Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 5, 2016, 11:30 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Of Cat Washing and Backtesting

Topic closed. 29 replies. Last post 6 years ago by Delta Draw.

Page 1 of 2
PrintE-mailLink
garyo1954's avatar - garyo
Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1679 Posts
Offline
Posted: May 14, 2011, 1:24 pm - IP Logged

When Aaron was three he was told, "If you put that cat in water he will scratch you to death!"  And yet, at some point, he found himself in the bath with a cat under one arm and tub full of water.

When he emerged he looked like he'd been fighting a pride of lions over the last hyena hindquarter. But he was proud. He kept reminding us, "...but it didn't scratch me to DEATH!"

Backtesting is the same. Everyone knows, or should know, before you hit "GO" what the results are going to be. 100% of backtests show failure over a given period of time.

Certainly, if one is contemplating a new method, or adopting a method from another state, a backtest can help determine if it is, or may, work.

Comparing ideas, methods, or system is another reason for backtesting.

Other than these, backtesting fails.

1) It fails because the backtest is not designed to account for the patterns and trends that change with intervals of each draw, week, month, etc.

2) It fails because the backtest can't make the decisions one would be making on a day to day, draw to draw, basis. 

3) Flat line backtests, where the computer makes up a number, makes up a second number, and compares them is the old "Guess My Number" game. Likely, you would get a few right over a period of 10,000 or 50,000 tries, but it serves as no proof as far lottery numbers goes for above reasons 1) and 2).

All in all, backtesting may be safer than washing the cat, but you're still going to fail.

    RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
    mid-Ohio
    United States
    Member #9
    March 24, 2001
    19824 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: May 14, 2011, 2:55 pm - IP Logged

    There are lots of ideas about creating systems and back testing them but so far the only back testing I've seen is testing a combination to see if it could have been a winner in past drawings. 

    If a system pick combinations that have never come up in the past then there is no chance it would have ever won and you don't need to back test to know that.  On the other hand if a system only pick combinations that have come up in the past then back testing will show they were winners and we also don't need to back test to know that.

     * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
       
                 Evil Looking       

      rcbbuckeye's avatar - Lottery-043.jpg
      Texas
      United States
      Member #55889
      October 23, 2007
      5592 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: May 14, 2011, 11:58 pm - IP Logged

      When Aaron was three he was told, "If you put that cat in water he will scratch you to death!"  And yet, at some point, he found himself in the bath with a cat under one arm and tub full of water.

      When he emerged he looked like he'd been fighting a pride of lions over the last hyena hindquarter. But he was proud. He kept reminding us, "...but it didn't scratch me to DEATH!"

      Backtesting is the same. Everyone knows, or should know, before you hit "GO" what the results are going to be. 100% of backtests show failure over a given period of time.

      Certainly, if one is contemplating a new method, or adopting a method from another state, a backtest can help determine if it is, or may, work.

      Comparing ideas, methods, or system is another reason for backtesting.

      Other than these, backtesting fails.

      1) It fails because the backtest is not designed to account for the patterns and trends that change with intervals of each draw, week, month, etc.

      2) It fails because the backtest can't make the decisions one would be making on a day to day, draw to draw, basis. 

      3) Flat line backtests, where the computer makes up a number, makes up a second number, and compares them is the old "Guess My Number" game. Likely, you would get a few right over a period of 10,000 or 50,000 tries, but it serves as no proof as far lottery numbers goes for above reasons 1) and 2).

      All in all, backtesting may be safer than washing the cat, but you're still going to fail.

      I don't usually do much in the way of backtesting, esp with jackpot games. However, I am trying something with P3 on paper. I was reading thru Lotto Logix and came across the Power Trails system. I had read this before but forgotten about it. Anyway, I went back thru April's P3 draws, day and evening and did a workout using the Power Trails system. Came up with 5 combinations to play on paper for May. So far, 1 straight and 3 box hits. In a test like this, backtesting doesn't do any good, but playing on paper allows you to see real results, good or not good, to determine if the system you are working is viable.

