Who believes you can win on negative expection games?

[BJ]

Just curious as to peoples opinions on staking systems.

So much talk of using staking systems, but at the same time negative comments about winning on such games as roulette.

What is the purpose of a staking system?
I believe that it is to increase profits. eg instead of returning 102% with a straight bet, using a staking system to increase the return to say, 110%.
If this is possible, why not changing a 97.3% return on roulette to over 100% return?

Just looking for peoples opinions...

[rabbitz]

I have had a sport odds(now centrebet) account for 3 years and every time i'd put money in it i would go for the big multi and end up losing most of it.Last week i picked up a multi when st kilda kicked a goal after the siren.i then thought right lets change the strategy so I decided to use 5% of the bank for bets and not take anything more than a double.So this week past i increased the bank 50%,which is a great result.Obviously as the bank goes up and down so does the amount wagered
cheers

[Mr J]

The only way you can turn a -EV game into a +EV one is to gain an advantage. This advantage either increases the frequency of the payout or the size of the payout while the other stays the same or increases.

Eg coinflipping, and paying even money. In order to gain an advantage, you need to do one of these or both:
1) Find a method to flip better than 50% longerm
2) Get better than even money

Show me how a staking system could beat this example (and remember this is a breakeven scenario, not a -EV scenario which would be even harder).

A staking system is not an advantage in itself.

[Floydyboy]

Ive got one of those as well RABZ ....No more roll your owns now.... bummer
A coupla weeks ago I had a bit of a revalation myself I think I posted it somewhere ......Anyway it goes like this
Be Selective ,bet on favs ,I have a bottom limit 1.29 and 1.30 at betfair where I have to pay commission (which leaves me at 1.285bla bla bla ) hence the 1.29anywhere else .
Now heres the catch I keep reinvesting my winnings until Ive reached odds of 3.00 or better .
Its the same as having a multi at 3.00<
Then I revert back to 10% of my bank for my next series of bets ....Ive been experimenting a bit and in hindsight there were bets there that I shouldnt have had (winners and losers) I won 109 last month and Im 1 bet away from breaking square again thismonth after a swag of losers a coupla days ago (see tennis thread ) but I believe the key is be patient and selective and wait for the right 1.30-1.60 chance to come along they are just figures but last month my average div was 1.45......Soccers a no no as much as I enjoy betting on soccer I dont like it for this type of betting ....I am taking this seriously ...when I back something I expect it to win ...In other words Im not backing things that I think might have a chance ...Im backing things that I expect to win
Tennis is the main type of bet Im having although last weekend I backed ROOSTERS ,GEELONG,and TIGER in a 2ball in the last round of the golf .

[mecurial]

Floydy,

Why do you say that football betting is a no-no? I think that consistently you can get prices around the $1.30 - $1.50 mark which are quite good. These are usually found in the leagues other than EPL.

And be very careful about 2/3 ball in the golf! Although maybe you are more knowledgeable on the game, but I have had a few bets in recent weeks on the "name" sort of players e.g. Singh, Els, Garcia,Toms etc, when they have been up against guys I had never heard of before - And while the price is more than appetising, I have been burnt several times on this form of betting!

[Floydyboy]

How are ya Mecurial
Are you talking about lower leagues or other countries ......BURNT .......Italian Spanish Leagues are a joke for betting (as far as Im concerned )I find that the Bundesliga is consistent (or at least I seem to be able to pick winners there) ......But theres just too many draws in the soccer for my liking....Ill still be betting on the football but not in the same fashion as I mentioned above.
As far as the golf Goes ...yep I know a bit about golf .....I have played off single figures (just.....and it was probably ten years ago ) I just hack around now off 14 and enjoy it more ....sorry back to the betting .....I backed Tiger in the last round of the US open He was making a charge and I didnt the 18 stone fella he was playing Tim Herron would go toe to toe with him ...the final margin was 7 strokes or there abouts Since the beginning of last month Ive had 2 golf bets ... both on tiger in 2 balls and both won

[BJ]

The only way you can turn a -EV game into a +EV one is to gain an advantage. This advantage either increases the frequency of the payout or the size of the payout while the other stays the same or increases.

Eg coinflipping, and paying even money. In order to gain an advantage, you need to do one of these or both:
1) Find a method to flip better than 50% longerm
2) Get better than even money

Show me how a staking system could beat this example (and remember this is a breakeven scenario, not a -EV scenario which would be even harder).

A staking system is not an advantage in itself.

Do you use a staking system of any description?

[Mr J]

On a % of my bets yeh. Pretty simple really, bet more the larger your advantage, bet less when your advantage is small :)

[BJ]

On a % of my bets yeh. Pretty simple really, bet more the larger your advantage, bet less when your advantage is small :)

But basically you don't have an advantage so you don't bet?

[thefan]

Im making a sure bet that every gambler out there has thought of a stacking system. It works but eventually it will crumble on you.But then again its probally better than gambling with no game plan. Only time will tell.If not greed or not following your system will get the better of you. To be successful you first need discipline and a reality check.

[Mr J]

"But basically you don't have an advantage so you don't bet?"

Lol, that's not what's stopping me from sportsbetting and playing poker instead. Making money off sports is the easy part for me, managing my risk is where I got silly in the past. Won't make that mistake again though.

[punter57]

This is the same discussion we've been having over at THE RACES. Level stakes is the only way to go in ANY betting situation. If you have an advantage you will always win long term and if you don't have "the edge", staking will NOT save you. I pose the same challenge as in the racing forum, as follows.
Use a roulette simulator (on-line) or go to your nearest casino. Collect thousands of numbers BUT DON'T BET. Then "pretend" the casino has MADE A SERIOUS MISTAKE and is giving you $2.20 for one of the colours (or odd/even or high/low). This will now mean YOU CAN'T LOSE if you just bet the "advantaged" colour (or whatever) AT LEVEL STAKES. Even a highly unlikely divergence from the expected 50% (it doesn't matter about the zero either), of 5 or 10 percent will STILL leave you a winner (please don't play BOTH sides). Use ANY other staking system and, sooner or later, a long run of outs will blow the bank. I guarantee it!!! You will either see your bets skyrocket, chasing losses (no limit in THIS casino) until you crash OR you will lose and lose and lose (with percentage-type staking) but NOT recover completely when you start winning as your percentage will be OF A MUCH SMALLER REMAINING BANK.
Please don't mock or scoff 'til you try this. And,remember, it's a long-term trial NOT the first flush of success we're talking about here. Cheers.
P.S. Anyone using cut-off levels like , for example "No bets under $1.30" could you explain why, since this is TOO SHORT, why you don't bet the OTHER competitor who will thus be TOO LONG??" Cheers

[woof43]

Here's an interesting link which can further add to this thread,
http://www.hkedcity.net/article/project/iccm2004/iccm_e2.phtml

[BJ]

This is the same discussion we've been having over at THE RACES. Level stakes is the only way to go in ANY betting situation. If you have an advantage you will always win long term and if you don't have "the edge", staking will NOT save you. I pose the same challenge as in the racing forum, as follows.
Use a roulette simulator (on-line) or go to your nearest casino. Collect thousands of numbers BUT DON'T BET. Then "pretend" the casino has MADE A SERIOUS MISTAKE and is giving you $2.20 for one of the colours (or odd/even or high/low). This will now mean YOU CAN'T LOSE if you just bet the "advantaged" colour (or whatever) AT LEVEL STAKES. Even a highly unlikely divergence from the expected 50% (it doesn't matter about the zero either), of 5 or 10 percent will STILL leave you a winner (please don't play BOTH sides). Use ANY other staking system and, sooner or later, a long run of outs will blow the bank. I guarantee it!!! You will either see your bets skyrocket, chasing losses (no limit in THIS casino) until you crash OR you will lose and lose and lose (with percentage-type staking) but NOT recover completely when you start winning as your percentage will be OF A MUCH SMALLER REMAINING BANK.
Please don't mock or scoff 'til you try this. And,remember, it's a long-term trial NOT the first flush of success we're talking about here. Cheers.
P.S. Anyone using cut-off levels like , for example "No bets under $1.30" could you explain why, since this is TOO SHORT, why you don't bet the OTHER competitor who will thus be TOO LONG??" Cheers

A much smaller remaining bank?
I am going to presume you are suggesting to use a staking system betting a percentage of the bank?
Should never do this.....

