Opinions On What Would Be Considered As 'Beating The House'

[Black21Jack]

I want to give a hypothetical and I would like peoples opinion on whether they think the 'house', and a 'negative expectation game' has been beaten.

On Monday Joe Schmo deposits $1000.00 into XXXX Online Casino and plays what he considers his 'method'. By the following Sunday his balance is $2000.00 and he cashes out $1000.00 to his bank leaving $1000.00 in the casino. Now he plays with that $1000.00 for the rest of his life, using a 'stop loss' method along with a little self control, making a cashout every week off of that $1000.00. Don't forget that Joe leaves $1000.00 in his casino account at all times and never makes another deposit to XXXX Online Casino.

I just want an answer to the above question without anyone saying it is not possible, or being negative. Just answer yes or no, whether you consider as the 'house' being beat.

 

[Macgyver]

Yes.

 

[bethug]

yes , way to go

 

[bpb]

This may be splitting hairs a bit, but I think the size of the weekly cashouts is important. Or perhaps the amount wagered per week is a better measure.

For example, if you did a negative progression starting at 1 cent, and stopping for the week when you've profited by that 1 cent, then odds are you could go your entire lifetime playing without losing .. as you would need to lose 16 consecutive times before burning through your $1,000 roll. you have a better than 50/50 chance of dodging those 16 straight losses once per week for 20 years.

So, I would say, add an average weekly cashout to the problem.

 

[bethug]

bpb, yes or no??

 

[Black21Jack]

This may be splitting hairs a bit, but I think the size of the weekly cashouts is important. Or perhaps the amount wagered per week is a better measure.

For example, if you did a negative progression starting at 1 cent, and stopping for the week when you've profited by that 1 cent, then odds are you could go your entire lifetime playing without losing .. as you would need to lose 16 consecutive times before burning through your $1,000 roll. you have a better than 50/50 chance of dodging those 16 straight losses once per week for 20 years.

So, I would say, add an average weekly cashout to the problem.

Ok I see what you are saying, but without wanting to get into the betting method I will say a cashout ranging from minimum of $350.00 - maximum $1000.00 on a weekly basis, depending on whether the 'stop loss' method comes into play. Keep in mind that the player will never burn through his bankroll, it is impossible in this scenario, and even if that did happen he has cashed out $1000.00 after the first week making him break even. He is now playing with the casinos money and has recovered his $1000.00 after the first week making it zero risk.

 

[m249a]

Yes........profit is profit period.

 

[bpb]

I gave a definite no along with a clear counterexample of negative progression, starting at 1 cent, stopping at any profit. If you add an average weekly cashout figure to the problem, my answer would likely change.

 

[bpb]

Ok I see what you are saying, but without wanting to get into the betting method I will say a cashout ranging from minimum of $350.00 - $1000.00 on a weekly basis, depending on whether the 'stop loss' method comes into play. Keep in mind that the player will never burn through his bankroll, it is impossible in this scenario, and even if that did happen he has cashed out $1000.00 after the first week making him break even. He is now playing with the casinos money and has recovered his $1000.00 after the first week making it zero risk.

Given weekly cashouts of $350 - $1,000, never touching the original $1,000 ... then I think this would clearly demonstrate that the player is beating the house.

 

[Vesuvio]

Keep in mind that the player will never burn through his bankroll, it is impossible in this scenario, and even if that did happen he has cashed out $1000.00 after the first week making him break even. He is now playing with the casinos money and has recovered his $1000.00 after the first week making it zero risk.

Black21Jack - if you could cash out $350-$1000 every week for a lifetime, then by all means I'll say you've beaten the house (or you're the luckiest man alive).

Your state,emt above about having cashed out $1000 in the first week is a complete non sequitur. If I win the Major Millions jackpot this week & lose every week for the rest of my natural life but am still in profit it won't mean I've beaten the house.

Now, the problem is... there's no system known to man that will guarantee you cashing out a profit each week. The last time you posted something like this you admitted it was completely hypothetical & told me your system - which with all due respect doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of doing what you say. So this is really a pointless discussion. But fun anway

 

[Petunia]

-- No--

*And since I don't need to explain myself *grin* think about it.

 

[Black21Jack]

Your state,emt above about having cashed out $1000 in the first week is a complete non sequitur. If I win the Major Millions jackpot this week & lose every week for the rest of my natural life but am still in profit it won't mean I've beaten the house.

