Beat the house at blackjack!!!!

Quote: Wellbush

The above post was meant for Sg and ZC. I will respond to CP next

Quote: Wellbush

I am happy to respond to most posts. You haven't sincerely apologised for your stated opinions about me in the above post and in previous ones, so why should I respond?

Same goes for ZC and anyone else doing the same

Quote: charliepatrick

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.

Quote: dawinnaatlozins

im luvin your opinion on gambling mathematics! its truly mind blowing how you crawled out of no where and say hey guys i have a winning system!!!
any dweeb knows gambling can work by itself winning 200-300 units is not proof do it 10x and you got our attention! i have a winning system but i would never divulge it on here people like zcore will always always talk down to you until proven otherwise its not his fault or your fualt just the way it is anyway will you kindly explain your system deeper detail? i am not close minded or narrow minded like the people on this forum yet i wish to know more of what you speak of. any work a day slob would luv your system, could just blast away at the casinos making X an hour instead doing a crap job no one wants so yea tell me more mr wellysbush

Quote: ChumpChange

Wellbush supposedly quoted me, but I don't write like that, he must have meant OnceDear or someone else.

Quote: ChumpChange

You could edit "Chump Change said" from your previous post and put in the appropriate member you are quoting, otherwise I'm just sticking my previous post out there to say what it said.

Quote: Wellbush

It's clear I'm being bullied and trolled here (see Zc13's posts), violating rule 12. I've complained about it but it seems management are not going to do anything. So I'll not continue. It's sad, and people like Zc probably think they win an argument this way. But their mental capacity is clearly lacking - they keep repeating the same line...."Probability clearly shows you can't beat the house edge." Maybe they think I can't read? They think they're so smart, but they haven't learnt since kindergarten what bullying is!

Quote: dawinnaatlozins

come on man tell us the winning system, i need a system! sick of losing thousands of thousands at the casino every fridaynight and saturday

Quote: OnceDear

I see no bullying in the assertions that you are wrong.
Comments about mental capacity lacking and kintergarten DO put you on the wrong side of the 'No Personal Insults' rule. For now, take this as a warning.

Quote: Wellbush

Rule 12. No bullying/trolling: Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen. Members may not be overly divisive or abusive to another member. This includes starting a thread only the for purpose of attacking another member. (Added 2/24/2012). This also includes threats against another member. (added 9/3/12)

****************************************************

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. This is typically done by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion.Wikipedia

bullying ►

Insulting with threats; imperious; overbearing; blustering: as, a bullying manner.
adj.
Noisily domineering; tending to browbeat others.
n.
An act of intimidating a weaker person to do something, especially such repeated coercion.

Wordnik from The Century Dictionary.

Bullying is an ongoing and deliberate misuse of power in relationships through repeated verbal, physical and/or social behaviour that intends to cause physical, social and/or psychological harm. It can involve an individual or a group misusing their power, or perceived power, over one or more persons who feel unable to stop it from happening.

Bullying can happen in person or online, via various digital platforms and devices and it can be obvious (overt) or hidden (covert). Bullying behaviour is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time (for example, through sharing of digital records).

Bullying of any form or for any reason can have immediate, medium and long-term effects on those involved, including bystanders.

Single incidents and conflict or fights between equals, whether in person or online, are not defined as bullying.

ncab.org.au/bullying

********************************************************************************************************************

Whilst my previous posts have not been perfect, I think a discussion on what WizardofVegas.com does/doesn't deem acceptable is warranted. E.g. If you look at Zc's posts throughout this thread, is Zc constantly jumping in when there is a divergence of views between posters? Is Zc taking one side of the argument, and using demeaning comments? Is Zc adding any value to the discussion with further information? Is Zc behaving like a lady/gentleman? People can add thank-yous, as they wish to any post, so why should constant one-sided demeaning behaviour, that adds no further info, be required? I think it would only promote discussion and this website, if discussion did not allow one-sided people using a "he/she who shouts loudest, wins."

I think all of the above in this post, would only help this website if it was evaluated. This thread is a great example of someone (me) walking unknowingly into a nest of math heads, and the resultant problems that ensued. I don't mind if I can have a reasonable discussion, but it's obviously a very disappointing discussion if there is fruitless negativity being directed at someone (me), without any new info to back it up. There are plenty of posters who have provided info in proposing their different views, and I am happy to thrash them out with different posters. But is Zc and some others doing that? Does WizardofVegas.com only accept that everything in life can be measured via math formulae? Does WizardofVegas.com not allow open discussion on betting systems? Will WizardofVegas continue to allow people to HAMMER contrarian thinkers by letting math-formula-only people jump in on, and virtually take over discussions, with demeaning-only posts?

