Thread Rating:

sabre
sabre
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 1172
Joined: Aug 16, 2010
Thanked by
MichaelBluejay
May 4th, 2021 at 7:19:19 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Hi Sarbe. Back to deride further? Glad I can't see it! 😁

And Michael Bluejay, you win! What a surprise. You're achieving victory through saturation, but not sound argument! What a star!



Have you used math in any post you've made in this thread?
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 1706
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
May 4th, 2021 at 7:39:18 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

There needs to be an acceptance of different views here...

Wellbush's earlier action: .[Blocks several members whose facts he doesn't agree with.]
I run Easy Vegas ( https://easy.vegas )
Wellbush
Wellbush
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
May 4th, 2021 at 7:49:39 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

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.


Oh ****! I thought you knew something! Everyone knows in BJ the house edge is approx. 0.5%. And everyone SHOULD know that when ties are removed from that statistic, the house edge is approx. 8% - 54% to the house, 46% to the player. Why don't people here know this, yet they think they know it all!

So no, it's not a case of 'the Law of Large Numbers.' There's no flaw, but there is a flaw when people here apply statistics to something they just don't properly understand.

Okay. I'll use an example because it'll explain it better. If a gambler was playing BJ at a casino that was using just one deck of cards at their tables, they could expect a certain variation of wins/losses in the short-term, away from the long-term 54%/46% house edge. And no, there is no such thing as an infinite variation away from the long-term variation.

Furthermore, if this casino made a change and put two decks at their tables, instead of one, then this would allow for further variation away from the 54%/46% house edge, simply because there would be more cards at play. If the casino were to make another change after this, to three or four decks per table.....you get my drift?

What I'm explaining is that there is only a certain maximum variation away from the long-term 54%/46% house edge simply due to the fact that there are only so many cards in the game. There is no infinite streak, that some people here may think exists.

I'll reply to the rest later.
Last edited by: OnceDear on May 5, 2021
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29664
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
May 4th, 2021 at 8:52:29 PM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

another false statement from you



Nope.
Last edited by: EvenBob on May 4, 2021
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29664
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
May 4th, 2021 at 9:34:31 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

You are contradicting yourself.



Either way, the math is useless. If you can figure out what the next outcome is, what the math says is meaningless. If I had known the math says you can't beat the game I never would have tried. But I didn't know that till much later. By then it was too late; too late to obey the math.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2467
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
May 4th, 2021 at 10:05:32 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Either way, the math is useless. If you can figure out what the next outcome is, what the math says is meaningless. If I had known the math says you can't beat the game I never would have tried. But I didn't know that till much later. By then it was too late; too late to obey the math.



It is somewhat interesting that you end up proving the exact opposite point you are trying to make. The math is only useless and meaningless if you choose not to use it and choose to ignore all meaning in has. If you can figure out what the next outcome is, and apply the math correctly, profits from casino games increase. Depending on how well someone is at figuring out the next outcome, those profits could be in the millions, every month. It is fascinating that you choose not to use the math, earn hardly anything from these casino games, then spend the time trying to find a 15-year-old car that isn't going to fall apart.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29664
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
May 4th, 2021 at 10:13:17 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

The math is only useless and meaningless if you choose not to use it



Bingo. I did not choose to use it or to ignore it, I did not even know it existed till much later. That shows you how meaningless it is. If the math is correct and the game cannot be beaten, it should not have mattered whether I knew the math or not. I should have failed. You do not have to know how gravity works to be killed by jumping off a cliff.

I love reliable older cars and I've always thought new cars are for suckers.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2467
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
May 4th, 2021 at 10:25:22 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Bingo. I did not choose to use it or to ignore it, I did not even know it existed till much later. That shows you how meaningless it is. If the math is correct and the game cannot be beaten, it should not have mattered whether I knew the math or not. I should have failed. You do not have to know how gravity works to be killed by jumping off a cliff.

I love reliable older cars and I've always thought new cars are for suckers.



You have turned into Wellbush word salad level.

By choosing not using the math, you have beaten the game at far lower levels than you could have. If you truly loved reliable older cars, why continue to refuse to accept the math, when it would mean you could spend an hour at the casino, then have more than enough money to buy any one you wanted?

Using your analogy, it is like how people are able to jump off cliffs and survive because they know how gravity works.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29664
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
May 4th, 2021 at 11:32:43 PM permalink
Quote: TomG


By choosing not using the math,



You still don't get it, I didn't choose not to use the math, I didn't know the math existed. Then when I started talking about this 15 years ago I was told over and over I was full of crap because the math says the game can't be beat. And the math is never wrong.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 7098
Joined: May 8, 2015
May 5th, 2021 at 1:58:18 AM permalink
.......................


