have proven, that is not correct.
#9) Now, the one casino's good fortune that they earned has nothing at all to do with the other casino's lost revenues or drop, they paid out. Although both will and do, in complete accuracy report to their state casino regulatory reporting regulations, the 'HA' does not and will not change no matter what it is. Possibly their 'hold' on the players 'drop' will change but once again, that has nothing to do with what a player might or might not win or lose or have a chance of winning, etc. It is merely for accounting and regulatory purposes. Like I said, too many authors and researchers grad figures attempting to base something off of and give themselves justification for their content, etc.
Even if all casinos win or lose to their players, the '-HA' will still be there, be published, not change and stand as being valid and negative no matter what the players might have accomplished or not at their tables.
#10) Same as a bicycle journal talking about children learning how to ride a bike. Whereupon 15 kids out of every 20, based upon research and study of millions of kids, will fall a certain amount of times and out of the remaining 5, 3 of them will fall a certain amount and the other 2, will fall another amount. As well, out of the 15, 3 and 2 kids out of every 20, a total of yet another amount will be injured seriously requiring an emergency room visit and yet a certain amount of the kids will wind up with a cast on a broken arm or leg form the results of those falls.
However, while that applies to the test group of kids with extreme accuracy, it does not mean that out of every single equivalent group of kids, that the same amount will produce the same results. Sure, out of billions and billions and billion, 'XYZ' amount was injured in various ways. However, the consistency and the regularity for those injured really had no rhyme or reason when grouped together.
The same with gambling and players at the casinos.
#11) Smaller casinos generally do not offer baccarat and high limit games because of the exposure and the fluctuations they cause. Meaning, possible and large wins. If it was a guaranteed for the casino property to hold '-HA' without any risk whatsoever and definitively, every casino would venture into the true high limit realms and also offer baccarat, etc.
And, while exposure and fluctuation can hurt a player enormously, it can also help a player enormously. Granted, most all players, at least the highest and greatest amount of them, will always give back win money amounts as well as go negatively with their buy-in/bank rolls, because all they do is attempt bigger, larger, greater and harder wins and win amounts. That is where the '-HA' start to set in and take effect on the players. But that percentage from those '-HA' are still not a governing tool that can precisely be implemented universally by the casino, it is still up to the player to miscalculate, misjudge, misalign himself and everything else along those lines with the downfalls that exists within each game.
However, there are those players on the other hand, that learned and realized the real opportunities and advantages that will fuel his winning over his losses with some kind of systematic protocol involving most things I have talked about and detailed out, other than sheer and lonesome bet-placement and continued wagering.
In all actuality, the players wins and losses will be far greater than those industry statistics regarding the 'HAs' no matter what they are set at.
I.E.: He might win far in excess than numerous other players and actually cash out, hold and not re-surrender that money to any casino. On the other hand—he very well might and give back far in excess of what other players are actually recorded as losing.
#12) Now, for sake of simplicity, say there are 8 players at a bac table consistently for one month at one casino property. Each bac player buys in with $1,000.00 and each bac player cashes out $980.00 at the end of each and every session for the entire month, each and every single day. The casino can say they had a +2% Hold/Win off their bac table, in other words a '-2% HA' to the player.
However, another period might have that very same casino seeing those very same players' cash out $1,020.00 at the end of every single session as well within the same period of time. Then, the casino would be recording a -2% Loss/Payout off their bac table they would generally just reduce from their drop, whatever that was. Whereas, the players all realized a +2% win rate. But no matter which way it goes with varying amounts of wins and losses by the players, the statistical results have to stay the very same for the game. That cannot change. What individual players actually do and realize, has no bearing (NO BEARING WHATSOEVER) on the statistical 'HAs' of the game.
Which can easily be checked if you take a state regulatory authorities win/loss rate off the bac tables, divide the number of players, know what their real buy-in was, as well as what they actually finished with and then totaling it all out with additions and divisions. Which really can never be done in reality. However, you can obtain the win/hold figures for a casinos bac tables, as well as the drop and it will be greater than that of the statistical results of the game proven by certain tests that are taking as industry correct standards.
To myself, all the published numbers mean, is that all the total amount of money dropped into the casinos tables and an approximate deduction of chip inventory that was tracked to cashing out against that drop in general, equals that amount of money realized by the casino collectively from its players. It has nothing to do with individual players doing an above average management of their own protocols and events they experienced. As far as the industry statistics resulting from people or groups of researchers figuring out what certain games produce, in the way of '-HAs', I don't dispute those figures, just don't see any real use for them at the bac table or any other table by an individual in gauging his play, strategy, or attempting to respond to an opportunity that might be presenting itself or to a situation that would harm him. Events, opportunities, advantages that are positive or even negative, cannot be gauged and are not regulated by the statistical outcomes of the games to correlate to the percentages produced by tests and histories.
#13) The bottom line is, you will lose or win what you are smart enough to realize is happening—as it is happening. How to hold and continue to play or what you are unintelligent enough to fall prey to and continue believing in whatever it is, that propels yourself to whatever it is you are thinking and believing you will get to.
Likewise, the bottom line is a kid will fall and possibly become injured dependent upon his training and instruction along with his supervision which may allow him to avoid falling and injuries as compared to other kids that received the same, lesser or even a greater amount of instruction, training and supervision. Most will just say it was good luck or bad luck that the kid had. But in most of the cases that is not true. It really was dependent upon the kid's application, understanding and continued activity he was able to control or not control his actions within his pursuit of learning how to ride the bicycle that made the ultimate determination as to what would happen or not happen with the kid. Therefore, the research groups that wrote up and reported all the falling and injuries broken down to every group of 20 kids, might or might not apply to your kid, not that they are wrong or inaccurate by any means.