      If this continues to show good results thru May and June, I may decide to play it for real. We shall see.

      CAN'T WIN IF YOU'RE NOT IN

      A DOLLAR AND A DREAM (OR $2)

        garyo1954's avatar - garyo
        Dallas, Texas
        United States
        Member #4549
        May 2, 2004
        1679 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: May 15, 2011, 1:31 pm - IP Logged

        I don't usually do much in the way of backtesting, esp with jackpot games. However, I am trying something with P3 on paper. I was reading thru Lotto Logix and came across the Power Trails system. I had read this before but forgotten about it. Anyway, I went back thru April's P3 draws, day and evening and did a workout using the Power Trails system. Came up with 5 combinations to play on paper for May. So far, 1 straight and 3 box hits. In a test like this, backtesting doesn't do any good, but playing on paper allows you to see real results, good or not good, to determine if the system you are working is viable.

        If this continues to show good results thru May and June, I may decide to play it for real. We shall see.

        BobP has a lot of very good material stemming from the many years he has spent writing about lotteries and I'd be surprised if he didn't recommend some testing before using it. Tests like that are contemplation testing. It provides a chance to get a feel for how the method works and to get accustomed to using it. Yes. I do tests like that as well. 

        Its test like RJOH points out that are worthless. If you can count on one hand how many times 999 came out in the history of the Texas night game, what purpose does it serve to run the entire history?

        As WinD points out in another thread, too much backtesting will eliminate some pretty good systems since the trend we're expecting is going forward. 

        In the original "Guess My Number" backtest, 10 hits over 13 years is break even. (The best simulated guessers only hit 14 times in 13 years.)

        For comparison, take a system's player playing $5 a night/$30 a week for box hits. (One hit is plus $10 for the week). In 52 weeks he is plus $520, which is better than the 1 win "Guess My Number" simulated people. In 5 years he equals what the best players did in that 13 year simulation!

        Of course, LP has a lot of people who do much better than our imaginary system's player. 

        Yep. Testing a system or method should be done in contemplation to future use.

          Avatar
          Kentucky
          United States
          Member #32652
          February 14, 2006
          7302 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: May 17, 2011, 5:49 pm - IP Logged

          BobP has a lot of very good material stemming from the many years he has spent writing about lotteries and I'd be surprised if he didn't recommend some testing before using it. Tests like that are contemplation testing. It provides a chance to get a feel for how the method works and to get accustomed to using it. Yes. I do tests like that as well. 

          Its test like RJOH points out that are worthless. If you can count on one hand how many times 999 came out in the history of the Texas night game, what purpose does it serve to run the entire history?

          As WinD points out in another thread, too much backtesting will eliminate some pretty good systems since the trend we're expecting is going forward. 

          In the original "Guess My Number" backtest, 10 hits over 13 years is break even. (The best simulated guessers only hit 14 times in 13 years.)

          For comparison, take a system's player playing $5 a night/$30 a week for box hits. (One hit is plus $10 for the week). In 52 weeks he is plus $520, which is better than the 1 win "Guess My Number" simulated people. In 5 years he equals what the best players did in that 13 year simulation!

          Of course, LP has a lot of people who do much better than our imaginary system's player. 

          Yep. Testing a system or method should be done in contemplation to future use.

          Back testing and simulation is based on the much heralded Bluejay challenge "no system player will take". Can't test a ten combo pick-3 system against simulated play for 100 drawings but no problem believing 50,000 Pick-3 QP players would wager $1 a drawing for 20,000 drawings.

          "For comparison, take a system's player playing $5 a night/$30 a week for box hits."

          Or how about Rcb using a version of Power Trails based on what was drawn last month. How either method would do 30 years ago or how they compare to random simulated lottery play in a simulated lottery over many years is useless information in my book.

          "Yep. Testing a system or method should be done in contemplation to future use."

          I Agree!

            RJOh's avatar - chipmunk
            mid-Ohio
            United States
            Member #9
            March 24, 2001
            19824 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: May 17, 2011, 11:13 pm - IP Logged

            Back testing and simulation is based on the much heralded Bluejay challenge "no system player will take". Can't test a ten combo pick-3 system against simulated play for 100 drawings but no problem believing 50,000 Pick-3 QP players would wager $1 a drawing for 20,000 drawings.

            "For comparison, take a system's player playing $5 a night/$30 a week for box hits."

            Or how about Rcb using a version of Power Trails based on what was drawn last month. How either method would do 30 years ago or how they compare to random simulated lottery play in a simulated lottery over many years is useless information in my book.

            "Yep. Testing a system or method should be done in contemplation to future use."

            I Agree!

            Back testing and simulation is based on the much heralded Bluejay challenge "no system player will take".

            That's part of the problem if your definition of back testing is based on jimmy4164 thread.  As I've said before his test seems to be picking a combination and seeing how many times it would have hit in the past which is the same as calculation the odds of it hitting any time.  That may be fine for testing pick3 systems which only have a 1000 or 220 possible outcomes and over 700 drawings yearly.  But for testing systems designed for pick5 and jackpot games which probably avoid combinations that have come up in the past, back testing that way just doesn't mean anything.

            The only way to test such systems is to test forward even if it's done in the past.  For example, once the rules for picking combinations to play are established a year of history is wipe out and the system is tested forward from that point to the present as if the results of the next drawings aren't known.  Doing such tests privately for ones own benefit is probably better unless ones is trying to impress others who are only going to be impressed by a real win or a winning prediction.

             * you don't need to buy more tickets, just buy a winning ticket * 
               
                         Evil Looking       

              Avatar
              Kentucky
              United States
              Member #32652
              February 14, 2006
              7302 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: May 19, 2011, 8:29 pm - IP Logged

              Back testing and simulation is based on the much heralded Bluejay challenge "no system player will take".

              That's part of the problem if your definition of back testing is based on jimmy4164 thread.  As I've said before his test seems to be picking a combination and seeing how many times it would have hit in the past which is the same as calculation the odds of it hitting any time.  That may be fine for testing pick3 systems which only have a 1000 or 220 possible outcomes and over 700 drawings yearly.  But for testing systems designed for pick5 and jackpot games which probably avoid combinations that have come up in the past, back testing that way just doesn't mean anything.

              The only way to test such systems is to test forward even if it's done in the past.  For example, once the rules for picking combinations to play are established a year of history is wipe out and the system is tested forward from that point to the present as if the results of the next drawings aren't known.  Doing such tests privately for ones own benefit is probably better unless ones is trying to impress others who are only going to be impressed by a real win or a winning prediction.

              "As I've said before his test seems to be picking a combination and seeing how many times it would have hit in the past which is the same as calculation the odds of it hitting any time."

              I've been hoping we see a test that resembles actual pick-3 or any lottery game play. The only tests I saw were 5000 to 50,000 random players betting $1 every night for years.

              "But for testing systems designed for pick5 and jackpot games which probably avoid combinations that have come up in the past, back testing that way just doesn't mean anything."

              When I had that nice run on RC5, I was changing the numbers every drawing and filling out 4 play slips. It was useless testing it against the past drawings because I was using the numbers from an area of grid. A number that was in play on Monday sometimes was no play on Tuesday.

              "unless ones is trying to impress others who are only going to be impressed by a real win or a winning prediction."

              When that guy showed me how he played his combos in the old Buckeye 5 and won $100,000 about a week later I was very impressed. I would call what he did more of a betting strategy than a system so his method probably couldn't be testing.

              Anyone trying to beat the Bluejay challenge; all you have to do is find a system that makes a 20,000% profit in 200,000 trials.


                United States
                Member #93947
                July 10, 2010
                2180 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: May 20, 2011, 12:13 pm - IP Logged

                "As I've said before his test seems to be picking a combination and seeing how many times it would have hit in the past which is the same as calculation the odds of it hitting any time."

                I've been hoping we see a test that resembles actual pick-3 or any lottery game play. The only tests I saw were 5000 to 50,000 random players betting $1 every night for years.