I pity the poor newbie who is going to read some of EB's fantastical fantasies and thinks he's going to beat roulette

hopefully this hypothetical newbie will get around to reading Tom G and Don and realize what a load of you know what it is




*
Last edited by: lilredrooster on May 5, 2021
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2467
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
May 5th, 2021 at 5:17:11 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

You still don't get it, I didn't choose not to use the math, I didn't know the math existed. Then when I started talking about this 15 years ago I was told over and over I was full of crap because the math says the game can't be beat. And the math is never wrong.



The math is very clear: it agrees completely that if you can find a way to figure out what the next outcome will be, you can win a lot of money. Who told you that was wrong?
OnceDear
OnceDear
  • Threads: 64
  • Posts: 7543
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
Thanked by
Wellbush
May 5th, 2021 at 5:44:34 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Oh ****! I thought you knew something! Everyone knows in BJ the house edge is approx. 0.5%. And everyone SHOULD know that when ties are removed from that statistic, the house edge is approx. 8% - 54% to the house, 46% to the player. Why don't people here know this, yet they think they know it all!


Your posts indicate that at the very least, your understanding of the game is negligible even before we get onto the topic of systems.
If you exclude ties, the house edge is absolutely NOT 8% It might have been if you also excluded BlackJacks, but then you would not be playing BlackJack

To say "when ties are removed from that statistic, the house edge is approx. 8% - 54% to the house" is as absurd as saying, "If we ignore times when the player loses or ties, the house edge is 100%" or "If we only count the times when the player wins but not with a split or double, the player edge is 100%"
House edge only applies and always applies when we consider the whole set of potential outcomes in the proportion to how often they happen, and taking into account the payouts.
The player edge would indeed be 100% if the player had 100% foresight and only bet on those hands where he would win even money. The math applies even then.
Now, before you block me, note that you MUST observe rule 17. DO NOT add bolded comments of your own into the quotes of others.

Methinks you are being contrarian for sport. You have no working system. You have no argument with the naysayers and you have debunked no-one. All you have is the same old word soup.

This is not a case of a majority of wrong headed fools or a mob bullying wise old you. It's a case of those that know truth trying to show you where you are wrong. YOU ARE WRONG!

We will keep asserting that, not as a service to you: You are a lost cause, but as a service to the next misguided newbie that stumbles here thinking that he too has the Holy Grail.
Psalm 25:16 Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted. Proverbs 18:2 A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2467
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
May 5th, 2021 at 5:58:22 AM permalink
Quote: OnceDear

Methinks you are being contrarian for sport. You have no working system. You have no argument with the naysayers and you have debunked no-one. All you have is the same old word soup.



-He does have a system. Raise bets after losses, lower them after wins. I put the exact ways (with only one small error that wb corrected) here: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/math/35909-negative-progression/13/#post805088

-Contrarian for sport like this is trolling
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 123
  • Posts: 6747
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
May 5th, 2021 at 6:40:49 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

And everyone SHOULD know that when ties are removed from that statistic, the house edge is approx. 8% - 54% to the house, 46% to the player. Why don't people here know this, yet they think they know it all!


Because we know how to use the term "house edge" properly. I assume that what you are trying to say is, if you ignore ties, the house wins 54% of all hands. If not, then please tell us what the number 54% represents.
Quote: Wellbush

Okay. I'll use an example because it'll explain it better. If a gambler was playing BJ at a casino that was using just one deck of cards at their tables, they could expect a certain variation of wins/losses in the short-term, away from the long-term 54%/46% house edge. And no, there is no such thing as an infinite variation away from the long-term variation.

Furthermore, if this casino made a change and put two decks at their tables, instead of one, then this would allow for further variation away from the 54%/46% house edge, simply because there would be more cards at play. If the casino were to make another change after this, to three or four decks per table.....you get my drift?

What I'm explaining is that there is only a certain maximum variation away from the long-term 54%/46% house edge simply due to the fact that there are only so many cards in the game. There is no infinite streak, that some people here may think exists.


The only "maximum variation" in terms of house wins is 0% and 100%, and there is a simple proof of this.
Assume that there is some maximum variation of house win percentage less than 100% - in other words, some percentage N above which the percentage of house wins cannot reach.
Now, assume you get to that point. It is possible to get to that point, as otherwise the maximum variation would be less than N%.
Since you are using the same cards for the next hand as you were for the previous hands, there is a chance that the house can win again - but if the house does win the next hand, the percentage of house wins now exceeds N%, which violates the assumption that N% is the maximum.

