Negative Progression

50 pages later and nothing has changed. Give it up guys...give it up

Quote: vegas

50 pages later and nothing has changed. Give it up guys...give it up
link to original post

give what up, Vegas?

Quote: Mission146

Quote: Wellbush

and WB's Paradox is not a bent nail or hammer! The math of -EV might be?
link to original post

The math of EV is often ridiculously simple.

If you follow my discussions with TuttiGym at all, then you will see that he ends up backed into the same corner about once a week. If you won't play a game, with a fair coin, in which you pay me $1.00 if it lands heads and I pay you $0.10 if it lands tails, then you acknowledge that EV:

A.) Exists

AND:

B.) Matters.

While it wouldn't strictly be considered a Martingale anymore, you could design a system like the Grand Martingale with the goal of winning all previous losses on a trial (plus one unit) back, of course, it's only going to be a matter of time (and not all that much time) until a losing series screws you over.

You would not play my coin-flipping game because it is unfair...which is the point of casino games. They are usually fundamentally mathematically, "Unfair," just some more than others.
link to original post

I'm not really sure why you send me all these posts and complicated information, 146? I mean, I'm just trying to understand one initial sentence in your massive original post. From there, I can gradually work on discussing/understanding that, first.

If you're wanting to discuss numerous complicated topics all at once, I'm not going to respond to them that way. I'll just go through things as they first appeared in the thread. If you're wanting to cancel some points of discussion, let me know so we can focus on what you want to focus on, first.

For now, I won't be looking at or responding to any of AxelWolf's posts, and I'm sure he knows why.

Quote: Wellbush

For now, I won't be looking at or responding to any of AxelWolf's posts, and I'm sure he knows why.
link to original post

Of course, I know why... You claim to have a betting system that can beat all online software, supposedly it's still a work in progress when it comes to brick-and-mortar casinos.

When you were asked why you are not using it online to make millions you came up with an excuse, as predicted. That excuse was the legality issues, legality issues you haven't actually been able to prove are actually an issue.

That leaves you open to continue to troll the math guys and get attention and get your kicks since they can only mathematically prove your system doesn't work on paper. You can continue to claim it can work in the real world no matter what the math says.

I come along and tell you that if you actually have a system that can be all online software I can show you how to make millions and even solve all your legality issues. I even suggest you confirm the legality stuff of what I'd be proposing with your gaming jurisdiction. That's pretty straightforward and logical. You can't come up with any more logical excuses. This puts a little kink in your claim that you can beat all online software and it would expose the truth, thus ending your little charade.

Let me make this simple for you, I generally only read and respond to threads that are in the most recent posts list on the first page, occasionally I click over to the second page if I feel it to be necessary. This thread should be in the "hidden" betting systems section, you should suggest the Mods put it there, where it belongs. It's very unlikely I will be responding there.

Wellbush the problem with 'Your" belief about beating a negative game can be done. with a players card! but beating the game with math you will need a thousand step line straight through martingale meaning if you could double your previous wager atleast a thousand times in a row you would never go busto!
problem is casinos have max tablet limits and you don't have access to that type of bank.

however i claim to have a system that beats baccarat and other games of chance, this site is very weird/strange the admins can censor what they disagree with even when its regarding casino gambling and not selling or talking about "other stuff" i guess this site restricts freedom of speech =/

Quote: Kristmitchell

Wellbush the problem with 'Your" belief about beating a negative game can be done. with a players card! but beating the game with math you will need a thousand step line straight through martingale meaning if you could double your previous wager atleast a thousand times in a row you would never go busto!
problem is casinos have max tablet limits and you don't have access to that type of bank.

however i claim to have a system that beats baccarat and other games of chance, this site is very weird/strange the admins can censor what they disagree with even when its regarding casino gambling and not selling or talking about "other stuff" i guess this site restricts freedom of speech =/
link to original post

if Martingale is the only negative progression strategy around, then yeah, it's a hopeless idea. No question. I think there are far less risky negative progression strategies obtainable though. You won't find these kind printed anywhere. They're something one needs to get the grey matter working, to come up with. I can give hints if people ask.


As for your strategy, you can PM me. I'm all ears 👍

Quote: Kristmitchell

Wellbush the problem with 'Your" belief about beating a negative game can be done. with a players card! but beating the game with math you will need a thousand step line straight through martingale meaning if you could double your previous wager atleast a thousand times in a row you would never go busto!
problem is casinos have max tablet limits and you don't have access to that type of bank.

however i claim to have a system that beats baccarat and other games of chance, this site is very weird/strange the admins can censor what they disagree with even when its regarding casino gambling and not selling or talking about "other stuff" i guess this site restricts freedom of speech =/
link to original post

We resrict freedom of speech to uphold the theme and rules of the forum. Race hate, Politics, Controversial topics... Yes we censor them. Want to sell a system here or publish spam. Yup. we restrict that, too.

Here is the theme of the site from the 'About Us' page...

Quote: WIzard

... goal for the site was to provide a resource for his readers on everything to do with Las Vegas, with an emphasis on the gambling scene. A forum was also a primary goal as a place for sharp gamblers to share ideas, information, and stories.

The theme of this subforum, also from Wizard, is...

Quote: wizard

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

You MAY, if you wish, claim to have a system that beats baccarat and other games of chance. You may even claim to own a pink unicorn. Some misguided souls might even believe you. Other members will surely deride your posts.

You will probably not reveal your system and will now probably find hundreds of ways of telling us that it does work, even though it is secret. That will inevitable result in a swathe of posts calling out your system and your credibility. But of course, that inevitably becomes controversial, and ends in moderator actions. You bring it here at your peril.

So, I earnestly suggest that if you have a system that beats baccarat or other games of chance, then what the heck are you doing here? You claim to have a Holy Grail of infinite value. Don't take it to a 'show and tell'. Sip from it in private and get incredibly rich. Who in their right mind would share that system on a forum when he could go to the casinos and get immensely rich? To do so would call into question your sanity, wisdom, or integrity. There are plenty of forums that enjoy 'winning systems' Not this one. Here, we examine, dismantle, test and prove worthless such systems. A CLAIM that you have a winning system without revealing said system is quite worthless.

Quote: Wellbush

As for your strategy, you can PM me. I'm all ears 👍
link to original post

There you go guys, knock yourselves out sharing your winning ideas by PM, away from the scornful eyes of the moderators. Should either of you buy into nonsense, then caveat emptor.
Should either of you try to sell a system or recruit 'marks' then expect to be banned.
Wellbush, Are you his first mark?

its funny how "Men" shape there world in usa if you claim this orange cures something and try to patent it and trademark thats a crime
this site admin reads something he does not like even tho no mention of selling or other related topic outside of gambling poof at his whim its a crime

no im not him but i think its funny also people send money to others for coaching a false belief, heck religion beats most "fake coaches or fake systems anyday"

Wellbush if you had a progression that could work in the casino would you use it?

Quote: Kristmitchell

its funny how "Men" shape there world in usa if you claim this orange cures something and try to patent it and trademark thats a crime
this site admin reads something he does not like even tho no mention of selling or other related topic outside of gambling poof at his whim its a crime

no im not him but i think its funny also people send money to others for coaching a false belief, heck religion beats most "fake coaches or fake systems anyday"

Wellbush if you had a progression that could work in the casino would you use it?
link to original post

Well, good news. I'm not in the USA. If someone in my country tried to defraud with an untrue claim, he might find legal jeopardy. Patent or trademark is not my area of expertise. One could patent a unicorn repellent orange and trademark a snazzy recipe for it, probably with no legal jeopardy at all. Till they tried to advertise it for sale as a unicorn repellent.

I can't speak for US law. If someone in this forum broke the forum rules here, then my whim might kick in. Hasn't happened yet in this thread.
There will always be fools willing to pay to be deceived. And I never accused anyone of trying to deceive.. I agree that religion has it's frauds, but let's let them fight that out on religion forums.

Fake systems? There are fake systems and there are worthless systems in abundance.

