Betting Systems?

JONJO THE MISER · 03-12-2010 04:41AM

orourkeda wrote: »

To win long term at poker you have to either play better than your opponents over a prolonged period or play against opponents that are less skilled.

Like every other form of gambling luck levels out.

If all poker players played to the exact same standard there would be no profit to be had.

I grind full time, over 100,000 hands i usually break even or loose sometimes but i still make good money fom rakeback.

Sharkey 10 · 03-12-2010 04:50AM

orourkeda wrote: »

I just went through a losing period. Like most players, It was just a phase where even hiting quads and good full houses were losing and there is little or nothing you can do.

when you have a run like that you have to keep telling yourself that youve been playing well but not running good.

Personally i play poker more for fun than making money but still take it seriously and am playing low level mtt and sng , Im not too confident in my cash game. In the short time ive been playing i can see that i probably have a skill edge on most of my opponents at the 2 dollar sng. Im reading online and understanding more and more about the game. I only use the very basic maths to do with pot odds and chasing draws , I find the other maths baffling. Could someone tell what calculations do you use when in the middle of a hand ?

03-12-2010 04:52AM

Two of the lads did this in The Four Aces "Casino" in Galway one night for the laugh.. We all knew the martingale system doesn't work and the dlckhead owner was laughing at us telling us to go to the atm and take out every penny we own before we try it.

Anyways, the lads were up about 150euro before we left for the nightclub by sheer luck. That's back in college when money like that mattered. There's no way to beat casino games.

kincsem · 03-12-2010 05:10AM

elspecia wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn't see any major fault.

Yes

kincsem · 03-12-2010 05:14AM

Bykobap wrote: »

Draws are priced at 2/1 at worst. Keep chasing that if you can. Simple, double up your previous losing stake and keep at it.
1. e10... no draw
2. e20... no draw
3. e40... no draw
4. e80... no draw
5. e160... no draw
6. e320... no draw
7. e640 and team finally draws @ 2/1 = 1920
10+20+40+80+160+320+640=1270
1920-1270= e650 profit and nobody to talk to.

I'll try to help you too.

7. e640 and team finally draws @ 2/1 = 1920
should be
7. e640 and team finally draws @ 2/1 = 1280 profit
and an overall profit of 1280-1270 = 10

You and the opening poster are not gamblers. Success at gambling requires work, plenty of work.

kincsem · 03-12-2010 05:22AM

I once had twenty three consecutive losers at horseracing. The sequence was broken when a horse refused to enter the stalls, was withdrawn, and I got my stake back. I won back the losses on the twenty three losers in the next two races.

If I was backing even money shots in those 23 races and doubling up bets after losses I would have needed to bet €41,943,040 on the 23rd race.

P T Barnum was right.

OutlawPete · 03-12-2010 05:45AM

I use the martingale system from time to time, it is foolproof - that is a fact.

Only flaw is, you have to be rich in the first place to make it work.

I use it on Blackjack and am well up, but I know if I kept using it and upped my stakes, I'd lose fast.

A lot of pros use the system, but will just call it progression betting.

Patrick Veitch, probably Europe's most successful gambler will up his stakes after each loss as he knows his chances of winning, increase with each loss.

Where it gets dangerous is if you keep doubling and don't have the stakes to keep going.

Nicolas Cage of all people heard abouts this system and almost went broke in Vegas, won on his last bet and never went back as it apparently was a small fortune he had got to.

The key to the system, is to find something that either A or B will happen, and never happens for ten times in a row or more.

If something NEVER happened ten times in a row, you'd be rich in a year, just starting off with €2000.

That's why I like Blackjack, as it's rare for the dealer to win ten times in a row, but it happens and to find yourself betting €5000, just to win your starting stake of €10 .. yikes.

Stockbrokers have also used the system and ended up broke.

But, it is foolproof and if I had a million quid today, I could easily make a living of the Martingale system, without having to touch the million (or the interest it's earning in the bank, for the pendantics

).

kincsem · 03-12-2010 06:01AM

OutlawPete wrote: »

Patrick Veitch, probably Europe's most successful gambler will up his stakes after each loss as he knows his chances of winning, increase with each loss.

How?

The thinking with this doubling bets system is the assumption that after a large number of losses you are more certain to hit a winner. You are still on a 50/50 bet and past results do not alter that.

Sticky_Fingers · 03-12-2010 06:14AM

Tubberadora wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous advice. He would need about 3k and a book to become a winning player at
.5/1 that simple is it?

