Thread Rating:

Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 26th, 2021 at 8:50:06 AM permalink
Dear WOV.

Is it my fault that a number of posters here are upset, and then try to savage me? Who's motivations are out of whack? I don't think questioning math as many people think it applies to gambling, is anything insulting.
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.
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 1245
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 26th, 2021 at 8:52:02 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

...there continues to be plenty of derision in these posts....What does derision prove or disprove? It probably only proves that one is trying to put down another.

Quote: Wellbush

Is it my fault that a number of posters here are upset, and then try to savage me?

Those are #7.

Quote: WellBush

I deliberately analysed the piece of information I was debunking...

That's #6.

Quote: WellBush

Who's motivations are out of whack?

That's #14.

Quote: WellBush

I agree with indisputable math, as it applies to gambling....I don't think I have all the answers...

Well, this post of yours suggests otherwise: "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."

Quote: WellBush

Lastly, I think it's great that I've raised such controversy. It can only lead to a better understanding of math, as applied to gambling.

No, because everyone replying to you already knew this stuff, and you've shown no evidence that you've learned anything.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
Thanks for this post from:
MichaelBluejay
April 26th, 2021 at 8:57:11 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Dear WOV.

Is it my fault that a number of posters here are upset, and then try to savage me? Who's motivations are out of whack? I don't think questioning math as many people think it applies to gambling, is anything insulting.



Pick a thread. OnceDear's going to toss you a short ban if you keep posting the same messages, verbatim, in multiple threads.

Although, my attempts to help you have not worked so far, so maybe I err in expecting this to be any different.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 26th, 2021 at 9:33:09 AM permalink
Continuing to debunk 146, he says:

Hell, if nothing else, math (if it were sentient) wants you to win. Why? Because if you learn the math as relates gambling, then you will be able to differentiate scenarios in which you are expected to win from those in which you are expected to lose.

Judging from what you have said in your post, I could only conclude that you do not believe what I have just said. My advice to you is to absolutely NOT gamble until you do believe it.

I say:

I agree with the gist of the first paragraph - math can help one understand certain probabilities within gambling. I'm not sure math has clearly shown the answers to all aspects of gambling.

All the previous posts I've made about 146's post in question, doesn't lead me to be confident about his conclusion in paragraph two. As I've previously mentioned, I would be more confident approaching known mathematicians than relying on 146's dubious responses.
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.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
April 26th, 2021 at 9:52:40 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Continuing to debunk 146, he says:

I agree with the gist of the first paragraph - math can help one understand certain probabilities within gambling. I'm not sure math has clearly shown the answers to all aspects of gambling.

All the previous posts I've made about 146's post in question, doesn't lead me to be confident about his conclusion in paragraph two. As I've previously mentioned, I would be more confident approaching known mathematicians than relying on 146's dubious responses.



I think what I will do next time I go to the doctor's office and do not like what he has to say about my health is simply declare that I am, "Debunking," him and then proceed to counter everything that he or she says with abject nonsense despite the fact that I have no medical training whatsoever.

I am going to say this for you one last time:

Gambling. Is. Math. Applied.

There's nothing in gambling that exists so far outside of math that the math does not relate back to it somehow. The fact that you seem to believe otherwise would indicate that, quite simply, you do not even understand what gambling is. As in, you don't know what gambling even represents.

When it comes to most people who think a betting system can beat the house, the one thing that I can say for them is that at least they think their systems are somehow changing the math. You get that? Most system advocates at least believe that everything is still math, but that the system somehow acts in a fashion that would change the mathematical expectation.

I've never had a gambling discussion go so far into the metaphysics. Let's talk about your, "Taking breaks," are you saying that changes something that the math does not and can not relate to? If so, why? If not, then what aspect of gambling do you think is unexplained by math?

I can't believe you have the gall to call my responses dubious. I said that I don't consider myself an expert, which is reflective of a small degree of humility on my part, though I have been called an expert by many others.

However, let's do a comparative analysis of the dubiousness of what I say compared to the dubiousness of what you say. I am compensated to write about gambling, and often gambling math, for a living. I also make money by gambling at a positive expectation. The stuff that you claim to intend to study, at some point, is the same as the stuff that I have been studying for years.

