PDA

View Full Version : Cyclical Luck

Zedd X
03-22-2003, 12:32 AM
Lets say that someone says that they have a foolproof system to playing roulette (a game in which we all know cannot be beat in the longrun). This system involves betting red or black based on previous rolls of the roulette ball. For example, if 5 reds hit in a row, there is a higher probability that black will be next and should be bet. What would be your reaction to this??? I'm sure the posters on this board would unanimously agree that this is complete garbage.

So why is it that some poker literature seems to hint at exactly this strategy?

Here is the most profound example that comes to mind:

Excerpt from Zen and The Art of Poker by Larry W. Phillips:
pg75-76

If your cards are below average, but you've been winning with anything and everything, you should play more hands. Conversely, if you've been getting fairly good hands, but you've lost with them, you might want to fold some more...Mathematicians tell us that each hand takes place independently of all others. This is good advice to ignore...Longtime experienced card players believe in this bunching of luck.

I have read similar advice in other wellknown poker literature and somehow I am inclined to believe this; although it doesnt seem to line up with the concept of random probability. Could this be due to human error in the shuffling of the deck (i.e. clumping of cards)? Or could it possibly be a non-random shuffling algorithm online??? These could contribute slightly to the factor, but I beleive these "non-random flukes" so to speak are so minute it can be ignored in the calculation of probable outcomes. Could it be a function of our own psychological involvment in the game? Or could this advice just be plain inacurate (although I am lead to believe otherwise).

BruceZ
03-22-2003, 04:07 PM
The roulette system of course is garbage. The paragraph about poker is correct up until it says "the bunching of luck". The reason you play more hands when you are winning is because your opponents will fear you more, and the reason you play fewer hands when you are losing is because they will take shots at you. Of course the "bunching of luck" or "rushes" do occur at a statistically predictable frequency. This does not imply that getting good cards on one hand makes it more likely that you will get good cards on the the next hand. What happens is that the chance of winning a number of hands in a row due to the rush gives you an additional chance to win on subsequent hands due to the opponent's reaction to you. In that sense, you are "playing into a rush". There is a fine line between this and what most gambler's believe. You cannot apply this to a game where the trials are completly independent.

morgan
03-23-2003, 06:12 PM
I remember once flipping through a book on craps. The author reccommended doubling your bet after winning a few in a row in order to capitalize on your rushes. I still wonder if a Casino was involved with that publication.

Morgan

BruceZ
03-23-2003, 06:37 PM
There are many many books with such systems for craps, roulette, and blackjack. Probably more than that for winning gambling systems. Some systems even sell for a great deal of money. Progressions have been popular with gamblers since the times of Cardano and Pascal. It should be pointed out that such systems can provide the recreational gambler a very high probability, over 90%, of winning on a given night, or in the short run. This may even be desireable to some who only play occasionally. If this is all the system claims to do, it is not fraudulent. If such a system leads you to believe that you can obtain a postive ev, or that you can make a living, then then it is fraudulent.

morgan
03-23-2003, 07:25 PM
The excerpt was not part of a system, just general advice.

As far as systems go, I think they are bad, not inherently, but because they have the tendency of getting people to believe that have the best of it. I know very intelligent people who believed systems could win.

I think the only honest way to write on fixed gambling games, short of teaching probability, is to say for each dollar wagered at roullette you will lose roughly a nickle.

Morgan

DPCondit
03-24-2003, 12:41 AM
A guy I used to work for once labored for countless hours on his home craps table developing his "system", he then went to Vegas and made a killing. Later, he discovered that his system was bunk (but he still got to keep the money /forums/images/icons/grin.gif ). Obviously, luck was in his favor, as this endeavor had no long run ev.

Very sharp guy, this guy also studied the horses for over 10 years before he ever really "cracked" the races, but since then he has made quite a fortune (horses are beatable, unlike craps, I mean in the long run). He's also a pretty sharp poker player. He is currently worth millions.

