Negative Progression

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: Dieter

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: Dieter

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.
link to original post

yeah, I know that Dieter. What has one's bankroll and table limits got to do with the mathematical theory?

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

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?

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.
link to original post

Going into metaphor; if you've got a hammer, try to find a nail that isn't bent.

Quote: Wellbush

Unfortunately, many seem to immediately think "Martingale! Martingale!" "Bankroll! Bankroll!" "Table limits! Table limits!" and the discussion is scuttled before any headway.
link to original post

I have an idea to float ten balls in the air simultaneously. Unfortunately, many seem to immediately think, "Gravity! Gravity" "Physics! Physics!" "Reality! Reality!" and the discussion is scuttled before any headway.

Quote: unJon

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

yes, with inputs, one can get a gazillion answers. It means nothing to me right now! Why?

No negative progression strategy I have come up with YET, has proven itself to be a winner over the long term. So what gives?

What gives is why would I be even endeavouring to come up with a negative progression strategy if I haven't found one that works? Well, just because I haven't found something that works doesn't mean it's not possible. So, at this point in time I do think it's possible to overcome the house edge using a negative progression sequence.

I've given pretty simple mathematical examples of addition and subtraction, to prove it. You guys prove me wrong with that same simple math?

Furthermore, I've already seen enough retorts on WOV to know most posters don't have a clue about underlying theoretical constructs. Just asking for some strategy to input into a computer, to prove whether a theory works, or not, tells me posters are in number heaven.

And that computer simulation may well give the person the answer it was 'programmed' to provide!

Number crunching is pretty irrelevant for another glaring reason anyway. YOU GUYS PROBABLY ALREADY PROVE TO YOURSELVES (hi-fiving, and all) THAT THE NUMBERS SHOW MOST GAMBLERS LOSE TO THE HOUSE IN THE LONG RUN!!! AND, YOU SAY IT'S DUE TO -EV!!!

Alright then you lot! You get all the numerical results proving -EV means nearly all gamblers lose in the long run. TRUE, OR NOT!!!????

If you agree, then we can take the next step. If WOV doesn't agree, then cough up with what you really stand for!!!!

😊 here's MB! What a surprise! Hello MB🤗 Here's your chance. I'm back! You must be lickin' your lips 😊

It wasn't too far back in this thread you tried to convince people that:

1. People in Australia are allowed to gamble casino slots and table games online; and

2. That the term 'race' doesn't include a person's nationality.

This was despite clear evidence I provided to you showing otherwise! Well, you can look for some small crack in an argument, or some obscure slant in perception, to hold onto your defenses all you like. I won't be arguing with you.

Go on. Saturate this thread. It will just tell everyone what you and WOV are really like! If WOV don't like me saying that, then maybe they are quite happy for MB to saturate threads with counter arguments, for some obscure psychological reasoning?

I suspect I'll be suspended on a technicality. Who cares?

Why don't the forum community concentrate on the discussion, however hot it gets? That discussion being the scientific evaluation of WB's Paradox!

Forget trying to find something to suspend WB over. Just follow through on the discussion. See what answers we can come up with.

Quote: Wellbush

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?

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.
link to original post

Great News Wellbush: ANY progressive system that you can devise will not make the House edge any worse. Nor will it make it any better. You will just be devising a fun way to lose your money.
I don't know what you mean by seeing if 'it stacks up theoretically'. Whatever progressive system will stack up perfectly as a system that subjects you to the self same house edge as flat betting. No more. No less.

Scuttled before headway? Knock yourself out. Nobody here, except maybe a few misguided ignorant* souls, are going to 'accept the theory' if you have a theory that your progressive system is a winner.

*Ignorant, not meant as an insult. Ignorant as in "Unaware or uninformed."

Well be informed. The 'Many' are right.
And still there is no WB paradox. WB chooses not to accept that. That is his mistake and his loss. Wellbush chooses to be unaware or uninformed. He has the forum here with 1 to 1 instruction and he has the whole 't'interweb of educational material.
To that end. He is doomed to remain 'Unaware or uninformed.'.
May he one day have an epiphany. I won't hold my breath. But I'll also scream less. "Your System Has No Merit"

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

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?

