Negative Progression

So far, from what I've read, the only reason a negative progression strategy doesn't work in a card game, is because the player doesn't have a large enough bankroll to counter long losing streaks. Is this correct?

Quote: Wellbush

So far, from what I've read, the only reason a negative progression strategy doesn't work in a card game, is because the player doesn't have a large enough bankroll to counter long losing streaks. Is this correct?

Define 'work' in this context?

Quote: OnceDear

Define 'work' in this context?

Bring the player's starting pot back into positive territory.

Quote: Wellbush

Bring the player's starting pot back into positive territory.

When?

Quote: Wellbush

So far, from what I've read, the only reason a negative progression strategy doesn't work in a card game, is because the player doesn't have a large enough bankroll to counter long losing streaks. Is this correct?

No. It's correct if one doesn't consider the other logical conclusion that follows from the infinite bankroll argument.

Quote: Wellbush

So far, from what I've read, the only reason a negative progression strategy doesn't work in a card game, is because the player doesn't have a large enough bankroll to counter long losing streaks. Is this correct?

No that is not correct.
The size of a player's bankroll has nothing to do with it as he/she is always limited by the house max bet limits. That is the discipline that the casinos have.

Quote: BoSox

No that is not correct.
The size of a player's bankroll has nothing to do with it as he/she is always limited by the house max bet limits. That is the discipline that the casinos have.

Even if not, it doesn't work with infinite bankroll theory.

If he says infinite bankroll, then I say infinite players. If infinite players, then every possibility occurs. One possibility is player who infinitely loses. Most of our infinite players lose and win, one infinitely wins, but our infinite loser negates our infinite winner (and then some because our infinite winner only wins one unit at a time) and our other infinite players who mostly have an infinite amount of, "Normal," ups and downs will have lost an amount infinitely that equates to the house edge multiplied by the total amount bet.

Quote: OnceDear

When?

Whenever the player can. It must occur if the cards are shuffled.

Quote: Wellbush

Whenever the player can. It must occur if the cards are shuffled.

Why must it? What is it?

Quote: Mission146

No. It's correct if one doesn't consider the other logical conclusion that follows from the infinite bankroll argument.

I'm not following. Can you elaborate?

Quote: Wellbush

I'm not following. Can you elaborate?

If the player has infinite bankroll, he can never increase his bankroll by even one unit. If he could, then you would have to accept that there is a bigger number than infinity. If you do not accept that there is a bigger number than infinity, you cannot logically accept that a player can have an infinite bankroll.

Quote: OnceDear

If the player has infinite bankroll, he can never increase his bankroll by even one unit. If he could, then you would have to accept that there is a bigger number than infinity.

Not only that, but I counter infinite bankroll with infinite players. With infinite players, every possibility happens, no matter how far-fetched. That means one player will infinitely win and one will infinitely lose.

The one who infinitely wins will be winning one base unit every time. The one who infinitely loses keeps doubling his bets and losing again, or whatever amount.

With math as a description of physical reality, I win.

When we get into metaphysics, I still win.

Quote: Mission146

Not only that, but I counter infinite bankroll with infinite players. With infinite players, every possibility happens, no matter how far-fetched. That means one player will infinitely win and one will infinitely lose.

The one who infinitely wins will be winning one base unit every time. The one who infinitely loses keeps doubling his bets and losing again, or whatever amount.

Equations actually don't work when infinity is a factor. That's not a failing of maths, just a part of its doctrine.

Quote: OnceDear

Why must it? What is it?

This may be a good juncture, OD, to take note of why we've differed till now? I suspect that if I were to ask you this question:

Do you think it's possible that when a player plays a game at a casino, that he will lose ad infinitum?

That this question may open your mind to why the mathematical models you think apply to gambling, do not necessarily cover the real life scenarios.

Quote: OnceDear

Equations actually don't work when infinity is a factor. That's not a failing of maths, just a part of its doctrine.

I agree, but we're into metaphysics now. If we're going to make, "Infinite Bankroll," arguments, then we've already left anything that is real.

Yes, if things that are not real happen, then the system could theoretically be expected to work.

I'd create a better thing that is not real, if it were me. When I close my eyes, I have a meta-spiritual link to playing cards that enables me to see them as if face up. I have never lost a hand.

