Welcome Guest
You last visited December 8, 2016, 1:03 pm
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 2 of 2

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 22, 2011, 12:19 am - IP Logged

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.

Your second paragraph is absolutely right.

Why would you call this requirement a "catch?"

Suppose you put up \$30K to my \$10K in a simulated Powerball game where you bet me that MY system can't beat the lottery over 200,000 draws with a \$5000 stake, but with the option for me to "quit when I'm ahead," if I choose.  Let's suppose further that I'm very lucky and hit a "5+0" and win \$200,000 on, say, the 3rd Draw.  I then elect to exercise my "quit" option, claim my system beats the lottery, and request that you immediately pay me my \$30,000!

Do you think this would be a fair setup for you?

Have I proven that my system really "works?"

Does this help you to see that the only reasonable way to test the efficacy of a lottery system is to test it over extremely large numbers of Draws?

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7314 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 22, 2011, 3:55 pm - IP Logged

Your second paragraph is absolutely right.

Why would you call this requirement a "catch?"

Suppose you put up \$30K to my \$10K in a simulated Powerball game where you bet me that MY system can't beat the lottery over 200,000 draws with a \$5000 stake, but with the option for me to "quit when I'm ahead," if I choose.  Let's suppose further that I'm very lucky and hit a "5+0" and win \$200,000 on, say, the 3rd Draw.  I then elect to exercise my "quit" option, claim my system beats the lottery, and request that you immediately pay me my \$30,000!

Do you think this would be a fair setup for you?

Have I proven that my system really "works?"

Does this help you to see that the only reasonable way to test the efficacy of a lottery system is to test it over extremely large numbers of Draws?

"Suppose you put up \$30K to my \$10K in a simulated Powerball game where you bet me that MY system can't beat the lottery over 200,000 draws with a \$5000 stake, but with the option for me to "quit when I'm ahead," if I choose."

I'd expect that from a 40-year-old just waking up from a 30 year coma, but not from someone who should have learned something just by logging into Lottery Post. PB has 104 drawings a year and you believe 1923 years is reasonable tests. That doesn't even pass the "eyes-rolling" test, Jimmy.

And besides we're discussing Bluejay's challenge and his rules.

"Does this help you to see that the only reasonable way to test the efficacy of a lottery system is to test it over extremely large numbers of Draws?"

There is nothing reasonable about requiring any system to show a 20,000.02% profit to win \$1. If Bluejay is giving a \$5000 starting bankroll with a minimum wager of \$5, 1000 rounds is a reasonable test. If the system claims to make a 1000% profit, the system will lose if it doesn't have \$55,000 after 1000 rounds.

It's obvious where you got the idea to challenge LP lottery systems from, but you keep on challenging claims that were never made by purposing unreasonable tests without knowing the intent of the system (just like Bluejay).

When are you going to figure out systems players are trying to win money in the next few drawings, not in the next 200,000 drawings?

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7314 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 22, 2011, 4:09 pm - IP Logged

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.

I could live with the 200,000 rounds at a minimum \$5 bet per round if the starting bankroll was \$1,000,000. But since the bankroll is limited to \$5000 the system needs a 20,000.02% profit just to win a dollar. Most players would be overjoyed if the could win \$10,000 in 100 rounds with a starting bankroll of \$5000.

"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."

Bluejay and Jimmy keep saying the challenge is based on real casino play, but continue to ignore the fact, in casinos players can quit whenever they want.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7314 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 22, 2011, 4:22 pm - IP Logged

Your second paragraph is absolutely right.

Why would you call this requirement a "catch?"

Suppose you put up \$30K to my \$10K in a simulated Powerball game where you bet me that MY system can't beat the lottery over 200,000 draws with a \$5000 stake, but with the option for me to "quit when I'm ahead," if I choose.  Let's suppose further that I'm very lucky and hit a "5+0" and win \$200,000 on, say, the 3rd Draw.  I then elect to exercise my "quit" option, claim my system beats the lottery, and request that you immediately pay me my \$30,000!

Do you think this would be a fair setup for you?

Have I proven that my system really "works?"

Does this help you to see that the only reasonable way to test the efficacy of a lottery system is to test it over extremely large numbers of Draws?

"Your second paragraph is absolutely right."

Of course it's correct unless you play in a casino that forces you play until you lose all your money. The rest of us play in casinos where we can quit at any time so why are you claiming Bluejay's challenge is based on real casino play when it's not?

