FORMAL CHALLENGE: NEW BLACKJACK & CRAPS SYSTEM WILL WIN 1K/DAILY FOR MIN 30 SESSIONS
I have formulated a betting system and modified basic strategy system for blackjack & craps. And for the record, it is not for sale.
However, administrator permitting, I would like to make a challenge to any player who can afford this:
I challenge any blackjack or craps player to play along with me with a 13k bankroll for 30 sessions. I am VERY confident we will win 1k per session minimum.
I would like to have the player post the results of each of the 30 sessions on this forum to prove me right or wrong. Each session will be under 2 hours. I will put up the entire 13K bankroll BUT give the player the opportunity to do the same at a 50/50 split of earnings.
The purpose of this challenge is to show the Adminisrator/Wizard who feels ALL systems are worthless over time (key words 'over time'), that with this modest size bankroll, I can train anybody to win 1k/day consistently for a period of 30 consecutive sessions, while demonstrating exceptional bankroll management. I will show that with player management ANYONE can win when instructed refined discipline, adequately funded, playing craps or blackjack.
Any gamblers wish to win?
Quote: bigginsHey there forum members.......
I have formulated a betting system and modified basic strategy system for blackjack & craps. And for the record, it is not for sale.
However, administrator permitting, I would like to make a challenge to any player who can afford this:
I challenge any blackjack or craps player to play along with me with a 13k bankroll for 30 sessions. I am VERY confident we will win 1k per session minimum.
I would like to have the player post the results of each of the 30 sessions on this forum to prove me right or wrong. Each session will be under 2 hours. I will put up the entire 13K bankroll BUT give the player the opportunity to do the same at a 50/50 split of earnings.
The purpose of this challenge is to show the Adminisrator/Wizard who feels ALL systems are worthless over time (key words 'over time'), that with this modest size bankroll, I can train anybody to win 1k/day consistently for a period of 30 consecutive sessions, while demonstrating exceptional bankroll management. I will show that with player management ANYONE can win when instructed refined discipline, adequately funded, playing craps or blackjack.
Any gamblers wish to win?
If it's not for sale, I'm assuming you want to keep it secret. How then is the player going to play your system? Surely you wouldn't trust anyone from this forum to not spill the beans if they participate in your challenge?
I'm not going to bother exchanging 200 messages negotiating terms, but no system is going to do better than this, given the same rules.
| Day | Starting BR (1000s) | Pr(session win) | Pr(survival) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13 | 92.86% | 92.86% |
| 2 | 14 | 93.33% | 86.67% |
| 3 | 15 | 93.75% | 81.25% |
| 4 | 16 | 94.12% | 76.47% |
| 5 | 17 | 94.44% | 72.22% |
| 6 | 18 | 94.74% | 68.42% |
| 7 | 19 | 95.00% | 65.00% |
| 8 | 20 | 95.24% | 61.90% |
| 9 | 21 | 95.45% | 59.09% |
| 10 | 22 | 95.65% | 56.52% |
| 11 | 23 | 95.83% | 54.17% |
| 12 | 24 | 96.00% | 52.00% |
| 13 | 25 | 96.15% | 50.00% |
| 14 | 26 | 96.30% | 48.15% |
| 15 | 27 | 96.43% | 46.43% |
| 16 | 28 | 96.55% | 44.83% |
| 17 | 29 | 96.67% | 43.33% |
| 18 | 30 | 96.77% | 41.94% |
| 19 | 31 | 96.88% | 40.63% |
| 20 | 32 | 96.97% | 39.39% |
| 21 | 33 | 97.06% | 38.24% |
| 22 | 34 | 97.14% | 37.14% |
| 23 | 35 | 97.22% | 36.11% |
| 24 | 36 | 97.30% | 35.14% |
| 25 | 37 | 97.37% | 34.21% |
| 26 | 38 | 97.44% | 33.33% |
| 27 | 39 | 97.50% | 32.50% |
| 28 | 40 | 97.56% | 31.71% |
| 29 | 41 | 97.62% | 30.95% |
| 30 | 42 | 97.67% | 30.23% |
The probability of success is also easily calculated as 13000/43000 = 30.23%.
