Beat the house at blackjack!!!!

For those that say: "Try your strategy at a real life casino," I couldn't agree more. My local has a minimum $15 bet requirement for BJ. I therefore calculate that I would need about $2,000 to allow for natural variation - the win/loss ratio that may swing against me in the initial play. As I live off welfare though (receiving the disability pension due to chronic fatigue), I probably won't be visiting a casino anytime soon. It is on my future plans though.

To all other naysayers though, like the one above, I have been testing my strategy on the everyday scenarios. That includes the situation you mention. This strategy still comes up trumps against the losing trends.

I play CD homegames I bought last decade. They may start me off with $5,000, and one way or another I try to get to over $100K. That usually means playing hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of hands, rolls, or spins. Slow that down to brick & mortar casino speeds, and my sessions could run weeks or months. It may only take an hour or two to go from $10K to $100K, but it may only happen once every 3 months.

Quote: Wellbush

As I live off welfare though (receiving the disability pension due to chronic fatigue), I probably won't be visiting a casino anytime soon.

I have never heard of a ‘disability pension’? Is that from a private company or the government? Anyway, you were able to work out this system despite the fatigue, but now don’t have the energy to take it to a casino? Or don’t have the $2k you say you need?

Quote: Wellbush

To all other naysayers though, like the one above, I have been testing my strategy on the everyday scenarios.

Which is a worthless test. You'd need to play for thousands of hours to conclusively prove that the system actually works rather than just being lucky.

Saying your system is a winner is like saying you can choose some certain number of nickels and have the average be greater than 5¢. That's impossible, and it's why the math-literate know that you're wrong even without knowing the details of your system.

My article on betting systems gives four kinds of evidence for why betting systems can't beat the house.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

I would think that it's quite reasonable to have a mature discussion on this website (which I think you've previously stated), rather than a belittling one, about the topic at hand.

Bet	amount ($)	Winner (P-player, D-dealer)	Running total ($)
1.	50	P	50
2.	50	D	0
3.	80	D	-80
4.	130	P	50
5.	50	P	100
6.	50	D	50
7.	80	D	-30
8.	130	D	-160
9.	210	D	-370
10.	340	P	-30
11.	130	D	-160
12.	210	P	50
13.	80	D	-30
14.	130	P	100

Wellbush. You know your system inside out. Please assist me with one simple worked example.
Redo this table where the player wins the first 8 games and loses the last 6.Maybe extend it to 15 hands where dealer wins the last 7

Bet	Amount	Winner	Running Total
1	50	P	50
2	50	P	100
3	50	P	150
4	50	P	200
5	50	P	250
6	50	P	300
7	50	P	350
8	50	P	400
9	50	D	350
10	80	D	270
11	130	D	140
12	210	D	-70
13	340	D	-410
14	pass	pass	-410
15	Min. Bet 15	D	-425

I'll just leave things here for now, to allow for comments 😊

So there you had an ordinary enough scenario which triggered your 'woah up' situation. You had more player than dealer and managed to lose money. I suppose you wait until some predetermined event happens (who cares what?) and then lay another wager from your fibonacci sequence.... And if that is a win for dealer? You've just lost a lot more. Impossible? Not allowed by your algorithm?

Let's try a kinder scenario.
7 consecutive wins, 4 consecutive dealer wins and then a player win followed by 3 dealer wins.
Your 5 losses event is not triggered, you have more player wins than dealer wins. What's the outcome?
Is that sequence allowed by your scenario? Please fill in the ??? blanks.

Bet	Amount	Winner	Running Total
1	50	P	50
2	50	P	100
3	50	P	150
4	50	P	200
5	50	P	250
6	50	P	300
7	50	P	350
8	50	D	300
9	80?	D	220?
10	130?	D	90?
11	210?	D	-120?
12	340?	P	220?
13	???	D	???
14	???	D	???
15	???	D	???

Make an effort with the table formatting.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/help/1-formatting-codes/

Quote: Wellbush

As I have already stated that I have been working on a bet strategy for some months now

It took you months to come up with a system that can be shown to be -EV in a couple sentences? That must be disappointing.

I've noticed a striking correlation between beilef in betting systems and poor grammar/spelling, which is exactly the kind of correlation we should expect. In fact, when my betting system challenge was open to the general public (rather than just to system sellers), poor grammar/spelling was the hallmark of the inquiries I got. This is a telling fact, to reasonable people, but of course it means nothing to betting system proponents, kind of by definition.

Quote: Wellbush

From one angle this makes sense, but from a mathematical stand point there appears to be a way, just that no-one has unlocked the key to do it...

I don't mind being the laughing stock for now, because I've been putting my strategy to the test lately...

I get that actuarist's state that mathematically it's impossible to overcome the house edge....

My new found strategy could be described as an algorithm.

A negative betting strategy benefits from the fact that the player requires less wins than the dealer to come out in front (Fibonacci).

Ah, some of you are getting a little more straight forward....

I'm not a mathematician or an actuarist...

Simply because the longer this attempt by so called experts...

So I'm not gonna unequivocally state that it finally has been achieved until the strategy has been fully tested, and/or it's underlying construct debunked.

It's glaringly obvious what many poster's views in the forums are.

Quote: Wizard

Betting system players are nearly hopeless. No amount of math will convince them their system won't work. The only thing that does and will convince them is the eventual bankroll ruin they will eventually face.

I doubt most are convinced by even that.

Quote: Wellbush

I haven't heard anyone with a practical basis as to why my simple logic is wrong.

You can no longer say that truthfully, because here's four kinds of evidence, although any one of the first three is more than sufficient.

Quote: Wellbush

I haven't had a losing session since I stumbled upon the strategy.

So what? Short term results are meaningless. Do what I say in my article: hire a computer programmer, or learn enough programming to code it yourself, and you'll see that your system is a loser.

