STOP, before you comment.

[Robert Fischer]

-First let me be clear that I am not presuming to say its possible for some arbitrary swing from negative to positive. My comments relate directly to the question: "Is it possible for a system to turn negative flat bet roi into positive returns?"

The method that I am thinking of is high level, and relatively low-profit.

Originally Posted by speculus

At least at first glance, that's not the case. It's an automatic (as opposed to high level meaning "complex") and perhaps high profit.

-I do not know if you are looking at a different method. From what I am talking about, precision is extremely important, and profits are relatively low, and at this point only mathematically sound within a relatively small number of plays.

It is profitable(mathematically) only within a certain range of plays x a certain range of hit percentage x greater than a certain odds.

Originally Posted by speculus

What type of plays are these "certain range, certain hit% and level of odds? Pl explain. Or better still, pl send some link that will be educative so I know what you mean and verify it.

The skill required to reap any significant profit would best be used towards a spot play that returns a flat-bet +roi. It is a sophisticated cousin of the martingale and should therefore carry all of the (fair?) negative bias associated with the martingale system.

Originally Posted by speculus

Again, if possible pl give a link to what you are talking about so that I can verify.

-I do not have it online, and I am not sure I would want to share it at this point so quickly. It isn't brain surgery, and I am sure there are others like it. Where as a martingale is a crude double-up system designed for card games, this would be an adaptation for horse racing and considering the online element. It has to hold within the expected probabilities. A double-up is not necessary, only a certain expected profit @ a given odds. For example a 40% win percentage @ odds of $1.25 yields a flat bet loss of 10%, yet can yield a profit within a range of plays through a system. Not easy, Not recommended. Possible.

[Dave Schwartz]

Speculus,

First, this sequence-is-so-important stuff has simply not been my experience with HMI. I would suggest that you are looking at too small samples if sequence is appearing so important. However, you and I can spend some time priavtely if you like and go over your results more specifically.


Have you ever heard of "Oscar's system?" In Alan Wilson's Casino Gambler's Guide (which I have mentioned a number of times in the past and should be in every serious gambler's collection) he talked about it.

In preparing to dsicuss "Oscar," one must first be familiar with the D'Alembert system, also called the seesaw or pyramid.

In the D'Alembert, one starts with a 1-unit wager. After each loss, the bet is increased by 1 unit and after a win it is decreased by 1 unit. The concept behind the system is that every loss has a corresponding win that is for 1 unit higher than the loss. Thus, in a perfect sequence, LWLWLW one's result is:

-1 +2 -1 +2 -1 +2

... and a 3-unit profit is realized - one unit for every "LW." Thus, in (say) a 100-bet session where there are 51 losses and 49 wins, 49 of the losses and wins produce a profit of $49 and the remaining 2 losses determine profit or loss. If the player had to go deeply into his sequence (say 10 units) then these two "extra" losses would be $9 + $10, for a loss of $19, resulting in a net of +30.

There are two questions: 1) "How bad is the downward swing?" and 2) "How many extra losses are there?"

I wrote a craps simulation of this system and tested it against millions of craps hands. It lost money.

The reason it lost is that, when one plays a losing proposition, the player falls ever more and more units behind - the longer he bets, theoretically, the more units behind he goes.

Back to "Oscar."

"Oscar's System" was actually quite simple... it is similar to D'Alembert but different. Start with a 1-unit wager. After a loss the bet remains the same as the previous bet. After a win, increase the wager 1 unit, but at no point wager more than is needed to show a 1-unit profit.

From Wilson's book:

Result   -  L  W  L  W  W
Bet Size -  1  1  1  1  1
Net Gain - -1  0 -1  0 +1

Result   -  L  L  L  L  L  W  W  W
Bet Size -  1  1  1  1  1  1  2  3
Net Gain - -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4 -2 +1


Result   -  L  L  W  L  W  L  L  W  W  L  L  W  W
Bet Size -  1  1  1  2  2  2  2  2  3  1  1  1  2
Net Gain - -1 -2 -1 -3 -1 -3 -5 -3  0 -1 -2 -1 +1

Anyway, in the simulation studied in Wilson's book he ran 280,000 series of craps hands through a computer simulation. At the end of it all, he found a solid loss, of course because of the table limits.

