Negative Progression
Quote: WellbushThanks 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.
But it doesn't have merit. It's not even a system. It's just having a bottomless pit of money and spending it until you win. I'm not trying to make you angry, but you're really new at this aren't you. The stuff you're talking about is what new gamblers go through, it's 101. There is an old story that goes a couple times an hour a couple of new gamblers in the world discover the Martingale and think they've got it made.
Quote: EvenBobBut it doesn't have merit. It's not even a system. It's just having a bottomless pit of money and spending it until you win. I'm not trying to make you angry, but you're really new at this aren't you. The stuff you're talking about is what new gamblers go through, it's 101. There is an old story that goes a couple times an hour a couple of new gamblers in the world discover the Martingale and think they've got it made.
You’re entitled to an opinion.
I wouldn’t be so presumptuous to disqualify something I don’t know about. If I knew what I was doing, any newbie coming along would have their system checked through by me, easily. But here, people just debunk based on what they think the end result will be. They don’t have any idea what’s being proposed. And actually, when I get into the crux of a system, the more people here seem not to understand how the maths works. E.g. you saying that “my system being an endless pit of money until I win,” shows you have a very simplistic understanding of what my system is. I’m not trying to insult. It’s just my impression from what you’ve written here and elsewhere.
But if you already have the answers like everyone else here, then I’m not going to stop you from going on your merry way, Bob
Quote: EvenBobBut it doesn't have merit. It's not even a system. It's just having a bottomless pit of money and spending it until you win. I'm not trying to make you angry, but you're really new at this aren't you. The stuff you're talking about is what new gamblers go through, it's 101. There is an old story that goes a couple times an hour a couple of new gamblers in the world discover the Martingale and think they've got it made.
EvenBob you sure have a lot of patience!
Quote: BoSoxEvenBob you sure have a lot of patience!
And you’re good at derision without even an inch of understanding.
Quote: BoSoxEvenBob you sure have a lot of patience!
I think it's running out, it's a hopeless case. I'm breaking my own rule about wising people up and it always ends the same way. Let him keep going, he'll stumble on the truth eventually.
Quote: WellbushOkay, 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.
That doesn't mean much at all. Even using a martingale system, there was a chance he could have lost. If he made bets without using a martingale system, there was a chance he could have won, and even won more than he would have using a martingale betting system.
Quote: WellbushIn 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.
The martingale system does not allow someone to win every time. Saying that it does is just another one of your attempts to troll the forum.
Quote: WellbushThat'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.
Even with a starting bet of 1-cent and a max bet of $1 million, there is a non-zero chance of losing everything with a martingale or Fibonacci system. Perhaps the chance is so low that it would never happen in any of our lifetimes. But at the same time, using $1 million to earn $0.01 has a very high opportunity cost. And in this example, the millionaire still lost value by not doing something else better with their money.
Quote: WellbushThe only reason that the above would not be true, is if the player ran out of money during a catastrophic losing sequence.
Given enough opportunities, any imaginable sequence will happen, including catastrophic losses.
Oh please. That's all you've done since you got here!Quote: WellbushI wouldn’t be so presumptuous to disqualify something I don’t know about.
And let's not forgot this gem:
Quote: WellbushMathematicians have been saying that it's theoretically impossible to beat the dealer using such a strategy [Fibonacci series combined with taking breaks]. Don't be fooled by their ignorance. I will tear their theories apart and shove them in the bin, where they belong.
Quote: TomGThat doesn't mean much at all. Even using a martingale system, there was a chance he could have lost. If he made bets without using a martingale system, there was a chance he could have won, and even won more than he would have using a martingale betting system.
How could he have lost using a Marty, Tom? Yes to the rest, and? You trying to inform? 🤔
The martingale system does not allow someone to win every time. Saying that it does is just another one of your attempts to troll the forum. Oh yeh. You got me totally worked out, Tom! Clever! If you actually read all the posts, I explained that this was a highroller with an insane credit line. Further, I was using the Marty concept, not necessarily the real deal. It was a fantasy scenario, if you like. I think you need to start from scratch????
Even with a starting bet of 1-cent and a max bet of $1 million, there is a non-zero chance of losing everything with a martingale or Fibonacci system. Sorry Tom. This sentence doesn't make a whole lot sense!
Perhaps the chance is so low that it would never happen in any of our lifetimes. But at the same time, using $1 million to earn $0.01 has a very high opportunity cost. And in this example, the millionaire still lost value by not doing something else better with their money. Not something I don't already know. I wasn't suggesting using a Marty or Fibo to make $1! I was imparting the concept!
