Negative Progression

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

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.

It is insulting. You seem not to understand that taking insult is a matter of perception from the perspective of the insulted.

I'm sure that you feel insulted by some of my more derisive statements as relates your posts. You've used the word, "Derision," several times. It should come as no surprise to you that my derisive statements as relates your posts I did not find insulting at all.

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.

Wellbush,

I've seen you duplicate your wall of word soup a couple of times now.
DON'T do it again.
Also, when quoting, please use the quote feature.

Quote: Wellbush

Continuing to debunk 146...

Yet again, that's #6.

Quote: Wellbush

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's both #8 and #9

Quote: Wellbush

I think this post asks some serious questions about 146's paragraph 2, and many other naysayers on this site.

LOL

I have always hoped a friend or a girl friend would create an account here, and be talked out of their gambling ways by the membership, but I realize now this will never happen. I hear people talking the way they understand gambling, all these ignorant ideas, such as this bet is hitting today, or them talking about their mojo, or them thinking this machine is worth playing because a progressive is so high, hasn't been hit in months, or whatever the case is, but conversion to rarely or never straight gambling takes time for someone to grasp, let alone converting to advantage only. People spend too much time manufacturing an easy way to win against odds in their minds, because they don't know better, they need to win, might not have any other way to make what they think they need. In their minds, they think they have seen things, and even when they lose, they don't stop getting up when they are beat down. You could be the ghost of Christmas future and they probably still would not change and not believe you. After all, there is more discussion amongst gamblers than amongst APs. We don't want them to stop gambling, we only want the people we care about to stop forfeiting their money. How can we expect them to just not gamble, but dig ditches or wait on tables, or take care of patients? Sometimes the ones who can't really get it, I give bogus made up advice and they believe it.

Added:
Something I did learn today I hope I remember, do not try to tell someone what do or what to think, find a way to have them tell you what they should think or do, by guiding them to come up with their own ideas on themselves. Don't bring a horse to water to drink, plant ideas and let them walk to water themselves to drink.

Quote: Wellbush

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?

"Would"? Not necessarily.
"Could"? Yes.

Quote: Wellbush

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?

Not if "sufficient" is less than infinite - and even if you had an infinite bankroll, it would require infinite time as well, which does not exist, even if you take breaks.

You are also making a very large assumption - that every player will not stop playing until either there bankroll is exhausted or they are ahead. What about all of the times somebody stops playing while behind but with some of their bankroll remaining?

If I have an infinite bankroll and lose my first three bets, is my BR still infinite?

Quote: billryan

If I have an infinite bankroll and lose my first three bets, is my BR still infinite?

There’s always a vacancy at the Infinity Hotel.

Quote: OnceDear

Wellbush,

I've seen you duplicate your wall of word soup a couple of times now.
DON'T do it again.
Also, when quoting, please use the quote feature.

Thanks OD. I wasn't trying to fill up space, if that's your objection. I just thought both posts applied to the two different threads. Could you confirm this is against the rules? If so, I'll refrain.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

"Would"? Not necessarily.
"Could"? Yes.

Not if "sufficient" is less than infinite - and even if you had an infinite bankroll, it would require infinite time as well, which does not exist, even if you take breaks.

You are also making a very large assumption - that every player will not stop playing until either there bankroll is exhausted or they are ahead. What about all of the times somebody stops playing while behind but with some of their bankroll remaining?

And maybe your assumption is that the player will experience the kind of catastrophic losing streak that exceeds the normal win/loss variation?

Is it not true that the game of BJ at casinos use shuffled decks? Is it also not true that the house edge is approx. 8% (excluding ties)?

In that case, are you suggesting that a good BJ player will start to experience a losing streak beyond the bounds of normal variation? Is this what you base your assumption on?

8%????????????

That tells you all you need to know about the guy.

Quote: billryan

8%????????????

It's far less wrong than most of what he posts.

Quote: sabre

It's far less wrong than most of what he posts.

True.

Quote: sabre

It's far less wrong than most of what he posts.

Trying to ascertain which is more egregious.

Thinking Blackjack has an 8% edge or that an 8% edge is easily beatable

Quote: Mission146

It is insulting. You seem not to understand that taking insult is a matter of perception from the perspective of the insulted.