Quote: AcesAndEightsIf it's not for sale, I'm assuming you want to keep it secret. How then is the player going to play your system? Surely you wouldn't trust anyone from this forum to not spill the beans if they participate in your challenge?
Hey there AcesAndEights,
Yes, for now I do wish to keep the 'system & strategies' secret. My interest is generating success stories using the system with the most credible people in the world. And there could be no higher knowledgable people than the forum at Wizard other than the Wizard himself. I believe showing 30 winning sessions of at least 1k with a bankroll of 13k to a forum member is a good start. Then is I do the same for another 10 members, where ALL results per session are posted, then and only then, will I be worthy of showing the Wizard himself....side-by-side at the tables.
Addressing your post. Good question but simple answer. The system is far more than what is portrayed by the forum as a simple martingale system. Pretty much any 'blackjack 101" player can understand most all of the published 'systems'. In 30 sessions of live play where I tell the player what to bet and what to do without explaining 'why' at the table do is hardly enough time for the player to learn the system without documentation.
After all 'water seeks its own level'.
The only thing that matters is going to bed with more money than you awoke with....staying within the rules of discipline. So with that stated, how would you feel if you had 30 winning sessions of at least 1k with a bankroll of 13k?
Wouldn't you agree that if you were to then bank 17k and then begin another 30 sessions you're at zero risk of loss? And if you were to repeat this task for a total of 10 times whereas no matter what the results you were ALWAYS ahead and profitable would you consider your gaming system a success?
Although I absolutely love ALL the Wizazrd's websites, and concur with 100% the mathematics; odds, probability, etc., and consider myself a dunce in comparison, isn't performance all that matters over paper calculations? (no disrespect Sir Wizard)
I mean some people do win consistently! Just be 'needy' and not 'greedy'!
Quote: biggins
Wouldn't you agree that if you were to then bank 17k and then begin another 30 sessions you're at zero risk of loss? And if you were to repeat this task for a total of 10 times whereas no matter what the results you were ALWAYS ahead and profitable would you consider your gaming system a success?
The thing is that you don't have a system that is ALWAYS ahead and profitable. So I guess it depends on what you do after a session or series of sessions that depletes the $13k bankroll. if you stop gambling for the rest of your life, the sure. you're at zero risk of loss. if you dip back into the winnings, then no, you're not at zero risk of loss.
However, there does come a time when some overly dedicated person to winning like myself comes along and feels after years of research and play, and more play, I truly believe that I have something unique.
Furthermore, I now play with select dealers, pit bosses, and hosts, who, too, have never seen this strategy ever. Lastly, I like your quote above stating: "It's not whether you win of lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet', I personally prefer to simplify; "It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether you always win more than you lose".
Once my challenge succeeds (or fails), I would then, and only then, submit the system in it's entirety to you for your personal analysis because 'I gotz 2 know' your opinion.
But until that time......ANY TAKERS?
sessions. At the right price, of course.
Quote: rdw4potusThe thing is that you don't have a system that is ALWAYS ahead and profitable. So I guess it depends on what you do after a session or series of sessions that depletes the $13k bankroll. if you stop gambling for the rest of your life, the sure. you're at zero risk of loss. if you dip back into the winnings, then no, you're not at zero risk of loss.
I'm not sure I agree with your comment "you (I) don't have a system that is ALWAYS ahead and profitable". A system, no different than any business, becomes 'non-profitable' if you 'spend more than you earn' or in this case 'lose more than you win'.
Consistent with our 'business' analogy if you consistently earn more money than you started with, or in case of loss; that loss is less than your initial bankroll or aggregrate bankroll, you have a profitable business (system). And if that profit continues and your business (system) gets considerable trademark branding and you eventually sell your business (system) for a huge profit, wouldn't you consider that a successful business (winning system)?
