### Author Topic: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?  (Read 2096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 901
• Thanked: 186 times
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2018, 08:19:51 PM »
What I  am questioning is your claim that I will CERTAINLY lose my bank at some future point. I asked you to  tell me  WHEN that future point is .You have failed to do so . Why not ? I think it is because you cannot . Do you agree ?

lol, you'll lose your bank next Tuesday at 5.30 pm. Your demand is absurd.

Quote
Someone posted the calculations for a number of bets . His calculation for a Quad ( an 8/1 shot ) to appear  was 40.25    for 99% certainty. Progressive players would  be interested to know if his or yours is the correct calculation.

Without seeing the calculation I can't comment, because it's not just the odds and confidence interval which affects the number, but also the "width" of the error term.

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2231
• Thanked: 1172 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2018, 08:22:50 PM »
Here is what some top mathematicians have to say:

There can be no mathematical proof that a specific roulette player will lose not even one bet (!), let alone lose money, by playing roulette for, say, 10,000 spins.

And here's an interesting comment about the "long run":
There can not be something like "infinite roulette spins", because physical theories, like the heat death of the universe, would prevent roulette tables from existing that long.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 08:27:06 PM by kav »

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2585
• Thanked: 576 times
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2018, 08:37:20 PM »
Mike
I am only " demanding " what you said you could do.  "When " could be defined . So why don't you define it ?
Because you can't !  So you waffle instead .
You need to come into the real world .  Probability theory needs to possess an interpretation that connects to reality for it to appear as anything better than just abstract mathematics

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2018, 08:40:23 PM »
Kav,

Why didn't you post your comment on the wizardofvegas forum???

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2231
• Thanked: 1172 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2018, 08:45:36 PM »
Since you ask repeatedly, I didn't post there because they don't know enough either about roulette or math. That's why. If you trust them, post there and let us know what they answered to you. But I have already replied this, did you miss my answer?

https://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=2124.msg30961#msg30961
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 08:50:10 PM by kav »

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2018, 08:49:47 PM »
Because you won't like my post, and you'll probably move it like you usually do.

Seriously, just post it on the wizardofvegas
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 09:09:36 PM by kav »

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2018, 08:54:14 PM »
BETTING SYSTEMS AND THE HOUSE EDGE
By Dr. Eliot Jacobson

"Eliot Jacobson has a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Arizona. He was Professor of Mathematics from 1983 to 1998 at Ohio University, and currently holds a teaching position in the Department of Computer Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Jacobson recently published his first book on blackjack ("The Blackjack Zone," Blue Point Books, 2005) and it is available in the BJI store. To read a review of Jacobson’s book that appeared in issue #61 of BJI, click here.

There is no mystery to the success of casinos. People place wagers on games that have a built in house edge. The players win or lose the individual bets, but that’s of no concern to the management. The only concern is that players continue pumping wagers through the system. In this case, the large variance of individual bets evens out and the house earns according to the following basic equation:

Earnings = (Total Wagers) x (House Edge)
A progression betting system is based on the belief that this equation is wrong. It is an attempt to defy the laws of economics and mathematics by placing wagers according to a fixed pattern in an attempt to change the house edge.
A progression betting pattern is one that bases the current wager on the previous amount wagered and the result of the previous hand. Many authors write books about these systems, claiming they will win if combined with stop-loss and money management methods. Because of their simplicity, many people try them at the tables. Most lose. Some win.
Those who see individuals win using betting systems may come to regard these systems as an advantage method. Moreover, the arguments in favor of betting systems appear logical. But it is important to understand that it is the large variance of the games that lures most customers. Of course players will win. There are always winners. There have to be winners. But others players will lose. In the end, the losses will more than compensate for the wins so that the final result represents the house edge.
On the other hand, the "authors" and "experts" who extol betting systems usually blame the losers for their losses. They claim the losers are not disciplined or don’t fully understand the system (which essentially means that the loser is not able to foretell the future perfectly). They point to the myriad of winners (there are always winners, that’s a given). They claim that the computer simulations that show their systems are fraudulent don’t model the "real world." They invent fancy theories involving chaos and fractals and never fully explain them. They post defensive messages on Internet bulletin boards, using terms like "math boyz" and "flaw." They hire publicists who send out press releases. They gain media exposure. And worst of all, they gain credibility among the gaming public.
But betting systems do not give the player an advantage over the casino. Fallacious arguments, anecdotal accounts, and slick book covers cannot overcome the physical laws of the universe.Wagering Law. A betting system can not change the house edge; players using these systems as a whole lose at exactly the predicted rate.
However, progression betting systems do change the way in which losses occur. To understand the appeal of these systems, we will look at two of them in detail.
The first progression we will consider is called the "Martingale system." This is the most common progression used by blackjack players. In it, a player starts with a basic unit bet (say \$10). If he loses a wager, he then doubles his wager for the next bet. He continues doubling each wager until he wins. After a win, his wager returns to its original value of \$10. On a push, the wager stays the same. By always leaving on a win, the player ensures himself a winning session.
This seems to be a sure thing. For example, if the sequence is lose, lose, win (LLW) then the player will bet \$10, \$20, \$40. He lost the \$10 and \$20 bets for a net loss of \$30, but he won \$40 for an overall gain of \$10. For a longer sequence, consider
LLWLWLLWWLLLLLLLLLLWIt is easy to figure out the profit for the player: it is his minimum bet times the total number of wins in the sequence, in this case \$10 ´ 5 wins = \$50.
How can there be anything wrong with this logic? Just leave on a win and the player walks away with profit in his pocket every time.
However, for many reasons, the player can’t always leave on a win. For example, in the previous sequence, the player was actually down \$10,190 on the wager before the final win. Very few people can sustain this type of loss and keep on playing. The player placed a wager of \$10,240 on the last bet in an effort to win \$10. The situation of losing 10 hands in a row is not rare. It occurs about once every 1,540 hands (or 15 hours of play). A series of 10 consecutive losses is almost a certainty on any prolonged trip to Las Vegas. What if the sequence of losses was 15 hands? Then the player will need to wager \$327,680. At blackjack, a sequence of 15 losses in a row occurs on average about once in every 100 hours of play. What if he needed to split and double down? What if he lost that hand?"By Dr. Eliot Jacobson
"The house edge is not just another number; it’s The Law."

