Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Betting Systems?

Options
1…456810

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Yes, because I understand the law of averages.

    The fact that you would still take 21/1 on a player picking the £250,000 for the 4th time in a row is quite frankly, laughable.
    Seriously, if you arent on a windup, this is the most embarrassing thread Ive ever read on Boards


  • Options
    #213
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Seriously, if you arent on a windup, this is the most embarrassing thread Ive ever read on Boards

    Ah, more posts saying how ludicrous this is .. but yet no evidence.
    3DataModem wrote: »
    I believe you are mixing up the odds of the total sequence of events happening versus the chance of the future sequence of events happening.

    Eh, no ..
    3DataModem wrote: »
    However what if I tell you that 2.3.9.25.33.38 came up last week... does that make it more or less likely this week? Answer = no change.

    Another non-thread reader.

    I have already said that the fixed mathematical odds of the same numbers coming is the same.

    We can already see that it is very very very very rare from the same lottery numbers to come out the following week, so that means that all other perms are more favored - yet the mathematical odds remain the same.

    3DataModem wrote: »
    You are looking at the two unlikely events together, whereas in reality one of them has already happened.

    Shouting and posting in a different colour does not make you right.

    Of course one of the events has already happened, or to be more correct 'happening' and the law of averages / large numbers tells us that sequence will soon stop.

    It doesn't matter for how long it stops as Martingale just needs the sequence to halt once to work and what we know from the law of large numbers, we won't have to wait too long.

    This does not mean a player needs to keep playing for 20 bets and go bankrupt. A player can use Martingale based on cut and loss where is max could be five bets.

    Point is, the Martingale system cannot not be disproved mathimathically.

    To do so, you would need to show sequences of 35 -40 happening very regularly in betting scenarios such as Roulette.


  • Options
    #214
    SteelyDanJalapeno
    Registered Users Posts: 14,262 ✭✭✭✭SteelyDanJalapeno


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    The mathematical odds of him doing so are the same.

    Hence you agree?

    so why on earth would anyone offer greater odds?


  • Options
    #215
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    Evidence? You are making a 21/1 shot 50/1 on here. You seem to think that 3 preceding independent unrelated events somehow have an effect on the contingency of a 4th. Thats a laughable idea. Almost as laughable as re-writing probability which has been subject to the analysis of high-level mathematicians for five hundred years.


  • Options
    #216
    gondorff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 388 ✭✭gondorff


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Evidence? You are making a 21/1 shot 50/1 on here. You seem to think that 3 preceding independent unrelated events somehow have an effect on the contingency of a 4th. Thats a laughable idea. Almost as laughable as re-writing probability which has been subject to the analysis of high-level mathematicians for five hundred years.

    Yeah, but he understands the law of large numbers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Horgan wrote: »
    so why on earth would anyone offer greater odds?
    CiaranC wrote: »
    Evidence? You are making a 21/1 shot 50/1 on here. You seem to think that 3 preceding independent unrelated events somehow have an effect on the contingency of a 4th.

    Read the thread, I am not going to keep repeating myself.

    Mathematical odds don't change but the 'chance' does.

    This is not the same as Michael Owen being first goalscorer three matches in a row and then giving 30/1 on him doing it a 4th time, as that would not be a random event, where the law of large numbers play a role.

    You take any random event that has 22 random possibilities and one of those possibilities comes out 3 times running and allthough the mathematical odds of that possibility remain the same, the chance of it does not.

    It doesn't mean that it won't happen, but the chances are very very slim and no where near a 21/1 shot, which is all that it will be based on mathematics.


  • Options
    #218
    SteelyDanJalapeno
    Registered Users Posts: 14,262 ✭✭✭✭SteelyDanJalapeno


    Evidence,

    It would be safe to assume that over the course of time that say 10 heads have been tossed in a row? ( i know this has probably been said before )

    you've been on about the lottery and deal or no deal, its harder to give you example of these because they use larger odds(more choices) but the principles are the same.