Also, if there is more than one deck in the game, the variation from your 54/46 would be less than with one deck, because there is less variation in the card values as there are more cards of each value in the deck. In other words, suppose your first card is an Ace. In a one-deck game, the percentage of Aces remaining in the deck is 5.882% (3 out of 51), but in a four-deck game, it is 7.246% (15 out of ,207).

Pardon me for asking, but if you already answered this, it seems to have been lost in the noise...
What is your main hypothesis in all of this? You started out asking whether or not the only reason negative progression systems don't work (which you define as reaching a point where you are making a profit) is because nobody has a large enough bankroll to cover long losing streaks.
OnceDear
OnceDear
  • Threads: 64
  • Posts: 7543
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
May 5th, 2021 at 6:46:44 AM permalink
Quote: TomG

-He does have a system.

I said
Quote: oncedear

You have no working system.


Quote: TomG

-Contrarian for sport like this is trolling

I'm inclined to agree.
Psalm 25:16 Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted. Proverbs 18:2 A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
Wellbush
Wellbush
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
May 5th, 2021 at 6:53:50 AM permalink
Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

Oh ****! I thought you knew something! Everyone knows in BJ the house edge is approx. 0.5%. And everyone SHOULD know that when ties are removed from that statistic, the house edge is approx. 8% - 54% to the house, 46% to the player. Why don't people here know this, yet they think they know it all!


Your posts indicate that at the very least, your understanding of the game is negligible even before we get onto the topic of systems.
If you exclude ties, the house edge is absolutely NOT 8% It might have been if you also excluded BlackJacks, but then you would not be playing BlackJack

To say "when ties are removed from that statistic, the house edge is approx. 8% - 54% to the house" is as absurd as saying, "If we ignore times when the player loses or ties, the house edge is 100%" or "If we only count the times when the player wins but not with a split or double, the player edge is 100%"
House edge only applies and always applies when we consider the whole set of potential outcomes in the proportion to how often they happen, and taking into account the payouts.
The player edge would indeed be 100% if the player had 100% foresight and only bet on those hands where he would win even money. The math applies even then.
Now, before you block me, note that you MUST observe rule 17. DO NOT add bolded comments of your own into the quotes of others.

Methinks you are being contrarian for sport. You have no working system. You have no argument with the naysayers and you have debunked no-one. All you have is the same old word soup.

This is not a case of a majority of wrong headed fools or a mob bullying wise old you. It's a case of those that know truth trying to show you where you are wrong. YOU ARE WRONG!

We will keep asserting that, not as a service to you: You are a lost cause, but as a service to the next misguided newbie that stumbles here thinking that he too has the Holy Grail.



Oh well, fair enough OD. You've made your point pretty clear. 😊
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29664
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
May 5th, 2021 at 12:08:11 PM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

.......................


I pity the poor newbie who is going to read some of EB's fantastical fantasies



I hope he thinks they are fantasies, the last thing I want is somebody investigating it like I did and figuring it out. I don't need the competition. Right now everybody in the casino thinks roulette cannot be beat, let's keep it that way.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29664
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
May 5th, 2021 at 12:11:22 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Who told you that was wrong?



Everybody. They screamed at me for years on GG that the math says roulette cannot be beat. It was a mantra, they screamed at me in capital letters. Mister V remembers, he was one of the screamers.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 7098
Joined: May 8, 2015
May 5th, 2021 at 1:13:11 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I the last thing I want is somebody investigating it




oh - right - right - you don't want anybody investigating it

that's why you've bragged about it on at least a couple of different forums

pathetic

the reason you don't reveal your secret system is not because you don't want to for some reason

it's because you don't have any secret winning system

it's an illusion of a mind that takes anecdotal experiences and blows them up all out of proportion to be all encompassing




*
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29664
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
May 5th, 2021 at 2:45:10 PM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster



that's why you've bragged about it



What is it exactly that I bragged about, give the details. You can't because there aren't any details, I never give any. You can't say what I do because I never say what I do. I allude and you fill in the blanks. This is more about your fantasy then it is about mine.

allude; hint at, suggest, discuss indirectly.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Wellbush
Wellbush
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
Thanked by
OnceDear
May 5th, 2021 at 2:58:07 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

Because we know how to use the term "house edge" properly. I assume that what you are trying to say is, if you ignore ties, the house wins 54% of all hands. If not, then please tell us what the number 54% represents.

