The WIZARD of odds.

[fullhouse]

A few days ago I stumbled across a web page that made me laugh. Some charactor by the name of "The Wizard" of odds. Claims that he would prove that no system with a house edge could withstand a 1 billion computer simulation test.

He maintained that at some point during the billion simulations the system would go pear shaped and into the red. He said up until recently he use to offer $20,000 to the challengers $2,000 that he would prove that no system could survive the Billion times text. Yet he would not accept any replies from anyone challenging his assumptions

I tell you, I have heard some stuff in my time. But when you consisder that in my case for instance. I have approximately 72 eliminators per year at 41. I would be dead and buried before I even see 10,000. So it is ridiculous when these sceptics come up with these silly challenges.

As much as I respect mathmaticians and stataticians. They think everything will go with maths logic, and They don't like to be proven wrong. Just thought I would tag this one on to see if anyone else has ever encountered anything like it. Peace...

 

[johnph77]

I don't know who you're referring to specifically, but one person known as The Wizard of Odds is Michael Shackleford of Las Vegas NV. He has a website with all sorts of data and information on casino games, including slots, blackjack, roulette and poker. He and I have corresponded in the past regarding Keno. He's been featured a couple of times on the Discovery Channel when they've covered casino action in LV. Offhand, I don't recall any place on his website making the claim you refer to.

I've never expanded any of my probability tables beyond a few million, but it seems possible that over a billion simulations of any particular game there would, at one time or another, be swings that would result in a favorable outcome toward the bettor. In a 6/49 matrix probability table, for instance, when one reaches around the 40% number of total possibilities (5.6 million or thereabouts - the numbers aren't handy at the moment) the probability that one previous set of six numbers would replicate itself is about 50%. But which set of numbers? There's the rub.....

 

[fullhouse]

Hi there

Yes I believe this is the guy. There is a section on his web page where he basically talks about the futility of systems. And what he calls gamblers fallacy. That if a particular event hasn't happened for some time. Alot of gamblers form systems around the belief that it is due.

Now although I agree totally that trying to chase down a long losing streak is very foolish (having once witnessed the ball land on black 19 times in a row in a casino) BROKE ANYONE?

I do not subscribe to his point of view that no system can be very effective and make money for a lifetime. Just because it may not survive his billion simulation computer test.

I have been making a living from 3 systems over the last 3 years. And so do other people who have done their homework and know how to beat the odds. Another thing that invalidates testing any system on a computer is that the computer can't respond to changes like a human. For example I will hold back and also increase my stakes when experience and instinct tells me it is wise to do so.

A computer can't react like that. Rigid mechanical systems will nearly always fail in real life let alone in a billion test computer simulation. This is what separates games like poker and black-jack from other games. The HUMAN FACTOR comes into play.

George clooney summed it up perfectly in Oceans 11. When he said play the same all the time and the house eventually takes you. Wait for the right moment and lay it down big. And you take the house. And that is the human judgement that only time and experience can give you. Peace...

 

[johnph77]

fullhouse -

First, I need to clarify a portion of my previous post:

In a 6/49 matrix probability table, for instance, when one reaches around the 40% number of total possibilities (5.6 million or thereabouts - the numbers aren't handy at the moment) the probability that one previous set of six numbers would replicate itself is about 50%.

How it should read:

.....the probability that one set of six numbers has appreared twice in any two of the previous draws is about 50%.

Sorry for the misleading information. Onward and forward.

I agree completely with your comments about the human factor. After, all, machines don't gamble, people do. And it doesn't matter what system you use or whether intuition comes into play or not, if it works, don't fool with it.

Ever on.

John

 

[tomtom]

Re: Hi there

Yes I believe this is the guy. There is a section on his web page where he basically talks about the futility of systems. And what he calls gamblers fallacy. That if a particular event hasn't happened for some time. Alot of gamblers form systems around the belief that it is due.

Now although I agree totally that trying to chase down a long losing streak is very foolish (having once witnessed the ball land on black 19 times in a row in a casino) BROKE ANYONE?

I do not subscribe to his point of view that no system can be very effective and make money for a lifetime. Just because it may not survive his billion simulation computer test.

I have been making a living from 3 systems over the last 3 years. And so do other people who have done their homework and know how to beat the odds. Another thing that invalidates testing any system on a computer is that the computer can't respond to changes like a human. For example I will hold back and also increase my stakes when experience and instinct tells me it is wise to do so.

A computer can't react like that. Rigid mechanical systems will nearly always fail in real life let alone in a billion test computer simulation. This is what separates games like poker and black-jack from other games. The HUMAN FACTOR comes into play.

George clooney summed it up perfectly in Oceans 11. When he said play the same all the time and the house eventually takes you. Wait for the right moment and lay it down big. And you take the house. And that is the human judgement that only time and experience can give you. Peace...

The guy you were talking about just provided some proven facts in a very honest and sound way. I don’t know what is your problem with that. Very often someone else might claim the opposite, and while selling a so called system or strategy might make a lot of people heavy losers.

And, BTW, poker is one of not that many games where people actually deal with some good odds, very often well in advance might evaluate real chances and from that reason it became that popular game. Actually it has almost nothing in common with the other gambling games you are talking about …

 

[fullhouse]

Good point Tom tom.

I don't have a problem with the man, I actually agree with most of what he says. Except his belief that ALL systems are flawed and doomed to fail. I don't know a thing about poker, never played it, probably neverwill. What I do know is it is possible not only to turn a profit from a system.

But to get to a point where you can almost see the future within a certain range. Its how you go about it. I approach my stratedgies in a very different way to most I have seen.

And I don't need to ask anyone for a penny for them. Because when a stratedgy/system truly works such as the ones I use. You're already making enough money. The people who don't really have a working system are the ones trying to sell them (most of the time) I can't say that every system being sold is useless.

But I know most don't work. And I got stung a few times when I was younger, before I began testing and researching for myself.

So the man has alot of good points on his site. But the attitude that a system must survive a billion test simulation on a computer program to hold any worth, is seriously flawed and without merit.

At the end of the day the only thing that matters is does it make a proifit or not. Peace...