I'm sure that you feel insulted by some of my more derisive statements as relates your posts. You've used the word, "Derision," several times. It should come as no surprise to you that my derisive statements as relates your posts I did not find insulting at all.

Yeh, we could all be insulting and insulted! Who's right? You?

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?

It's ok, OD, relax. I won't bother you with questions. My questions seem to fire you up big time 😆. I mean, seriously, do you think I intend to upset you?

Quote: billryan

8%????????????

okay, br, what do you think I've done wrong here?

Quote: Wellbush

okay, br, what do you think I've done wrong here?

When you bet $10 on one hand of BJ, how much do you expect you’ll have after the hand?

Spoiler alert: Don’t exclude ties.

Quote: Wellbush

okay, br, what do you think I've done wrong here?

To be honest ... everything

Quote: Wellbush

okay, br, what do you think I've done wrong here?

. I have more free time this morning as golf isn’t until after 10am. So here goes..... Your ‘house edge of 8%’ comment exposed your TOTAL lack of understanding of ANY important gambling concept. It shoes clearly that you have NOTHING of value to offer here. Your previous couple hundred posts have made that clear before that post.

In case a real gambler or potential gambler reads this (that IS the actual purpose of this forum) in blackjack you may only win 42% of the time, but since you have certain times when you win more than even money (blackjack, splits, double down) the house edge hovers around 1% depending on exact rules.

Quote: SOOPOO

. I have more free time this morning as golf isn’t until after 10am. So here goes..... Your ‘house edge of 8%’ comment exposed your TOTAL lack of understanding of ANY important gambling concept.

Did he really say that? I don't actually read his a long-winded posts, they all sound the same. He's even worse than me he has zero credibility now. But it matters to him, and I couldn't care less when it comes to me.

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.

Does anyone know if there are players playing legitimately (no cheating), who don't use card counting, that win over the LONG term? (genuine q, don't mean to insult anyone).

Quote: Wellbush

that win over the LONG term?

It does not matter where you as a player are in terms of how long you've been playing. What matters is you're playing a long-term game. Look at roulette for example. Somewhere in the world a roulette wheel has been spinning continuously for over 300 years, So you jump in and out once in awhile and play in a long-term game. All your play is always short term no matter how long you've been playing. You won't live long enough to ever play long-term.

Quote: EvenBob

It does not matter where you as a player are in terms of how long you've been playing. What matters is you're playing a long-term game. Look at roulette for example. Somewhere in the world a roulette wheel has been spinning continuously for over 300 years, So you jump in and out once in awhile and play in a long-term game. All your play is always short term no matter how long you've been playing. You won't live long enough to ever play long-term.

Yes, from that perspective, Bob.

But in that context, my question relates to someone playing in short term bursts, say a few hours/day for at least 3 months?

Quote: Wellbush

Does anyone know if there are players playing legitimately (no cheating), who don't use card counting, that win over the LONG term? (genuine q, don't mean to insult anyone).

There are people using even more powerful advantages than card counting like hole carding, ace tracking, shuffle tracking none of which are illegal or cheating.

Are you asking if anyone makes a living off blackjack with nothing but basic strategy?

You know as many people in existence as I do. In other words, nope!

Quote: Wellbush

Does anyone know if there are players playing legitimately (no cheating), who don't use card counting, that win over the LONG term? (genuine q, don't mean to insult anyone).

Since you ask so nicely.... I won my first session of BJ in Jan2014. turned £100 into £6000. Playing legitimately I took that over many months to £18K, via £1.2K
I still have much > £100. $:o)
No cheating and not using card counting..... Just luck.

https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/8/#post1281

Some recently also won and lost on slots, but this was mostly BJ

Also, in my online account, playing pretty much only RNG Atlantic Blackjack, I have over the last 3 months,
deposited a total of £15253 and withdrawn £16804 for a net profit of > £1.5k
or to look at the last one month...
deposited a total of £6228 and withdrawn £6677 for a net profit of > £449

Trivial, but there it is.