Quote: Wellbush

I think I've done everything you and everyone else suggests I do.

No you haven't. You haven't (1) considered the evidence against you, and (2) run a test through a computer.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Which is a worthless test. You'd need to play for thousands of hours to conclusively prove that the system actually works rather than just being lucky.

Saying your system is a winner is like saying you can choose some certain number of nickels and have the average be greater than 5¢. That's impossible, and it's why the math-literate know that you're wrong even without knowing the details of your system.

My article on betting systems gives four kinds of evidence for why betting systems can't beat the house.

Ah!.......MR BLUEJAY!!!!!!! At last, someone with a bit of clout! Now I notice there are a number of different accusers jumping on my bandwagon!!!! This is getting very interesting! I hope there are thousands of readers now, tuning into this thread. It's starting to make for one very interesting read. And so it should. I have now read (probably on Mr ......'s website) that no-one has come up with a negative progression strategy in CENTURIES (not decades!), that can beat the house!!!! So was there a negative progression strategy that won prior to the centuries ago??? Well, it seems not!!!! It seems the naysayers think that by saying "centuries" they mean NEVER!!!! Because, after all, casinos and the game of BJ has probably been around for just centuries.

All right then you very highly intelligent mathematical beings (although I note Mr Buejay doesn't seem to have any mathematical qualifications), I'll start to debunk your so-called proof of my undoings (and by definition, your own undoings that all the readers here can enjoy laughing at 😆) one by one. Although, I don't see why I should, coz you naysayers are belittling me even though your own logic is flawed!

So I'll start with the above post first. Yes, it's a worthless test indeed. Agreed, but OnceDear thought to disprove me with it!!! He's such a clever chap working as an "admin" here, I thought I may as well come down to his level. Now OnceDear thinks that he shouldn't even give my strategy a moment's thought. And, says OnceDear, there are billions of people on the planet and who've gone before us, yet no-one's come up with a winning negative progression betting strategy!!!!

Leaving OnceDear aside for the moment, though I'll probably be back to bring him to his knees later on, I'll continue with Mr Bluejay!! Yes, the short sample was a worthless test. But, if you read through the thread, you will see I was using it as an example as to how the Fibonacci sequence can work, not as an example of a billion hands showing statistical outcomes (although I would be more than happy to let my system be tested over thousands of dealt hands!).

So that brings us to Mr Bluejay's next comment where it appears (although the logic is not quite clear) he thinks I make certain statistical outcomes about my system. Where have I done that Mr Bluejay, or have I read your intentions wrong? Let me be entirely clear once more - my only claim is that I have stumbled across a negative progression strategy that seems to beat the house. And now, the more I tell people about it, the more the mathematicians and others are looking #$@% for stating for (gulp) decades that negative progression systems simply don't work, and are a mathematical impossibility!!!!!

So, I haven't claimed any average, but I am claiming that my system is until now, producing a profit. And, to be clear, the profits keep spiraling upwards!!!! I am not, and have not ever, had a losing session with this system!!!! And there are no tricks. No shuffle analysis. I just play BJ on free software. And no, I don't pick and choose which site I go on. I'm not playing on bogus sites or some kind of variation of the game of BJ. I'm not bluffing. The strategy does NOT come undone after thousands of hands. The longer I play, the more I win!!!!

And, if you haven't worked it out yet, it's why everyone's starting to realise that possibly for decades, mathematicians have been wrong about negative progression betting strategies!!!!!

So, Mr Bluejay, apart from your article on betting systems (I'll no doubt get to the article and rip that apart too, in forthcoming posts), have I rebutted everything else in the above post? Or did I miss something?

I see someone else asking about my personal status....I am Australian. This does not mean, naysayers, that somehow I am or my system is, flawed. If naysayers have an itch, make sure it addresses the situation at hand, front on! Not some flawed logic like Mr Bluejay's assertion that my English shows I lack credibility!!! That should at least lower Mr Bluejay's credibility down quite a few rungs, though!!!

So I get what's called the Disability Support Pension in Australia. It's a government welfare payment. Keeps me off the street. But, doesn't allow me to ordinarily raise $2,000 to trial a strategy at a casino.

Finally, as a new registered member here, I am limited in the number of posts I can submit each day. So just be aware of why I may not post more frequently. I'm sure I will continue to tear apart the naysayers posts!!!! Just be patient. I'm sure plenty of you will enjoy me ripping them completely apart, SLOWLY!!!!!

Quote: Wellbush

Finally, as a new registered member here, I am limited in the number of posts I can submit each day.

I'm not so sure about that.

Quote: Wellbush

All right then you very highly intelligent mathematical beings (although I note Mr Buejay doesn't seem to have any mathematical qualifications)

That is not entirely true. I passed 7th-grade math. That's all that's necessary to understand that the average of a set of negative numbers can never be positive (which is all that's needed in order to know why your system doesn't beat the house).

Quote: Wellbush

my only claim is that I have stumbled across a negative progression strategy that seems to beat the house.

Exactly. It doesn't. That's knowable because it's well-understood that (1) the average of a set of negative numbers can never be positive, and that (2) the outcome of a hand of blackjack has essentially no correlation to the outcome of previous hands.

Quote: Wellbush

And, if you haven't worked it out yet, it's why everyone's starting to realise that possibly for decades, mathematicians have been wrong about negative progression betting strategies!!!!!

(groan) Sure, right.

Quote: Wellbush

So, Mr Bluejay, apart from your article on betting systems (I'll no doubt get to the article and rip that apart too, in forthcoming posts), have I rebutted everything else in the above post? Or did I miss something?

Did you miss SOMETHING?! You missed EVERYTHING! You've rebutted NOTHING.

Quote: Wellbush

Not some flawed logic like Mr Bluejay's assertion that my English shows I lack credibility!!!

BINGO BINGO BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER! As I said, believers in betting systems NEVER understand why their bad English is huge tell. Could spot this one coming a mile away.

Quote: AxelWolf

I'm not so sure about that.

Different user name, same nonsense.


ZCore13

You don’t have a friend, a colleague, a relative.... that you can borrow a measly $2k from? Or save up yourself? If I was that broke and ABSOLUTELY KNEW that I had a winning gambling system, I can’t think of ANYTHING ELSE I’d be doing other than rounding up the money to start raking it in at the casino. Rather than wasting my time on an Internet forum....

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Which is a worthless test. You'd need to play for thousands of hours to conclusively prove that the system actually works rather than just being lucky.

Saying your system is a winner is like saying you can choose some certain number of nickels and have the average be greater than 5¢. That's impossible, and it's why the math-literate know that you're wrong even without knowing the details of your system.

My article on betting systems gives four kinds of evidence for why betting systems can't beat the house.

For those itching for a reply from me, again, be patient! Like the reasonable chap I am, I'll get around to you, unless your post is ridiculous or has already been covered. Hint: check back through the thread! I'm not gonna keep repeating myself for lazy posters. So, for now, I'll be responding to posts in the order they come in.

So I didn't completely finish with Mr Bluejay's post above where he pointed out how wrong I am because of the PROVEN REASONS (gulp) he dutifully pointed out one-by-one on his authoritative website!!! So let me go through the reasons he uses to debunk betting strategies (and that, by definition, debunks mine!).

By the way, I'm waiting for Mr Shackleford, if he's game enough to rear his head? Although who knows what username he has, or even if I've already replied to him under some unknown name? Regardless, from what I've read of his supposed posts on the internet, I'll be able to )@#-! him apart too!!!!

Back to Mr Bluejay's debunking list. 1. The Martingale. Becomes unaffordable in a short space of time. I agree, but I use the Fibonacci sequence because it's more affordable. However, simply using the Fibonacci sequence in its pure form is also probably unaffordable for the average player.

Now let me tease this out a little further, before naysayers jump on my bandwagon with protests! I'll no doubt debunk all your protests as I unravel the protests one-by-one, if you can keep reading before you jump up and down!!!

Let me be clear about the Fibonacci sequence so everyone understands. It's a sequence of numbers that allow the betting person to use less bets to recoup the amount of bets he/she used, to be in a negative pot position.

So looking at the Fibonacci sequence, first - 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13,.... I've stopped continuing the progression coz I gotta stop somewhere, but I'll tell you how you can continue the progression yourself. If you look at the progression you'll see that after each two numbers, you add them together to get the next number. E.g. 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 2+3=5, and so on.

The interesting thing about this sequence is that it can be used to reduce losses, and also win at betting. That's because you can bet following the amounts on the sequence, and by so doing, you can come out in front by winning from less bets than it took to be in a losing position. Let me use a simplified example from the numbers above (and this is not to prove anything about my betting strategy, but just to explain the Fibonacci sequence).

Bet 1, amount $1, loss, pot -$1. Bet 2, amount $1, loss, pot -$2. Bet 3, amount $2, loss, pot -$4. Bet 4, amount $3, loss, pot -$7. Bet 5, amount $5, loss, pot -$12. Bet 6, amount $8, loss, pot -$20. Bet 7, amount $13, win, pot -$7. Bet 8, amount $5, win, pot -$2. Bet 9, amount $2, win, pot even. Bet 10, amount $1, win, pot +$1.

So, as you can see above, there where 10 bets placed. The first 6 bets using the Fibonacci sequence, were losing bets resulting in a total loss to the player of $20. However, after the next 4 bets, I came out with $1 in profit! The beauty of the Fibonacci sequence is that if the player continues along the Fibonacci sequence method, he will theoretically come out with a profit after winning less hands than it took to get into the losing position.

So how did I know what amounts to bet after the first 6 bets? Well the first bet after the first 6 bets is no problem, it was the total of the two previously bet amounts 8+5=13. Then the player just uses every previous second number going back in the sequence, 13+5+2+1=21. This is 4hands in total. Two hands less than it took to get to 6-hand $20 loss to start with.

As this post is already long enough, I’ll stop here and continue #@%&) apart Mr Bluejay in further posts, before I get back to OnceDear. I see I hit a raw nerve with Mr Bluejay already! God knows where he’ll end up after I’ve finished with him!!!😃

Do I have this right?

Step 1: Create winning betting system.
Step 2: Brag about it on the internet but by no means use it in a casino.
Step 3: Defend it from all challengers through arguments about how it must work. But by no means use it in a casino.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit

People have been nuked from this website for less.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Which is a worthless test. You'd need to play for thousands of hours to conclusively prove that the system actually works rather than just being lucky.

Saying your system is a winner is like saying you can choose some certain number of nickels and have the average be greater than 5¢. That's impossible, and it's why the math-literate know that you're wrong even without knowing the details of your system.

My article on betting systems gives four kinds of evidence for why betting systems can't beat the house.

From my previous post you will note I endeavoured to tease out the Fibonacci sequence, and how it uses less hands/rounds/bets, whatever you like to call it, to get into a winning position, than the number of hands it took to be in your previous losing position. This, my friends, is the underlying construct of my betting strategy. Not in its entirety of course, but the underlying construct nevertheless.

Now there are some apparently very highly qualified beings that say: "How can a series of negative numbers come up with a positive result?" You'll just have to forgive these highly intelligent beings for their ignorance. You'll see them jump up and down and post all sorts of ridiculous stuff coz even though they may in fact be highly intelligent, somehow the transition to their higher state has meant they now can't understand very simple maths!!!

I'll now say something about the "negative numbers can't become positive" line, that some of these highly intelligent beings, including Michael Shackleford, come up with. SINCE WHEN HAVE ALL THE NUMBERS IN THE NEGATIVE PROGRESSION BETTING STRATEGY, BEEN NEGATIVE??????