Oh. And the anomaly of KristMitchell's User ID has not escaped me.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Kristmitchell

its funny how "Men" shape there world in usa if you claim this orange cures something and try to patent it and trademark thats a crime
this site admin reads something he does not like even tho no mention of selling or other related topic outside of gambling poof at his whim its a crime

no im not him but i think its funny also people send money to others for coaching a false belief, heck religion beats most "fake coaches or fake systems anyday"

Wellbush if you had a progression that could work in the casino would you use it?
link to original post

Well, good news. I'm not in the USA. If someone in my country tried to defraud with an untrue claim, he might find legal jeopardy. Patent or trademark is not my area of expertise. One could patent a unicorn repellent orange and trademark a snazzy recipe for it, probably with no legal jeopardy at all. Till they tried to advertise it for sale as a unicorn repellent.

I can't speak for US law. If someone in this forum broke the forum rules here, then my whim might kick in. Hasn't happened yet in this thread.
There will always be fools willing to pay to be deceived. And I never accused anyone of trying to deceive.. I agree that religion has it's frauds, but let's let them fight that out on religion forums.

Fake systems? There are fake systems and there are worthless systems in abundance.

Oh. And the anomaly of KristMitchell's User ID has not escaped me.
link to original post

It has escaped me. Please elucidate

Quote: Kristmitchell

however i claim to have a system that beats baccarat and other games of chance, this site is very weird/strange the admins can censor what they disagree with even when its regarding casino gambling and not selling or talking about "other stuff" i guess this site restricts freedom of speech =/
link to original post

Simple disagreement is usually insufficient grounds for "censorship".
Miscategorized threads do get moved to more suitable headings.
We hide threads we wish did not exist, but don't break any specific forum rules. We often allow far more time before obscuring threads than we wish we had.

Every society has rules for comportment.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

As for your strategy, you can PM me. I'm all ears 👍
link to original post

There you go guys, knock yourselves out sharing your winning ideas by PM, away from the scornful eyes of the moderators. Should either of you buy into nonsense, then caveat emptor.
Should either of you try to sell a system or recruit 'marks' then expect to be banned.
Wellbush, Are you his first mark?
link to original post

why would I even discuss systems with you OD, when you cannot acknowledge the simple, clear, logical, legitimate reality of WB's Paradox? I never argue with such people!

Quote: Kristmitchell

its funny how "Men" shape there world in usa if you claim this orange cures something and try to patent it and trademark thats a crime
this site admin reads something he does not like even tho no mention of selling or other related topic outside of gambling poof at his whim its a crime

no im not him but i think its funny also people send money to others for coaching a false belief, heck religion beats most "fake coaches or fake systems anyday"

Wellbush if you had a progression that could work in the casino would you use it?
link to original post

I assume your q is sincere. I have mentioned elsewhere on this site, that I have trialled neg progression systems 4 or 5 times at my local b&m casino. No winning trip YET.

That does NOT mean a negative progression strategy will not work. It DOES mean I have become more aware that negative progression systems 'that work,' may require some working out, to beat the casino.

I have never said I have a proven winning system. I AM saying it appears the math shows IT'S POSSIBLE that a negative progression system can work (to beat the casinos).

Quote: OnceDear

Oh. And the anomaly of KristMitchell's User ID has not escaped me.
link to original post

I agree with SOOPOO here. If you want to support your own site OD, undermining newbies credibility, when they haven't broken any rules, does NOT augur well for enlarging the subscriber list. It may even reduce it!

Quote: Wellbush

I have never said I have a proven winning system.

BUT YOU DID SAY THIS>>>>>

Quote: Wellbush
"I have achieved a system that does beat everything online." <<<<THAT'S A VERY BOLD STATEMENT.
Even if you could only beat 10% of everything online, you would be able to make 100's of thousands in a short period of time and on your way to millions.

There has been at least one documented occasion where AP's won over a million dollars from an online casino in just a matter of hours. It took a week or so to get the funds out, but hey, what's a week or so among casino friends.

If your system can beat everything online then it should be able to crush some B&M casinos both live and software-driven games.

Quote: Wellbush

I assume your q is sincere

It's not, I suggest you do your research on Christopher Mitchell (gambling).

