Jacking in dole for maths gambling sysyem

Ficheall

looper333 wrote: »

ok fair enough i will post up a couple of weeks results in that form in a few hours.

Only weeks after the final "tweak" to your equations, preferably.

juan.kerr

Is this another one of those pyramint schemes?

Grimebox

Sorry to be so negative but just the fact that you are willing to gamble with money you cannot afford to lose tells a lot about your character. I have no reason to believe your system holds any water if you make such a elementary mistake. Imagine a month from now you are broke, what then? You will go broke if you cannot bankroll yourself sufficiently, it is inevitable.

Listen to what Zab says

Zab

looper333 wrote: »

I do not bet with bookies ever, i only trade and so get the true price on offer. If you don't know how to do that then it is not for me to tell you. I still wouldn't describe this as a system but i guess some people would, i see it as an equation.. perhaps the same thing.

It doesn't matter whether it's a bookie or an exchange, everything still applies except it's possible that the market will react differently to you winning on +EV wagers than a bookie would. You certainly don't generally get the "true price" on an exchange either, and even if you did you'd still have to pay the commission.

looper333

Logical_Bear wrote: »

Why not post the OP in the gambling forum?

Personaly I think you're talking through your hoop

I am new here so didn't know there was a gambling forum but even still i don;t like to talk to people who only like to gamble and see everything as a win or loss situation. This forum is not attracted by just gamblers and so i expected other types of views and input that would be more valuable than those who only frequent gambler forums.

It BeeMee

looper333 wrote: »

Week 1 = 145
2= 245
3= 148
4= 438 ( 1 day)
5 = 447
6 = 198
7 = 277
8 = 501
9 = 634
10= -201
11= 444
12= 456
13= 322
14= 315
15= 356
16= -57
17= 70
Only red weeks were full weeks Mon to Sunday while the rest were from Monday to Saturday

Soooo the trick is not to gamble on a Sunday?

crazy cabbage

Never done this before but know a pritty good gambeling bet for the roulett tables

Pick a colour and always put on that colour (i will say red for here)

Step 1: Start by putting €2 on red.
If you win. Grand. go go back to step 1. If you loose go on to step 2.

Step 2: Put €4 on red.
If you win. Grand. go go back to step 1. If you loose go on to step 3.

Step 3: Put €8 on red
If you win. Grand. go go back to step 1. If you loose go on to step 4.

And continue like this if you keep on loosing. double your previouse bet each time. (reason for this is (take step 3) you have lost €6 so far so to come out on top you bet €8

Each round (by round i mean as many bets as it takes to win) will earn you €2. The chances of the ball landing on red is 50/50 (well not quite. there is one green slot but i am ignoring that for this)

There is more maths behind this but i will not bore anyone with it.

I have never done this. I have no interest in gambeling. I would like to try it though just to see if it works. (yes i know the gains are small but if you stick to the system and double you bet everytime you loose and go back to the starting bet everytime you win you have to come up on top. The maths is 100% and the maths is simple.

I dont know your system for whatever you are doing but it is way to complicated to work. Pay you bills and dont throw your money away

Zab

^ That's called a martingale system by the way, and it of course doesn't work.

Ficheall

crazy cabbage wrote: »

There is more maths behind this but i will not bore anyone with it.

Maybe you should.

crazy cabbage wrote: »

I have never done this. I have no interest in gambeling. I would like to try it though just to see if it works.

It does not work. You need an infinite supply of money to be guaranteed to return a profit. This is also why roulette wheels have limits.