Quote: Wellbush

This may be a good juncture, OD, to take note of why we've differed till now? I suspect that if I were to ask you this question:

Do you think it's possible that when a player plays a game at a casino, that he will lose ad infinitum?

That this question may open your mind to why the mathematical models you think apply to gambling, do not necessarily cover the real life scenarios.

He only has to either run out of bankroll, or die of old age. And he only has to do it once.

Quote: OnceDear

If the player has infinite bankroll, he can never increase his bankroll by even one unit. If he could, then you would have to accept that there is a bigger number than infinity. If you do not accept that there is a bigger number than infinity, you cannot logically accept that a player can have an infinite bankroll.

The I'm not following. Can you elaborate? post, was in reply to 146's post, OD. Not yours.

Quote: Wellbush

The I'm not following. Can you elaborate? post, was in reply to 146's post, OD. Not yours.

Like I care!

Quote: OnceDear

He only has to either run out of bankroll, or die of old age. And he only has to do it once.

This is getting a little interesting, OD.

So, for example, a whale goes to the casino, and uses a slower negative progression strategy, such as an even slower one than Fibonacci. Even though he's a whale, he starts betting on the lowest bet table he can find, say $5. Not only that, but the whale takes breaks away from the table each time he experiences 5 losses in a row. But when the whale returns to the table, he continues along the negative progression strategy from where he left off, before he took the break.

Do you think the whale could still experience enough losses in a row, to bankrupt himself, if he has say $100 billion to bet with?

What also applies to the original question, is this:

The mathematical models that apply to the game of BJ, state that (excluding ties), on average, the player will win approx 46% of the time. And if that's true, and the casinos use shuffled decks, do you think it's possible for the whale to experience sufficient losses more than 54%, on a one-off betting spree, to bankrupt him?

Quote: Wellbush

This is getting a little interesting, OD.

So, for example, a whale goes to the casino, and uses a slower negative progression strategy, such as an even slower one than Fibonacci. Even though he's a whale, he starts betting on the lowest bet table he can find, say $5. Not only that, but the whale takes breaks away from the table each time he experiences 5 losses in a row. But when the whale returns to the table, he continues along the negative progression strategy from where he left off, before he took the break.

Do you think the whale could still experience enough losses in a row, to bankrupt himself, if he has say $100 billion to bet with?

This is absolutely the whole point of my blog post to Oncedear's rule of thumb. He can win, He's likely to win. But it's pointless in the context of his relative increase in wealth. If there is a house edge, He doesn't dent it or change it.
It's not much different than if he were to play ONCE on a 20 billion and one slot roulette wheel and put $5 on all but two numbers for one spin. He's almost certain to win... just $5

Quote: Wellbush

Do you think the whale could still experience enough losses in a row, to bankrupt himself, if he has say $100 billion to bet with?

Yes, and they don't have to be "in a row" unless it's a Martingale. About seven years ago, I ran some simulations on a 50/50 game using D'Alembert, and there were cases where it took over 300 billion bets for the player to get back to zero.

Of course, you also have to take into account how long it would take to make enough bets to be $100 billion behind.

Quote: Wellbush

This is getting a little interesting, OD.

So, for example, a whale goes to the casino, and uses a slower negative progression strategy, such as an even slower one than Fibonacci. Even though he's a whale, he starts betting on the lowest bet table he can find, say $5. Not only that, but the whale takes breaks away from the table each time he experiences 5 losses in a row. But when the whale returns to the table, he continues along the negative progression strategy from where he left off, before he took the break.

Do you think the whale could still experience enough losses in a row, to bankrupt himself, if he has say $100 billion to bet with?

And you really must get your head around the FACT that taking breaks does nothing to break up streaks. Nothing, Nill, Nada

In this sequence of coin flips, where you martingale, but rest out until you see Tails, if you encounter 5 Heads in a row, how long is the streak?

HHHHHHTHH
LLLLL--LL

You CREATE and wager into a streak of 7 Heads where none existed in the real world

No problem. Just asking questions. Is that allowed?

Quote: OnceDear

And you really must get your head around the FACT that taking breaks does nothing to break up streaks. Nothing, Nill, Nada

In this sequence of coin flips, where you martingale, but rest out until you see Tails, if you encounter 5 Heads in a row, how long is the streak?