Given enough opportunities, any imaginable sequence will happen, including catastrophic losses. Depends how you define catastrophic loss! E.g. Are you suggesting every hand dealt for 3 decks will favour the dealer? Highly unlikely, even if it's some highly abnormal turn of events.
Quote: WellbushHow could he have lost using a Marty, Tom? Yes to the rest, and? You trying to inform? 🤔
By losing several consecutive bets, that either puts him over the table limits, or completely wipes out all his money.
Quote: WellbushI explained that this was a highroller with an insane credit line. Further, I was using the Marty concept, not necessarily the real deal. It was a fantasy scenario, if you like. I think you need to start from scratch????
And in that fantasy concept, there is still negative expected value, and changing bet sized based on previous results is not profitable in the long run for the bettor. Saying that it is, is trolling the forum.
Also, it is not possible for me to start from scratch until you provide the starting point, which is something you will not do.
Quote: WellbushNot something I don't already know. I wasn't suggesting using a Marty or Fibo to make $1! I was imparting the concept!
Then go ahead and tell us how much they will make. Tell us what the lowest and highest bets are. Tell us what triggers changes in bet sizes. Tell us the game, or the odds of the game. And how many total bets they make. Once you do that, lots of people here can show you the math (and "math theory"), including overall chances of winning or losing, and overall expected profits. Your continued refusal to provide any of these details throughout your word salad posts is another example of trolling.
For another example of trolling: you only talk about concepts, then seem to want other people to speak of concrete details that you refuse to provide.
Quote: WellbushDepends how you define catastrophic loss! E.g. Are you suggesting every hand dealt for 3 decks will favour the dealer? Highly unlikely, even if it's some highly abnormal turn of events.
Given enough opportunities, virtually any sequence of results that could be defined as a catastrophic loss will occur, including the one you described. Given only few opportunities, then it starts to depend on other things, such as bet size. For example, someone who bets all the money they have on every hand until they lose, will likely lose everything within a few hands. Someone who bets extremely small, they will only lose a small amount, even if they lose 28 hands in a row. If someone varies their bet sizes from small to large, the results will likely fall in between losing only a small amount and losing everything they have.
As I said, he's a highroller with insane amounts. All his money was never lost. I was describing the concept of the Marty. After each win, it brings the player back to break-even, at least. I think we agree on the concept, now for the rest...
And in that fantasy concept, there is still negative expected value, and changing bet sized based on previous results is not profitable in the long run for the bettor. Saying that it is, is trolling the forum. As I understand it, trolling is done to someone, not a forum. If the definition includes groups, then sorry, I think your idea of trolling is completely different to mine. I don't agree that negative progression systems can't turn a profit for the player. I've proven it over and over on free software. If it happens a few times on software, one can not necessarily be certain. But over and over, there's not much doubt.
Also, it is not possible for me to start from scratch until you provide the starting point, which is something you will not do.
Again. Not so. Don't believe everything you read from other posters. I have previously had CharliePatrick run some simulations for me. If you peruse the bottom of page 10 of this thread (only 1 or 2 pages back from here) you will see this:
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.
Why don't we use the adjusted Fibonacci I've put together here, as our starting point? So, the player starts betting with $3. A zero can be added if it's too unrealistic. Every time the player loses, he goes up the sequence...3, 3, 4, 5, 6,....You will note I have placed an integer half-way between each ordinary Fibonacci integer. Between 3 and 5, is 4. Between 5 and 8 is 6. Between 8 and 13 is 10.
If we are to use this as our example, an integer will need to be placed half-way between each number on the Fib sequence.
Each time the player wins he moves down the sequence, but misses every third number. E.g. if the player loses every bet from 3 till 13, then wins 4 hands, he will win his hands on 17, 13, 8 and 6. Notice he misses 10. This is to ensure he uses less bets to recoup his loses, than that used to create the loses. This will result in a profit for the player when bonuses from BJ's, splits and doubles is factored in.
