The Adventures of MDawg
Quote: MDawgPorsche 1963
Porsche 2021
I have an air cooled Porsche from the 1990s that is worth more than what I paid for it, or at least as much.
A lot of things go up in value that another person might not like. Comic books too, right?
But these collector's items are also things of beauty in the eyes of the beholders.
These kind of things are worthy of note. If we need a car, or a suit, or anything we need over the long term, why not buy something that's gonna increase in value, or stay in good nick till we drop? If we can afford to get credit for a luxurious car, and pay for the insurance and servicing, why not buy it if it's gonna keep or increase it's value over time?
Partly because I was annoyed at what happened the prior session, partly because I was annoyed at the recent drop in the stock market, partly because I was annoyed at the recent drop in bitcoin, I went down and played again. I pulled a very small marker and played conservatively.
Seriously, this session I could have EASILY won well over a hundred thousand. Even two hundred thousand. On one shoe I was winning close to 80% of my hands. With almost no effort, I walked with just under +25K.
I chased anyone away who tried to play at my table. When they asked for my permission, I would scowl and say NO, which, actually, I had no right to say anything but I didn't care, I just said it anyway. One player was this player who recognized me from the Fall 2020, trip, and I told the player flat out, "Last time we played together, you BLEW it!" and the player just skulked away, and, sure enough - I glanced from a distance, blew whatever cash pulled out. I'm tired of these losers I don't want them at my table!
+25K
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
I'm willing to present a side Challenge. If anyone doubts that any one, just any one of the Session reports I present during this trip is not entirely accurate, throw down a red flag! Put up a mere ten grand in cash, let's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction using the Wizard as the judge, and winner takes the twenty thousand.
I'll contribute five hundred from my end for the Wizard's time if the Challenger will do the same, so that's a net $19,000. to the winner of this side Challenge.
This Side Challenge remains good for the duration of this particular Vegas trip.
I'll bet anyone a hundred thousand dollars that I can win $20K in front of them. If I can't do it, I lose 100K, if I can, that's $120K in my pocket. Any takers? I could use $100K off some sap. Now that would make me feel better. Standard Baccarat at the same tables I have been playing at, with Wizard as witness and bag holder, and the sap who puts up the hundred K to my hundred K present at the table too. I'll leave this challenge offer open for 24 hours from this moment.
"I know I can do this."
I guess that walk around the Strip this morning (or was it yesterday morning 😆) buoyed me back into action.
Quote: MoraineHi, Greetings:
THE KELLY CRITERIA FUNDAMENTALS FOR ONE HAND BLACKJACK:
One KELLY BET = 0.77 x Players' POSITIVE Expected Value (in %) x The size of the Bankroll (in $)
Bet one Kelly is the optimal bet to achieve the FASTEST Bankroll Growth Rate.
Bet more than One Kelly incurs UNNECESSARY Risk without the accompanying benefit.
Bet more than TWO-Kelly will result in a NEGATIVE Bankroll Growth Rate, leading to EVENTUAL BANKRUPTCY.
Quote: MDawgThis may turn out to be it. It was more just an experiment in making certain that I still "have it."
I'm sure you still have it, MD. You've proven it over a long period of time, so why shouldn't it continue?
You know, there's a whole tribe here who think their math is right!!! 😆 I mean, you gotta hand it to them! They're all sitting there together looking chuffed when they saturate a thread with material that falls short of reality! "Oh, negative expectation, can you see the word negative?" "Oh, word salad", but they don't understand mathematical propositions can contain words. "Oh, you're completely wrong and don't know the slightest thing," yet they can't explain long-term winners like yourself. And they don't acknowledge the falsehoods I show up about their arguments.
Sorry, but all the advanced math knowledge in the world doesn't prove anything if basic fundamentals are flawed and winning gamblers defy the logic!
Don't worry, they'll all come out of the woodwork now, defending the above again! 😆
Maybe it's not printed in the math books? 😆
Quote: WellbushEven the gambling literature acknowledges that the only thing stopping a gambler from winning using a negative progression strategy, is if they run out of bankroll! So, to suggest to these defenders of the math, that it's possible to win with a strategy that avoids the catastrophic losing streak, its just incomprehensible to them!!!