You lack the authority on the matter to even suggest that my responses might be dubious, much less outright say it. When it comes to gambling discourse, I've forgotten more things about gambling that would give me the credibility to speak with authority on it than you will likely ever know.

I find it difficult to believe that you're not trolling, at this point. I'm not saying that you are, but I am suggesting that one of two things are possible:

1.) You're trolling.

2.) You're simply not going to accept that you are wrong under any set of conditions. More than that, and despite your protestations, I doubt that you can even truly accept the possibility of being wrong. You give me nothing specific to refute because, you know and I know, that I will destroy anything you come at me with.

You'll not have to worry about that. I'm sick of having my time wasted. I'm done with you. I can't save them all and I shouldn't be asked to do so. Your posts are every bit as worthless as your system and as your net worth will probably become if you attempt to use your system for real money for any length of time.

Your presence here is less than worthless in that it is a net negative. No threads/posts would be better than your threads/posts.

If that means you win, then you win.

Unlike you, I will show the courtesy of NOT wasting your time. I will not directly respond to you again, not on this thread, or any thread. Any direct response to anything I say will be a waste of your time as it will get nothing in return from me. My advice is not to bother.
Last edited by: Mission146 on Apr 26, 2021
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
April 26th, 2021 at 10:30:59 AM permalink
Continuing to debunk 146, he says in relation to:

The math theory can HOPE that the player will come back to the table after a break, and resume the losing streak each time, but this type of thinking defeats itself because it's not how the real world plays out. The casino card decks are always shuffled. Anyone would know, IN ADVANCE, that winning AND losing streaks can only last so long before the normal variation comes back to rule the game. One CANNOT rely on math theory if it CANNOT account for a negative progression betting strategy IN CONJUNCTION WITH the player breaking up losing streaks.

that

2.) Math can account for everything that you just said because no, "Breaks," that you take are going to change the situation. I guess they do in Baccarat since a concept called Effect-of-Removal changes the house edge slightly based on the remaining composition of the shoe. Judging from your post, I don't expect you to know that. Anyway, the player can leave after a particular number of losses and return to start a different shoe, but the house edge is going to just be based on whatever the composition of that shoe is----or the base house edge, if the shoe hasn't had any hands come out yet.

I say:

Breaks make no difference? Okay, I won't even use breaks, to satisfy naysayer protests. I am still not convinced the paragraph above (the paragraph beginning with 2), is correct. Let me explain why:

It's true that if a player continues to bet at a table using a negative progression strategy, that they often run out of their bankroll, due to the inherent variation of long losing streaks in the game of BJ. However, does this mean that if a player had an obscene bankroll (a large whale), and they started with a small bet, say $5, that they too would run out of bankroll? Doesn't the math say, in theory, that using a negative progression strategy would allow a player to win, so long as a player had sufficient bankroll to keep them in the game, during a long losing streak?

I am not talking about a situation where the player's losses continue to mount and mount and mount, ad infinitum. If that were the case, then yes, this kind of scenario would show that the house would always win, in the end.

But what I am talking about, is the normal variation within the game of BJ, where a player experiences a set of losing streaks. And, I am talking about a large whale with an insane bankroll, using a negative progression strategy. Don't be fooled by the word negative.

If we assume that the house edge is 8% (excluding ties), then we can make another assumption, for the sake of an example. Let's use the Fibonacci sequence as our betting strategy of choice. As mentioned, I am not even going to use breaks away from the gambling table, to satisfy naysayers protests.

If the player uses the Fibonacci sequence, then this means he only needs to win 50% of his hands, in comparison to the number of hands used to lose, to get him back to his starting pot. Agreed?

If that's true, how can the house edge of 8% mean that the player will lose, as many posters say? How can a strategy that needs just a 50% win rate, lose, if the house edge is just 8%?