Quote: OnceDear

Since you ask so nicely.... I won my first session of BJ in Jan2014. turned £100 into £6000. Playing legitimately I took that over many months to £18K, via £1.2K
I still have much > £100. $:o)
No cheating and not using card counting..... Just luck.

https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/8/#post1281

Some recently also won and lost on slots, but this was mostly BJ

Also, in my online account, playing pretty much only RNG Atlantic Blackjack, I have over the last 3 months,
deposited a total of £15253 and withdrawn £16804 for a net profit of > £1.5k
or to look at the last one month...
deposited a total of £6228 and withdrawn £6677 for a net profit of > £449

Trivial, but there it is.

Thanks OD.

BTW. Some here may q me over some of my idiotic replies. They were in deliberate retaliation to some posters wanting to shove their naysayer views down my throat, by saturating my threads with their views, many of them derisive. I reserve the right to be just as idiotic to them in the future.

I don't think I have statistical knowledge sown up, that doesn't mean I can't inquire and challenge some views, however much it irks.

Anyway, I do respect naysayer views, too, coz I want to learn.

This message is just in case some may q my integrity.

What happened with your online BJ play in the end, OD?

Quote: Wellbush

What happened with your online BJ play in the end, OD?

Nothing. I continue to do it for fun. It's so close to a break even game that I just watch my balance ebb and flow as I play a small session most days. I often post about it in my blog.
It's something to keep me amused while taking 'advantage' of other casinos' careless marketing departments.

Quote: Wellbush

BTW. Some here may q me over some of my idiotic replies. They were in deliberate retaliation

HAHA! That's what people who make those kind of replies always say, that they were deliberate. We all know what they were, and no way of you trying to squirm your way out of it will change our minds.

Quote: Wellbush

But in that context, my question relates to someone playing in short term bursts, say a few hours/day for at least 3 months?

You really do not get it. Play in short-term bursts, play 24/7, play standing on your head. None of it makes any difference in a long-term game. What you are trying to do is trick the math, sneak in the back door and sneak out again. There is no back door, there are no tricks, if you do not know in advance what the next outcome is you're at the mercy of the long-term game. Look at card counting. The only reason you can win at that is because sometimes you know what the next outcome will be. At that point all the rules of probability go out the window, at that point you own the game.

Quote: Wellbush

Some here may q me over some of my idiotic replies. They were in deliberate retaliation to some posters wanting to shove their naysayer views down my throat, by saturating my threads with their views, many of them derisive. I reserve the right to be just as idiotic to them in the future.

It's been posited here that Wellbush must either be an idiot or that he's intentionally trolling. Here he admits to intentionally trolling (i.e., saying something he doesn't really believe, with the intention to provoke). Some might question whether he was actually trolling, or is just *claiming* to have been trolling in order to not appear to be an idiot. There is no forum rule against being an idiot, but there's certainly a forum rule against trolling, something that Wellbush just openly claimed to have done. (There's also a forum rule against bullying, which Wellbush has broken repeatedly and in earnest.)

Give him the axe, the axe, the axe ...

Quote: MichaelBluejay

It's been posited here that Wellbush must either be an idiot or that he's intentionally trolling. Here he admits to intentionally trolling (i.e., saying something he doesn't really believe, with the intention to provoke). Some might question whether he was actually trolling, or is just *claiming* to have been trolling in order to not appear to be an idiot. There is no forum rule against being an idiot, but there's certainly a forum rule against trolling, something that Wellbush just openly claimed to have done. (There's also a forum rule against bullying, which Wellbush has broken repeatedly and in earnest.)

I block people who I think are trolling me. You’re now blocked

Quote: EvenBob

You really do not get it. Play in short-term bursts, play 24/7, play standing on your head. None of it makes any difference in a long-term game. What you are trying to do is trick the math, sneak in the back door and sneak out again. There is no back door, there are no tricks, if you do not know in advance what the next outcome is you're at the mercy of the long-term game. Look at card counting. The only reason you can win at that is because sometimes you know what the next outcome will be. At that point all the rules of probability go out the window, at that point you own the game.

I get it EvenBob. I don’t think you get me. Good luck, plus you’re now blocked for what I see is your biased views about me, and it’s not because I am unwilling to see your views, or any other views you think I don’t get

Quote: Wellbush

I get it EvenBob. I don’t think you get me. Good luck, plus you’re now blocked for what I see is your biased views about me, and it’s not because I am unwilling to see your views, or any other views you think I don’t get

I don't have biased views against you, I think you're a newbie pretending to be somebody who's experienced. It's not working.