I'm not saying this is Christopher Mitchell, but you can bet your bottom dollar that account isn't sincere.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

As for your strategy, you can PM me. I'm all ears 👍
link to original post

why would I even discuss systems with you OD, when you cannot acknowledge the simple, clear, logical, legitimate reality of WB's Paradox? I never argue with such people!
link to original post

What are you talking about WB. I don't expect nor want, nor suggest you to discuss systems with me.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

As for your strategy, you can PM me. I'm all ears 👍
link to original post

why would I even discuss systems with you OD, when you cannot acknowledge the simple, clear, logical, legitimate reality of WB's Paradox? I never argue with such people!
link to original post

What are you talking about WB. I don't expect nor want, nor suggest you to discuss systems with me.
link to original post

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?

Quote: unJon

I’m not trolling you back when I say I don’t see the paradox.

The probability of losing approaches zero.

most people, and i'm including you here UJ, are incredibly talented and knowledgeable. however, from my 57 years on this planet, i think most people are not very good at transferring their incredible knowledge and talents to others. You're gonna have to communicate in layman's terms and layman's thinking (and i don't mean a simpleton's way of thinking. i am quite capable of understanding advanced concepts). what i mean by that is that you seem to be using more advanced mathematical terms and concepts. i am not familiar with these. that does NOT mean i'm incapable of understanding it, IF you can communicate in a non-advanced mathematical way. therefore, if you want our dialogue to proceed at a faster pace, you're gonna have to proceed in layman's terms and thinking. E.g. you wrote: "the probability of losing approaches zero." to me, that just says that over time, using a negative progression strategy in a game, the player has less and less chance of losing! that would be contrary to what the math community think. so i obviously do not understand what you're trying to communicate.

Quote: unJon

And the loss if you lose approaches infinity.

????what???? get my drift?

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

I've explored the definition of work in 'Negative Progressions work' and I suggest that they work to make losing more fun, and they 'work' in shaping the distribution of winning and losing sessions.

E.g.
No progressive: Win sessions count roughly equals loss session count with Won amount average roughly equals loss amount average.

Negative progressive: Win sessions count lower than loss session count with Won amount average lower than loss amount average.

Negative progression systems do not work to increase your expected wealth. No back pedalling there.

I deride the concept of your winning system. Not you.

Quote: unJon

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: unJon

I’m not trolling you back when I say I don’t see the paradox.

The probability of losing approaches zero.

you're gonna have to bear with me UJ while I find out how the math vocab and thinking works.

If "the probability of losing approaches zero," does that mean the longer a gambler plays, the less chance he will lose?link to original post

link to original post

No. I’m postulating an approaching infinity number of gamblers with approaching infinity bankrolls playing a game with an approaching infinity max bet. And they are all Marty or Grand Marty players. And they have some win stop when they never play again.

ok. i'll try understand a little bit by bit, from various posts, such as this one. it's not as bad as 146's posts, but seemingly out of my league. i'll try to understand anyhow.

so to the last sentence above, "And they have some win stop when they never play again." Does this mean a % of players in a sample approaching infinity gamblers, will reach a loss so large that they will never play again? if so, is that % of players set? i.e. you have allocated a certain % of gamblers in the sample, with a certain max bankroll? or, have you set that same max bankroll amount to 100% of the sample, and a larger and larger % of the sample are nearing the max bankroll amount?

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

I've explored the definition of work in 'Negative Progressions work' and I suggest that they work to make losing more fun, and they 'work' in shaping the distribution of winning and losing sessions.

? right. and they can make winning more fun! or, as usual, are you gonna just present the discussion the way you wish?

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

I've explored the definition of work in 'Negative Progressions work' and I suggest that they work to make losing more fun, and they 'work' in shaping the distribution of winning and losing sessions.

E.g.
No progressive: Win sessions count roughly equals loss session count with Won amount average roughly equals loss amount average.

Negative progressive: Win sessions count lower than loss session count with Won amount average lower than loss amount average.

can you explain what you mean here by 'no progressive' and 'negative progressive,' as it is used in the immediate two sentences above?

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

I've explored the definition of work in 'Negative Progressions work' and I suggest that they work to make losing more fun, and they 'work' in shaping the distribution of winning and losing sessions.

? right. and they can make winning more fun! or, as usual, are you gonna just present the discussion the way you wish?
link to original post

Finally a Wellbush post that can make sense! Excluding the AP community, most gamblers use some sort of betting system. Flat bet, press a unit after a win, Marty, negative progression, bet double after 3 bankers in a row, etc…. Having such systems CAN make winning more fun. And they CAN make winning more frequent, if we have a specific ‘session’. What they can’t do is turn a -EV game into a positive EXPECTATION event. YOU CANT EXPECT TO MAKE MONEY AT NEGATIVE EXPECTATION GAMES without some ‘trick’…. Hole carding, card counting, edge sorting, dealer errors, casino promotion, etc….

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

I've explored the definition of work in 'Negative Progressions work' and I suggest that they work to make losing more fun, and they 'work' in shaping the distribution of winning and losing sessions.

E.g.
No progressive: Win sessions count roughly equals loss session count with Won amount average roughly equals loss amount average.

Negative progressive: Win sessions count lower than loss session count with Won amount average lower than loss amount average.

Negative progression systems do not work to increase your expected wealth. No back pedalling there.

and my response to that last statement...

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

here, my implication was that you have been deriding my suggestions that negative progressions may work.

Quote: OnceDear

What are you talking about WB. I don't expect nor want, nor suggest you to discuss systems with me.
link to original post

aren't you contradicting yourself here OD? you're saying you don't discuss systems with me, but the top post above is JUST ONE clear recent post of yours countering negative progression systems i'm posting about!

right. that should do it.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: unJon

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: unJon

I’m not trolling you back when I say I don’t see the paradox.

The probability of losing approaches zero.

you're gonna have to bear with me UJ while I find out how the math vocab and thinking works.

If "the probability of losing approaches zero," does that mean the longer a gambler plays, the less chance he will lose?link to original post

link to original post

No. I’m postulating an approaching infinity number of gamblers with approaching infinity bankrolls playing a game with an approaching infinity max bet. And they are all Marty or Grand Marty players. And they have some win stop when they never play again.

ok. i'll try understand a little bit by bit, from various posts, such as this one. it's not as bad as 146's posts, but seemingly out of my league. i'll try to understand anyhow.

so to the last sentence above, "And they have some win stop when they never play again." Does this mean a % of players in a sample approaching infinity gamblers, will reach a loss so large that they will never play again? if so, is that % of players set? i.e. you have allocated a certain % of gamblers in the sample, with a certain max bankroll? or, have you set that same max bankroll amount to 100% of the sample, and a larger and larger % of the sample are nearing the max bankroll amount?
link to original post

The losers only stop when their approaching infinity bankroll is gone.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: unJon

I’m not trolling you back when I say I don’t see the paradox.

The probability of losing approaches zero.

most people, and i'm including you here UJ, are incredibly talented and knowledgeable. however, from my 57 years on this planet, i think most people are not very good at transferring their incredible knowledge and talents to others. You're gonna have to communicate in layman's terms and layman's thinking (and i don't mean a simpleton's way of thinking. i am quite capable of understanding advanced concepts). what i mean by that is that you seem to be using more advanced mathematical terms and concepts. i am not familiar with these. that does NOT mean i'm incapable of understanding it, IF you can communicate in a non-advanced mathematical way. therefore, if you want our dialogue to proceed at a faster pace, you're gonna have to proceed in layman's terms and thinking. E.g. you wrote: "the probability of losing approaches zero." to me, that just says that over time, using a negative progression strategy in a game, the player has less and less chance of losing! that would be contrary to what the math community think. so i obviously do not understand what you're trying to communicate.

Quote: unJon

And the loss if you lose approaches infinity.

????what???? get my drift?
link to original post

I’m just trying to layout what I understand to be the “Wellbush Paradox.” That a negative progressive system player with infinite bankroll playing a negative expectation game that has no maximum bets, will be a winner.

Since most math and brains don’t do well with infinity, I was thinking through the limits as things approach infinity to see what the math says.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

I've explored the definition of work in 'Negative Progressions work' and I suggest that they work to make losing more fun, and they 'work' in shaping the distribution of winning and losing sessions.