                "But for testing systems designed for pick5 and jackpot games which probably avoid combinations that have come up in the past, back testing that way just doesn't mean anything."

                When I had that nice run on RC5, I was changing the numbers every drawing and filling out 4 play slips. It was useless testing it against the past drawings because I was using the numbers from an area of grid. A number that was in play on Monday sometimes was no play on Tuesday.

                "unless ones is trying to impress others who are only going to be impressed by a real win or a winning prediction."

                When that guy showed me how he played his combos in the old Buckeye 5 and won $100,000 about a week later I was very impressed. I would call what he did more of a betting strategy than a system so his method probably couldn't be testing.

                Anyone trying to beat the Bluejay challenge; all you have to do is find a system that makes a 20,000% profit in 200,000 trials.

                "Anyone trying to beat the Bluejay challenge; all you have to do is find a system that makes a 20,000% profit in 200,000 trials."

                If you actually believe this statement, then you have a bigger problem than I thought understanding Probability and Statistics and the relationship between the two.  It's patently false!  I think you'd better take another look at Bluejay's Challenge.  By the way, he replies to emails; why not share your thoughts with him?

                Bluejay's $30,000 Challenge

                Here's another source of help for you...

                The Wizard of Odds on Betting Systems

                  Avatar
                  Kentucky
                  United States
                  Member #32652
                  February 14, 2006
                  7302 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: May 20, 2011, 4:47 pm - IP Logged

                  "Anyone trying to beat the Bluejay challenge; all you have to do is find a system that makes a 20,000% profit in 200,000 trials."

                  If you actually believe this statement, then you have a bigger problem than I thought understanding Probability and Statistics and the relationship between the two.  It's patently false!  I think you'd better take another look at Bluejay's Challenge.  By the way, he replies to emails; why not share your thoughts with him?

                  Bluejay's $30,000 Challenge

                  Here's another source of help for you...

                  The Wizard of Odds on Betting Systems

                  Oh, I did read the terms of Bluejay's challenge.

                  Bluejay: "that your betting system cannot beat a game of roulette, baccarat, or craps, as the player, using common Vegas rules, starting with a generous $5000 bankroll, in a computer simulation, as per the additional terms below."

                  Bluejay: "Length.  Each simulation will run for 200,000 rounds."

                  Bluejay: "The table limits are $5 minimum and $5000 maximum."

                  Starting bankroll: $5000

                  Minimum bet: $5

                  Length: 200,000 rounds

                  Bluejay's challenge requires a system player to make at least $1 million in bets on a $5000 bankroll. Jimmy, which part of $5 times 200,000 equals $1 million don't you understand?

                  Open your standard calculator and follow these simple instructions:

                  Enter "5000", click on the "+ (plus)" button, enter "20,000" and click on the "% (percent)" button and 1000000 will appear, and now click on the "= (equals)" button and you'll see 1,005,000. 

                  Jimmy: "It's patently false!"

                  My bad, I said the system player only needs a "20,000% profit" when they need a 20,000.02% profit to make 200,000 $5 bets on a $5000 bankroll TO WIN $1 and win Bluejay's challenge. Does someone actually have a roulette system claiming they can win $1 after 1250 eight hour shifts of play at $5 a bet?

                  For a guy always looking for lottery systems scams, you can't see a scam when it bites you on your nose.

                  Jimmy: "By the way, he replies to emails; why not share your thoughts with him?"

                  Because Bluejay like all of your other references don't post on LP. And if I had a roulette, baccarat, or craps system that could show a 1000% profit in 200 rounds, why would anyone want to play for another 199,800 (if realistically possible) rounds to win less?

                  Keep on believing pick-3 players will bet $1 straight on the same number night after night for over 33 years.


                    United States
                    Member #93947
                    July 10, 2010
                    2180 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: May 20, 2011, 5:01 pm - IP Logged

                    "Anyone trying to beat the Bluejay challenge; all you have to do is find a system that makes a 20,000% profit in 200,000 trials."