HHHHHHTHH
LLLLL--LL

You CREATE and wager into a streak of 7 Heads where none existed in the real world

Your underlying philosophy is mathematical. In the real world the game evens out. That's why breaks are good in BJ. I understand your philosophy, but you understand mine.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Yes, and they don't have to be "in a row" unless it's a Martingale. About seven years ago, I ran some simulations on a 50/50 game using D'Alembert, and there were cases where it took over 300 billion bets for the player to get back to zero.

Of course, you also have to take into account how long it would take to make enough bets to be $100 billion behind.

Interesting.

Quote: Wellbush

Your underlying philosophy is mathematical. In the real world the game evens out. That's why breaks are good in BJ. I understand your philosophy, but you understand mine.

"That's why breaks are good!!!!!"
What the hell sort of corollary is that? It makes zero sense and does not follow any kind of logic.

In the real world, the game absolutely does not even out. That's another fallacy you seem to adhere to. Taking the simple coin flip example. As time and number of coin tosses push forwards and upwards, the ratio of heads to tails approaches 50%, but the average difference between number of heads and number of tails actually increases.

You have so many fallacies to expunge, it's almost like we cannot know where to begin.... Or why the hell should we bother, since word soup is your only retort. Get your Bankroll together and hit the tables. Do it online if location is an issue.

Serious questions.... How much lifetime action have you ACTUALLY given to casinos? How many wagers of say >AUD$10 or more?
How often have you progressive wagered and found yourself staking AUD$200? Whatever, why are you short on bankroll right now?

When you have an advantage, say at dice, you can use a negative progression as great cover,

The real issue with taking a break after losing five hands of BJ is that on average the count is positive.

Quote: Wellbush

So far, from what I've read, the only reason a negative progression strategy doesn't work in a card game, is because the player doesn't have a large enough bankroll to counter long losing streaks. Is this correct?

It is not correct. If you share the readings you are talking about it, there are several people here who could clear up this incorrect thinking.

Quote: Wellbush

So far, from what I've read, the only reason a negative progression strategy doesn't work in a card game, is because the player doesn't have a large enough bankroll to counter long losing streaks. Is this correct?

your lack of understanding of the relatively simple concepts behind all of this indicates that you are not competent to evaluate the likelihood of the claims of a person who states that he wins every single time he plays as being legitimate


*

Quote: OnceDear

"That's why breaks are good!!!!!"
What the hell sort of corollary is that? It makes zero sense and does not follow any kind of logic.

In the real world, the game absolutely does not even out. That's another fallacy you seem to adhere to. Taking the simple coin flip example. As time and number of coin tosses push forwards and upwards, the ratio of heads to tails approaches 50%, but the average difference between number of heads and number of tails actually increases.

You have so many fallacies to expunge, it's almost like we cannot know where to begin.... Or why the hell should we bother, since word soup is your only retort. Get your Bankroll together and hit the tables. Do it online if location is an issue.

Serious questions.... How much lifetime action have you ACTUALLY given to casinos? How many wagers of say >AUD$10 or more?
How often have you progressive wagered and found yourself staking AUD$200? Whatever, why are you short on bankroll right now?

If you really think I’m an imbecile, why are getting so upset? Obviously you must think I’m not an imbecile. I’ll continue to go through these posts, but will I find more and more derision with less and less intellect? We shall see

Quote: lilredrooster

your lack of understanding of the relatively simple concepts behind all of this indicates that you are not competent to evaluate the likelihood of the claims of a person who states that he wins every single time he plays as being legitimate


*

More derision, less and less substance. Does your behaviour originate from the defence force?

Quote: Wellbush

More derision, less and less substance. Does your behaviour originate from the defence force?

my behavior originates from reading the posts of those who claim knowledge and then demonstrate by their writing that they lack knowledge







if you want to learn - which I tend to doubt that you do - you can begin by reading some reputable and serious books re the mathematics of gambling
if you choose not to learn, but prefer to spout off what your intuition wrongly tells you - there are many here who will aggressively shoot down your words - not me anymore but others - I'm not going to spend any more time responding to whatever you care to write



*

Quote: Wellbush

Your underlying philosophy is mathematical. In the real world the game evens out. That's why breaks are good in BJ. I understand your philosophy, but you understand mine.

