I stand to be corrected by those more in the know LRR. I don't think my initial interest in IS says anything about my intelligence or my willingness to learn 🤷Quote:lilredroosterQuote:Wellbushi found this site giving an interesting view point into bj comp simulations and results:

https://saliu.com/blackjack

the writings of Ion Saliu are considered worthless or worse by those that have made major contributions to the game of blackjack and are members of the Blackjack Hall of Fame

if you are interested, which I tend to doubt you are, "Blackjack Attack" by Don Schlesinger is considered by virtually all blackjack experts to be an authoritative treatise on the game and its probabilities

here are some thoughts about Ion Saliu from elsewhere:

"Ion Saliu authors and sells varied useless gambling books and software. He makes delusional claims that he founded mathematical principles taught in any grade school before he was born.

Ion Saliu (aka Parpaluck) is banned from almost all forums. His only followers are desperate gamblers dazzled by his verbal nonsensical diarrhea.

He claims everyone who debunks his quackery is part of an outrageous conspiracy to stop him beating casinos. Ion has never achieved any measure of success in the real world of professional gambling.

Ion Saliu is accurately described as a keyboard warrior. A charlatan behind a keyboard, and who routinely spams his website links on forums to sell his books which are riddled with errors and poor understanding.

He seeks attention by denouncing recognized professionals and promoting his own theories of conspiracy, with grandiose fabricated tales of his gambling exploits. His manic attacks on industry experts are more a cry for attention. Nobody credible takes him seriously.

His knowledge of fundamentals is amateurish at best. He's a classic narcissistic troll with a delusional sense of knowledge and self-importance. He seeks attention and thrives on creating controversy.

His Fundamental Formula of Gambling stems from his poor understanding of basic probability, mixed with delusion and arrogance. He "rediscovered" basic statistics and believes he made a breakthrough.

His statement about his Fundamental Formula of Gambling:

"The degree of certainty DC rises exponentially with the increase in the number of trials N while the probability p is always the same or constant."

"Simultaneously, the opposite event, the losing chance, decreases exponentially with an increase in the number of trials."

A practical example of his axiomatic rediscovered hypothesis is the more you toss a coin, the greater the chance heads will eventually appear. This hypothesis is nothing new. It's fundamental statistics.

[meaning that if you toss a coin ten times there is a greater chance that heads will appear than if you toss a coin 3 times

it does not mean that if you have tossed a coin 9 times without heads appearing that it now has greater likelihood to appear than at any other time]

[the bracketed statement above is from the OP]

His denouncement of proven advantage play like card counting makes his poor knowledge axiomatically clear.

His websites and books are inundated with similar "axiomatic rediscoveries" he claims to have founded, mixed with classic gamblers fallacy.

Ion Saliu is not an expert in gaming. He is an internet troll. A liar and fraud. A keyboard warrior with no real experience in gambling. A theorist, with incorrect theories.

This much is clear to most of the gambling community, which is why he's banned on almost all forums."

at this point, I would have to say, that I doubt whether you are truly interested in finding accurate info on this subject

.

link to original post

I don't quite get your comment here UJ. A gambler losing his first bet would be immediately in negative territory. So how can the probability approach be from a positive number?Quote:unJonAs the runs get longer, the probability of showing a profit gets smaller. At the limit of the run approaching infinite, the probability of showing a profit approaches zero. But that probability approach is always from a positive number so there’s always some (increasingly shrinking) probability of showing a profit.

link to original post

Quote:WellbushI don't quite get your comment here UJ. A gambler losing his first bet would be immediately in negative territory. So how can the probability approach be from a positive number?Quote:unJonAs the runs get longer, the probability of showing a profit gets smaller. At the limit of the run approaching infinite, the probability of showing a profit approaches zero. But that probability approach is always from a positive number so there’s always some (increasingly shrinking) probability of showing a profit.

link to original post

link to original post

If I understood his post correctly, then he was saying that after n number of trials (including one trial as n can be one) that there will always be some non-zero probability of showing a profit, though it becomes an increasingly smaller probability as you approach infinity such that many calculators would even just call it zero.

Think of Craps as an example, if I bet the Pass Line, then there is a .4929 or 49.29% probability that I will be showing a profit after one outcome.

However, even if I lost, then the probability of my eventually showing a profit would still be a positive number. For example, I could immediately win two Pass Line bets in a row, in which event, I would be showing a profit.

More simply put, an event cannot have a negative probability. The probability is either zero or something (however infinitesimal as infinity is approached) greater than zero.

I am on my smartphone replying, so I may have already replied to this post. If not, here's my reply.Quote:unJonQuote:Wellbushwell, it's pointless me giving exact figures because i'm proposing an overarching theory. if you're after an answer to one gambling scenario or another, it's you guys that have the formulae for EV. It's you guys who are saying that -EV will provide a loss to the gambler in the long run, no matter which way he plays without AP.Quote:SOOPOOThe problem with your post is that ‘the long run’ is not a term that is actually defined. Define ‘the long run’ and I can tell you what the likelihood of a gambler being ahead, assuming I know the EV and variance of the game you are playing. As well as the ‘system’ you are using. If the ‘long run’ is 100 trillion spins, then the likelihood of you being ahead at roulette is so close to zero as to not be worth it to figure out exactly. If the ‘long run’ is 500 spins, you will have a bunch of people ahead out of 100 gamblers.

NO ONE is saying it is impossible to win at negative EV games. It’s just MORE LIKELY that you will lose.link to original post

If i gave you the game of bj, for example. say 300,000 hands. has the gambler been using a progressive strategy? what kind of progressive strategy? what are the size of his bets? is he flat betting?

what's the point of giving you something definitive if the math community believe no strategy, without AP, is going to win eventually? he MAY win in the short term. some may win for a longer period of time than others. but eventually, if they play long enough, they all lose if they're playing a -EV game. true, or not?

if it's not true, how can the math community say "all betting systems are worthless?" the Wizard doesn't even want to answer qs about betting systems.link to original post

With inputs, the math could give you outputs. If for example, you gave inputs like BJ starting bet $10 and bankroll $25,000 and play the following Fibonacci betting sequence and stop after (a) bankroll $0, (b) bankroll $50,000 or (c) 200,000 hands.

Then the math could give an output that looks like a chart. And the chart shows the probability of being up or down or broke. And if one million people actually followed the inputs and played for real. We would see that the million results would fill in and look very close to that chart.

Then the question for you is which one of those million might you be.

link to original post

I couldn't care less about possible mathematical results of various scenarios. Here's why: Grand Martingale...$5L (T-$5), $6L (-$11), $13W (+$2). However long the gambler continues along the Grand Martingale sequence, theoretical math shows the gambler will always end up in profit, as I just showed with one simple example. As long as the gambler has just one win, he will beat the casino. True, or not?

Discovering E=m x c squared, will not change the facts I've enumerated above.

I don't know how OnceDear can think I am not being scientific on this issue, but he is? I have always referred to simple, proveable, primary school math to make my point on the WB Paradox, as I've done here.

And OD saying that playing a -EV game in the short term, can give the gambler a profit, is his argument for debunking the paradox? Does OD seriously think the paradox is about the short term?

If OD believes the theory of -EV means that most gamblers will beat the house in the long run, then he needs to state that now. If OD believes the theory of -EV means most gamblers will lose to the house in the long run, then he cannot say he is using this argument to debunk WB's paradox.

Quote:Wellbush

I couldn't care less about possible mathematical results of various scenarios. Here's why: Grand Martingale...$5L (T-$5), $6L (-$11), $13W (+$2). However long the gambler continues along the Grand Martingale sequence, theoretical math shows the gambler will always end up in profit, as I just showed with one simple example. As long as the gambler has just one win, he will beat the casino. True, or not?

link to original post

There are two limits to any progression.

The first is your bankroll.

The second is the table limit.

If you cannot continue the sequence, you may not end in profit.

thanks 146. I'll get back to you. I'll continue going through the thread methodically, and at my own pace. I think a historical post of yours is coming up.Quote:Mission146If I understood his post correctly, then he was saying that after n number of trials (including one trial as n can be one) that there will always be some non-zero probability of showing a profit, though it becomes an increasingly smaller probability as you approach infinity such that many calculators would even just call it zero.

Think of Craps as an example, if I bet the Pass Line, then there is a .4929 or 49.29% probability that I will be showing a profit after one outcome.

However, even if I lost, then the probability of my eventually showing a profit would still be a positive number. For example, I could immediately win two Pass Line bets in a row, in which event, I would be showing a profit.