I just explained in this post and the last, how the negative progression Fibonacci sequence goes from being negative to positive. You don't even need 7th grade math , Mr Bluejay, to understand that -1-1-2-3-5-8+13+5+2+1= +1. Clearly, there are positive integers as well as negative integers in this sequence, that produce a positive result!!!!

I think many of you readers may be dumbfounded as to how the highly intelligent beings have missed such a simple point! I am totally dumbfounded by their =$#@)/ ignorance, too. But, we'll just have to put up with it. I doubt they'll ever concede. They'll probably go down fighting into ignorant Neverland, where they belong! They'll probably continue to spout irrelevant formulae, make baseless theories, follow continuous lines of illogical nonsense, but give in? Well, we'll probably never see it till the whole world is finally telling them that the Earth is a sphere, and not flat!!!

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Which is a worthless test. You'd need to play for thousands of hours to conclusively prove that the system actually works rather than just being lucky.

Saying your system is a winner is like saying you can choose some certain number of nickels and have the average be greater than 5¢. That's impossible, and it's why the math-literate know that you're wrong even without knowing the details of your system.

My article on betting systems gives four kinds of evidence for why betting systems can't beat the house.

Let me continue to pry apart Mr Bluejay, coz by so doing, it will probably unearth a lot that needs to be said on this issue. I'll get to OnceDear when I've finished with Mr Bluejay.

I think I made it pretty clear in my previous posts, that using a negative progression system of betting can theoretically turn a loss into a profit. I showed with simple math how this is possible. But what about real life? How do I overcome the long losing streaks a player suffers at the hands of the dealer?

Dealing with losing streaks is central to my strategy, which I'm not trying to sell here by the way. Just letting everyone know that in order to beat the dealer using this kind of strategy, it requires the player to deal with losing streaks. I have found a way to do it.

Not being able to deal with losing streaks may be one of the fundamental reasons why there has never been a betting strategy that beats the dealer. But mathematicians have been saying that it's theoretically impossible to beat the dealer using such a strategy. Don't be fooled by their ignorance. I will tear their theories apart and shove them in the bin, where they belong.

The problem has never been mathematical theory, it's been the continuously rising bet amounts that players have to fork out against losing streaks. It's never been improbable math at all. It's been the average player's lack of bankroll to keep up with the continuing rise in bets.

Now some of you readers may be cottoning on to where the real problem has lain for centuries - how to come up with a strategy that allows the player to stay in the game? How does a player using a negative progression betting strategy, overcome the long streaks that inevitably come, and put the bet sizes out of his reach, from where he can't stay in the game and is bankrupted?

I'll have more to say about this in the next post, but remember that there'll still be plenty of naysayers around saying that the problem is theory. You can ignore them as I tear their theories up and use simple math, which they don't seem to understand, to prove them wrong! Stay tuned dear readers.

You won't be around long, so good luck when you scrape up $2,000. I feel bad for you for more reasons than one.


ZCore13

Quote: Wellbush

I'll have more to say about this in the next post, but remember that there'll still be plenty of naysayers around saying that the problem is theory. You can ignore them as I tear their theories up and use simple math, which they don't seem to understand, to prove them wrong! Stay tuned dear readers.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I'm falling asleep at the mouse so here's some free games to try at this website. https://wizardofvegas.com/games/

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Which is a worthless test. You'd need to play for thousands of hours to conclusively prove that the system actually works rather than just being lucky.

Saying your system is a winner is like saying you can choose some certain number of nickels and have the average be greater than 5¢. That's impossible, and it's why the math-literate know that you're wrong even without knowing the details of your system.

My article on betting systems gives four kinds of evidence for why betting systems can't beat the house.

So I've made the case that negative progression betting strategies can work, using simple math with the Fibonacci sequence. The example I used were 6 losing bets followed by 4 winning bets. The 6 losing bets totaled 20, giving us an average of 3.33. We can regard this as a negative number because their losing bets, and it'll also be easier for the mathematical wizards to understand! For some reason they like it if you talk about averages and negative numbers!

But for the rest of us, I'm sure it's simple enough. The 4 winning bets totaled 21, giving us an average of 5.25. Now wizards this is a positive number because they were winning bets. And I know this may be difficult for you wizards to understand, but please trust me on this. Not all numbers in a negative progression strategy are negative!

All these posts I've made so far should be making the basis of my strategy come to light. That if one is able to harness the Fibonacci sequence when they bet in BJ, then theoretically the player can come out in front coz he makes less bets than that required to get to his losing position.

In reality, using such a strategy needs to deal with the losing streaks. If the player can do that, he is almost there. I'll talk about this in future posts, maybe when I get back to OnceDear.

The other problem the player may inevitably encounter, is having a limited bankroll. The player will also need to be prepared in this area, even if he conquers losing streaks. This is not much of a problem for people with high bankrolls, but it will be a problem for the average punter. I'll have more to say about this further down the track.

Expanding on unJon's post, here's what we've seen a gazillion times on this forum (and others).

Characteristics of a Betting System Believer

The system

(1) OP arrives on this board with no prior experience here, making his first post about either how he's discovered a winning betting system, or how it must be possible to devise one.

(2) Doesn't reveal enough details of the system so it could actually be tested.

(3) If he reveals anything about the system, it's just an ancient, unimaginative idea of varying bets based on previous results.


Misunderstanding the math

(4) Says he understands that the wheel has no memory (or similar), and/or that previous results don't provide any knowledge about future results, and then proposes a system based on past results supposedly having a bearing on future results.

(5) Thinks streaks matter. (1, 2, 3) (i.e., Doesn't understand the concept of independent trials.) Related to this, might posit that taking breaks can result in better odds. (1, 2, 3)

(6) Thinks that mathematics is only "theory" or "only good on paper", and doesn't apply to real casino gambling. (1, 2)

(7) Shows that he doesn't understand why the average of any set of negative-expectation bets must be negative.