Maybe it's not printed in the math books? 😆
It seems like it should be very easy for you to provide examples of gambling literature making this acknowledgment. But you will never do that, because this is so clearly something you made up and this post is just another example of your continued trolling.
There is quite a lot of gambling literature that explains the reason bets in a casino do not turn profits over time is because of the house advantage, which is determined by the probabilities and payouts. The only way a gambler can win over time is when the probabilities and/or payouts change to create a negative house advantage. (wizardofodds.com and wikipedia.org are two places, among many others, that describe this).
Quote: TomGIt seems like it should be very easy for you to provide examples of gambling literature making this acknowledgment. But you will never do that, because this is so clearly something you made up and this post is just another example of your continued trolling.
There is quite a lot of gambling literature that explains the reason bets in a casino do not turn profits over time is because of the house advantage, which is determined by the probabilities and payouts. The only way a gambler can win over time is when the probabilities and/or payouts change to create a negative house advantage. (wizardofodds.com and wikipedia.org are two places, among many others, that describe this).
I think that it is obvious by now that Wellbush is doing his level best to help all of us become more intelligent and sophisticated gamblers. That's why he so altruistically spends his time posting about systems here rather than using his superior gambling knowledge to go forth to casinos and make lots of money.
Wellbush partially said:
Quote:Even the gambling literature acknowledges that the only thing stopping a gambler from winning using a negative progression strategy, is if they run out of bankroll!
(Quote clipped)
Running out of bankroll = losing.
So, basically your statement is that the only thing that stops a gambler from winning using a negative progression strategy is the fact that he will lose. If only the player could avoid losing, the player would instead be winning. Thank you. Please continue to drop us these little nuggets of gambling sophistication.
Quote: Mission146I think that it is obvious by now that Wellbush is doing his level best to help all of us become more intelligent and sophisticated gamblers. That's why he so altruistically spends his time posting about systems here rather than using his superior gambling knowledge to go forth to casinos and make lots of money.
Wellbush partially said:
(Quote clipped)
Running out of bankroll = losing.
So, basically your statement is that the only thing that stops a gambler from winning using a negative progression strategy is the fact that he will lose. If only the player could avoid losing, the player would instead be winning. Thank you. Please continue to drop us these little nuggets of gambling sophistication.
146, I could easily tear your post to shreds, just like i did last time. You obviously haven't learnt. using a swathe of vocabulary that makes you appear to know what you're talking about, is not how you debunk me. you need to know what you're talking about.
suffice to say, i'm not going to waste my time tearing up another post of yours.
and i've had enough of tom. i'm gonna start tearing him up shortly. read my replies to him before you object to what i've written here. you may realise you're out of your depth!
Quote: Wellbush146, I could easily tear your post to shreds, just like i did last time. You obviously haven't learnt. using a swathe of vocabulary that makes you appear to know what you're talking about, is not how you debunk me. you need to know what you're talking about.
suffice to say, i'm not going to waste my time tearing up another post of yours.
and i've had enough of tom. i'm gonna start tearing him up shortly. read my replies to him before you object to what i've written here. you may realise you're out of your depth!
Why would you tear my post to shreds? I'm simply expressing my sincere appreciation for allowing us just a trickle of your gambling knowledge that runs so deep that the depths might never be fully plumbed in our lifetimes.
Anyway, I have no interest or need to debunk you. You debunk yourself simply by continuing to post. The longer a post of yours goes; the more clearly wrong it becomes. Carry on.
Quote: TomGIt seems like it should be very easy for you to provide examples of gambling literature making this acknowledgment. But you will never do that, because this is so clearly something you made up and this post is just another example of your continued trolling.