Maybe then one can 'cookie cut' the success and venture into Baccarat? lol
Quote: BuzzardWhy not simply win a few hundred million and then let us in on the action.? I am available as a bodyguard during your winning
sessions. At the right price, of course.
Hey Buzz wouldn't you rather be in at the beginning vs the end? After all, no discrepect but many people like you made the same comments about Microsoft, Facebook, etc.
Your value of being let in personally on the action depletes considerably after winning a few hundred million........but the bodyguard scenario certainly carries some value during the winning!!!
Quote: Dynamitewhat part of the country are you in? i. e. NE, SW, South, midwest, far west?
Hey Dynomite I am now here in Las Vegas 85% of the time. I play the other 15% of the time in Chicago.
Quote: WizardI could accomplish this myself with a Martingale-based system on the don't pass with odds about 20% to 25% of the time. This table admitedly ignores the house edge, which is 0.28% only with 3-4-5X odds on the don't. Factoring in the very low house edge, I figure the odds of making 1K each day for 30 days, with a 13K bankroll is 20% to 25%.
I'm not going to bother exchanging 200 messages negotiating terms, but no system is going to do better than this, given the same rules.
Day Starting BR (1000s) Pr(session win) Pr(survival) 1 13 92.86% 92.86% 2 14 93.33% 86.67% 3 15 93.75% 81.25% 4 16 94.12% 76.47% 5 17 94.44% 72.22% 6 18 94.74% 68.42% 7 19 95.00% 65.00% 8 20 95.24% 61.90% 9 21 95.45% 59.09% 10 22 95.65% 56.52% 11 23 95.83% 54.17% 12 24 96.00% 52.00% 13 25 96.15% 50.00% 14 26 96.30% 48.15% 15 27 96.43% 46.43% 16 28 96.55% 44.83% 17 29 96.67% 43.33% 18 30 96.77% 41.94% 19 31 96.88% 40.63% 20 32 96.97% 39.39% 21 33 97.06% 38.24% 22 34 97.14% 37.14% 23 35 97.22% 36.11% 24 36 97.30% 35.14% 25 37 97.37% 34.21% 26 38 97.44% 33.33% 27 39 97.50% 32.50% 28 40 97.56% 31.71% 29 41 97.62% 30.95% 30 42 97.67% 30.23%
The probability of success is also easily calculated as 13000/43000 = 30.23%.
Wizard, we ALL know you are the first and final word on all gaming questions. Your websites provide more education to players, professionals, and degenerate gamblers than the entire Library of Congress. In advance of any further statements I have THAT much respect for you and for what you have done to educate people and answer EVERY gaming question known to mankind. I digress.
However, there does come a time when some overly dedicated person to winning like myself comes along and feels after years of research and play, and more play, I truly believe that I have something unique.
Furthermore, I now play with select dealers, pit bosses, and hosts, who, too, have never seen this strategy ever. Lastly, I like your quote above stating: "It's not whether you win of lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet', I personally prefer to simplify; "It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether you always win more than you lose".
Once my challenge succeeds (or fails), I would then, and only then, submit the system in it's entirety to you for your personal analysis because 'I gotz 2 know' your opinion.
But until that time......ANY TAKERS?
Quote: BuzzardWhy, surely a non-disclosure agreement will have to be signed. That's what I make my friends do, before revealing to them my secret for running their cars on water. I can't risk the oil companies wanting their money back from me.
Addressing your 'good' comment depicted in a bit of a jab towards my post........NDA or NDNCNC agreements would certainly follow prior formal disclosure or written documentation of the system & strategies if we consistently hit the goals, wouldn't you agree?
and don't call me 'surely'. lol
Quote: BuzzardWhy, surely a non-disclosure agreement will have to be signed. That's what I make my friends do, before revealing to them my secret for running their cars on water. I can't risk the oil companies wanting their money back from me.