The only "maximum variation" in terms of house wins is 0% and 100%, and there is a simple proof of this.
Assume that there is some maximum variation of house win percentage less than 100% - in other words, some percentage N above which the percentage of house wins cannot reach.
Now, assume you get to that point. It is possible to get to that point, as otherwise the maximum variation would be less than N%.
Since you are using the same cards for the next hand as you were for the previous hands, there is a chance that the house can win again - but if the house does win the next hand, the percentage of house wins now exceeds N%, which violates the assumption that N% is the maximum.

Also, if there is more than one deck in the game, the variation from your 54/46 would be less than with one deck, because there is less variation in the card values as there are more cards of each value in the deck. In other words, suppose your first card is an Ace. In a one-deck game, the percentage of Aces remaining in the deck is 5.882% (3 out of 51), but in a four-deck game, it is 7.246% (15 out of ,207).

Pardon me for asking, but if you already answered this, it seems to have been lost in the noise...
What is your main hypothesis in all of this? You started out asking whether or not the only reason negative progression systems don't work (which you define as reaching a point where you are making a profit) is because nobody has a large enough bankroll to cover long losing streaks.



I wont be continuing on this thread, not because I dont have the ability, but because OD has basically told me to **** off! Its unfortunate but thats how things seem to run here for contrarian thinkers. So Im reducing my input to side comments
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
BoSox
BoSox
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 228
Joined: Mar 9, 2021
Thanked by
MichaelBluejay
May 5th, 2021 at 3:45:38 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

I wont be continuing on this thread, not because I dont have the ability, but because OD has basically told me to **** off! Its unfortunate but thats how things seem to run here for contrarian thinkers. So Im reducing my input to side comments



Pertaining to how Once Dear has been treating you, I believe you have been very lucky as OD has given you plenty of leeways. He has shown you nothing but kindness, so please stop your whining. No one should pay attention to anything that you say.
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 255
  • Posts: 17249
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
May 5th, 2021 at 4:59:31 PM permalink
Quote: BoSox

Pertaining to how Once Dear has been treating you, I believe you have been very lucky as OD has given you plenty of leeways. He has shown you nothing but kindness, so please stop your whining. No one should pay attention to anything that you say.



Just read it as if it has a laugh track.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
  • Threads: 87
  • Posts: 1706
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
May 5th, 2021 at 5:07:24 PM permalink
Quote: BoSox

Pertaining to how Once Dear has been treating you....He has shown you nothing but kindness, so please stop your whining.

It's pattern and practice for him. .And #7 in the list of typical behavior for people of his ilk.
I run Easy Vegas ( https://easy.vegas )
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2467
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
May 5th, 2021 at 9:22:46 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Everybody. They screamed at me for years on GG that the math says roulette cannot be beat. It was a mantra, they screamed at me in capital letters. Mister V remembers, he was one of the screamers.



It cannot be everybody, because virtually no one here would do that. Most everyone here understands exactly how straightforward the math is: If there is a 2.8% chance or greater of hitting an inside number (on a single zero wheel), there is a player advantage, and the player will earn profits over time (for even money bets, the odds have to be 51.4% or greater; slightly higher on double zero) . As that percentage increase, the player advantage increases, and profits increase. Can be as high as $10 million per hour, making max bets.

I would be very surprised if anyone here disagrees with that, including Mr V. My guess is that you spent years falling for their trolling.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29664
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
May 6th, 2021 at 1:27:26 AM permalink
Quote: TomG

It cannot be everybody, because virtually no one here would do that. Most everyone here understands exactly how straightforward the math is: If there is a 2.8% chance or greater of hitting an inside number (on a single zero wheel), there is a player advantage, and the player will earn profits over time (for even money bets, the odds have to be 51.4% or greater; slightly higher on double zero) .



Wow, math. I fell asleep..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 7098
Joined: May 8, 2015
May 6th, 2021 at 1:50:25 AM permalink
....................


all of those here and elsewhere who claim to have winning systems using progressions or bet selection - not a single one has ever proven anything

and you're talking about thousands who have made these false and misleading claims

they're like a guy who goes to a track for the first time and watches all 9 races on the card

there are 4 grey horses running in 4 different races

3 of the grey horses win

he then proudly goes to a bar and announces that he knows how to beat horse racing

just bet on grey horses - they win 75% of the time



^
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
OnceDear
OnceDear
  • Threads: 64
  • Posts: 7543
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
May 6th, 2021 at 5:46:14 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

....................
just bet on grey horses - they win 75% of the time


Better system, for use at greyhound races: Bet on the ones that have a big poop just before the race.
Psalm 25:16 Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted. Proverbs 18:2 A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
Wellbush
Wellbush
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
September 19th, 2021 at 3:39:25 AM permalink
please note: this post is not meant to troll or taunt, but is a genuine discussion on ev and progressive sequences.