There is quite a lot of gambling literature that explains the reason bets in a casino do not turn profits over time is because of the house advantage, which is determined by the probabilities and payouts. The only way a gambler can win over time is when the probabilities and/or payouts change to create a negative house advantage. (wizardofodds.com and wikipedia.org are two places, among many others, that describe this).
okay tom, i've had enough of your smart posts. i just went to "martingale" in wikipedia. the first thing i went to. here's what it said:
"A martingale is any of a class of betting strategies that originated from and were popular in 18th-century France. The simplest of these strategies was designed for a game in which the gambler wins the stake if a coin comes up heads and loses if it comes up tails. The strategy had the gambler double the bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus win a profit equal to the original stake.
Since a gambler will almost surely eventually flip heads, the martingale betting strategy is certain to make money for the gambler provided they have infinite wealth and there is no limit on money earned in a single bet. However, no gambler possess infinite wealth, and the exponential growth of the bets can bankrupt unlucky gamblers who chose to use the martingale, causing a catastrophic loss. Despite the fact that the gambler usually wins a small net reward, thus appearing to have a sound strategy, the gambler's expected value remains zero because the small probability that the gambler will suffer a catastrophic loss exactly balances with the expected gain. In a casino, the expected value is negative, due to the house's edge. Additionally, as the likelihood of a string of consecutive losses occurs more often than common intuition suggests, martingale strategies can bankrupt a gambler quickly."
now i don't know where you've been, but on only the first piece of literature i sourced, it clearly shows what i said, that the only thing stopping a gambler from winning, using the martingale betting system, is bankroll. Do you see that above, or do i need to point out the very sentences?
so this retort of mine, what does it do to your post, particularly your first paragraph, and what does it say about what you know?
it's pretty damn enlightening, isn't it? so don't start making out that you know what you're talking about, until you do. and don't start telling me i don't stack up, when it's you that clearly has holes in your boat that need repair!
Quote: billryanor even the power of positive drinking.
There was someone I came across in high limit during this trip who would order seven drinks at a time. Seven. The g.damn table was lousy with glasses.
Quote: billryanIf you simply bet more on the hands you will win and less on the other hands, you will find you don't need to depend on negative progressions, or a rabbit's foot or even the power of positive drinking.
Why bet anything on the losing hands? Charity? Wellbush, and others, should only bet on the hands they KNOW they will win.
Oh, wait...There's that whole not knowing problem that makes it gambling in the first place. I almost forgot.
Quote: sabreA wiki page isn't literature.
Well, I've certainly never found a Wiki-reference in any of the math books that I have read, so maybe he's onto something.
Quote: Mission146Why would you tear my post to shreds? I'm simply expressing my sincere appreciation for allowing us just a trickle of your gambling knowledge that runs so deep that the depths might never be fully plumbed in our lifetimes.
Anyway, I have no interest or need to debunk you. You debunk yourself simply by continuing to post. The longer a post of yours goes; the more clearly wrong it becomes. Carry on.
Yep, you win 146. all the same fluff that is written by many here. you're in the cheer squad of math heads. well done. i would rather listen to someone who could clearly show how i'm wrong. no-one's been able to do it on this site yet, except just to tell me to shut up! maybe that tells us how much math, people really know around here. but if you believe in them, i'm not gonna stand in your way.
Quote: Mission146Why bet anything on the losing hands? Charity? Wellbush, and others, should only bet on the hands they KNOW they will win.
Oh, wait...There's that whole not knowing problem that makes it gambling in the first place. I almost forgot.
yeah, and where have i ever said anything about knowing the future? how much more fluff have you got? probably a truck load!
Quote: Wellbush
now i don't know where you've been, but on only the first piece of literature i sourced, it clearly shows what i said, that the only thing stopping a gambler from winning, using the martingale betting system, is bankroll. Do you see that above, or do i need to point out the very sentences?
so this retort of mine, what does it do to your post, particularly your first paragraph, and what does it say about what you know?
it's pretty damn enlightening, isn't it? so don't start making out that you know what you're talking about, until you do. and don't start telling me i don't stack up, when it's you that clearly has holes in your boat that need repair!
