charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
• Posts: 2599
March 28th, 2021 at 10:57:54 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

...Thanks CharliePatrick ... I do smell a rat here...

There's no rat . I Was trying to offer an opportunity for you to have your betting method tested using simulations against one of the even money games. In order to run these I have to set an initial bank balance, an initial wager and how far ahead before stopping. It's not that I want to know exactly how much you actually wager, I don't, but you could suggest figures such as I want to start with \$1M and initially betting in \$100s and want to stop when I'm \$100 up. That way one can run simulations and determine how often you reach your target compared to how often you lose your bank roll. For instance this may show that you can win \$100 999 times out of 1000 and confirm that you can mathematically be ahead for a long time.

I think most of us, using mathematical logic, think you have been lucky to be ahead on all your experiences and want to give a realistic estimate of the chances of things suddenly going wrong. Some have been more vociferous but I wanted offer you some mathematical evidence one way or the other and confirm your betting system.

Given your personal situation many of us want to warn you of the risks involved. I've personally seen someone, playing even money Roulette, win the value of a new car in two weeks only to lose it all and more within the next few. It's a sad story that I hope doesn't happen to others.

I don't understand your reference to "EV", the only thing I was asking is which simple even money game would you like me to use. I have no intention nor wish of asking, nor knowing, your profits so far.
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
• Posts: 824
March 28th, 2021 at 4:18:17 PM permalink
Quote: CharliePatrick

I don't understand your reference to "EV", the only thing I was asking is which simple even money game would you like me to use. I have no intention nor wish of asking, nor knowing, your profits so far.

Dealing with EV first, in your initial post you wrote:

Quote: CharliePatrick

"Please could you confirm this is a fair representation of your betting system and then outlining your proof how this produces a positive EV for a negative game."

What you've written about EV in your initial post is what I was referring to. I am not familiar with using EV as I have, daresay, not covered this area of math knowledge at university level. I could have, but I don't recall it right now. I've briefly looked at this topic online since you've raised it with me, and it seems I'd have to devote some time to it to grasp the inherent knowledge. I'm not inclined to take up this pursuit right now, but I'm happy to do whatever I can to allow those qualified in this area, to evaluate EV with my strategy.

You also wrote:

Quote:

In order to run these I have to set an initial bank balance, an initial wager and how far ahead before stopping. It's not that I want to know exactly how much you actually wager, I don't, but you could suggest figures such as I want to start with \$1M and initially betting in \$100s and want to stop when I'm \$100 up. That way one can run simulations and determine how often you reach your target compared to how often you lose your bank roll. For instance this may show that you can win \$100 999 times out of 1000 and confirm that you can mathematically be ahead for a long time.

My local has a minimum bet of \$15 on BJ. I would start betting with that minimum and an initial \$2,000 bankroll. I wouldn't stop, apart from the normal human functioning requirements (eat, sleep, fart). My strategy has some variations in it, one of which is to allow for the everyday gambler - it keeps the bankroll requirement low.

I can't give that variation away, but if you make the bankroll say, \$50,000 instead, an amount that may be available to the high net worth individual, then that should give us an indication of the credibility of the strategy. So use \$15 as the initial and minimum bet, and \$50,000 as the bankroll. Is \$50,000 out of reach for the average gambler? Yes, but I have a way to get around that, and is part of the main secret I'm not gonna give away. Because you don't have my "everyday gambler's variation," use \$50,000 as the bankroll and that will give us SOME idea of the credibility of the strategy.

Isn't the difference between the starting bet of \$15, and the bank roll of \$50,000, a bit unrealistic? It may seem so to some, but when people understand losing streaks in gambling, they'll understand the necessity to always have cash up one's sleeve, and to be cautiously conservative, to deal with the inherently long losing streaks that occasionally occur. The idea here is to make sure one never gets too close to excessively large betting amounts, and keep the bets close to the initial starting wager of \$15! I believe this can be achieved simply because the Fibonacci sequence requires less bets to bring the betting amounts down to the initial wager, than it does to increase away from the initial wager. Part of the strategy to do that is by chopping up losing streaks, and I go into that further along in this post.