Then go ahead and tell us how much they will make. What do you mean? How much profit? Not sure, but profit they will. Tell us what the lowest and highest bets are. Lowest: $3 or $30. Highest: $100,000. Tell us what triggers changes in bet sizes. Already mentioned Tell us the game, or the odds of the game. BJ And how many total bets they make. 300. Once you do that, lots of people here can show you the math (and "math theory"), including overall chances of winning or losing, and overall expected profits. Your continued refusal to provide any of these details throughout your word salad posts is another example of trolling. I've already debunked this sentence
For another example of trolling: you only talk about concepts, then seem to want other people to speak of concrete details that you refuse to provide. Ditto to what I just wrote
Depends how you define catastrophic loss! E.g. Are you suggesting every hand dealt for 3 decks will favour the dealer? Highly unlikely, even if it's some highly abnormal turn of events.
Given enough opportunities, virtually any sequence of results that could be defined as a catastrophic loss will occur, including the one you described. I don't think so. There are limits. If people want to concoct fanciful extreme results to protect a statistical theory, then yes these fanciful extreme results are sure to occur, in people's minds. There are limits to how long streaks will go on for. Maybe 20 hands, but up around 30...hm 🤔
If you make a series of negative expectation bets the total result will have a negative expectation. Reference one single positive expectation bet from your hundreds of posts. Just one.
Quote: sabreYour repeated refusal to use the forum's quote feature is impressive, if not intentional.
If you make a series of negative expectation bets the total result will have a negative expectation. Reference one single positive expectation bet from your hundreds of posts. Just one.
If you're so full of it Sabre, empty it far away. You're gonna need a lot of space 😁
Quote: WellbushIf you're so full of it Sabre, empty it far away. You're gonna need a lot of space 😁
Name one positive expectation bet you've described in any of your posts. Just one. Use the quote feature.
If you lose a single bet, your bankroll is no longer infinite, and no matter how much you win, your bankroll would still be infinite.
Quote: billryanIt must suck to have an infinite bankroll. What is your upside?
If you lose a single bet, your bankroll is no longer infinite, and no matter how much you win, your bankroll would still be infinite.
That’s not how infinity works.
Quote: WellbushYou want me to look at your post, Sabre? 😃 Go back to where you belong! I know what your posts are made of. You must sit there all day, waiting for someone to attack, like a dog in a pack. Are you proud of yourself?
Name one positive expectation bet you've described in any of your posts. Just one. Use the quote feature.
Quote: unJonThat’s not how infinity works.
Perhaps not in your world.
Quote: billryanIt must suck to have an infinite bankroll. What is your upside?
If you lose a single bet, your bankroll is no longer infinite, and no matter how much you win, your bankroll would still be infinite.
Agreed! The answers to your questions are, well..infinite!
Quote: billryanPerhaps not in your world.
In mathematics either.
If you lose a bet, your bankroll is still infinite.
Quote: unJonIn mathematics either.
If you lose a bet, your bankroll is still infinite.
What if you lose infinite bets?
Quote: sabreWhat if you lose infinite bets?
That can’t happen. Anyone with an infinite bankroll knows enough to take a break after five losses in a row.
Quote: WellbushThanks for your input. The D'Alembert system relies on a 50/50 win/loss ratio.
Not necessarily. Suppose you lose your first six bets; you are behind 21, and the next bet is 7.
If you win your next four bets, you win 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 = 22, so you are ahead 1, even though you have won only 40% of the time.
Quote: ThatDonGuyNot necessarily. Suppose you lose your first six bets; you are behind 21, and the next bet is 7.
If you win your next four bets, you win 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 = 22, so you are ahead 1, even though you have won only 40% of the time.
Yeh, and when bonuses (BJs, doubles and splits) are factored in, it's probably a system worth its weight. Of course, one can always make adjustments to the system too, to increase profitability, and/or decrease risk. 👍
Quote: WellbushYeh, and when bonuses (BJs, doubles and splits) are factored in, it's probably a system worth its weight. Of course, one can always make adjustments to the system too, to increase profitability. 👍
If you lose five in a row, is the sixth loss more likely? Is that why you take a break? I would be fearful I am taking a break just as the deck was going to pivot to a winning streak, which I would miss. Then I might come back after my break right into a losing streak.
We did and we are doing it.Quote: Wellbushhi uJ. I see you sitting there on the sidelines with Sabre, in blocked land. I feel sorry for yas. I tell you what, why don't you two join hands and think of something to play? You'll feel much better 😊
I still don’t understand my questions. But I guess they are not worthy of you attention.
Quote: Wellbushhi uJ. I see you sitting there on the sidelines with Sabre, in blocked land. I feel sorry for yas. I tell you what, why don't you two join hands and think of something to play? You'll feel much better 😊
Name one positive expectation bet you've described in any of your posts.