(8) Thinks his short-term results actually constitute good evidence.


Dismissing mathematicians, claiming superior understanding

(9) Despite the fact that his idea is basic and its principles were debunked centuries ago, falsely claims that (a) it's new/original and (b) somehow it's escaped the attention of mathematicians before now. (1, 2, 3)

(10) Evidences delusions of grandeur, claiming that his knowledge of math is superior to that of actual math experts, e.g. "Mathematicians have been saying that it's theoretically impossible to beat the dealer using such a strategy. Don't be fooled by their ignorance. I will tear their theories apart and shove them in the bin, where they belong." source Says this even though he makes grade-school-level math mistakes.

(11) Complains that the experts or actual math-literate people don't understand his ideas.

(12) Fancies himself as destroying the arguments of the experts. (1, 2, 3) Brags repeatedly that he's "debunked" them. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

(13) Refers to actual math experts as merely "so-called" or "supposed" experts, or puts "experts" in quotes to show his scorn for people who actually know what they're talking about. Refers to their knowledge and experience with condescending sarcasm. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Throws out the words "ignorant" and/or "ignorance".

(14) Gives a name to some gambling math concept, usually naming it after himself. (e.g., "Wellbush's Paradox) The concept is either valid but completely unoriginal, or else completely false.


Sources

(15) Cites completely laughable people (e.g., Ion Saliu) as though they're reliable sources.

(16) When the worthlessness of the source is explained, either doubles down and claims the worthless source is actually valid, or says that his choosing a worthless source somehow does not reflect negatively on him.

(17) Claims his ridiculous sources "proved" his ridiculous point.

(18) When actual reliable sources are provided to him which actually disprove his point, either ignores them or dismisses them.


Argumentative

(19) Openly refuses to read the reliable source material provided to him, or otherwise:

(20) Claims he's read that material when clearly he hasn't.

(21) Protests that no one has provided good evidence refuting his system (maybe even going so far as to say he hasn't heard a reason why his system can't work), even though multiple kinds of evidence have already been provided, repeatedly.

(22) Complains that he's a victim being persecuted. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) Doesn't understand why someone essentially claiming to have bought magic beans would naturally invite eye-rolling.

(23) Though he complains about being insulted, he himself routinely insults others.

(24) Makes other unrelated, completely false and easily disprovable claims (e.g., there's a law against players gambling online in Australia, race is based on nationality).


Computer Simulations

(25) Hasn't run a computer simulation.

(26) Can't run a computer simulation, because he doesn't know how.

(27) Unwilling to learn how to code a simulation (and unwilling to hire someone to do so).

(28) Claims to have run a computer simulation, but won't provide the code.

(29) Thinks computer simulations are useless because they don't mirror the real world. (i.e., Thinks that even though a system fails a simulation, it could still win in a casino.)

(30) Says that the random numbers generated by computers are statistically unlike real-world randomness.

(31) Thinks that simulations of the long term are useless because "nobody plays for the long term". i.e., Doesn't understand that a system that fails in the long term will be an overall loser in the short term as well.

(32) Hasn't occurred to him that a simulation can run thousands of short sessions, instead of a single long session.

(33) Falsely claims that computer simulations are programmed to give the desired answer.

(34) Falsely claims that computer sims can't vary bet sizes or timing based on prior results.


Literacy and style

(35) Litters his posts with basic grammatical / spelling mistakes. (1, 2)

(36) Expresses bewilderment why anyone would think that should matter, dismisses it as irrelevant.

(37) Uses lots of gratuitous exclamation marks (including, in this case, no fewer than four in the thread title, a whopping 76 in this single post alone, and 20 in this one). I first wrote about this one back in 2008. (And next, expresses bewilderment why anyone would think that should matter. OP hasn't done that yet, but it's likely coming.)


Wellbush, your posts are a clone of what we've seen over and over and over again. What and how you post is as entirely old and unoriginal as your betting system.

By the way:

Quote: Wellbush

By the way, I'm waiting for Mr Shackleford, if he's game enough to rear his head? Although who knows what username he has, or even if I've already replied to him under some unknown name?

You somehow missed that his was the very first post in response to your original post (and then posted multiple times after that). And yet you expect people to take you seriously.

and:

Quote: Wellbush

Now wizards this is a positive number because they were winning bets. And I know this may be difficult for you wizards to understand, but please trust me on this. Not all numbers in a negative progression strategy are negative!

Ironically, you don't realize that by making posts like this, you're essentially waving a big sign around that says, "LOOK AT ME! I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!"

The negative is about the expected value of the bet and has nothing to do with the numbers in your Fibonacci sequence. The expected value on a hand of blackjack is about -0.5%, meaning the player loses that much on average over the long term. (And before you start screaming that the long term isn't relevant because you won't play into the long term or for some other B.S. reason, I refer you back to the betting systems article.) So, no matter how you chop up how much to bet on which hands and when, every hand you're betting on has a negative expectation, so the average expectation of all those hands is gonna be negative. Varying when/how/how much you bet doesn't change that. That's one piece of proof why your system not only doesn't work, but can't work. (There are others. They've been provided.)

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Which is a worthless test. You'd need to play for thousands of hours to conclusively prove that the system actually works rather than just being lucky.

Saying your system is a winner is like saying you can choose some certain number of nickels and have the average be greater than 5¢. That's impossible, and it's why the math-literate know that you're wrong even without knowing the details of your system.

My article on betting systems gives four kinds of evidence for why betting systems can't beat the house.

Now I haven't finished with Mr Bluejay coz I'm slowly going through his reasons why betting systems don't work, and debunking his statements. I do want to make it clear that I think his website seems quite good. I am just debunking some myths that his undoubtedly just copied from other wizards, poor devil.