    So,

    are you trying to tell me that if i toss a coin once, hit heads, that a casino or bookies will offer greater odd to hit another on the 2nd toss? and subsequently even greater odds to hit it again on the third toss?

    I hope you realise theres a different in say gambling 1 euro on hitting 3 heads in a row, than gambling 1 euro on the 1st toss for a head, 2nd bet 1 euro for another head, 3rd bet 1 euro for another head, these bets are independent,

    1st bet 2x2x2 = 8/1 , 1 euro bet 8 profit.
    2nd bet 2x1, 2x1, 2x1, = 3 euro bet 6 euro profit.

    i hope this is evidence enough?

    its not as large scale as the same lotteries numbers coming up, but its thee exact principle.

    Edit, after seeing your last post.

    chance changes hence the odds of the single event changes, there still independent


  • Options
    #219
    gondorff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 388 ✭✭gondorff


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Read the thread, I keep repeating myself
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Mathematical odds don't change but the 'chance' does.

    You are a class act sir!


  • Options
    #220
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    You take any random event that has 22 random possibilities and one of those possibilities comes out 3 times running and allthough the mathematical odds of that possibility remain the same, the chance of it does not.
    The chance of it? What is chance?
    It doesn't mean that it won't happen, but the chances are very very slim and no where near a 21/1 shot, which is all that it will be based on mathematics.
    I dont really know what to say to that.

    If you decide to put this theory into practice, Ill be first in line to back these with you. You can keep tossing coins until you get 5 in a row the same side, and then lay me at bigger than evens for the sixth to be the same.

    I dont even need to see the first five tosses, I totally trust you dude.


  • Options
    #221
    SteelyDanJalapeno
    Registered Users Posts: 14,262 ✭✭✭✭SteelyDanJalapeno


    Does outlaw pete = Brian Lenihan?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    gondorff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 388 ✭✭gondorff


    Horgan wrote: »
    Does outlaw pete = Brian Lenihan?

    Was thinking the same thing. If he's not a politician then he has missed his vocation.


  • Options
    #223
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Horgan wrote: »
    ..are you trying to tell me that if i toss a coin once, hit heads, that a casino or bookies will offer greater odd to hit another on the 2nd toss? and subsequently even greater odds to hit it again on the third toss?

    No, with respect .. read back and you will see that I am saying nothing of the sort, the opposite in fact.
    Horgan wrote: »
    ..chance changes hence the odds of the single event changes, there still independent

    No, they don't as the law of averages is not based on a single event and so neither is the Martingale.
    CiaranC wrote: »
    The chance of it? What is chance?

    The non-mathematically possibility of something happening.
    CiaranC wrote: »
    You can keep tossing coins until you get 5 in a row the same side, and then lay me at bigger than evens for the sixth to be the same.

    Again, odds on the 6th flip would be 50/50 - it NEVER increases or decreases.
    CiaranC wrote: »
    I dont even need to see the first five tosses, I totally trust you dude.

    Read the thread, this is not based on single flips or spins.


  • Options
    #224
    3DataModem
    Registered Users Posts: 3,978 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Mathematical odds don't change but the 'chance' does.

    Somebody cross-post this to www.twoplustwo.com ... those guys are gonna LOVE this thread.


  • Options
    #225
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    gondorff wrote: »
    You are a class act sir!
    Horgan wrote: »
    Does outlaw pete = Brian Lenihan?
    gondorff wrote: »
    Was thinking the same thing. If he's not a politician then he has missed his vocation.

    Lots of baiting but yet still nothing to disprove how either the law of large numbers / averages is a false one.

    Or how based on that, the Martingale system of progressive betting could still fail to show a profit.


  • Options
    #226
    gondorff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 388 ✭✭gondorff


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Again, odds on the 6th flip would be 50/50 - it NEVER increases or decreases.

    And odds (chances) on the 4th box would be 21/1
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    it NEVER increases or decreases.
    Now we're getting somewhere.


  • Options
    #227
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    The non-mathematically possibility of something happening.
    Lol, what? There is no non-mathematical possibility of something happening. You talk like probability is somehow optional instead of fundamental to our universe. Do you also operate outside the laws of physics?
    Read the thread, this is not based on single flips or spins.
    You contended that a fourth contingency, which follows three preceding matched contingencies on three unrelated (but with the same terms) 21/1 shots, is actually closer to a 50/1 shot.

    Therefore, laying me on the fourth at say 25/1 is a value bet to you, no?

    So lets do it.


  • Options
    #228
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    gondorff wrote: »
    And odds (chances) on the 4th box would be 21/1
    Now we're getting somewhere.

    Eh, what ..

    That's correct.

    The mathematical odds are 21/1 and always are.

    Just as the coin toss is 50/50 etc etc, as I have said from the start of the thread.

    Do you have a point?

    Or are you now trying to suggest that my offering 50/1 on someone who has had the £250,000 three times in a row, then going on to have it a 4th time, was somehow me saying that this was the mathematical odds??

    Try harder.


  • Options
    #229
    gondorff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 388 ✭✭gondorff


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Eh, what ..

    That's correct.

    The mathematical odds are 21/1 and always are.

    Just as the coin toss is 50/50 etc etc, as I have said from the start of the thread.

    Do you have a point?

    Or are you now trying to suggest that my offering 50/1 on someone who has had the £250,000 three times in a row, then going on to have it a 4th time, was somehow me saying that this was the mathematical odds??

    Try harder.

    einsteinshow.php.jpeg


  • Options
    #230
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    CiaranC wrote: »
    There is no non-mathematical possibility of something happening.

    Yes.

    If someone goes out tonight and steals a car, there is a possibility he will get arrested and that is not mathematical is it?

    If that word bothers you, I can switch back to likelihood but it's all just semantics at the end of the day.

    My point is a very obvious one: if fifteen Blacks come up on a roulette wheel, I then employ the Martingale system, I am doing so on the basis that there is a CHANCE, LIKELIHOOD, STRONG POSSIBILITY, STRONG PROBABILITY etc etc etc of the law of averages / large numbers kicking in and the wheel landing on Red

    Now, you can debate all these words 'till the cows come home, but it won't for one second disprove my point or the Martingayle.

    To do so, you will need to show that the law of averages is wrong when applied here and that regularly, Coin tosses and Roulette Wheel spins have sequences of of 40 or more.
    CiaranC wrote: »
    You contended that a fourth contingency, which follows three preceding matched contingencies on three unrelated (but with the same terms) 21/1 shots, is actually closer to a 50/1 shot.

    I did NO such thing :rolleyes:

    Go back and read where that came up and stop assuming you understand the point.

    I was the one who told a user that the odds were 21/1!!!

    I then asked him would he take those odds from a Bookie after that same player had just had the £250,000 box three times in a row and he said he would.

    I was making a point saying I would give 50/1 if it ever happened, NOT saying those were the odds.


  • Options
    #231
    SteelyDanJalapeno
    Registered Users Posts: 14,262 ✭✭✭✭SteelyDanJalapeno


    So even though, there is always the same mathematical probability / odds of any six numbers coming out of any draw, conditions being identical - it rarely ever happens.

    So rare that one mathematician put it at a one in 10,000 year chance or Four Trillion to One.

    That is my point, all other perms were 14 Million to One (or thereabouts) and that one was Four Trillion to one - yet according to some, there is the same chance for all perms coming out because the balls have no memory.
    I think here might be where your problem in understanding this is?

    when you say all other perms are 14 million to one thats for one draw? one single event,

    whereas the 4 trillion to one is 2 draws, but the mathematician is still classing it as a single event, making the draws somewhat dependent


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    enda1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,166 ✭✭✭enda1


    I'm very confused after reading this whole thread.