It seems to me that MDawg is a reasonable guy, and wins and loses at casinos. Should his posts be removed because he says he's come out in front, over many years? Does WizardofVegas.com automatically assume MDawg's lying because he's saying something that is apparently mathematically impossible? I think his posts add a lot of value to this site, and it's why I think my comments here need consideration by management.

You may think that there's nothing wrong with Zc's posts, including a large goofy picture, but I do. Have you got a wide range of views, including non-math-head one's, on what is/isn't acceptable in the forums? The math-formula-only demeaning contributors, who are not providing added information on the topic at hand, I believe, are seriously limiting the quality of some discussions in the forums. WizardofVegas.com are probably unknowingly limiting their subscriber base because of what I've raised in this post. E.g. Do other contrarian thinkers like myself, feel comfortable about discussing similar topics to mine, when they know they'll receive the same treatment as I have in this thread?

It's glaringly obvious what many poster's views in the forums are. Does WizardofVegas.com therefore only accept their views? I think WizardofVegas.com should consider discussing what's in this post. I, for one, will not be replying to legitimate discussion on my strategy, till I think WizardofVegas meets standards I deem acceptable.

Quote: Zcore13

Different user name, same nonsense.

ZCore13

Quote: Wellbush

Yes, please move on. You're system doesn't work and your 4 months has been wasted.

ZCore13

You are wrong about just about everything you are saying and believe. This is not a forum where you can say you can win and you are believed and fawned over. Your audience here is math professionals, odds experts, game protection specialists, Casino GM's, Table Game Directors and successful game inventors.

Your system doesn't work. List the details and some of the people above will disprove it for you beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can't do that, somewhere else will be less frustrating and more pleasant for you.

ZCore13



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

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

Lol at breaks away from the table.

ZCore13

Hahahaha. Apologize for me being right and you being wrong? You don't have a winning betting system. Nobody has a winning betting system. Under no surcumstance does betting alone overcome a house edge in a casino. Ever.

ZCore13

Betting systems are not valued here because they are bogus. In the 100's of years in now thousands of casinos, with billions and billions of hands, not one betting system has ever been able to beat a house advantage. It's nothing against you. You are just one of thousands to be fooled by short term positive variance, lucky runs, selective memory or risking a lot to win a little and thinking the rare huge loss won't get you.

I'm sorry I hurt your feeling with truths and facts. Your betting system does not overcome the house edge over the long haul. If you want to discuss winning betting systems, this is not the best forum for you. Nobody here will agree with you. You've even been shown the math and then you came up with "what about taking breaks?". That shows you don't understand the math and how gambling works.

ZCore13

These are all your posts, except for the very large goofy picture. Where are the truths and facts except for the repeated line about the house can never be beaten? I provided a serious amount of info in my posts, about my strategy. You still repeat the same demeaning line without any constructive info. You discount everything but don't get specific.

So what kind of apology do you seriously think you've given? Do you seriously think other contrarians think you won't continue with your behaviour, from what you've written in your last post?

Quote: dawinnaatlozins

Wellbush tell me the system please i need the system oh powerful system its become like frotos ring

Quote: Wellbush

Yeah!!! You and Zc are right! You've never been wrong and you've taken over this thread with your behaviour. You're both in charge of this thread now. No need for me to post anything more. We're all gonna see your original enthralling info now. We're waiting!.....

Quote: Zcore13

It's all true. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't change the facts. You keep saying the same stuff. Then I reply saying basically the same thing you already didn't listen to. Then it gets repeated over and over. Stop stating incorrect information that your betting system can beat the house edge and I'll stop telling you it can't. Pretty simple.

ZCore13

Quote: Wellbush

Hm.....Dawinna and Zc could even be the same person, or the same family, etc? I suppose we'll never know? Hm....

Quote: OnceDear

This is what's likely to happen next.....
I will politely assert to you that you are wrong. There is no progressive system that can turn a negative expectation game such as blackjack into a positive expectation game. Your system won't do that, cannot do that.
...
Other posters in this thread might laugh at you, but really they are laughing at your notion, so don't take it personally.