If a game has approximately a '-1.25%' '-HA', that does not mean I will lose 1.25% of the hands I play or sit at every so many shoes, say 100 shoes or 1,000 shoes, etc. Likewise, it does not mean I will win a total of 98.75 hands either. Change the 100 to 10,000 or even 100,000 or 500,000 which is probably the long run for most everyone. Unless I wager the exact same amount for the exact same 'even chance' wagers for the amount of hands that the '-HA' percentage was pulled from. If it was a large enough test section of shoes/hands and pretty much no one does that anyway in their gambling pursuits. IMO and pretty much that of most any rational person that actually does understand what those figures are all about, how they came about and their purposes.
Thank You, Glen.
P.S.: [Written 6/6/2018 Copyright Glen/Alrelax. Cut & Paste file # 14532AN-BS-2-XAN]
I'm always amused by the novices and amateurs that think they know more than the professionals, gaming experts and mathematicians. ::).
In the mean time a visit to the wizardoffodds.com will serve you well.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 03, 2018, 03:59:12 PM
Most gamblers lose as they walk in the door and open their wallets. They all have an amount that they are willing to lose. They can say it is the cost of entertainment or that they owe the casino for that fantastic looking chandelier. They can pay $50 to get $1 worth of comps. It's all a game to get them to sit down and stay. And it is totally the bankroll that takes them out. It's smaller than the variance, based on table layout minimums. As soon as they hit their limit they pull their parachutes and out the door they bounce, happy as a sucker for a happy ending in a chic-flick.
This is a very good way to escape this lunacy.
Gentlemen;
Fascinating opinions, information and insights to consider from all of you. I find the information you all are sharing quite interesting.
Of course an informed player's results also create a set of individual statistics, which ultimately may well exceed expectations (and isn't that our goal ?)
Garry
QuoteI'm always amused by the novices and amateurs that think they know more than the professionals, gaming experts and mathematicians. ::).
In the mean time a visit to the wizardoffodds.com will serve you well.
Innovation can change the perceptions. People used to laugh when the concept of airplane was first conceived. The same house edge of earth (gravitational force) could not stop flying machines to go across oceans and even upto Mars now. Gravitational force still exists and people are easily flying with them from one place to other.
In gambling with proven house edge, a man called Thorpe came and changed the perception of only house can win, forever. Wake up guys.
P.S.: Please discuss on the topic than mudslinging and going off topic. If you know that only house can win, what the hell are you doing on a gambling forum?
Quote from: Albalaha on June 07, 2018, 05:02:06 AM
People used to laugh when the concept of airplane was first conceived.
I guess it was just a matter of time before the Wright brothers showed up in this thread. :P
This is a non sequitur
"People said nobody will ever make a machine that can fly, they were wrong. Therefore gambling systems work!"
QuoteIf you know that only house can win, what the hell are you doing on a gambling forum?
Al,
Nobody is saying that only the house can win, especially not Xander, who has made a very good living from the casinos for over 30 years. But he hasn't done it by using progressions. or waiting for the right patterns in past results.
There are many reasons why someone might post on a gambling forum, one of which might be to criticise wrong ideas and explain why certain strategies can't work.
Quote from: alrelax on June 06, 2018, 10:24:35 PM
To myself, all the published numbers mean, is that all the total amount of money dropped into the casinos tables and an approximate deduction of chip inventory that was tracked to cashing out against that drop in general, equals that amount of money realized by the casino collectively from its players. It has nothing to do with individual players doing an above average management of their own protocols and events they experienced. As far as the industry statistics resulting from people or groups of researchers figuring out what certain games produce, in the way of '-HAs', I don't dispute those figures, just don't see any real use for them at the bac table or any other table by an individual in gauging his play, strategy, or attempting to respond to an opportunity that might be presenting itself or to a situation that would harm him. Events, opportunities, advantages that are positive or even negative, cannot be gauged and are not regulated by the statistical outcomes of the games to correlate to the percentages produced by tests and histories.
Glen,
It's evident from your post that you don't really understand variance and what it means (look up "standard deviation"). Nobody is saying that an individual player's results will conform precisely to the predicted HA in a playing session, but you are right in that statistics only tell you something about the collective, not the individual. However, you appear to have it backwards; it's not that the HA is somehow derived from the stats; the HA is built into the game and the stats are just a reflection of it, so EVERY player has to contend with the house edge, even if they have a favourable edge themselves.
Of course an individual has control over his actions, but the issue is, does controlling yourself make any difference to the outcomes in an essentially random game? Sure you need self-control, but it's useless without an edge, and you can only find one if the game is not entirely random.
QuoteIn gambling with proven house edge, a man called Thorpe came and changed theIn gambling with proven house edge, a man called Thorpe came and changed the perception of only house can win, forever. Wake up guys.
Again, you're just demonstrating lack of understanding of probability. Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. Technically, Baccarat isn't either, but Thorpe also investigated the possibility of getting an edge in Bacc and found there was none, and of course Roulette IS a game of independent trials, so counting past outcomes is pointless (but you MAY be able to get an edge using physics).
Quote from: Xander on June 06, 2018, 05:16:32 PM
Gizmo,
In short, roulette players like other gambler's aren't content winning just $50 or $100. If their initial investment is $100, then they're often times not going to quit until they've either won $1000 or until they've lost $100 or more. There's usually no middle ground. They keep cycling their bankroll until it's gone. The players still lose at the house edge. Understand?
"Since players rewager their bankroll more than one time, win / drop is greater than win / handle. Casinos typically can't get total handle for table games so they use drop instead. What the roulette numbers tell you is that on average, players played through their buyins three times." -Math Extremist
Really what you need to study in order to comprehend it better is "probability of ruin" and the random walk." I doubt that you've ever studied either of them.
Like many people you're confused by the house edge verses the casino win at various games. To help you understand the difference, read the following that describes the math in detail.
[/i]
Although you did cite you copied and pasted the article you published on this board from the UNLV website your citation was incomplete as well at this time my information is you did not have a letter of authorization and permission from the author and UNLV. I fielded a phone call a couple of hours ago in regards to this and it will have to be deleted it until you obtain such permission. All future copy and paste or cited information from UNLV, such as you just did will have to be the correct and legal way that they disclaim on their website. I'm sorry it's not my decision you have to follow those rules. Everyone does. Thanks for understanding. Alrelax.