[punter57]

Yeah BJ that's why I was advising against betting percentages of the bank. All staking systems apart from LEVEL go either up in defeat or up in victory and then the other way, whether as a percentage of the bank OR in fixed amounts (ie 1,2,2,3,3,3,2,2,1 etc, etc) OR you bet less when the odds are high and more when they are low (ie $10 at 10-1 to win $100 and $100 at even money to STILL win $100) though you can't know the "true odds".
The example of a CRAZY CASINO is to demonstrate that even the gambler's dream (overs on every event) will be wrecked by straying from LEVEL stakes. That staking systems don't work with a certified built-in advantage (ie a positive expectation) should be enough to scare you away from negative-expectation games/sports (with a built-in DISadvantage) even more!!!. Cheers

[BJ]

The idea is to always bet more on a winning event than a losing one.
Provided you can come up with a system to stay within all limits, then you must return more than level stakes.
I am not saying that you can beat casino games but that the right staking system will always improve your return on level stakes....

If you are betting more on the winners than the losers then how could you not?

[punter57]

If you lose $10 on a tennis match, BJ, how much should you bet next, if the next match is Roddick $3 vs Hewitt $1.40. Alternately, what if the odds were reversed (ie Roddick $1.40 vs Hewitt $3). What would you do in each case to follow your previous advice of betting more "on the winner".
Let's assume you get it wrong (thus losing your bet) and the next match is either Roddick $3 vs Federer $1.40 or Hewitt $3 vs Federer $1.40. What to bet then? It is simple to say "bet more on winners than on losers" except that we don't know which is which until AFTER the match. Can you clarify this advice by showing us what we should do in the above. Thanks.

[BJ]

To P57:
A progressive staking system says that you bet more after a loss, and less after a win.

In 2 events both paying even money. You lose the first bet of say $100. You then bet $120 on the next event and have a win.

You profit $20 with a strike rate of 50% on an even money game.

It is not a matter of who you back, just that you bet more after a loss.

To use 37 spins of Roulette as an example. (Making no claims about roulette, just for arguments sake, let's say that we bet on red for 37 spins, a star represents a red, a - represents a loss. On average you will have 18/37 wins)
In this example I will increase after a loss by 1.2, and decrease by .8 after a win.
eg....
W/L Stake
* 10
- 8
* 10
- 8
* 9
- 7
* 9
- 7
* 8
- 7
* 8
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
* 14
* 11
* 9
- 7
- 8
* 10
- 8
- 10
* 11
- 9
- 11
* 13
- 11
- 13
- 15
* 18
* 15
* 12
- 9
* 11
* 9
* 7

At the end of this series of 37 bets you have.
Profit of $21.
Average bet of $9.92
Total staked is $367.
Total return of 105.7%. An increase of the straight bet return of 97.29%.

Now the average bet on the wins is $10.8
Average bet on the loss is $9.1.


You are staking 120% more money on a win bet than a loss.


Please Note:
This was a quick 30 second spreadsheet job. Figures rounded to whole numbers for presentation here. All sums were from the spreadsheet, so are not completely accurate for you to work out from this.
Also, just used a perfect roulette session as an example.
The figures 1.2 and .8 are just used as a quick example to show what I meant about betting more on a win than a loss.

Because the odds are constant with roulette, the staking was done on the bet size.
For your examples of tennis matches or horse racing with differing odds, I vary the amount to return not the bet size.

[Mr J]

" progressive staking system says that you bet more after a loss, and less after a win."

a progression just means you change the size of your bet based on the previous result. What you describe is called a negative progression. Betting more after a win & less after a loss is a positive progression.

"You profit $20 with a strike rate of 50% on an even money game."

Find me an even money game. An no you don't. A progession won't ever be mathematically profitable by itself. The only progession that is actually useful is betting more the larger your advantage, and betting less or not at all when it's small.

"The figures 1.2 and .8 are just used as a quick example to show what I meant about betting more on a win than a loss."

Lol. You won't win as often as you lose in roulette, and that is the problem. Your wins will be worth slightly more than your losses, but you'll lose more often that win which will more than make up for it, and still give you an overall loser. Forget it, and forget trying to give mathematical examples. A progession cannot produce an advantage.

So many people have looked at this in MUCH more detail than you. It's been proven mathematically that progessions don't produce an advantage. This is fact. You are wrong. Don't wanna sound like an arse, but it's all true.

[BJ]

" progressive staking system says that you bet more after a loss, and less after a win."

a progression just means you change the size of your bet based on the previous result. What you describe is called a negative progression. Betting more after a win & less after a loss is a positive progression.

"You profit $20 with a strike rate of 50% on an even money game."

Find me an even money game. An no you don't. A progession won't ever be mathematically profitable by itself. The only progession that is actually useful is betting more the larger your advantage, and betting less or not at all when it's small.

"The figures 1.2 and .8 are just used as a quick example to show what I meant about betting more on a win than a loss."

Lol. You won't win as often as you lose in roulette, and that is the problem. Your wins will be worth slightly more than your losses, but you'll lose more often that win which will more than make up for it, and still give you an overall loser. Forget it, and forget trying to give mathematical examples. A progession cannot produce an advantage.

So many people have looked at this in MUCH more detail than you. It's been proven mathematically that progessions don't produce an advantage. This is fact. You are wrong. Don't wanna sound like an arse, but it's all true.

Where is your proof.?
Explain how my example of 2 bets on an even money event doesn't give a profit.

You can't just rock up and say it won't work. What is the reason that a progressive staking system does not give you an advantage.? On the figures I have provided, it does.

Whether I believe beating casino games is possible or not, the example I provided was to show that a progressive staking system WILL give you an advantage over straight bets.....

Yes you are entitled to an opinion, but please if you are going to voice it, provide something to back it up.

You said yourself that the wins will be worth more than the losses. To me this is saying that you agree that it will give you an advantage over straight bets.

You are contradicting yourself.
In the roulette example I provided, I had 18 wins and 19 losses and made a profit.

[jfc]

Consider all possibilities after a pair of trials of BJ's roulette example:

-$22 = loss, loss = -10 -8
+$18 = win, win = +10 +8
+$02 = loss, win = -10 +12
+$02 = win, loss = +10 -8

Call a win, loss or loss, win pair odd. And the other same results even.

Imagine you fluked 18 consecutive odd pairs in 36 spins. You'd win $2 first, then 96% of your previous win for the next 17 pairs.

That comes to ~$130.

By that time your stake is only $5. Lose that on the final spin for a profit of $125 on 18 wins and 19 losses.

So even with more losses than wins, it is possible to win on this negative game providing you get enough odd pairs.

BJs sample conveniently has 11 odd pairs and only 7 even pairs. And that is why it ends up profitable.

An equal number of odd and even pairs is the most likely outcome, resulting in a loss, and eventual ruin for any mug persisting with such a daft staking plan.

[BJ]

Consider all possibilities after a pair of trials of BJ's roulette example:

-$22 = loss, loss = -10 -8
+$18 = win, win = +10 +8
+$02 = loss, win = -10 +12
+$02 = win, loss = +10 -8

Call a win, loss or loss, win pair odd. And the other same results even.

Imagine you fluked 18 consecutive odd pairs in 36 spins. You'd win $2 first, then 96% of your previous win for the next 17 pairs.

That comes to ~$130.

By that time your stake is only $5. Lose that on the final spin for a profit of $125 on 18 wins and 19 losses.

So even with more losses than wins, it is possible to win on this negative game providing you get enough odd pairs.

BJs sample conveniently has 11 odd pairs and only 7 even pairs. And that is why it ends up profitable.

An equal number of odd and even pairs is the most likely outcome, resulting in a loss, and eventual ruin for any mug persisting with such a daft staking plan.


Don't quite understand what you are trying to say. Can you post an example of a series of 37 spins with 18 winners that loses?

[jfc]

For the moment I'll concede that I CANNOT find any circumstances where 18 wins from 37 will produce a net loss - and that I was wrong to blame the effect on an excess of odd pairs.

The discredited Martingale system which doubles after each loss only needs 1 win to get back in front.

And I suspect that BJ's system has a similar flaw. Essentially if you have too few wins in 37 spins you will lose. DUH! But the point is those losses will be far bigger than the corresponding wins resulting in an overall loss.

I'll try to think about this more then respond fully.

[Mr J]

"Can you post an example of a series of 37 spins with 18 winners that loses?"

Sure. Start at $10, when we lose we add $10 to the bet, when we win we lower the bet by $10.

Win the first 18 spins = +$180

Lose the next 19 spins = -1900

You are contradicting yourself.
In the roulette example I provided, I had 18 wins and 19 losses and made a profit.

Your sample wasn't random. Either is the one I described above, ie both of our 'tests' are biased.

You said yourself that the wins will be worth more than the losses. To me this is saying that you agree that it will give you an advantage over straight bets.

No. If the the 2 bets pay even money, you still need to win >50% to profit.

Yes you are entitled to an opinion, but please if you are going to voice it, provide something to back it up.

Sure, it's called mathematics.

You can't just rock up and say it won't work. What is the reason that a progressive staking system does not give you an advantage.? On the figures I have provided, it does.

Yes I can.
All a staking system does is change the distribution of winnings/losses.
Again, your test was biased.

Where is your proof.?

All over the net. Check out bjmath.com, bj21.com, and maybe wizardofodds.com.

I'm sorry but you are wrong and it's a fact. If progessions gave an edge, the casino's wouldn't be in business. If it was so easy to profit at blackjack or roulette, why would the casino's offer the game?

I don't need to prove to you why progessions don't work, you need to prove to mathematicians all across the world why they DO work.

[BJ]

"Can you post an example of a series of 37 spins with 18 winners that loses?"

Sure. Start at $10, when we lose we add $10 to the bet, when we win we lower the bet by $10.

Win the first 18 spins = +$180

Lose the next 19 spins = -1900

You are contradicting yourself.
In the roulette example I provided, I had 18 wins and 19 losses and made a profit.

Your sample wasn't random. Either is the one I described above, ie both of our 'tests' are biased.

You said yourself that the wins will be worth more than the losses. To me this is saying that you agree that it will give you an advantage over straight bets.

No. If the the 2 bets pay even money, you still need to win >50% to profit.

Yes you are entitled to an opinion, but please if you are going to voice it, provide something to back it up.

Sure, it's called mathematics.

You can't just rock up and say it won't work. What is the reason that a progressive staking system does not give you an advantage.? On the figures I have provided, it does.

Yes I can.
All a staking system does is change the distribution of winnings/losses.
Again, your test was biased.



I don't need to prove to you why progessions don't work, you need to prove to mathematicians all across the world why they DO work.

Firstly Mr. J.
Your series of 37 spins did not produce a loss of anywhere near that much. It is quite confusing to me why you would argue against my thoughts on staking systems with a crazy staking system that has nothing to do with anything written previously.

What I asked for, was a series of 37 spins that produces a loss using the figures 1.2 and .8.
If you took the time to respond, surely you have time to read what you are responding to.

Secondly.
Explain to me about the 2 bets on an even money event. You say you wouldn't profit. If you bet $10 on the loss and $12 on the win, how do you argue that there is not a $2 profit.?


What about mathematics proves what you are saying? Mathematics is a very broad area.

[BJ]

Work it out again Mr. J.

This time reread what you yourself wrote.

First 18 spins all win = +$10
Last 19 spins all lose = -$10

I hope you are not an accountant...

[jfc]

If you are betting more on the winners than the losers then how could you not?

BJ,

Apropos your system where you decrease your stake by 20% after every win, and increase by 20% after every loss:

Suppose you lose the 1st 2 spins, then win.

$10 = Loss
$12 = Loss
$14 = Win

You end up losing $8 (=10+12-14).

$14 = bets on Winners
$11 = bets on Losers (average)

So despite betting significantly more on your winners you lost!

This disproves your justification for your system.

[BJ]

The idea is to always bet more on a winning event than a losing one.
Provided you can come up with a system to stay within all limits, then you must return more than level stakes.
I am not saying that you can beat casino games but that the right staking system will always improve your return on level stakes....

If you are betting more on the winners than the losers then how could you not?

JFC: Above is my comment in full.
If you were betting level stakes, you would have bet,
$10 loss
$10 loss
$10 win.
A total loss of $10.

Now I only produced a loss of $8. In 3 bets I have added $2 to your pocket that you would have lost betting level stakes.

I am not some miracle worker who suggests that turning a profit from a 33% strike rate on roulette is possible.

I think you are a little desperate to prove me wrong.
You are right though, your imaginary roulette game with a strike rate of 33% cannot be beaten.

Now, try again, but this time use appropriate strike rates. Try 18/37.

Please reread the second sentence from the above quote. "Provided you can come up with a system to stay within all limits, then you must return more than level stakes."

[jfc]

BJ,

Play the game for 3 spins.

At $10 level stakes the expectation is a LOSS of $0.810810810

With your staking the expectation is a WORSE LOSS of $0.813772

I have used 6,8,10,12,14 as the possible stakes - and the precise win probability of 18/37.

I will wait to see if your calculations agree.

[jfc]

BJ,

here are the key calculations for a (simpler) 2 spin game and your stakes:

P/L Prob _ _ _ _ Product
-22 0.263696 -5.80131
+02 0.249817 +0.499635
+02 0.249817 +0.499635
+18 0.236669 +4.260044

The expectation totals -0.542001

That is worse than level stakes of -0.540540540

[BJ]

So if what you are suggesting is that a staking system such as the one I mentioned, will not return as much as level stakes?

If so, prove it on a series of 37 spins with 18 winners.

Your previous posts are just numbers on a screen to me. Don't know how you came up with them.

Show me, a 37 spin series, showing level stakes compared with this staking system. If you are right, then I will lose more than $10.

Forget about any limits, start at $10 and see where it takes you....

[jfc]

So if what you are suggesting is that a staking system such as the one I mentioned, will not return as much as level stakes?

If so, prove it on a series of 37 spins with 18 winners.

Your previous posts are just numbers on a screen to me. Don't know how you came up with them.

Show me, a 37 spin series, showing level stakes compared with this staking system. If you are right, then I will lose more than $10.

Forget about any limits, start at $10 and see where it takes you....

I have now actually completely examined a 37 spin game, but first I'd like some indication that you'd be able to understand my results.

A 2 spin-game is the simplest possible using your staking. How can you NOT understand it!

Don't you understand what your 4 possible results will be?

Are you unaware that the win probability is 18/37 and a loss is 19/37?

Or that the probability of 2 independent events both occurring is the product of their individual probabilities?

If you don't know what expectation is then google it up.

Work through at least my simple 2-spin example. I suspect one of us will then learn something.

[BJ]

I have now actually completely examined a 37 spin game, but first I'd like some indication that you'd be able to understand my results.

A 2 spin-game is the simplest possible using your staking. How can you NOT understand it!

Don't you understand what your 4 possible results will be?

Are you unaware that the win probability is 18/37 and a loss is 19/37?

Or that the probability of 2 independent events both occurring is the product of their individual probabilities?

If you don't know what expectation is then google it up.

Work through at least my simple 2-spin example. I suspect one of us will then learn something.

Your results should suggest 1 of 3 things.
Equal to level stakes, returning a $10 loss.
Worse, a loss of more than $10.
Better, a loss of less than $10, or a win.

If your results suggest 1 of these 3 things, then I will understand it...

[jfc]

BJ,

calculating the expectation of a 2-spin game is too much for you, but you want me to spam out a 37-spin game?

I'll just give you some of my results instead.

$10 start, no limit, fractional increments (e.g. 12, 14.4, 17.28... )

Expectation = -$11.03725 which is worse than level -$10.

You will win whenever you make 17 or more spins ~70% of the time.

But the massive losses for 16 or fewer wins more than wipe out your losses.

[Mr J]

Work it out again Mr. J.

This time reread what you yourself wrote.

First 18 spins all win = +$10
Last 19 spins all lose = -$10

I hope you are not an accountant...

Lol. Read my post again. We start with a $10 bet, and every time we win we subtract $10 from the bet (unless the bet is $10). Every time we lose we add $10.

The first 18 bets are all worth $10, so profit +180.
The next 19 all lose, with each loss being worth $10 more than the last.
You should do the maths again.

Look, just drop it. Visit those websites I posted. Or, you can continue to think that you are smarter than everyone else, including all the casino's and mathematicians who have studied the probabilities/maths of gambling.

[BJ]

Lol. Read my post again. We start with a $10 bet, and every time we win we subtract $10 from the bet (unless the bet is $10). Every time we lose we add $10.

The first 18 bets are all worth $10, so profit +180.
The next 19 all lose, with each loss being worth $10 more than the last.
You should do the maths again.

Look, just drop it. Visit those websites I posted. Or, you can continue to think that you are smarter than everyone else, including all the casino's and mathematicians who have studied the probabilities/maths of gambling.

Yes, I just reread your post and I still can't find the words "unless the bet is $10".
Where did you hide them.??

That staking system goes against everything I have been saying anyway, so I don't know what you gain by using it as an example.

As far as the websites you posted, if I believed everything that was posted on the internet, I would be hiding under my bed so the little green men couldn't get me....