Beat the house at blackjack!!!!

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....

I've now answered this q a number of times in this thread

Quote: Wellbush

Mr Bluejay, your article debunking betting strategies on your website is the most comprehensive and practical I've found so far. Well done.

Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm glad the article was helpful to you.

Quote: Wellbush

I hope you can also appreciate that contrarian posters on this site don't get an easy time?

Put yourself in our shoes: How would you feel if someone came to a forum you frequent insisting that 2+2=5? Would you think you could even begin to reach that person? And then when you tried anyway to give your explanations, the person hammered back at you that you're just a "so-called" expert revealing your ignorance? How much patience are you expected to have in the face of such absurdity? Not only that, but this isn't the first, or the second, or the 20th time that someone has shown up following the same exact pattern of espousing a ridiculous idea, not understanding the explanations of why it's wrong, and insisting that those who disagree with him are just ignorant. Now how much patience do you have? Did you notice that I bowed out of this thread a long time ago?

There's no shame in not knowing something, but there's quite a bit in insisting that one's misunderstanding trumps reality, as known by people educated on those matters. It's akin to how climate change deniers think that they know more about climate science than actual climate scientists.

None of us is perfect, but we've got to be willing to learn. Years ago I thought it was safer to fly after a major crash, because the chances of another crash were less likely, since two crashes in a short period of time are unlikely. That's a classic application of the gambler's fallacy. My girlfriend at the time disabused me of my misconception. I learned. And now I try to explain it to others.

Quote: sabre

"While others have posted compelling arguments as to why hitting oneself in the head with a frying pan will remain painful as long as one continues to do so, for now I'll continue with it to see what unfolds."

I can appreciate a good joke, too, even if it's at my expense

Quote: Wellbush

......As I have previously explained, I won't be able to fully disclose everything about the strategy......

I have suggested respect is a two-way street and am beginning to find it is not helpful for you to keep repeating you will not disclose your strategy. There has now been solid proof that the strategy you have partially described does not produce a long term profit. You continue to argue against that saying that your secret weapon overcomes this but do not wish to disclose its details.

When someone one on this forum asks a question about whether something works or wants further advice it is normally reasonable to expect all the relevant facts to be disclosed. It is understandable if people are developing new games or work in the industry and need to keep some details back or if they have found a +EV opportunity.

btw If you wish to run simulations, for Blackjack, you need at least 1m hands. Pottering around with hundreds is a useless exercise. It would be better to use a spreadsheet with something like if RAN()<.495 "WIN" else "LOSE".

Quote: Wellbush

Okay, I was previously in attack mode. My apologies. I hope you can also appreciate that contrarian posters on this site don't get an easy time?

As time goes by, I'm happy to accept whatever mathematical and applied proof reveals about my strategy. For now, I'll continue with it to see what unfolds.

Quote: Wellbush

What I'm getting from your post here, AW, is that you're saying there are gamblers who win, but not those using a "negative expected value" strategy. Is that it?

I did say originally you may have seen a winning streak but have to accept that in the long term there is a compensating loss around the corner. There will be many winners but a few big losers.

I'm glad to hear some of the mathematical arguments are beginning to make sense.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm glad the article was helpful to you.

Put yourself in our shoes: How would you feel if someone came to a forum you frequent insisting that 2+2=5? Would you think you could even begin to reach that person? And then when you tried anyway to give your explanations, the person hammered back at you that you're just a "so-called" expert revealing your ignorance? How much patience are you expected to have in the face of such absurdity? Not only that, but this isn't the first, or the second, or the 20th time that someone has shown up following the same exact pattern of espousing a ridiculous idea, not understanding the explanations of why it's wrong, and insisting that those who disagree with him are just ignorant. Now how much patience do you have? Did you notice that I bowed out of this thread a long time ago?

There's no shame in not knowing something, but there's quite a bit in insisting that one's misunderstanding trumps reality, as known by people educated on those matters. It's akin to how climate change deniers think that they know more about climate science than actual climate scientists.

None of us is perfect, but we've got to be willing to learn. Years ago I thought it was safer to fly after a major crash, because the chances of another crash were less likely, since two crashes in a short period of time are unlikely. That's a classic application of the gambler's fallacy. My girlfriend at the time disabused me of my misconception. I learned. And now I try to explain it to others.

I note your frustration. Part of the problem may be a knowledge gap, rather than deliberate unwillingness by some to learn? In my case, I have no problem with humbly acknowledging my limitations in advanced math. But just because I have limitations doesn't necessarily mean I can't explore and query, and I will definitely try to learn about the concept of "expected value," should I continue down the gambling path.

Regarding the knowledge gap, you and your website may benefit from this whole area? There may be numerous areas of knowledge around gambling and math, that people may not realise? People may not even realise how interested they are in such topics, until they're pointed out to them? I would certainly be interested in a step-by-step course in "expected value." A course that eases the learner into such knowledge areas.

I recently had a quick look into "expected value" on the net. It may have been Wikipedia? Anyway, the info just went way over my head. So I'm gonna have to try and find more basic info on the topic.

Quote: Wellbush

Regarding the knowledge gap, you and your website may benefit from this whole area? There may be numerous areas of knowledge around gambling and math, that people may not realise? People may not even realise how interested they are in such topics, until they're pointed out to them? I would certainly be interested in a step-by-step course in "expected value." A course that eases the learner into such knowledge areas.