(Quote clipped, relevance)
Look, we've been over this. This is the last time I am going to have a variation of this exact same conversation.
First of all, an infinite bankroll exists only metaphysically, so you're advocating a metaphysical position.
Secondly, if you were able to achieve an infinite bankroll in the first place---or, even a bankroll that was NOT infinite, but was sufficient enough to render a Martingale loss borderline probabilistically impossible, then why not simply do more of the thing that resulted in you having all that money in the first place?
Thirdly, if you had such a bankroll, then why would there be any need to gamble with the goal of winning ridiculously small amounts (compared to bankroll) per Martingale attempt? Were the gains all but guaranteed, they still wouldn't be worth the time cost. Hell, there would be more efficient ways that mathematically legitimately work to be essentially guaranteed to grow the wealth faster.
Finally, even if we get into metaphysics (and have a nonsensical conversation), then your metaphysical position still fails. If infinite bankroll, then I say infinite players, by which every single mathematical possibility is covered, which includes one player who loses infinitely. Of course, that means one player will win infinitely, but that player is only winning a single base unit whereas the one who loses infinitely...In any event, the result at any point in time will be a cumulative loss in line with the House Edge. In fact, since we're looking at every possible combination of events simultaneously, it will be EXACTLY the House Edge...which means that the system player won't even have the variance that he/she needs to have the system, 'Succeed,' longer than it might for some others.
Also, the fact that the theory of infinity means that you can't add to it, so our infinite bankroll player isn't actually winning anything. I'm not even sure you can subtract from infinity, because subtraction would (one would think) eventually result in it no longer being infinite, but if it can go from infinity to something non-infinity, then it was always finite in the first place.
Infinite Bankroll = Theory
People Have Finite Bankrolls = Fact
Come again when you're dealing in facts.
Quote: Wellbushyeah, and where have i ever said anything about knowing the future? how much more fluff have you got? probably a truck load!
I have infinite fluff, just like you have an infinite bankroll.
Quote: Wellbushi would rather listen to someone who could clearly show how i'm wrong. no-one's been able to do it on this site yet, except just to tell me to shut up!
You DO understand that no gambler can continue to maitingale / double their bet once the house maximum bet amount has been reached, don't you?
Say the max bet allowed is $10K, and the initial losing bet is $500.
Per martingale, the progression would be to $1000, $2000, $4000 and finally $8000;
That gives the martingale bettor four chances to win; but when / if he loses the fourth bet at $8000 he'll experience catastrophic loss as he can no longer double his bet as the house max (in this case $10K) will have been reached.
This clearly demonstrates that a martingale bettor cannot play and continue to double his bet infinitely, regardless of his bankroll: the house limit on max bets prohibits this.
Quote: Mission146(Quote clipped, relevance)
Look, we've been over this. This is the last time I am going to have a variation of this exact same conversation.
First of all, an infinite bankroll exists only metaphysically, so you're advocating a metaphysical position.
Secondly, if you were able to achieve an infinite bankroll in the first place---or, even a bankroll that was NOT infinite, but was sufficient enough to render a Martingale loss borderline probabilistically impossible, then why not simply do more of the thing that resulted in you having all that money in the first place?
Thirdly, if you had such a bankroll, then why would there be any need to gamble with the goal of winning ridiculously small amounts (compared to bankroll) per Martingale attempt? Were the gains all but guaranteed, they still wouldn't be worth the time cost. Hell, there would be more efficient ways that mathematically legitimately work to be essentially guaranteed to grow the wealth faster.
Finally, even if we get into metaphysics (and have a nonsensical conversation), then your metaphysical position still fails. If infinite bankroll, then I say infinite players, by which every single mathematical possibility is covered, which includes one player who loses infinitely. Of course, that means one player will win infinitely, but that player is only winning a single base unit whereas the one who loses infinitely...In any event, the result at any point in time will be a cumulative loss in line with the House Edge. In fact, since we're looking at every possible combination of events simultaneously, it will be EXACTLY the House Edge...which means that the system player won't even have the variance that he/she needs to have the system, 'Succeed,' longer than it might for some others.