One of the great things I find about this Fib style strategy, is that the breaking up of the streaks, combined with the loss/win ratio, mean the wagers are kept low. What I can't reveal is the inherently rising bankroll that occurs. You won't find it in your stats, sorry. Regardless, there may be gamblers reading this post who do actually gain some benefit from some of the stated methods I do reveal here.

Again, the average gambler won't have a large bankroll, and I have a strategy (that I'm not gonna give away) to deal with that. So, if a statistical analysis is done on a bank roll of \$50,000, then I may have some knowledge about the credibility of the strategy. I would need to look at the resultant figures, and you would need to include the variables I've listed throughout this post. And don't be put off by any seemingly poor results from your statistical analysis. I haven't included everything in this post about the strategy. There are parts to the strategy that do increase the bankroll significantly, that won't be seen in an analysis from the info in this post.

I am simply guessing that what I'll experience when I finally go again to the casino (probably not soon), I won't immediately experience an outlier streak that blows my bankroll. I am relying on the expectation that I will initially experience the reasonably normal variations and slowly build up my bankroll to even put the extreme outlier losing events to bed. That's because my strategy seems to keep my bankroll spiraling upwards, and I presume, out of extreme-loss-streak reach.

If the normal variations occur, and my bankroll of \$2,000 (using my everyday gambler variation) dwindles down to nothing, I would have understood that risk. I'd move on. I would rather take the risk with a not too life shattering amount of \$2,000, than never having tried with a strategy that's constantly coming up trumps on free software. Put it this way, I'm not getting a line of credit on my mortgage.

My guess is that the simulations will prove fruitless unless it can be designed to cover the risk management variations. The strategy doesn't continue relentlessly on the Fib sequence. When there are 5 losses in a row, the next dealt hand is passed. The following dealt hand is reduced to the minimum bet of \$15. If I win that bet, I resume where I left off in the Fib sequence. If I don't win the first reduced bet of \$15, I keep passing a hand then betting the \$15 minimum until I win. As mentioned, when I win, I resume where I left off in the Fib sequence.

There are further breaks in the betting sequence, too. Say if I resume on the Fib sequence after an initial 5-hand losing streak, and I experience an immediate 3-hand losing streak, then I break again, as before. And this is another part of the strategy. So let me see if I can clarify it with an example:

L(\$15)-L(25)-L(40)-L(65)-L(105)-pass-L(15)-pass-L(15)-pass-W(15)-L(170)-L(275)-L(445)-pass-L(15)-pass-L(15)-pass-W(15)-L(720)-L(1165)-L(1885)-pass-W(15)-L(2350)-L(4235)-W(6585).....

The above sequence comprises 17 losses to 4 wins. Probably fairly rare. I did this for illustrative purposes, to show the inherent risk management variation in place. You may notice that if I experience a 5-hand losing streak, break, win, resume, then experience another immediate losing streak of 3, I break again after just 3. I would be cautious in this scenario. Obviously, I wouldn't get into some sort of raising stakes dare with the dealer. If a rare ongoing losing streak ensues, I would walk away for a while. Once I start getting a few wins again, I would go back to waiting for a 5-hand losing streak before breaking.

If some would use flawed logic to say: "Ah, ha! I see you are using breaks so that your strategy can't be tested!" Well, I would just say: "Right, moron! I'm putting breaks in the betting sequence for risk management purposes. Not to avoid your formula!"

As mentioned, I would be cautious in a scenario where a long losing streak ensued. Although I've shown a continuing sequence, if I thought the bets were getting too large, I don't have any problem with walking away for a while and starting again at a lower number in the Fibonacci sequence. At this point in time I'm confident that the strategy constantly builds the bankroll large enough to drop down a few numbers in the sequence if I have to, in order to stay in the game. I don't know if statistical formulae/simulations can account for this, or all of the variations listed in this post? Blackjack's a simple game, but working out a strategy designed to beat the house, requires a precise and some would argue, sophisticated strategy.

You may have already realised from my posts that I'm genuine. When I first started this thread, I was told not to take negative feedback personally. It seems though, that when I stand my ground, there are many here that take it personally, possibly even the person who told me not to take things personally?

I don't have any problem with statistics or any kind of logic whatsoever. To that statement, some here would say: "Well dummy, accept your strategy is mathematically flawed and -#@( off out of here!" I could, but maybe this strategy doesn't fit the mathematically sound formulae?!! I don't mind if people think I'm wasting their time. I'm a 56yo bloke and I don't care what others think 😃.

The "everyday gambler variant" in my strategy is something I can't give away, for the simple reason that then I wouldn't have a strategy anymore because everyone would have it. Everyone may then start using it. The casinos would have to adjust, and I'm back where I started, nowhere! I think that if you use the higher bankroll I mentioned, it should compensate for not knowing the "everyday gambler variation."
Last edited by: unnamed administrator on Mar 30, 2021
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
HiOpt2Poor
Joined: Mar 28, 2021
• Posts: 8
March 28th, 2021 at 10:12:15 PM permalink
Hi everyone at the Wizard of Vegas. I'm new here but this looks like the most active forum I found anywhere so far.

I couldn't find a way to do a new post sorry so I replied to the most recent post here.

I use HiOptII So far I'm winning but I don't have any charts. I use the Ace side count but have trouble making playing decisions and betting level decisions when the count is high but the Aces are low. I wanted to purchase the Hi Opt II report but can't find where to buy it. I'm getting pretty skilled at counting with HiOpt2 with the A side count so I'm really not interested to much in changing strategies.

Thanks Everyone
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
• Posts: 2599
Thanks for this post from:
March 29th, 2021 at 3:16:04 AM permalink
The figures using Punto Banco are in (based on \$15,\$25... and \$50k bank) and show your chances of losing are about 1 in 2000. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for your system to "appear" to work.

The average loss when you fail is because it stops when you don't have enough funds to make the next bet. The main reason the average win is less than 15 is because if you can win the \$25 bet and stop with a \$10 profit.

It shows in the long term you will come out a loser but, unless you're unlucky, you can expect a reasonable number of profitable runs.
`Parms: ndx:8 sh:1000000 ch 88 cards pay 1 pen:95% dstops:99cards maxspl:99 strat:0 Time:10:57:8:985Count: 0 Exp: -0.012172814485654077 Hands: 80592619 Win: 35972778 Lose: 36953817 Tie: 7666024 CHY: 0 BJk: 0 Win2: 0 Win3: 0 Lose6: 0Overall Result: Exp: -0.012172814485654077 Hands: 80592619 Win: 35972778 Lose: 36953817 Tie: 7666024 CHY: 0 BJk: 0Run Totals: Number Won: 20318643 Number Lost: 10482 Profits: 268668075 Av(13.22273711881251) Losses: -354322265 Av(-33802.92549131845) Net Gain: -85654190 Av(-4.213373177645373)Parms: ndx:8 sh:1000000 ch 88 cards pay 1 pen:95% dstops:99cards maxspl:99 strat:0 Time:10:58:0:907 `
Some of the winning runs.
`R: 15 W(15)R: 10 L(15) L(25) W(40) L(15) L(25) L(40) W(65) W(25)R: 5 L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) L(105) W(15) W(170) W(65) L(25) L(40) L(65) L(15) W(15) W(105) L(40) L(65) L(105) L(15) W(15) L(170) L(275) L(445) L(720) W(1165) L(445) L(720) L(1165) L(15) L(15) L(15) W(15) W(1885) W(720) W(275) L(105) W(170) W(65) W(25) L(15) L(25) W(40) L(15) W(25)R: 15 W(15)R: 10 L(15) L(25) L(40) W(65) L(25) L(40) W(65) W(25)R: 15 W(15) `
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
• Posts: 824
March 29th, 2021 at 7:37:59 AM permalink
Quote: charliepatrick

The figures using Punto Banco are in (based on \$15,\$25... and \$50k bank) and show your chances of losing are about 1 in 2000. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for your system to "appear" to work.

The average loss when you fail is because it stops when you don't have enough funds to make the next bet. The main reason the average win is less than 15 is because if you can win the \$25 bet and stop with a \$10 profit.