                    If you actually believe this statement, then you have a bigger problem than I thought understanding Probability and Statistics and the relationship between the two.  It's patently false!  I think you'd better take another look at Bluejay's Challenge.  By the way, he replies to emails; why not share your thoughts with him?

                    Bluejay's $30,000 Challenge

                    Here's another source of help for you...

                    The Wizard of Odds on Betting Systems

                    Stack47,

                    I think you need to put on your critical thinking cap and read the rules again, slowly.

                    --Jimmy4164

                    (From Bluejay's Rules:)

                    Length.  Each simulation will run for 200,000 rounds.  A "round" is an event where any bet is resolved.  It's fine for your system to sit out sometimes to wait for "streaks" or other conditions, but 200,000 rounds must be wagered on (unless you go bust first).  We'll run this simulation 20 times, and you win the challenge if your system wins at least 11 out of the 20 times.  This is generous, because your system doesn't have to win all the time, it need only win slightly more than half the time in order to beat the challenge.  (For those who think this is a bad test because "nobody plays 200,000 rounds", see the explanation further below...)

                      Avatar
                      Kentucky
                      United States
                      Member #32652
                      February 14, 2006
                      7302 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: May 20, 2011, 11:24 pm - IP Logged

                      Oh, I did read the terms of Bluejay's challenge.

                      Bluejay: "that your betting system cannot beat a game of roulette, baccarat, or craps, as the player, using common Vegas rules, starting with a generous $5000 bankroll, in a computer simulation, as per the additional terms below."

                      Bluejay: "Length.  Each simulation will run for 200,000 rounds."

                      Bluejay: "The table limits are $5 minimum and $5000 maximum."

                      Starting bankroll: $5000

                      Minimum bet: $5

                      Length: 200,000 rounds

                      Bluejay's challenge requires a system player to make at least $1 million in bets on a $5000 bankroll. Jimmy, which part of $5 times 200,000 equals $1 million don't you understand?

                      Open your standard calculator and follow these simple instructions:

                      Enter "5000", click on the "+ (plus)" button, enter "20,000" and click on the "% (percent)" button and 1000000 will appear, and now click on the "= (equals)" button and you'll see 1,005,000. 

                      Jimmy: "It's patently false!"

                      My bad, I said the system player only needs a "20,000% profit" when they need a 20,000.02% profit to make 200,000 $5 bets on a $5000 bankroll TO WIN $1 and win Bluejay's challenge. Does someone actually have a roulette system claiming they can win $1 after 1250 eight hour shifts of play at $5 a bet?

                      For a guy always looking for lottery systems scams, you can't see a scam when it bites you on your nose.

                      Jimmy: "By the way, he replies to emails; why not share your thoughts with him?"

                      Because Bluejay like all of your other references don't post on LP. And if I had a roulette, baccarat, or craps system that could show a 1000% profit in 200 rounds, why would anyone want to play for another 199,800 (if realistically possible) rounds to win less?

                      Keep on believing pick-3 players will bet $1 straight on the same number night after night for over 33 years.

                      Jimmy,

                      Are you still hunting for ocean front property in Arizona?

                      Bluejay: "Length.  Each simulation will run for 200,000 rounds.  A "round" is an event where any bet is resolved.  It's fine for your system to sit out sometimes to wait for "streaks" or other conditions, but 200,000 rounds must be wagered on (unless you go bust first).  We'll run this simulation 20 times, and you win the challenge if your system wins at least 11 out of the 20 times."

                      AND

                      Bluejay: "I will program a computer simulation and provide you with the results as well as the source code so you can have your own expert(s) verify its accuracy."

                      Talk about stacking the deck.

                      Why not let the player program a computer simulation for twenty 200,000 rounds and provide Bluejay with the results and if there is a tie (because they both cheated), have a third party agreed on in advance run a third simulation to prove who really won?

                      My favorite Bluejay rule: "After two weeks from your initially sending me the rules, if I feel the rules are still not clear, then at my option I can ask to the judge to rule that you forfeited by failing to submit an understandable betting system"

                      What kind of odds did Bluejay give against the world ending on 5/21/2011?


                        United States
                        Member #93947
                        July 10, 2010
                        2180 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: May 21, 2011, 1:32 am - IP Logged

                        Jimmy,

                        Are you still hunting for ocean front property in Arizona?

                        Bluejay: "Length.  Each simulation will run for 200,000 rounds.  A "round" is an event where any bet is resolved.  It's fine for your system to sit out sometimes to wait for "streaks" or other conditions, but 200,000 rounds must be wagered on (unless you go bust first).  We'll run this simulation 20 times, and you win the challenge if your system wins at least 11 out of the 20 times."

                        AND

                        Bluejay: "I will program a computer simulation and provide you with the results as well as the source code so you can have your own expert(s) verify its accuracy."

                        Talk about stacking the deck.

                        Why not let the player program a computer simulation for twenty 200,000 rounds and provide Bluejay with the results and if there is a tie (because they both cheated), have a third party agreed on in advance run a third simulation to prove who really won?

                        My favorite Bluejay rule: "After two weeks from your initially sending me the rules, if I feel the rules are still not clear, then at my option I can ask to the judge to rule that you forfeited by failing to submit an understandable betting system"

                        What kind of odds did Bluejay give against the world ending on 5/21/2011?

                        If you ever figure this out, you are going to wish you could erase your posts in this thread.

                        The fact that you can't see how liberal Bluejay's offer is, is telling.  The house edge in the casino games he's dealing with is slim, compared to the 50% of the lotteries.  Playing these games is more akin to playing Pick-3 with a $950 payout for a straight win.  As I tried to show you in another thread, with graphs and all, during short terms of play, the house will be beaten, by chance.  It's over the long haul that you will most certainly lose.

                        Bluejay is offering you the same rules you play at the casinos, but putting up $10 for every $1 of yours. If you can beat the house 11 times out of 20, completing 200,000 bets each time, he pays you 10/1.  Earlier you totally confused the odds by talking about needing 20,000% to win.  With a $5000 stake in a game with a slim house edge, why can't you see that you can win a fortune during 200,000 bets?  Your only problem is that the house will win a little bigger fortune enmeshed with yours!  If you had a  SYSTEM with any edge to speak of, it would be able to beat the house by 5% (11/20).  The reason no one is taking the challenge is because no such system exists.

                        If this doesn't convince you, you really need to email Bluejay and ask for clarification, or at least, study his rules more closely.

                          Avatar
                          Kentucky
                          United States
                          Member #32652
                          February 14, 2006
                          7302 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: May 21, 2011, 3:16 pm - IP Logged

                          If you ever figure this out, you are going to wish you could erase your posts in this thread.

                          The fact that you can't see how liberal Bluejay's offer is, is telling.  The house edge in the casino games he's dealing with is slim, compared to the 50% of the lotteries.  Playing these games is more akin to playing Pick-3 with a $950 payout for a straight win.  As I tried to show you in another thread, with graphs and all, during short terms of play, the house will be beaten, by chance.  It's over the long haul that you will most certainly lose.

                          Bluejay is offering you the same rules you play at the casinos, but putting up $10 for every $1 of yours. If you can beat the house 11 times out of 20, completing 200,000 bets each time, he pays you 10/1.  Earlier you totally confused the odds by talking about needing 20,000% to win.  With a $5000 stake in a game with a slim house edge, why can't you see that you can win a fortune during 200,000 bets?  Your only problem is that the house will win a little bigger fortune enmeshed with yours!  If you had a  SYSTEM with any edge to speak of, it would be able to beat the house by 5% (11/20).  The reason no one is taking the challenge is because no such system exists.

                          If this doesn't convince you, you really need to email Bluejay and ask for clarification, or at least, study his rules more closely.

                          "Earlier you totally confused the odds by talking about needing 20,000% to win."

                          Yep, I did because I forgot the system must win at least $1 to win the 200,000 round challenge, but I corrected my mistake by saying the system must show a 20,000.02% profit to win the challenge. You can fill 100 pages with links but it still won't change the fact to last 200,000 rounds at a minimum bet of $5 per round, at least $1 million in bets must be made on a starting bankroll of only $5000.

                          Do you have problem understanding $1,000,001 divided by $5000 equals 200.0002 to 1 odds or how that equals a 20,000.02% profit?

                          "Bluejay is offering you the same rules you play at the casinos, but putting up $10 for every $1 of yours."

                          Only you would believe getting 10 to 1 odds on your money is better than getting 200 to 1 odds. And by the way, I've never seen, heard, or read about any casino forcing players to continue betting their profits after a big win. If a system could turn $5000 into $100,000 in 100 or 1000 rounds of real casino play would the player walk with their $95,000 in winnings or would they continue playing trying to win only $30,000?

                          They could pocket $35,000 and still have 13 more tries to win even more money using a $5000 starting bankroll each time.

                          "If you can beat the house 11 times out of 20, completing 200,000 bets each time, he pays you 10/1."

                          You're totally confused if you believe Bluejay's computer simulation is the "house". Bluejay is talking about Baccarat systems that may require sitting out several hands waiting on streaks. How could a streak system predict when to bet BEFORE seeing any results?

                          Bluejay: "You will email me your system rules within one week of our both signing the contract...........After two weeks from your sending me the the initial set of rules, if I feel the last-received rules are still not clear, then at my option I can ask to the judge to rule that you forfeited by failing to submit an understandable betting system"

                          The challenge requires the system to bet BEFORE the simulation is programed and Bluejay wins by default if HE can't program a simulation that beats the system!

                          Bluejay: "and if the judge rules against you then you can appeal via arbitration as per above." aka "the judge by our employing a mutually agreed-upon neutral professional arbiter to decide the issue, with the losing party in the arbitration paying the arbiter's fees."

                          That's like a defendant appealing to the judge that just found them guilty.

                          Most people bet AFTER the rules are clarified but that doesn't stop Bluejay from claiming his second challenge is based on actual casino rules that are very clear.

                          "If this doesn't convince you "

                          There should be no need to convince anyone that 200,000 bets at a minimum $5 per bet equals $1,000,000 or that a $5000 starting bankroll needs to show a 20,000.02% profit to win $10,000 to $30,000 on bets of $1000 to $3000.

                          But since you're convinced 50,000 pick-3 QP players will bet $1 each on the next 20,000 drawings hoping to win $500 every three or four years, a PA evening pick-3 player will bet $1 on the same number for over 33 years, and Maddog's Challenge players will bet $3168 two or four times a week for over year, realistic lottery play and casino play must really confuse you.

                          I'll stick with my amended original statement, "all you have to do is find a system that makes a 20,000.02% profit in 200,000 trials".


                            United States
                            Member #93947
                            July 10, 2010
                            2180 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: May 21, 2011, 3:48 pm - IP Logged

                            "Earlier you totally confused the odds by talking about needing 20,000% to win."

                            Yep, I did because I forgot the system must win at least $1 to win the 200,000 round challenge, but I corrected my mistake by saying the system must show a 20,000.02% profit to win the challenge. You can fill 100 pages with links but it still won't change the fact to last 200,000 rounds at a minimum bet of $5 per round, at least $1 million in bets must be made on a starting bankroll of only $5000.

                            Do you have problem understanding $1,000,001 divided by $5000 equals 200.0002 to 1 odds or how that equals a 20,000.02% profit?

                            "Bluejay is offering you the same rules you play at the casinos, but putting up $10 for every $1 of yours."

                            Only you would believe getting 10 to 1 odds on your money is better than getting 200 to 1 odds. And by the way, I've never seen, heard, or read about any casino forcing players to continue betting their profits after a big win. If a system could turn $5000 into $100,000 in 100 or 1000 rounds of real casino play would the player walk with their $95,000 in winnings or would they continue playing trying to win only $30,000?

                            They could pocket $35,000 and still have 13 more tries to win even more money using a $5000 starting bankroll each time.

                            "If you can beat the house 11 times out of 20, completing 200,000 bets each time, he pays you 10/1."

                            You're totally confused if you believe Bluejay's computer simulation is the "house". Bluejay is talking about Baccarat systems that may require sitting out several hands waiting on streaks. How could a streak system predict when to bet BEFORE seeing any results?

                            Bluejay: "You will email me your system rules within one week of our both signing the contract...........After two weeks from your sending me the the initial set of rules, if I feel the last-received rules are still not clear, then at my option I can ask to the judge to rule that you forfeited by failing to submit an understandable betting system"

                            The challenge requires the system to bet BEFORE the simulation is programed and Bluejay wins by default if HE can't program a simulation that beats the system!

                            Bluejay: "and if the judge rules against you then you can appeal via arbitration as per above." aka "the judge by our employing a mutually agreed-upon neutral professional arbiter to decide the issue, with the losing party in the arbitration paying the arbiter's fees."

                            That's like a defendant appealing to the judge that just found them guilty.

                            Most people bet AFTER the rules are clarified but that doesn't stop Bluejay from claiming his second challenge is based on actual casino rules that are very clear.

                            "If this doesn't convince you "

                            There should be no need to convince anyone that 200,000 bets at a minimum $5 per bet equals $1,000,000 or that a $5000 starting bankroll needs to show a 20,000.02% profit to win $10,000 to $30,000 on bets of $1000 to $3000.

                            But since you're convinced 50,000 pick-3 QP players will bet $1 each on the next 20,000 drawings hoping to win $500 every three or four years, a PA evening pick-3 player will bet $1 on the same number for over 33 years, and Maddog's Challenge players will bet $3168 two or four times a week for over year, realistic lottery play and casino play must really confuse you.

                            I'll stick with my amended original statement, "all you have to do is find a system that makes a 20,000.02% profit in 200,000 trials".

                            If you ever figure this out, you are going to wish you could erase your posts in this thread.

                             

                            But I suspect there's no need for you to worry about that.

                              time*treat's avatar - radar

                              United States
                              Member #13130
                              March 30, 2005
                              2171 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: May 21, 2011, 11:40 pm - IP Logged

                              Oh, I did read the terms of Bluejay's challenge.

                              Bluejay: "that your betting system cannot beat a game of roulette, baccarat, or craps, as the player, using common Vegas rules, starting with a generous $5000 bankroll, in a computer simulation, as per the additional terms below."

                              Bluejay: "Length.  Each simulation will run for 200,000 rounds."

                              Bluejay: "The table limits are $5 minimum and $5000 maximum."

                              Starting bankroll: $5000

                              Minimum bet: $5

                              Length: 200,000 rounds

                              Bluejay's challenge requires a system player to make at least $1 million in bets on a $5000 bankroll. Jimmy, which part of $5 times 200,000 equals $1 million don't you understand?

                              Open your standard calculator and follow these simple instructions:

                              Enter "5000", click on the "+ (plus)" button, enter "20,000" and click on the "% (percent)" button and 1000000 will appear, and now click on the "= (equals)" button and you'll see 1,005,000. 

                              Jimmy: "It's patently false!"

                              My bad, I said the system player only needs a "20,000% profit" when they need a 20,000.02% profit to make 200,000 $5 bets on a $5000 bankroll TO WIN $1 and win Bluejay's challenge. Does someone actually have a roulette system claiming they can win $1 after 1250 eight hour shifts of play at $5 a bet?

                              For a guy always looking for lottery systems scams, you can't see a scam when it bites you on your nose.

                              Jimmy: "By the way, he replies to emails; why not share your thoughts with him?"

                              Because Bluejay like all of your other references don't post on LP. And if I had a roulette, baccarat, or craps system that could show a 1000% profit in 200 rounds, why would anyone want to play for another 199,800 (if realistically possible) rounds to win less?

                              Keep on believing pick-3 players will bet $1 straight on the same number night after night for over 33 years.

                              The catch is in the "200,000 rounds" requirement.

                              Without a "quit when you're ahead" option, you'll eventually succumb to the long-run odds/house edge/payouts mismatch that goes with such games.

                              In neo-conned Amerika, bank robs you.
                              Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a govnoment agency.