$25k challenge

[Dan Druff]

You play 40,000 hands (the number of hands in a typical "royal flush cycle") at one agreed-upon denomination. Then the people betting against you will basically cross-book the casino against you -- where you pay them the amount of money you lose (if you finish down), and they pay you the money you won (if you're up).

I just threw 40,000 hands out as an example. It could be more or fewer, if you want.

But you wouldn't be allowed to change limits, and the exact denomination played would be agreed upon beforehand.

If you are willing to do this, let me know, and I will definitely put together a group to take the other side of this bet.

You should know better by now. A winning session is at least $2500 net profit. And explain why I would go into a challenge not playing only the strategy that's being doubted? Why would you want to change any of it?

And geniuses....the challenge was for $25k PLUS the final amount of my overall win, and it can be capped at at least $100k. Read it again. Making changes to what I said or changing the amount of the bet is ludicrous.

Dan, if your mind is shouting to you that I will lose more in one losing session than I will in the 9 others that I win, why are you not JUMPING on this bet?

You or any of the armchair gamblers can answer that. Unless it's too tough.

Rob, I'll explain again.

Being likely to book a "winning session" is not the main factor in determining if you're a winner.

Here's a simple example:

Say we have a computer select a random number between 1 in 20. Then you pick a number between 1 in 20. If your money doesn't match the computer number, you win $10. If you do match the number, you lose $300.

On average, you will "win" this game 95% of the time.

So if each "session" of this game was 1 time, you would book 95% winning sessions.

However, you would get KILLED in the long run, as your loss of $300 when you do pick the same number (instead of $200, as it should be) would make the game massively -EV for you.

So even though you could win 95% of the time in this game, you'd still be a big loser if you played it for any reasonable length of time.

That's why your proposed "bet" is BS.

By being able to change denominations and playing for an unspecified amount of time, you could keep Martingaling it until you finally luck into a small profit. And while you'd be risking getting REALLY unlucky and losing huge, the $25k reward for "booking a winning session" would counteract that, and you'd be highly likely to win.

You're basically asking people to bet that, on a one-time basis, is a Martingale betting strategy likely to show a small profit? One would be a fool to bet against that.