As for "ignoring the green slot"... :rolleyes:

Grimebox

I've heard of that system. The problem is that there is an upward limit to what you can bet on any given colour. Usually around €200 if you can bet as little as €2. You only need 7 consecutive loses for that to break

looper333

Zab, there is no limit on the odds that factor into equation but they are generally in the bracket of 1.8 to 10s. I don't mind you think i'm mad at all as i have surely heard this before but i have also had a lot of successes financially in life outside things like this so the madness can work for me. It also brings failures and i would absolutely agree that bad management of bankroll is key and something i have not been great at. That does not mean this 'equation' is ultimately a failure. How long would you suggest paper trailing to get a better picture of stats ? You seem to caught up on the tweaks but i assure you they don't completely wash out the results. Time will tell on that though, i can not say 100% they won't but essentially the tweaks are all based on time rather than profits because like i say without them the results would be very similar overall. the tweaks just saved time.

looper333

Just to note after reading recent posts... This equation avoids any great losses at any one time, there is never any risk of blowing your bank in one go at any time. Also i will repeat i am not trying to sell anybody anything, i wouldn't reckon people are gullible enough to pay for someones methods. If somebody is selling it then it obviously doesn't work and if you are buying it then you obviously don't work upstairs.

humbert

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Best of luck with it.

I know two very successful pro gamblers, so successful in fact, they used to find it hard for a book marker to accept their bets.

Would these people be using sophisticated mathematical systems or might they be very familiar with the horses (form and other significant horse shit)?


OP:
Is this to be applied to betting on horses?
Are you a native English speaker?
Do you believe there are supernatural forces that create patterns in fundamentally random events?

Please tell me you have at least read a basics probability and statistics book..

looper333

humbert wrote: »

Would these people be using sophisticated mathematical systems or might they be very familiar with the horses (form and other significant horse shit)?


OP:
Is this to be applied to betting on horses?
Are you a native English speaker?
Do you believe there are supernatural forces that create patterns in fundamentally random events?

Please tell me you have at least read a basics probability and statistics book..

Patterns are fundamentally intertwined into the fragments of every aspect of life to some degree. There is nothing supernatural about that. There are some major laws of math past basic probability.

I wonder how many people with sarcastic comments have saving accounts and investments etc with banks... can they even see their own contradictions ?

Zab

looper333 wrote: »

Zab, there is no limit on the odds that factor into equation but they are generally in the bracket of 1.8 to 10s. I don't mind you think i'm mad at all as i have surely heard this before but i have also had a lot of successes financially in life outside things like this so the madness can work for me. It also brings failures and i would absolutely agree that bad management of bankroll is key and something i have not been great at. That does not mean this 'equation' is ultimately a failure. How long would you suggest paper trailing to get a better picture of stats ? You seem to caught up on the tweaks but i assure you they don't completely wash out the results. Time will tell on that though, i can not say 100% they won't but essentially the tweaks are all based on time rather than profits because like i say without them the results would be very similar overall. the tweaks just saved time.

I'm not sure what this is a response to but it doesn't address anything I've written. Except for the madness part, of course.

humbert

looper333 wrote: »

Patterns are fundamentally intertwined into the fragments of every aspect of life to some degree. There is nothing supernatural about that. There are some major laws of math past basic probability.

I wonder how many people with sarcastic comments have saving accounts and investments etc with banks... can they even see their own contradictions ?

Banks do gamble stupidly but they also they can invest sensibly in areas such as insurance where the laws of large numbers apply.

Chaotic systems and small sample groups of random events cannot be predicted mathematically.

crazy cabbage

Grimebox wrote: »

I've heard of that system. The problem is that there is an upward limit to what you can bet on any given colour. Usually around €200 if you can bet as little as €2. You only need 7 consecutive loses for that to break

Oops. Didn't know that tables have an upper limit. I was just interested in the maths side of it. That is a bit of a practical issue alright.

damn. Ignore my post

Will have to work on my card counting or somthing now :P

Back to the OP

You will have to provide us with at least a little more info for us to be able to tell you anything or help you.

Duggys Housemate

A few points.

1) It is possible to have a mathematical system which works against other humans - i.e. on BetFair etc. If you can work out a cognitive bias in most people's betting you can make money. Simple example: the odds on a team which is 2-0 down with 5 minutes to ago winning are very high - between 10-1 and 100-1 - but generally not high enough. Punters are going for the big payout, they are wrong. The mathematicians who work out statistically that 99.9% of teams fail in that position can make money by betting against the guys who love Big Odds. It would be better to bias the maths with who is actually playing but that may not be necessary. Most teams won't come back from 2-0, but people will be attracted to high odds. And you can make money by spending 1K against a number of small betters.