Has nothing to do with what I was saying. There was a post which implied the bankroll could be depleted. My point about cashing out the $1000.00 was that the player had recovered his $1000.00 (in this scenario it is guaranteed that he will cash that $1000.00 after the first week) meaning he is now playing with zero risk and if he did not make it to the second week without burning out his bankroll then he has lost nothing as he breaks even. I should have said that in such a case he did not beat the house but also that the house did not beat him. Remember that I said he will never deposit any more money so if he did lose all money that is it. I also said that he will never zero out, as the method used prevents it completely.

Now, the problem is... there's no system known to man that will guarantee you cashing out a profit each week. The last time you posted something like this you admitted it was completely hypothetical & told me your system - which with all due respect doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of doing what you say. So this is really a pointless discussion. But fun anway

Where did I post that this scenario is based on what I told you in the PM that I sent you? On that matter I am still going strong and have not lost a penny since I told you about it.

 

[bethug]

I have proven you can cash out 100 dollars a day, 100x 30 3000, most people in my hood dont make 3000 a month. Now i am willing to challenge any one that doubt it $$ 500.00 bucks

 

[ftg]

I have proven you can cash out 100 dollars a day, 100x 30 3000, most people in my hood dont make 3000 a month. Now i am willing to challenge any one that doubt it $$ 500.00 bucks

While I believe you can win at online casino, you have NOT PROVED anything concrete at all.

I remember last time (in PM) I asked you your playcheck logs, initially you agreed to send me but eventually you didn't without any reasons. (You first said that you don't know how to extract the logs from playcheck to excel and I have shown you step by step.)

 

[Black21Jack]

While I believe you can win at online casino, you have NOT prove anything concrete at all.

I remember last time (in PM) I asked you your playcheck logs, initially you agreed to send me but eventually you didn't without any reasons. (You first said that you don't know how to extract the logs from playcheck to excel and I have shown you step by step.)

ftg, can you PM me on how to do this. It would be greatly appreciated.

 

[bethug]

ftg, i had a big reason, you made fun over one of my post, also i dont have excel on my laptop, and you can see where i played at three differnet casinos screen shots. enough said.

 

[ftg]

ftg, i had a big reason, you made fun over one of my post, also i dont have excel on my laptop, and you can see where i played at three differnet casinos screen shots. enough said.

1. I don't mind you refused to give it out because this is yours. After looking at your posts, I just want to know what your system is but you just have some screen shots and never describe it in details. I say : it's ok but I want to know more and that's why I PM you to ask for the playcheck logs.

2. The fact is you agreed and and asked me how to do it. I PMed you but then receive no further response. You never say you don't have an excel. I expect you to PM me for not able to send it to me becasue of this and that.

3. Again, it's fine you keep your system as your secret.

4.

you made fun over one of my post.

Which one? when did it happen? After you agreed to send me the logs and before you actually send it to me?

 

[Stanford]

You have beaten the house and exceeded expectation.

Someone else has lost more then their expectation.

In total of the universe those that have played to expectation combined with those that have had varience (both plus and minus) together approach expectation.

If Joe did not die but kept playing he would go bust using whatever stop method or session method you can contrive other than one. If he stops and never goes back, he will always be a winner.

Stanford

 

[Black21Jack]

If Joe did not die but kept playing he would go bust using whatever stop method or session method you can contrive other than one. If he stops and never goes back, he will always be a winner.

Stanford

Actually if Joe was immortal and would never die he could go on forever doing what he is doing, or as long as the casino stayed in business without ever having to deposit a cent of his own money. I am going to leave it at that and I thank all those who responded.

 

[Stanford]

Actually if Joe was immortal and would never die he could go on forever doing what he is doing, or as long as the casino stayed in business without ever having to deposit a cent of his own money. I am going to leave it at that and I thank all those who responded.

Then you earlier premise is wrong. Either the game has positive expectation or it doesn't. If it has positive expectation then with proper bet sizing Joe might never go broke. He has a small Risk of Ruin.

If it is a negative expectation the risk of ruin is 100%. Joe will go broke.

If you are claiming there is a betting system that can beat a negative expectation game you are wrong. You owe it to yourself to find out why.