Don

BruceZ
03-24-2003, 01:53 PM
They are often misleading; however, you can also make a similar statement about many legitimate gambling books on poker and blackjack. They tend to make people believe that they can read one book and become a significant winner, without making clear that you also need extensive study, experience, thinking, practice, and reading of many other books as well.

gilly
03-25-2003, 08:36 AM
When you play a "rush" in poker you do so because by winning several hands in a short time period your opponents become afraid of you and hence start to play worse against you, allowing you to win more hands.

It is not about "luck" or about getting better hands grouped together due to dealing mistakes, that is extremely unlikely.

Anyone who says a fair roulete game can be beaten can play in poker with me anytime.

Al Mirpuri
03-26-2003, 12:19 PM
Casino managers have a saying:

'All players go broke, but system players...go broke systematically.'

Al Mirpuri
03-26-2003, 12:24 PM
This guy sounds like a sharp cookie. The horses are beatable but it takes study not just a glance at a racing mag that all the punters look at. Surprised your friend thought he could beat craps, though. But then, even Sir Isaac Newton held to the crackpot idea that base metal could be turned into gold.

Mason Malmuth
03-26-2003, 12:41 PM
Hi Zedd:

I believe what happens is that many of these authors just don't understand how to play well. Put another way, they don't grasp the concepts that seperates the mediocre players from the experts.

But this creates a problem for them since they believe they are experts, yet don't do very well. This is especially true in loose games where they know their opponents are playing poorly yet their results are not very good. Thus, they look for other reasons to explain their results, and we see much of the nonsense that appears in the literature.

To give a specific example, in the 21st Century Edition of HPFAP there is what has become known as the "Ten-Nine Play" in the section on loose games. This strategy has been much debated on these forums and it is difficult for many players to grasp. However, it is correct.

Best wishes,
Mason

DPCondit
03-26-2003, 01:17 PM
I think he was in his craps phase before he "wised up".

Yes, beating the horses is hard work, and he has studied it more exhaustively than you may imagine, nothing easy about it at all. He made a lot of money in horses, then invested in real estate in Malibu, and that is where he really made a lot.

Don

morgan
03-27-2003, 02:26 AM
Ha! Thanks Al. You've helped corroborate much of what I've believed to be true /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Morgan

AmericanAirlines
03-27-2003, 05:20 PM
Base metal can be turned into gold... In a cyclotron.

Sincerely,
AA

Zedd X
04-01-2003, 01:00 AM
Mason,

Thank you for the reply (and everyone else who has posted). I understand that poker is such a complex game that there is often no clear-cut strategy in any given situation. It is too bad that there is some slightly inacurate text out there; although this is almost inevidable. Despite the section I quoted from the book being inacurate, I do however believe that this book also has alot of great advice...especially for those who's bankroll suffers "tilting"; so I have to give it credit. I have however read almost every book put out by 2+2. I have also worn the cover off of my HPFAP (like you said I would in the text). This book has been invaluable to me (and my bankroll is proof of that!). I am in full agreement that 2+2 Publishing offers by far the most accurate and effective strategies for todays poker game. That's why I joined the forum. Thank you very much Mason, Sklansky, and 2+2! Keep up the good work!!!

Best Regards,
Zedd

Tekari
04-07-2003, 01:47 PM

BruceZ
04-07-2003, 02:18 PM
P. 168 in the 21st Century Edition. Chapter "When the Pot Gets Big" in section on Playing in Loose Games.

Cyrus
04-12-2003, 06:11 AM
In the post above, BruceZ explains that the advice given in the "Zen" book happens to be correct: That you should indeed continue playing when you're winning even though you know it's luck, because, as Bruce explains, your opponents will fear you more, etc. This is, of course, correct but it is not the reason given by the author. As Bruce also says, the author justifies his advice by what he calls the "bunching of luck", which is voodoo. We should be loath to follow advice that's correct in itself but justified erroneously ! (The old eating fish vs learning to fish argument.) It's truly better, for example, not to walk under an open ladder, but not because it's bad luck.