(Well, you make a tenner to 100 euro, but it's mathematically guaranteed in the long run.)

I have another idea which will challenge people's cognitive bias towards "streaks" i.e. a golfer who has a good day and is expected to do well tomorrow in the odds, whose odds of getting 3 sub-par for his round tomorrow improves because he did today: thats wrong, it is in fact wiser to bet on a regression to mean: knowing nothing about the golfer he probably golfed out of his skin today, and wont tomorrow.

2) OP, you need an investor.

1) Prove the system to someone.
2) Get 10K investment - for example - you need to pay this back at an agreed date, minus losses.
3) Distribute winnings as agreed on any one week i.e. 50-50, except:
4) Amortize losses into the next weeks winnings. I.e. you lose 50 and gain 100, winnings for the next week are 50 and you get 25 each, if 50-50. And so on. Lose for 3 weeks, and there may be no payout until the 5th.

You get the idea.

Of course if you keep losing he gets back less than he invested but caveat emptor.

Abdul Abulbul Amir

looper333 wrote: »

Week 1 = 145
2= 245
3= 148
4= 438 ( 1 day)
5 = 447
6 = 198
7 = 277
8 = 501
9 = 634
10= -201
11= 444
12= 456
13= 322
14= 315
15= 356
16= -57
17= 70

Have you calculated the likelihood of these numbers occurring by chance? What is that figure?

looper333

Zab, there was one tweak in week 9 that if i did not make would have gave a -300ish result for week and this would have made a 500 difference to results. I did add that tweak in to entire results before and after and overall it reduced the overall profits by about 280 making a difference of 220 in my favor. That particular tweak has not come into play again since. That would be the biggest tweak that could possibly allow somebody to say all results are meaningless. For you to point that out i summise you have some experience in matters like this and you are quite right to point that out. Maybe i misunderstood your previous post but i thought you were hinting towards this 'equation' as being one that concentrated on horses all around evens and i was merely stating the odds vary and so it was not a system you maybe thought it was.

chops018

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Never done this before but know a pritty good gambeling bet for the roulett tables

Pick a colour and always put on that colour (i will say red for here)

Step 1: Start by putting €2 on red.
If you win. Grand. go go back to step 1. If you loose go on to step 2.

Step 2: Put €4 on red.
If you win. Grand. go go back to step 1. If you loose go on to step 3.

Step 3: Put €8 on red
If you win. Grand. go go back to step 1. If you loose go on to step 4.

And continue like this if you keep on loosing. double your previouse bet each time. (reason for this is (take step 3) you have lost €6 so far so to come out on top you bet €8

Each round (by round i mean as many bets as it takes to win) will earn you €2. The chances of the ball landing on red is 50/50 (well not quite. there is one green slot but i am ignoring that for this)

There is more maths behind this but i will not bore anyone with it.

I have never done this. I have no interest in gambeling. I would like to try it though just to see if it works. (yes i know the gains are small but if you stick to the system and double you bet everytime you loose and go back to the starting bet everytime you win you have to come up on top. The maths is 100% and the maths is simple.

I dont know your system for whatever you are doing but it is way to complicated to work. Pay you bills and dont throw your money away

That system only works in theory. You would have to have an infinite bank roll for it to work. Also casinos usually limit the amount of money you can put on Red or Black, so what happens if you get an unlucky streak and lost 7 or 8 times in a row and you can't bet over the limit. As I said, it works in theory.

The King of Moo

It BeeMee wrote: »

Soooo the trick is not to gamble on a Sunday?

The Christians were right!

Grimebox

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Oops. Didn't know that tables have an upper limit. I was just interested in the maths side of it. That is a bit of a practical issue alright.

damn. Ignore my post

Will have to work on my card counting or somthing now :P

Back to the OP

You will have to provide us with at least a little more info for us to be able to tell you anything or help you.

From what I understand the problems with that system:

It only works if there is no cap on how much you can bet.
It assumes you have infinite funds, which is impossible as we all know.
The '0' on the roulette means it isn't a 50-50 bet on red/black (in vegas they have '00' and '0')
You are raising your wager after each loss just to win that initial wager, so eventually you will betting €1,000,000 to win €5.
It only takes you one time to run badly to go completely broke.