Math is not philosophy. Philosophy deals in notions, math is a science.

Quote: Wellbush

If you really think I’m an imbecile, why are getting so upset? Obviously you must think I’m not an imbecile. I’ll continue to go through these posts, but will I find more and more derision with less and less intellect? We shall see

It depends.

The less intellect displayed in your posts, the more derision you will find. The more intellect displayed in your posts, the less derision you will find.

Applied quantitatively, this is a mathematical concept known as negative correlation. Of course, this correlation is not a strict one because we are dealing in qualifiable terms, not quantifiable ones. Also, whether or not something displays intellect is a subjective determination, which makes it even tougher to strictly quantify.

Quote: Wellbush

Not only that, but the whale takes breaks away from the table each time he experiences 5 losses in a row.

LMAO!

Also, that's #8.

Quote: Wellbush

More derision, less and less substance.

That's #7.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

LMAO!

Also, that's #8.


That's #7.

And you’re trolling, MB

Quote: Wellbush

And you’re trolling, MB

That's also #7.

Also, it looks like we can add "trolling" to the list of concepts you don't understand (along with things like "expected value" and "debunking").

Quote: MichaelBluejay

That's also #7.

Also, it looks like we can add "trolling" to the list of concepts you don't understand (along with things like "expected value" and "debunking").

You certainly win in the “can only agree with my own logic” department, and the “saturate the thread of anyone I dislike “ department.

If it feels good, do it. I don’t care to defend myself, like you

Where the F*** is BBB and the ban hammer?

Quote: DeMango

Where the F*** is BBB and the ban hammer?

BBB reappeared kindly to congratulate my son on his crossword achievement. It seems like OnceDear has possession of the ban hammer, and for some unknown reason he has not used it on..... the most recent you know who!

To his credit, OD seems be applying an objective standard when administering discipline.

WB has not blatantly violated any rules that I can see, nor has MD, so they both get a bye.

Popularity of a person or their positions is not a valid criteria for discipline.

I've learned to use the "block" function to good effect: try it, as without an audience controversial posters may not wish to hang around.

Quote: TomG

Quote: Wellbush

So far, from what I've read, the only reason a negative progression strategy doesn't work in a card game, is because the player doesn't have a large enough bankroll to counter long losing streaks. Is this correct?

It is not correct. If you share the readings you are talking about it, there are several people here who could clear up this incorrect thinking.

I'm thinking that you didn't read about this anywhere and you only brought it up to troll the forum.

Taking a break is so good, I can wait so good!

Quote: Zcore13

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

Wellbush has been thoroughly told that his 'modification' of taking breaks has absolutely no impact on the streaks that he might encounter. He's had simulations run for him and just dismisses them because they lack his 'secret modifications' and then he announces he's blocked anyone whose facts he cannot argue with. He constantly comes back with the same theme "I don't think people should just accept so called experts words," and claims to be debunking logical responses with what is just big servings of word soup. He's particularly keen to 'debunk' Mission146, MichaelBluejay and anyone who tries to help him. He simply WILL NOT BE TOLD!

Personally, I think he must know by now that his system and his philosophical take on the nature of the game has no merit, but possibly he's got drawn into the 'sport' of debating 'the naysayers' for its own sake. That, to me is trolling! Indeed, I'm starting to find his use of that word as derogatory.

Quote: OnceDear

Wellbush has been thoroughly told that his 'modification' of taking breaks has absolutely no impact on the streaks that he might encounter. He's had simulations run for him and just dismisses them because they lack his 'secret modifications' and then he announces he's blocked anyone whose facts he cannot argue with. He constantly comes back with the same theme "I don't think people should just accept so called experts words," and claims to be debunking logical responses with what is just big servings of word soup. He's particularly keen to 'debunk' Mission146, MichaelBluejay and anyone who tries to help him. He simply WILL NOT BE TOLD!

Personally, I think he must know by now that his system and his philosophical take on the nature of the game has no merit, but possibly he's got drawn into the 'sport' of debating 'the naysayers' for its own sake. That, to me is trolling! Indeed, I'm starting to find his use of that word as derogatory.

If he cannot be talked down from using his system, let's hope that he can be talked down from the top of the skyscraper after it fails.

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

It seems like someone is pissing on our shoes and insisting it is raining out.