### Author Topic: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems  (Read 23300 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« on: June 10, 2015, 01:28:09 AM »

Guidelines for Evaluating Systems -Source is "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.
The general principles apply to almost all gambling games, and when they apply, they guarantee that systems cannot give the player an advantage.To help you filter and reject systems, here are conditions which guarantee that a system is worthless.

1. Each individual bet in the game has a negative expectation. This makes any series of bets have a negative expectation.
2. There is a maximum limit to the size of any possible game. (This rules out systems like the Martingale and up as you lose.)
3. The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game.(Note that we are talking about the "game of roulette", not the "gaming device."
4. There is a minimum allowed size for any bet. (This is necessary for the technical steps in the mathematical proof.)

Under these conditions, it is a mathematical fact that every possible gambling system is worthless in the following ways:

1. Any series of bets has a negative expectation
2. This expectation is the (negative) sum of the expectations of the individual bets.
3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
4. If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
a. be a loser
b. eventually stay a loser forever, and so never again break even;
c. eventually lose his entire bankroll, no matter how large it was.

-Please note the source "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.

Attack the gaming device, not the game.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 02:58:49 AM by Real »

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2015, 01:40:03 AM »
Now, here's the question:

How many mathematicians will it take before many of you will accept the fact that you are slaves... trapped in a box.  A box that is called the "gambler's fallacy"?  How much time are you willing to waste...searching and trying to find "just the right progression" to make your "absurd triggers" work"?

Triggers, progressions, they're all in the box.  They're all part of the fools folly.

Who would like to escape the confines of the box and learn how to really win?  Who would like to take the red pill?

« Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 02:23:56 AM by Real »

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2015, 01:52:05 AM »
1) If all systems are worthless,then you are worthless too because you are a part of the system.

2) What it does make you think you are the exception of this rule?

3) Are you trying to open our eyes? If,yes then thank you very much! If no,then what the h*eck are you striving for?
Why someone like you would ever want to wipe the sleep from our eyes and embrace the light?!

4) I guess you are not a colored person,but you prefer color in your action...
Please don't ask me where I know,perhaps a lucky guess!;-)

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2015, 01:56:48 AM »
whiff...
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 03:34:11 PM by Real »

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2015, 02:59:28 AM »
You are so self-confirmed that's futile for anyone to put any argue,you seem to know everything,so what's the point to discuss any further?

PS I didn't say that you are not potato,I said that I believe you are not a colored person... except if YOU think that colored persons are potatos,that's why you replied me so!

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2015, 03:08:45 AM »
Blue Angel,

Why do you feel that all of the mathematicians and history are wrong?

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2015, 03:38:35 AM »
Blue Angel,

Why do you feel that all of the mathematicians and history are wrong?

I'm speaking with you,except if you think that you are all the mathematicians and history.
Why you think that you are roulette history itself?
Why one of us have to be right and the other wrong?
What purpose this argument is fulfilling?
Perhaps the feeling of ''I'm right,you are wrong and I know better than anyone''
Despite you might satisfying your ego,you cannot affect reality.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2015, 03:51:43 AM »
The links, written above, regarding evaluating systems were written by other people, each a mathematician.

Sorry,

Just the facts.

#### palestis

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 842
• Thanked: 793 times
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2015, 10:53:19 PM »
The links, written above, regarding evaluating systems were written by other people, each a mathematician.

Sorry,

Just the facts.
Edwart Thorp and Patrick Billingsle . Are these the best experts you can come up with? Just because they said something are we supposed to embrace it as the roulette bible? I don't think so. Because there were mathematicians, it doesn't mean that their opinions are the standard to compare it to. Medical experts argue about medical procedures every day. Who is right and who is wrong.
Negative expectation means NOTHING. If there was no HE in roulette, the end results would be identical to what they have been all along. When you enter the variable of money value it's not just guessing. Guessing is followed by monetary value. Negative expectation of a \$1 bet is harmless compared to a winning bet of \$100. Knowing when to bet \$1 and when to bet \$100 is the result of long term research. Experience counts. "Gamblers fallacy" is very specific in its definition. Yet you  take the liberty to include every aspect of a system (like triggers and money management), as part of the gambler's fallacy.
Maybe you should contact  Wikipedia and make arrangements to redefine its definition, to include every aspect of a system. But I doubt that they will listen to you.
Coming to the "beating the device" subject we have respectful experts that they claim it doesn't exist. Or it's not allowed to exist if it ever happens. And they have measures to detect bias and/or defective wheels. These are all the modern wheel manufacturers and software experts, that guarantee FLAWLESS ROULETTE OPERATION. Yet you claim to be above those experts. And a few others hanging around sites like Vegas click.
When it comes systems we should listen to your math experts like Thorp. Because you say so.
When it comes to the device experts we should ignore them and listen to you.
If you found a few defective wheels in some casino/s and management failed to take action (because they are making their profit anyway), good for you. Take advantage of them. But your advice is useless for players in most casinos around the world (especially in Europe), where they take defects and bias very seriously.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2015, 11:01:32 PM »
Palestis,