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.
link to original post

Great News Wellbush: ANY progressive system that you can devise will not make the House edge any worse. Nor will it make it any better. You will just be devising a fun way to lose your money.
I don't know what you mean by seeing if 'it stacks up theoretically'. Whatever progressive system will stack up perfectly as a system that subjects you to the self same house edge as flat betting. No more. No less.

Scuttled before headway? Knock yourself out. Nobody here, except maybe a few misguided ignorant* souls, are going to 'accept the theory' if you have a theory that your progressive system is a winner.

*Ignorant, not meant as an insult. Ignorant as in "Unaware or uninformed."

Well be informed. The 'Many' are right.
And still there is no WB paradox. WB chooses not to accept that. That is his mistake and his loss. Wellbush chooses to be unaware or uninformed. He has the forum here with 1 to 1 instruction and he has the whole 't'interweb of educational material.
To that end. He is doomed to remain 'Unaware or uninformed.'.
May he one day have an epiphany. I won't hold my breath. But I'll also scream less. "Your System Has No Merit"
link to original post

yes, I must admit 🤷, you've debunked everything!!!

Huh???

Quote: Wellbush

Huh???
link to original post

The house edge is a way of expressing how likely to win or lose a player is.
The house edge is a product of the rules of the game and the way that the winner is determined.

Does betting more or less change the rules of the game?
Does betting more or less change where the ball lands, where the wheel stops, how the dice land, or how the cards come out?

If the answer is "No^*", the house edge is intact.



^*The answer is usually no.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: AxelWolf

Wellbush, you are wasting time debating all this. Instead, you could be on your way to making millions online with just a little investigation and a plane ticket. A plane ticket isn't needed but it certainly gets around your assumptions regarding the legality.

link to original post

i'm quite comfy with the info that i've provided, showing casino gaming (not racing or sports betting or lottery) online in australia is illegal. what's wrong with the info that i provided? i would certainly be uncomfortable, as has been highlighted by your fellow american posters, to go against that info.

it's kinda moot anyway, when i can just wander down to my local casino and gamble anytime i wish

link to original post

I haven't seen anything other than it being illegal to operate and market online casinos and games that are restricted there. Perhaps I missed it. Please copy a law that specifically states it's illegal for players to gamble online(not racing or sports betting or lottery) at casinos that are located outside Australia.

?? I've already shown a post covering this detail. I would have to find the actual law, I think, to answer your request for that. I'm not in a hurry to do that, but if you want me to, I may or may not do it. It's a q of time and resources. The post did point out that Australians in Australia needed to use a site that had an Australian licence. It also said, no online australian gaming licence permitted casino games/slots. So any loopholes have effectively been scuttled.

So how can an Australian, living in Australia, access an oversees (non-australian) gambling site legally? Australians can travel to an overseas jurisdiction, where it's legal to do so. There's no argument there. But that's not the scenario I'm referring to.

Quote: AxelWolf

It's not moot because you haven't proven to yourself that you can beat anything aside from online software. If you're confident your system will work at B&M's as well... let me rephrase.
Wellbush, you are wasting time debating all this. Instead, you could be on your way to making millions by just wandering down to your local casino and gambling anytime you wish.
link to original post

i am happy to try my strategy, and I've already done so about 4 or 5 times at my local casino in Perth, western Australia! And I lost each time. But, I'm not convinced I can't eventually develop a winnable system. Sorry if that irks!😊

I will probably try again! Geez, I'm REALLY pushing the dial now!!! The GALL of me!

What's more, I don't even think I'm wasting my time discussing theory!!!! Now, after all that, is this post nuke-worthy???!!!

Blowouts don't occur because of the house edge. Blowouts often occur because people try to win more money than could be reasonably expected from their bankrolls.

For example with my bankroll, the house limits I am allowed, and the way I play, I may often get ten to thirty thousand ahead. But if my goal is to always try to win 100K, I will probably lose more often than not.
Similarly you see people come up to the 100 or even 300 minimum table with just a thousand dollars and expect to win twenty thousand. More often than not they will lose the thousand than win twenty.

Chasing - trying to recoup a large loss all at once, is another way of saying that people are trying to win more money than could be reasonably expected from their bankrolls, because typically the chasing happens after the bankroll has been depleted, and now a player is trying to win a lot with what little is left.

Even on a coin toss with no house edge but a set limit, if the bankroll is too small, the house limit is too low, and the goal is too high relative to the bankroll and house limit, the chance of success will be lower than the chance of blowout.