Quote from: Mike on June 07, 2018, 08:33:28 AM
Glen,
It's evident from your post that you don't really understand variance and what it means (look up "standard deviation"). Nobody is saying that an individual player's results will conform precisely to the predicted HA in a playing session, but you are right in that statistics only tell you something about the collective, not the individual. However, you appear to have it backwards; it's not that the HA is somehow derived from the stats; the HA is built into the game and the stats are just a reflection of it, so EVERY player has to contend with the house edge, even if they have a favourable edge themselves.
Of course an individual has control over his actions, but the issue is, does controlling yourself make any difference to the outcomes in an essentially random game? Sure you need self-control, but it's useless without an edge, and you can only find one if the game is not entirely random.
Again, you're just demonstrating lack of understanding of probability. Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. Technically, Baccarat isn't either, but Thorpe also investigated the possibility of getting an edge in Bacc and found there was none, and of course Roulette IS a game of independent trials, so counting past outcomes is pointless (but you MAY be able to get an edge using physics).
I don't believe I said anything in that quote about Thorpe and you make it appear that I did and you've just lambasted me for misunderstanding the content you have outlined in that quote I believe that's from another member on the board? Please clarify thank you
Yes the second quote was from Albalaha (reply #38), and my following reply was addressed to him, sorry for the confusion.
Quote from: Xander on June 06, 2018, 05:16:32 PM
Gizmo,
In short, roulette players like other gambler's aren't content winning just $50 or $100. If their initial investment is $100, then they're often times not going to quit until they've either won $1000 or until they've lost $100 or more. There's usually no middle ground. They keep cycling their bankroll until it's gone. The players still lose at the house edge. Understand?
"Since players rewager their bankroll more than one time, win / drop is greater than win / handle. Casinos typically can't get total handle for table games so they use drop instead. What the roulette numbers tell you is that on average, players played through their buyins three times." -Math Extremist
Really what you need to study in order to comprehend it better is "probability of ruin" and the random walk." I doubt that you've ever studied either of them.
Like many people you're confused by the house edge verses the casino win at various games. To help you understand the difference, read the following that describes the math in detail.
[Parts apparently copied and pasted from a UNLV report on the internet. I was informed proper permission was not awarded to Xander to copy and paste this which is disclaimed very clearly on their website following this report and almost everything they publish as well.
Please follow their requirements to copy and paste or use parts thereof, thank you, BetSelection Admin.]
[/i]
Quote from: alrelax on June 07, 2018, 08:42:39 AM
Although you did cite you copied and pasted the article you published on this board from the UNLV website your citation was incomplete as well at this time my information is you did not have a letter of authorization and permission from the author and UNLV. I fielded a phone call a couple of hours ago in regards to this and it will have to be deleted it until you obtain such permission. All future copy and paste or cited information from UNLV, such as you just did will have to be the correct and legal way that they disclaim on their website. I'm sorry it's not my decision you have to follow those rules. Everyone does. Thanks for understanding. Alrelax.
Agreed. But I'm just curious. When you say you "fielded a phone call" what exactly does that mean? UNLV phoned you up or what exactly?
Quote from: Jimske on June 07, 2018, 12:26:41 PM
Agreed. But I'm just curious. When you say you "fielded a phone call" what exactly does that mean? UNLV phoned you up or what exactly?
I received an email last night, I responded with my contact info--rather than going back and forth. I then received a phone call contact from an associate that was responsible for the area that was addressed.
FYI and everyone else's at this point, most us have quoted a 'UNLV' article or report at one time or another. They put a lot of hard work into them and those reports and articles are the 100% property of the author's and co-owned intellect rights by UNLV. The authors are mostly industry related or a straight up teacher/professor at the UNLV or another university, etc. Most of them, at least the highest majority have no problem to give permission to use their works, just they want to know and have it a but more formal. It is clearly posted on every work they have that I have seen on the internet or their site.
I was told, they don't desire their works to be put up and used in 'less than desirable' situations and purposes, for sake of cutting a long conversation, short.
When you see this on the UNLV's articles, usually at the end, I must have a copy of your permission letter, etc., or I will be forced to delete it. It reads as follows:
"Note: This summary is the intellectual property of the author and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Do not use or reproduce without proper citation and permission."Thanks, Glen.
Quote from: alrelax on June 07, 2018, 08:48:29 AM
I don't believe I said anything in that quote about Thorpe and you make it appear that I did and you've just lambasted me for misunderstanding the content you have outlined in that quote I believe that's from another member on the board? Please clarify thank you
Sorry to butt in here, Glen, but I don't see how you were "lambasted." You already know that it is my opinion that you have a very high degree of narcissism and as such cannot accept even the slightest criticism. Mike didn't say you invoked Thorpe in your argument. He invoked Thorpe as a kind of expert witness to his own testimony.
******************
IMO, Mike is correct re: HA is the culprit and one might say all else is just a function of the house edge.
Mike way more educated in the maths than me so one way of looking at the whole problem is to present an extreme to simplify for the simple minded like me. There is only one casino and one player with a calculated odds in the whole world. This player wagers 1 unit a gazillion times for a gazillion years. The product of his endeavor will, in fact, equal the HA of one point whatever %. If the player decides to change his wager than the average bet size (ABS) will be used.
It doesn't matter what he does with his initial bank of unlimited funds. He can give some away, cash some in as short term profit and buy a soda, lose some to the drop box. All of these actions will precipitate another way of measuring the "house take." But the facts don't change. The math doesn't lie.
****************************
The real question is prediction. It's not so easy to generate random numbers with a few decks of cards but no matter because either way one must be able to predict an outcome which can be defined and calculated as "EDGE." Which is what he is saying all along.
Without such calculation nobody can say other than they are guessing! Gizmo said, "what's wrong with guessing?" LOL - Nothing!