Having said that, please advise me on what outcome to bet on next, in order to have an edge, in the following real-world scenarios:<ul type="square">

1. The coin is flipped and it comes out Heads 5 times in a row.

2. The last five numbers that came up in a double-zero Roulette are 2 , 0 , 14 , 23 , 4 and 35.

3. 3-5, 5-4, 5-5, 6-5 comes up in consecutive throws by the same player in Craps. [/list]

Cyrus
04-12-2003, 11:06 AM
"The coin is flipped and it comes out Heads 5 times in a row."

Coins are usually fair. This one might be biased towards Heads. Bet Heads.

"The last five numbers that came up in a double-zero Roulette are 2 , 0 , 14 , 23 , 4 and 35."

Those numbers are next to each other on the wheel. Roulette wheels are usually fair. This one might be biased towards that part. Bet those numbers again, straight up.

" 3-5, 5-4, 5-5, 6-5 comes up in consecutive throws by the same player in Craps."

Craps are usually a fair game. You might have stumbled upon a slider though. He may have the 5 locked up. Ignore the small numbers.

All the above tactics offer a better shot at those games.

BruceZ
04-12-2003, 12:03 PM
All the above tactics offer a better shot at those games.

I agree, but the difference is negligible, especially for the coins and craps. To compute your edge, you must know the probability of a biased coin, wheel, or slider and use Bayes' theorem. The probability of a biased coin is small compared to the probability that what you observed happened by chance alone. Successful sliders are very rare compared to the probability that the numbers you observed happened by chance. You have a miniscule edge in these cases only when there is no penalty for assuming a bias and being wrong.

wdbaker
04-12-2003, 05:04 PM
Having said that, please advise me on what outcome to bet on next, in order to have an edge, in the following real-world scenarios: Having said that, please advise me on what outcome to bet on next, in order to have an edge, in the following real-world scenarios:
1. The coin is flipped and it comes out Heads 5 times in a row.

Call me crazy but if the coin isn't biased I would bet on tails and if I missed, double my bet for tails etc... until i couldn't bear the burden of the bet or I hit. Obviously you need a point to bail out at, money management, but all things considered I think it would be a good progressive bet.

And no, this is not how I play hold'em

Flame away /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

One street at a time
wdbaker Denver, Co

Jackdaw
04-12-2003, 07:44 PM
As long as the coin isn't biased - there's nothing wrong with your proposed plan of action, but it won't confer any advantage. It yields the same expectation as any other series of betting decisions in this situation. The reason people feel like you do, and there are millions of them! is because the probability of 6 heads coming up in a row (before the first coin toss has been made)is completely different from the odds of a head on a single (the next) toss.

BruceZ
04-12-2003, 09:07 PM
It is true that this yields no gain in expectation, but it does offer an advantage in that he will be virtually guaranteed to be ahead at some point, so long as he is allowed to double his bet enough times. For example, if he can double his bet up to 7 times, then he has over a 99% chance of being ahead by 1 bet. When that happens, he can quit a winner. He can also start over, and have a 99% chance of making another bet. The reason he does not have a positive expectation even though he is virtually guaranteed of making money is because of the small probability that he will lose 7 times in a row. Although the probability of losing 7 flips in a row is 1 in 128, if he gets greedy and plays until he does lose this many in a row, it means he will have lost 1+2+4+8+16+32+64 = 127 bets. So when this finally does happen, he will just be even on average, since the other 126 times he will have only won 1 bet each time. Of course this can happen sooner than 127 times, and it can even happen on the very first time. The more times you are allowed to double, the longer you can make money with a very small chance of losing. With an infinite bankroll, you can make money forever if you are allowed to keep doubling, even though you never have a positive expectation.

Cyrus
04-13-2003, 01:14 AM
"If the coin isn't biased ..."

I never said the coin is or isn't biased!

"I would bet on tails and if I missed, double my bet for tails etc... until i couldn't bear the burden of the bet or I hit. Obviously you need a point to bail out at, but all things considered I think it would be a good progressive bet."

I am ready to offer you a game you cannot lose at! Here it is.

I will flip a coin. If it comes up Heads, you win \$1. If it comes up Tails, you win nothing but you also lose nothing. If you have won the previous flip, I will flip again and with the same rules, Heads you win \$1, Tails you lose nothing. And so on. I will flip you that coin until kingdom come. (Don't worry about getting paid, I'm good for it. I'm extremely wealthy!) These are all the rules!