I think this post asks some serious questions about 146's paragraph 2, and many other naysayers on this site.
Last edited by: Wellbush on Apr 26, 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.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
Thanks for this post from:
OnceDear
April 26th, 2021 at 10:47:09 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Continuing to debunk 146, he says in relation to:

The math theory can HOPE that the player will come back to the table after a break, and resume the losing streak each time, but this type of thinking defeats itself because it's not how the real world plays out. The casino card decks are always shuffled. Anyone would know, IN ADVANCE, that winning AND losing streaks can only last so long before the normal variation comes back to rule the game. One CANNOT rely on math theory if it CANNOT account for a negative progression betting strategy IN CONJUNCTION WITH the player breaking up losing streaks.

that

2.) Math can account for everything that you just said because no, "Breaks," that you take are going to change the situation. I guess they do in Baccarat since a concept called Effect-of-Removal changes the house edge slightly based on the remaining composition of the shoe. Judging from your post, I don't expect you to know that. Anyway, the player can leave after a particular number of losses and return to start a different shoe, but the house edge is going to just be based on whatever the composition of that shoe is----or the base house edge, if the shoe hasn't had any hands come out yet.

I say:

Breaks make no difference? Okay, I won't even use breaks, to satisfy naysayer protests. I am still not convinced the paragraph above (the paragraph beginning with 2), is correct. Let me explain why:

It's true that if a player continues to bet at a table using a negative progression strategy, that they often run out of their bankroll, due to the inherent variation of long losing streaks in the game of BJ. However, does this mean that if a player had an obscene bankroll (a large whale), and they started with a small bet, say $5, that they too would run out of bankroll? Doesn't the math say, in theory, that using a negative progression strategy would allow a player to win, so long as a player had sufficient bankroll to keep them in the game, during a long losing streak?

I am not talking about a situation where the player's losses continue to mount and mount and mount, ad infinitum. If that were the case, then yes, this kind of scenario would show that the house would always win, in the end.

But what I am talking about, is the normal variation within the game of BJ, where a player experiences a set of losing streaks. And I am talking about a large whale with an insane bankroll, using a negative progression strategy. Don't be fooled by the word negative.

If we assume that the house edge is 4% (excluding ties), then we can make another assumption, for the sake of an example. Let's use the Fibonacci sequence as our betting strategy of choice. As mentioned, I am not even going to use breaks away from the gambling table, to satisfy naysayers protests.

If the player uses the Fibonacci sequence, then this means he only needs to win 50% of his hands, in comparison to the number of hands used to lose, to get him back to his starting pot. Agreed?

If that's true, how can the house edge of 4% mean that the player will lose, as many posters say? How can a strategy that needs just a 50% win rate, lose, if the house edge is just 4%?

I think this post asks some serious questions about 146's paragraph 2, and many other naysayers on this site.



It took you at least forty minutes to type that? Not only are your posts wrong, they are also slow.

In case you decide not to read the previous post to yours, I will say it as a courtesy one more time: We're done. I'm not responding to you anymore. Your presence on this forum is less than worthless, because it is a net negative and you are not worth responding to. I can't save everyone.

The only thing that you have partially debunked is my erroneous, yet continuing, belief that people are worth talking to.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
April 26th, 2021 at 10:53:16 AM permalink
Continuing to debunk 146, he says:

The only thing that you're explaining is how a person could produce barely comprehensible nonsense if they felt like it.

Your post is not only nonsensical, your post is also irresponsible. I'd like to believe that there's nobody that understands so little about gambling that they would read your wall of unadulterated gobbledygook and somehow come away from doing so, not only without a severe migraine, but also thinking they learned something---I have been proven wrong before, though.

I say:

146 seems to have a good grasp of the English vocabulary, and how to use it. It does not, however, seem to debunk my original post. As I mentioned earlier, derision does not really prove much.
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.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 133
  • Posts: 15308
Thanks for this post from:
OnceDearHunterhillMichaelBluejaydarkozDeMangoFTBodiousgambit
April 26th, 2021 at 10:57:12 AM permalink
GENERAL DISCLAIMER:

Betting systems do not work. Not only do they not swing a negative house edge into the player's favor, they do not even dent it.

Anyone advocating for betting systems should be ignored, or, if you think it sounds like a fun way to play and stay within your means, then go for it. Just make sure to gamble RESPONSIBLY and not confuse short-term results for expectation.

Also, don't read anything WellBush posts because he's either a troll or simply a fucking idiot.

See everyone in either three or seven days.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 6393
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 26th, 2021 at 10:59:46 AM permalink
Thank you and goodnight. $:o)
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.

  • Jump to: