Beat the house at blackjack!!!!

Quote: Mission146

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.

I'm sure you are a great debater. Debates can be won by a debater that loses the argument in question. Me putting down in these posts the facts, are sufficient to deal with the argument in question. I am not reneging your challenge because I think I will lose the argument.

I am also not going to deny that my strategy, and its underlying mathematical constructs, is a work in progress, and that's why I'm reneging on a debate at this point in time. I still think my stance may come out on top, and I may take up your challenge at a future date.

Thanks for the offer.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: Mission146

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.

I'm sure you are a great debater. Debates can be won by a debater that loses the argument in question. Me putting down in these posts the facts, are sufficient to deal with the argument in question. I am not reneging your challenge because I think I will lose the argument.

I am also not going to deny that my issue is a work in progress, and that's why I'm reneging on a debate at this point in time. I still think my stance may come out on top, and I may take up your challenge at a future date.

Thanks for the offer.

Time to stop. Your baseless (no math, no proof, no data) ideas have now moved into willful ignorance since you refuse to listen to those with combined dozens and dozens of years of experience and millions and millions of hands of real world proof, stats and data.


ZCore13

....continuing to debunk 146...

146 says:

The only thing that a negative progression betting systems does is create a set of parameters by which small wins and huge losses become more likely.

I say:

Yeah, probably true. And?

146 says:

Why big losses? Consider a five-step Martingale: If you lose all five attempts, then you'll have lost more than would have even been possible had you been flat-betting the base bet.

I say:

Yes, but how does that statement disprove my suggested strategy? What 146 is alluding to is the fact that stakes are raised, often very highly, using a negative progression strategy. It's true. But the negative progression strategy, uses math to bring the player back into a winning position. From what I've read, the only reason a player loses, is that the player continues to bet without breaks and runs out of money.

But if the player takes breaks away from the table, to prevent long losing streaks, and has a sufficient sized bankroll, this particular rebuff idea is mathematically flawed. For example: Say I use a scenario where the player doesn't even take breaks away from the table. The player, if he has an infinite bankroll, will always come back to be in a winning position regardless, if he is using a negative progression strategy.

If 146 then says: no player has an infinite bankroll, well that's a different argument entirely. I will address that argument if 146 raises it. For now, in response to 146's statements:

Why big losses? Consider a five-step Martingale: If you lose all five attempts, then you'll have lost more than would have even been possible had you been flat-betting the base bet.

I say yes, but describe above why these statements don't debunk my suggested strategy.

It's quite ironic to see someone with no understanding and ridiculous arguments claim that he's "debunking" reality. It's like a flat-earther claiming that he's debunking the idea that the world is spherical.

WB, it looked like you were finally starting to understand that a negative-expectation game can't be beaten by timing your bets (in the same way that the sum of any set of negative numbers can never be positive), but now it seems that you've slipped back into fantasy land. It's one thing to ask questions from a position of trying to understand something better, it's quite another to proclaim that you're the expert who's "debunking" others when reality is the exact opposite.

Continuing to debunk 146, he says:

"Anyway, the math explains all of this---you know, that whole math thing that you seem to be contesting does not apply."

Math applies, just not in the way 146 suggests it does.

Continuing to debunk 146, he says:

Casino chips represent dollars, money goes either one way on a bet...goes the other way...or, on bets that can push, nothing changes. If you look at that incredibly simple concept, then you'll understand EVERYTHING about gambling relates directly back to math. Math answers the question, "In this situation, by expectation, how much money goes from either the player to the casino or the casino to the player."

In the incredibly unlikely event that you cannot grasp that money changing hands is math and only math, then my suggestion to you is to do yourself a favor and never gamble. I'd probably also avoid the stock market, as well.

I say:

the first paragraph is not disputed by me, and never has. The second paragraph is a conclusion from the first. How did 146 come up with the conclusion of the second paragraph, based on the first? Nice he seems to have my welfare in mind, though.

Continuing, 146 says:

It's incredible that, from a technical standpoint, this is reasonably well-written, and yet, conveys an idea almost impossibly dumb. If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were messing with me, and everyone else here, but I have no doubt whatsoever that you are being 100% genuine and posting earnestly while engaging in a legitimate back-and-forth in which you are absolutely NOT advancing arguments that you consider disingenuous.