Sounds like a good proposition to you ?

If it does, please tell me how much money you'd pay me upfront to play that game. I'm gonna auction my prop and if you the one who pays me the highest price, you gets to play.

Cyrus
04-13-2003, 02:11 AM
"With an infinite bankroll, you can make money forever if you are allowed to keep doubling, even though you never have a positive expectation."

A player with an infinite BR cannot really increase his wealth.

If BR = inf, then how can BR+1u &gt; BR ?

/forums/images/icons/wink.gif

BruceZ
04-13-2003, 02:55 AM
If the coin is fair, it's worth \$1, so I'll give you \$.99 per game.

EV = 1(1/2)^2 + 2(1/2)^3 + 3(1/2)^4 + ... = 1

That is, we win n dollars with probability (1/2)^(n+1) since we have to get n heads followed by 1 tail.

How do we know this sum is 1? Two ways. First by logic. Suppose a billion people played this game until they each got the first tail. How many heads do you expect to be thrown? Same as the number of tails since they are equal probability. Each person throws 1 tail, so there must be a billion tails and a billion heads, or an average of 1 head per person. That's the easy way.

You can also sum the series. First look at:

S = 1 + x + x^2 + x^3...
xS = x + x^2 + x^3 + ...
------------------------- subtract
S(1-x) = 1
S = 1/(1-x) this the sum of a geometric series when x&lt;1

Now take the derivative of S:

S' = 1 + 2x + 3x^2 + 4x^3 + ... = 1/(1-x)^2

take x = 1/2
S' = 1 + 2(1/2) + 3(1/2)^2 + 4(1/2)^3 + ... = 1/(1-1/2)^2 = 4

(S'-1)/4 = 2(1/2)^3 + 3(1/2)^4 + ... = (4-1)4 = 3/4

If we add (1/2)^2 =1/4 to this, we get EV above, so this is 3/4 + 1/4 = 1. QED

BruceZ
04-13-2003, 02:57 AM
I didn't say he would increase his wealth. I said he would make money forever. There is a difference.

If you want to increase your wealth, just use OPM (other people's money). /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

BruceZ
04-13-2003, 03:30 AM
I forgot to mention the easiest way of all. If you lost a dollar for a tail, the game would be even money. Since you don't lose a dollar for the game ending tail, the EV must be 1 dollar. This is essentially the same as the logical way.

Now here's one for you. You throw 2 dice until they come up 7. If you had to bet on which roll this was to occur, which roll would you bet on?

Cyrus
04-13-2003, 08:39 AM
I will accept the measly 99 cents offered by Mr Bruce Z, who is kindly asked to refrain from responding before tomorrow, to this post.

...I have an even better proposition:

I will flip the same fair coin and each time you win, you double your money! We will start with you winning \$2 if the first flip is Heads. If it's Tails you win nothing (and lose nothing).

If the 2nd flip is also Heads you win \$4, if 3 flips in a row come up Heads you win \$8, and so on. In other words, for n consecutive wins, you win \$2 to the power of n. Or (\$2)^n.

Let's see what the player's EV is now:

EV = [sum of all expected payoffs of all the possible outcomes]

EV = [(probability of 1 Heads in a row)*(\$2)] +
[(probability of 2 Heads in a row)*(\$4)] +
[(probability of 3 Heads in a row)*(\$8)] +
...

We know that the probability of throwing 1 Heads is 50%, or (1/2) ; of throwing 2 Heads in a row is (1/2) multiplied by (1/2), which is (1/2) to the power of 2 ; of 3 Heads in a row is (1/2) to the power of 3; and so on. Therefore

EV = [(1/2)^1 * (\$2)] +
[(1/2)^2 * (\$4)] +
[(1/2)^3 * (\$8)] +
...

EV = [(1/2) * \$2] +
[(1/4) * \$4] +
[(1/8) * \$8] +
...

EV = \$1 + \$1 + \$1 + ...

This goes on infinitely. That EV looks like summing to infinite \$\$\$.

Now what?

How much should anyone pay me to play this game?

Cyrus
04-13-2003, 09:18 AM
"The difference is negligible, especially for the coins and craps."

All I'm after is "a better shot at those games". This is what I wrote. In the absence of opportunities for something better, my tactic is the correct one.

For any small k above zero, however small, I can prove to you that k &gt; 0 /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

"You have a miniscule edge in these cases only when there is no penalty for assuming a bias and being wrong."

There is no penalty for being wrong. We crash-land back to the usual expectation for each game.

Frank Scobete (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0929387341/qid=1050239257/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6588023-4338362?v=glance&amp;s=books) is one writer who offers potentially beneficial advice but for all the wrong reasons. He advocates following the patterns of "rhythmic rollers" and the "5-count" in craps, but this is voodoo statistics. However, this is better than just playing randomly (if you must play craps straight), for the reason I described.

Graham
04-14-2003, 01:54 PM
"EV = \$1 + \$1 + \$1 + ...

This goes on infinitely. That EV looks like summing to infinite \$\$\$."

Looks infinite if we sum these occurrences. But we only play the game once, don't we, not an infinite number of times. We only get one of them, so we're back to \$0.99, aren't we?

G

Cyrus
04-14-2003, 02:56 PM
"Looks infinite if we sum these occurrences. But we only play the game once, don't we, not an infinite number of times. We only get one of them, so we're back to \$0.99, aren't we?"

No, I already said I will flip it "until kingdom come"!

Suppose I offer you to flip the coin only 3 times in a row -- as long as it comes up Heads. You'd still double your money for each consecutive Heads, starting with \$2, etc. And of course you lose nothing. Your EV would be

EV = [(1/2)*\$2] + [(1/4)*\$4] + [(1/8)*\$8] = \$1+\$1+\$1 = \$3

Similarly, if I'm ready to flip the coin 5 times in a row, as long as you get Heads, your EV is \$5. For 10 flips, it's \$10. And so on.

Next, I'm offering you to flip the coin as many times as it comes up Heads, without a limit. In other words, I'm ready to flip that coin infinite times. What's your EV?

SoBeDude
04-17-2003, 10:58 PM
actually I don't think a cycletron will do it.

You need a heavy particle accelerator, like a proton synchrotron.

-Scott

PseudoPserious
04-18-2003, 03:55 PM
\$6.85.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you'd be able to scrape together a \$1048576 payout if I got very lucky, but I can't credit your cash reserve any higher than that.

Each \$1 of payout up to \$8192 is only worth \$0.67 to me due to taxes. Payout dollars in excess of \$8192 are only worth \$0.62 because that'd bump me up a bracket.

So, I'm expecting to make a sweet sweet \$.01.

Shoot, I'd probably pay \$6.86, dropping my earn down to 0, just so I'd have a story to tell if I made any substantial cash.

We got a deal?
PP

PseudoPserious
04-18-2003, 03:56 PM
Alright Bruce, I'll bite -- why isn't it the first roll?

PP

Nottom
04-18-2003, 04:23 PM
Well if the EV for each flip is \$1 then the EV for the game should be equal to the expected number of flips which is 2.

Granted this just doesn't sit right and my gut is telling me that the answer \$4, but its been way too long since I've taken a lass on this sort of stuff.

AmericanAirlines
04-22-2003, 07:45 PM
Hi SoBeDude,
Ah, but you get the idea. You *can* modify the nucleus of atoms with sufficient conditions.

So, lead to gold can happen.