Say your bankrolll is €10,000 and your initial bet is €2. Since you raise your bet exponentially after each loss it only takes ~12 consecutive loses to go broke (2^12 = 4096). You might think that is unlikely but it will eventually happen if you tried to make a living off it.

Or just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marting...etting_system)

Duggys Housemate

Grimebox wrote: »

From what I understand the problems with that system:

It only works if there is no cap on how much you can bet.
It assumes you have infinite funds, which is impossible as we all know.
The '0' on the roulette means it isn't a 50-50 bet on red/black (in vegas they have '00' and '0')
You are raising your wager after each loss just to win that initial wager, so eventually you will betting €1,000,000 to win €5.
It only takes you one time to run badly to go completely broke.

Say your bankrolll is €10,000 and your initial bet is €2. Since you raise your bet exponentially after each loss it only takes ~12 consecutive loses to go broke (2^13 = 4096). You might think that is unlikely but it will eventually happen if you tried to make a living off it.

A run of 12 losses can be proven to be mathematically certain, in fact, if there are a certain number of runs Although 12 heads in a coin toss unlikely at any one starting point, it gets more certain as you do more throws. Prior to the coin throws you can works that out - it probably certain with 1000 coin throws.

looper333

Grimebox wrote: »

Or just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

Like i said before it isn't this, that is primary school stuff

Duggys Housemate

looper333 wrote: »

Like i said before it isn't this, that is primary school stuff

Sure, but you need an investor. Dont sell the formula, prove that it works.

looper333

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Sure, but you need an investor. Dont sell the formula, prove that it works.

Absolutely wouldn't think of selling, getting investors isn't easy these days. Only way to do it is from smallish beginnings. If it continues to work then there is no problem and no worries with other peoples money. I am going to go for it starting next week.

Duggys Housemate

looper333 wrote: »

Absolutely wouldn't think of selling, getting investors isn't easy these days. Only way to do it is from smallish beginnings. If it continues to work then there is no problem and no worries with other peoples money. I am going to go for it starting next week.

however if you think big you could become a millionaire.

Ficheall

looper333 wrote: »

Like i said before it isn't this, that is primary school stuff

While I agree that the martingale theory has now been done to death in this thread, it's certainly not primary school stuff, and that attitude is a little at odds with your earlier introduction of "units" to poorly attempt an explanation of rudimentary algebra.

Micky Dolenz

humbert wrote: »

Would these people be using sophisticated OP:
Is this to bmathematical systems or might they be very familiar with the horses (form and other significant horse shit)?
.

Neither of them back on horses for a living. One only backs on tennis and the other on golf. Mad, but there are tournaments going on all the time around the world.

They both know their respective sports and I suppose it's easier to pick a winner in a two horse race. The golf guy would bet on singles or teams beating the other within the tournament.

He tried to explain it to me once and all I got was this. Higher ranked players nearly always beat players ranked below them depending on form. What course is being played and have the players played there before and weather.

Horse racing is too hit and miss, a good horse may not be racing to win, they may just be getting a run out for experience, with an eye on a bigger prize/race in the near future. with horse racing, you are best to follow a top jockey and forget the horse. The big jockeys are paid to race and win.

looper333

These are daily profits/losses from week 5 to end of last week. The timer total allows for time saving tweak while full week total to left of that. There may be a few ticks out from results posted earlier but nothing major. The single digits are the amount of significant parts of the day that come into play but have more detail to them that would take a little longer to explain.

Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri Sat Sun Total Timer total
438 1 -128 3 274 2 -76 2 65 1 -274 2 -56 1 243 438 M
10 1 0 0 103 2 208 3 -220 0 346 3 4 1 451 447 SAT
86 2 0 0 43 1 -136 1 141 1 64 3 6 1 202 196 SAT
11 1 40 1 18 1 75 3 59 1 74 2 0 0 277 277 SAT
136 4 -140 1 93 1 36 1 35 3 337 2 142 2 643 500 SAT
42 2 38 1 149 3 254 2 98 1 53 3 203 2 837 634 SAT
49 2 6 1 78 2 50 2 -142 2 -83 3 -155 3 -201 -201 SUN
30 1 48 2 73 2 23 2 16 2 254 1 112 2 556 444 SAT
139 4 8 2 97 1 105 1 -115 2 218 4 -170 1 286 456 SAT
0 0 70 1 -220 0 47 2 60 1 365 4 -220 0 102 322 SAT
30 1 24 1 -69 2 42 1 288 3 -168 3 147 315 SAT
0 0 3 1 25 2 150 1 58 1 120 3 36 2 392 356 SAT
47 2 -132 2 34 1 0 0 22 1 -85 3 57 3 -57 -57 SUN
0 0 0 0 -200 1 32 3 -88 3 326 2 -142 3 -72 70 SAT

Ironman76

Fair play to you. Willing to use a bit of initiative to get off the dole, good luck with it.

Duggys Housemate

looper333 wrote: »

These are daily profits/losses from week 5 to end of last week. The timer total allows for time saving tweak while full week total to left of that. There may be a few ticks out from results posted earlier but nothing major. The single digits are the amount of significant parts of the day that come into play but have more detail to them that would take a little longer to explain.

Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri Sat Sun Total Timer total
438 1 -128 3 274 2 -76 2 65 1 -274 2 -56 1 243 438 M
10 1 0 0 103 2 208 3 -220 0 346 3 4 1 451 447 SAT
86 2 0 0 43 1 -136 1 141 1 64 3 6 1 202 196 SAT
11 1 40 1 18 1 75 3 59 1 74 2 0 0 277 277 SAT
136 4 -140 1 93 1 36 1 35 3 337 2 142 2 643 500 SAT
42 2 38 1 149 3 254 2 98 1 53 3 203 2 837 634 SAT
49 2 6 1 78 2 50 2 -142 2 -83 3 -155 3 -201 -201 SUN
30 1 48 2 73 2 23 2 16 2 254 1 112 2 556 444 SAT
139 4 8 2 97 1 105 1 -115 2 218 4 -170 1 286 456 SAT
0 0 70 1 -220 0 47 2 60 1 365 4 -220 0 102 322 SAT
30 1 24 1 -69 2 42 1 288 3 -168 3 147 315 SAT
0 0 3 1 25 2 150 1 58 1 120 3 36 2 392 356 SAT
47 2 -132 2 34 1 0 0 22 1 -85 3 57 3 -57 -57 SUN
0 0 0 0 -200 1 32 3 -88 3 326 2 -142 3 -72 70 SAT

hard to read, maybe do a column in excel and upload a screenshot?

These are "units" right?

looper333

Mon.........Tues..........Weds.........Thurs.........Frii...........Sat.............Sun...........Total.....Timer total
438...1...... -128. 3...... 274... 2...... -76... 2...... 65.... 1...... -274. 2...... -56... 1...... 243... 438. M
10.... 1...... 0...... 0...... 103... 2...... 208... 3...... -220. 0...... 346... 3...... 4...... 1...... 451... 447. SAT
86.... 2...... 0...... 0...... 43.... 1...... -136. 1...... 141... 1...... 64.... 3...... 6...... 1...... 204... 196. SAT
11.... 1...... 40.... 1...... 18.... 1...... 75.... 3...... 59.... 1..... 74.... 2...... 0...... 0...... 277... 277. SAT
136... 4...... -140. 1...... 93.....1...... 36.... 1...... 35.... 3...... 337... 2...... 142... 2.......643.. 500. SAT
42.... 2...... 38.... 1...... 149... 3...... 254... 2...... 98.... 1...... 53.... 3...... 203... 2...... 837... 634 .SAT
49.... 2...... 6...... 1...... 78.....2...... 50.... 2...... -142. 2...... -83... 3...... -155. 3...... -201..-201.SUN
30.....1...... 48.... 2...... 73.... 2...... 23.... 2...... 16.... 2...... 254... 1...... 112... 2...... 556... 444. SAT
139....4..... 8..... 2...... .97... 1...... 105... 1...... -115. 2...... 218... 4...... -170. 1...... 286... 456. SAT
0..... 0...... 70.... 1...... -220. 0...... 47.....2..... 60.... 1...... 365... 4.......-220. .0.... 102... 322 SAT
30.... 1...... 24.... 1...... -69... 2...... off.... ....... 42.... 1...... 288... 3...... -168..3..... 147... 315 SAT
0..... 0...... 3...... 1...... 25.... 2...... 150... 1...... 58.... 1...... 120... 3...... 36.... 2...... 392... 356 SAT
47.... 2...... -132. 2...... 34.... 1..... 0...... 0...... 22.... 1...... -85... 3...... 57.... 3...... -57....-57 ..SUN
0...... 0...... 0...... 0...... -200. 1...... 32.....3...... -88... 3...... 326... 2...... -142.3........-72.. 70 .SAT

