A question(s) for Gronbog

[stevel96a1]

I dont know who else has gambling knowledge on this, heres my question i read other forums and this one grntleman claims he can beat roulette and suprisingly no hes not asking for money his method is forecasting the future, and theres another who claims to beat baccarat for past 35 years, with his style of play. All my books and kitchen table testings dont come close to doubling a bankroll 2 times over or 10 times over. My question is it possible to beat a negative game ?
The math says lose yet they claim winners maybe you can help my confusion in all this?

[Gronbog]

Executive Summary Answer:
If these people are claiming to win by use of some kind of betting system or progression on a fair game, then they are full of it. If the roulette guy is TurboGenius on gamblingforums.com, then he's full of it. If they are somehow gathering information which allows them to create or detect advantage situations, there may be something to it.

Detailed Answer:
The only way to beat a negative game is to somehow obtain information which allows you to make predictions beyond the essential randomness of the game.

For some games, like VP, this is not possible because the cards are reshuffled each time and any information you may have gathered is nullified each time you begin a new hand. Betting systems will not work because past results do not predict future results.

For other games like roulette, which use some kind of fixed mechanics, the math says you can't beat it, assuming that the game is fair. Each spin is independent and unpredictable. Betting systems will also not work here, for the same reason. In the case of roulette, due to the use of mechanical components and the fact that you can bet after the ball has been spun, there is a possibility that the game may not be completely random and that the non randomness may be somewhat predictable. For example, the wheel might have some mechanical flaw in it which causes the ball to land more often than it should in a given segment of the wheel. Some also claim to have used computers to time the revolutions of the wheel and the ball in order to predict which segment of the wheel the ball is more likely to land in (although this is definitely illegal). Whether these characteristics of a flawed game provide enough information to overcome the house edge has been the subject of much debate over the years.

A similar situation exists with craps, where some claim to be able to control the dice to a certain extent by holding and throwing them in certain ways. This may hold some water if one can get away with not hitting the back wall when throwing the dice, however most casinos will not allow you to get away with this for long. Once again, much debate, very little evidence and no way to simulate using software.

It is well known that card counting provides enough extra information to beat the game of blackjack.

In the case of Baccarat, it has been shown that card counting can also work on this game, but that the resulting edge is so small as to make it not worthwhile. However, there is a technique called "edge sorting" which takes advantage of imperfectly printed cards (the backs) to gain access to information capable of beating this game. Look up Phil Ivey.

Bottom line: Unless the people are gathering information not normally available which allows them to identify and/or create an advantage, then they are just blowing smoke.

[stevel96a1]

him and Gizmotron he created a thread to teach yourself how to basically forecast the future

Thank you so much for responding i guess i am too naive but id never pay for a system unless it was proven ten times over

[stevel96a1]

Executive Summary Answer:
If these people are claiming to win by use of some kind of betting system or progression on a fair game, then they are full of it. If the roulette guy is TurboGenius on gamblingforums.com, then he's full of it. If they are somehow gathering information which allows them to create or detect advantage situations, there may be something to it.

Detailed Answer:
The only way to beat a negative game is to somehow obtain information which allows you to make predictions beyond the essential randomness of the game.

For some games, like VP, this is not possible because the cards are reshuffled each time and any information you may have gathered is nullified each time you begin a new hand. Betting systems will not work because past results do not predict future results.

For other games like roulette, which use some kind of fixed mechanics, the math says you can't beat it, assuming that the game is fair. Each spin is independent and unpredictable. Betting systems will also not work here, for the same reason. In the case of roulette, due to the use of mechanical components and the fact that you can bet after the ball has been spun, there is a possibility that the game may not be completely random and that the non randomness may be somewhat predictable. For example, the wheel might have some mechanical flaw in it which causes the ball to land more often than it should in a given segment of the wheel. Some also claim to have used computers to time the revolutions of the wheel and the ball in order to predict which segment of the wheel the ball is more likely to land in (although this is definitely illegal). Whether these characteristics of a flawed game provide enough information to overcome the house edge has been the subject of much debate over the years.

A similar situation exists with craps, where some claim to be able to control the dice to a certain extent by holding and throwing them in certain ways. This may hold some water if one can get away with not hitting the back wall when throwing the dice, however most casinos will not allow you to get away with this for long. Once again, much debate, very little evidence and no way to simulate using software.

It is well known that card counting provides enough extra information to beat the game of blackjack.

In the case of Baccarat, it has been shown that card counting can also work on this game, but that the resulting edge is so small as to make it not worthwhile. However, there is a technique called "edge sorting" which takes advantage of imperfectly printed cards (the backs) to gain access to information capable of beating this game. Look up Phil Ivey.

Bottom line: Unless the people are gathering information not normally available which allows them to identify and/or create an advantage, then they are just blowing smoke.

its been 20 years now Gronbog, there are dozens upon dozens of gambling forum through out the years discussing winning tactics from all the table games to machines you mean to tell me its all rubbish? a waste of time, energy, and money to believe in a system that revolves around money managment in a brick and mortar casino? no amount of waiting and cash can turn - game into + game? there is no
un-discovered math that we don't know about that would make the martingale a winner?
suppose you believed in religion and a soul existed would you bet your soul, theres a method of attack that could turn a betting structure into a winner every time?

[onemoretry]

... you mean to tell me its all rubbish? a waste of time, energy, and money to believe in a system that revolves around money managment in a brick and mortar casino? no amount of waiting and cash can turn - game into + game? there is no
un-discovered math that we don't know about that would make the martingale a winner?

While I would not pretend to speak for Gronbog, I believe that is exactly what he stated.

[stevel96a1]

You cant honestly say a banker on baccarat table can and will not show up after 60 turns or 100 hits on roulette avoiding black color in a even chance game assuming no cheat at play would not be able to capture one unit? I know reality has table limits but suppose there were no limit and you had enough bank roll to cover 100 bets using the MG, under those conditions i say it would succeed, do you know if random has a limit? Again i would not wager my soul to find out a un-discovered math that does over come a minus game. This pretty much goes deeper in mathematics when calculus and other advanced math was invented or discovered.

[stevel96a1]

Sorry im just a Carl Sagan believing in something that may or may not be there.

[Gronbog]

its been 20 years now Gronbog, there are dozens upon dozens of gambling forum through out the years discussing winning tactics from all the table games to machines you mean to tell me its all rubbish? a waste of time, energy, and money to believe in a system that revolves around money managment in a brick and mortar casino? no amount of waiting and cash can turn - game into + game? there is no
un-discovered math that we don't know about that would make the martingale a winner?
suppose you believed in religion and a soul existed would you bet your soul, theres a method of attack that could turn a betting structure into a winner every time?

Oh, it's been a lot longer than 20 years that incorrect claims about gambling systems have beene floating around. However, unfortunately a lot of the gambling advice out there is still garbage. The more reputable forums (like this one) all have decent moderators and members who will debunk the trash. Unfortunately, gamblingforums.com is not one of them. They actually went so far as to create fake profiles using the handles of well known experts and then copied their posts from other forums to make it look like those experts were posting there. There are also other sites out there which make claims of easy money using simple "systems", which they will usually sell to you.

As for the math, I'm sorry to tell you that the math of games of chance is well understood and has been for more than a century. There is nothing complex about it (relative to other mathematical concepts) and nothing unproven about it. You don't need to test every single money management/betting system in order to prove that none of them will work. Once you can establish that the results of previous hands do not predict the results of future hands (and this has been done both mathematically and by simulation), those systems all become equivalent to changing your bet based on the second hand of your watch, or whether someone sneezed, or any other reason unrelated to the game.

Now, of course, in the short term, you may find yourself ahead using these systems, but as with flat betting, or betting randomly, the house edge will eventually assert itself.

[Gronbog]

You cant honestly say a banker on baccarat table can and will not show up after 60 turns or 100 hits on roulette avoiding black color in a even chance game assuming no cheat at play would not be able to capture one unit? I know reality has table limits but suppose there were no limit and you had enough bank roll to cover 100 bets using the MG, under those conditions i say it would succeed, do you know if random has a limit? Again i would not wager my soul to find out a un-discovered math that does over come a minus game. This pretty much goes deeper in mathematics when calculus and other advanced math was invented or discovered.

The martingale is one interesting system because it is true that with only a single win, you will end up one unit ahead.

However, it still is theoretically flawed because, from a theoretical point of view, you need an infinite bankroll to prove that it will work every time and the concept of adding to an infinite bankroll is mathematically undefined. From a philosophical and existential point of view that in turn leads to the idea that if you had an infinite bankroll, you would have no motivation to use that strategy at all.

From a practical point of view, you would still have little motivation. Why would someone with a huge bankroll play a system which wins $1 or $10 when it succeeds? Then there are the issues of limits of your actual bankroll and casino tolerance. Yes, it is infinitesimally unlikely that you could make 100 baccarat or outside roulette bets without winning. But it doesn't need to get anywhere near that bad before you would be unable or unwilling to continue.

My own personal longest losing streak at blackjack is 23 hands in a row with some doubles and splits thrown in there to make things even worse. Starting with a bet of $1 and with no doubles or splits, I would have been down $8,388,607 and betting $8,388,608 on the 24th hand trying to get my $1 back. I recently saw a streak of 18 banker wins in a row at baccarat. At that point, starting with the same $1 bet, someone betting player would require a bet of $262,144.

How large a bet are you wiling to make in order to "win" a single unit? Most table games minimums are $10 these days. Lose 10 in a row, (happens a lot to someone who plays regularly) and you're looking at $10,240. Even if you were willing to make that bet, the casino probably would not let you. So you end up down $10,230, needing to win 1,024 progressions in a row in order to recover.

[tech58]

Steve, you lost me with the "even chance" part of your post.Neither of those games has one, to the best of my limited knowledge.