OnceDear wrote in another thread (explaining ev to wellbush):

"So. We have one guy in a no limits casino that does a fair coin flip wager. He wagers against the casino. He applies Grand Marty. He bets heads or tails as he sees fit.
After some period of time, how much has the casino lost and why. I'l give you a clue. It probably won't be zero.
You need to sum up the outcomes of all equally probable outcomes.
That can be your homework. Do it over 1 coin flip, 2 coin flips, 3 coin flips, 4 coin flips. That's just 16 possible outcomes. Never mind heads or tails, just use win/lose as a proxy. What is the average profit/loss to the casino. Shouldn't take you an hour and will be worthwhile."

wellbush reply:

i always bet that heads will win. G Martying as follows ($): 15, 35, 60, 120.

1. a. H (15) b. H (15) c. H (15) d. H (15) ......return 60
2. a. T (-15) b. H (35) c. H (15) d. H (15).......return 50
3. a. T (-15) b. T (-35) c. H (60) d. H (15).......return 25
4. a. T (-15) b. T (-35) c. T (-60) d. H (120).....return 10
5. a. T (-15) b. H (35) c. T (-15) d. T (-35).......return -30
6. a. T (-15) b. H (35) c. H (15) d. T (-35).......return 0
7. a. T (-15) b. H (35) c. T (-15) d. H (35).......return 40
8. a. T (-15) b. T (-35) c. H (60) d. T (-15)......return -5
9. a. T (-15) b. T (-35) c. T (-60) d. T (-120)....return -230
10. a. H (15) b. T (-15) c. T (-35) d. T (-60)....return -95
11. a. H (15) b. T (-15) c. T (-35) d. H (60).....return 25
12. a. H (15) b. T (-15) c. H (35) d. H (15).....return 50
13. a. H (15) b. T (-15) c. H (35) d. T (-15).....return 20
14. a. H (15) b. H (15) c. T (-15) d. T (-35).....return -20
15. a. H (15) b. H (15) c. T (-15) d. H (35).....return 50
16. a. H (15) b. H (15) c. H (15) d. T (-15).....return 30

Total return to player: -80. Total casino profit: 80

But the player is stopping play after exactly 4 bets....

Anyway, what's the EV here? -80/16 = -5? no, maybe -80/64 (4 x 16) = -1.25?"

OnceDear reply:

"One Outcome wrong and your summing is shot.
Corrections in Red

Quote: Wellbush


i always bet that heads will win. G Martying as follows ($): 15, 35, 60, 120.

1. a. H (15) b. H (15) c. H (15) d. H (15) ......return 60
2. a. T (-15) b. H (35) c. H (15) d. H (15).......return 50
3. a. T (-15) b. T (-35) c. H (60) d. H (15).......return 25
4. a. T (-15) b. T (-35) c. T (-60) d. H (120).....return 10
5. a. T (-15) b. H (35) c. T (-15) d. T (-35).......return -30
6. a. T (-15) b. H (35) c. H (15) d. T (-15).......return 20
7. a. T (-15) b. H (35) c. T (-15) d. H (35).......return 40
8. a. T (-15) b. T (-35) c. H (60) d. T (-15)......return -5
9. a. T (-15) b. T (-35) c. T (-60) d. T (-120)....return -230
10. a. H (15) b. T (-15) c. T (-35) d. T (-60)....return -95
11. a. H (15) b. T (-15) c. T (-35) d. H (60).....return 25
12. a. H (15) b. T (-15) c. H (35) d. H (15).....return 50
13. a. H (15) b. T (-15) c. H (35) d. T (-15).....return 20
14. a. H (15) b. H (15) c. T (-15) d. T (-35).....return -20
15. a. H (15) b. H (15) c. T (-15) d. H (35).....return 50
16. a. H (15) b. H (15) c. H (15) d. T (-15).....return 30

(60+50+25+10-30+20+40-5-230-95+25+50+20-20+50+30) =0
Total return to player: 0. Total casino profit: 0

But the player is stopping play after exactly 4 bets....

Anyway, what's the EV here? 0/16 = 0? no, maybe 0/64 (4 x 16) = 0?"

Wellbush comment: I'm not sure the above proves anything about EV, with regard to negative progression sequences. Reason: the player can continue along the negative progression betting sequence until he returns into profit. all the above sequences stopped at exactly 4 bets, not allowing the player to return into profit by continuing along the sequence.