........and don't call me 'surely'. lol
Quote: biggins
Consistent with our 'business' analogy if you consistently earn more money than you started with, or in case of loss; that loss is less than your initial bankroll or aggregrate bankroll, you have a profitable business (system). And if that profit continues and your business (system) gets considerable trademark branding and you eventually sell your business (system) for a huge profit, wouldn't you consider that a successful business (winning system)?
Unlike in an actual business, you're playing a game the odds of which are stacked against you. So, i would consider this a mathematical impossibility, not a winning system.
Quote: rdw4potusUnlike in an actual business, you're playing a game the odds of which are stacked against you. So, i would consider this a mathematical impossibility, not a winning system.
Wow! I suppose I would expect that response from a math major vs business person (no disrespect intended). Starting any business and keeping it profitable is CERTAINLY no different than playing a game where the odds are stacked against you. Compare the success % of profitable start up businesses to the % of people who win in vegas.
Maybe you don't play or participate in gaming, but people DO win.
Let me simplify a situation for you all of you 'experts' who say that no system can win. As Einstein said it best: 'If you want to win at gambling just keep doubling your bet'. Now we all know that's simply the Martingale System....but if there were no limits you WOULD win everytime. Any of you math majors who argue and say after a 'billion hands' you might lose one hand in a googooplex (sp), but in reality a billion hands is not realistic.
Yes, with the advent of table limits an infinite Martingale System is not plausible, but it does not mean that tables with larger betting spreads (10-5000) have same risk of hitting limits than tables with betting spreads 10-1000.
So I guess when anyone says a winning system is a mathematical impossibility I just say 'pass the beer nuts, please.'
(ps: tell your story to Don Johnson) Again, sir, no disrespect.
Quote: bigginsLet me simplify a situation for you all of you 'experts' who say that no system can win. As Einstein said it best: 'If you want to win at gambling just keep doubling your bet'. Now we all know that's simply the Martingale System....but if there were no limits you WOULD win everytime. Any of you math majors who argue and say after a 'billion hands' you might lose one hand in a googooplex (sp), but in reality a billion hands is not realistic.
Exactly. A billion hands isn't realistic, and that's exactly why the Martingale doesn't work. Since you won't always be able to chase indefinitely, you're basically balancing a small chance of a huge loss against a large chance of a small win.
Quote: bigginsYes, with the advent of table limits an infinite Martingale System is not plausible, but it does not mean that tables with larger betting spreads (10-5000) have same risk of hitting limits than tables with betting spreads 10-1000.
No, no it doesn't. If the game always paid out 1:1, and had no edge, you would find yourself unable to quite cover your losses after losing eight times on the former, six on the latter. The odds of the former are 255:1, the latter 63:1, if you count each chase as a separate "hand." These are far from insurmountable odds - as it turns out, exactly enough for the huge losses to wipe out your slow climbs. In a real casino, not only do they wipe out your slow climb, they take a fair bit extra, since those occasional massive bets feed the house edge.
Do it yourself - flip a coin, or do the equivalent, not a million, not a billion, five hundred times. Did you see a streak of six? Eight? That represents all your wins being wiped out, as if they'd never been. Now try it on a roulette wheel or pass line and see what happens.
No matter how high the table limits are, though, there's one limit you can't overcome - your own bankroll. Coming off a win, the chance of this one being the losing streak that leaves you unable to keep chasing is your base bet divided by between half your bankroll and your whole bankroll. That may not sound like much, but remember, once that happens once... no more bankroll. If every time this happened you made that money again somehow and came back, you'd find that the money you're losing, when you account for those massive, quick downswings, was in percentage terms approaching the house edge on your bets.
You can win, yes, with luck, if you don't keep at it too long. But you can't beat the house.
Quote: rdw4potusThe thing is that you don't have a system that is ALWAYS ahead and profitable.
Nobody does (well, unless they cheat).