I recently had a quick look into "expected value" on the net. It may have been Wikipedia? Anyway, the info just went way over my head. So I'm gonna have to try and find more basic info on the topic.

(Quote clipped, relevance to my response)

Suppose that you and I were going to play a coin-flipping game with a fair coin. If you win, then you will receive $90 in winnings, but if I win, you must pay me $100. The result is that you would have a 50% chance of making $90 in profits and a 50% chance of losing $100.

The expected value (for you) of this proposition is how much you lose---by expectation---on every coin flip. In this case, it's mathematically trivial to figure out:

(.5 * 90) - (.5 * 100) = -5

In other words, you have an expected loss of $5 every time we do this. That doesn't mean that you're not going to win the first toss, or any particular number of tosses in a row. To wit, on the first toss, you can't possibly lose $5, even though that is your expected loss. You can only win $90 or lose $100.

Over time and a large enough sample size (how many times you play the game) your results will come closer and closer to the expected value. In this case, if you could ONLY bet $100 to win $90 and could not vary your bets at all, then this would happen more quickly relative to many actual casino games.

After 100,000 times playing this game, you will have lost something very close to $500,000. You'll have winning streaks and losing streaks...you might even be ahead at some point, (though it would only be relatively early on for this) but your overall losses will eventually approach expectation.

When we look at casino games, or if we look at this coin flipping game as a casino game (and I am the casino) the problem becomes even worse for you. If I am the casino, then it can generally be assumed (as is usually the case) that I have you out-bankrolled. So, not only do I have the advantage mathematically, I also have a greater capacity than you do to ride out the occasional, "Losing streak."

Such is the way that casino games operate. It's a simple matter of you not getting paid, "Fairly," pursuant to what, "Fair odds," would have you be paid if you win and/or would have you pay out if you lose.

This is something that you cannot just flip on the casino absent something along the lines of card counting at Blackjack (you bet more when you have an advantage based on deck composition as it is the casino that is not getting paid, "Fair odds," when you lose. The casino is also paying you more than, "Fair odds," when you win....which is because the house edge is based on the starting shoe.). There also exist factors (various advantage plays of one ilk or another) external to the game that can sometimes flip the Expected Value of an overall proposition to your favor, but as you admit, you have some basics to learn about gambling math before you even need to start concerning yourself with that.

Anyway, no system in and of itself can change this. No system can change that you are expected to lose---and over enough time---WILL lose at our coin-flipping game. The only thing that a smaller house edge would do (the house edge of our coin-flipping game is 5%) is sometimes make it longer for the house edge to be all but inevitable in presenting itself in terms of actual results.

That's about as basic as it gets. I trust that you were able to follow my explanation. If you were not, then I must respectfully suggest generally avoiding all things gambling.

Quote: Mission146

(Quote clipped, relevance to my response)

Suppose that you and I were going to play a coin-flipping game with a fair coin. If you win, then you will receive $90 in winnings, but if I win, you must pay me $100. The result is that you would have a 50% chance of making $90 in profits and a 50% chance of losing $100.

The expected value (for you) of this proposition is how much you lose---by expectation---on every coin flip. In this case, it's mathematically trivial to figure out:

(.5 * 90) - (.5 * 100) = -5

In other words, you have an expected loss of $5 every time we do this. That doesn't mean that you're not going to win the first toss, or any particular number of tosses in a row. To wit, on the first toss, you can't possibly lose $5, even though that is your expected loss. You can only win $90 or lose $100.

Over time and a large enough sample size (how many times you play the game) your results will come closer and closer to the expected value. In this case, if you could ONLY bet $100 to win $90 and could not vary your bets at all, then this would happen more quickly relative to many actual casino games.

After 100,000 times playing this game, you will have lost something very close to $500,000. You'll have winning streaks and losing streaks...you might even be ahead at some point, (though it would only be relatively early on for this) but your overall losses will eventually approach expectation.

When we look at casino games, or if we look at this coin flipping game as a casino game (and I am the casino) the problem becomes even worse for you. If I am the casino, then it can generally be assumed (as is usually the case) that I have you out-bankrolled. So, not only do I have the advantage mathematically, I also have a greater capacity than you do to ride out the occasional, "Losing streak."

Such is the way that casino games operate. It's a simple matter of you not getting paid, "Fairly," pursuant to what, "Fair odds," would have you be paid if you win and/or would have you pay out if you lose.

This is something that you cannot just flip on the casino absent something along the lines of card counting at Blackjack (you bet more when you have an advantage based on deck composition as it is the casino that is not getting paid, "Fair odds," when you lose. The casino is also paying you more than, "Fair odds," when you win....which is because the house edge is based on the starting shoe.). There also exist factors (various advantage plays of one ilk or another) external to the game that can sometimes flip the Expected Value of an overall proposition to your favor, but as you admit, you have some basics to learn about gambling math before you even need to start concerning yourself with that.

Anyway, no system in and of itself can change this. No system can change that you are expected to lose---and over enough time---WILL lose at our coin-flipping game. The only thing that a smaller house edge would do (the house edge of our coin-flipping game is 5%) is sometimes make it longer for the house edge to be all but inevitable in presenting itself in terms of actual results.

That's about as basic as it gets. I trust that you were able to follow my explanation. If you were not, then I must respectfully suggest generally avoiding all things gambling.

Thanks M416. That's an easy enough explanation. Now, about advantage play. You're aware of the Fibonacci sequence. This allows the player to make less bets to recover to his starting amount, than it took for him to lose his money. Is betting using the Fibonacci sequence similar to "card counting," that it can improve the odds for the player against the house? If not, can you please explain?

Wellbush, Mission's explanation is good. You might also want to see my article on expected loss and expected value.

Quote: Wellbush

Is betting using the Fibonacci sequence similar to "card counting," that it can improve the odds for the player against the house?

Betting systems (including Fibonacci sequences) are not card counting and don't reduce the house edge, as you saw in my article on betting systems. Card-counting means keeping track of which cards have been played, and then raising your bet when you notice there are lots of 10's and aces left. That's the reason that blackjack is beatable: the odds aren't the same on every round, they shift back and forth between house advantage (~2/3 of the time) and player advantage (~1/3 of the time) depending on how 10- and ace-rich the remaining deck is. In other games (like craps and roulette), the odds are the same on every round. Betting systems can't capture when the player has an advantage, but card-counting can.

Quote: Wellbush

What I'm getting from your post here, AW, is that you're saying there are gamblers who win, but not those using a "negative expected value" strategy. Is that it?

Nice try, but NO. I said, "there is no betting system that can beat a negative expectation game in the long run"




No matter what it is what you are doing...if the math doesn't add up to over 100%... then it can not be beaten in the long run. You do not have to be a math guru to understand this concept, it's so simple and easy to understand that it's beautiful. The strategy is part of the formula dictated by the math that needs to be followed AFTER you have a situation where the math shows that you have a mathematical advantage.


All games in the casino have the potential of generating a profit for the players(usually advantage players). Most of the time that profit is coming from a unique situation, such as card counting, promotions/marketing, dealer errors, game design flaws, and bad procedures, etc. All that can be calculated to show the situation adds up to over 100%.

Quote: charliepatrick

I have suggested respect is a two-way street and am beginning to find it is not helpful for you to keep repeating you will not disclose your strategy. Ok. I have mentioned numerous times in this thread that I'm not gonna reveal every part of my strategy, CP. That's not gonna change. I don't think I'm being disrespectful. If you don't want to continue this discourse, you don't have to There has now been solid proof that the strategy you have partially described does not produce a long term profit. You continue to argue against that saying that your secret weapon overcomes this but do not wish to disclose its details. I'm disclosing everything I possibly can. This thread is full of my disclosing. I'm even happy to try and give you an alternative statistical detail to try and replicate what little I don't reveal about the strategy

When someone one on this forum asks a question about whether something works or wants further advice it is normally reasonable to expect all the relevant facts to be disclosed.ditto to what I wrote above It is understandable if people are developing new games or work in the industry and need to keep some details back or if they have found a +EV opportunity.

btw If you wish to run simulations, for Blackjack, you need at least 1m hands. Pottering around with hundreds is a useless exercise. It would be better to use a spreadsheet with something like if RAN()<.495 "WIN" else "LOSE".

I did say originally you may have seen a winning streak but have to accept that in the long term there is a compensating loss around the corner. There will be many winners but a few big losers.thanks for that info

I'm glad to hear some of the mathematical arguments are beginning to make sense.

charliepatrick, clearly he still thinks that he has a winning system, which is why he doesn't want to reveal the details. He's protecting his magic beans.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Wellbush, Mission's explanation is good. You might also want to see my article on expected loss and expected value.

Betting systems (including Fibonacci sequences) are not card counting and don't reduce the house edge, as you saw in my article on betting systems. Card-counting means keeping track of which cards have been played, and then raising your bet when you notice there are lots of 10's and aces left. That's the reason that blackjack is beatable: the odds aren't the same on every round, they shift back and forth between house advantage (~2/3 of the time) and player advantage (~1/3 of the time) depending on how 10- and ace-rich the remaining deck is. In other games (like craps and roulette), the odds are the same on every round. Betting systems can't capture when the player has an advantage, but card-counting can.

I missed those areas of your website MB. I didn't notice them before. They are pretty straight forward 👍

Quote: Wellbush

Thanks M416. That's an easy enough explanation. Now, about advantage play. You're aware of the Fibonacci sequence. This allows the player to make less bets to recover to his starting amount, than it took for him to lose his money. Is betting using the Fibonacci sequence similar to "card counting," that it can improve the odds for the player against the house? If not, can you please explain?

WellBush, Please keep revisiting Missions post until you have totally soaked it in.

Over the long term, the overall Expected Value is the sum of individual expected values. If each individual EV is negative (as in your system), then
Sum of(individual ev) = sum of(only negative) numbers and MUST itself be negative.

For a card counter, some individual ev's will be positive.
Sum of(individual ev) = sum of(mix of positives and negatives) numbers and CAN itself be positive.

Card counting tells the player those few hands where he has an Expected Return greater than his stake. So he increases his stake on those hands. Doesn't always win with the advantage, but long term will tend to. Where the Expected return is less than his stake, he sits out or bets minimum. Where the Expected return is more than his stake, he bets as much as he can afford, short of risking oblivion. Google Kelly criteria for more on that.

Your system never reveals anything and each hand is facing the same percentage expected loss.

tell us the system!!!!!!
we need the system!!
you could be the hero if you tell us how your system works!

Quote: dawinnaatlozins

tell us the system!!!!!!
we need the system!!
you could be the hero if you tell us how your system works!

Wish in one hand, drop a load of feces in the other.Which one fills up first?

Quote: OnceDear

WellBush, Please keep revisiting Missions post until you have totally soaked it in.

Over the long term, the overall Expected Value is the sum of individual expected values. If each individual EV is negative (as in your system), then
Sum of(individual ev) = sum of(only negative) numbers and MUST itself be negative.

For a card counter, some individual ev's will be positive.
Sum of(individual ev) = sum of(mix of positives and negatives) numbers and CAN itself be positive.

Card counting tells the player those few hands where he has an Expected Return greater than his stake. So he increases his stake on those hands. Doesn't always win with the advantage, but long term will tend to. Where the Expected return is less than his stake, he sits out or bets minimum. Where the Expected return is more than his stake, he bets as much as he can afford, short of risking oblivion. Google Kelly criteria for more on that.

Your system never reveals anything and each hand is facing the same percentage expected loss.

Ah, first up, I found out about the block function. I'm rubbing my hands with glee as I'm about to block some users and reignite this thread. Why didn't you tell me about this function, OD?

Quote: OnceDear

WellBush, Please keep revisiting Missions post until you have totally soaked it in.

Over the long term, the overall Expected Value is the sum of individual expected values. If each individual EV is negative (as in your system), then
Sum of(individual ev) = sum of(only negative) numbers and MUST itself be negative.

For a card counter, some individual ev's will be positive.
Sum of(individual ev) = sum of(mix of positives and negatives) numbers and CAN itself be positive.

Card counting tells the player those few hands where he has an Expected Return greater than his stake. So he increases his stake on those hands. Doesn't always win with the advantage, but long term will tend to. Where the Expected return is less than his stake, he sits out or bets minimum. Where the Expected return is more than his stake, he bets as much as he can afford, short of risking oblivion. Google Kelly criteria for more on that.

Your system never reveals anything and each hand is facing the same percentage expected loss.

Thanks OD. Yes, I do indeed want to learn about -EV, it would probably save me a lot of wasted money. I do reserve the right to explore strategies that fall outside -EV (E.g. card counting).

I resisted a long time replying to anything in this thread. Let me start by asking Wellbush how old you are? You don't have to give a specific number. Early 20's, 30's, 50's will do fine.

I ask because you come across as a very young guy who thinks he has stumbled onto to something that no one else has considered, when in fact everything you are saying and proposing, we have all heard 1000 times. And these concepts have been mathematically dis-proven a million times. You think people are giving you attitude, because they are saying things you don't want to hear, when in fact they are just telling you the facts.

Betting systems based on previous wins and losses CAN NOT overcome a negative expectation (-EV) game, That is fact. Proven a million times. Everything you are doing and saying has been tried and disproven. Essentially the "attitude" you think you are getting from people is because you are here, on this forum of all places, insisting that the earth is flat. Nothing anyone can really do for you until you figure some of this out for yourself, prove to yourself I guess, that these concepts you are spewing and think are new are all dis-proven voodoo. Once you accept that, maybe someone can help you. Until then, I will just continue to read.

Quote: kewlj

I resisted a long time replying to anything in this thread. Let me start by asking Wellbush how old you are? You don't have to give a specific number. Early 20's, 30's, 50's will do fine.

I ask because you come across as a very young guy who thinks he has stumbled onto to something that no one else has considered, when in fact everything you are saying and proposing, we have all heard 1000 times. And these concepts have been mathematically dis-proven a million times. You think people are giving you attitude, because they are saying things you don't want to hear, when in fact they are just telling you the facts.

Betting systems based on previous wins and losses CAN NOT overcome a negative expectation (-EV) game, That is fact. Proven a million times. Everything you are doing and saying has been tried and disproven. Essentially the "attitude" you think you are getting from people is because you are here, on this forum of all places, insisting that the earth is flat. Nothing anyone can really do for you until you figure some of this out for yourself, prove to yourself I guess, that these concepts you are spewing and think are new are all dis-proven voodoo. Once you accept that, maybe someone can help you. Until then, I will just continue to read.

I'm not sure kewlj, if you have been reading this thread properly? I acknowledge that I am currently ignorant about -EV. I plan on learning it. I won't be proposing anything contrary to -EV, until I've learned it. After that, I will probably agree with it and won't continue to propose things contrary to it.

There may be strategies, however, that fall outside the concept of EV (E.g. card counting), that may be worth considering?

Quote: Wellbush

There may be strategies, however, that fall outside the concept of EV (E.g. card counting), that may be worth considering?

At the risk of upsetting you, these strategies have been considered, about a million times, and by people much smarter than me.

I just started my 18th year of playing blackjack for a living this week. Late start to the year because of the covid situation and waiting for a vaccine.

So I have played a lot of blackjack hands. There are those here that have played even more and longer than me, but I will go by my own experiences. I have lost 14-15 hands in a row or gone 15-16 hands with a push mixed in (no wins) MANY times. I don't really track such streaks, so I don't really think about it until I am well into a streak and then, you think "I have lost quite a number of hands but is it 7 or 9. But I KNOW I have hit 14-15 a good number of times.

You can easily figure out just how often such a streak will occur by running simulations with computer software. But I know you aren't going to do that.

So just take that number I am giving 15 losses in a row, and apply it to your betting system, and tell me how it works out. With a pure martingale, you will be over the table limit after 9-10 losses. You are not escalating as quickly as a pure martingale, but you are still going to come up against, either your bankroll limit or table limits at some point. Those streaks DO happen. And when they do, they will wipe you out and all the little wins you have accumulated plus some. That is just a mathematical fact. I know it can be frustrating to hear things you don't want to hear, but the sooner you accept some of these things the better off you will be. Go ahead, prove them to yourself if you have to.

Quote: kewlj

...I have lost 14-15 hands in a row or gone 15-16 hands with a push mixed in (no wins) MANY times. I don't really track such streaks, so I don't really think about it until I am well into a streak and then, you think "I have lost quite a number of hands but is it 7 or 9. But I KNOW I have hit 14-15 a good number of times.
...
So just take that number I am giving 15 losses in a row, and apply it to your betting system, and tell me how it works out.

I'll just point out to Wellbush that Kewlj is a professional card counter. Hence an expert on +EV (and -EV) blackjack.

And a reminder to both of you that defeating a 15 loss streak is not the only objective that Wellbush needs to beat, before he says "Oh. I'll break the streak by sitting out some hands" Or.. "But because It's not Martingale I can last longer"
WellBush would also need to defeat streaks that are already broken, such as LLLLWLLLLL...WLLLLL...WLLLLL
He won't, of course, be able to do that.

Quote: kewlj

At the risk of upsetting you, these strategies have been considered, about a million times, and by people much smarter than me.

I just started my 18th year of playing blackjack for a living this week. Late start to the year because of the covid situation and waiting for a vaccine.

So I have played a lot of blackjack hands. There are those here that have played even more and longer than me, but I will go by my own experiences. I have lost 14-15 hands in a row or gone 15-16 hands with a push mixed in (no wins) MANY times. I don't really track such streaks, so I don't really think about it until I am well into a streak and then, you think "I have lost quite a number of hands but is it 7 or 9. But I KNOW I have hit 14-15 a good number of times.

You can easily figure out just how often such a streak will occur by running simulations with computer software. But I know you aren't going to do that.

So just take that number I am giving 15 losses in a row, and apply it to your betting system, and tell me how it works out. With a pure martingale, you will be over the table limit after 9-10 losses. You are not escalating as quickly as a pure martingale, but you are still going to come up against, either your bankroll limit or table limits at some point. Those streaks DO happen. And when they do, they will wipe you out and all the little wins you have accumulated plus some. That is just a mathematical fact. I know it can be frustrating to hear things you don't want to hear, but the sooner you accept some of these things the better off you will be. Go ahead, prove them to yourself if you have to.

I have already spelt out in numerous posts in this thread, how my strategy deals with streaks. I also don't currently condone using my strategy until I have understood -EV to its fullest.

As for MDawg, I don't think users should automatically assume he's bogus because he wins most of the time. He may have a strategy that falls outside the concept of -EV? At this point in time, I believe MD, until it's proven otherwise.

Quote: Wellbush

I have already spelt out in numerous posts in this thread, how my strategy deals with streaks.

Really? It doesn't!

Quote:

I also don't currently condone using my strategy until I have understood -EV to its fullest.

Progress.

Quote:

As for MDawg, I don't think users should automatically assume he's bogus because he wins most of the time. He may have a strategy that falls outside the concept of -EV? At this point in time, I believe MD, until it's proven otherwise.

This thread is not about MDawg. We have quite enough threads about that User Id! If you wish to discuss his credibility, do so in the 'Adventures of MDawg' thread. Thank you.

Quote: OnceDear

Really? It doesn't!Progress.
This thread is not about MDawg. We have quite enough threads about that User Id! If you wish to discuss his credibility, do so in the 'Adventures of MDawg' thread. Thank you.

You may be on your way to GMOAT.

Quote: Wellbush

I have already spelt out in numerous posts in this thread, how my strategy deals with streaks. I also don't currently condone using my strategy until I have understood -EV to its fullest.

As for MDawg, I don't think users should automatically assume he's bogus because he wins most of the time. He may have a strategy that falls outside the concept of -EV? At this point in time, I believe MD, until it's proven otherwise.

I can't see posts from AW. I've blocked him/her

In response to the following, 146:

I wouldn't mind snorting some pixie dust after reading that long post that I just responded to. If I didn't previously have a drinking problem, a nice double of Bombay Sapphire neat would also help.

I can assure you that the mathematical models won't seem so, "Theoretical," once you have lost all of your non-theoretical money.

Or, do you only play with theoretical money?

I'm not into arguments, irrelevant questions, derision, but I'll answer your long post in due course. WB

Hilarious that he blocks (but will still read this a pretend he didnt) posts from people that understand math and can prove his theories as ridiculous.


ZCore13

Hello ZC. Feeling BLOCKED today? 😃

Quote: Wellbush

I'm not into arguments, irrelevant questions, derision, but I'll answer your long post in due course. WB

I'll be here, at least sooner or later, when you do. I sometimes don't appear for a week, or two, or three at a time...so don't take it as a personal slight if that happens by way of pure coincidence.

Anyway, you'll have a good chance of winning this debate. You've already started off by prohibiting the things that I am very good at. That said, I shall try my best.

Quote: Mission146

I'll be here, at least sooner or later, when you do. I sometimes don't appear for a week, or two, or three at a time...so don't take it as a personal slight if that happens by way of pure coincidence.

Anyway, you'll have a good chance of winning this debate. You've already started off by prohibiting the things that I am very good at. That said, I shall try my best.

Yes, I get the joke. I'll admit it's funny.

Quote: Wellbush

Yes, I get the joke. I'll admit it's funny.

Thank you for the compliment.

I'm going to get real with you for a minute, Wellbush, and that's because your posts come off as just genuine enough to be a slight cause of concern for me. I hope that you won't take offense to what I'm about to say.

The way that I see it, one of two things is possible:

1.) That you do not believe some of the stuff that you have posted. In other words, you're just posting on these gambling-related topics for fun, or to see what sorts of responses you will get. If that's the case, you do you, bro. Far be it from me to tell other people what they should do to entertain themselves.

2.) That you do believe some of the stuff that you have posted re: streaks, betting into them, "Breaking up losing streaks by taking a break," and other things along those lines.

Personally, and for your sake, I hope that #1 is the case. While it is true that #1 could be construed to be Trolling, I'm not an Admin here, so I don't really care that much if someone is trolling or not.

If #2 is the case, then I am much more concerned. #2 would indicate that you think that there is a mechanism by which the House Edge can be overcome that is not related to sound mathematical principles in any way. In other words, a way to win without changing the fact that there is a negative mathematical expectation working against you.

The danger in that sort of thinking is that such people will often put real money on the line thinking there is an easy way to beat the casino for tons of money. Believe it or not, there ARE relatively easy ways to beat the casino, mathematically valid ways, but not usually for lots of money (especially if you don't already have lots of money) and not that can be done simply because you feel like doing it that day.

What frequently ends up happening with people who fall into the #2 category is that they will bet actual money believing these things that are not mathematically supportable. Such people will often view losing, "Sessions," as an aberration.

Have you ever wondered why many gambling systems are negative progression, or eventually become negative progression if losses hit a certain point? The answer to that is a high probability of winning an individual, "Session," in whatever subjective way that the person is using the word, "Session." These frequent small wins then convince the person that the system or method is working, and sometimes, are used as evidence to convince others that it is working. Combine that with selective memory, and now a person is in a whole heap of trouble.

Another problem that people in the #2 category have is that, one system having been demonstrated to be a failure, (and they all are if the house edge remains unchanged) that people in this category will tend to gravitate towards employing a different system.

The fundamental concepts of winning and losing streaks in games and negative progression systems have existed long before either of us were alive and, assuming that gambling continues to be a semi-popular thing to do, will exist long after the two of us are dead. Quite simply, if there was some magical formula when it comes to streaks and systems that could crack the safe of the casinos, then it would have been discovered long ago and there would probably not be many, if any, casinos.

If you think about the concept of systems and streaks and other things along those lines, doesn't it occur to you that they are all easily repeatable? The kind of stuff that you are discussing could be done in any casino, anywhere where the applicable games (which would be almost all table games) are located and the casinos would be getting shredded.

In short, attempting to win money in casinos by using systems or betting strategies (absent anything else) is a fundamentally flawed notion that does nothing except hopes to seek out and find, "Easy money." Having a profitable expectation in casinos is sometimes not hard, but it's not really that easy unless there are some concepts (that the math does relate to) that you already have down and situationally swing the house edge into being a player edge. The more money you want to make, the harder it becomes...in most cases. There are some exceptions in which high roller players get certain concessions and terms (that do change the mathematical expectation of their play) that someone like me isn't going to get.

Anyway, if you're extremely interested in making money gambling, then my suggestion to you is to study up on the subject and learn how to identify situations in which the mathematical edge is in your favor. If you ever ask me any direct questions as a result of your studies, then I will answer them if I know the answer, though I do reserve the right to answer some privately.

Anyway, if you continue in your line of thinking and attempt to use it to gamble, then you will eventually lose. If you persist in it, or you try to find new mathematically invalid ways to do it, then you will lose a lot.

Ah, it's 2. I promise I won't let gambling ruin me.

As I suffer from chronic fatigue, I'm sure I'll get through all your posts sometime in my lifetime. 😉

Quote: Wellbush

Ah, it's 2. I promise I won't let gambling ruin me.

As I suffer from chronic fatigue, I'm sure I'll get through all your posts sometime in my lifetime. 😉

I hope that you find some prescription that works for your fatigue symptoms, sooner rather than later. That said, I won't blame you if you don't read them. If you offered me $5,000 to go back and read every single post I've ever made, I'd probably decline.

The problem is inflation, really. By the time I'd get done, the $5,000 that you pay me would only be about $300 in spending power as of the time I started.

Nobody can say you didn't try Mission146.

Quote: Mission146

I hope that you find some prescription that works for your fatigue symptoms, sooner rather than later. That said, I won't blame you if you don't read them. If you offered me $5,000 to go back and read every single post I've ever made, I'd probably decline.

The problem is inflation, really. By the time I'd get done, the $5,000 that you pay me would only be about $300 in spending power as of the time I started.

Yes, I believe you!

Quote: Wellbush

As I suffer from chronic fatigue, I'm sure I'll get through all your posts sometime in my lifetime. 😉

I'll save you some time and translate his many words into 9:

You can't beat the house edge with your ideas.


ZCore13

Quote: joedol

Nobody can say you didn't try Mission146.

Are you feeling aroused?

Quote: Wellbush

Are you feeling aroused?

I very seriously doubt it, but if he is, it would be hard to blame him.

I don't know how old you are, but the older you get, the hotter and hotter high intellect becomes. Of course, I only get turned on by intellect if it also comes with a pair of (redacted).

Quote: Mission146

I very seriously doubt it, but if he is, it would be hard to blame him.

I don't know how old you are, but the older you get, the hotter and hotter high intellect becomes. Of course, I only get turned on by intellect if it also comes with a pair of (redacted).

Sorry to disappoint, I'm only into women

Quote: Wellbush

Sorry to disappoint, I'm only into women

Likewise, what did YOU think I meant a pair of?

What you’re missing is that playing for money is different than playing for free. It’s a lot different.

I highly recommend this book to the people posting in this thread unironically.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1400067936/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1619267734&sr=8-1

Quote: ChurchVanCrash

What you’re missing is that playing for money is different than playing for free. It’s a lot different.

How?

Quote: Wellbush

How?

With Option A, you're just wasting time; With Option B, you're wasting both time and money.

Quote: Mission146

With Option A, you're just wasting time; With Option B, you're wasting both time and money.

A reply to all your posts is coming 146. From what I know, you should be shakin' in ya boots!

Quote: Wellbush

A reply to all your posts is coming 146. From what I know, you should be shakin' in ya boots!

Trembling in fear.

Quote: Mission146

Trembling in fear.

I see you seem not too worried. I'll start with this then:

M146 posted:

Do you not see the word, "Negative," in, "Negative Progression?" Do you know what else is negative? The Expected Value of most casino games (including Baccarat) in most situations.

My reply:

The word "negative," as applied to the above, does not prove a player cannot win, however amazing you are capable of using it in written pieces.

M146 posted:

Betting systems do not change results and they do not change expected results.

My reply:

Sounds good, but ditto to what I wrote above. Let me use two simple analogies to debunk your statement:

a. 1+2+3=6; b. 3x3=9.

a is true and b is false! The reason b is false is that b only has 2 integers in the equation to create a higher result (9>6), whereas a's equation has used 3 integers (more than b's 2 integers), but returns a lower result (6<9), showing that a is correct, and not b.

The last few sentences are obviously ridiculously incorrect. I've used them, though, to illustrate that one theory cannot debunk another, if they're two separate theories that cannot apply to each other - addition and multiplication. They do however, have overlapping laws: 1+2+3<3+3+3.

Another example:

Suppose you have 2 sheets of plain A4 paper, with no art, writing or print on them. Paper 1 you scrunch into a ball. Paper 2 you leave untouched and nicely as it was when pulled from a pile of fresh copy paper. You weigh, on a finely tuned electronic scale, both sheets of paper. They both weigh exactly the same.

You hold both pieces of paper out in front of you, at exactly the same height, 1.3m above the ground. There is no wind blowing. You let them go, both at exactly the same time. Most of the time, which paper hits the ground first? The scrunched-up one will.

Why? They both weigh exactly the same. They were both dropped from the same height with no wind blowing. Aren't these two objects bound by the same laws of Physics?

Well, not quite. The dropping of the papers are bound by the laws of physics, but in different ways, due to the SHAPE of the objects.

Now that I've explained that, I'll get back to M146's statement in question: "Betting systems do not change results and they do not change expected results."

As far as I can see, and have explained by the kind of strategy I have espoused a number of times on this website already, your statement is true AND false! The reason it's true is because you are describing a mathematical theory that proves itself to be true, within the confines of the laws making up the theory. The reason it's false, is because the theory DOES NOT apply to the scenario it refers to. The laws of the theory you stated, cannot in totality, apply to a betting strategy that has laws outside it.

The betting systems results and expected results, don't change, when the laws governing them apply. My stated strategy operates on some of these laws, but has other laws besides. Just like the examples I used above.

I will get to the other parts of 146's rebuff in due course. Stay tuned.

Quote: Wellbush

My reply:

The word "negative," as applied to the above, does not prove a player cannot win, however amazing you are capable of using it in written pieces.

I agree. Players can not only win, some players can and will be profitable for a very long time on a great many negative expectation games.

Consider someone winning on a PowerBall ticket, for example: As you may or may not know, PowerBall tickets have an average return-to-player of under 50%, state lotteries clean up selling these (it's a linked national jackpot) but people sometimes win hundreds of millions. I doubt those people will ever buy enough Powerball tickets not to be ahead on the game lifetime.

So, someone proposes a system and it can be mathematically figured out what the expected result of running the system is. Having done that, you can then simulate as many players as you want to employing the system. What will you find?

You might find one player still ahead after 1,000,000 trials per player and 1,000,000 players attempting to do it. That's fine. The math does not say that extremely unlikely things are not allowed to happen---math accounts for those things.

The, "Long run," as a practical matter, is something that most people will not reach in terms of their results. It mostly depends on the type of game being played, house edge, standard deviation...etc.

I'm a lifetime winning horse bettor. True story. I've bet on exactly one race in my entire life and picked several different horses to win. There was a prohibitive favorite and one other horse that I did not bet on because the return would not have equalled the sum of my bets. Any other horse wins, I win. As it turned out, the longest shot came in.

I remain a lifetime winning horse bettor and have a better rate of return than probably anyone who does it consistently, on a percentage basis. I'll die a lifetime winning horse bettor because I will never bet on a horse race again.

Just because the odds are against you does not automatically mean that you will lose. It means that, if only you could play long enough, you would eventually lose. It means, over a certain number of attempts, you will probably be losing overall. The more attempts you make, the more likely it becomes.

That's where you get into a concept known as, "Regression to the mean." How that works is that you eventually play for so long that the standard deviation of the overall result set (combined with the fact that you're at a negative expectation anyway) makes it less and less likely that you will be overall profitable. Regression to the mean is also not something that happens instantly, although it theoretically could, with something like a Martingale system. Generally, your overall results end up being something within the boundaries of expectation, and therefore, probably losing.

Not only do winning streaks and losing streaks happen, the math accounts for them happening already. It's built in. If you were to look at the individual results of our 1,000,000 simulations of whatever, then you'll almost definitely see winning streaks and losing streaks that you would consider to be borderline incomprehensible if they happened in real life.

But, if 1,000,000 people were to actually do 1,000,000 attempts, then those seemingly absurd streaks would more likely than not find their way to some of those people sooner or later.

The smartest colloquialism ever created is, "**** happens," gambler's fallacy is thinking that the math has not already accounted for that ****.

Quote:

Sounds good, but ditto to what I wrote above. Let me use two simple analogies to debunk your statement:

a. 1+2+3=6; b. 3x3=9.

a. is true and b. is false! The reason b. is false is that b. only has 2 integers in the equation to create a higher result (9>6), whereas a's equation has used 3 integers (more than b's 2 integers), but returns a lower result (6<9), showing that a is correct, and not b.

The last few sentences are obviously ridiculously incorrect. I've used them, though, to illustrate that one theory cannot debunk another, if they're two separate theories that cannot apply to each other - addition and multiplication. They do however, have overlapping laws: 1+2+3<3+3+3.

You are correct about one theory not applying. Math is the only, "Theory," that does apply.

Another example:

Quote:

Suppose you have 2 sheets of plain A4 paper, with no art, writing or print on them. Paper 1 you scrunch into a ball. Paper 2 you leave untouched and nicely as it was when pulled from a pile of fresh copy paper. You weigh, on a finely tuned electronic scale, both sheets of paper. They both weigh exactly the same.

You hold both pieces of paper out in front of you, at exactly the same height, 1.3m above the ground. There is no wind blowing. Most of the time, which paper hits the ground first? The scrunched-up one will.

Why? They both weigh exactly the same. They were both dropped from the same height with no wind blowing. Aren't these two objects bound by the same laws of Physics?

Well, not quite. The dropping of the papers are bound by the laws of physics, but in different ways, due to the SHAPE of the objects.

What do the physical principles of aerodynamics have to do with gambling?

Quote:

Now that I've explained that, I'll get back to your statement in question: "Betting systems do not change results and they do not change expected results."

As far as I can see, and have explained by the kind of strategy I have espoused a number of times on this website already, your statement is true AND false! The reason it's true is because you are describing a mathematical theory that proves itself to be true, within the confines of the laws making up the theory. The reason it's false, is because the theory DOES NOT apply to the scenario it refers to. The laws of the theory you stated, cannot in totality, apply to a betting strategy that has laws outside it.

The betting systems results and expected results, don't change when the laws governing them apply. My stated strategy operates on some of these laws, but has other laws besides. Just like the examples I used above.

I will get to the other parts of 146's rebuff in due course. Stay tuned.

The betting strategy is incapable of having laws that apply outside of math. All gambling is is one number going up (either casino or player) whilst the other number goes down. Gambling, therefore, is literally math in action. That's all that gambling is. Nothing more, nothing less.

If the most fundamental principle of something is nothing more than multiplication (probabilities) to determine how much of one thing is expected to be subtracted (player's bankroll) from that thing and added to another thing (casino coffers) then no aspect of that even can exist outside of math.

Quote: Mission146

With Option A, you're just wasting time; With Option B, you're wasting both time and money.

If that's the difference ChurchVanCrash is referring to, then it could also be that Option A, you're learning, Option B you're making money.

Six Easy Steps to Losing a Debate

1.) Challenge a reasonably skilled debater.

2.) Pick a subject that the reasonably skilled debater has a reasonable amount of knowledge on.

3.) Pick two positions to be presented/defended.

4.) Give the reasonably skilled debater who knows more about the subject the correct position to present/defend.

5.) ???

6.) Lose.

7.) Deny losing and declare yourself to be the winner.

8.) Agree to put it to a vote and lose that vote almost unanimously.

For efficiency purposes, we can agree upon a date and time to do this basically in real time, if you want. We can agree to time limits per post and I'll even spot you a five minute handicap. I'm not sure that I actually thought when I offered my counter to your most recent post, I might have just typed.

You know, it's this whole systems thing. It's just automatic, at this point. Some of my post might have just been muscle memory.