Can anyone please debunk the immediate above paragraph, with sound math? (even better if they can also debunk wellbush's paradox!)
Last edited by: Wellbush on Sep 19, 2021
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 6135
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
September 19th, 2021 at 5:09:56 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Reason: the player can continue along the negative progression betting sequence until he returns into profit.

  • link to original post



    ... or goes broke.
    May the cards fall in your favor.
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    September 19th, 2021 at 6:58:40 AM permalink
    Quote: Dieter

    ... or goes broke.

  • link to original post

    not necessarily: 1. the player can drop down in the sequence whenever amounts are getting too large. 2. the player can move to a higher limit table.

    e.g. for scenario 1. if the player is using the fibonacci sequence:

    1. bet $15 total (total $15 spent) Loss, 2. bet $25 (tot -$40) L, 3. $40 (-$65) L, 4. 65 (-130) L, 5. 105 (-235) L, 6. 170 (-405) L, 7. 275 (-680), 8. 445 (-1125) L 9. 720 (-1845). 10 go back to the 7th bet amount of $275 and continue...

    the above shows 9 consecutive bets in a row. not completely out of the ordinary, but not that often either. after the nine consecutive losses, the player is down $1,845. if he drops down to the 7th bet amount (total sequence value $435 - 275 + 105 + 40 + 15), he just needs to complete the 7th bet sequence 4 times (4 x 435 = 1740. add in splits, doubles and bjs, it'd be close to 1845) to get back to the 1845 loss from the 9 loss streak.
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    Dieter
    Administrator
    Dieter
    • Threads: 16
    • Posts: 6135
    Joined: Jul 23, 2014
    September 19th, 2021 at 7:06:48 AM permalink
    Quote: Wellbush

    Quote: Dieter

    ... or goes broke.

    not necessarily: 1. the player can drop down in the sequence whenever amounts are getting too large.
  • link to original post



    That would seem to be a deviation from the system.

    I'm tempted to invest in CWN.AX, but foreign investing is a hassle, and there's the whole money laundering inquiry.
    May the cards fall in your favor.
    Mission146
    Mission146
    • Threads: 142
    • Posts: 16832
    Joined: May 15, 2012
    Thanked by
    MichaelBluejay
    September 19th, 2021 at 7:25:17 AM permalink
    Quote: Dieter

    Quote: Wellbush

    not necessarily: 1. the player can drop down in the sequence whenever amounts are getting too large.

  • link to original post



    That would seem to be a deviation from the system.

    I'm tempted to invest in CWN.AX, but foreign investing is a hassle, and there's the whole money laundering inquiry.
  • link to original post



    People tend to strictly follow systems, until they get scared and don't. I'd call it a, "User Error," except believing that a system is going to work in the long run already is a user error.
    https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
    Marcusclark66
    Marcusclark66
    • Threads: 33
    • Posts: 1140
    Joined: Mar 26, 2020
    September 19th, 2021 at 7:30:41 AM permalink
    $650.00 for example.

    2nd wager to recoup, $1,300.00
    3rd wager would have to be $2,600.00
    4th wager would have to be $5,200.00 (already over many table limits of $5k)
    5th wager would have to be $10,400.00.

    Many non vegas larger casinos are $10k at best.

    But just the 4 hands would require $9,750.00.

    IMO, one would get that dreadful sucked in emotional stabbing after hands 3 and 4 with amounts over a few red and green chips up there, maybe a few black chips.

    Risk is better off being deferred for subsequent sessions, IMO, in my experience and what work perfect for my sessions with losses.

    If I continued my losing sessions, my bankroll would have been surrendered each time to the casino by myself the same as the highest majority of all casino patrons walking through the doors and playing at table games do nightly.
    Last edited by: Marcusclark66 on Sep 19, 2021
    Marcus Clark. Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66. *Professional Casino Security Expert. *Certified EMT *Certified Company Firearms Instructor. *Certified Gaming Regulations Interpreter for Corporate Applications. *Domestic UrbanTactical Combat Casualty Expert. *Tic-Tac-Toe Expert (Real Competitive Versions) & Mastering Chess. *Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club. *Mastering Cracking it. Bit-by-Bit, Piece-by-Piece Crediting Forum Members. *Certified Casino Property Entry & Exit Point Analyzer *Baccarat Winning Session Record: 12 out of 12 & 1 out of 1 Mini Session. Baccarat Losing Session Record: 2 Losing Sessions.
    billryan
    billryan
    • Threads: 255
    • Posts: 17249
    Joined: Nov 2, 2009
    September 19th, 2021 at 7:39:29 AM permalink
    Fortunes aren't made by deferring risks. They are made by facing risks, squeezing it in the balls and taking what is rightfully yours. If you want to defer risk, buy a pocket protector.
    The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    September 19th, 2021 at 7:52:19 AM permalink
    Quote: Dieter

    That would seem to be a deviation from the system.