Geez!!!! Why do you think nobody has presented one RULE to show that a prediction will have an advantage?
Yeah, I get it Glen I was just wondering how it all transpired.
The phone call never happened! Why do you exaggerate like that!!!
What a complete load of BS!
Quote from: Xander on June 07, 2018, 01:37:16 PM
The phone call never happened! Why do you exaggerate like that!!!
What a complete load of BS!
Aren't you just guessing.
No guess. It doesn't happen like that. They would at worst emailed Victor. They wouldn't call. The call is just more exaggerating. Absolutely made up and absurd.
Just so that you all can grasp some knowledge regarding all this easy Narcissism talk so "freely" being thrown around. Everyone tends to have one or two characteristics of Narcissistic behavior in them. It takes more than five traits to be classified as a Narcissist in the DSM-5.
The primary indicator is in a single behavior trait where disagreement is misunderstood for criticism. It's a button that triggers a defensive response. It is the same reaction and trait for codependency too. The reaction usually results in an attempt to control the situation by manipulation.
The trick to get out of the misunderstanding is to not react when anyone is disagreed with until it's clear that it was in fact only a disagreement and not an insult. It is easy to misunderstand disagreement because it can imply that someone does not know something. The trick to maintaining your cool is to admit to yourself that you just might not know something. You don't have to have a cow if you don't know a thing. At least you don't need to run a tired out old skit that is supposed to protect you. Just wait a few seconds before exploding. See if you like seeing both sides of an opinion. Listen to the messenger. Life is far better when you listen well. It's better to not go through a wasted day regurgitating the silence treatment than it is to have fun that day.
Quote from: Xander on June 07, 2018, 01:44:45 PM
No guess. It doesn't happen like that. They would at worst emailed Victor. They wouldn't call. The call is just more exaggerating. Absolutely made up and absurd.
:))Yes, sounded a little flakey to me that's why I asked.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 07, 2018, 01:57:38 PM
Just so that you all can grasp some knowledge regarding all this easy Narcissism talk so "freely" being thrown around. Everyone tends to have one or two characteristics of Narcissistic behavior in them. It takes more than five traits to be classified as a Narcissist in the DSM-5.
I disagree. Surprise, surprise. Narcissism has definitions in and out of technical literature. It goes back at least as far as the story of Cain and Abel, which in that extreme symbolizes the epitome of evil incorporated in personality (you might find
People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck interesting). In the lesser it is simply willfulness, egotistical, lack of humility. In short, it doesn't have to be a clinical analysis to be used and understood.
Jimske, I sat back a second, kept my cool, and I can't disagree with your statement. We see calling people narcissists all the time these days. It's just a word. But when you see the confusion and/or misunderstanding in a discussion it's always good to know what is actually being communicated.
The last time I bend to the membership regarding Admin function of this board.
But for the record, I am forwarding a copy of the email I received, as I type this to Vic.
As well, I just completed a series of communications with Xandar, and I mean completed.
Unfortunately, like a handful of others, I see as distractions because of their twisting and turning without their own desire to read and grasp the whole author's position and meaning of his posts/threads. I still say, if you don't like, enjoy, find interesting, learn or appreciate an author or book, why waste your time on it in the first place?
Thanks, Glen.
Vic has the email copy I received last night that started this episode today. Vic can confirm this and let it take its course or not say anything. But for the record I would appreciate Vic to confirm the receipt of my email and confirm what I wrote as accurate within this thread. But if not, I am sorry--it is just what it is.
I only did this extra measure for the sake of the transition here. Maybe if you do not like or approve of my way of Admin, you will feel more comfortable at one of the other boards where their Admin functions are not as easy and result in suspensions and punishments, etc. Or perhaps you might feel more conformable with a certain exclusive website/message board as a base, that are strictly professionals in the most elite circle of multi million dollar earners in gambling? But either way, I did what I thought was best.
No more actions will ever be brought public like this because it does not work out easily or should I say with less headache and pain.
Thanks.
Vic, Care to comment, confirm??
(Whatever you believe is best for the board to say on your behalf to this situation, Thanks)
QuoteAgain, you're just demonstrating lack of understanding of probability. Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. Technically, Baccarat isn't either, but Thorpe also investigated the possibility of getting an edge in Bacc and found there was none, and of course Roulette IS a game of independent trials, so counting past outcomes is pointless (but you MAY be able to get an edge using physics).
---Mike
Baccarat is a game of independent trials. Do not assert wrong things.
Further, which math book did you refer who taught you that roulette being a game of independent trials, unbeatable?
Who told you that I am looking for past outcomes to determine my way of playing?
Have you heard of "the law of large numbers"? It is a law and not a "theory", I hope you know the difference between the two.
Which physics book told you that you can get an edge in roulette with any study of physics? Winning roulette with physics is a theory and not a law.
Thing is, people who read too many forums have got more unrealistic and unscientific approaches towards gambling than a layman. We all assert our views without putting any evidence. Anybody getting influenced with our writings could get biased and thus harmed, inadvertently.
I feel ashamed to see approaches like "Pattern Breaker", which is one of the worst way of playing possible in our forums. Martingale is the nectar of obvious death. It is the worst thing that ever happened to gambling. Put all you have at risk to win 1 unit. Anyways, we are all adults here and thus responsible for whatever we learn.
I like Mike's posts and comments. They are very close to reality and mostly accurate. I like Xander's posts too. He has got his own set of experiences of the advantage play for decades and I got to see a bit of how he does that. Unfortunately, at times, he goes too far and people do not seem to like that.
Regarding Gizmotron, he is very different from us. He talks of patterns identification and exploiting them. Mathematicians expressly deny that patterns do not help in gambling. They are only illusions. As Mike said earlier, a pattern could end or continue whenever we try that, with equal probability. I believe that Gizmo might be having something that could work differently than we think but he could not be able to convince us on that, so far.