Also, the fact that the theory of infinity means that you can't add to it, so our infinite bankroll player isn't actually winning anything. I'm not even sure you can subtract from infinity, because subtraction would (one would think) eventually result in it no longer being infinite, but if it can go from infinity to something non-infinity, then it was always finite in the first place.
Infinite Bankroll = Theory
People Have Finite Bankrolls = Fact
Come again when you're dealing in facts.
sorry 146, i didn't even read half of it!!! it's fluff, fluff, and more fluff. you may want to consider returning to school?
Quote: Wellbush😄look whose shown up when there's a back'n forth? Sarbe 😆
If your implication is that Sabre and I are one and the same, that is not the case. Of course, you're free to believe whatever nonsense you want and your posts would appear to suggest that you avail yourself of that freedom whenever possible.
Quote: Wellbushsorry 146, i didn't even read half of it!!! it's fluff, fluff, and more fluff. you may want to consider returning to school?
I should return to school. Maybe if I major in Psychology and get a doctorate, I will be able to figure out your posts.
Quote: MrVYou DO understand that no gambler can continue to double maitingale ./ double their bet once the house maximum bet amount has been reached, don't you?
Say the max bet allowed is $10K, and the initial losing bet is $500.
Per martingale, the progression would be to $1000, $2000, $4000 and finally $8000;
That gives the martingale bettor four chances to win; but when / if he loses the fourth bet at $8000 he'll experience catastrophic loss as he can no longer double his bet as the house max (in this case $10K) will have been reached.
This clearly demonstrates that a martingale bettor cannot play and continue to double his bet infinitely, regardless of his bankroll: the house limit on max bets prohibits this.
We have to get fully out of the realm of metaphysics before we can get reality involved in this discussion in any way. We're not quite to being able to discuss reality with Wellbush yet, but we might get there, given infinite time.
Quote: Mission146If your implication is that Sabre and I are one and the same, that is not the case. Of course, you're free to believe whatever nonsense you want and your posts would appear to suggest that you avail yourself of that freedom whenever possible.
no, i don't think you're the same as sarbe. not even close! sarbe is a .....can't think of anything that's not gonna get me suspended! 😆
Quote: Mission146I should return to school. Maybe if I major in Psychology and get a doctorate, I will be able to figure out your posts.
jeez, i didn't know you were capable of such enlightenment! well done on this post, at least 😄
Quote: Wellbushno, i don't think you're the same as sarbe. not even close! sarbe is a .....can't think of anything that's not gonna get me suspended! 😆
A wiki isn't literature.
1. Yes, it is possible to be fully comp'ed without losing a nickel. It's called theoretical loss and between all the casinos my theo loss is around -220K by now for this trip. (Yes, I have been playing hard, harder than I expected to play.) 30 - 40% of that is what they comp. I have comps to spare on this trip.
2. Vegas casino hosts do not make a nickel more or less based on a player's actual loss - hasn't been that way in many many years. Most Vegas casino hosts are straight salary.
3. The average hotness of the cocktail waitresses in the some of the upper echelon Vegas casinos, has been on the rise.
Quote: MDawgRegardless, everyone will agree that flat betting doesn't work, so however you decide to vary your bet, you must vary it to have even a chance of winning at any table game.
Flat betting works just fine if you have an edge. I'd say it's preferable since casinos tend to equate bet variation with card counting. Certainly at blackjack, but it wouldn't surprise me if they got squirrely with other games when your bets are all over the place.
At a minimum, even a grinder is going to raise his levels as his bankroll increases.
Anyway, what is a trip?
M146: Bless your heart for trying to explain all this. But I don't think some people want to learn, so you aren't going to get anywhere. OK, Carry OnTM (with something else).Quote: Mission146Finally, even if we get into metaphysics.....
Quote: Wellbushand i've had enough of tom. i'm gonna start tearing him up shortly. read my replies to him before you object to what i've written here. you may realise you're out of your depth!