? right. and they can make winning more fun! or, as usual, are you gonna just present the discussion the way you wish?
link to original post

Finally a Wellbush post that can make sense! Excluding the AP community, most gamblers use some sort of betting system. Flat bet, press a unit after a win, Marty, negative progression, bet double after 3 bankers in a row, etc…. Having such systems CAN make winning more fun. And they CAN make winning more frequent, if we have a specific ‘session’. What they can’t do is turn a -EV game into a positive EXPECTATION event. YOU CANT EXPECT TO MAKE MONEY AT NEGATIVE EXPECTATION GAMES without some ‘trick’…. Hole carding, card counting, edge sorting, dealer errors, casino promotion, etc….
link to original post

SOOPOO, this kind of discussion has been had numerous times, by me at least. if you believe your view is correct, welcome to WOV. Do you think i'm going to argue this point with you and prevent myself from being suspended here? in other words, if you are going to argue this out with me on this site, you win. are you gonna win the 'intellectual' argument though, if we go to a non-partisan site?

if you take note of everything i've stated in this thread, i dare say your statements above have already been countered by me numerous times. WB's Paradox in itself, is inherently simple and counters your argument above. all i can say to you therefore is 🤷‍♀️. hence, what is it that you don't understand about WB's Paradox? that's because WB's Paradox pretty much points the finger at -EV being wrong, if -EV says what you are saying...

Quote: SOOPOO

What they can’t do is turn a -EV game into a positive EXPECTATION event. YOU CANT EXPECT TO MAKE MONEY AT NEGATIVE EXPECTATION GAMES without some ‘trick’…. Hole carding, card counting, edge sorting, dealer errors, casino promotion, etc….
link to original post

WB's Paradox puts a glaring q to you, me and everyone else. if -EV is how you see it, proven to show that the HE will overcome negative progression systems in the long run, not including AP, then why do negative progression systems come back into positive territory when gamblers (in theory. in theory means, forget table limits and gamblers bankroll limits. just follow the math first, then we can argue table limits and bankroll limits) follow through on the negative progression sequence????

Quote: unJon

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: unJon

I’m not trolling you back when I say I don’t see the paradox.

The probability of losing approaches zero.

most people, and i'm including you here UJ, are incredibly talented and knowledgeable. however, from my 57 years on this planet, i think most people are not very good at transferring their incredible knowledge and talents to others. You're gonna have to communicate in layman's terms and layman's thinking (and i don't mean a simpleton's way of thinking. i am quite capable of understanding advanced concepts). what i mean by that is that you seem to be using more advanced mathematical terms and concepts. i am not familiar with these. that does NOT mean i'm incapable of understanding it, IF you can communicate in a non-advanced mathematical way. therefore, if you want our dialogue to proceed at a faster pace, you're gonna have to proceed in layman's terms and thinking. E.g. you wrote: "the probability of losing approaches zero." to me, that just says that over time, using a negative progression strategy in a game, the player has less and less chance of losing! that would be contrary to what the math community think. so i obviously do not understand what you're trying to communicate.

Quote: unJon

And the loss if you lose approaches infinity.

????what???? get my drift?
link to original post

I’m just trying to layout what I understand to be the “Wellbush Paradox.” That a negative progressive system player with infinite bankroll playing a negative expectation game that has no maximum bets, will be a winner.

Since most math and brains don’t do well with infinity, I was thinking through the limits as things approach infinity to see what the math says.
link to original post

i'll get back to your last two posts when i get back to them. not right now UJ. cheers

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

I've explored the definition of work in 'Negative Progressions work' and I suggest that they work to make losing more fun, and they 'work' in shaping the distribution of winning and losing sessions.

? right. and they can make winning more fun! or, as usual, are you gonna just present the discussion the way you wish?
link to original post

Oh Absolutely they can make winning more fun. The progressive system generates the fun. Variance generates the profit or loss. House edge drags down the return,
I use marty for fun very often. It does nothing to the house edge, but if I want to drag my bankroll from 495 to 500, I'll happily marty. And it usually worked, until it didn't. Many times I've won the od fiver like that, and a few times I've lost the odd (near) 500.
Yup. It's fun.