We can still co-exist and behave in a mature manner.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 08, 2018, 02:46:13 AM
---Mike
Baccarat is a game of independent trials. Do not assert wrong things.
Al,
Not quite. Cards drawn from a shoe aren't replaced, so "strictly speaking" Bacc isn't a game of independent trials in the way that roulette is, because obviously cards not replaced cannot contribute to the probability of the NEXT hand. Therefore the probabilities are not fixed but change as cards are removed. But it turns out that this can't give you an advantage in the way that it does in Blackjack, where cards not being replaced can lead to favourable probabilities for the player. From the Wizard of odds FAQ :
QuoteOn baccarat, are the odds perpetual (as in dice and roulette) or do the odds change as cards are dealt out of the shoe (as in blackjack)? I know that it is not at all probable, but is it mathematically possible for the Banker to win every single hand in the baccarat shoe?
Anonymous
In an effort to debunk betting systems I used to say that the past does not matter in gambling. However once in a while somebody would rebuke me by saying that the past does matter for card counters, which is true. So now I say that in games of independent trials, like roulette and craps, the past does not matter. As I show in my baccarat appendix 2 a shoe rich in small cards favors the player and a shoe rich in large cards favors the banker. Thus, in baccarat, there is an extremely slight disposition that the next outcome will be the opposite of the last. So, yes, the odds do change in baccarat as the cards play out, but only to a very small extent. For all practicable purposes the game is not countable. I do not know if the banker could win every hand but I speculate that the answer is yes.
https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/baccarat/
QuoteFurther, which math book did you refer who taught you that roulette being a game of independent trials, unbeatable?
I didn't say it was unbeatable, only that it's unbeatable using patterns and triggers, trends etc, precisely because trials are independent.
QuoteWho told you that I am looking for past outcomes to determine my way of playing?
I know you don't do that, but you DO believe that it's possible to win using progressions. I argue that progressions can't help unless you have an edge, because all they do is increase the variance (both positive and negative).
QuoteHave you heard of "the law of large numbers"? It is a law and not a "theory", I hope you know the difference between the two.
How does the LLN give you an edge or help you to win?
QuoteWhich physics book told you that you can get an edge in roulette with any study of physics? Winning roulette with physics is a theory and not a law.
I use "physics" broadly, which includes bias. No physics book needed; you don't need a physics PhD to understand that if a wheel is defective in some way the odds have the potential to be in your favour. Then there is Visual Ballistics. Apart from my own experience, there are independent studies which confirm that it works. See https://www.insidescience.org/news/physics-knowledge-can-tilt-odds-roulette
Of course there is no "law" that you will win at roulette using physics, because it's an APPLICATION of physics. Skill and a lot of hard work is necessary, and it's getting harder all the time, but there is POTENTIAL to get a real edge, unlike the case of trends, patterns and triggers.
Quote from: alrelax on June 07, 2018, 03:31:11 PM
Vic, Care to comment, confirm??
(Whatever you believe is best for the board to say on your behalf to this situation, Thanks)
I confirm. There is an email from UNLV urging the forum to follow rightful procedures for proper quoting/citing which we should honor as true gentlemen :nod:
QuoteI know you don't do that, but you DO believe that it's possible to win using progressions. I argue that progressions can't help unless you have an edge, because all they do is increase the variance (both positive and negative).
You can never have an edge mathematically because you can not change the payouts of a casino. Stop ranting over edge or dreaming of changing payouts. Go beyond that. As I told earlier, even martingale or labouchere wins the game despite the house edge. Problem is, they need countless chips(mathematically they will win though) which makes them impractical, rather bad to try. A progression, sensible enough to handle the worst and then winning in near average case thereafter, as LLN confirms, can beat the game, in the long run.
QuoteHow does the LLN give you an edge or help you to win?
As I said, mathematically, you can never get an edge so LLN doesn't give me an edge by itself but only the wisdom to understand that things are near average, with a nice degree of certainty, only in the long run.
All MMs suggested so far, are meant for short sessions, causing rapid death in adverse cases. I have a strategy (mm) that safeguards me from big losses and it is designed to win when you see regression towards mean.No study in this world proved baccarat to be a game where past outcomes can help in winning. Hypothesis can not become a rule unless worth proving. Even Thorpe could not do much in baccarat.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 09, 2018, 03:56:39 AM
You can never have an edge mathematically because you can not change the payouts of a casino. Stop ranting over edge or dreaming of changing payouts. Go beyond that..[/b][/color]
This simply isn't true. You haven't understood what an edge is : it's the difference between what you should get paid on a win if the game is fair, and what you actually get paid. It doesn't matter that the payouts are fixed by the casino, what you need to do is raise the probability of a win relative to the payout.
How does manipulating stakes improve the probability of a win? It can't. All it can do is attempt to recover losses after losing runs and/or increase profits on winning runs. But these attempts fail; all they do is to magnify both losses and wins, but on average you still lose because you haven't addressed the real problem and you still don't have an edge. Progressions work until they don't. :no:
QuoteAll MMs suggested so far, are meant for short sessions, causing rapid death in adverse cases. I have a strategy (mm) that safeguards me from big losses and it is designed to win when you see regression towards mean.
Can you give me an example of such a progression? Do you think this hasn't been thought of before?
QuoteCan you give me an example of such a progression? Do you think this hasn't been thought of before?
That is the sole problem. Everybody wants a ready reference/solution and not working in this area. Some progressions like Oscar Grind etc were done but they fail to address the issue in a realistic manner and also to fill in the gap created by the house edge in the long run.
Check as to how the harshest possible sessions could also be handled effectively with a well thought approach:
https://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/harsh-sessions-won-by-positive-gambling-module/
Quote from: Albalaha on June 08, 2018, 02:46:13 AM
---Mike
Baccarat is a game of independent trials. Do not assert wrong things.
Further, which math book did you refer who taught you that roulette being a game of independent trials, unbeatable?
Who told you that I am looking for past outcomes to determine my way of playing?
Have you heard of "the law of large numbers"? It is a law and not a "theory", I hope you know the difference between the two.
Which physics book told you that you can get an edge in roulette with any study of physics? Winning roulette with physics is a theory and not a law.
Thing is, people who read too many forums have got more unrealistic and unscientific approaches towards gambling than a layman. We all assert our views without putting any evidence. Anybody getting influenced with our writings could get biased and thus harmed, inadvertently.
I feel ashamed to see approaches like "Pattern Breaker", which is one of the worst way of playing possible in our forums. Martingale is the nectar of obvious death. It is the worst thing that ever happened to gambling. Put all you have at risk to win 1 unit. Anyways, we are all adults here and thus responsible for whatever we learn.
I like Mike's posts and comments. They are very close to reality and mostly accurate. I like Xander's posts too. He has got his own set of experiences of the advantage play for decades and I got to see a bit of how he does that. Unfortunately, at times, he goes too far and people do not seem to like that.
Regarding Gizmotron, he is very different from us. He talks of patterns identification and exploiting them. Mathematicians expressly deny that patterns do not help in gambling. They are only illusions. As Mike said earlier, a pattern could end or continue whenever we try that, with equal probability. I believe that Gizmo might be having something that could work differently than we think but he could not be able to convince us on that, so far.
We can still co-exist and behave in a mature manner.
An excellent 'open-minded' post about interpretation and application. Which would be individualistic to each of us.
Thanks Albalaha for the great expression and posting.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 08, 2018, 02:46:13 AM
Regarding Gizmotron, he is very different from us. He talks of patterns identification and exploiting them. Mathematicians expressly deny that patterns do not help in gambling. They are only illusions. As Mike said earlier, a pattern could end or continue whenever we try that, with equal probability. I believe that Gizmo might be having something that could work differently than we think but he could not be able to convince us on that, so far.
Probability or not the Global effect continues for very long periods.
Something I just noticed reading my old threads regarding the Global Effect: You don't get the continuation of a repeating characteristic from grouping to grouping in Baccarat, Craps, and Blackjack even though you can play or only play these games as even chance bets. Only in Roulette do you have the options of playing 12 sets of dozens making up 4 groupings and 12 sets of even chance sets that make up 6 groupings as just an example of my own playing style. It is because of that the Global Effect can not be seen in other games other than Roulette.
So I'm getting requests to teach again in my PM's. Interesting. Nobody knows my newest method and why I went back to EC's. But what a few really want is to become experts at hunting the global effect. I don't blame them too. I sort of put a bull's-eye on myself to the math guys as a major challenge to refute the existence of it.
PM me if you want private tutoring. This could be the moment when trends become the fashion regardless of what the probability states what should happen. I'd like to focus just on the global effect and the skills needed to beat this game while hunting them. This time it will be private email and not a school for all to see. I will cut and paste questions and answers to this group. I have found that almost everyone has the same questions while learning. I hope that at least five students will sign up for this. I will share the cost among this limited group. If I get 5 students then all will get in for a reduced and shared price. It will take at least six weeks just to get to the point where each student can prove to me that they know how to do this. My goal is to turn out Roulette winners. It will be my success story. I have my reasons. The math crowd is starting to consider this after 12 years. Once they have it, the world will change. And i really enjoy opening peoples eyes.
QuoteHow does manipulating stakes improve the probability of a win? It can't. All it can do is attempt to recover losses after losing runs and/or increase profits on winning runs. But these attempts fail; all they do is to magnify both losses and wins, but on average you still lose because you haven't addressed the real problem and you still don't have an edge. Progressions work until they don't. :no:
It doesn't change any probability but can get you
a net win with lesser wins than mathematically required. See the cases of martingale and labouchere. They can mathematically beat any session. These basic MMs were but childishly made to not take into account larger variance and hence became fool's gold. Now those who lack skills to improve upon the blunders made in these, can only cry foul on all progressions. Problem is, there was not a single progression widely known that handles most types of variance and strive to win in the long run. Everybody wants to win in a hurry with an hour or two and a fistful of chips. No wonder there are losers in the casino, all over.
Tired minds of most gambling aspirants dream of only getting an edge, i.e. winning more than losing by any magical approach so that they can bet the max on the table and they get net wins at the last, that normally happens with a casino. They see all answer to their gambling aspiration in getting an edge somehow. They ask everyone, do u have an in built edge like casino? "No". Then you can not win. Period.
I believe it never happened even with gambling legends in absolute sense. Even if someone gets 2% edge against casinos, he will make casinos go bankrupt in a few years, all of them. CASINO gambling will be then only remain in books of history.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 13, 2018, 11:51:24 AM
Even if someone gets 2% edge against casinos, he will make casinos go bankrupt in a few years, all of them. CASINO gambling will be then only remain in books of history.
LOL, the casinos won't be going bankrupt even if someone has an edge, they'll simply ban you or take steps like they did when Thorp wrote Beat The Dealer.
First learn what an edge is before saying you don't need one.
The problem with progressions, no matter how cleverly constructed, is that they all amount to flat bets eventually. This is because they assume a particular ordering of the outcomes which must materialise in order for the progression to work. Something like the martingale or fibonacci makes the assumption that some wins are going to come along SOON. Making them less aggressive relaxes this assumption, but they still assume that when you start increasing the stakes the wins are going to coincide with those larger stakes, and there just isn't any reliable way of ensuring that this will be the case, UNLESS you have an edge. In other words, to ensure that profits from winning bets will exceed losses from losing bets, you need a better than RANDOM chance that the outcome you're betting on will win. Isn't it obvious?
Quote from: Mike on June 13, 2018, 03:04:46 PM
LOL, the casinos won't be going bankrupt even if someone has an edge, they'll simply ban you or take steps like they did when Thorp wrote Beat The Dealer.
First learn what an edge is before saying you don't need one.
The problem with progressions, no matter how cleverly constructed, is that they all amount to flat bets eventually. This is because they assume a particular ordering of the outcomes which must materialise in order for the progression to work. Something like the martingale or fibonacci makes the assumption that some wins are going to come along SOON. Making them less aggressive relaxes this assumption, but they still assume that when you start increasing the stakes the wins are going to coincide with those larger stakes, and there just isn't any reliable way of ensuring that this will be the case, UNLESS you have an edge. In other words, to ensure that profits from winning bets will exceed losses from losing bets, you need a better than RANDOM chance that the outcome you're betting on will win. Isn't it obvious?
Mike, you make an excellent and logical argument that to win with a progression you need a sequence that allows the progression to win. On the bad side of that there is the perfect killer sequence that makes the progression lose. That too is logical, and it happens just enough to render the progression method a pointless adventure, in my opinion. But if it is a sequence that makes it work or not work then why can't sequence hunting be a method? If that is doable then can't the skill of sequence hunting be an edge? You can see how a blind use of sequences tells the true story. But what about deliberately using sequences that appear to be continuing in the positive side of your strategy? What if you knew a sequence of extreme positive consequence was going to appear in the next 1200 to 2000 spins? That this was typical and that these sequences tend to last from 30 to 120 spins? Would you ignore such a phenomenon?
QuoteSomething like the martingale or fibonacci makes the assumption that some wins are going to come along SOON. Making them less aggressive relaxes this assumption, but they still assume that when you start increasing the stakes the wins are going to coincide with those larger stakes, and there just isn't any reliable way of ensuring that this will be the case, UNLESS you have an edge. In other words, to ensure that profits from winning bets will exceed losses from losing bets, you need a better than RANDOM chance that the outcome you're betting on will win. Isn't it obvious?
If you see the nature of martingale, it can win even in 10% hit rate but it is subject to a win sooner.
Labouchere doesn't need very soon wins but it can only win if we get wins in a ratio that should exceed one third. It is a big deal in itself but Labouchere becomes foolish when it get a bit adverse case. It doesn't ask for more wins than losses nor any guess on when and how wins will scatter. just a ratio that shouldn't be so harsh. I believe we can better this too much and rather I have done exactly that.
I have accomplished a progression for long run that can sustain the harshest possible times and then can win after RTM. It is sensible enough to not get tricked easily. Since such things might look alien to you, it is easy to negate the same.
Quote from: Albalaha on June 13, 2018, 04:55:15 PM
Since such things might look alien to you, it is easy to negate the same.
No, they don't look alien to me. I've seen lots of these supposedly foolproof money management schemes where you raise stakes gradually and "safely" until "regression to the mean" kicks in, and none of them work. Yes it's easy to negate but it's also easy to claim that you have a miracle system. But the math isn't on your side.
Glen has posted a link to a great article on Casino Math in another thread. I suggest you read it. Here's a small extract :
Some casino games are pure chance - no amount of skill or strategy can alter the odds. These games include roulette, craps, baccarat, keno, the big-six wheel of fortune, and slot machines.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 13, 2018, 03:24:36 PM
What if you knew a sequence of extreme positive consequence was going to appear in the next 1200 to 2000 spins? That this was typical and that these sequences tend to last from 30 to 120 spins? Would you ignore such a phenomenon?
Gizmo,
What you always seem to miss is the fact that you don't know WHEN these winning sequences will occur. Sure, you can anticipate that the next spin will turn into one and raise your stake accordingly, but this is just like using a reverse martingale on the even chances. All the false starts will eat away at your bankroll and in the end you end up losing at a rate given by the HA, even though you get some big wins.
Take your pick : lots of small losses followed by a big win, or lots of small wins followed by a big loss. You seem to favour the former, and I agree it's a more sensible way to bet, but it doesn't give you long-term advantage.
Quote from: Mike on June 13, 2018, 06:48:16 PM
Some casino games are pure chance - no amount of skill or strategy can alter the odds. These games include roulette, craps, baccarat, keno, the big-six wheel of fortune, and slot machines.
Funny how this is supposed to be the final word. It's right there in the equations too. The implication is that the odds must change in order to win. That is no longer the truth. The odds stay the same and you can win. You do it by accepting the odds as is. The game is still pure chance. That does not change either. You just add coincidental situational awareness to the math. This is the fun part. I could do it. You can't even imagine it.
https://betselection.cc/math-statistics/situational-awareness/msg63604/?PHPSESSID=7cs392thf2v9bonuoooctfb381#msg63604
Situation Awareness.
And, yes variables do change within the course of gaming/gambling as well as changing within the course of a shoe, etc. Most certainly
Quote from: Mike on June 13, 2018, 06:59:33 PM
Gizmo,
What you always seem to miss is the fact that you don't know WHEN these winning sequences will occur. Sure, you can anticipate that the next spin will turn into one and raise your stake accordingly, but this is just like using a reverse martingale on the even chances. All the false starts will eat away at your bankroll and in the end you end up losing at a rate given by the HA, even though you get some big wins.
Take your pick : lots of small losses followed by a big win, or lots of small wins followed by a big loss. You seem to favour the former, and I agree it's a more sensible way to bet, but it doesn't give you long-term advantage.
I don't agree. You always say that I can't know a thing that is essential for your position to hold true. I say I that I can know the thing that you say I can't know. I know when I'm in the middle of the Global Effect and I know how to exploit it. Not only that but I can program a computer to see that the algorithm is in the middle of a global effect too. You math guys think that I need to prove it. Why do that? Is that really logical? I mean you guys frequent these gambling forums just to regurgitate your math prowess, right? You get a little piece of the Fields Medal. You get to sniff it. It's so close and you are so great. Ha Ha Ha. You guys are the ones that don't know a thing.
Handling all kinds of variance is the only key to win this game. IF someone can predict the future outcomes seeing current trend(if it is possible with any degree of certainty), it will be an advantage play again with a kind of edge playing at your side. I do not believe or expect any fixed edge coming to me by any divine knowledge to earn from this game.
I have learnt the art of survival in extremes and winning thereafter without going too deep or expecting any corrective wins, that is a fallacy. It is both a science and art and I can compare it with breaking stones with empty hands. Inconceivable and un-achievable by most, even if the entire logic and techniques are explained.
Remember, the house edge/house fee/unfair payout creates a kind of variance by itself, leave aside the other factors. In the long run we first need to fill in the gap created by 2.7% house edge edge first. Every bet will get this much variance for sure, in the long run. People seems to miss even a remedy for this.
If I say, there will be 500 wins of a number in 18500 spins and we can not get the scatter of the wins, most of the intelligent players around here will have a soar throat beating just that. If the number of win lessens to 450, they will lose thousands of chips and might be only losing all over. I have seen this clearly in my #3 challenge on zumma book.
Go and keep dreaming of getting more wins than losses to win easily and I believe that is not going to happen any time soon. Let me sharpen my skills in surviving the worst and winning in near average cases, thereafter. It seems the old failed progressions attempts had very bad impact on money management onlookers and they thought that the end.
"Re: For those who think house edge or negative expectation is the sole culprit
« Reply #75 on: Yesterday at 02:10:42 AM »
Every bet will get this much variance for sure, in the long run. People seems to miss even a remedy for this.
If I say, there will be 500 wins of a number in 18500 spins and we can not get the scatter of the wins, most of the intelligent players around here will have a soar throat beating just that. If the number of win lessens to 450, they will lose thousands of chips and might be only losing all over. I have seen this clearly in my #3 challenge on zumma book. "
***********************************************************************************************************
I might be wrong, but I will take a min and run the numbers real quick. This is why I am against 'the mathematical statistics' of any game. Sure they are correct, but they are, and 100% dependent upon the long run as well. Following a math or stat reasoning on a table game, You might get some positive hits or even the once-in-a-while 'win' produced ration to losses, but what do you have to risk to get Point 'B' from within 'Point A'?
Point 'A'----The series referred to;
Point 'B'----The 'win' from the series.
Every game has been attack by the math and statistical pros from the classroom aspect. They ran millions and billions of hands to find out, 'what happens'. Fine. Not wrong. But cannot be applied in any real—shape and form, to give the player a 'real and definitive' edge.
Why, simply because of what I just did. Again, it might be wrong, but whatever.
500 Wins/18,500 Spins.
2 Mins. Average a spin (in real life casinos) not on the computer of course.
2 Mins. Translates to 120 seconds.
That translates to 2,220,000 seconds
3,600 seconds in 1 hour.
To spin and play 18,500 spins to be assured (if math will assure every series, every time those wins) it would take 616 to 617 hours to play that series of spins.
Okay, Superman, lots of energy drinks and coffee, etc. He plays it. Stay there and plays straight through the 616-617 hours. You cannot stop, walk away and continue later, like so many math/stat freaks think, because the 'series' will be gone—not the same one, etc.
Okay, back. Straight through. Superman (the math/stat freak believer) hires numerous people to play the 25 to 26 days straight.
One unit, $25.00, one green chip. Say the 500 wins are going to be straight up number, 1 unit yields 35 chips/units payout. He would win, $25.00 X's 35, equals $875.00. POINT B: He wins a total of $437,500.00 on the 500 wins. Likewise, 18,500 spins, minus the 500 wins, leaves 18,000 lost spins on that number. 18,000 times $25.00 chip that was lost to the casino. POINT A: He losses a total of $450.000.00. Great.
Every math/stat results would have to be played from the start to the end, to realize the math produced result, no?
Or is there a way to sprinkle a bit of magical dust, somewhere along the way—during those series?
As Mark Twain said....."It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so".
My half cent...
The HE is for the casino versus the gamblers as ONE ENTITY.
Then..
Why people lose after many session?
Because their strategy or whatever system can't overcome certain PERMUTATIONS!
eg.
Martingale can't stand ONLY ONE streak of loss..eg, 10losses in row.
Labby can't overcome permutation that less than 33%.hits...
Flatbet can't stand less than 50% hit, no matter how long.
Every system or method or strategy you can think out, there WILL BE CERTAIN PERMUTATIONS
THAT KILL YOUR BR.
eg,
Lest you can't understand what I mean.
"Bet only once, red only."
There will ONLY... three PERMUTATIONS
1) red....win.
2) black ....lose.
3) green...lose.
"BET BACCARAT,MARTINGALE, only enough br FOR 10bets..."
the PERMUTATION, that wipes out your br,
Ten losses in row.
But for roulette, there hundreds of permutation,
As the pesky green create losing permutation too.
eg..
LLLLLGLLLL as an example..
Thus Albalaha is right, its not the EDGE,
BUT LOSING PERMUTATION, THAT CAUSED THE LOSSE$!
Then the trillion dollar question, and the answer that cause
the demise of casino...
How to win by bypassing the losing permutation?
Albalaha already providing the answers, in his threads, but people just brushed it off...
1) avoidance , by waiting the losing permutation to hit first.
2) stop betting, when another losing permutation hit. To avoid more losing.
3) having a filtering system, that always producing hit within
losing math expectation.. ( yes..., losing,.. losing WITHIN MATH
EXPECTATION, or else, the math boys shrieking their lung out! Hehehe )say, next 1000bet flatbet,
Losing 30 to 40unit most of the time.
4) having mild progression, that will profit when STREAKS OF HIT HAPPEN....!
YES, streaks of hit very important, or else, no progression
can produce profit.
I m not denying the prowess of house edge. It is one of the vital forces that backs a casino business. House edge, by itself, creates variance too. Any bet you take in roulette or baccarat will hit below break even point in the long run due to this disadvantage but still the House edge alone is not sufficient to guarantee a win for casino. Ignorance of players of the law of small and large numbers and idiotic progressions kill them. Most of the players entering casino are ignorant ones and rely merely on their good luck to get a winning streak. Even those who are lucky enough to win in the beginning stay till they get empty handed finally.