I hope you do. The best way to do it would be to cut out the word salad and explain why the stuff you babble about has a positive expected value for the player. But because most of your posts are nothing more than trolling, I predict you will never do that.
Quote: Wellbushnow i don't know where you've been, but on only the first piece of literature i sourced, it clearly shows what i said, that the only thing stopping a gambler from winning, using the martingale betting system, is bankroll. Do you see that above, or do i need to point out the very sentences?
It clearly says "no gambler possess infinite wealth". That means there is no gambler who could ever benefit from it. The entire theory is not valid for any person who gambles. To continue to blabber on about how this supports your idea that a gambler can win over time by making bets with a negative expected value is yet one more example of your trolling.
MONSTER session. My average would have been 4K but I settled down near the end and the pit boss ended up entering 2500 as my average.
I was back and forth up and down with 5-10K hands, and even hit a thousand dollar tie TWICE and won the third hand after hitting the tie back to back, for a 24K or so win over the course of just those three hands alone.
Some bozo walked up and plopped 100 against me on a Player run, lost, and left the table. As soon as the bozo left I had them raise the minimum to keep said bozo (and others like said bozo) away.
But, I was playing catch up much of the time, ended up six thousand, and called it a day.
+6025
Note: Lately, for security reasons, session reports are not necessarily presented in real time corresponding directly to the day played.
I'm willing to present a side Challenge. If anyone doubts that any one, just any one of the Session reports I present during this trip is not entirely accurate, throw down a red flag! Put up a mere ten grand in cash, let's work out how to verify the Session to your satisfaction using the Wizard as the judge, and winner takes the twenty thousand.
I'll contribute five hundred from my end for the Wizard's time if the Challenger will do the same, so that's a net $19,000. to the winner of this side Challenge.
This Side Challenge remains good for the duration of this particular Vegas trip.
This is true, I've had more than a few relatively long sessions with three to five thousand dollar averages. That's pretty monstrous!
I asked the host if could extend us through the end of the month and host said, No Problem, without even batting an eye, but said to just get back to the host next week if we do decide to extend that long. That's kra-razee!
One thing that helps too - our food and bev charges are minimal, I mean seriously there are days when we don't even eat their food and order from outside the casino. Eventually, casino food may get repetitive.
Quote: TomGI hope you do. The best way to do it would be to cut out the word salad and explain why the stuff you babble about has a positive expected value for the player. But because most of your posts are nothing more than trolling, I predict you will never do that.
There is no word salad, Tom. All my words relate directly to the point in discussion. If you think that still constitutes word salad, then I totally disagree with you. Are you suggesting everything written here needs to be in numbers?
Furthermore, you keep repeating yourself. You asked me on another thread about my strategy. I gave a reasonably close example of my strategy with all the numbers. Have you got horse blinkers on, or an amnesia condition? Interesting, you weren't able to evaluate my numbered example strategy, but suggested others try! Yet you keep accusing me of word salad. Again, you seem to have some serious holes in your boat!
Never fear, if you read enough other knockers here posting about me, you'll think you're right. Hardly a good reason to think you're right though, is it?
Okay, let me spell things out again. You will see below a post of yours and my reply to it.
Quote: TomGIt seems like it should be very easy for you to provide examples of gambling literature making this acknowledgment. But you will never do that, because this is so clearly something you made up and this post is just another example of your continued trolling.
There is quite a lot of gambling literature that explains the reason bets in a casino do not turn profits over time is because of the house advantage, which is determined by the probabilities and payouts. The only way a gambler can win over time is when the probabilities and/or payouts change to create a negative house advantage. (wizardofodds.com and wikipedia.org are two places, among many others, that describe this).
Quote: Wellbushokay tom, i've had enough of your smart posts. i just went to "martingale" in wikipedia. the first thing i went to. here's what it said:
"A martingale is any of a class of betting strategies that originated from and were popular in 18th-century France. The simplest of these strategies was designed for a game in which the gambler wins the stake if a coin comes up heads and loses if it comes up tails. The strategy had the gambler double the bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus win a profit equal to the original stake.
Since a gambler will almost surely eventually flip heads, the martingale betting strategy is certain to make money for the gambler provided they have infinite wealth and there is no limit on money earned in a single bet. However, no gambler possess infinite wealth, and the exponential growth of the bets can bankrupt unlucky gamblers who chose to use the martingale, causing a catastrophic loss. Despite the fact that the gambler usually wins a small net reward, thus appearing to have a sound strategy, the gambler's expected value remains zero because the small probability that the gambler will suffer a catastrophic loss exactly balances with the expected gain. In a casino, the expected value is negative, due to the house's edge. Additionally, as the likelihood of a string of consecutive losses occurs more often than common intuition suggests, martingale strategies can bankrupt a gambler quickly."
now i don't know where you've been, but on only the first piece of literature i sourced, it clearly shows what i said, that the only thing stopping a gambler from winning, using the martingale betting system, is bankroll. Do you see that above, or do i need to point out the very sentences?
so this retort of mine, what does it do to your post, particularly your first paragraph, and what does it say about what you know?
it's pretty damn enlightening, isn't it? so don't start making out that you know what you're talking about, until you do. and don't start telling me i don't stack up, when it's you that clearly has holes in your boat that need repair!
That just there above clearly shows your argument accusing me of providing a false argument, is totally wrong! On just the first search that I did of a negative progression strategy, the Marty, it clearly stated what I was saying, that the infinite bankroll is the only thing stopping a player winning, using a negative progression strategy.
Quote: TomGIt clearly says "no gambler possess infinite wealth". That means there is no gambler who could ever benefit from it. The entire theory is not valid for any person who gambles. To continue to blabber on about how this supports your idea that a gambler can win over time by making bets with a negative expected value is yet one more example of your trolling.
Here, Tom, you are covering your tracks! I never said any gambler has infinite wealth. I just said (and why do I have to keep repeating myself, Tom?) that the only thing stopping a gambler from winning, using a negative progression strategy, is to have an infinite bankroll.
If you think the entire theory (although I don't know whether you're referring to the Marty, negative progression, or both?) isn't valid, well I totally disagree with you again. The Marty would never be a strategy I recommend, due to the serious incline of the gambler's bet size whenever he experiences a losing streak. I referred to the Marty just for proof of another flaw in your previous accusation about me.
I personally think the negative progression betting strategy, in other variations (such as the Fibonacci), has some serious value. Again, it's interesting you say 'the theory' has no value, yet you haven't even bothered to evaluate the numbered example I gave you about two weeks ago!
Seriously Tom, I've devoted enough time showing that your accusations of my 'word salad' pretty much apply to you, not me. I suggest you get your facts straight before making accusatory remarks about others. I won't be replying to any more of your accusations, for all of the above reasons.
Quote: JohnnyQM146: Bless your heart for trying to explain all this. But I don't think some people want to learn, so you aren't going to get anywhere. OK, Carry OnTM (with something else).
😆 go easy on 146, JQ! 😃
Quote: MDawgDay 46 play
MONSTER session. My average would have been 4K but I settled down near the end and the pit boss ended up entering 2500 as my average.
why does a pit boss record the av. bet, MD?
congrats on this day's win, whatever this day is. It's kinda worrying though, that your win total is only about 2 bet sizes!
Quote: WellbushYou asked me on another thread about my strategy. I gave a reasonably close example of my strategy with all the numbers. Have you got horse blinkers on, or an amnesia condition? Interesting, you weren't able to evaluate my numbered example strategy, but suggested others try!
Very fair point. The results I get for your strategy are house edge (maybe 0.006 depending on rules) times total action times -1. Maybe later I will take the time to calculate total action from your strategy. What results do you get?
Quote: Wellbushwhy does a pit boss record the av. bet, MD?
congrats on this day's win, whatever this day is. It's kinda worrying though, that your win total is only about 2 bet sizes!
"Why does a pit boss record the average bet?"
And, you're supposed to be the one who can teach me something?