Stanford

 

[jpm]

Absolutely its beating the house. After you've pulled out your stake in week 1, you are playing with house money and every dollar you withdraw after that is pure profit. Even if you eventually lose the $1000 that's in there, you've still beaten the house.

I did this very thing with a casino that's no longer in business. Didn't deposit for more than a year, and played off the same $100 making withdrawls when I had 50 or 100 in profit, mostly on VP.

 

[Black21Jack]

Absolutely its beating the house. After you've pulled out your stake in week 1, you are playing with house money and every dollar you withdraw after that is pure profit. Even if you eventually lose the $1000 that's in there, you've still beaten the house.

I did this very thing with a casino that's no longer in business. Didn't deposit for more than a year, and played off the same $100 making withdrawls when I had 50 or 100 in profit, mostly on VP.

Exactly, thank you jpm. I do not understand how anyone can read that scenario and answer no.

 

[KasinoKing]

The answer to the ORIGINAL question, is, without any shadow of a doubt or need to waffle, or claim it's not possible, is undeniably:-

YES!

 

[Vesuvio]

Where did I post that this scenario is based on what I told you in the PM that I sent you? On that matter I am still going strong and have not lost a penny since I told you about it.

Black21Jack - your question is rhetorical & only has any point if you think you can 'beat the house' in the way you say. So, when you originally posted the same thing before I asked you how you intended to do so & you told me.

I'm genuinely glad if your approach is still working, but I think if you're honest you have to admit that there's no way you're going to end up a certain amount above your starting balance every week. The only possible way of even trying to always make a profit is a negative progression, & there's no way of using one to get into profit without risking losing your whole balance. You might get lucky for a while but not forever...

Even Bethug admits to losing deposits The odd thing is that when Bethug posts on threads like this he says he aims to make $100 a week (knowing when to quit etc.), but then whenever he starts a thread it's of the 'I turned $100 into $3000 type'... which is obviously a completely different approach.

I don't understand this thread - if you want to say you can beat a fair negative expectation game with a betting system then say that. Don't try to imply that you already have a guaranteed system to beat the casino when you don't.

 

[bethug]

Vesuvio, I have over 8000 sitting is various casinos at any given time. I get up every morning for a good 30 min and play and cash out. 100 to 200 bucks

I also test casinos out, and of late been missing with bonus. I play more than one casino. I net over 10000 every month except one month and that month i was down 2000 and some change. When i get back to compton , i will give more details.

You can make extra money, there alot of people on here that are. The differnece is I speak up and there smarter they keep quiet and laugh and losers

 

[mitch]

Bethug you constantly claim to beat all casinos by means of your money management system. Of course anyone who has any knowledge of probability theory knows this to be absolute bollocks

Even if you were god, which apparently you wish to indicate with your ability to manipulate natural laws why would you post on a public forum? God surely wouldn't bother and an advantage player would never do this because the last thing he would ever want is for other players to become aware of a method of beating casinos as this would cause his stream of money to dry up as casinos went out of business due to them beating the universally accepted laws.

Hope you are not really god as I do not fancy spending the rest of my life as a frog!

"win don't gamble"

Mitch

 

[Black21Jack]

I started this thread to ask a simple question, and to get opinions from other players and not to start a debate on gambling systems. I never said I was beating the casinos in such a manner as posted, my Joe Schmo scenario is hypothetical. If I was, I would never post how I was doing it that is for sure. Anyways thanks to those that gave me a yes or no response.

 

[Stanford]

I started this thread to ask a simple question, and to get opinions from other players and not to start a debate on gambling systems. I never said I was beating the casinos in such a manner as posted, my Joe Schmo scenario is hypothetical. If I was, I would never post how I was doing it that is for sure. Anyways thanks to those that gave me a yes or no response.

Well.... what you said was.

"Actually if Joe was immortal and would never die he could go on forever doing what he is doing, or as long as the casino stayed in business without ever having to deposit a cent of his own money."

So again, either this game has positive expectation or Joe is going to go broke. If you contend otherwise, you are essentially contending that the house edge can be overcome by some system.

Players should understand that this isn't possible. If you think it is, it is in your best interest to understand why it isn't. If you are having fun with "systems" that's great but realize the reality.

Stanford

 

[Black21Jack]

Well.... what you said was.