Now. Since you are apparently thinking that I'm against Progressives, I'll say again. They neither overcome the house edge, nor make the house edge worse.

i'm happy to continue to discuss the underlying theory concerning WB's Paradox, however now MAY be a good time to simultaneously discuss why my paradox does NOT stop gamblers from losing using negative progression systems.

okay, so, if WB's Paradox IS indeed correct, that progression systems can work in theory, why don't gamblers win using negative progression systems????

i think i know why, but i'm happy to discuss the topic. my somewhat brief and somewhat thoughtful evaluation so far, is that gamblers losing using negative progression systems is NOT because the negative progression systems theory is incorrect. i believe it's because the known negative progression strategies that gamblers generally use, and that can be found on the web, are too risky, especially when casino table limits and everyday player bankrolls are taken into a/c.

that could be one of the main reasons why MDawg, and the Wiz has alluded to this, wins! MDawg has, relatively speaking, access to a substantial bankroll. MDawg does incorporate progressive systems in his play. granted, it's not the only thing about his play, but it could be one of the main reasons for his success. i'll explain why.

if mdawg starts his play using 'relatively' small bet sums, he may win, he may lose. ok. if he wins, he thanks everyone until he returns tomorrow. no problem. what if he starts to lose? okay, i assume, being the fiercely competitive chap he appears to be, he tries his well honed skills at recovering from a negative position. what he will also use, as part of this attempt at recovery, is an increase in bet sizing. if the average gambler were in MDawg's position, the average gambler may very well run out of bankroll to recover.

will MDawg run out of bankroll? of course, if he goes far enough on a losing cycle. but what if MDawg also understands HIS limits, and calls it quits when he's smart enough not to go the whole hog, into a massive losing payday?

yes, MDawg will also have losing days, but maybe those losing days are far less than the average gambler because:

1. he has a 'relatively' larger bankroll than other gamblers, and

2. he never runs out of money because he knows when to stop, and his business interests keep a constant stream of cash coming in, regardless.

i know, i know, you all have a gazillion objections. i'm happy to answer all of them. i cannot cover every angle on this topic, otherwise this post would end up being 200 pages long. so do not assume i have missed things. i probably haven't, it's just that i haven't covered your 'particular' view, in this post.

i haven't even covered other parts of the negative progression concept, that will show readers how, with the right method, it may be able to turn a profit. before anyone jumps the gun re that last sentence, let me say this. i am NOT going to sell anything, or suggest readers do something that they cannot do, to win at the casinos. i WILL discuss concepts and give examples, and show that, in theory, negative progression can work. but i WILL also warn readers why negative progression systems require the gambler to have skills in math and pattern recognition, and should NOT think they can win at the casino if they do not have sufficient skill in these areas, AND sufficient control over their impulse to bet. if the last two personal attributes are not present in the gambler, then those gamblers are playing with fire!

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

I've explored the definition of work in 'Negative Progressions work' and I suggest that they work to make losing more fun, and they 'work' in shaping the distribution of winning and losing sessions.

? right. and they can make winning more fun! or, as usual, are you gonna just present the discussion the way you wish?
link to original post

Oh Absolutely they can make winning more fun. The progressive system generates the fun. Variance generates the profit or loss. House edge drags down the return,
I use marty for fun very often. It does nothing to the house edge, but if I want to drag my bankroll from 495 to 500, I'll happily marty. And it usually worked, until it didn't. Many times I've won the od fiver like that, and a few times I've lost the odd (near) 500.
Yup. It's fun.

Now. Since you are apparently thinking that I'm against Progressives, I'll say again. They neither overcome the house edge, nor make the house edge worse.
link to original post

i'm happy for you to tell the whole world about your opinions about negative progression systems, even though you cannot debunk WB's Paradox!

Again, not having the ability to counter the clear, undeniable reality of the Paradox, and just saying "There's no Paradox," or "-EV," or "HE," without explaining in simple terms how those concepts clearly debunk the Paradox, is pretty lame in my book.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

well, you can say you 'technically' haven't discussed systems with me. But I've suggested negative progression systems could work, and you've derided me all over this site about that! Are you gonna backpedal your position on that?
link to original post

I've explored the definition of work in 'Negative Progressions work' and I suggest that they work to make losing more fun, and they 'work' in shaping the distribution of winning and losing sessions.