No its not that simple, it's a push in the right direction though. No one becomes a winning poker player from theory and reading alone. You have to pay your way by making mistakes and learning from them. There are no free rides in poker, you learn or die. As for the bare minimum 30*buyin bankroll limit, this is standard procedure to protect you from variance (if you are a winning player) I have never reached this limit but veteran pro poker players who make their living at the game (multimillionaries btw) say this is appropriate so who am I to argue.

OutlawPete · 03-12-2010 06:14AM

kincsem wrote: »

How?

The thinking with this doubling bets system is the assumption that after a large number of losses you are more certain to hit a winner. You are still on a 50/50 bet and past results do not alter that.

Because he watches every single horse race run.

He has a digital library and there is nobody in Europe that can read a horse race like him.

He is rarely wrong.

So, when he loses, he knows he is closer to a win because of his skill.

Let's say that Ronnie O'Sullivan could pot the black of it's spot on average, seven times out of ten.

So he backs himself to do it for €10,000 at Evens.

He misses ..

So he doubles his stake, as chances are, he is now closer to potting it.

He misses again, well now there is even more chance of him doing it.

So again he doubles his stake.

That's what I am saying, if you find something that has more than a fifty fifty chance, or just something that can only go two ways and never the same way ten times in a row, then you're laughing.

Of course there are fools out there who went into a casino thinking the system would make them rich, with a bank of $30,000 and their first bet was $1000 on black.

Five reds later they are walking out crying.

You'll always get mugs.

myflipflops · 03-12-2010 07:26AM

OutlawPete wrote: »

Patrick Veitch, probably Europe's most successful gambler will up his stakes after each loss as he knows his chances of winning, increase with each loss.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Because he watches every single horse race run.

He has a digital library and there is nobody in Europe that can read a horse race like him.

He is rarely wrong.

So, when he loses, he knows he is closer to a win because of his skill.

Let's say that Ronnie O'Sullivan could pot the black of it's spot on average, seven times out of ten.

So he backs himself to do it for €10,000 at Evens.

He misses ..

So he doubles his stake, as chances are, he is now closer to potting it.

He misses again, well now there is even more chance of him doing it.

So again he doubles his stake.

That's what I am saying, if you find something that has more than a fifty fifty chance, or just something that can only go two ways and never the same way ten times in a row, then you're laughing.

Of course there are fools out there who went into a casino thinking the system would make them rich, with a bank of $30,000 and their first bet was $1000 on black.

Five reds later they are walking out crying.

You'll always get mugs.

All completely irrelevant to the logic of the statement in bold.

In unrelated events (horse races, spin of a roulette, toss of a coin), the result of the previous action has absoutely zero effect on the result of the next action. Each loss has no effect on the next race.

I see what you are trying to get at but the statement in bold is flawed as 'kincsem' pointed out.

OutlawPete · 03-12-2010 07:39AM

myflipflops wrote: »

In unrelated events (horse races, spin of a roulette, toss of a coin), the result of the previous action has absoutely zero effect on the result of the next action. Each loss has no effect on the next race.

Look, of course one event does not effect the other, you really think what you saying is somehow profound and that people don't know that?

If black comes up on a roulette wheel, then of course it has "no effect" on the result if the next spin, nobody in their right mind would think it would.

HOWEVER, statistically - the chances of it happening increase.

If someone is skillful at Black Jack for instance, they can use statistical averages to their advantage.

If I am in a Casino, and I see seven blacks come out in a row, then I am gonna back red and keep doubling until it comes out, cause the chances of it of it coming out increase each time it doesn't.

The chances of it coming out another seven times in a row are very very remote and saying that one result doesn't effect the other, makes no difference, and just ignores statistical averages.

One result doesn't have to effect the other, for the chances of something happening to increase.

myflipflops · 03-12-2010 07:51AM

OutlawPete wrote: »

Look, of course one event does not effect the other, you really think what you saying is somehow profound and that people don't know that?

If black comes up on a roulette wheel, then of course it has "no effect" on the result if the next spin, nobody in their right mind would think it would.

HOWEVER, statistically - the chances of it happening increase.

If someone is skillful at Black Jack for instance, they can use statistical averages to their advantage.

If I am in a Casino, and I see seven blacks come out in a row, then I am gonna back red and keep doubling until it comes out, cause the chances of it of it coming out increase each time it doesn't.

The chances of it coming out another seven times in a row are very very remote and saying that one result doesn't effect the other, makes no difference, and just ignores statistical averages.

One result doesn't have to effect the other, for the chances of something happening to increase.

One hand of blackjack does effect the next because the cards change. It's a slightly related contingency.

I'm not trying to be profound or to be smart. You made a statement, kincsem correctly disagreed and you disagreed with him. I was trying to point out that he is correct.

If you think this

OutlawPete wrote: »

Look, of course one event does not effect the other.

Then this cannot be true

OutlawPete wrote: »

he knows his chances of winning, increase with each loss.

Wompa1 · 03-12-2010 09:15AM

In the words of Frank Drebin. In boxing never bet on the white guy.

OutlawPete · 03-12-2010 09:36AM

myflipflops wrote: »

If you think this

On unrelated events, yes I do.

myflipflops wrote: »

Then this cannot be true

Yes it can

They are factors that work in and of themselves.

Just because the chances of something becomes statistically more probable, does not mean the event before has to have directly effected the event after.

If I flip a coin and get heads seven times in a row, that has NO effect on what the next flip will be, NONE!! NADA!! ZIP!!

However, the statistical probability that the coin will land on tails within the next few flips is now statistically increasing.

If that wasn't the case, then roulette wheels would regularly roll red, a thirty or forty times in a row.

myflipflops · 03-12-2010 10:00AM

OutlawPete wrote: »

On unrelated events, yes I do.
However, the statistical probability that the coin will land on tails within the next few flips is now statistically increasing.

If that wasn't the case, then roulette wheels would regularly roll red, a thirty or forty times in a row.

I will agree to differ.

I got a smiley face mid post this time so I'm happy.

Pherekydes · 03-12-2010 10:02AM

These two statements are contradictory:

OutlawPete wrote: »

If I flip a coin and get heads seven times in a row, that has NO effect on what the next flip will be, NONE!! NADA!! ZIP!!

OutlawPete wrote: »

However, the statistical probability that the coin will land on tails within the next few flips is now statistically increasing.

OutlawPete · 03-12-2010 10:32AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

These two statements are contradictory:

No they are not.

You are both confusing two separate matters.

Look, if 18 year old Tommy, 19 year old Jimmy and 22 year old Tony all smash their cars up, that does NOT mean that has an "effect" on 20 year old Nathan's driving!!

But yet, Insurance companies will charge all young males a fortune to insure their cars! Why?

Because of statistical probability! Not because one young person's driving has any direct impact on the another's.

In just the same way that flipping a coin will not have an "effect" on the outcome of any subsequent flips.

Stercus Accidit · 03-12-2010 10:39AM

Ah the old martingale system, the one everyone comes up with themselves and thinks is unique.

Its an idiots system that is the same as playing russian roulette 6 times, I know lads that were up thousands on it, yay! That money was pissed away, then when rent needed paying, they got loans of thousands, lost way more than they ever won and were broke.

One guy now live is a squalid dive, works full-time and every penny goes into his fathers account to pay off his debts. This lad wears a suit, drives an audi and would ask you to buy him fags or a sandwich, he still owes me 80 euro I'll probably never get back.

So go for it OP, even if you only play russian roulette 3 times half the time you'll blow you head off, its not that unlikelly to lose at roulette 10 or 20 times in a row once you keep playing it again and again and again.

orourkeda · 03-12-2010 01:21PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

Look, of course one event does not effect the other, you really think what you saying is somehow profound and that people don't know that?

If black comes up on a roulette wheel, then of course it has "no effect" on the result if the next spin, nobody in their right mind would think it would.

HOWEVER, statistically - the chances of it happening increase.

If someone is skillful at Black Jack for instance, they can use statistical averages to their advantage.

If I am in a Casino, and I see seven blacks come out in a row, then I am gonna back red and keep doubling until it comes out, cause the chances of it of it coming out increase each time it doesn't.

The chances of it coming out another seven times in a row are very very remote and saying that one result doesn't effect the other, makes no difference, and just ignores statistical averages.

One result doesn't have to effect the other, for the chances of something happening to increase.

If this true, why do the odds remain the same?

OutlawPete · 03-12-2010 01:33PM

orourkeda wrote: »

If this true, why do the odds remain the same?

If you were to bring a bookie into a casino and got him make a book on just the Red and Black market all night, do you think his odds would not fluctuate?

Take Deal or No Deal.

Someone has the £250,000 the previous day and the player picks that users box and says:

"I'll go with you, as the chances of you having it two days in a row are slim"

You don't think that is common sense?

Even though the previous day's boxes have ZERO effect on todays?

JimmyCrackCorn · 03-12-2010 01:43PM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Google 'Martingale system' to understand why it doesn't work.

Iv actually seen a spam email with a deliberately broken random number generator to prove that system works.

It doesn't work, you try it and its a trip to the poor house.

Pherekydes · 03-12-2010 01:56PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

No they are not.

You are both confusing two separate matters.

I'm not confusing anything. You are.

Have a look:

OutlawPete wrote: »

In just the same way that flipping a coin will not have an "effect" on the outcome of any subsequent flips.

If flipping the coin does not have an effect on the outcome of any subsequent flips, how does the probability increase?

Here are your two contradictory statements, now taken in reverse:

OutlawPete wrote: »

However, the statistical probability that the coin will land on tails within the next few flips is now statistically increasing.

What causes the probability of tails to increase? Do any future flips of the coin know how many heads were previously tossed?

Here, you answer these questions:

OutlawPete wrote: »

If I flip a coin and get heads seven times in a row, that has NO effect on what the next flip will be, NONE!! NADA!! ZIP!!

What you're doing is betting on the law of averages. Have a read of the Gambler's fallacy.

P.S. You don't need to use the words statistical or statistically when talking about probability.

dougal-maguire · 03-12-2010 02:44PM

martingale system can work to an extent.a couple of weeks ago i started playing roulette,had 300 in the account,after around 5 hours of playing,with a starting bet of £1 i was up to 3000.i ended up losing 1000 waiting for a bet to come up,so i lowered my cutoff point and managed to win an extra couple of 100 euro.i quit in the end because you can lose alot of money very quick,but with some luck you can also win alot of money very quick.id strongly advise against it though.

L'prof · 03-12-2010 03:14PM

kincsem wrote: »

I'll try to help you too.

7. e640 and team finally draws @ 2/1 = 1920
should be
7. e640 and team finally draws @ 2/1 = 1280 profit
and an overall profit of 1280-1270 = 10

You and the opening poster are not gamblers. Success at gambling requires work, plenty of work.

Sorry, but he's correct:

Bykobap wrote: »

Draws are priced at 2/1 at worst. Keep chasing that if you can. Simple, double up your previous losing stake and keep at it.
1. e10... no draw -€10
2. e20... no draw -€30
3. e40... no draw -€70
4. e80... no draw -€150
5. e160... no draw -€310
6. e320... no draw -€630
7. e640 and team finally draws @ 2/1 = 1920 -€1270 €650
10+20+40+80+160+320+640=1270
1920-1270= e650 profit and nobody to talk to.

Sharkey 10 · 03-12-2010 03:21PM

Can someone tell me if there are any casino games that are not naturally losing games for punters? In theory you can break even at roulette.
Does the house always win at blackjack?

L'prof · 03-12-2010 03:24PM

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

Can someone tell me if there are any casino games that are not naturally losing games for punters? In theory you can break even at roulette.
Does the house always win at blackjack?

The house has an edge on every game, including roulette. That's not to say that the house always wins, but I doubt they ever lose too much!

Sharkey 10 · 03-12-2010 03:39PM

L'prof wrote: »

The house has an edge on every game, including roulette. That's not to say that the house always wins, but I doubt they ever lose too much!

I know they dont always win , i meant to say that all theyre games are games that give the house the edge . I poker terms you could run an under pair against two over cards the pair has a small edge on the over cards. Over time the under pair will win more .
In reality every poker player knows that AK never hits and JJ ever holds up

OutlawPete · 03-12-2010 03:42PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

What you're doing is betting on the law of averages.

I know.

And I am choosing to refer to that as 'statistically probable', I know I don't "need" to.

Nothing I have said, contradicts it self either.

You see it that way as you don't believe that with percentage bets, the law of averages can and very often is, the smart wager.

When I am in a Casino and I see a roulette wheel hit either five reds or blacks in a row, I will employ the Martingale system for five or six chances and I have never lost yet.

The chances of either red or black not coming out for nine or ten spins, is very very rare - happens, but's it's rare enough to have a punt.

According to you, it wouldn't matter when I employed the Martingale system, as the chances would be the same no matter how many times one colour has come out in a row.

I call that naive.

kincsem · 03-12-2010 04:36PM

To OutlawPete

I have read Patrick Veitch's book. It was not a good read, plenty of claims of big wins, film of every race, computers, underworld types out to get a piece of him because he was so successful. It reminded me of the film "A Beautiful Mind" where the main character was convinced he was working on top-secret projects for the government where in reality he was suffering from delusions. Veitch talks a big game.

I have over 500 books on horseracing and horse pedigrees. If I bet I put in dozens of hours on a race, preferably a high class race with an active betting market. I play poker (not as well as some). Knowledge of odds and probability is ingrained in poker players. I have bet on horses for over forty years. Get rich quick schemes do not exist. Get rich slowly schemes are better.

For anyone tempted to play roulette and bet on the 50/50 red or black please remember it is not 50 / 50 as you lose if the ball lands on green zero (18 red, 18 black, 1 green).

Betting Systems?

Comments