    Outlaw Pete, you've changed your stance on odds/probability/chance/whatever you want to call it so many times my head's spinning!

    What is this "life tells us" thing you speak of?
    Is it some supernatural force that should balance out bad luck, or rare occurrences? I really don't understand your point...

    While the Martingale system is theoretically useful, it is only useful to someone it not is not useful to (if you allow me the contradiction).

    It is only useful if you have a stupid amount of money and are making small initial bets. In which case its not useful because you can only win your initial stake.


  • Options
    #233
    gondorff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 388 ✭✭gondorff


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    My point is a very obvious one and if fifteen Blacks come up on a roulette wheel, I then employ the Martingale system, I am doing so on the basis that there is a CHANCE, LIKELIHOOD, STRONG POSSIBILITY, STRONG PROBABILITY etc etc etc of the law of averages kicking in and the wheel landing on Red

    So let's say red comes in for you and you win a unit stake. What is your next bet and why?

    OutlawPete wrote: »
    I was making a point saying I would give 50/1 if it ever happened, NOT saying those were the odds.

    Yeah that 'user' was me and I will always accept those generous odds.


  • Options
    #234
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    Outlaw Pete wrote:
    I was the one who told a user that the odds were 21/1!!!
    You said that 21/1 are in fact the correct odds, but that it would be laughable to take 21/1.

    You are somehow managing to see all the parts of the puzzle, but are unable to put them together.
    My point is a very obvious one and if fifteen Blacks come up on a roulette wheel, I then employ the Martingale system, I am doing so on the basis that there is a CHANCE, LIKELIHOOD, STRONG POSSIBILITY, STRONG PROBABILITY etc etc etc of the law of averages kicking in and the wheel landing on Red
    You are grouping the contingencies together - they are UNRELATED. There is no more chance of red coming up at any point, regardless to what happened in the past.



    <Mod Snip>


  • Options
    #235
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Horgan wrote: »
    when you say all other perms are 14 million to one thats for one draw? one single event,

    Yes, fixed mathematical odds don't change - the likely hood does based on the law of large numbers.

    If the likelihood didn't change, there wouldn't be an article online about it occurring, now would there.
    enda1 wrote: »
    Outlaw Pete, you've changed your stance on odds/probability/chance/whatever you want to call it so many times my head's spinning!

    I haven't changed it once.

    The words have changed because I got criticized for using specific words.

    I am still being critized for now using 'chance', so watch this space - it may have to change again?
    enda1 wrote: »
    What is this "life tells us" thing you speak of?
    Is it some supernatural force that should balance out bad luck, or rare occurrences? I really don't understand your point...

    Well, this was an oppurtunity to get away from using words like liklhood, 0 guess "life tells us" is wrong to.

    How about this - "never being observed regularly".

    Better?
    enda1 wrote: »
    It is only useful if you have a stupid amount of money and are making small initial bets. In which case its not useful because you can only win your initial stake.

    Read the thread, I said this at the start and gave examples of how fools can lose a fortune quickly.
    gondorff wrote: »
    So let's say red comes in for you and you win a unit stake. What is your next bet and why?

    A unit stake IF and when I choose to place another bet.
    gondorff wrote: »
    Yeah that 'user' was me and I will always accept those generous odds.

    Good, well - as soon as someone on Deal or No Deal picks the £250,000 box three days running, you can have them.


  • Options
    #236
    twerg_85
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭twerg_85


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    My point is a very obvious one and if fifteen Blacks come up on a roulette wheel, I then employ the Martingale system, I am doing so on the basis that there is a CHANCE, LIKELIHOOD, STRONG POSSIBILITY, STRONG PROBABILITY etc etc etc of the law of averages kicking in and the wheel landing on Red

    Now, you can debate all these words 'till the cows come home, but it won't for one second prove my point wrong.

    Do do so, you will need to show that the law of averages is wrong when applied here and that regularly, Coin tosses and Roulette Wheel spins have sequences of of 40 or more.