? right. and they can make winning more fun! or, as usual, are you gonna just present the discussion the way you wish?
link to original post

Finally a Wellbush post that can make sense! Excluding the AP community, most gamblers use some sort of betting system. Flat bet, press a unit after a win, Marty, negative progression, bet double after 3 bankers in a row, etc…. Having such systems CAN make winning more fun. And they CAN make winning more frequent, if we have a specific ‘session’. What they can’t do is turn a -EV game into a positive EXPECTATION event. YOU CANT EXPECT TO MAKE MONEY AT NEGATIVE EXPECTATION GAMES without some ‘trick’…. Hole carding, card counting, edge sorting, dealer errors, casino promotion, etc….
link to original post

SOOPOO, this kind of discussion has been had numerous times, by me at least. if you believe your view is correct, welcome to WOV. Do you think i'm going to argue this point with you and prevent myself from being suspended here? in other words, if you are going to argue this out with me on this site, you win. are you gonna win the 'intellectual' argument though, if we go to a non-partisan site?

if you take note of everything i've stated in this thread, i dare say your statements above have already been countered by me numerous times. WB's Paradox in itself, is inherently simple and counters your argument above. all i can say to you therefore is 🤷‍♀️. hence, what is it that you don't understand about WB's Paradox? that's because WB's Paradox pretty much points the finger at -EV being wrong, if -EV says what you are saying...

Quote: SOOPOO

What they can’t do is turn a -EV game into a positive EXPECTATION event. YOU CANT EXPECT TO MAKE MONEY AT NEGATIVE EXPECTATION GAMES without some ‘trick’…. Hole carding, card counting, edge sorting, dealer errors, casino promotion, etc….
link to original post

WB's Paradox puts a glaring q to you, me and everyone else. if -EV is how you see it, proven to show that the HE will overcome negative progression systems in the long run, not including AP, then why do negative progression systems come back into positive territory when gamblers (in theory. in theory means, forget table limits and gamblers bankroll limits. just follow the math first, then we can argue table limits and bankroll limits) follow through on the negative progression sequence????
link to original post

This has been explained to you multiple times. It’s not my fault you can’t understand the necessary concepts.

Yeah, right.

Quote: unJon

No. I’m postulating an approaching infinity number of gamblers with approaching infinity bankrolls playing a game with an approaching infinity max bet. And they are all Marty or Grand Marty players. And they have some win stop when they never play again.

And a number of them approaching 0% lose an amount approaching infinity. And all the rest (a number approaching 100%) are winners of the win stop amount.
link to original post

so, with the second paragraph here, are you saying that most gamblers (approaching 100%) in your sample/simulation, are winners?

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: unJon

No. I’m postulating an approaching infinity number of gamblers with approaching infinity bankrolls playing a game with an approaching infinity max bet. And they are all Marty or Grand Marty players. And they have some win stop when they never play again.

And a number of them approaching 0% lose an amount approaching infinity. And all the rest (a number approaching 100%) are winners of the win stop amount.
link to original post

so, with the second paragraph here, are you saying that most gamblers (approaching 100%) in your sample/simulation, are winners?
link to original post

Yes. That’s the thrust of the “paradox” right? Nearly all win a unit, or whatever the stopping condition is.

yes, correct. i'll just have a look now at the next paragraph in that post.

Quote: unJon

No. I’m postulating an approaching infinity number of gamblers with approaching infinity bankrolls playing a game with an approaching infinity max bet. And they are all Marty or Grand Marty players. And they have some win stop when they never play again.

And a number of them approaching 0% lose an amount approaching infinity. And all the rest (a number approaching 100%) are winners of the win stop amount.

And the casino has won a number approaching infinity times the number of losing players (approaching 0%) minus all the win stops times the number of players approaching 100%. Which will mathematically be the house edge times the average bet (in the limit approaching all those infinities and zeros).
link to original post

with this last paragraph UJ, i am not sure how you come to the conclusion in the second sentence. regardless, i'll say this:

my use of the martingale is an EXAMPLE of negative progression that should allow readers to understand the theory. it wouldn't take long for the theory of a martingale to not work at a casino, if the gambler were to use the martingale for any length of time. i'm sure you would agree.

however, that doesn't mean there are not alternative progression systems that MAY work. so, i can try and understand your second sentence in the last paragraph of your post, or, we can look at my hypothesis re alternative less risky progression sequences, or both.