More simply put, an event cannot have a negative probability. The probability is either zero or something (however infinitesimal as infinity is approached) greater than zero.

link to original post

😊I think MB is due for a post!

in the first part of your historical post here 146, I'm going to cut in here so that we're on the same page. My recent post above to UJ, should have answered your queries to this point in your historical post. I will carry on with the rest of your post eventually, but I wanna make sure we're good to continue, first?Quote:Mission146Quote:Wellbush]okay UJ. i take it your serious then. if you sat on the believer's side of the fence, you may be sceptical of naysayer requests also.

Wellbush paradox:

1. negative progression sequences mean the gambler continuing along the sequence will always return to a profit (this is theoretical math. it does not take into account table minimums/maximums, nor the size of the player's bankroll).

2. -EV says the gambler always loses.

the above two statements cannot co-exist. it's a paradox.link to original post

Okay, you're getting the quick version of my counterarguments since you managed to offer a premise.

1.) To your first point, I would like to discuss the following three things:

A.) If we instead ground ourselves and have a discussion based on an actually possible reality, this argument is screwed. The reason why it is screwed is because you could pick any finite number of consecutive losing decisions that you want to, and that would eventually come to fruition. Thus, the first assertion in your, "Paradox," literally calls for an impossible scenario which makes it, well, not a paradox.

I'm going to do you a favor and actually make your argument better. If you had a player with a bankroll of some 1.5 BILLION dollars and a casino that would let him start Martingaling with a bet of $0.01 and no maximum, after 36 consecutive losses the next bet would be $687,194,767.36 and if that bet lost, the system would fail.

We're going to make this Pass Line Craps for the purpose of this postulation, so you have a .4929 win probability against a .5071 loss probability. The probability of losing 37 consecutive times is (.5071)^37 = 1.2259241e-11 or 0.000000000012259241 which is roughly a 1 in 81,571,118,473 shot against. Assuming forty decisions per hour and eight hours per day played, you would not expect to see such a result in more than 254 million days, or 698,382.86 (Rounded) years.

In other words, I admit that one individual player would be extremely unlikely to run into a series that fails in his lifetime.

Now, let's discuss the downsides...even ignoring the fact that no casino is going to ever accept a bet in the hundreds of millions of dollars:

a.) Why are you, as a billionaire, running a system with the goal of making one penny in profit on every successful run?link to original post

yeah, I know that Dieter. What has one's bankroll and table limits got to do with the mathematical theory?Quote:DieterThere are two limits to any progression.

The first is your bankroll.

The second is the table limit.

If you cannot continue the sequence, you may not end in profit.

link to original post

I will get into the idea of creating a 'negative progression sequence' that is much less likely to hit table limits, and much less in need of a significant bankroll. For now, I'm looking at proven theory.

Quote:Wellbushyeah, I know that Dieter. What has one's bankroll and table limits got to do with the mathematical theory?Quote:DieterThere are two limits to any progression.

The first is your bankroll.

The second is the table limit.

If you cannot continue the sequence, you may not end in profit.

link to original post

I will get into the idea of creating a 'negative progression sequence' that is much less likely to hit table limits, and much less in need of a significant bankroll. For now, I'm looking at proven theory.

link to original post

Theories are generally more useful if they can be put into practice.

yes, but if you're gonna put something into practice, as I am trying to do, isn't it good to know if it stacks up theoretically?Quote:DieterQuote:Wellbushyeah, I know that Dieter. What has one's bankroll and table limits got to do with the mathematical theory?Quote:DieterThere are two limits to any progression.

The first is your bankroll.

The second is the table limit.

If you cannot continue the sequence, you may not end in profit.

link to original post

I will get into the idea of creating a 'negative progression sequence' that is much less likely to hit table limits, and much less in need of a significant bankroll. For now, I'm looking at proven theory.

link to original post

Theories are generally more useful if they can be put into practice.

link to original post

I think it's possible to put the theory into practice. That's the second endgame here. Unfortunately, many seem to immediately think "Martingale! Martingale!" "Bankroll! Bankroll!" "Table limits! Table limits!" and the discussion is scuttled before any headway.

So the first thing is getting people to accept the theory. Then we can make a start on the practicalities of WB's Paradox.