Quote: WellbushE.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.
I like this. We're now getting somewhere to being able to use math to show why this is not profitable for the player.
Quote: WellbushEach time the player wins he moves down the sequence, but misses every third number. E.g. if the player loses every bet from 3 till 13, then wins 4 hands, he will win his hands on 17, 13, 8 and 6. Notice he misses 10.
The sequence of eight losses, followed by four wins shows a loss of $8.
Quote: WellbushThis will result in a profit for the player when bonuses from BJ's, splits and doubles is factored in.
But then factor in additional losses that also happen from splits and doubles and it goes right back to showing a loss.
-----
So here is the "system" as far as I can tell.
-It follows what I would call a ladder, with the first 30 numbers being 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 21, 27, 34, 44, 55, 72, 89, 116, 144, 188, 233, 305, 377, 493, 610, 987, 798, 1597, 2090, 2584, 3382.
-After each loss, the bet size moves higher along that list; after each win the bet size moves lower along the list. The one exception is that for winning streaks of three or more, it moves two steps down after every third win.
-All betting stops after 300 resolved bets.
-Am I wrong in any way?
-To get a really good estimate of results, a computer simulation might work best. Not something I do, but there are plenty of people here who do. Anyone want to tackle it?
Quote: billryanIt must suck to have an infinite bankroll. What is your upside?
If you lose a single bet, your bankroll is no longer infinite, and no matter how much you win, your bankroll would still be infinite.
If I have an infinite bankroll and lose a $5 bet, what is my new bankroll, if not still infinite?
Quote: TomGIf I have an infinite bankroll and lose a $5 bet, what is my new bankroll, if not still infinite?
So your BR is infinite, win or lose. Why play at all?
Quote: billryanSo your BR is infinite, win or lose. Why play at all?
Because the player enjoys it.
It’s an extreme version of why Bill Gates was known to play 3-6 limit Hold ‘em.
Quote: unJonBecause the player enjoys it.
It’s an extreme version of why Bill Gates was known to play 3-6 limit Hold ‘em.
He will probably have to go down to $1-$2 Hold'em now that he is getting divorced.
Quote: TomGQuote: WellbushE.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.
I like this. We're now getting somewhere to being able to use math to show why this is not profitable for the player.Quote: WellbushEach time the player wins he moves down the sequence, but misses every third number. E.g. if the player loses every bet from 3 till 13, then wins 4 hands, he will win his hands on 17, 13, 8 and 6. Notice he misses 10.
The sequence of eight losses, followed by four wins shows a loss of $8.
2 steps down after every 2nd win, not 3rd win. CheersQuote: WellbushThis will result in a profit for the player when bonuses from BJ's, splits and doubles is factored in.
But then factor in additional losses that also happen from splits and doubles and it goes right back to showing a loss.
-----
So here is the "system" as far as I can tell.
-It follows what I would call a ladder, with the first 30 numbers being 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 17, 21, 27, 34, 44, 55, 72, 89, 116, 144, 188, 233, 305, 377, 493, 610, 987, 798, 1597, 2090, 2584, 3382.
-After each loss, the bet size moves higher along that list; after each win the bet size moves lower along the list. The one exception is that for winning streaks of two or more, it moves two steps down after every second win.
-All betting stops after 300 resolved bets.
-Am I wrong in any way? Not now. I adjusted the exception. All good 👍.
-To get a really good estimate of results, a computer simulation might work best. Not something I do, but there are plenty of people here who do. Anyone want to tackle it?
Quote: EvenBobThe funniest thing about this is, Wellbush doesn't see what the people here are doing to him. This is newbie abuse and should be punishable. He can't see all the snickering going on behind the keyboards. In the past we would just ignore somebody like this.
Yeh, you’re funny Bob. Hilarious 😆 I can’t stop! Try comedy for a living
he's not the first to say that somehow what the math indicates is different from the real world
that is false
math perfectly describes the real world
that's why engineers were able to use math to get a rocket within 5,000 miles of Pluto which is more than 3 billion miles from earth
gamblers see all kinds of unusual things happen in casinos and they think the math can't explain it
they're failing to see that they're looking at a small number of trials
nothing, I repeat nothing, happens in a casino that cannot be explained and understood using math
*
Quote: WellbushAnd 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?
"Will"? Not necessarily.
"Can"? Yes - and what is probably the largest fallacy in any system is that something "won't" happen.
Are you implying that "a losing streak veyond the bounds of normal variation" is impossible? For that matter, how are you defining "the bounds of normal variation"? Is it a particular number of standard deviations above/below the expected probability?
You remind me of my Guaranteed Surefire Foolproof Cannot Miss System:
1. Determine the smallest number N for which "Black cannot come up N times in a row" is true.
2. Wait until black comes up N-1 times in a row, then bet heavily on red (and something on green as well, to cover that possibility).
3. Profit!
4. Oh, did black win again? Don't look at me; you're the one that claimed that black cannot come up N times in a row.
Every system runs up against the same problem: no matter what the probability of eventual success is, if the expected value of each bet is negative, then the probability of eventual success multiplied by the amount of profit is less than the probability of eventual failure multiplied by the amount of loss.
You also might want to look up something called the Gambler's Ruin problem - especially the version with a stop condition after a certain amount of profit (i.e. you start with bankroll B and stop either when your bankroll is 0 or reaches some value B + P, where P is the desired profit). Almost needless to say, the larger the ratio of B to P is, the more likely you will win in the end - but again, the ratio of wins to losses will be less than P/B.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
Every system runs up against the same problem: no matter what the probability of eventual success is, if the expected value of each bet is negative,
If the majority of the time you know what the next outcome will be, that means the expected value of every bet is positive. There is nothing in the math that says you cannot find a way to figure out what the next outcome will probably be. Once you figure that out the math goes out the window and flies away. You are now playing a positive expectation game and no longer gambling.
Quote: EvenBob. Once you figure that out the math goes out the window and flies away. You are now playing a positive expectation game and no longer gambling.
another false statement from you
math didn't fly out the window because you have a positive expectation
math will determine what your long run expectation is based on your edge
and what your variance will be
and your Risk of Ruin - if undercapitalized you are more likely to get wiped out from a bad run which happens even with + EV
those kinds of calculations are what an effective pro blackjack player (AP - advantage player) relies on
*
Quote: EvenBobIf the majority of the time you know what the next outcome will be, that means the expected value of every bet is positive. There is nothing in the math that says you cannot find a way to figure out what the next outcome will probably be. Once you figure that out the math goes out the window and flies away. You are now playing a positive expectation game and no longer gambling.
You are contradicting yourself. If you can figure out what the next outcome will probably be, the math fits perfectly. If you cannot do that, then your statement about "playing a positive expectation game" is false.
Quote: lilredrooster.....................
he's not the first to say that somehow what the math indicates is different from the real world
that is false
math perfectly describes the real world
that's why engineers were able to use math to get a rocket within 5,000 miles of Pluto which is more than 3 billion miles from earth
gamblers see all kinds of unusual things happen in casinos and they think the math can't explain it
they're failing to see that they're looking at a small number of trials
nothing, I repeat nothing, happens in a casino that cannot be explained and understood using math
*
If the math were right about gambling, yes. It's not math, it's how math is applied to gambling. Have you heard about MDawg and Don Johnson, to name but two? Go figure! 🤷♂️
Have you not read I don't dispute math one bit? Another one without the faintest clue!
Yes, there you go again with #9.Quote: WellbushIf the math were right about gambling, yes. It's not math, it's how math is applied to gambling.
Yeah, except for this gem:Quote: WellbushHave you not read I don't dispute math one bit?
"Mathematicians have been saying that it's theoretically impossible to beat the dealer using such a strategy. Don't be fooled by their ignorance. I will tear their theories apart and shove them in the bin, where they belong." —Wellbush
Ditto to what I just wrote.Quote: ThatDonGuy"Will"? Not necessarily.
"Can"? Yes - and what is probably the largest fallacy in any system is that something "won't" happen.
Are you implying that "a losing streak veyond the bounds of normal variation" is impossible? I am NOT implying that the normal variation in the game of BJ exceeds that variation allowable in the course of a 46%/54% win/loss variation. Are you? If so, your variation exceeds that applied to the game. That is the variation limit I say must exist. Otherwise you are in a land of mathematical make-believe, no matter how well you may try and word it. For that matter, how are you defining "the bounds of normal variation"? Is it a particular number of standard deviations above/below the expected probability? Ditto to above.
You remind me of my Guaranteed Surefire Foolproof Cannot Miss System:
1. Determine the smallest number N for which "Black cannot come up N times in a row" is true.
2. Wait until black comes up N-1 times in a row, then bet heavily on red (and something on green as well, to cover that possibility).
3. Profit!
4. Oh, did black win again? Don't look at me; you're the one that claimed that black cannot come up N times in a row.
I also answer this comedic scenario, above. It's true that freakish streaks can happen. It's also true that gamblers can, and do, take breaks away from the table. Are you implying they can't? How can you tie gamblers down in a real world scenario, because you want them to fit mathematical lotto-like theory, that doesn't necessarily apply exactly lotto-like?
It might, but I have my doubts.
Every system runs up against the same problem: no matter what the probability of eventual success is, if the expected value of each bet is negative, then the probability of eventual success multiplied by the amount of profit is less than the probability of eventual failure multiplied by the amount of loss. I don't know all the ins and outs of higher level math, here. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong about what I've written above. Again, I question the math, AS APPLIED, to real-world gambling play. At least you seem to have some knowledge, rather than many here who just produce angry derisive discourse and nothing more, all hidden behind mathematical one-liners that they more than likely know nothing about.
I may come up to speed with the math your enunciating here. It'll take time, though. And again, I'm not conceding at this point in time.
You also might want to look up something called the Gambler's Ruin problem - especially the version with a stop condition after a certain amount of profit (i.e. you start with bankroll B and stop either when your bankroll is 0 or reaches some value B + P, where P is the desired profit). Almost needless to say, the larger the ratio of B to P is, the more likely you will win in the end - but again, the ratio of wins to losses will be less than P/B.
I will also say that this kind of argument impresses me much more than the Michael Bluejays, and others. They think they're on the right side of the argument, when really they've just got a lot of others here on their SIDE of the argument. Group think tends to make them think they're right. If they were placed in another environment they may question themselves. Here, they join the chorus and think they need to defend the math, of which they know very little. As soon as I debunk, they saturate the thread. They probably think justice has won! All that's happened is that constructive, knowledge-advancing arguments, have been shut down via saturation.
There needs to be an acceptance of different views here, otherwise potential advancement in the understanding of math, as applied to gambling, is gonna be missed by everyone here, and go somewhere else. Those that miss the boat here, can't argue I didn't try here.
Quote: Wellbush
There needs to be an acceptance of different views here, otherwise potential advancement in the understanding of math, as applied to gambling, is gonna be missed by everyone here, and go somewhere else. Those that miss the boat here, can't argue I didn't try here.
Have you tried to use math in any single post you've made?
You haven't debunked squat (as many have pointed out). You're also repeating #6 ad nauseum.Quote: WellbushAs soon as I debunk, they saturate the thread.
You're conflating acceptance of different opinions with acceptance of provably false b.s.. Those of us who understand the math will never be welcoming when someone is essentially claiming to have procured magic beans.Quote: WellbushThere needs to be an acceptance of different views here...
And Michael Bluejay, you win! What a surprise. You're achieving victory through saturation, but not sound argument! What a star!
Quote: WellbushI am NOT implying that the normal variation in the game of BJ exceeds that variation allowable in the course of a 46%/54% win/loss variation. Are you? If so, your variation exceeds that applied to the game.
Let me see if I understand you correctly; you are saying that eventually, a player's sessions of blackjack, including the ones where he takes a break in the middle of a session, will eventually result in 46% wins and 54% losses. This is usually referred to as "the Law of Large Numbers," and you are not the first to try to use this here as some sort of proof that systems can work. The flaw here seems to be that you think that it always applies after a small number of results, when in fact it takes trillions of bets to get to that value with any degree of confidence.
Quote: WellbushIt's true that freakish streaks can happen. It's also true that gamblers can, and do, take breaks away from the table. Are you implying they can't?
Not at all, but a situation where a gambler loses eight hands in a row, takes a break, comes back, and loses another eight hands in a row is every bit as likely as one where the same gambler loses eight hands in a row, decides not to take a break, and loses another eight hands in a row. Breaks have nothing to do with this.
Quote: WellbushAgain, I question the math, AS APPLIED to real-world gambling play.
What's your definition of "real world gambling play"?
The math is simple: if your bets have a negative expected value - that is, if you take every possible result, and for each result, multiply the probability of that result happening by the profit or loss of that result, then sum the values, the result is negative - then there is no possible way to "guarantee" that you will come out ahead without having both an infinite bankroll and infinite time. You can come very close to 100% if the ratio of your bankroll to how much profit you are willing to accept is very, very large (for example, you have 11 trillion dollars and play a 40-step Martingale with a starting bet of 10), but it is possible to lose 40 bets in a row, and the entire $11 trillion with it.