Yet other posters might hop in to say to ignore the naysayers like me or Wizard.

Quote: Wellbush

Does WizardofVegas.com therefore only accept their views? I think WizardofVegas.com should consider discussing what's in this post.

Quote: sub-heading of the 'Betting Systems' sub-forum. Written by Wizard

All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own.

Quote:

I, for one, will not be replying to legitimate discussion on my strategy, till I think WizardofVegas meets standards I deem acceptable.

Quote: Wellbush

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!!!

Quote: Wellbush

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....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: Wellbush

it can be very difficult for many people to see what is or isn't factual or reasonable information..... Psychologists can help with these types of issues.

Quote: Wellbush

It's sad, and people like Zc probably think they win an argument this way. But their mental capacity is clearly lacking

Quote: Wellbush

They think they're so smart, but they haven't learnt since kindergarten what bullying is!

Quote: Wellbush

I provided a simplified example based on logic, but maybe your apparent esteemed IQ cannot understand it?

Quote: Wellbush

Surely you can apply the example I gave to a coin toss : just replace the D-dealer wins to Heads, and P-player wins to Tails. Is it too simple for you?

Quote: Wellbush

...the longer this attempt by so called experts to disprove the strategy....

Quote: Wellbush

Leaving OnceDear aside for the moment, though I'll probably be back to bring him to his knees later on...

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)...

Quote: Wellbush

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!!!

Quote: Wellbush

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!!!😃

Quote: Wellbush

Let me continue to pry apart Mr Bluejay

Quote: Wellbush

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.

Quote: Wellbush

....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...

Quote: Wellbush

Now I haven't finished with Mr Bluejay....I am just debunking some myths that his undoubtedly just copied from other wizards, poor devil.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Wellbush, Zcore's posts were not insulting, they're factual. And when you come to a forum essentially claiming that you have magic beans, you can't expect people to take you seriously.

You, on the other hand, have insulted other members up and down the street:

Quote: Wellbush

...I can reply with plenty of counter arguments...My hands are tied!...

Quote: ChumpChange

I kind of agree with sitting out for a few hours or days after a winning streak. It lets the randomness settle back in.

Quote: ChumpChange

I kind of agree with sitting out for a few hours or days after a winning streak. It lets the randomness settle back in.

Quote: Wellbush

I can reply with plenty of counter arguments, but it seems I can't, lest OD suspends me. My hands are tied!

Quote: Wellbush

Thanks Mr Bluejay, and others. I can reply with plenty of counter arguments, but it seems I can't, lest OD suspends me. My hands are tied! (Sorry about the exclamation mark!)!

!

Quote: MichaelBluejay

No, they're not. No one is threatening to suspend you for arguing your case.

Quote: Wellbush

...In reply to CP, there was nothing wrong with your genuine attempt to analyse my strategy, even though I can't reveal it in its entirety.

Let's see what you wrote :

"Firstly this was Punto Banco- I said that up front. Does this mean punto Banco cannot calculate the improved earnings from doubles, splits and BJs, or do you mean something else? I was stating that I had simulated PB not BJ. While BJ does have the opportunity of winning or losing more than 1 unit, my feeling is how the system performs at PB is a reasonable test.

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. it's (b) You misunderstood the question: I knew you were doing (b) and I was simulating (a) - do you agree there is no mathematical difference, if not please give your logic.

......I may choose to drop down...I haven't thought through how to quantify a rule on it yet. Some parts of the strategy haven't been fully thought through...... You must explain your betting strategy in full if you expect rational answers or your system to be believed....

...If I decided to include this idea in my strategy, then this variation may not be something the statistical engines can account for? The "engines" do what they're programmed to do, so can take account of any "variations" you state. You make a claim about your system but need to explain, in full, any "variations" for there to be any meaningful mathematical analysis. The way it works is you make an assertion that your system is wonderful; you then state what are the rules for your system; and then people have an opportunity to analyse via simulation or otherwise. There must be two-way respect: you agree to provide the full information; we provide unbiassed analysis. You cannot say there are parts of the strategy you cannot divulge. I'm sure that a player can pick up on this idea though, and exit the game when things appear to be going against him/her, and stay in the game when things are going well. If you wish to exit the game, this has to be part of the rules you define upfront.

...