He did say that games "with a memory" such as black jack might have merit


Enter, Ron Thacker. Ron worked at the old Gambler's Book Club in Las Vegas back in the '70s. He would fall today into the realm of "egghead nerd." (I am a nerd, but not an "egghead," as I do not have the math background for it. Ron had serious math skills - M.I.T. serious.)

Ron did an Oscar-craps simulation of some magnitude back in the early '80s. I believe he published it as a paper. I know I actually had a copy of it about 25 years ago.

He made one tweak in Oscar. As I recall, he put in a stop-loss of sorts. That is, he played a finite session maximum rather than depending upon the table limit to end the session.

The long and the short of it is that after millions of dice hands, he netted one unit. I am not kidding - one unit.


Now, this is no small feat in and of itself. Even if he had lost one unit - or I should actually say lost only one unit.


Personally, I have just never taken the possibility of beating a negative expectancy seriously.

There are two sides to every proposition. For our example, it is best to call these two sides player and casino. What we have been discussing doing in this thread is "player-beating-casino."

Instead, I want to play "casino-beating-player" and I want to be the casino.

IMHO, the goal of all players who truly care about winning should be to gain any advantage because that thrusts them into the role of "casino" with an added positive: you get to tell the "player" what to bet.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[speculus]

for all your comments.

I have received some samples in the mail, and more will possibly come in the next couple of days. One thing I will however make clear, it is NOTHING EVEN CLOSE to the systems/methods you all have talked about until now including those discussed by Dave in his post.

I have racing to attend the next four days but I am so charged with this discovery that I have decided to take an off and devote all four days to find out whether I have really stumbled onto the proverbial "Philosopher's stone" or whether, as you all unanimously believe, I am just chasing a mirage.

One thing however I will say, at least as of now, the thing holds incredible promise. I have applied it to 19 betting data samples (winning and losing both) and IN EVERY SINGLE CASE this formula "improved" the performance of the sample to an "incredible" extent.

I am aware making such outrageous claims on a public forum without offering a sample or proof is bad manners, but I would rather satisfy myself fully before handling all queries/questions/objections.

Please send all samples to my mail address dynamic.handicapper@gmail.com and wait for 3-4 more days to find out more about this.

In the meanwhile, I request you all to raise as many objections as possible so that my claim, after the scruitiny, can be put to acid test.

[formula_2002]

I turned a negative game into a positive game and then back into a negative game how come?
see note 23 at http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...734#post342734

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

IMHO, the goal of all players who truly care about winning should be to gain any advantage because that thrusts them into the role of "casino" with an added positive: you get to tell the "player" what to bet.

I agree, in order to profit at any game of chance, where the owner of the game has the advantage, the player must find some way to negate that advantage and then have the ability/skill to beat the game.

[Dick Schmidt]

Why are we spending time speculating abut a money management system when we don't have any information about what it does or how it works. Speculus, this is a money management system, not some super secret handicapping factor. If you want help, post the exact details of the system and let those who have the ability analyze it and report back. It isn't gong to hurt your returns at all and might well help them. That is, unless you plan to offer your "amazing, loss into profit miracle money management system" for sale later on.

Dick

There is always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[Light]

I went to Vegas with some family members over the holidays,including my older brother(the genius). He's not a horse player,but was locked in on beating Roulette with Black and Red. He experimented with the Martingale system but with a twist. He would wait for 3 successive colors to hit before making a bet on the opposite color.The theory being that if its going to be a long streak of one color,you've allready chopped 3 plays off it and wont have to go incredibly deep in your bets. I told him I didnt like it.

Next day,I catch him at the roulette table.He says he's down a little but because he's not sticking to the "system". He points out a man who is leaving the table. He tells me both he and that man were betting at the same time and he figured the guy is using his system. So he asked the guy and the guy says he uses the same method as my brother and claims to make $150 an hour. So I ask my brother"then why is he leaving?" My brother says "cause it just came up 11 times black and he was betting red. He's cleaned out".

Since then my brother has modified the system to start betting the martingale method after 5 successive colors hit. He didnt have time to test his revised system before we left so he bought a roulette wheel and has his daughters spin the wheel a thousand times or so and says it works.I pity my nieces.

[speculus]

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

this is a money management system, not some super secret handicapping factor.

A "super secret handicapping factor" in fact may not be as precious. We all know the best horse does not always win, and there are N number of reasons, most of them beyond a handicapper's control most of the times. But a money management system ALWAYS produces what it promises, and if a "super money management system" (if there is one) holds the promise of doing the incredible, all I said was it requires further investigation.

Just because, technically, handicapping comes before money management DOES NOT MEAN it is MORE important. This is an erroneous veiw for which many a fine handicapper has paid a heavy price, many still do.

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

If you want help, post the exact details of the system and let those who have the ability analyze it and report back.

Whatever gave you the impression I want "help" to "analyze"? I never said I lack the "ability to analyze", and need help in that department. And I am sure no sane person who has glanced at my posts (at PA or DRF) can doubt it. Where did you read it? I simply asked if anyone out here can either give or direct me to the mathematical proof that proves that a negative edge cannot be converted into positive ROI, or are we believing it simply as SELF-EVIDENT.

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

It isn't gong to hurt your returns at all and might well help them. That is, unless you plan to offer your "amazing, loss into profit miracle money management system" for sale later on.

In the three years since I first uploaded my "Formula for accurate finishing timing upto 1/100th of a second" on the DRF forum, hundreds of handicappers from all over the world have thanked me for making available, FREE, what has turned out to be an amazing tool for their handicapping process. I consider their sincere gratitude a sufficient payment for my work. However, if this money management formula really turns out to be an amazing system, I don't understand why would anyone resent if I choose to "reserve my option of making commercial use of it"?

Personally, my thinking on the subject is very clear. At present, I value Dave's HMI as one of the most practical tools for managing bankroll, so unless I am convinced it is a better tool than HMI in most or all respects, I would not even toy with the idea of selling it commercially.

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

There is always free cheese in a mouse trap.

This remark I think is in bad taste. I will be happy if you retract it.

[singunner]

It's my experience that being able to do amazing things without actually knowing how they work often results in negative consequences. People say humans fear the unknown like it's a bad thing.

[speculus]

Originally Posted by singunner

It's my experience that being able to do amazing things without actually knowing how they work often results in negative consequences. People say humans fear the unknown like it's a bad thing.

That's why I have taken off four days to find out "how it works."

[singunner]

The Martingale system relies exclusively on the Gambler's Fallacy. I believe the record on a casino-owned roulette wheel for black was around 32. No matter how you put money into a slot machine or roulette wheel or negative ROI system, it will defeat you in the long run. As for the scientific proof, I believe it is encompassed by the Conservation of Energy, proved hundreds of years ago but easily ignored when confronted with mirages of spectacular income. Unless you have some quantum or Schrödinger model of money management, your time is best invested elsewhere.

Incidentally, if you were interested in a Schrödinger model of money management, I could probably rig something up for you. Just give me all your money and I'll bet it for you and then not tell you how it turned out. Your money will then exist in a pseudo-quantum state of both increasing and decreasing. Unfortunately, observing the reality would destroy this pseudo-quantum state, so you can never again see the money you give me. Trust me, if you're using terms like "philosopher's stone", the result is the same.

[Dick Schmidt]

"I don't understand why would anyone resent if I choose to "reserve my option of making commercial use of it"?"

Ah, I see. This thread is the opening salvo of your marketing campaign. I have no problem with people selling anything that others find of value; done it myself many times. I don't much like the "I'm not selling anything, well maybe if you insist, buy it here!!!!!!!!!!" style of advertising. I'm sure your response will be another statement about how you are just seeking information and have no interest in selling this miracle MM system, but unless you give us something to actually discuss, this thread and anything you post is meaningless.

Dick

Albert Einstein, when asked how to win at roulette: "Steal money from the table."

[speculus]

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

Ah, I see. This thread is the opening salvo of your marketing campaign.

You are crossing the limits of civility and decency when you accuse me of that. Are you aware that you are attempting to portray me as a scheming man whose hidden agenda is marketing? Doesn't it occur to you that if the formula turns out to be faulty after investigation (a possibility which right from the first post in this thread I have admitted as quite possible), how stupid you would look with that unwarranted accusation?

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

I have no problem with people selling anything that others find of value; done it myself many times.

Oh there you are. So THAT's the reason your mind functions that way!

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

I don't much like the "I'm not selling anything, well maybe if you insist, buy it here!!!!!!!!!!" style of advertising.

Who cares what you like or don't like when I know my intentions are honourable? Suspecting people and attributing motives to them is YOUR problem, why would anybody care?

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

I'm sure your response will be another statement about how you are just seeking information and have no interest in selling this miracle MM system, but unless you give us something to actually discuss,...

I have asked if anyone can give (or direct to) the mathematical proof of what this formula attempts to disprove, namely: No negative edge can be converted into a positive ROI by any method of money management.
You have been of zero help on that point. I have not asked "help" to "analyze" and you want to offer it to show WHAT?
And again, when I point out I don't need it, you take offence and start seeing hidden agenda in this thread.

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

Albert Einstein, when asked how to win at roulette: "Steal money from the table."

For one last time: NO. It does not give an edge where the expectation is "negative" AND the odds are "fixed" (like the casino) unlike horse racing where the odds are "variable". (post #4 on this thread)

Originally Posted by Dick Schmidt

... this thread and anything you post is meaningless.

There is an option to save yourself from meaningless posters. Press the IGNORE button. Oh but that's a civil way, I wonder if you would do it.

[BMeadow]

"Can there exist a money management formula/method that can convert a negative edge to a positive roi? Something like a flat bet loss of 16% to a positive ROI of 20%?"

Let's try for something much easier--converting a 1.4% loss (the pass line in craps) to a 1% profit. While this can easily be done in the short run with a mild progression, many short runs do not equal one long run. Because at some point, that terrible losing streak hits.

While casinos around the world routinely bar players for card counting, shuffle tracking, ace steering, hole carding (blackjack), or for tying up machines when a video poker machine's jackpot moves into positive territory (video poker), or for being just a little too sharp (sports betting), I have never HEARD of a single place which bars players for using betting systems.

In a short run (say, 1000 horse bets), any result is possible because the sequence of wins and losses, and the prices, vary. You might win more (or lose less) by flat betting, or by Kelly, or by using any system you can invent. In the long run (one billion bets), your result is exactly the same as your single-bet expectation (unless you can figure out some way to bet the maximum on your winners and the minimum on your losers). So if you bet the pass line one billion times, you will lose just about 1.4%. No matter what system you might dream up.

Sad, but true.

[speculus]

Thank you Barry for an excellent post.

Originally Posted by BMeadow

Let's try for something much easier--converting a 1.4% loss (the pass line in craps) to a 1% profit. While this can easily be done in the short run with a mild progression, many short runs do not equal one long run. Because at some point, that terrible losing streak hits.

But isn't that 1.4% loss a FIXED negative edge for ALL PLAYERS? If it is, then the formula I am investigating CANNOT do anything for such games. That's why it is useless for the roulette too.

Whenever the negative edge for players is FIXED on account of the fixed probability and fixed odds, this formula CANNOT do anything. So casinos will continue to remain safe even if this formula tomorrow proves to be too good.

But for a game like horse racing where EDGE and ODDS both are "variable" in nature, this formula I am talking about is showing quite a promise by "improving" the bottom line. At least so far.

Despite making it clear number of times, some posters here are still muddling the discussion by bringing non-applicable arguments related to Casino or other fixed negative games.

To sum it up, I would say if the odds are "variable" (like in horse racing), this formula has turned one negative (flat bet loss) sample into positive ROI, has "reduced" the losses (algebraically, "increased" the ROI) in three other losing samples but NOT turned them to positive ROI, and improved the profitability of 15 more samples. In a way, it has shown improvement in bottom line in all the 19 samples tested so far. More will be tested in the days to come.

Originally Posted by BMeadow

While casinos around the world routinely bar players for card counting, shuffle tracking, ace steering, hole carding (blackjack), or for tying up machines when a video poker machine's jackpot moves into positive territory (video poker), or for being just a little too sharp (sports betting), I have never HEARD of a single place which bars players for using betting systems.

I hope you understand from what I describe that it is NOT a "betting system" I am talking about.

Originally Posted by BMeadow

In a short run (say, 1000 horse bets), any result is possible because the sequence of wins and losses, and the prices, vary.

Here I would like to mention that whichever way you shuffle the bets, the end result in terms of "the final state of capital" DOES NOT CHANGE. Isn't it a feature that is desired in a money management system? In fact, I would go to the extent of saying that it is THE test of a theoretically sound money management formula. Do you agree? I would like to know your opinion on this.