Duggys Housemate

The -201 stands out - without giving too much away could you explain that?

looper333

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The -201 stands out - without giving too much away could you explain that?

I am going to learn how to upload n excel screenshot to make it easier. 2 mins

El Weirdo

It's no Crumbs System™.

looper333

ok i think i just uploaded something

Duggys Housemate

ok so what are the numbers in blue? Net wins? And sometimes green?

And the orange number with SAT?

looper333

The days start from Monday across to Sunday with totals for 7 days week in yellow and the orange with the day is total as part of an early tweak that simply means stopping if in profit on Saturday. Some days Sunday had profits as you can see but they do not count on the orange total. The number in Blue and sometimes grey are reflectors of significant amount of betting parts of day. The ones in grey also mean an added factor of day. These factors are part of overall equation and do hold plenty of weight but the details of which will die with me.

Gelio

No interest in gambling but this is quite interesting all the same . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhlc7peGlGg

Zab

looper333 wrote: »

Zab, there was one tweak in week 9 that if i did not make would have gave a -300ish result for week and this would have made a 500 difference to results. I did add that tweak in to entire results before and after and overall it reduced the overall profits by about 280 making a difference of 220 in my favor. That particular tweak has not come into play again since. That would be the biggest tweak that could possibly allow somebody to say all results are meaningless. For you to point that out i summise you have some experience in matters like this and you are quite right to point that out. Maybe i misunderstood your previous post but i thought you were hinting towards this 'equation' as being one that concentrated on horses all around evens and i was merely stating the odds vary and so it was not a system you maybe thought it was.

You keep on replying to things I haven't written. It's almost as if you're delusional.

simonw

What is so magical about races on a Sunday that mean you should stop betting? Neither maths or horses know or care what day of the week it is

Blowfish

looper333 wrote: »

Patterns are fundamentally intertwined into the fragments of every aspect of life to some degree. There is nothing supernatural about that. There are some major laws of math past basic probability.

Right, so where's the 'fundamentally intertwined' pattern in the digits of Pi?

looper333

simonw wrote: »

What is so magical about races on a Sunday that mean you should stop betting? Neither maths or horses know or care what day of the week it is

It has nothing to do with magic or supernatural things , not all weeks is Sunday absent from betting. It is all about profits from the week beginning Monday and this method will give you a day off, perhaps go and pray.

looper333

Zab wrote: »

You keep on replying to things I haven't written. It's almost as if you're delusional.

Zab you are quite as bright as i give you credit for at first.

frozenfrozen

bet 2,
lose,
bet 4,
lose,
bet 8,
lose,
bet 16,
lose,
bet 32,
lose,
bet 64,
lose,
bet 128,
win
.
.
.

2 euro profit.

REPEAT

Chance of losing if it's coin tosses, 1:2

Chance of losing two times in a row, multiply the odds by eachother, and again and again and again,
after 10 turns the odds of losing so many times in a row goes down, eventually you have to win again. and if you have enough money to keep playing, then you always win.



(complete ****e, it's always 50/50)

Where To

What kind of racing are you applying this 'system' to OP?

looper333

Here in full 17 weeks, some days were missed early on so full week analysis tweaks are not present.

P_1

You do know that you can continue to claim your dole while you do this right?