Offer to anyone who claims they can win in the long run

[curious]

what do I get in return?? >>>

I would do it if he paid for a round trip ticket to Vegas. I would get 5K on Mon night and would hand him back 10K on Tue night. He can't watch me play and if I could avoid meeting him I could. I would triple the 5K and would do for a free trip to Vegas. Other than a deal like that, I'm not interested.

Great, you are not interested in my challenge and I have ZERO interest in you.  So, with that please stay the f**k out of my threads.

Yes, I'm going to fly someone I don't know to Vegas, hand them $5,000 and hope that they show up on Tuesday.  Put the crack pipe down idiot.  No one would do that.

[Spike]

No one would do that.>>

LOL! Sure they would. What are you offering, $500? I can double your money in 24 hours and I'm sure as hell not going to do it for anything less than 5K, nobody would.

[kav]

Curious,

The problem is the phrase: "You make good losses if the play generates a net loss."
I guess that means that the player pays for the losses. But this also means you take no risk at all. Like you mentioned already, even a winning system has a risk of ruin. Whoever wants to call himself BR provider should take that risk. Otherwise it is obvious there is no reason anyone would be interested in this kind of deal.

Not to mention, that if someone had a winning method he would already had accumulated the needed money to play it. Unless it needed a really BIG BR.

[Lanky]

Hi Spike.

Look Mate We have had Complaints from the the Thread Starter of this Topic that You are disrupting this Topic of His.

So Please do us all a Favour and post Your Questions and Comments about this Topic to link provided below.

I have open that Thread for You and anyone else who wants to use it.

nolinks://vlsroulette.com/roulette-challenge-zone/question-and-comments-to-(offer-to-anyone-who-claims-they-can-win-in-the-long-ru/

Thanks Spike.

Lanky.

[curious]

Curious,

The problem is the phrase: "You make good losses if the play generates a net loss."
I guess that means that the player pays for the losses. But this also means you take no risk at all. Like you mentioned already, even a winning system has a risk of ruin. Whoever wants to call himself BR provider should take that risk. Otherwise it is obvious there is no reason anyone would be interested in this kind of deal.

Okay. so then say that and say you would be willing to do it if you don't have to make the losses good.  That's fine.

Not to mention, that if someone had a winning method he would already had accumulated the needed money to play it. Unless it needed a really BIG BR.

Not necessarily.  I know many people who play blackjack with a theoretical edge of 1 to 2% and they have not been able to accumulate a decent bankroll.  The bigger the bankroll that is backing your play the more profit you can make.  I play blackjack as an advantage player and I would not turn down an offer to bankroll my play if the bankroll was large enough.  Just means I can make bigger bets than normal. Why would I not do that?

[curious]

I'm not sure if this is a challenge, more of an offer.

There are a few people on this forum who, legitimately I believe, claim to be able to beat roulette in the long run.

I make this offer.   If you live in the United States or are going to be in the United States.

I will meet you at the casino of your choice.   I will bankroll play of your approach over enough spins to get into the long run.   We split winnings at some ratio to be negotiated if the play generates a net win.   You make good losses if the play generates a net loss.

A few things I need from you first.

The expected value of your approach.
The number of trials necessary that theoretical expected value will equal actual results.   (If you don't know how to calculate this I can do it for you. )
Standard deviation of your approach.
An English description of your approach in language that even I can understand.
Risk of ruin of your approach.
Needed bankroll to overcome standard deviation and make it to the long run with a reasonable risk of ruin.

I will reject responses to this offer that are betting schemes which do not have some theoretical support that they can provide +EV.   For example, if you respond with a martingale I will reject your response.

And please do not respond with some secret CIA stuff like "how I play is a secret so I want you to put up your money without having any idea what I plan to do".

Kav says that by including the condition that the player make good net losses I am making an unreasonable demand.  Okay, so I remove that condition.

Here is the offer with that condition removed:
I make this offer.   If you live in the United States or are going to be in the United States.

I will meet you at the casino of your choice.   I will bankroll play of your approach over enough spins to get into the long run.   We split winnings at some ratio to be negotiated if the play generates a net win.   You make good losses if the play generates a net loss.

A few things I need from you first.

The expected value of your approach.
The number of trials necessary that theoretical expected value will equal actual results.   (If you don't know how to calculate this I can do it for you. )
Standard deviation of your approach.
An English description of your approach in language that even I can understand.
Risk of ruin of your approach.
Needed bankroll to overcome standard deviation and make it to the long run with a reasonable risk of ruin.

[curious]

Curious,

The problem is the phrase: "You make good losses if the play generates a net loss."
I guess that means that the player pays for the losses. But this also means you take no risk at all. Like you mentioned already, even a winning system has a risk of ruin. Whoever wants to call himself BR provider should take that risk. Otherwise it is obvious there is no reason anyone would be interested in this kind of deal.

Not to mention, that if someone had a winning method he would already had accumulated the needed money to play it. Unless it needed a really BIG BR.

Kav,
I amended the offer to remove the condition "You make good losses if the play generates a net loss"

Thanks for the suggestion.

[kav]

This is much more attractive now.  

However, since you are a BJ player, you should know that when we are talking about 1-2% advantage it is very hard to define standard deviations - whatever that could mean exactly (which is not clear to me). The most famous (and rich) Greek BJ player, John Taramas, (back then when European casinos weren't full of shuffling machines) was for a whole year in the red!!!

[curious]

This is much more attractive now.  

However, since you are a BJ player, you should know that when we are talking about 1-2% advantage it is very hard to define standard deviations - whatever that could mean exactly (which is not clear to me). The most famous (and rich) Greek BJ player, John Taramas, (back then when European casinos weren't full of shuffling machines) was for a whole year in the red!!!

Yes, I understand.  But, I think you are confusing defining standard deviations with playing enough trials to overcome standard deviation.  We can define standard deviation theoretically.  The problem with blackjack with a 1-2% advantage is that the actual results often don't conform to the theoretical.

It is possible, however, to establish the number of trials where you expect actual results to equal theoretical expectation.  In blackjack we call this number NO.  For a game with good conditions this can be as few as 6,000 trials.  Of course, you might play the 6,000 trials and still not have overcome SD.  The formula used to determine this number requires the expectation and the standard deviation, we can calculate the standard deviation once we know what theory is being applied to the game.

The reason I need these numbers is to know what size bankroll to use and what the bet size is to be so that risk of ruin can be kept reasonable.  Personally, I don't like for risk of ruin to be above 2%.

I fully expect some winning roulette players to be unable to supply these facts because the way they play depends on intuition or pattern recognition.  I'll deal with that if it comes up.

[bombus]

curious,

From my experience with the forum, Spike is actually one of the very few members who does claim to consitently beat the game.

So why would you want to exclude him from the offer?

He is likely the only one that will take up the challenge, so why not undergo serious negotiation with Spike?

BTW, what exactly do you expect to achieve through this exersize?

[Herb]

Curious,

I win in the long run and I live in the US. 

But first, who are you?

[TwoCatSam]

curious

Why do you have to actually be at a wheel when Dublin is a real wheel broadcast worldwide? (Don't go ballistic on me--just asking!  I know it's not your challenge.)

Sam

[Jakkalsdraai]

I Agree With The Bee ...... Bombus! 

Spike says he can beat the game with only a jockstrap and tackies .... and double your money....well that seems pretty decent to me. 

Jakk

[curious]

I Agree With The Bee ...... Bombus! 

Spike says he can beat the game with only a jockstrap and tackies .... and double your money....well that seems pretty decent to me. 

Jakk

I know Spike from another forum and I believe nothing that he says and I want to have nothing to do with him.

[curious]

curious,

From my experience with the forum, Spike is actually one of the very few members who does claim to consitently beat the game.

So why would you want to exclude him from the offer?

He is likely the only one that will take up the challenge, so why not undergo serious negotiation with Spike?

BTW, what exactly do you expect to achieve through this exersize?

From my experience with Spike on other forums he is a blow hard.  I want to have nothing to do with him.

[curious]

-