Quote: charliepatrick

Quote: Wellbush

...In reply to CP, there was nothing wrong with your genuine attempt to analyse my strategy, even though I can't reveal it in its entirety.

Let's see what you wrote :

"Firstly this was Punto Banco- I said that up front. Does this mean punto Banco cannot calculate the improved earnings from doubles, splits and BJs, or do you mean something else? I was stating that I had simulated PB not BJ. While BJ does have the opportunity of winning or losing more than 1 unit, my feeling is how the system performs at PB is a reasonable test.I can't comment. I dunno what punto Banco is. Do you think I should look it up in order to help with this?

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. it's (b) You misunderstood the question: I knew you were doing (b) and I was simulating (a) - do you agree there is no mathematical difference, if not please give your logic.I would say there is a difference because the game ebbs and flows somewhat. Any good player would want to try his luck at a more favourable time in the ebb and flow of the game. I don't know that this can be quantified, though. That's because the player would need to restart again sometime. He may continue to lose too many bets and break again, or start getting more favourable hands and therefore stay in the game. It needs to be said I'm trying to explain the strategy, not adjust the strategy to suit the analysis engine.

......I may choose to drop down...I haven't thought through how to quantify a rule on it yet. Some parts of the strategy haven't been fully thought through...... You must explain your betting strategy in full if you expect rational answers or your system to be believed....I'm not deliberately trying to withhold any info. I would have to think about this more. Even after I think about it more, I'm not sure I will come up with an answer that an analysis engine could use?[b/]

...If I decided to include this idea in my strategy, then this variation may not be something the statistical engines can account for? The "engines" do what they're programmed to do, so can take account of any "variations" you state. You make a claim about your system but need to explain, in full, any "variations" for there to be any meaningful mathematical analysis. The way it works is you make an assertion that your system is wonderful; you then state what are the rules for your system; and then people have an opportunity to analyse via simulation or otherwise. There must be two-way respect: you agree to provide the full information; we provide unbiassed analysis. You cannot say there are parts of the strategy you cannot divulge.ok, well, I may be able to come up with a quantifiable answer the computer can analyse. I will need some time to think about it, and probably do some analysis of my own to get a quantifiable variable in this regard. Stay tuned I'm sure that a player can pick up on this idea though, and exit the game when things appear to be going against him/her, and stay in the game when things are going well. If you wish to exit the game, this has to be part of the rules you define upfront.ditto to what I just wrote [b/]

...

I've added my responses (possibly not the best colour to have chosen).

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: charliepatrick

Quote: Wellbush

...In reply to CP, there was nothing wrong with your genuine attempt to analyse my strategy, even though I can't reveal it in its entirety.

Let's see what you wrote :

"Firstly this was Punto Banco- I said that up front. Does this mean punto Banco cannot calculate the improved earnings from doubles, splits and BJs, or do you mean something else? I was stating that I had simulated PB not BJ. While BJ does have the opportunity of winning or losing more than 1 unit, my feeling is how the system performs at PB is a reasonable test.I can't comment. I dunno what punto Banco is. Do you think I should look it up in order to help with this?

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. it's (b) You misunderstood the question: I knew you were doing (b) and I was simulating (a) - do you agree there is no mathematical difference, if not please give your logic.I would say there is a difference because the game ebbs and flows somewhat. Any good player would want to try his luck at a more favourable time in the ebb and flow of the game. I don't know that this can be quantified, though. That's because the player would need to restart again sometime. He may continue to lose too many bets and break again, or start getting more favourable hands and therefore stay in the game. It needs to be said I'm trying to explain the strategy, not adjust the strategy to suit the analysis engine.

......I may choose to drop down...I haven't thought through how to quantify a rule on it yet. Some parts of the strategy haven't been fully thought through...... You must explain your betting strategy in full if you expect rational answers or your system to be believed....I'm not deliberately trying to withhold any info. I would have to think about this more. Even after I think about it more, I'm not sure I will come up with an answer that an analysis engine could use?