Perhaps you can point to a mathematician that says that you can beat roulette with a system???

In the meantime, here's what another mathematician has to say on the subject.

The Truth about Betting Systems

“No one can possibly win at roulette unless he steals money from the table while the croupier isn’t looking.”— Albert Einstein
Not only do bettings systems fail to beat casino games with a house advantage, they can’t even dent it. Roulette balls and dice simply have no memory. Every spin in roulette and every toss in craps is independent of all past events. In the short run you can fool yourself into thinking a betting system works, by risking a lot to win a little. However, in the long run no betting system can withstand the test of time. The longer you play, the ratio of money lost to money bet will get closer to the expectation for that game.
In the many years that run this site I have received thousands of e-mails from believers in betting systems. Their faith surpasses religious levels. However, in all things, the more ridiculous a belief is the more tenaciously it tends to be held. Gamblers have been looking for a betting system that works for hundreds of years, and yet the casinos are still standing.Gambler's FallacyThe biggest gambling myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the “gambler’s fallacy.” Thousands of gamblers have devised betting systems that attempt to exploit the gambler’s fallacy by betting the opposite way of recent outcomes. For example, waiting for three reds in roulette and then betting on black. Hucksters sell “guaranteed” get-rich-quick betting systems that are ultimately based on the gambler’s fallacy. None of them work. If you don’t believe me here is what some other sources say on the topic:
A common gamblers’ fallacy called “the doctrine of the maturity of the chances” (or “Monte Carlo fallacy”) falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities. A number of “systems” have been invented by gamblers based largely on this fallacy; casino operators are happy to encourage the use of such systems and to exploit any gambler’s neglect of the strict rules of probability and independent plays. —Encyclopedia Britannica (look under “gambling”)
No betting system can convert a subfair game into a profitable enterprise... — Probability and Measure(second edition, page 94) by Patrick Billingsley
The number of ‘guaranteed’ betting systems, the proliferation of myths and fallacies concerning such systems, and the countless people believing, propagating, venerating, protecting, and swearing by such systems are legion. Betting systems constitute one of the oldest delusions of gambling history. Betting systems votaries are spiritually akin to the proponents of perpetual motion machines, butting their heads against the second law of thermodynamics. — The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic (page 53) by Richard A. Epstein

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2015, 12:19:19 AM »
Grrr !

#### Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1454
• Thanked: 753 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2015, 03:18:57 AM »
I agree, many betting system use GF, but that's not the same to say it is wrong using them.
There is an AP-fallacy as well.  People looking at the ball, have some weired idea how it bunch and falls, are convicted it helps them win. We find winners and losers among all kind.

It is a game of chance, normally it is unfair odds. And if a lot of people game long, the house takes its share from them. Between them there are winners and losers, it is small chance any single lost exactly the house edge, nobody play so long it must be.

If we should check up who is losing or winning, we MAY FIND a system player winning.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2015, 05:00:26 AM »
poof...
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 03:34:34 PM by Real »

#### Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1454
• Thanked: 753 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Guidelines for Evaluating Systems
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2015, 05:15:29 AM »
Your answers Real is not relevant at all. I DID NOT TALK ABOUT SHORT HIT AND RUN.
I said it is not sure we must lose if we use a system, not even if we play for years.
Mathematical proof includes infinity.

Every spin can be a loss or a win.

Your answer about AP is there are successfully AP-player, and I did not say they not exist, but the wast number of clams is AP-fallacy. I know a few and I have never seen anyone proofing it.

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com