"Actually if Joe was immortal and would never die he could go on forever doing what he is doing, or as long as the casino stayed in business without ever having to deposit a cent of his own money."

So again, either this game has positive expectation or Joe is going to go broke. If you contend otherwise, you are essentially contending that the house edge can be overcome by some system.

Players should understand that this isn't possible. If you think it is, it is in your best interest to understand why it isn't. If you are having fun with "systems" that's great but realize the reality.

Stanford

When I added that if he was immortal and would never die, it was part of the hypothetical. I wanted to see how many people would still say that he was really lucky and deny that even in such a scenario, the house has been beat. I would like you to show me where I said once in my post that it could be overcome by a system or that my example was real. I don't think that most players will take this as me contending that the house can be beaten, you have got to give players more credit. Most gamblers can think for themselves.

 

[Stanford]

When I added that if he was immortal and would never die, it was part of the hypothetical. I wanted to see how many people would still say that he was really lucky and deny that even in such a scenario, the house has been beat. I would like you to show me where I said once in my post that it could be overcome by a system or that my example was real. I don't think that most players will take this as me contending that the house can be beaten, you have got to give players more credit. Most gamblers can think for themselves.

If you say that it is part of the hypothetical, it is part of the hypothetical.

If you are proposing a hypothetical of money management overcoming a house edge in a negative expectation game where the player plays for infinity, you are proposing an impossibility. The answer would be a meaningless "yes".

It is like saying, if you saw a flying pig, would you say pigs can fly?

Now I know that you ask posters not to address the impossiblity, but that is what makes it meaningless. Is there a reason you propose such a hypothetical? Perhaps if we knew what you were trying to get to, it would be easier to answer correctly.

Stanford

 

[KasinoKing]

The answer is still YES!

Hypothetical bollocks or not, he just asked for a simple Yes or No answer.
Stop waffling!

 

[sw2003]

Well.... what you said was.

"Actually if Joe was immortal and would never die he could go on forever doing what he is doing, or as long as the casino stayed in business without ever having to deposit a cent of his own money."

So again, either this game has positive expectation or Joe is going to go broke. If you contend otherwise, you are essentially contending that the house edge can be overcome by some system.

Players should understand that this isn't possible. If you think it is, it is in your best interest to understand why it isn't. If you are having fun with "systems" that's great but realize the reality.

Stanford

Stanford, I think you are missing the point! This is not about positive or negative expectation. This is about provided that Joe was able to double his money in the first week and withdrew his original deposit. He could have done it by a system or he was lucky or whatever. The doubling his money part is a condition that was imposed at the outset. Based on this condition, one can ask a question based on that.

Oh don't tell me it is impossible to double one's money within one week. There are lucky people who doubles their money all the time and of course there are people who lose their bankroll every week too.

 

[snuf419]

counter-argument..??

Blackjack,

Here is my reasoning. Put the subsequent wins aside, the whole scenario is solely based upon the fact that the person won in his initial session. He could have lost.

If I were to tell you I won a hand in BJ and never return, am I beating the house? Yes. But if you ask me to do it repeatedly, then we all know the answer would be 'no'.

If you keep betting with money you win, no matter you win or lose in your subsequent bets, you are a winner! So this whole thing is like arguing in a circle.

I have four 90 degrees corner, am I a rectangle? Yes!
But that's what gave me 4 90 degrees corner to begin with!

See my point?

 

[Stanford]

Stanford, I think you are missing the point! This is not about positive or negative expectation. This is about provided that Joe was able to double his money in the first week and withdrew his original deposit. He could have done it by a system or he was lucky or whatever. The doubling his money part is a condition that was imposed at the outset. Based on this condition, one can ask a question based on that.

Oh don't tell me it is impossible to double one's money within one week. There are lucky people who doubles their money all the time and of course there are people who lose their bankroll every week too.

You are certainly correct. And that's why I answered yes the first time. It happens all the time as you say.

But now Black21Jack says the hypothetical is that Joe plays a negative expectation game every week for infinity and never goes broke. This is a different question.

Now obviously, this could not happen so I am very unsure of what the point might be and have asked Black21Jack for clarrification.

Stanford

 

[jpm]

Hypothetical bollocks or not, he just asked for a simple Yes or No answer.
Stop waffling!

LOL, hypothetical bollocks! I love it.