While it's very unlikely that, at craps, every time you bet Pass, the throw is craps, and every time you bet Don't Pass, the throw is a natural, it's not impossible - and you can't possibly come out ahead if you lose every bet.
Quote: BuzzardI am laying 3 to 1 against any forthcoming report.
This seems like a bad bet - 13k to win 1k? If he can screw that up, he's got a winning system, he's just doing it backwards.
Quote: BuzzardI straightened Einstein out on that years ago at a Princeton pub. He overlooked table limits in his equations. He thanked me and asked that I help him on a few other things. I only had time to assist him on drafting Russell–Einstein Manifesto. Russell is my pen name.
First and foremost, my system is NOT the Martingale System. Second, I addressed table limits in my response so your solution for Einstein was already known by the entire world.
I'm more curious where you met Einstein? Perhaps in Union Square at J.B. Winberry's? Fun pub. I studied spectroscopy in Princeton during the mid 80's as part of a post grad program for a government agency. Been there done that.
Quote: 24BingoQuote: bigginsLet me simplify a situation for you all of you 'experts' who say that no system can win. As Einstein said it best: 'If you want to win at gambling just keep doubling your bet'. Now we all know that's simply the Martingale System....but if there were no limits you WOULD win everytime. Any of you math majors who argue and say after a 'billion hands' you might lose one hand in a googooplex (sp), but in reality a billion hands is not realistic.
Exactly. A billion hands isn't realistic, and that's exactly why the Martingale doesn't work. Since you won't always be able to chase indefinitely, you're basically balancing a small chance of a huge loss against a large chance of a small win.
No, no it doesn't. If the game always paid out 1:1, and had no edge, you would find yourself unable to quite cover your losses after losing eight times on the former, six on the latter. The odds of the former are 255:1, the latter 63:1, if you count each chase as a separate "hand." These are far from insurmountable odds - as it turns out, exactly enough for the huge losses to wipe out your slow climbs. In a real casino, not only do they wipe out your slow climb, they take a fair bit extra, since those occasional massive bets feed the house edge.
Do it yourself - flip a coin, or do the equivalent, not a million, not a billion, five hundred times. Did you see a streak of six? Eight? That represents all your wins being wiped out, as if they'd never been. Now try it on a roulette wheel or pass line and see what happens.
No matter how high the table limits are, though, there's one limit you can't overcome - your own bankroll. Coming off a win, the chance of this one being the losing streak that leaves you unable to keep chasing is your base bet divided by between half your bankroll and your whole bankroll. That may not sound like much, but remember, once that happens once... no more bankroll. If every time this happened you made that money again somehow and came back, you'd find that the money you're losing, when you account for those massive, quick downswings, was in percentage terms approaching the house edge on your bets.
You can win, yes, with luck, if you don't keep at it too long. But you can't beat the house.
You're 100% correct on everything you've said. I concur. However, what still is mystery is how everyone started suggesting my new system & strategies is the Martingale System? For the record, it is not. Moving forward. You also stated 'you can win.....if you don't keep at it too long' and then you stated' but you can't beat the house'. What do you mean by you can't beat the house?
For instance, I have a celeb using my new system and he is up 1.6 million. So he did not beat the house? Don Johnson won 15 mil in AC in 6 months. So he did not beat the house? If I play 30 sessions with a modest 13k bankroll and at the end of 30 sessions NEVER lose my bankroll and bank more than 13k each time, did I not beat the house....or do I have to play a billion hands (which is impossible) to where the house edge either finally wins or I make errors from fatigue?
I think to any 'non math major' a simple definition of beating the house is winning. If you lose, the house wins. If you win, the house loses. Simple. Or for those stat majors if your aggregate career gaming shows you win more than lose...you beat the house. No one is trying to buy the house.
I think you guys need to get out from behind the slide rules and try some advanced systems that avoid the number one factor against the player....and you said it best....and that is time. Not to ruin your day but I'll say it again. Some people DO WIN.