    Let's say that 20 losses is your max (2^20 is about a million quid) and you wait for 15 blacks before betting.
    35 blacks (let's ignore green) in a row will bust you, correct ?

    You are correct when you say that the chances of you busting using this martingale system are tiny in theory (about 1 in 30 billion).

    Let's assume that you can bet your million quid, no limits there or anything. Then the real question is can you make any money on this ?
    You will on average wait 16,000 spins until you start to bet and you win 1 quid.

    The dole is about 200quid a week or 10k a year ? So you need to go through over 160m spins of the wheel. Do this every year for 20 years and you're looking at 3.3bn spins of the wheel to earn 200 quid a week for 20 yrs.

    Still with me ?
    Chances of busting out was 1 in 30 billion. You've used up 3.3bn spins to earn dole for 20 years. See where we're going ?
    Factor in the green slot and your chances are much worse.

    Bottom line is that waiting for 10 blacks before you bet is no different to syaing you'll start betting with .1c instead of 1 euro. Same risks, same eventual ruin, slower pace.


  • Options
    #237
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    CiaranC wrote: »
    You said that 21/1 are in fact the correct odds, but that it would be laughable to take 21/1.

    Correct.
    CiaranC wrote: »
    There is no more chance of red coming up at any point, regardless to what happened in the past.

    Are you saying that after a sequence of 20 blacks, there is the same 'possibility' 'liklihood' 'chance' - of yet another 20 blacks in a row??

    That is ludicrous and if it happened, it would so rare as to not make a shred of difference anyway.


  • Options
    #238
    enda1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,166 ✭✭✭enda1


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Well, this was an oppurtunity to get away from using words like liklhood, 0 guess "life tells us" is wrong to.

    How about this - "never being observed regularly".

    Better?

    No. No better at all. Never being observed regularly, life tells us, gut feelings. Its all just bull. This is why there science/mathematic field called probability and statistics, it deals with these occurrences so our limited experience and non-objectivity doesn't interfere with fact.


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Read the thread, I said this at the start and gave examples of how fools can lose a fortune quickly.

    I did read the thread. In fact I chose to put that fact in my post too, because I noticed you tried to fob other posters off like that too.

    No one can make a fortune with this system. You mentioned you could make a living with one million Euro. Statistically impossible. For you to live comfortably you'd have to have large initial bets, thus pushing you exponentially closer to your bankroll.


    You've mentioned a number of times also that situations with two possible outcomes have, therefore 50/50 odds of wither outcome occurring. This is not true. It depends on the weighting of each outcome.

    The odds of me dying tomorrow are not 50/50 even though it is a binary situation i.e. I will/will not die.


  • Options
    #239
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    OutlawPete wrote:
    Correct.
    Can you explain why it would be laughable to take 21/1 on a true 21/1 shot then please, because you have totally lost me.
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Are you saying that after a sequence of 20 blacks, there is the same 'possibility' 'liklihood' 'chance' - of yet another 20 blacks in a row??
    Its not "yet another" twenty blacks in a row. The preceding 20 spins have no bearing on the outcome of the next.

    The chances of twenty blacks in a row is ALWAYS THE SAME, REGARDLESS TO WHAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY.

    Seriously, you are rewriting the fundamental laws of our universe here. I suggest you get off this thread and apply these new laws to making yourself a billionaire. Why havent you done this already btw?


  • Options
    #240
    enda1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,166 ✭✭✭enda1


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Are you saying that after a sequence of 20 blacks, there is the same 'possibility' 'liklihood' 'chance' - of yet another 20 blacks in a row??

    YES!!! (assuming you mean compared to the chances of the first 20 in a row blacks coming up.)

    Anyone with any shred of understanding of probability understands this!
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    That is ludicrous and if it happened, it would so rare as to not make a shred of difference anyway.

    What the hell does this sentence mean??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    mdwexford
    Registered Users Posts: 11,275 ✭✭✭✭mdwexford


    Wow.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement