Negative Progression

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?

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.]

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.

Quote: lilredrooster

another false statement from you

Nope.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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




*

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 😊

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.

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.

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




*

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.

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 won�t be continuing on this thread, not because I don�t have the ability, but because OD has basically told me to **** off! It�s unfortunate but that�s how things seem to run here for contrarian thinkers. So I�m reducing my input to side comments

Quote: Wellbush

I won�t be continuing on this thread, not because I don�t have the ability, but because OD has basically told me to **** off! It�s unfortunate but that�s how things seem to run here for contrarian thinkers. So I�m 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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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


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



^

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.

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!)

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.

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.

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.

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.

$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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote: Mission146

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

link to original post

not everyone

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.

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



.

Quote: lilredrooster

you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashian



.

link to original post

Who is that? Just curious. Thanks.

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.

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! 😀

Quote: lilredrooster

you will even become more famous than Kim Kardashian

link to original post

BTW, anyone got her phone number?

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?

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


.

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.

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


.

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.

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.