It shows in the long term you will come out a loser but, unless you're unlucky, you can expect a reasonable number of profitable runs.

`Parms: ndx:8 sh:1000000 ch 88 cards pay 1 pen:95% dstops:99cards maxspl:99 strat:0 Time:10:57:8:985Count: 0 Exp: -0.012172814485654077 Hands: 80592619 Win: 35972778 Lose: 36953817 Tie: 7666024 CHY: 0 BJk: 0 Win2: 0 Win3: 0 Lose6: 0Overall Result: Exp: -0.012172814485654077 Hands: 80592619 Win: 35972778 Lose: 36953817 Tie: 7666024 CHY: 0 BJk: 0Run Totals: Number Won: 20318643 Number Lost: 10482 Profits: 268668075 Av(13.22273711881251) Losses: -354322265 Av(-33802.92549131845) Net Gain: -85654190 Av(-4.213373177645373)Parms: ndx:8 sh:1000000 ch 88 cards pay 1 pen:95% dstops:99cards maxspl:99 strat:0 Time:10:58:0:907 `
Some of the winning runs.
`R: 15 W(15)R: 10 L(15) L(25) W(40) L(15) L(25) L(40) W(65) W(25)R: 5 L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) L(105) W(15) W(170) W(65) L(25) L(40) L(65) L(15) W(15) W(105) L(40) L(65) L(105) L(15) W(15) L(170) L(275) L(445) L(720) W(1165) L(445) L(720) L(1165) L(15) L(15) L(15) W(15) W(1885) W(720) W(275) L(105) W(170) W(65) W(25) L(15) L(25) W(40) L(15) W(25)R: 15 W(15)R: 10 L(15) L(25) L(40) W(65) L(25) L(40) W(65) W(25)R: 15 W(15) `

Thanks CP for doing that. How do you think these results compare to other betting strategies people propose? Are there some variables in my strategy that couldn't be included? How many deals constitute 1 denominated win? What would be the amount of each denominated win? Cheers
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
• Posts: 2599
Thanks for this post from:
March 29th, 2021 at 8:58:47 AM permalink
Obviously there's no point in passing when simulating, it's just the same as dealing extra cards from the deck, but you can see in the example I showed, that it went down to \$15 after the five losses. The code also went minimum after three more losses when it got going again.
`R: 15 L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) L(105) L(15) W(15) L(170) L(275) L(445) L(15) W(15) W(720) W(275) L(105) L(170) W(275) L(105) W(170) L(65) L(105) L(170) L(15) W(15) L(275) L(445) W(720) L(275) W(445) L(170) L(275) L(445) L(15) W(15) W(720) W(275) L(105) L(170) W(275) W(105) L(40) L(65) W(105) W(40) L(15) L(25) W(40) W(15)`

However, as most of us would have known, whatever similar system you use, you get a larger number of small wins but the occasional large losses. In your case, again as most of us knew, you had not yet experienced that big loss so were trying to suggest your "system" was infallable. From your viewpoint you had only ever seen winning results.

As you can see the losses don't happen that often but are massive and, on average, outweigh the small profits you made.

I'm not sure what you mean by "demoninated win" - as I explained the simulation would stop when the run was ever back in profit, made a tally of the profit/loss and moved onto the next run. In the previous post's example starting with five losses you can see it stopped when it was \$5 ahead, similarly the one shown here landed up winning \$25. The reason for this is probably the extra \$15's you were betting.

PS I saw other total running runs of 5,10,15,20,25,30,35 and 45, most were 15 (62%) or 10 (36.5%), then 25 (0.7%) and 5 (0.4%).
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
• Posts: 824
March 29th, 2021 at 10:00:42 AM permalink
Quote: charliepatrick

Obviously there's no point in passing when simulating, it's just the same as dealing extra cards from the deck, but you can see in the example I showed, that it went down to \$15 after the five losses. The code also went minimum after three more losses when it got going again.

`R: 15 L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) L(105) L(15) W(15) L(170) L(275) L(445) L(15) W(15) W(720) W(275) L(105) L(170) W(275) L(105) W(170) L(65) L(105) L(170) L(15) W(15) L(275) L(445) W(720) L(275) W(445) L(170) L(275) L(445) L(15) W(15) W(720) W(275) L(105) L(170) W(275) W(105) L(40) L(65) W(105) W(40) L(15) L(25) W(40) W(15)`

However, as most of us would have known, whatever similar system you use, you get a larger number of small wins but the occasional large losses. In your case, again as most of us knew, you had not yet experienced that big loss so were trying to suggest your "system" was infallable. From your viewpoint you had only ever seen winning results.

As you can see the losses don't happen that often but are massive and, on average, outweigh the small profits you made.

I'm not sure what you mean by "demoninated win" - as I explained the simulation would stop when the run was ever back in profit, made a tally of the profit/loss and moved onto the next run. In the previous post's example starting with five losses you can see it stopped when it was \$5 ahead, similarly the one shown here landed up winning \$25. The reason for this is probably the extra \$15's you were betting.

PS I saw other total running runs of 5,10,15,20,25,30,35 and 45, most were 15 (62%) or 10 (36.5%), then 25 (0.7%) and 5 (0.4%).

Thanks once again for your reply CP. It's interesting to see the figures generated over millions of hands.

I note your conclusions and I have no problem with the logic of the result. I don't necessarily agree that the results provided are full-proof of the real life scenario. I don't believe this is because I have some flawed logic because, and you can give your take:

1. It seems the analysis cannot account for the break-up of the losing streaks,

2. It seems the analysis cannot account for drop downs in the Fibonacci sequence, should player bets get too large,

3. It seems the analysis cannot account for the player taking breaks away from the table,

4. The "everyday gambler variation," which increases the bankroll reasonably significantly, is not in the data I provided.

Does the statistical analysis engine include the percentage boost in profits from Doubles, Splits and BJs?
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
Zcore13
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
• Posts: 3713
Thanks for this post from:
March 29th, 2021 at 10:21:49 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

I note your conclusions and I have no problem with the logic of the result. I don't necessarily agree that the results provided are full-proof of the real life scenario. I don't believe this is because I have some flawed logic because, and you can give your take:

1. It seems the analysis cannot account for the break-up of the losing streaks,

Lol at breaks away from the table.

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
Sg
Joined: Jul 22, 2012
• Posts: 25
March 29th, 2021 at 11:54:25 AM permalink
i am waiting for your response after playing 1000 hours and subtract your expenses from winning divided by time invested! i know at least 10 people that started with an amount and arriving to 10x to over 200x their initial capital. I doubt you can . Show me when you can consistent double your initial \$ every 1000 to 2000 hours ! Don't be delusional . i m have seen countless gamblers that states their system works. i used to be one of them . Wake up or the house edge will "shut you up"!
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
• Posts: 2599
March 29th, 2021 at 12:04:41 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

...I don't necessarily agree that the results provided are full-proof of the real life scenario. I don't believe this is because I have some flawed logic because, and you can give your take:

1. It seems the analysis cannot account for the break-up of the losing streaks,

2. It seems the analysis cannot account for drop downs in the Fibonacci sequence, should player bets get too large,

3. It seems the analysis cannot account for the player taking breaks away from the table,

4. The "everyday gambler variation," which increases the bankroll reasonably significantly, is not in the data I provided.

Does the statistical analysis engine include the percentage boost in profits from Doubles, Splits and BJs?

Firstly this was Punto Banco- I said that up front.

Please explain the difference between you taking a break where (a) the dealer just stops dealing and waits for your return and (b) the dealer continues to deal for other players and as you arrive back they're just starting a new hand but wait for you to sit down. You need to explain the difference.

You have to state what your rules are, there was no rule that you could "drop your bet" should any bets get too large. The only requirement I stated was you must stop if you cannot afford the next bet. If you wanted me to bet the remaining balance then you needed to state that. You did explain when you would drop to the \$15 minimum but no other mention of not following the series.

You stated the bankroll so cannot complain whether it doesn't fits the "everyday gambler variation" or the colour of their shirt or any other excuse.

In short, apart from it not being Blackjack, you stated all the rules of your system and the betting limits and these were followed. Since you now know the results have not provided any sound mathematical argument why my results are incorrect.