I say:

I don't see anything in what I posted, or in 146's reply, that could bring him to post the above paragraph.

Continuing to debunk 146, he says:

So, since you are so clearly making this statement in good faith, I will address it.

1.) If the player believes what you said is true, then he should take a break of the remainder of his life before he ever gambles again.

I say:

the above statements don't hold anything proven from what he's written, so why is he suggesting them?

M146 says:

2.) You seem to think that the player taking this break has some impact on changing the probabilities or expected value for the next hand he plays. If you're talking about Wonging-Out of a bad shoe at Blackjack, then you would be right, but if you believe this as some sort of general rule then, once again, I encourage you not to ever gamble for as long as you live. Either that, or learn how the math applies, but not gambling at all would be much easier.

I say:

I have never suggested what 146 is saying I'm suggesting, about the next hand dealt. I have suggested that BJ at casinos have shuffled decks, and therefore, over the course of play, the player can expect to both win and lose. I'm not sure why 146 is suggesting I am making general rules about card games at casinos. Again, he seems to think I don't know what I'm doing, but where in his posts has he been able to show this?

146 says:

3.) The long losing streak has not been broken. Imagine that the Milwaukee Bucks lose five games in a row, but then the NBA All-Star break comes up, so they don't play anymore games for a week...is their record from the last five games not still 0-5?

I say:

Again, this is a faulty application of a mathematical law. I do not think that the previous hands in any card games, didn't exist. I am saying that in the course of the game of BJ at casinos, players can expect to both win and lose. Due to the fact that streaks of losses can occur, it is prudent for a player to play in a way that reduces his losses and increases his wins.

Does 146 think that shuffled decks at casinos can result in a series of losses to the player, ad infinitum? I assume he doesn't. That's the point. Breaks in streaks always come, not that streaks don't come.

Continuing, 146 says:

1.) Math is not a theory when it comes to gambling and math doesn't, "Hope," for anything. Math just exists and is applied to specific situations. Do you presume math is a sentient entity that wants you to lose at gambling?

I say:

Math has guiding laws when it comes to gambling. I do not think math is a sentient being. I meant that many people may hope the guiding math laws apply in a certain way in card games. I am not convinced that math laws apply to gambling the way many on this site think they do. That's what I meant.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

It's quite ironic to see someone with no understanding and ridiculous arguments claim that he's "debunking" reality. It's like a flat-farther claiming that he's debunking the idea that the world is spherical.

WB, it looked like you were finally starting to understand that a negative-expectation game can't be beaten by timing your bets (in the same way that the sum of any set of negative numbers can never be positive), but now it seems that you've slipped back into fantasy land. It's one thing to ask questions from a position of trying to understand something better, it's quite another to proclaim that you're the expert who's "debunking" others when reality is the exact opposite.

I'm sorry MB that I think. I know it's tough on you that I don't just believe what you say and don't have a different view. I don't think I'm an expert. Can you show me where I posted that I think I'm an expert? Do you think I need a spanking?

Quote: Wellbush

Yeah, probably true. And?

And changing the distribution of results does not change the House Edge. You'll also expect to lose more in fewer bets.

Quote:

Yes, but how does that statement disprove my suggested strategy? What you're alluding to is the fact that stakes are raised, often very highly, using a negative progression strategy. It's true. But the negative progression strategy, uses math to bring the player back into a winning position. From what I've read, the only reason a player loses, is that the player continues to bet without breaks and runs out of money.

But if the player takes breaks away from the table, to prevent long losing streaks, and has a sufficient sized bankroll, this particular rebuff idea is mathematically flawed. For example: Say I use a scenario where the player doesn't even take breaks away from the table. The player, if he has an infinite bankroll, will always come back to be in a winning position regardless, if he is using a negative progression strategy.

Yes, and math covers any possible negative progression strategy. The Martingale, for example, math says that if the player wins before the player busts out or cannot do the next step due to betting limits, then the player will finish one base (starting) bet ahead. I don't dispute that. I agree that it changes the distribution of results. It doesn't change either the house edge or the expected loss on the total amount of money being put in action.

Infinite me no infinites because I'm not a metaphysician. First thing, if you had infinite money there would be absolutely no reason to gamble and nobody who would have the capacity to offer you a bet. How could you add to or subtract from infinite?

You can't even subtract from one infinite to add to another infinite because both would then be finite.

Taking breaks has nothing to do with anything because you don't know what's going to happen ahead of time.

You lose five in a row, you say, "I'm going to take a break." You take a break. You eat a sandwich. You come back. Do you know what the probability of losing another five in a row is? Same as it was before. Having lost five in a row already the probability of you losing ten in a row is the same as the probability of you losing five in a row because you've already lost five of them.

The cards may be different, the House Edge isn't, unless you're a Blackjack Card Counter or something else along those lines. But, you don't leave the table because you're losing if you're a card counter, you leave because the count is negative.

Finally, infinite money and infinite playing would encompass every possibility, sooner or later, which for infinite people would mean infinite losing for one of them.

Quote:

I say yes, but describe above why these statements don't debunk my suggested strategy.

What's the strategy again?

So you've given long mathematical spiels about my strategy, but don't know what it is!

Quote: Wellbush

So you've given long mathematical spiels about my strategy, but don't know what it is!

We can't. Everything you've described is a long term loser. There must be some magic you haven't told anyone yet.


ZCore13

Quote: Wellbush

I have never suggested what 146 is saying I'm suggesting, about the next hand dealt. I have suggested that BJ at casinos have shuffled decks, and therefore, over the course of play, the player can expect to both win and lose. I'm not sure why 146 is suggesting I am making general rules about card games at casinos. Again, he seems to think I don't know what I'm doing, but where in his posts has he been able to show this?

Who contests that there will be both losing and winning? I don't.

Quote:

Again, this is a faulty application of a mathematical law. I do not think that the previous hands in any card games, didn't exist. I am saying that in the course of the game of BJ at casinos, players can expect to both win and lose. Due to the fact that streaks of losses can occur, it is prudent for a player to play in a way that reduces his losses and increases his wins.

Does 146 think that shuffled decks at casinos can result in a series of losses to the player, ad infinitum? I assume he doesn't. That's the point. Breaks in streaks always come, not that streaks don't come.

If you want to decrease your losses, then my suggestion is that I know a guaranteed way to decrease your losses to $0.00---not playing.

It works every time.

"Breaks in streaks always come," when? You're missing the when. When does the streak break? You've lost five in a row, that has a probability. It has happened. The probability that you will lose another five in a row, break or no break, is the same as it was before you lost the first five in a row...and the probability of the five in a row that you already lost is 100% because it has occurred.

And, this is why I don't like to dispute the claims of individual people that might seem fantastical. If I am going to use the math to defend what I am saying the one way, then the math must also work the other way---or, I really don't believe the math, do I?

In other words, if a player WINS five in a row, then it's just as likely as the five that already happened that he'll win another five---break or no break.

Give me a system and I'll give you a probability. It's all fun and games until you've just lost Step 12 of a Marty for which you have enough for thirteen steps.

Quote: Wellbush

Math has guiding laws when it comes to gambling. I do not think math is a sentient being. I meant that many people may hope the guiding math laws apply in a certain way in card games. I am not convinced that math laws apply to gambling the way many on this site think they do. That's what I meant.

Gambling is math applied.

Quote: Wellbush

So you've given long mathematical spiels about my strategy, but don't know what it is!

The specifics of your strategy are irrelevant. All betting systems are irrelevant. Your losses will eventually approach the house edge, expressed as a decimal, multiplied by the total that you have bet.

Quote: Mission146

The specifics of your strategy are irrelevant. All betting systems are irrelevant. Your losses will eventually approach the house edge, expressed as a decimal, multiplied by the total that you have bet.

I seriously question your whole attempt to debunk me. You are good at putting a lot of posts up. So far, you're not good at putting up a reasoned argument, I can see. I'll continue going through the long original debunk post of yours.

I am beginning to wonder if you think that by saturating this thread with endless posts, you will be able to cover your tracks?

Quote: Wellbush

I am beginning to wonder if you think that by saturating this thread with endless posts, you will be able to cover your tracks?

I am beginning to wonder if you think that saturating this thread with endless word soup retorts, you will be able to stop being abjectly wrong?

Quote: OnceDear

I am beginning to wonder if you think that saturating this thread with endless word soup retorts, you will be able to stop being abjectly wrong?

Ditto to my answer to Mr Bluejay!

Quote: Wellbush

I don't think I'm an expert. Can you show me where I posted that I think I'm an expert?

Sure. Every. Single. Time. you use the word "debunk" to describe your response an actual expert, Mission146. With that powerful word, you're stating emphatically that you know more than an *actual* expert. If you think you're at a higher level than an actual expert, then you think you yourself are an expert, at the very least.

Quote: Wellbush

I seriously question your whole attempt to debunk me. You are good at putting a lot of posts up. So far, you're not good at putting up a reasoned argument, I can see. I'll continue going through the long original debunk post of yours.

I am beginning to wonder if you think that by saturating this thread with endless posts, you will be able to cover your tracks?

No, it's not that. We have some people whining if some of us affiliated with the site don't spend every waking moment of our lives trying to debunk betting systems.

So, here we are. It's fun, isn't it? I get to have a variation of a discussion that I've had 200 times already, you get to think you're coming at me with something new as opposed to a variation of crap that I've already heard before.

You'll deflect. You'll phrase things in a fairly convoluted way. You'll try to catch me in minor errors that leave something open for interpretation, because really, that's the best you're going to be able to do on this one.

I'll eventually make my points dripping with even more arrogance and condescension than did my one post to you. You won't accept facts. I'll get frustrated. I'll question why I ever stopped drinking in the first place.

You won't listen to me. You'll eventually probably lose a ton of money trying your systems. Only when you come back and say that you were wrong will I take the higher ground by simply not responding rather than giving a terse, "I told you so."

Or, you just won't come back and we'll all wonder what ever became of you. Except, nobody will. Nobody will really care. Just like you won't care what happened to me if you lose a bunch of money trying your system and never come back. You'll never think of me again.

Quote:

Did you know him in life? One filled with regret, so soon we all forget, we ever met. Do you know my name? Sing a light refrain. For a man estranged, I won't deny that I'm inclined to isolate.

---Bad Religion---"Dearly Beloved,"--Epitaph Records

If you're gone for a year, then neither of us will ever think about the other again. It'll be like neither of us entered the life of the other, and wouldn't it have been better for both if we hadn't?

But, there's going to be one difference between the two of us a year from now----

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Sure. Every. Single. Time. you use the word "debunk" to describe your response an actual expert, Mission146. With that powerful word, you're stating emphatically that you know more than an *actual* expert. If you think you're at a higher level than an actual expert, then you think you yourself are an expert, at the very least.

I'm not an expert at anything. That aside, I agree. I have more knowledge on the subject than most. I appreciate that you said, "Expert."

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Sure. Every. Single. Time. you use the word "debunk" to describe your response an actual expert, Mission146. With that powerful word, you're stating emphatically that you know more than an *actual* expert. If you think you're at a higher level than an actual expert, then you think you yourself are an expert, at the very least.

I don't think people should just accept so called experts words, especially if they can clearly be debunked. But if you think you should be so unquestioning, I don't think you should expect others to follow your way of being.

By the way, you seem to be using a lot of punctuation in this post!

There must have been some magic in that old top hat they found.

Quote: Wellbush

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.

Could you re-state your strategy for those of us who missed it?

Quote: Wellbush

I don't think people should just accept so called experts words, especially if they can clearly be debunked.

Sure, but (1) you actually have to understand a topic before you can say an expert is wrong, and (2) you haven't come close to debunking anything. Regurgitating centuries-old misconceptions is the furthest thing from debunking.

Your attitude is why people who know nothing about climate science are confident that climate scientists are wrong.

How many times will you guys fall for this.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Sure, but (1) you actually have to understand a topic before you can say an expert is wrong, and (2) you haven't come close to debunking anything. Regurgitating centuries-old misconceptions is the furthest thing from debunking.

Your attitude is why people who know nothing about climate science are confident that climate scientists are wrong.

Your royal highness, I have responded throughout this thread, and elsewhere, to posters requests. I have been pretty direct in my answers to what you would consider experts. Down to earth questions, with down to earth answers.

Many of those answers have just been met with derision, but no down to earth, reasoned response, by these so-called experts that you refer to.

That clearly says your post here, is on the wrong side of being right.

Does this response mean that I deserve to be nuked, because it completely offends you?

Quote: rainman

How many times will you guys fall for this.

If we respond, people will complain.

If we don't respond, people will complain.

As you see, any form of human interaction tends to frequently be a Catch-22.

Quote: Wellbush

Many of those answers have just been met with derision, but no down to earth, reasoned response, by these so-called experts that you refer to.

And in that one sentence, you've hit #s 5, 7, and 11 (and more recently, #6). You should be playing roulette.

Very nicely put.

Quote: Wellbush

So far, you're not good at putting up a reasoned argument, I can see.

I made it to the state championship match in debate. From my perspective, as far as putting up reasoned arguments, Mission146 has you beat by a country mile.

Quote: TomG

Quote: Wellbush

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.

Could you re-state your strategy for those of us who missed it?

Am I correct to understand that there is no "stated strategy" and you are just trolling the forum?

Quote: TomG

Am I correct to understand that there is no "stated strategy" and you are just trolling the forum?

He gave the basics in his original post: He decides what to bet based on a modified Fibonacci, except he sits out on occasion during some (undefined) dealer streaks. He hasn't provided the exact recipe, because why would someone who has the Holy Grail (as he said he thinks he may have) share it with the world? I don't think he's trolling, I think he genuinely misunderstands.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

He gave the basics in his original post: He decides what to bet based on a modified Fibonacci, except he sits out on occasion during some (undefined) dealer streaks. He hasn't provided the exact recipe, because why would someone who has the Holy Grail (as he said he thinks he may have) share it with the world? I don't think he's trolling, I think he genuinely misunderstands.

Quote: Wellbush

It's just a variation on the fibonacci betting method. The variation I've put in place overcomes the problem of dealer winning streaks. That last sentence should prick people's ears, but honestly, I find it incredible that no-one seems to have been able to work out a strategy that gets around dealer winning streaks in decades!

Fibonacci betting method does none of the things he claims (https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/fibonacci/).

He says his method is a "variation". Until he says something more about this variation and its ability to overcome the problem of a negative value of each bet, he is just trolling the forum.

Quote: TomG

Fibonacci betting method does none of the things he claims (https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/fibonacci/).

Of course it doesn't. But he thinks it does.

Quote: TomG

Until he says something more about this variation and its ability to overcome the problem of a negative value of each bet, he is just trolling the forum.

He *has* said why he thinks it is (or could be) a winning system: His betting recipe includes taking breaks when the dealer is unusually lucky. Of course that doesn't change the odds, but he *thinks* it does.

What's your definition of trolling? I think it's saying something intended to provoke, especially if you don't really believe it yourself, you're saying it just to provoke others. In the OP's case, I think he really believes what he's saying, so I think he's not trolling.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: TomG

Fibonacci betting method does none of the things he claims (https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/fibonacci/).

Of course it doesn't. But he thinks it does.

He *has* said why he thinks it is (or could be) a winning system: His betting recipe includes taking breaks when the dealer is unusually lucky. Of course that doesn't change the odds, but he *thinks* it does.

What's your definition of trolling? I think it's saying something intended to provoke, especially if you don't really believe it yourself, you're saying it just to provoke others. In the OP's case, I think he really believes what he's saying, so I think he's not trolling.

He may have thought he had something before he came here and did not come to troll. But at this point, there is no way an intelligent person could continue to think that. He is definitely now trolling.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

But at this point, there is no way an intelligent person could continue to think that. He is definitely now trolling.

Um, well, it's A or B, but B's not the only option in your dichotomy.

Look, I just want to acknowledge all my derisive fans out there in WOV land. I am truly humbled by your attention to me. It's overwhelming! Thankyou 😘

I will eventually try and return your favour to me, even though it may never match your rising number of posts. I'm assuming that there continues to be plenty of derision in these posts. That last sentence should hint that I don't read much of them, and I'll tell you all, the logic of not reading much of them. What does derision prove or disprove? It probably only proves that one is trying to put down another.

I did read one part where someone said I was taking only a snippet of information and not the whole. Granted, one can do this to falsely discredit someone, but was I doing this? I can tell you I wasn't doing this and why:

1. I could respond to large doses of information with even larger doses of information. But we are on a posting forum, not an essay writing forum.

2. I find absorbing and understanding information much better if it's done in bite-sized pieces. There are probably many educators and psychologists who would agree with this.

3. As mentioned, I didn't break up the information to discredit the whole. I was just doing it to make my rebuffs more understandable. I deliberately analysed the piece of information I was debunking, to make sure I was not taking it out of context. If one were to examine the post in question, and my response to it, one would probably agree with what I am suggesting.

I read another snippet where someone said I didn't know the meaning of the term "debunk." I really don't know whether this poster is just getting desperate? I would think it ridiculous to even reply to this proposition.

I don't mind being wrong, and I agree with indisputable math, as it applies to gambling. If people are going to take a stand, I think they need to prove themselves. I see nothing wrong with questioning. I don't think I have all the answers, but that doesn't mean I can't see faulty propositions. I will probably consult some mathematicians in due course, to get some more reputable information than what I seem to be getting at WOV.

If some here think they've won the argument, or saturated my threads with enough naysayer vocabulary to prove naysayers are right, I think that could be very presumptuous. Especially considering some of the naysayer arguments I've read thus far.

I think it more prudent to wait till more indisputable truths rise to the surface in due course. As my interest in this website is not all-consuming, anyone wanting short-term answers to some of my proposals, are probably not gonna get 'em in the short term. I have enough interest in the topic, however, to continue to tease things out in the long term.

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. Isn't it good that we question and clarify? I think the WOV site will be better for it in the long run. Has card counting ruined gambling? I don't think so. Kisses

Quote: Wellbush

Look, I just want to acknowledge all my derisive fans out there in WOV land. I am truly humbled by your attention to me. It's overwhelming! Thankyou 😘

There's no need to thank me. If you're going to thank anyone, then thank the people who believe that this site has some responsibility to respond to people who promote betting systems and various other mathematically invalid methods, as you do.

For my part, and on a personal level, I have given you my warning as to what the math has to say about the subject and consider my responsibility, if it even exists, fulfilled as far as this goes. Were there not other forces at work demanding that these things be addressed, I would just as easily ignore all of your posts, except I'd have perhaps given you my advice once.

Beyond that, this conversation is and has been a total waste of my time.

Quote:

I will eventually try and return your favour to me, even though it may never match your rising number of posts. I'm assuming that there continues to be plenty of derision in these posts. That last sentence should hint that I don't read much of them, and I'll tell you all, the logic of not reading much of them. What does derision prove or disprove? It probably only proves that one is trying to put down another.

If you could go ahead and not, "Return the favor," I would personally appreciate it. At this point, I'm content to just leave you to your beliefs and, when the most likely result of you losing a ton of money happens, it won't be me who didn't warn you. I hope that you win, but only because nobody would lose if it was up to me.

Anyway, we're not putting you down, we're putting the concept of systems down. At worst, we're putting you down only to the extent that you continue to promote your system in defiance of all mathematical facts available. On a personal level, I have no problem with you. You're flattering yourself unduly if you think I care about you at all. You're just some random guy who is, and will forever be, nothing more than a screenname to me. I'll give you that you write reasonably well.

Quote:

I did read one part where someone said I was taking only a snippet of information and not the whole. Granted, one can do this to falsely discredit someone, but was I doing this? I can tell you I wasn't doing this and why:

1. I could respond to large doses of information with even larger doses of information. But we are on a posting forum, not an essay writing forum.

2. I find absorbing and understanding information much better if it's done in bite-sized pieces. There are probably many educators and psychologists who would agree with this.

I think there are many educators and psychologists who would submit that some people simply can't grasp a lot of information at a time. I'll write what I write and it will be whatever length I make it. You can read it one paragraph an hour, one paragraph a day, one word every three years...whatever words/time ratio that you find most digestible.

In the meantime, might I suggest not making erroneous proposals to people with, "Essay-sized," facts and mathematical examples readily at their disposal.

Or, keep coming back with it. Maybe one day you'll surprise me and I'll actually have to put a modicum of thought into one of my responses. All I can say is that refuting your posts has been nothing short of effortless so far, the physical act of typing aside.