Quote: SOOPOOI'm coming to Vegas next week and would love to watch you take a grand from the casino, then report my findings to the forum. PM me and we can set it up.
I may be in Chicago next week playing but I will see if I can change my schedule to accomodate yours.
Soopoo, I don't know how to PM. Maybe explain how?
Can I give you my email without violating any forum rules so we can make arrangements?
Quote: bigginsI may be in Chicago next week playing but I will see if I can change my schedule to accomodate yours.
Soopoo, I don't know how to PM. Maybe explain how?
Can I give you my email without violating any forum rules so we can make arrangements?
Click on his name next to his post--that will get his profile page. Click on "New Message" right under his name on the profile page.
Quote: SOOPOOYour pm to mw worked. I was told if you post your actual email address here that it can be easily picked up by computer spammers, so it is advised not to post them on open forums.
Great chatting with you SOOPOO. See you next week!
Quote: FarFromVegasClick on his name next to his post--that will get his profile page. Click on "New Message" right under his name on the profile page.
thanks. Done!
Quote: BuzzardHad mine on my profile for over a year. No problem. But spammers probably know all my funds are tied up in non-durable goods, Food , Rent and now Prescriptions. GRRR
emphasis on the necessary prescriptions!
Quote: Ibeatyouraces
Sure they can win short term but never over thousands of hours. I am fairly certain that if Don Johnson or this "celeb" were to put in as much time as I do, they will both be net losers.
Don Johnson apparently used 'loss rebate' guarantees to be able to make his play +EV. I doubt biggins has that available to him. I will be attending a session with biggins, and will give a report to the forum. As per my discussion with him, I will not report details of his system, but rather an overall impression. We will be using it once at BJ and once at craps. I told him I am a skeptic, and that if he could convince me of its value I would happily report such to the forum.
Quote: bigginsYou're 100% correct on everything you've said. I concur. However, what still is mystery is how everyone started suggesting my new system & strategies is the Martingale System? For the record, it is not.
Doesn't matter. EVs always add, even if they're not independent. As long as some of your individual bets have negative EV, and none strictly positive, the mean of your probability distribution will be zero. There are no +EV bets on a craps table. What's inescapable is that the less likely you are to lose, the bigger your worst losses will be.
Quote: bigginsMoving forward. You also stated 'you can win.....if you don't keep at it too long' and then you stated' but you can't beat the house'. What do you mean by you can't beat the house?
The house likes winners, as long as someone's paying for them. Winners draw people in, keep people playing. That's why even money games have the best edges, so that someone's likely to win, even after quite a while. However, as long as enough bets are made, someone's going to end up paying for those winners. As long as you're part of that system, as long as you're one of the people making the bets that, taken as a whole, are making the house money, you haven't beaten them. You might get lucky and be one of those who gets some of that money, as long as you remember that it's just luck that kept you from being one of those who gave them that money - depending on your strategy, you might just as easily given them the same amount, more likely have given them less, or had a real hazard of giving them far more. It doesn't matter to them, as long as such players add up to a net loss, which in all those circumstances they will.
Quote: bigginsFor instance, I have a celeb using my new system and he is up 1.6 million. So he did not beat the house? Don Johnson won 15 mil in AC in 6 months. So he did not beat the house? If I play 30 sessions with a modest 13k bankroll and at the end of 30 sessions NEVER lose my bankroll and bank more than 13k each time, did I not beat the house....or do I have to play a billion hands (which is impossible) to where the house edge either finally wins or I make errors from fatigue?
You're ahead. You may well stay ahead. Depending on what your system is, it may even be that the EV won't catch up with your winnings for a long time. (But since this sounds like some kind of regression, I doubt it.) You haven't beaten them, though, since your bets are swallowed up in the mass of bets, and those bets are all making them money. Yours are no different. You don't need to play a million hands - if your system is regressive, you'll get nailed soon enough. If it's progressive, you're better off, but you're probably going to see more bad sessions than good ones.