Wellbush is in red again, what did you do this time.

Quote: EvenBob

Wellbush is in red again, what did you do this time.

Has Wellbush been nuked? Wouldn't that be a shame.

Quote: EvenBob

Has Wellbush been nuked? Wouldn't that be a shame.

To be decided. It wasn't by me, by the way.
The rate he was blocking people, we were on course for a two man forum. I nearly wrote two star forum for some reason.

$:o)

Saturating my thread with naysayer posts proves you’ve saturated my thread with naysayer posts. Nothing more. I could debunk numerous proposals but I don’t care to because many cannot seem to cope with ideas outside of their own line of thinking. There’s not much point preaching to people who are determined not to listen.

Quote: Wellbush

Saturating my thread with naysayer posts proves you’ve saturated my thread with naysayer posts. Nothing more. I could debunk numerous proposals but I don’t care to because many cannot seem to cope with ideas outside of their own line of thinking. There’s not much point preaching to people who are determined not to listen.

Time flies!

A month already?

Quote: Wellbush

SI could debunk numerous proposals...

Actually, you couldn't. Based on your effort so far, you couldn't debunk your way out of a wet paper bag.

Quote: Wellbush

Saturating my thread with naysayer posts proves you’ve saturated my thread with naysayer posts. Nothing more. I could debunk numerous proposals but I don’t care to because many cannot seem to cope with ideas outside of their own line of thinking. There’s not much point preaching to people who are determined not to listen.

Quote: Wellbush

I could debunk numerous proposals but I don’t care to.

This is like when you said when you make giant mistakes in your posts they were deliberate. No they weren't. What you're doing is searching for something by acting like you know all the answers already. This doesn't work, as you probably noticed.

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.

Thanks for your input. The D'Alembert system relies on a 50/50 win/loss ratio. It would not be suitable to use this system on the game of BJ at a casino. That's because, excluding ties, BJ has a 46/54 win/loss ratio.

It would be suitable to use a Fibonacci sequence, which only requires a 40/60 win/loss ratio, to succeed.

Quote: OnceDear

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

I really don't think you're following the logic I've annunciated OD! I agree that the house edge doesn't change. That has got zilch to do with my proposition.

Okay, let me make this simpler. A high-roller goes into a casino. He has a gynormous credit line at this casino. He starts playing BJ. He uses a Martingale. He plays and comes out a winner from the casino because the Martingale allows him to do so.

In fact, every time he goes to the casino, he comes out a winner, for the same reason. The Martingale system allows him to win every time.

That's what my original question was, at the start of this thread. As long as someone has a sufficient bankroll for any given number of losses, they will come out a winner using a Martingale or Fibonacci betting system.

The only reason that the above would not be true, is if the player ran out of money during a catastrophic losing sequence.

Quote: Mission146

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

When we get into metaphysics, I still win.

What has this got to do with the above post?

Quote: Wellbush

In fact, every time he goes to the casino, he comes out a winner, for the same reason. The Martingale system allows him to win every time.

Only in a Fantasy Casino that does not exist. Every casino has betting limits just for this reason. At the MGM Grand I believe it's $10,000. Using a Marty you can get the $10,000 pretty quick. You can get a casino to raise the betting limit but if you think they're going to sit there and let you use a Martingale for very long you're dreaming.

Quote: EvenBob

Only in a Fantasy Casino that does not exist. Every casino has betting limits just for this reason. At the MGM Grand I believe it's $10,000. Using a Marty you can get the $10,000 pretty quick. You can get a casino to raise the betting limit but if you think they're going to sit there and let you use a Martingale for very long you're dreaming.

Thanks EB. I am not proposing that the Marty be used in real life. I am proposing the concept, from which another potential negative progression system may have merit.

If the Marty can work, in theory, then so can the Fibonacci. The one and only problem with both, is the catastrophic losing streak. If a player uses a slower Fibonacci, one where more numbers are injected into the sequence, then the possibility for a real life betting sequence becomes more likely.

E.g. normal Fibonacci sequence: 3, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34. Adjusted Fibonacci: 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 21, 27, 34.