"Do you think this would be a fair setup for you?"

It's the same unfair setup Bluejay is using to say "Not one system player has accepted my challenge".

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 22, 2011, 8:01 pm - IP Logged

"Suppose you put up \$30K to my \$10K in a simulated Powerball game where you bet me that MY system can't beat the lottery over 200,000 draws with a \$5000 stake, but with the option for me to "quit when I'm ahead," if I choose."

I'd expect that from a 40-year-old just waking up from a 30 year coma, but not from someone who should have learned something just by logging into Lottery Post. PB has 104 drawings a year and you believe 1923 years is reasonable tests. That doesn't even pass the "eyes-rolling" test, Jimmy.

And besides we're discussing Bluejay's challenge and his rules.

"Does this help you to see that the only reasonable way to test the efficacy of a lottery system is to test it over extremely large numbers of Draws?"

There is nothing reasonable about requiring any system to show a 20,000.02% profit to win \$1. If Bluejay is giving a \$5000 starting bankroll with a minimum wager of \$5, 1000 rounds is a reasonable test. If the system claims to make a 1000% profit, the system will lose if it doesn't have \$55,000 after 1000 rounds.

It's obvious where you got the idea to challenge LP lottery systems from, but you keep on challenging claims that were never made by purposing unreasonable tests without knowing the intent of the system (just like Bluejay).

When are you going to figure out systems players are trying to win money in the next few drawings, not in the next 200,000 drawings?

"When are you going to figure out systems players are trying to win money in the next few drawings, not in the next 200,000 drawings?"

I was aware of that many years before ever posting at this website.  As Delta Draw pointed out quite well in the Innumeracy thread, the only cure for what you are afflicted with is education.  Sorry, but I don't think I have the time it would require to get you started on the road to recovery.  Besides, based on the quoted question, your case may be incurable.

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7314 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 23, 2011, 7:43 am - IP Logged

"When are you going to figure out systems players are trying to win money in the next few drawings, not in the next 200,000 drawings?"

I was aware of that many years before ever posting at this website.  As Delta Draw pointed out quite well in the Innumeracy thread, the only cure for what you are afflicted with is education.  Sorry, but I don't think I have the time it would require to get you started on the road to recovery.  Besides, based on the quoted question, your case may be incurable.

"I was aware of that many years before ever posting at this website."

How many more years will it take for you to figure out Bluejay's challenge is a parody of gaming systems?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 24, 2011, 10:39 am - IP Logged

"I was aware of that many years before ever posting at this website."

How many more years will it take for you to figure out Bluejay's challenge is a parody of gaming systems?

Are you sure about that?

Let's go to the source, with a quote from the Challenge:

"But no one plays 200,000 rounds!"

"Some folks have said the challenge is unfair because a system could win in the short term,even if it can't last 200,000 rounds.  They're missing two things.  First, I'm offering a whopping 10 to 1 odds.  With such generous odds, even a system with a lousy 11% chance of beating the challenge is a good bet for the challenger (and a bad bet for me and my \$30,000).  Their system could lose 89% of the time in the real world but still beat my challenge.  So I've got to make sure we play long enough that a challenger doesn't have even a lousy 11% chance of winning."

The original of this can be read here...

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/betting-system-challenge.html

Do you get it yet?

Kentucky
United States
Member #32652
February 14, 2006
7314 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 24, 2011, 2:09 pm - IP Logged

Are you sure about that?

Let's go to the source, with a quote from the Challenge:

"But no one plays 200,000 rounds!"

"Some folks have said the challenge is unfair because a system could win in the short term,even if it can't last 200,000 rounds.  They're missing two things.  First, I'm offering a whopping 10 to 1 odds.  With such generous odds, even a system with a lousy 11% chance of beating the challenge is a good bet for the challenger (and a bad bet for me and my \$30,000).  Their system could lose 89% of the time in the real world but still beat my challenge.  So I've got to make sure we play long enough that a challenger doesn't have even a lousy 11% chance of winning."

The original of this can be read here...

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/betting-system-challenge.html

Do you get it yet?

A system needs a 20,000.02% profit to win a dollar.

Do you get it yet or do you suffer from innumeracy?

