From: tim werner <werner@mc.ab.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 06:12:46 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Laundering money through commodity futures
Message-ID: <199404181312.JAA12251@sparcserver.mc.ab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 19:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
>On Sun, 17 Apr 1994, Eric Hughes wrote:
>
>> . . . [quotes from another poster]
>> You still need infinite pockets with transaction costs of zero.
>> . . . [blah, blah, blah]
>
>Almost everyone posting on this subject keeps forgetting that this isn't 
>an exercise in probablity theory.

I believe Eric's point was a little off, anyway.  The bank at Monte Carlo
was broken using exactly the method which he was attempting to discredit.

A man went to the casino with several suitcases full of money and proceeded
to play roulette using the progressive betting strategy.  Eventually he
broke the bank.  That's when casinos started imposing house limits on the
tables.  I don't think this story is apocryphal.

With no house limit, I think it is far more likely that someone with *lots*
of money will break the bank than it is that, say, 'red' will come up 30
times in a row.

I don't think the commodity exchanges have the same sort of limits set up.

Not that they can't change the rules on you in mid-stream.  Remember what
happened to Bunky Hunt?

tw

p.s.: Kids, don't try this scheme at the casino.  With house limits,
progressive betting strategies are just systems for giving money to the
casino.