Quote:

3. As mentioned, I didn't break up the information to discredit the whole. I was just doing it to make my rebuffs more understandable. I deliberately analysed the piece of information I was debunking, to make sure I was not taking it out of context. If one were to examine the post in question, and my response to it, one would probably agree with what I am suggesting.

I prefer efficiency, so feel free to put all of your rebuffs in one place.

Quote:

I read another snippet where someone said I didn't know the meaning of the term "debunk." I really don't know whether this poster is just getting desperate? I would think it ridiculous to even reply to this proposition.

And yet, you have replied to it.

Quote:

I don't mind being wrong, and I agree with indisputable math, as it applies to gambling. If people are going to take a stand, I think they need to prove themselves. I see nothing wrong with questioning. I don't think I have all the answers, but that doesn't mean I can't see faulty propositions. I will probably consult some mathematicians in due course, to get some more reputable information than what I seem to be getting at WOV.

If there is one thing that you have prevailed upon me, it's that you don't mind being wrong. If you minded being wrong, then you would probably find yourself severely depressed as I have yet to see you present a post on this subject that is right.

Anyway, go find whatever mathematician that you want to consult. He or she will be perfectly happy to also inform you that I am right. Just remember, you were getting me for free, the mathematician will likely want compensation for their analysis.

But, you advocate for betting systems, so I imagine the concept of wasting money shouldn't be of any great concern to you.

Quote:

If some here think they've won the argument, or saturated my threads with enough naysayer vocabulary to prove naysayers are right, I think that could be very presumptuous. Especially considering some of the naysayer arguments I've read thus far.

I don't think I've won anything. I have not accomplished anything so far other than wasting time responding to and trying to help you. I'll have only won when you accept the math and nobody has to worry about you losing your money due to an erroneous belief in your systems and methods.

That's not to say don't use them if you think they are fun and you are only gambling money that you can afford to lose. It's your money to do with as you like. That's true for anyone who gambles within their means, system or no system.

All I'm asking is that you bring yourself to the point where you can simply admit that the math is against you, but trying your system is something that you want to do anyway. You have offered nothing that would indicate that your system would change the house edge, so your system is, therefore, losing.

I have a little system I do for extremely low stakes Video Keno in the event that I feel like playing that. Our systems have one thing in common and one difference:

Common: Neither of them work.

Difference: I know and accept that neither of them work.

Quote:

I think it more prudent to wait till more indisputable truths rise to the surface in due course. As my interest in this website is not all-consuming, anyone wanting short-term answers to some of my proposals, are probably not gonna get 'em in the short term. I have enough interest in the topic, however, to continue to tease things out in the long term.

I don't know how many more indisputable truths are going to be required for you to get the point, but I'm beginning to think that I will grow tired of this before I offer that number.

You see, some people talk out of both sides of their mouths. On the right side, they say that we are a, "Math Forum," and have a responsibility to readers not to let this stuff stand unchallenged; on the left side of their mouths, they say that this site has no real legitimacy.

Either way, I'll step up to the plate and do what these people claim, on the right side of their mouths, that I am partially responsible for doing. For now.

If you really want to learn, then just ask questions. I've already offered to answer any question you ask about any gambling-related thing, if it is within my ability to know the answer. If you have no questions for me, then I must conclude that you do not want to learn.

Quote:

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. Isn't it good that we question and clarify? I think the WOV site will be better for it in the long run. Has card counting ruined gambling? I don't think so. Kisses

The only controversy that exists does so only in your mind. My side of the argument is not saying anything more controversial than that the grass is green.

Nothing that you have said to me, or at all, will lead to a better understanding of math. I guess some might come to a better understanding of math by reading the responses provided by myself, and others, but I am rapidly losing any belief that I had that you will be one of them.

There are few things more effective than a determination to prove yourself right when you are right. There are few things more potentially destructive than a determination to prove yourself right when you are wrong.

I'm still waiting for the questions. I imagine I'll continue waiting. Feel free to ask your questions at any time.

You're not at the point of giving meaningful refutations yet. I'm sorry, but you just aren't. Ask the questions, I'll answer, then you ask for clarifications, if needed. I'm happy to do that for you as time permits. If you attempt to argue against me on these matters, then the only possibility is you losing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you and goodnight. $:o)