Quote: bigginsI think to any 'non math major' a simple definition of beating the house is winning. If you lose, the house wins. If you win, the house loses. Simple. Or for those stat majors if your aggregate career gaming shows you win more than lose...you beat the house. No one is trying to buy the house.
The former is wrong. Winners are good for the house. The latter is closer. If the house's books show you to be a liability, you've beaten the house. A system that never bets into EV, though, will never do that. You might never get behind, but you're still just the product the house is selling to consumers like you.
Quote: bigginsI think you guys need to get out from behind the slide rules and try some advanced systems that avoid the number one factor against the player....and you said it best....and that is time. Not to ruin your day but I'll say it again. Some people DO WIN.
In other words, "quit while you're ahead," an idea old as the hills. Some people never get far enough ahead to quit, that's all there is to it. If you did, congratulations. Although that's kind of defeated by the fact that you're off to Vegas right now, to put in more time.
Quote: IbeatyouracesQuote: bigginsQuote: 24BingoQuote: bigginsLet me simplify a situation for you all of you 'experts' who say that no system can win. As Einstein said it best: 'If you want to win at gambling just keep doubling your bet'. Now we all know that's simply the Martingale System....but if there were no limits you WOULD win everytime. Any of you math majors who argue and say after a 'billion hands' you might lose one hand in a googooplex (sp), but in reality a billion hands is not realistic.
Exactly. A billion hands isn't realistic, and that's exactly why the Martingale doesn't work. Since you won't always be able to chase indefinitely, you're basically balancing a small chance of a huge loss against a large chance of a small win.
No, no it doesn't. If the game always paid out 1:1, and had no edge, you would find yourself unable to quite cover your losses after losing eight times on the former, six on the latter. The odds of the former are 255:1, the latter 63:1, if you count each chase as a separate "hand." These are far from insurmountable odds - as it turns out, exactly enough for the huge losses to wipe out your slow climbs. In a real casino, not only do they wipe out your slow climb, they take a fair bit extra, since those occasional massive bets feed the house edge.
Do it yourself - flip a coin, or do the equivalent, not a million, not a billion, five hundred times. Did you see a streak of six? Eight? That represents all your wins being wiped out, as if they'd never been. Now try it on a roulette wheel or pass line and see what happens.
No matter how high the table limits are, though, there's one limit you can't overcome - your own bankroll. Coming off a win, the chance of this one being the losing streak that leaves you unable to keep chasing is your base bet divided by between half your bankroll and your whole bankroll. That may not sound like much, but remember, once that happens once... no more bankroll. If every time this happened you made that money again somehow and came back, you'd find that the money you're losing, when you account for those massive, quick downswings, was in percentage terms approaching the house edge on your bets.
You can win, yes, with luck, if you don't keep at it too long. But you can't beat the house.
You're 100% correct on everything you've said. I concur. However, what still is mystery is how everyone started suggesting my new system & strategies is the Martingale System? For the record, it is not. Moving forward. You also stated 'you can win.....if you don't keep at it too long' and then you stated' but you can't beat the house'. What do you mean by you can't beat the house?
For instance, I have a celeb using my new system and he is up 1.6 million. So he did not beat the house? Don Johnson won 15 mil in AC in 6 months. So he did not beat the house? If I play 30 sessions with a modest 13k bankroll and at the end of 30 sessions NEVER lose my bankroll and bank more than 13k each time, did I not beat the house....or do I have to play a billion hands (which is impossible) to where the house edge either finally wins or I make errors from fatigue?
I think to any 'non math major' a simple definition of beating the house is winning. If you lose, the house wins. If you win, the house loses. Simple. Or for those stat majors if your aggregate career gaming shows you win more than lose...you beat the house. No one is trying to buy the house.
I think you guys need to get out from behind the slide rules and try some advanced systems that avoid the number one factor against the player....and you said it best....and that is time. Not to ruin your day but I'll say it again. Some people DO WIN.
Sure they can win short term but never over thousands of hours. I am fairly certain that if Don Johnson or this "celeb" were to put in as much time as I do, they will both be net losers.
So now I'm really confused. Do you math guys play to you lose because you like to prove your math correct or perhaps like to lose?
Everyone admits a player can win short term but you all state no one can beat the house? Are you all convinced that there are NO NET WINNERS? Humm!
Let's go back to my original challenge....which for the record, still remains open for a local player.
If I take a 13k bankroll and win 30 consecutive short sessions for $1,000 or greater have I beat the house? Seems to me, yes, I have.
You must be a poker player to have the desire to play long sessions. Interesting.
Or...do you mean when you say "put in as much time as I do" is that referring to long time at tables per day or frequency of play everyday? If it's pertaining to mega hours per day at same table I can't help you.
But if you want to win everyday....I can help you achieve that goal for sure.
I play to win not to play.
Quote: bigginsSo now I'm really confused. Do you math guys play to you lose because you like to prove your math correct or perhaps like to lose?
Sometimes it's fun to put a bit of disposable money to the test, even knowing that it's more likely to be lost. In the long term, these sessions will add up to a loss of money we didn't need, and probably would have been worse spent.
Quote: bigginsEveryone admits a player can win short term but you all state no one can beat the house? Are you all convinced that there are NO NET WINNERS? Humm!
Net winners have not beaten the house. You might say they've beaten the other players, not directly as in poker, but still, that's where the money is coming from. Ignoring those who exploit flaws in the games to play them as they're not meant to be played, from a large number of bets (say hundreds of thousands) the house will take a certain percentage with quite small error bars. The rest is distributed unevenly among the players, who have each made a relatively small number of bets (say dozens or hundreds), so their "error" is quite wide.
Quote: bigginsLet's go back to my original challenge....which for the record, still remains open for a local player.
If I take a 13k bankroll and win 30 consecutive short sessions for $1,000 or greater have I beat the house? Seems to me, yes, I have.
If you could do this, either you're rather lucky (whatever your system, I guarantee you the chance is less than 1 in 11 of you doing this), or your "system" is actually a form of AP, similar to card counting or (possibly) dice control, where some of your bets are +EV, and these make up for the -EV ones. If it's the same system for craps and blackjack, I find this unlikely to say the least. However, if that is the case, you have indeed beaten the house. If it was by luck, though, nope.
Quote: bigginsYou must be a poker player to have the desire to play long sessions. Interesting.
Any kind of advantage player will want to play long sessions. You're better off playing a short session while punting, however - that, at least, you're right about - but a lot of short sessions are no different from one long one. Treating them separately, they can be a bit of fun, but just like advantage players frequently show a loss even though they're playing a winning game, a few winning sessions don't change the fact one is playing a losing game.
Quote: bigginsOr...do you mean when you say "put in as much time as I do" is that referring to long time at tables per day or frequency of play everyday? If it's pertaining to mega hours per day at same table I can't help you.
But if you want to win everyday....I can help you achieve that goal for sure.
Why do you think it matters? Do you think the dice get resentful if you stick around too long? You can help him win perhaps as much as twelve days out of thirteen, and wipe out his bankroll on the thirteenth. With a 13k stoploss and a 1k stopgain, that's the best your system can do.
He's winning already. My comments on whose money he's winning and how are elsewhere and irrelevant, but he is genuinely winning, since he bets with the expected value. Unless you've stumbled onto a roundabout way of counting, you're betting against it, and it doesn't matter that you're doing it in a funny way. Every bet has a negative number associated with it, and those add up to a negative number.
Quote: bigginsI play to win not to play.
Play poker. Bet props. Buy some stocks. If those things seem too hard, learn to count, or find a +EV VP machine. You can't win by a system.
But my system seller offers a money back guarantee. I can't lose. LOL