Mr Bluejay says past results have no bearing on future results. I agree. Um, but pardon me, what's that got to do with the price of onions in Greece?

He says that mathematicians have proven that no system can overcome the house advantage. Well I've proven it with basic math in the posts throughout this thread. Sorry, but all the mathematicians have been theoretically wrong on this issue for decades!!!(gulp)
And it's also why my system seems to continually spiral upwards in profit, the longer I play!

For over a decade, Mr Bluejay offered anyone $30,000 to anyone who could prove a betting system worked. Apparently no-one took up his offer. That's part of his reasoning to show why betting systems don't work. Not too unreasonable a statement. But now I'm here. Are you still gonna make that offer? I'm not sure I can accept it if you do, coz this website has limitations on such things. But I'm curious if they'll allow it?

That's it! I've covered every reason on Mr Bluejay's website why betting systems don't work. He talks about the long term and short term results being different. Doesn't really apply to my system. I got no doubt about the naturally occurring short term variation. It's the long term that counts and is where my system seems to be coming up trumps.

Sorry Mr Bluejay if you've found some or all of this hard to swallow, but facts are facts!

Now on to OnceDear!

Quote: Wellbush

...Well I've proven it with basic math in the posts throughout this thread. Sorry, but all the mathematicians have been theoretically wrong on this issue for decades!!!....

I can see a Fibonacci betting system described below ( https://www.thepunterspage.com/the-fibonacci-betting-system-explained/ )

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.

Nevertheless it would then be reasonable to test the betting system on a simple game. As an example, since it's mathematical, you can choose any of the following even money games.
(a) Single Zero European Roulette - even money bets - zero loses half.
(b) Baccarat using six or eight decks.
(c) Pass or Don't Pass at Craps.
You can determine the initial bank roll, the wagering algorithm and when to stop. The minimum bet will be $1 and the maximum is your current bank roll. Each simulation would start with that bank roll and continue your betting system until you reach your stop or run out of money.
If you wish to use Blackjack then the minimum bet would be $1 and you would be deemed bust if you did not have $8 (i.e. sufficient funds to pay for a reasonable number of splits and doubles). (btw I would use UK BJ and you would use infinite deck strategy - house edge about .5%).

Quote: https://www.thepunterspage.com/the-fibonacci-betting-system-explained/

To keep things simple, let’s imagine your wager is £1. All you have to do is follow the sequence. Let’s have a look at the sequence again:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144…
With a stake of £1, starting at the beginning of the sequence, it would look like this:

£1, £1, £2, £3, £5, £8, £13, £21, £34, £55, £89, £144…
Every time you lose a bet, move one number to the right.

Every time you win a bet, move two numbers to the left.

If you haven’t moved up at least two numbers in the sequence before winning, then simply start at the beginning again.

Example
Now let's look at another example in more detail.

Bet £1 (one unit) and lose
Bet £1 (one unit) and lose
Bet £2 (two units) and lose
Bet £3 (three units) and lose
Bet £5 (five units) and lose
Bet £8 (eight units) and win
Following on from this, because you have won, you would now move two numbers to the left of the sequence, from eight units back to three units.

Bet £3 (three units) and win
Again, because you have won, you would move two numbers back in the sequence, from three units back to one unit.

Bet £1 (one unit)
As each number in the Fibonacci sequence represents betting units, it remains very simple, regardless of your stake.

Quote: SOOPOO

You don’t have a friend, a colleague, a relative.... that you can borrow a measly $2k from? Or save up yourself? If I was that broke and ABSOLUTELY KNEW that I had a winning gambling system, I can’t think of ANYTHING ELSE I’d be doing other than rounding up the money to start raking it in at the casino. Rather than wasting my time on an Internet forum....

Conspicuously ignoring my post with its simple question?

Did you ever actually try your system?


Yes!!!

We
Ended
Losing
Loads
But
Up
Some
How?

Quote: WellBush

In reality, using such a strategy needs to deal with the losing streaks. If the player can do that, he is almost there. I'll talk about this in future posts, maybe when I get back to OnceDear.

Quote: WellBush

Now, onto OnceDear!

Bring it on! I don't allot any value to your long monologues. I may let you eloquently destroy my posts if it amuses you.
Apart from your obvious grammatical failures, you've clearly given much thought as to how you can 'Stick it to those naysayers'. Indeed, I reckon that that is your ONLY reason to be here. Think about it: What possible reason could you have for coming here and expounding your massive mental superiority: Your total mastery of thrashing decades or centuries of mathematical, statistical and logical research. You alone have the Holy Grail and you chose to show it off here? Tell us how great it is but don't reveal it, of course.

You will not reveal the secret ingredient to your algorithm, lest we steal it or reveal it to the casinos that oppose you. So, rather than prove your system, you just repeat how stupid we all are to not see how it must work. Go ahead. Eloquently tear us apart. Rip into my flawed logic. I too have a secret. It's not much of a secret: I don't care.

Incidentally, for the benefit of others. WellBush has pretty much explained that the true secret ingredient to his 'algorithm' is that it defeats losing streaks by sitting out or min betting when it has 5 consecutive losses. Quite how he decides to recommence his wagering is a mystery, but unless he can expect to win the next hand when he resumes, then he has nothing. Nil. Zero. Zilch!

Final words from me in this thread: Well done, WellBush, for technically staying within the forum rules, regardless of your disdain for we 'wizards'

Well bush,What credential do you have in math? i am an idiot and ignorant in math and i can admit that but it doesn't seem like you know yourself or your abilities yet. Also one thing i want to ask you is why do you talk about winning in units and forget to minus the house edge as it is supposedly a 50/50 chance of winning . The winrate MAYBE CLOSE TO 50/50 but the reality is you get paid more when you get a Blackjack and you get to split/double in favorable situation to bring you close to a 50/50 game. Good grief!