Sincerely,
AA

mostsmooth
10-01-2003, 09:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Call me crazy but if the coin isn't biased I would bet on tails and if I missed, double my bet for tails etc... until i couldn't bear the burden of the bet or I hit. Obviously you need a point to bail out at, money management, but all things considered I think it would be a good progressive bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
once upon a time i was about 22 years old, lost about \$150 bucks gambling table games. decided i would go get \$50 and play it on red 3 spins in a row, doubling each time to either win or go broke (i was young, forgive me).in my wisdom i decided also that i would wait for a red to come up before i started betting, in hopes to catch a streak. a red comes up, but i get cold feet and didnt bet. next one i say to myself. next spin is red, again i dont bet, cold feet. next spin red, i decide ok, im gonna do it. the table was packed, i went up to bet, and some dick practically knocked me over to get the last spot. oh well. so i watch this guy, bets \$100 on black, red comes up. \$200 black, red comes up. 4 or 5 hundred black, red comes up. he kept betting a few more spins and was up to betting \$1000-\$1200 a spin on black. all reds came up. he got destroyed as the wheel put up 21 reds in a row. i dont know if the doubling up concept is any good, but i do know you need big cash and rocks to keep up /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Copernicus
10-02-2003, 01:31 AM
If hes currently worth millions, he was probably once worth 10s of millions. I dont buy that anyone can make millions based on handicapping alone. I've known some very sophisticated computer modelers and data miners (before there was even a term "data mining") who studied both flats and harness extensively, and they didnt come close to breaking even.

Poker is a much less complex game than horse racing, and an expert can hold a huge edge, and can play far more hands then someone can bet races. How many of them could make a living with a 15-20% rake?

I dont doubt that hes a millionaire, but he has some other angle than handicapping. The best non-poker gambler and handicapper I ever met managed to eke out small profit at the harness races...he had that apparent mixture of left brained detailed knowledge plus a right brained holistic grasp.

The last time I ran into him, driving his Viper, I commented that horses must have been very good to him. He laughed and said no, he hasnt bet on a horse in 15 years...that sports betting was much easier, and you didnt face the exorbitant rake.

Similar to DS he started out as an actuarial student.

DPCondit
10-05-2003, 11:00 PM
I didn't say he made it all from handicapping alone. He took horse racing profits and started a couple of restaraunts, and later bought real estate in Malibu. He happened to buy the real estate in the 1970s, and that is where he made the majority of his money. He started out with nothing, not tens of millions, and he lost money at the races for several years before he figured out what he was doing.

I don't know every detail of what he did, and I haven't talked to him in a few years, but I have seen him handicap horse races, and believe me, this guy had/has some kind of gift.

Don

DPCondit
10-06-2003, 12:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a much less complex game than horse racing

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you just provide the explanation right there?

If horse racing is much more complex than poker, than there could conceivably also be correspondingly much greater edges as well. Is this not intuitively obvious?

Yes, the rake is enormous, and this was the first thing he ever taught me about horse racing, yet a very good handicapper can substantially beat the rake. This is a fact. If your computer buddies couldn't figure it out, then they weren't looking at the right things, it is more than just number crunching.

Don

Copernicus
10-06-2003, 12:03 PM
"If horse racing is much more complex than poker, than there could conceivably also be correspondingly much greater edges as well. Is this not intuitively obvious?"

"complexity" is not quite the right word. I am not referring just to additional considerations, which indeed could lead to greater edges, but to more "unknowables". Poker is a game of incomplete information, but the underlying basis is discrete and unchanging probability distributions. In horse racing the underlying basis is "continuous" and constantly changing. However, this isnt the main problem facing a handicapper, just something that can interfere with those "best laid plains".

Using Bayesian and Neural Nets you can look at "everything" that is available to a handicapper and the techniques will learn what there is to be learned. With electronic past performances available (so there is no element of deciding what to input), there is no issue of looking at the "wrong things".

The problem, as they proved (not "discovered", since this is what is really intuitively obvious) is that the knowable predicting factors that carry heavy weights in the network (ie those that are the best predictors) are also the most obvious and widely known to bettors. If the vast amount of money bet is based on common predictors that account for 90% of racing outcomes you can rarely beat a rake of more than 10%. Even when a more obscure predictor would carry enough weight to influence the prediction, throw in those unknowables and rake becomes even harder to overcome.

To put it a little differently, they had no problem successfully predicting outcomes, the problem is indentifying overlays. The "market" is just too efficient to put in stock trading terms.

That leaves non-public knowledge as the only element that holds enough promise to make betting profitable, and that is an angle, not handicapping.

Andy Beyer, probably the greatest handicapper who ever "went public", makes far more from his books and newsletter than he could ever have made from handicapping.