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 25, 2011, 12:28 am - IP Logged

I could live with the 200,000 rounds at a minimum \$5 bet per round if the starting bankroll was \$1,000,000. But since the bankroll is limited to \$5000 the system needs a 20,000.02% profit just to win a dollar. Most players would be overjoyed if the could win \$10,000 in 100 rounds with a starting bankroll of \$5000.

"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."

Bluejay and Jimmy keep saying the challenge is based on real casino play, but continue to ignore the fact, in casinos players can quit whenever they want.

I wanted to see what the minimum performance needed to be for a simple \$5-always-bet-on-red roulette system to survive 200,000 rounds and still show a gain. The \$5,000 bankroll will take 1000 in-a-row losses, I put those at the end.

That gives 199,000 rounds to play with. Because the number of bets is even, you need 2 more wins than losses (of the 199,000 spins), for a net gain.

starting bankroll: \$5,000
rules: bet \$5 on red, each time

winning streak: 99,501 reds in a row (99,501 * \$5) = \$497,505 won + \$5,000 starting bankroll

losing streak 1: 99,499 blacks in a row (99,499 * -\$5) = -\$497,495 lost + \$5,000 starting bankroll

total spins 199,000, net \$10 + \$5,000 starting bankroll

losing streak 2: 1,000 blacks in a row (1,000 * -\$5) = -\$5,000 bankroll lost

final result: 200,000 total spins, net profit \$10

99,501 wins/200,000 trials = 49.75%

What may not be immediately evident is that in order to survive the 200,000 run trial, your system has to have "wins" that sum to nearly \$500,000, starting from \$5,000. That's the same as multiplying your bankroll by 100.

In order to show a profit of just \$10 after 200,000 spins, your system has to generate a sum of money equal to your bankroll X 100 -- as a worst case scenario.

If someone had a system that could do that, I doubt they'd be exposing it for a 10-to-1 payout, when they could just use it and get 100-to-1.

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 25, 2011, 11:20 am - IP Logged

I wanted to see what the minimum performance needed to be for a simple \$5-always-bet-on-red roulette system to survive 200,000 rounds and still show a gain. The \$5,000 bankroll will take 1000 in-a-row losses, I put those at the end.

That gives 199,000 rounds to play with. Because the number of bets is even, you need 2 more wins than losses (of the 199,000 spins), for a net gain.

starting bankroll: \$5,000
rules: bet \$5 on red, each time

winning streak: 99,501 reds in a row (99,501 * \$5) = \$497,505 won + \$5,000 starting bankroll

losing streak 1: 99,499 blacks in a row (99,499 * -\$5) = -\$497,495 lost + \$5,000 starting bankroll

total spins 199,000, net \$10 + \$5,000 starting bankroll

losing streak 2: 1,000 blacks in a row (1,000 * -\$5) = -\$5,000 bankroll lost

final result: 200,000 total spins, net profit \$10

99,501 wins/200,000 trials = 49.75%

What may not be immediately evident is that in order to survive the 200,000 run trial, your system has to have "wins" that sum to nearly \$500,000, starting from \$5,000. That's the same as multiplying your bankroll by 100.

In order to show a profit of just \$10 after 200,000 spins, your system has to generate a sum of money equal to your bankroll X 100 -- as a worst case scenario.

If someone had a system that could do that, I doubt they'd be exposing it for a 10-to-1 payout, when they could just use it and get 100-to-1.

time*treat,

You've performed some perfectly reasonable and correct calculations.  However, you've used them to draw invalid conclusions.

"In order to show a profit of just \$10 after 200,000 spins, your system has to generate a sum of money equal to your bankroll X 100 -- as a worst case scenario."

You're forgetting something very important.  Because of the nature of this game, pure randomness alone would allow you to win [close to] 1/2 the time, and consequently, your \$5000 initial bankroll would not be reduced quickly to zero unless you have the misfortune to experience one of the [possible but] unlikely scenarios of extremely long losing streaks.  The most likely thing to happen is that your bankroll will go up and down and only slowly be reduced by the fact that the house [only] has a 5% advantage over you.

"If someone had a system that could do that, I doubt they'd be exposing it for a 10-to-1 payout, when they could just use it and get 100-to-1."

Because of what I explained above, this is just wrong.  It is the basis from which many of the flawed conclusions are arrived at in other games as well.  If you or someone else here would take the time to simulate your example by modifying my Basic program posted in another thread in this forum, I'm sure you will find that a \$5000 bankroll will survive 200,000 spins a number of times that will surprise you!

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #13130
March 30, 2005
2171 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 25, 2011, 2:50 pm - IP Logged

jimmy,

The reason for showing the calucation as a series of 3 extremely long winning and losing streaks was so that people wouldn't get bogged down trying to follow a bunch of plus and minus \$5s.
I did point out that a system would need to win at close to 1/2 the time: 49.75%. I also said this was a worst case success rate.

The real question is not whether a \$5,000 bankroll could ever survive such a play method, but whether it would do so 11 times in a given string of 20 trials. If you believe it can, then are you going to take the system challenge?

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

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 25, 2011, 3:11 pm - IP Logged

jimmy,

The reason for showing the calucation as a series of 3 extremely long winning and losing streaks was so that people wouldn't get bogged down trying to follow a bunch of plus and minus \$5s.
I did point out that a system would need to win at close to 1/2 the time: 49.75%. I also said this was a worst case success rate.

The real question is not whether a \$5,000 bankroll could ever survive such a play method, but whether it would do so 11 times in a given string of 20 trials. If you believe it can, then are you going to take the system challenge?

You're still missing the point time*treat.  Of course I don't expect more than 50% of 20 runs of 200,000 spins each to turn a profit.  I trust that Bluejay has determined the odds of that occurring are low enough that he feels quite secure with his 10/1 Challenge.

Please accept my suggestion and run the Basic program modified to make 20 runs of 200,000 spins each with a \$5000 starting bankroll and see what happens.

You didn't address it here but I hope you see that a system that could eek out a narrow win in the Challenge would NOT need to be one that would give you 100/1 odds in a Casino.

bgonÃ§alves
Brasil
Member #92564
June 9, 2010
2123 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 25, 2011, 5:57 pm - IP Logged

the law of the fragments retractable Witwicky

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 25, 2011, 10:31 pm - IP Logged

You're still missing the point time*treat.  Of course I don't expect more than 50% of 20 runs of 200,000 spins each to turn a profit.  I trust that Bluejay has determined the odds of that occurring are low enough that he feels quite secure with his 10/1 Challenge.

Please accept my suggestion and run the Basic program modified to make 20 runs of 200,000 spins each with a \$5000 starting bankroll and see what happens.

You didn't address it here but I hope you see that a system that could eek out a narrow win in the Challenge would NOT need to be one that would give you 100/1 odds in a Casino.

Since noone has yet reported, I guess I can assume there have been no attempts to simulate time*treat's roulette example.  I decided to do it myself.  Just in case you tried it and are getting tired waiting for a run that results in 11 or more wins out of 20 tries, think about this.  You are probably using the probability of winning with a bet on Red by chance, which is 47.37%.  Now, ask yourself - would Bluejay set up a challenge where someone with a system that is no better than chance could beat him?  I don't think so, and I'm sure you would agree!

If you started with the Basic code I posted here a while back, you probably have a line in there somewhere that looks like:

IF RND <= 0.4737 Bankroll = Bankroll + 5 ELSE Bankroll = Bankroll - 5

If you do, replace it with...

IF RND <= 0.4975 Bankroll = Bankroll + 5 ELSE Bankroll = Bankroll - 5

You will be surprised at the change in output!

The point here is that to beat Bluejay all you have to do is come up with a Roulette system that reduces the house edge by a couple of percentage points!

That should tell you something about how confident he is that you can't do it!

P.S.  Thanks time*treat for stepping up and addressing the problem.  I hope someone will join you, pro or con.

United States
Member #81843
October 31, 2009
856 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 27, 2011, 11:33 pm - IP Logged

A game like Keno is wonderful to back test in.
But the back testing I am speaking of is the back testing of combination
wheels against a history. The key is to not to try to get a jackpot, but work toward
lesser matches and a lesser payout. You can determine what numbers and
combinations are due and play accordingly. Since most keno games pick 20
numbers, a match 6,7,8,9 or ten play can deliver steady wins. It all depends on
how hard you want to work.

The probability is one thing, the wheel another and the betting strategy rounds out
the plan. One reason most electronic Keno games went to a four-minute interval
is because this kind of forward play is now more difficult to win at. It takes
a team to do it now and the returns do not justify the effort. You have less
than four minutes to evaluate, determine, make bet slips, etc. -not to mention to get them processed to start
over. Some games used to play every ten minutes. Daily interval games have a poorer payout.

DD

 Page 2 of 2