Beat the house at blackjack!!!!

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

Quote: MichaelBluejay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Characteristics of a Betting System Believer

The system

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

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

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


Misunderstanding the math

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

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

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

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

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


Dismissing mathematicians, claiming superior understanding

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sources

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

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

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

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


Argumentative

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

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

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

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

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

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


Computer Simulations

(25) Hasn't run a computer simulation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Literacy and style

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

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

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


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

By the way:

Quote: Wellbush

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

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

and:

Quote: Wellbush

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

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

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

Quote: MichaelBluejay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now on to OnceDear!

Quote: Wellbush

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

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

Please could you confirm this is a fair representation of your betting system and then outlining your proof how this produces a positive EV for a negative game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote: SOOPOO

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

Conspicuously ignoring my post with its simple question?

Did you ever actually try your system?


Yes!!!

We
Ended
Losing
Loads
But
Up
Some
How?

Quote: WellBush

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

Quote: WellBush

Now, onto OnceDear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would nuke this whole thread it’s cancer

Quote: heatmap

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

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

I would nuke this whole thread it’s cancer

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


ZCore13