Guys - this is the same thing as - crap I don’t want to say it’s name because the search engines ears will perk up and alert the people who run it so I’ll obfuscate it

It’s the same thing as c h a r l e s w I n 3 m I l l I o n

I would nuke this whole thread it’s cancer

Quote: heatmap

Guys - this is the same thing as - crap I don’t want to say it’s name because the search engines ears will perk up and alert the people who run it so I’ll obfuscate it

It’s the same thing as c h a r l e s w I n 3 m I l l I o n

I would nuke this whole thread it’s cancer

It's obviously a an attempt to get people in a frenzy. He has no system that wins. Same poo different day. It's entertainment to him. To me too actually.


ZCore13

With Fibonacci)
L-L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-W
W1) -4
W2) -7
W3) -10
W4) -13
Win 4 likely occurred at the table limit at -15.
Would need 8 wins in a row immediately to pull this out of a loss.

Without Fibonacci) 20 losses, 4 wins, for -16.

Why am I getting flashbacks of USPG?

Quote: Zcore13

It's obviously a an attempt to get people in a frenzy. He has no system that wins. Same poo different day. It's entertainment to him. To me too actually.


ZCore13

Yeah pretty much that’s what all systems are

Quote: AxelWolf

Why am I getting flashbacks of USPG?

Idk I feel like this is a level down from his posts

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

I would think that it's quite reasonable to have a mature discussion on this website (which I think you've previously stated), rather than a belittling one, about the topic at hand.

Bet	amount ($)	Winner (P-player, D-dealer)	Running total ($)
1.	50	P	50
2.	50	D	0
3.	80	D	-80
4.	130	P	50
5.	50	P	100
6.	50	D	50
7.	80	D	-30
8.	130	D	-160
9.	210	D	-370
10.	340	P	-30
11.	130	D	-160
12.	210	P	50
13.	80	D	-30
14.	130	P	100

Wellbush. You know your system inside out. Please assist me with one simple worked example.
Redo this table where the player wins the first 8 games and loses the last 6.Maybe extend it to 15 hands where dealer wins the last 7

Bet	Amount	Winner	Running Total
1	50	P	50
2	50	P	100
3	50	P	150
4	50	P	200
5	50	P	250
6	50	P	300
7	50	P	350
8	50	P	400
9	50	D	350
10	80	D	270
11	130	D	140
12	210	D	-70
13	340	D	-410
14	pass	pass	-410
15	Min. Bet 15	D	-425

I'll just leave things here for now, to allow for comments 😊

So there you had an ordinary enough scenario which triggered your 'woah up' situation. You had more player than dealer and managed to lose money. I suppose you wait until some predetermined event happens (who cares what?) and then lay another wager from your fibonacci sequence.... And if that is a win for dealer? You've just lost a lot more. Impossible? Not allowed by your algorithm?

Let's try a kinder scenario.
7 consecutive wins, 4 consecutive dealer wins and then a player win followed by 3 dealer wins.
Your 5 losses event is not triggered, you have more player wins than dealer wins. What's the outcome?
Is that sequence allowed by your scenario? Please fill in the ??? blanks.

Bet	Amount	Winner	Running Total
1	50	P	50
2	50	P	100
3	50	P	150
4	50	P	200
5	50	P	250
6	50	P	300
7	50	P	350
8	50	D	300
9	80?	D	220?
10	130?	D	90?
11	210?	D	-120?
12	340?	P	220?
13	???	D	???
14	???	D	???
15	???	D	???

Make an effort with the table formatting.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/help/1-formatting-codes/

I got no problem, OnceDear, that you don't care if I have a different point of view to yours, and many others on this thread. I am quite happy to let you and others on this thread, and elsewhere, to continue on your merry way. I am not in any way trying to stick it to people. If I were to go through the thread and calculate all the negative and sarcastic remarks directed at me, compared to the amount I direct at others, then maybe the ledger would put the circumstance here in a different light?

I accept that my remarks toward some may have been excessive. I apologise for that to anyone that that applies to.

That doesn't mean that there wasn't partial truths in my communications. And by partial truths, I would probably say that most of the communication from my end had approx. 75% of it worth taking note of. That doesn't mean I think I've been 75% right in everything, just that approx. 75% of it worth taking note of.

Just because some here are all to eager to outright #$@= on me, doesn't mean that there aren't others interested in hearing what I have to offer. Also, this site may in fact be suffering from "Group Think." Whilst it can't be helped that many here are mathematically inclined, it may be worth it for the administrators here to evaluate how to deal with Group Think?

Part of this issue needs evaluation on assumptions/negativity thrown around as a whole. E.g. if everyone is attacking me, who/what is the problem? That may entail evaluating whether people are jumping on board to attack someone, and those attacks have either got no factual basis to them, or very little? And when there are 5 or 10 against 1, it can be very difficult for many people to see what is or isn't factual or reasonable information. E.g. there are many posters who outright attack or belittle with no information to base it on. I am not immune to this sort of behavior. But if there is a common rule on it, maybe things can be judged more accurately rather than outright kick the central figure in the guts? Psychologists can help with these types of issues.

I DO NOT think I have any universal knowledge that hasn't been uncovered, yet. I DO think I MAY have a betting strategy that can beat the house, until proven otherwise. I AM happy to test and trial it mathematically. However, just because I don't reveal every last piece of it, doesn't mean I'm not prepared to do that. I am happy to test what can be tested in the public domain.

If I have something that may be worth bottling, why would I just tell the world about it? I think people would say to me: "Why didn't you take advantage of it, rather than just give it to people on a platter? You did hours of hard work and just blew it to the masses!" I am already giving large chunks of the construct away here, anyway. But apparently I'm a fraud for not revealing everything? That last comment is sarcastic, but I think it's a reasonable response when you consider some of the posts directed at me.