...If I decided to include this idea in my strategy, then this variation may not be something the statistical engines can account for? The "engines" do what they're programmed to do, so can take account of any "variations" you state. You make a claim about your system but need to explain, in full, any "variations" for there to be any meaningful mathematical analysis. The way it works is you make an assertion that your system is wonderful; you then state what are the rules for your system; and then people have an opportunity to analyse via simulation or otherwise. There must be two-way respect: you agree to provide the full information; we provide unbiassed analysis. You cannot say there are parts of the strategy you cannot divulge.ok, well, I may be able to come up with a quantifiable answer the computer can analyse. I will need some time to think about it, and probably do some analysis of my own to get a quantifiable variable in this regard. Stay tuned I'm sure that a player can pick up on this idea though, and exit the game when things appear to be going against him/her, and stay in the game when things are going well. If you wish to exit the game, this has to be part of the rules you define upfront.ditto to what I just wrote

...

I've added my responses (possibly not the best colour to have chosen).

Quote: Wellbush

...I dunno what punto Banco is....

...I'm not deliberately trying to withhold any info. I would have to think about this more. Even after I think about it more, I'm not sure I will come up with an answer that an analysis engine could use?...

R: 50 L(15) L(25) L(40) W[2](65)
R: 227.5 L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) L[2](105) W(15) L(170) L(275) L(445) L[2](15) L(15) W[1.5](15) L(720) L(1165) L(1885) L(3050) W(4935) W[1.5](1885) L(720) L(1165) L(1885) L(15) L[2](15) L(15) L(15) W(15) L(3050) W[1.5](4935)
R: 77.5 L(15) L(25) L[2](40) L(65) W(105) W(40) L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) W[1.5](105) L(40) L(65) L(105) W(170) L(65) W[2](105)
R: 22.5 W[1.5](15)
R: 15 W(15)

Overall Result: Exp: -0.0023468599033816427 Hands: 2070000 Win: 1064219 Lose: 1069077 Tie: 174936 CHY: 0 BJk: 0
Run Totals: Number Won: 484037 Number Lost: 376 Profits: 13322815 Av(27.52437313676434) Losses: -14117495 Av(-37546.52925531915) Net Gain: -794680 Av(-1.6405009774717028)

Quote: charliepatrick

You can look up Punto Banco or Baccarat - https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/ - essentially the simulation used "Player" as it's an even money bet with about 1.2% House Edge. Roulette or Craps would have been the same idea except they have a higher House Edge.

However I have now run a simulation using the BJ numbers from https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/variance/ and these still show a loss (there are also some really long runs because your bank balance can go up or down quite dramatically if you have a multiple win/loss).

R: 50 L(15) L(25) L(40) W[2](65)
R: 227.5 L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) L[2](105) W(15) L(170) L(275) L(445) L[2](15) L(15) W[1.5](15) L(720) L(1165) L(1885) L(3050) W(4935) W[1.5](1885) L(720) L(1165) L(1885) L(15) L[2](15) L(15) L(15) W(15) L(3050) W[1.5](4935)
R: 77.5 L(15) L(25) L[2](40) L(65) W(105) W(40) L(15) L(25) L(40) L(65) W[1.5](105) L(40) L(65) L(105) W(170) L(65) W[2](105)
R: 22.5 W[1.5](15)
R: 15 W(15)

Overall Result: Exp: -0.0023468599033816427 Hands: 2070000 Win: 1064219 Lose: 1069077 Tie: 174936 CHY: 0 BJk: 0
Run Totals: Number Won: 484037 Number Lost: 376 Profits: 13322815 Av(27.52437313676434) Losses: -14117495 Av(-37546.52925531915) Net Gain: -794680 Av(-1.6405009774717028)

You are continuing to evade the question about the full details of your strategy. The answer you give only needs to be understood by people - the skillful part is converting that to code which can be run which, as you've seen, is what I did.

You now need to explain what the undisclosed part of your straegy is, and then give a reason how this overcomes the losses shown above.

Quote: ChumpChange

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.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

My stock in trade is making concepts easy to understand. Web forums are valuable to me because they show what people want to know, or what they misunderstand, so I can write about those things. I already have an article on betting systems that unfortunately was of no use to Wellbush. (You can lead a horse to water...) However, based on his idea that the secret sauce to his system was sitting out based on streaks, I just added Myth #3 to my article on The Gambler's Fallacy.

Quote: AxelWolf

That is totally incorrect, not even the so-called experts here claim that. There are many examples of other casino games and situations other than card counting where people have an advantage and win consistently and they will keep on winning. The so-called experts claim (with mathematical proof) there is no betting system that can beat a negative expectation game in the long run. You and others may win for a long time using a system, but that doesn't mean your system works. If everyone used your system the net total would be a loss to the system players.