DPCondit
10-06-2003, 07:47 PM
Sorry, you caught me in an ornery mood when I read it yesterday. "Intuitively obvious" may be overstating my position a little.

However, I stand by my position. The only thing they "proved" was that THEY could not beat the races over time, not that it could not be done by someone else.

First off, they are horses, not computer chips. Observing even just how they carry themselves as they are being walked out towards the gate can yield quite a huge amount of information. This is information on how the horse is feeling today, right now. This is not past performance data that can be analyzed on a computer.

You mentioned "non-public knowledge". You got a little warmer with that one, but no bullseye. When do you think the insiders (those that actually have non-public knowledge) get their money in on the race? What does this tell you? Understanding how and when the insiders bet, and using that information to your advantage is not angle shooting, and can yield a large amount of information. Once again, this is not something that will show up when crunching the data on the computer.

Only betting the races with the best overlays.

Knowing how to combine horses properly in Daily Doubles, Trifectas, and Pick Sixes can often yield huge overlays.

Personally, I am better at poker than horse racing, but there are people who beat the horses very substantially long term, and that is a fact.

Don

Copernicus
10-07-2003, 03:38 PM
I said a couple of times that I was referring only to handicapping, and we may have a semantic difference. Observing the pre-post/post parade and betting patterns are not, to me, handicapping.

As far as finding overlays in exotics, yes, they exist, but too few and with too great a variance to play without a huge bankroll.

Ive met a lot of people who claim to beat the races consistently, and more people who claim to know someone who does. I've been on both sides, betting and owning, and its difficult enough to make money betting when you are the insider, much less without that information.

I'm not even from Missouri, but I'll believe when I see it, and Ive been hanging around tracks for over 40 years and havent seen it yet. But then, I'm an atheist, too.

DPCondit
10-07-2003, 07:24 PM
I also replied with the word "handicapper", lol. I am obviously using the word to have a broader meaning than you suggest.

Yes there is very large variance requiring a large bankroll to properly do the exotics, especially the way he does it.

Anyways, I understand and respect your skepticism, but I have seen what he can do first hand. I have heard his stories of the hundreds of thousands he made on pick sixes. I know his family and have heard their stories and listened to his wife complain repeatedly that he didn't go to the track often enough because he always made so much money when he went (true story). I know friends of mine that also have gone to the track with him on various occasions, they claim (for whatever it is worth) that they have never lost money when they went with him.

I know I haven't convinced you of anything, so be it. I think we must agree to disagree.

Good luck,
Don

jon_1van
10-08-2003, 11:39 AM
I have seen a system similar (because it is about Roulette) to this in a book I found at Barnes and Nobles.

The basic outline of the strategy was that you bet on all numbers that form a contiguous portion of the roulette wheel. Ie you bet an extact pie shaped portion of the wheel. Then since your bets are all clumped the prob of your bet winning is actually higher than the fraction of the wheel you placed bets on.

I could believe I read this in a REAL book.

Moonsugar
10-09-2003, 07:45 AM
The crazy thing about randomness is that sometimes it doesn't 'seem' random.

This is only a problem with human observation.

Copernicus
10-09-2003, 08:52 AM
If the dealer is biased so he lands on that quarter of the wheel more than 1/4 times then they might be right!

Most newspapers have "lottery" columns, that tell you to track prior numbers, and that certain combinations of numbers are more likely to come up than others (not just that they are likely to pay more when they do come up, but that they come up more often!)

Convince someone that you have an easy way to make money, and they will work very hard to make you rich.

Bozeman
10-09-2003, 01:14 PM
If he is talking about "The Eudaemonic Pie", it is considerably more complicated than that. They were a group of grad. students who modelled the physics and found that if you note the starting position and speed of the ball (often constant for a particular croupier), as well as some of the properties of that particular wheel (most are not perfectly balanced) you can predict with a reasonable edge which quarter it will land in. They had several observers and a computer/transmitter/reciever in a shoe. They claim to have made some money, but eventually stopped because the computer in those days was not reliable enough in the humid atmosphere of a shoe.

I am sure they made more money with their book,
Craig

PokerNoob
10-10-2003, 01:56 PM
Its my understanding from talking to trainers and stablehands that some predicting factors are not knowable to the general handicapper. That skews results enough so that you can't beat the rake. On the other hand, for the puppies, the weights of the predicting factors tend to distribute themselves in such a way that that the degree of confidence in the prediction can't beat the rake either.

Racing is more... chaotic(?) than cards. Given a fair shuffle, the odds for certain hands are a mathematical certainty (over a long enough number of trials).

Legato
10-13-2003, 08:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If he is talking about "The Eudaemonic Pie", it is considerably more complicated than that. They were a group of grad. students who modelled the physics and found that if you note the starting position and speed of the ball (often constant for a particular croupier), as well as some of the properties of that particular wheel (most are not perfectly balanced) you can predict with a reasonable edge which quarter it will land in. They had several observers and a computer/transmitter/reciever in a shoe. They claim to have made some money, but eventually stopped because the computer in those days was not reliable enough in the humid atmosphere of a shoe.

I am sure they made more money with their book,
Craig

[/ QUOTE ]

The phenomena still exists and works fine. Very expensive and no good to be seen by casino staff though...

There used to be pages called newtonroulette.com and roulettehardware.com but both are apparently removed. They used a system with a Ipaq in your pocket, a small earphone and a remote button to be held in your hand to register the speed of the wheel and ball. The earphone would then tell you an area where the ball would land which would be good enough to easily beat the casino edge.

Btw guys, if u got this great offer, how large percentage of your bankroll would you bet each time (you have to bet the same percentage every time)?

"Flip a coin 1000 times. Each time you chose side correctly you get 3 times your bet back".

Copernicus
10-13-2003, 10:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, for the puppies, the weights of the predicting factors tend to distribute themselves in such a way that that the degree of confidence in the prediction can't beat the rake either.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I noted above, this has been shown to be true for horses as well, by neural net and bayesian analysis.

Cherenkov
10-13-2003, 12:08 PM
I noticed that many in this thread are concerned about "luck" and rushes and such. The fact is, good hands, and bad hands, clump. They have to. If you knew, sure as clockwork, that you would receive AA on every twentieth hand, then so would everyone else. The truth is, you may see AA four times in one session, then not see it for ten sessions. Mathmeticians model this using the Poisson distribution. For example, throw one hundred pennies into the air and let them land on a grid. You will not see one penny per square on the grid, most likely. You will see clumps of pennies and areas of open space. The same is true with hands and roulette (on a balanced wheel).-- Regarding the wheel. There is one mathematical theory that covers it. Bayes theorum. Let's say you divide the board into thirds. We'll call them sections A,B and C. You let the ball roll. No bet. It falls in A. Now, the theorum says that given the larger size of the two areas not hit when combined, it will be more likely that the next roll will hit B or C than A. You then bet those two. The odds will pay you off. You miss, you double your bets. The higher the limit on the table and the lower the initial bet, the more likely that you will come ahead.
Anyway. See ya.

DPCondit
10-15-2003, 07:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Its my understanding from talking to trainers and stablehands that some predicting factors are not knowable to the general handicapper. That skews results enough so that you can't beat the rake. On the other hand, for the puppies, the weights of the predicting factors tend to distribute themselves in such a way that that the degree of confidence in the prediction can't beat the rake either.

[/ QUOTE ]

In their book, Winning Decisions , Russo and Schoemaker gave horse-race handicappers different amounts of information and asked them to make predictions. First they gave them 5 pieces of information, then 10, then 20, then 40 pieces of information for each horse.

While the degree of confidence in their predictions rose from about 20% confidence steadily up to about 30% with each increasing amount of information, their accuracy did not. Their accuracy peaked out at 20 pieces of information and with 40 pieces actually dropped to its lowest point in the study.

Of course this confidence level only shows the weaknesses of the handicappers, not of the data's predictive ability. The Bayesian Analysis and Neural Net mentioned by Copernicus should not have any such weaknesses. Of course I realize that such study also could not beat the rake either.

Beyond that, I have already stated where I stand on the issue of information not generally available to handicappers, and will not repeat it here.

Good luck,
Don