By the way, Dr. Eliot Jacobson is also one of the regular posters on the wizardofvegas

So why don't you post your question there???
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 08:57:04 PM by kav »

#### Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1454
• Thanked: 753 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2018, 08:55:54 PM »
In the best case we can bend the the rules of arithmetic to our advantages for a while, but we can not break it!

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2231
• Thanked: 1172 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2018, 08:56:09 PM »
I'm getting the idea you reply without reading what you are replying to. and this isn't nice.

So, let me recap.

Obviously you have no academic relation with mathematics. If you had, you would know that the concept of proof, has some very specific requirements, that can not be fulfilled in this case.

Each spin is independent, doesn't prove that a system will fail.
Negative average value and house edge do not prove that a system will fail.

Proving something in mathematics is a very elaborate type of work. You are out of your element here.

There can be no mathematical proof that a specific roulette player will lose not even one bet (!), let alone lose money, by playing roulette for, say, 10,000 spins.

Do you seriously claim that it can be mathematically proven that a specific roulette player will lose after 10K spins?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 08:59:18 PM by kav »

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2018, 08:58:54 PM »
Kav,

Again, take your argument over to the wizardofvegas forum, and tell them that they too are all wrong about betting systems.     LOL.

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2231
• Thanked: 1172 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #40 on: February 07, 2018, 09:03:51 PM »
Well, first of all you post more often here I guess, so it is just good manners to respect the forum where you have posted 1,5K posts and stop promoting a forum that has nothing to do with roulette. Why don't you post there more often if you like it so much? If you trust so much that forum, PLEASE, you ask there and post here the MATHEMATICAL PROOF. I'm waiting.

Secondly, you have no idea what mathematical proof means. It has nothing to do with betting systems and house edge etc.

I'm getting the idea you reply without reading what you are replying to. Because you just ignore anything I say, avoid replying and you keep singing your tune about asking on another forum. Stop trolling. Point out the error in the explanation I posted or accept that by "proof" you mean long-winded articles by "betting experts".

Do you disagree with the following? Yes or NO?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 09:08:45 PM by kav »

The following users thanked this post: MickyP

#### Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1454
• Thanked: 753 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #41 on: February 07, 2018, 09:07:36 PM »
If ten thousend players start a simple "losing"  martingale there 10 losses is a bust  163 will bust, the rest will win an unit. Try again with the remaining winners, over and over again, one or a few will make some not very small winning. With better methods the winner will be a few more.

The negative expection is not personal it is collective among all who plays. So a system can win and lose, and a system player can gain large.

The following users thanked this post: kav

#### Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1454
• Thanked: 753 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #42 on: February 07, 2018, 09:18:54 PM »
TO THE MATH GUYS!!

Regarding the bell curve, it never reaches the x-axis, and the y-axis is always finite easy to forget. With sufficient sample, everything can happen.

#### palestis

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 842
• Thanked: 796 times
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #43 on: February 07, 2018, 09:25:52 PM »
The negative expection is not personal it is collective among all who plays. So a system can win and lose, and a system player can gain large.
Exactly.
The casino sees the total picture. Not the individual player's picture.
Besides the average gain a casino expects to see at spot checks,  is about 8%. Not the HE.
It is a well known fact. When they consistently see anything below that, it is a cause of concern to them.

#### MickyP

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1219
• Thanked: 528 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #44 on: February 07, 2018, 09:40:19 PM »
In all the arguments the following are always used.
1. Even chance bet.
2. Martingale progression.

How many "system players" play this combination?
Maybe a lot play EC bets but I don't think the martingale is a progression of choice.
One static example does not apply to all.