  • link to original post

    incorrect. the only deviation is moving one's position in the sequence. however the bettor would need to make up for the change in position by betting 4x more at a lower level in the sequence, as i stated.
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    September 19th, 2021 at 7:56:29 AM permalink
    Quote: Mission146

    People tend to strictly follow systems, until they get scared and don't. I'd call it a, "User Error," except believing that a system is going to work in the long run already is a user error.

  • link to original post

    if you're going to repeat the standard naysayer line 146, i have heard it umpteen dozens of times. however if you genuinely wish to discuss the detailed math in q, i'm all ears.
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    September 19th, 2021 at 7:58:15 AM permalink
    Quote: Mission146


    People tend to strictly follow systems, until they get scared and don't.

  • link to original post

    not everyone
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    September 19th, 2021 at 8:12:38 AM permalink
    Quote: Marcusclark66

    $650.00 for example.

    2nd wager to recoup, $1,300.00
    3rd wager would have to be $2,600.00
    4th wager would have to be $5,200.00 (already over many table limits of $5k)
    5th wager would have to be $10,400.00.

    Many non vegas larger casinos are $10k at best.

    But just the 4 hands would require $9,750.00.

    IMO, one would get that dreadful sucked in emotional stabbing after hands 3 and 4 with amounts over a few red and green chips up there, maybe a few black chips.

    Risk is better off being deferred for subsequent sessions, IMO, in my experience and what work perfect for my sessions with losses.

    If I continued my losing sessions, my bankroll would have been surrendered each time to the casino by myself the same as the highest majority of all casino patrons walking through the doors and playing at table games do nightly.

  • link to original post

    thanks for your contribution Marcus.

    if you are martingaling, you are 2x every bet. a sure fire way to go broke if the better continues on the sequence. for the fibonacci, it's approx. x1.6 each bet. for another variation, can it be x even less? food for thought? won't do what you're suggesting martingaling will. the bettor would probably need a certain reasonable size bankroll i enumerated above, but not excessive IMO. I showed the amounts.

    if one is not math challenged and uses his grey matter to discover sequences that have less than x1.6, there may be distinct possibilities for those not well endowed with funds.
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    lilredrooster
    lilredrooster
    • Threads: 240
    • Posts: 7098
    Joined: May 8, 2015
    September 19th, 2021 at 8:13:04 AM permalink
    Quote: Wellbush

    if you're going to repeat the standard naysayer line------ however if you genuinely wish to discuss the detailed math in q, i'm all ears.




    there's thousands of Mathematics PhDs in the U.S.
    every single mathematician on the planet will tell you the same thing

    if you really believe you have discovered something that all of these highly educated people have missed well then________

    you're wasting your time here

    prove what you're saying and you will become world famous - you will be paid tens of thousands on the lecture circuit
    you will be offered a gigantic sum of money for a book deal

    it would be one of the biggest news stories of the decade

    you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashian



    .
    the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
    Marcusclark66
    Marcusclark66
    • Threads: 33
    • Posts: 1140
    Joined: Mar 26, 2020
    September 19th, 2021 at 8:18:27 AM permalink
    Quote: lilredrooster



    you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashian



    .

  • link to original post



    Who is that? Just curious. Thanks.
    Marcus Clark. Real Person; AKA MarcusClark66. *Professional Casino Security Expert. *Certified EMT *Certified Company Firearms Instructor. *Certified Gaming Regulations Interpreter for Corporate Applications. *Domestic UrbanTactical Combat Casualty Expert. *Tic-Tac-Toe Expert (Real Competitive Versions) & Mastering Chess. *Honorary & Official #1 Fan of the MDawg Adventures Club. *Mastering Cracking it. Bit-by-Bit, Piece-by-Piece Crediting Forum Members. *Certified Casino Property Entry & Exit Point Analyzer *Baccarat Winning Session Record: 12 out of 12 & 1 out of 1 Mini Session. Baccarat Losing Session Record: 2 Losing Sessions.
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    September 19th, 2021 at 8:23:34 AM permalink
    Quote: lilredrooster

    there's thousands of Mathematics PhDs in the U.S.
    every single mathematician on the planet will tell you the same thing

    if you really believe you have discovered something that all of these highly educated people have missed well then________

    you're wasting your time here

    prove what you're saying and you will become world famous - you will be paid tens of thousands on the lecture circuit
    you will be offered a gigantic sum of money for a book deal

    it would be one of the biggest news stories of the decade

    you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashian



    .

