Glen,

I was talking about LEGAL bookies. In the UK bookies have been legal since 1961, and betting exchanges like Betfair.com have created even more favourable conditions for punters.

However, a very recent ruling in the USA (only last month) means that things may be about to change there.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/14/uk-bookmaker-shares-soar-as-sports-betting-is-set-to-be-legal-in-us

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/may/14/uk-bookies-beware-us-will-look-after-its-own-in-betting-revolution

Quote from: alrelax on June 17, 2018, 10:43:29 AM
Doesn't look like he will answer and he will not lie, as he is an honest poster. 

I hope you have more patience at the tables than you do here, I do have a life outside gambling forums. 

To answer your question, no, I don't gamble in casinos, although I used to "play" roulette. The life of an itinerant wheel clocker and biased wheel hunter doesn't appeal to me, so I switched to sports betting (mainly soccer) years ago.

I use math and statistical analysis to build my own models of various soccer markets in order to identify value, and specialise mostly in over/under a certain number of goals scored in a match. It probably would't work in the USA because you don't have bookies there, and you have to understand how bookies operate in order to beat them at their own game.

Nevertheless, the same principles apply whatever the "game" is; without identifying an edge you're basically just guessing, no matter how elaborate or seemingly clever your system is. There's nothing wrong with being an amateur or a recreational gambler, and systems are fun. But surely in a gambling forum there's room for a principled, scientific approach without all the usual pyschobabble about discipline, and patterns and progressions.

Anyone who is serious about making money should at least be familiar with basic probability, if only so that they can recognize  which strategies will work and which won't, and where to focus their attention. I'm not saying that trial and error or experience doesn't count for anything; of course it does, but it's a very inefficient way of learning what works and what doesn't. And there is plenty of room for creativity too; people think that in math it's all black and white, right or wrong, but math by itself only gives you answers relative to your assumptions. If you haven't looked at the process which generates the data then no amount of manipulation of the data will tell you about causes and effects, ie, reality. Most systems on gambling forums only look at the data generated from the games, they don't look at the underlying process which generated it; that's the mistake.

Quote from: esoito on June 13, 2018, 11:44:29 PM
PLEASE offer Mike a free seat in your proposed tuition group.    ( Mike, PLEASE accept it if he does, and work through the whole course.)

I think that was a "no" from Gizmo. 

I would have done his course and given the methods a fair trial, using standard statistical tests. But what I would NEVER do is pay a penny for any such information.  Everything anyone needs to know is freely available in online stats courses, or just buy a good textbook. That will put you streets ahead of all the system players on forums, who are clueless and amateurish with regard to statistics and probability. If you like playing systems just create your own. If you want ideas then there are plenty of free systems on the forums; again, no need to buy anything.

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: 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, 01:54:48 PM

You are right that I should not solicit for new students. Minor problem though. It's people that know I closed the last school more than 6 months ago. They are contacting me to start another group. That might just be one person at a time or it might be a small group. But what is really happening is mostly your doing. It is because of you that I figured out that the math boys need to prove that the Global Effect does not exist and that it is clearly not an advantage in your view. The mathBoyz need to come up with the math that supports their opinions.

Gizmo,

Us mathboyz keep delivering the math but you guys keep sending it back. 

So it's MY fault you're soliciting for students? LOL. Well I'm flattered that apparently my posts are so influential. 

The "global effect" and other trends can only be seen once they've already happened, and unfortunately predicting the past doesn't put food on the table.

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: TheMagician on June 13, 2018, 09:07:16 AM
Once again, and I have to underline this, anyone claiming an income that is way above the expected sales income of any given platform or "system" in roulette, is a scammer. Unless of course he, or she, give it away for free against test data or mere test reviews. Period.

I think "scammer" is too strong a word here. Looking at VRSEDGE's web site it seems that he's selling software tools which enable users to create their own systems based on parameters built into the platforms. There are no claims or guarantees that anyone will definitely win by using them. He is not selling a system or systems and claiming that they are infallible.

But since the forum has a new owner, perhaps a review of the rules regarding advertising and/or selling might be in order? There are several members doing this, including Gizmotron who is now looking for more students. I quote : "PM me if you want private tutoring." -- Gizmotron. (https://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/for-those-who-think-house-edge-or-negative-expectation-is-the-sole-culprit/msg63571/#msg63571)

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. 

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?

Xander,

What did you do to get moderated? Gizmo indulges in personal attacks against us but isn't moderated. You're an expert on bias, what do you think? I think mathboyz like us aren't welcome in this forum.

Quote from: owenslv on June 08, 2018, 03:07:36 AM
Hi Mike;

"Trends are meaningless in a random game, and can only be identified after the event. "

Of course you are technically correct, but practically in a random game like Baccarat, what else to do we have but past results to make an intelligent, informed guess ?

Past results aren't useless, but it depends how you use them. If you use past results to find out something about the distribution of outcomes for the purpose of creating some kind of probability/betting model, that's fine. But if your analysis of past results (ie, the model) shows that that past outcomes don't influence future outcomes, but then bet as if they DO, isn't that just foolish? You have ignored what the data has shown you in favour of a cognitive bias.

It reminds me of the so-called "streetlight effect" :

QuoteThe streetlight effect is a type of observational bias that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look.

It is also called a drunkard's search, after the joke about a drunkard who is searching for something he has lost:

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

If you like following trends, by all means do it. It's no WORSE than any other way of choosing what to bet on next. Just don't kid yourself that it actually makes a difference. If you disagree, please show me the evidence that trends have any validity. 

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.

Trends are meaningless in a random game, and can only be identified after the event.

Yes the second quote was from Albalaha (reply #38), and my following reply was addressed to him, sorry for the confusion.

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).