For now, I won't reply to posters like yourself who don't want them. I'll just stick to those who haven't expressed such disdain.

I will no doubt get to a real life casino when I can afford to do so. It's in my previous posts

Thanks Sg for telling me it seems like I don't know myself or my abilities. I won't bother you with a reply, then

I'm sure I'll reply to this post in due course. Stay tuned

Quote: charliepatrick

I can see a Fibonacci betting system described below ( https://www.thepunterspage.com/the-fibonacci-betting-system-explained/ )

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.

Nevertheless it would then be reasonable to test the betting system on a simple game. As an example, since it's mathematical, you can choose any of the following even money games.
(a) Single Zero European Roulette - even money bets - zero loses half.
(b) Baccarat using six or eight decks.
(c) Pass or Don't Pass at Craps.
You can determine the initial bank roll, the wagering algorithm and when to stop. The minimum bet will be $1 and the maximum is your current bank roll. Each simulation would start with that bank roll and continue your betting system until you reach your stop or run out of money.
If you wish to use Blackjack then the minimum bet would be $1 and you would be deemed bust if you did not have $8 (i.e. sufficient funds to pay for a reasonable number of splits and doubles). (btw I would use UK BJ and you would use infinite deck strategy - house edge about .5%).

Quote: https://www.thepunterspage.com/the-fibonacci-betting-system-explained/

To keep things simple, let’s imagine your wager is £1. All you have to do is follow the sequence. Let’s have a look at the sequence again:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144…
With a stake of £1, starting at the beginning of the sequence, it would look like this:

£1, £1, £2, £3, £5, £8, £13, £21, £34, £55, £89, £144…
Every time you lose a bet, move one number to the right.

Every time you win a bet, move two numbers to the left.

If you haven’t moved up at least two numbers in the sequence before winning, then simply start at the beginning again.

Example
Now let's look at another example in more detail.

Bet £1 (one unit) and lose
Bet £1 (one unit) and lose
Bet £2 (two units) and lose
Bet £3 (three units) and lose
Bet £5 (five units) and lose
Bet £8 (eight units) and win
Following on from this, because you have won, you would now move two numbers to the left of the sequence, from eight units back to three units.

Bet £3 (three units) and win
Again, because you have won, you would move two numbers back in the sequence, from three units back to one unit.

Bet £1 (one unit)
As each number in the Fibonacci sequence represents betting units, it remains very simple, regardless of your stake.

I'm sure I'll reply to this post in due course. Stay tuned

Quote: charliepatrick

I can see a Fibonacci betting system described below ( https://www.thepunterspage.com/the-fibonacci-betting-system-explained/ )

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.

Nevertheless it would then be reasonable to test the betting system on a simple game. As an example, since it's mathematical, you can choose any of the following even money games.
(a) Single Zero European Roulette - even money bets - zero loses half.
(b) Baccarat using six or eight decks.
(c) Pass or Don't Pass at Craps.
You can determine the initial bank roll, the wagering algorithm and when to stop. The minimum bet will be $1 and the maximum is your current bank roll. Each simulation would start with that bank roll and continue your betting system until you reach your stop or run out of money.
If you wish to use Blackjack then the minimum bet would be $1 and you would be deemed bust if you did not have $8 (i.e. sufficient funds to pay for a reasonable number of splits and doubles). (btw I would use UK BJ and you would use infinite deck strategy - house edge about .5%).

Quote: https://www.thepunterspage.com/the-fibonacci-betting-system-explained/

To keep things simple, let’s imagine your wager is £1. All you have to do is follow the sequence. Let’s have a look at the sequence again:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144…
With a stake of £1, starting at the beginning of the sequence, it would look like this:

£1, £1, £2, £3, £5, £8, £13, £21, £34, £55, £89, £144…
Every time you lose a bet, move one number to the right.

Every time you win a bet, move two numbers to the left.

If you haven’t moved up at least two numbers in the sequence before winning, then simply start at the beginning again.

Example
Now let's look at another example in more detail.

Bet £1 (one unit) and lose
Bet £1 (one unit) and lose
Bet £2 (two units) and lose
Bet £3 (three units) and lose
Bet £5 (five units) and lose
Bet £8 (eight units) and win
Following on from this, because you have won, you would now move two numbers to the left of the sequence, from eight units back to three units.

Bet £3 (three units) and win
Again, because you have won, you would move two numbers back in the sequence, from three units back to one unit.

Bet £1 (one unit)
As each number in the Fibonacci sequence represents betting units, it remains very simple, regardless of your stake.

Thanks CharliePatrick
I do smell a rat here, but yeeaahhh?!?! I've explained the Fibonacci in very basic detail, quite a number of times in this thread already, so I'm not sure why you're asking if the Fibonacci sequence is what I'm talkin about?

I don't quite follow what you're wanting me to do here? What's probably pertinent to point out here is what some have asked: what's my qualifications? I have a BA (Psychology). Psychology is based on science and statistics. So I have knowledge about the scientific method and some relatively basic university level statistical knowledge. So I may not have covered "expected value" which some are asking about. I am therefore reluctant to answer your EV question.
Yyyeeessss, I have have been using BJ. I'm sure I've mentioned this numerous times, and it is in the title of this thread! And what do you want me to do with this fact?

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.

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."

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

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.
Some of the winning runs.

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:10:57:8:985
Count: 0 Exp: -0.012172814485654077 Hands: 80592619 Win: 35972778 Lose: 36953817 Tie: 7666024 CHY: 0 BJk: 0 Win2: 0 Win3: 0 Lose6: 0
Overall Result: Exp: -0.012172814485654077 Hands: 80592619 Win: 35972778 Lose: 36953817 Tie: 7666024 CHY: 0 BJk: 0
Run 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

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.


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%).

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?

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 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"!

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.