  • link to original post

    oh really?!!! here's my chance!!!! but, i thought this site had clever math minds that could pick apart the math in q, or does everyone here believe the math without q? if that's true, yeah i won't waste your times.
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    September 19th, 2021 at 8:25:23 AM permalink
    Quote: Marcusclark66

    Quote: lilredrooster



    you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashian



    .

  • link to original post



    Who is that? Just curious. Thanks.
  • link to original post

    the joke of the day! 😀
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    September 19th, 2021 at 8:29:23 AM permalink
    Quote: lilredrooster


    you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashian

  • link to original post

    BTW, anyone got her phone number?
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    September 19th, 2021 at 8:43:07 AM permalink
    Quote: lilredrooster

    there's thousands of Mathematics PhDs in the U.S.
    every single mathematician on the planet will tell you the same thing

    if you really believe you have discovered something that all of these highly educated people have missed well then________

    you're wasting your time here

    prove what you're saying and you will become world famous - you will be paid tens of thousands on the lecture circuit
    you will be offered a gigantic sum of money for a book deal

    it would be one of the biggest news stories of the decade

    you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashian

  • link to original post

    yeah, that's what i'm kinda trying to do here LLR. Prove it through discussion. or are you prone to just repeating the standard naysayer line without any intellectual discussion? hint: everyone (including me) already knows what the general naysayer line is. if you didn't read the last few posts properly LLR, i'm here to discuss the detailed math in q, or do you think i shouldn't be querying such here?
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    lilredrooster
    lilredrooster
    • Threads: 240
    • Posts: 7098
    Joined: May 8, 2015
    September 19th, 2021 at 8:58:35 AM permalink
    Quote: Wellbush

    i'm here to discuss the detailed math in q, or do you think i shouldn't be querying such here?




    you may post whatever queries you choose to - it's not my place to tell you what you should or should not post

    but I'm 100% sure that nobody here can help you prove that a negative progression against a HA can show a long term positive return

    if you can do that - you're much more brilliant than anybody here

    if you can do that, you're a brilliant person whose accomplishment should be celebrated worldwide

    there are some excellent mathematicians here - but as knowledgeable as they are - they can't help you find what you're looking for


    .
    the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
    billryan
    billryan
    • Threads: 255
    • Posts: 17249
    Joined: Nov 2, 2009
    September 19th, 2021 at 9:01:56 AM permalink
    Quote: lilredrooster

    there's thousands of Mathematics PhDs in the U.S.
    every single mathematician on the planet will tell you the same thing

    if you really believe you have discovered something that all of these highly educated people have missed well then________

    you're wasting your time here

    prove what you're saying and you will become world famous - you will be paid tens of thousands on the lecture circuit
    you will be offered a gigantic sum of money for a book deal

    it would be one of the biggest news stories of the decade

    you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashi


    .

  • link to original post





    Perhaps you are the one wasting his time.
    The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
    lilredrooster
    lilredrooster
    • Threads: 240
    • Posts: 7098
    Joined: May 8, 2015
    September 19th, 2021 at 9:07:57 AM permalink
    Quote: billryan



    Perhaps you are the one wasting his time




    incorrect


    he, or you, or anybody else who finds my posts valueless has the option to disregard them, not read them, or block me
    I can't force anybody to take time with my posts - and don't want to
    but I, just like you, and anybody else here, has an right to post my thoughts


    .
    the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
    billryan
    billryan
    • Threads: 255
    • Posts: 17249
    Joined: Nov 2, 2009
    September 19th, 2021 at 9:22:41 AM permalink
    Of course, you do. I suppose some might say arguing with a brick wall isn't a waste of time as you are refining your debating skills, but if you expect to convince someone they are wrong, you'd have more success addressing the bricks.
    Most will argue that since the math doesn't support him, he must be wrong. A few will see that since the math doesn't support him, it is the math that must be wrong.
    The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
    Dieter
    Administrator
    Dieter
    • Threads: 16
    • Posts: 6135
    Joined: Jul 23, 2014
    September 19th, 2021 at 9:39:14 AM permalink
    Quote: Wellbush

    Quote: lilredrooster


    you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashian

  • link to original post

    BTW, anyone got her phone number?
  • link to original post



    It would probably violate a privacy rule to answer in the affirmative.
    May the cards fall in your favor.
    • Jump to: