Negative Progression

Quote: tuttigym

A "system" by its very nature repeats betting patterns which can both win and lose within the same session, but will eventually collapse under the weight of multiple factors depending on the game of choice being played.

What does that mean?

Quote:

and hope does spring eternal.

An odd footnote?

Quote:

The graph and information posted while somewhat convincing is not truly authoritative because: It is a computer simulation which cannot truly imitate casino action, and ignores the potential of a player changing up his betting scheme during play.

What do you want? A simulation where a player would sometimes mess his pants and chicken out of a 32 unit wager or sometimes throw down another 10 units when an attractive lady walks by? The chart was a faithful and honest and authorative simulation of a rigidly defined system. It's harder and pointless to simulate a human being subject to whims and deviating from his system.

Quote:

Thanks for the link, however, not to be rude, computer simulations, as I previously stated, are not real or authoritative in nature. They are a lazy way of creating results without putting in the real work of a longitudinal, in depth, personal study that includes trials using real gambling in real casinos with real money at risk.

What I said before. I don't know what you mean by longitudinal, but the chart faithfully simulates a system that is faithfully followed. Your response is lazy in its dismissal of it without any evidence or explanation except for the inclusion of the buzzword 'longitudinal'

Quote:

The true results would be players going broke at a rate that far exceeds any of the "math" produced by those computer simulations.

The true results of what? A player that does not follow the system that he himself defined?

Quote:

I would like you to answer these simple questions and then there will be a "second round." This is not any form of entrapment, but I want to make a point that will go against the "conventional wisdom" and "establishment" approach to craps.

4th grade arithmetic:

1. On average: does the 7 appear once every six rolls of the dice?

This is disingenuous and plays on words to be deceitful. I'm not fooled.
On average: the 7 does NOT appear once every six rolls!
Because you are quantising into groups of 6 rolls and demanding that something must happen in each such group.
It IS true to say that for an increasing number of rolls, the number of results of 7 will tend towards 1/6 of the total number of rolls.

Quote:

2. If the answer is "yes," is it likely that after 300 rolls of the dice the 7 will appear approximately 50 times?

The answer was not Yes, but again you are being disingenuous. After 300 rolls the 7 will appear between 0 and 300 times. Call that number N. Over an increasing number of sets of 300 rolls, the average value of N will tend towards 50. If we cared to, we could draw a probability chart showing the bell shaped probability function for N.

Quote:

3. If this trial were to be extended using 4 shooters or players doing the exact same thing, i.e., 300 rolls of the dice, would their results be more likely or less likely to have similar results?

more likely than what? Less likely than what? You require a binary answer to a question that is ill defined. I'm not going to second guess your meaning. 4 shooters each rolling 300 times will have 4 values for N. Those values of N are independent and will have probabilities in keeping with the distribution pattern I mentioned earlier. So what?

By the way, anyone reading this can jump in, but don't expect to make progress.
link to original post

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

Quote: Wellbush

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

link to original post

When i last looked in, you were still assembling a few thousand AU$ bankroll in which to prove your system. How's that going for you. So far your trip reports seem a bit historic.
Maybe you need to consult the experts over in those other hidden threads. Maybe your system is just not as good as certain other esteemed members or maybe it's time for you to abandon your fledgeling system for their tried, tested and proven ones. After all, why reinvent the wheel?

Quote: Wellbush

i 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


.

Quote: OnceDear

When i last looked in, you were still assembling a few thousand AU$ bankroll in which to prove your system. How's that going for you. So far your trip reports seem a bit historic.
Maybe you need to consult the experts over in those other hidden threads. Maybe your system is just not as good as certain other esteemed members or maybe it's time for you to abandon your fledgeling system for their tried, tested and proven ones. After all, why reinvent the wheel?

link to original post

after about 4 or 5 trips, not one winning trip! honesty and burnt fingers are results i will publish. have not given up, though. not because i'm apparently stubborn, but because i still maintain that wellbush's paradox has serious value (note: i don't think I have categorically ever stated that i believe progressive systems are profitable. i have said that they are worth considering. again, anyone thinking they can go to the casino, use progressive strategies and win, based of my posts, are playing with fire. they do so at their own risk).

my previous trips have not accounted enough for the required bankroll, and i used inappropriate bet sizes.

each trip is a result of saving up before the venture. i'm not in a position to add to my trips at this point in time. again, if people want to put any of my threads in the back yard, fine with me.

if i ever do go to the casino and start winning using a progressive strategy, i'll be sure not to mention it here. except of course, i may post facts about wins, but not suggest anything against the WOV philosophy.

Quote: Wellbush

According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination.

link to original post

Sounds like something that outfit would come out with. If there is anything that Americans come close to being united on, it is that we refuse to be ruled by the United Nations.

BTW I usually stay out of these things, but I think your response to this slight you received was ridiculous. And boy did you have it coming! ... saying you didn't know what airplanes were. Just how were we supposed to respond to that? Actually, the only way to respond that would pass with the mods would be for us to insist you get suspended indefinitely on the basis of evidence you are not 21 years old.

Hmmm, mods?

Quote: lilredrooster

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 know why you would think that LRR. other than math getting too complicated for my relatively basic knowledge of statistics/probability, i am quite happy to be shown the light. i have a degree in science. peer review, as your kinda doing in your post, is not something i ignore.

Quote: Wellbush

... i still maintain that wellbush's paradox ...link to original post

Nope. There's no such paradox.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

... i still maintain that wellbush's paradox ...link to original post

Nope. There's no such paradox.

link to original post

i'm quite happy to have a reasoned (not derisive) discussion on this od.

Quote: odiousgambit

BTW I usually stay out of these things, but I think your response to this slight you received was ridiculous. And boy did you have it coming! ... saying you didn't know what airplanes were. Just how were we supposed to respond to that? ...
Hmmm, mods?

link to original post

I took Wellbush's comments about not knowing what airplanes are as tongue in cheek / humour. He might be attempting to prove (and suceeding in) proving me wrong and we know what that would imply.

Since he seemed to have a sense of humour there, it would be remarkable if he were serious about the racism complaints he has posted.

Making controversial posts with the intent of getting other members suspended is one definition of trolling.

airplanes: reply to the level that was directed at me by axel.

racism: i took mb's comment as meaning he didn't even think australians were worthy of being called a race. a possible misinterpretation but i think he should clarify that.

Quote: OnceDear

I took Wellbush's comments about not knowing what airplanes are as tongue in cheek / humour. He might be attempting to prove (and suceeding in) proving me wrong and we know what that would imply.

Since he seemed to have a sense of humour there, it would be remarkable if he were serious about the racism complaints he has posted.

Making controversial posts with the intent of getting other members suspended is one definition of trolling.

link to original post

Yeah, his since of humor seems to have vanished once his ox got gored [Aussies]*

* Dear Wellbush, please accept my apology if that is now considered an ethnic slur. Up till now we seem to have heard Australians use it a lot. Keeping up with that is tough on us old guys

the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

Quote: odiousgambit

Yeah, his since of humor seems to have vanished once his ox got gored [Aussies]*

* Dear Wellbush, please accept my apology if that is now considered an ethnic slur. Up till now we seem to have heard Australians use it a lot. Keeping up with that is tough on us old guys

link to original post

i'm not offended in the slightest og.

if mb was just stating that he thought the definition of racism didn't include a nation, then i can understand posters thinking i was trying to get him suspended on some kind of illegitimate means.

however, if mb made the statement suggesting australians were not even worthy of being called a race, then i think it's an egregious slight on a nation

Quote: lilredrooster

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 read through your post LRR. i got no problem with what you've written. i have limited knowledge on the subject of advanced math, so i cannot make any categorical judgement.

as far as conspiracy theorists and self-promotion just for the sake of it, i'm not interested in such persons.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

... i still maintain that wellbush's paradox ...link to original post

Nope. There's no such paradox.

link to original post

i'm quite happy to have a reasoned (not derisive) discussion on this od.

link to original post

Are you? Because I’ve offered that several times and only ask that you tell me in simple terms what the Wellbush paradox is. And you never do, instead telling me to go hunt for it in old posts you made.

Quote: Wellbush

i have a degree in science.

you're an educated man

you should have long ago been able to decipher which treatises and books are valuable and which are not

you have all kinds of resources at your disposal - google and amazon are just a couple - but there are many more

there is no excuse for you providing a link to Ion Saliu and representing his writing as being worthwhile

this is why I seriously doubt you are truly in pursuit of the truth re this subject


.

Quote: unJon

Are you? Because I’ve offered that several times and only ask that you tell me in simple terms what the Wellbush paradox is. And you never do, instead telling me to go hunt for it in old posts you made.

link to original post

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.

Quote: Wellbush

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

1. Is not a true assertion.
2. Is absolutely not a true assertion.

No paradox.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: unJon

Are you? Because I’ve offered that several times and only ask that you tell me in simple terms what the Wellbush paradox is. And you never do, instead telling me to go hunt for it in old posts you made.

link to original post

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

Thanks. Will give this some thought.

Off the cuff, I’d say 2) isn’t quite correct. -EV means the gambler is always expected to lose. Not that he always loses.

Quote: lilredrooster

you're an educated man
you should have long ago been able to decipher which treatises and books are valuable and which are not
you have all kinds of resources at your disposal - google and amazon are just a couple - but there are many more
there is no excuse for you providing a link to Ion Saliu and representing his writing as being worthwhile
this is why I seriously doubt you are truly in pursuit of the truth re this subject
.

link to original post

that's one opinion of me LRR. i have been looking into gambling for about 12 months now. i don't consider that a long enough time to be a full bottle on the subject. my knowledge of probability/statistics is at a relatively basic university level. hence, i don't consider that to be a full bottle level on the math of gambling. offering a website for gambling posters to have a look at, is different from endorsing it. i don't shy away from that in the slightest my friend. i think you've misread my intentions, but i'm happy for you to adjust your evaluation of me 😊

Quote: OnceDear

1. Is not a true assertion.
2. Is absolutely not a true assertion.

No paradox.

link to original post

i think it's about time you started backing up your claims od. i am not undermining the philosophy of this website! i am putting a scientific truth out there. care to debunk it scientifically?

Quote: unJon

Thanks. Will give this some thought.

Off the cuff, I’d say 2) isn’t quite correct. -EV means the gambler is always expected to lose. Not that he always loses.

link to original post

but a game having a -EV is, i assume, what mathematicians rely upon to refute the idea that gamblers can beat the house. especially if the game goes on long enough.

if i am mistaken, why are Wizards, and the like, going around stating that -EV games will never provide gamblers a profit?

please note: this is not Wellbush saying WOV has an underlying false philosophy. it is a paradox with a genuine q that mathematicians should be able to answer as simply as the paradox i created. i am not here to arse about and cause trouble. if i wanted to do that i could easily do it elsewhere and not get so insulted.

Quote: Wellbush

if i am mistaken, why are Wizards, and the like, going around stating that -EV games will never provide gamblers a profit?
link to original post

Another incorrect assertion
-EV games will occasionally provide gamblers a profit. There. I said it.

E.g Every bet on roulette is -EV
A gambler placing $1 on 35 of the numbers will most likely show a profit on that very spin. You can quote me on that.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

if i am mistaken, why are Wizards, and the like, going around stating that -EV games will never provide gamblers a profit?
link to original post

Another incorrect assertion
-EV games will occasionally provide gamblers a profit. There. I said it.

E.g Every bet on roulette is -EV
A gambler placing $1 on 35 of the numbers will most likely show a profit on that very spin. You can quote me on that.

link to original post

I am not convinced that the math community agree any -EV games will provide gamblers with a profit in the long run, if gamblers are not using AP. it appears from gambling forums, that the math community believe it is impossible over the long run, for gamblers not using AP, to return a profit in the long run. you know, gamblers are fantastical to think that, right?

well, with my paradox, i am not talking about short term wins od. i am talking about long term mathematical truths here.

Note: WOV considers all betting systems worthless. All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: unJon

Thanks. Will give this some thought.

Off the cuff, I’d say 2) isn’t quite correct. -EV means the gambler is always expected to lose. Not that he always loses.

link to original post

but a game having a -EV is, i assume, what mathematicians rely upon to refute the idea that gamblers can beat the house. especially if the game goes on long enough.

if i am mistaken, why are Wizards, and the like, going around stating that -EV games will never provide gamblers a profit?

please note: this is not Wellbush saying WOV has an underlying false philosophy. it is a paradox with a genuine q that mathematicians should be able to answer as simply as the paradox i created. i am not here to arse about and cause trouble. if i wanted to do that i could easily do it elsewhere and not get so insulted.

link to original post

As 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.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

1. Is not a true assertion.
2. Is absolutely not a true assertion.

No paradox.

link to original post

i think it's about time you started backing up your claims od. link to original post

It's not me making claims of a paradox. It's you coming here spouting paradoxes that are not. Until you can even establish a paradox, I'm happy to come here and say 'nay'. Besides where I gave the back up to my 'claim' that your statement was in error, HERE...

Quote:

-EV games will occasionally provide gamblers a profit. There. I said it.

E.g Every bet on roulette is -EV
A gambler placing $1 on 35 of the numbers will most likely show a profit on that very spin. You can quote me on that.

That about as scientific back-up as can exist. Of course, you simply ignored me.
So let's throw this paradox out there: Your posts are not worth debating, but some still try. Beats the h311 out of me.

Quote: unJon

As 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

and when you say "showing a profit," are you referring to the gambler or the casino?

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

if i am mistaken, why are Wizards, and the like, going around stating that -EV games will never provide gamblers a profit?
link to original post

Another incorrect assertion
-EV games will occasionally provide gamblers a profit. There. I said it.

E.g Every bet on roulette is -EV
A gambler placing $1 on 35 of the numbers will most likely show a profit on that very spin. You can quote me on that.

link to original post

I am not convinced that the math community agree any -EV games will provide gamblers with a profit in the long run, if gamblers are not using AP. it appears from gambling forums, that the math community believe it is impossible over the long run, for gamblers not using AP, to return a profit in the long run. you know, gamblers are fantastical to think that, right?

well, with my paradox, i am not talking about short term wins od. i am talking about long term mathematical truths here.

Note: WOV considers all betting systems worthless. All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do.

link to original post

The 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.

Quote: OnceDear

1. Is not a true assertion.
2. Is absolutely not a true assertion.

No paradox.

Just saying "not a true assertion," without anything else, does NOT debunk my scientifically logical paradox. you're gonna have to do better than that od.

Quote: Wellbush

i think it's about time you started backing up your claims od. link to original post

Quote: OnceDear

It's not me making claims of a paradox. It's you coming here spouting paradoxes that are not. Until you can even establish a paradox, I'm happy to come here and say 'nay'. Besides where I gave the back up to my 'claim' that your statement was in error, HERE...

That about as scientific back-up as can exist.

And I have countered already.

Quote: OnceDear

Of course, you simply ignored me.

Sorry you felt ignored within about 15 minutes!

Quote: OnceDear

So let's throw this paradox out there: Your posts are not worth debating, but some still try. Beats the h311 out of me.

link to original post

i think there are posters who think my posts are worth debating, and i've made it pretty clear above why!


* I've attempted to fix your formatting errors {OD}

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: unJon

As 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

and when you say "showing a profit," are you referring to the gambler or the casino?

link to original post

Gambler

Quote: SOOPOO

The 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

i'll get back to you on this SOOPOO.

Quote: unJon

Gambler

link to original post

i'll get back to you on this UJ

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

if i am mistaken, why are Wizards, and the like, going around stating that -EV games will never provide gamblers a profit?
link to original post

Another incorrect assertion
-EV games will occasionally provide gamblers a profit. There. I said it.

E.g Every bet on roulette is -EV
A gambler placing $1 on 35 of the numbers will most likely show a profit on that very spin. You can quote me on that.

link to original post

I am not convinced that the math community agree any -EV games will provide gamblers with a profit in the long run, if gamblers are not using AP. it appears from gambling forums, that the math community believe it is impossible over the long run, for gamblers not using AP, to return a profit in the long run. you know, gamblers are fantastical to think that, right?

well, with my paradox, i am not talking about short term wins od. i am talking about long term mathematical truths here.

Note: WOV considers all betting systems worthless. All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do.

link to original post

The 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

Bold added by me.

Soopoo, not quite right. It could be that you are more likely to win than lose. But when you factor in the likely amounts won and amounts lost, the average will be negative. Think of the martingale.

Quote: 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?

b.) The pennies are going to add up, but not quickly enough, by expectation. What you will notice is that, by the time this event is expected to happen, you have yet to double your bankroll, again, by expectation.

c.) Anyone with a knowledge of math would acknowledge this. You might ask, "Given these conditions, is an individual player going to bust out in his lifetime?" We obviously couldn't say, "Definitely not," but we could say, "Almost definitely not." We could also say that, since we're dealing in theory anyway, if everyone in the world could play in such a fashion eight hours per day, then you're going to start to see the system fail for a few of them in extremely short (time) order. When it does, then everyone else playing it will be trying to make up that deficit one penny at a time, per each. It won't take terribly long to reach the point that the world (on the whole) never makes it back into the positive again.

d.) But, again, this is ridiculous because it would require everyone to have 1.5B dollars. In other words, even if your paradox were actually a paradox, and even if you were right, then you're arguing for something that will never pragmatically be the case.

B.) If we wanted to interpret #1 as strictly as possible, then you're talking about infinite bankroll without actually coming out and saying that. I've already addressed this in previous posts---if you want to discuss every theoretically possible series of results that can ever happen, then by consequence, that must include a series of results (infinite players) in which one player simply never wins. You either want to encompass every theoretically possible sequence of results, or you don't.

Thus, Proposition #1 is flatly wrong. Even though the probability becomes ever more minute (in an a priori sense) with each passing attempt, if the probability of losing exists once, then the probability of nothing but losing is some non-zero probability. Actually, the probability of nothing but losing (for at least one player) is 100%, because, in an infinite model, every possible series of results happens---which includes that one.

C.) At no point have you mathematically demonstrated why Proposition #1 is even true, outside of baselessly declaring it to be so.

The more consecutive losing sequences required to result in a total loss; the closer to, "Near impossible," such a series becomes. I think the major disconnect is that you think that the people who are against you would not be willing to stipulate that, but they would. Near impossible is not impossible.

Just like a ten trial Martingale. You could have a player who never fails over some ridiculously long period of time. The more consecutive successes that you want to stipulate, the less likely continued success becomes (again, a priori, the probability of success or failure is the same for each individual trial), but it is mathematically possible.

Proposition #2

No, it doesn't. It says that the player always plays with a losing expectation on any given bet.

This is where, on the math side, we are forced to respect the finite. As in my example above, MOST players playing that way, if everyone in the world did it for eight hours per day on a 1.5B dollar bankroll and a bet starting with $0.01 would NOT have lost a sequence by the time they die.

In most sets of boundary conditions, every play will be on the losing side, sooner or later, but not in that set. As I mentioned before, the problem with that set of boundary conditions is that it's not realistic.

Of course, since we're discussing unrealistic sets of boundary conditions anyway, if a person were immortal and could play eight hours a day for all eternity, then they would eventually have a losing series.

Either way, the concept of arguing infinity is ridiculous no matter what side it is coming from. Do you have a 1.5B dollar bankroll and would you be interested in adding a few pennies an hour to it even if you did?

Quote: unJon

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

if i am mistaken, why are Wizards, and the like, going around stating that -EV games will never provide gamblers a profit?
link to original post

Another incorrect assertion
-EV games will occasionally provide gamblers a profit. There. I said it.

E.g Every bet on roulette is -EV
A gambler placing $1 on 35 of the numbers will most likely show a profit on that very spin. You can quote me on that.

link to original post

I am not convinced that the math community agree any -EV games will provide gamblers with a profit in the long run, if gamblers are not using AP. it appears from gambling forums, that the math community believe it is impossible over the long run, for gamblers not using AP, to return a profit in the long run. you know, gamblers are fantastical to think that, right?

well, with my paradox, i am not talking about short term wins od. i am talking about long term mathematical truths here.

Note: WOV considers all betting systems worthless. All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do.

link to original post

The 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

Bold added by me.

Soopoo, not quite right. It could be that you are more likely to win than lose. But when you factor in the likely amounts won and amounts lost, the average will be negative. Think of the martingale.

link to original post

Of course. I did say I’d need to know the system used. With a Martingale being up is no big deal. I gotta stop responding. You don’t want to learn. Just wasting my time.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: unJon

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wellbush

if i am mistaken, why are Wizards, and the like, going around stating that -EV games will never provide gamblers a profit?
link to original post

Another incorrect assertion
-EV games will occasionally provide gamblers a profit. There. I said it.

E.g Every bet on roulette is -EV
A gambler placing $1 on 35 of the numbers will most likely show a profit on that very spin. You can quote me on that.

link to original post

I am not convinced that the math community agree any -EV games will provide gamblers with a profit in the long run, if gamblers are not using AP. it appears from gambling forums, that the math community believe it is impossible over the long run, for gamblers not using AP, to return a profit in the long run. you know, gamblers are fantastical to think that, right?

well, with my paradox, i am not talking about short term wins od. i am talking about long term mathematical truths here.

Note: WOV considers all betting systems worthless. All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do.

link to original post

The 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

Bold added by me.

Soopoo, not quite right. It could be that you are more likely to win than lose. But when you factor in the likely amounts won and amounts lost, the average will be negative. Think of the martingale.

link to original post

Of course. I did say I’d need to know the system used. With a Martingale being up is no big deal. I gotta stop responding. You don’t want to learn. Just wasting my time.

link to original post

Huh? That was me correcting you, not Wellbush.

Quote: SOOPOO

The 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

well, 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.

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.

all posters please note, i am zoning out at the moment. my brain is telling me it's seizing up. i will get around to everyone's posts eventually. may take a day or more

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: SOOPOO

The 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

well, 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.

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.

Quote: Wellbush

]well, 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.

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

I do hope you'll respond to my longer post...preferably all in ONE post, but feel free to take your time about it. We may have actually stumbled upon an interesting discussion by which we can find some agreement and clarify our positions a little bit. That said, I only have enough time for probably one post (of that length) per day on this specific subject.

Anyway, I'll offer really short responses in the order of these paragraphs, but do hope you will respond to the long post.

1.) I think that this point is fair, to an extent; the extent being that, "Long run," is kind of an all-encompassing verbiage that has a variable definition that mainly depends on the exact nature of the proposition.

The one thing that I will encourage you to understand is that we are NOT saying that every single actually living gambler will be on the losing end (lifetime) given an initial set of boundary conditions. In my longer post, I gave you an example of a theoretical scenario in which any one particular gambler probably wouldn't lose in his lifetime.

I have gathered that you're no great fan of the concept of EV, but certainly, you can admit that some games are mathematically worse for a player than others, can you not? How can that be the case without the concept of Expected Value? In your view, what would make an Even Money bet on Roulette worse than a Pass Line bet at Craps? Do you maintain that the two are the same thing?

2.) Those questions are all relevant. Depending on the nature of the progression and the manner in which a particular player is playing, it is probably quite possible than an individual player could still be ahead after that number of hands. With a large enough number of players attempting to do it, then you would end up with a scenario where one (or more) in the group actually should still be ahead. The ones to bust out will more than make up for this.

3.) This is where you have to separate, "Is going to win," from, "Mathematically expected to win." If you present a set of boundary conditions that includes game, bankroll, Table Minimum to Table Maximum range, progression, number of attempts and total number of people trying it, then many players could well end up on the winning side within a particular sample.

It's also important to understand that Expectation is Expectation. Probability is probability. If any of these things were absolute, then you wouldn't be gambling---you would simply be trading some amount of money for some smaller amount of money over and over again.

10,000 players, 10,000 Craps Tables, each player makes one Pass Line bet: How many are expected to win? 4,929. If we only do this once, how likely is it that EXACTLY 4,929 players will win and EXACTLY 5,071 will lose? Not very.

Thus, not every question (especially with concepts such as, 'Long run') is going to have a quick concrete answer. If all the answers were set in stone, then the question wouldn't have anything to do with gambling.

4.) Because they don't change the mathematical expectation. Two things can be true at once. Depending on the boundary conditions, you can say that it is highly unlikely (again, I gave an example in my long post) that every player to do that will end up on the losing end; however, it still does not change the mathematical expectation of the game.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: 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?

b.) The pennies are going to add up, but not quickly enough, by expectation. What you will notice is that, by the time this event is expected to happen, you have yet to double your bankroll, again, by expectation.

c.) Anyone with a knowledge of math would acknowledge this. You might ask, "Given these conditions, is an individual player going to bust out in his lifetime?" We obviously couldn't say, "Definitely not," but we could say, "Almost definitely not." We could also say that, since we're dealing in theory anyway, if everyone in the world could play in such a fashion eight hours per day, then you're going to start to see the system fail for a few of them in extremely short (time) order. When it does, then everyone else playing it will be trying to make up that deficit one penny at a time, per each. It won't take terribly long to reach the point that the world (on the whole) never makes it back into the positive again.

d.) But, again, this is ridiculous because it would require everyone to have 1.5B dollars. In other words, even if your paradox were actually a paradox, and even if you were right, then you're arguing for something that will never pragmatically be the case.

B.) If we wanted to interpret #1 as strictly as possible, then you're talking about infinite bankroll without actually coming out and saying that. I've already addressed this in previous posts---if you want to discuss every theoretically possible series of results that can ever happen, then by consequence, that must include a series of results (infinite players) in which one player simply never wins. You either want to encompass every theoretically possible sequence of results, or you don't.

Thus, Proposition #1 is flatly wrong. Even though the probability becomes ever more minute (in an a priori sense) with each passing attempt, if the probability of losing exists once, then the probability of nothing but losing is some non-zero probability. Actually, the probability of nothing but losing (for at least one player) is 100%, because, in an infinite model, every possible series of results happens---which includes that one.

C.) At no point have you mathematically demonstrated why Proposition #1 is even true, outside of baselessly declaring it to be so.

The more consecutive losing sequences required to result in a total loss; the closer to, "Near impossible," such a series becomes. I think the major disconnect is that you think that the people who are against you would not be willing to stipulate that, but they would. Near impossible is not impossible.

Just like a ten trial Martingale. You could have a player who never fails over some ridiculously long period of time. The more consecutive successes that you want to stipulate, the less likely continued success becomes (again, a priori, the probability of success or failure is the same for each individual trial), but it is mathematically possible.

Proposition #2

No, it doesn't. It says that the player always plays with a losing expectation on any given bet.

This is where, on the math side, we are forced to respect the finite. As in my example above, MOST players playing that way, if everyone in the world did it for eight hours per day on a 1.5B dollar bankroll and a bet starting with $0.01 would NOT have lost a sequence by the time they die.

In most sets of boundary conditions, every play will be on the losing side, sooner or later, but not in that set. As I mentioned before, the problem with that set of boundary conditions is that it's not realistic.

Of course, since we're discussing unrealistic sets of boundary conditions anyway, if a person were immortal and could play eight hours a day for all eternity, then they would eventually have a losing series.

Either way, the concept of arguing infinity is ridiculous no matter what side it is coming from. Do you have a 1.5B dollar bankroll and would you be interested in adding a few pennies an hour to it even if you did?

link to original post

OMG!!!! 146, you got me laughing! okay, i will eventually answer your post. i still can't stop laughing. rest assure as i type, i know you are genuine. okay, i am not laughing at your genuineness. you definitely have sincerity written into the beginnings of this post at least. i will answer it eventually. you'll have to bear with me 146. for now, i'm just somewhat dumbfounded by the initial logic you've come up with in A. i'm sure everything will be sorted in the long run. catch up with you in the next day or two 👍

Quote: Wellbush

OMG!!!! 146, you got me laughing! okay, i will eventually answer your post. i still can't stop laughing. rest assure as i type, i know you are genuine. okay, i am not laughing at your genuineness. you definitely have sincerity written into the beginnings of this post at least. i will answer it eventually. you'll have to bear with me 146. for now, i'm just somewhat dumbfounded by the initial logic you've come up with in A. i'm sure everything will be sorted in the long run. catch up with you in the next day or two 👍

link to original post

That's borderline insulting, though I'm not calling it an insult. I literally handed you a scenario in which a staggering percentage of people to attempt a particular system would end up being profitable by the time they died...assuming that they will only die upon completing a series (one way or the other), of course. In other words, I deliberately looked at your position in the light most favorable to you and presented an example that's...I guess it's not exactly possible, but close enough.

Quote: Mission146

That's borderline insulting, though I'm not calling it an insult. I literally handed you a scenario in which a staggering percentage of people to attempt a particular system would end up being profitable by the time they died...assuming that they will only die upon completing a series (one way or the other), of course. In other words, I deliberately looked at your position in the light most favorable to you and presented an example that's...I guess it's not exactly possible, but close enough.

link to original post

okay. i don't want you to feel insulted. that's definitely not what i intend. i will get back to you. cheers

_________


I have been developing for a very long time what I call my multi-systematic methodology



I'm going to start off betting red at roulette on a 5 stage martingale

after 10 spins - no matter where I am, I'm going to switch to 10 spins on a reverse Labouchere

next comes 20 spins on a D'Alembert progression

and finally 30 spins on a reverse Oscars Grind


in case you hadn't noticed - the beauty of this is I've fibonacci-ed my number of spins - 10,10, 20 and 30 - don't want you to miss that

30 spins is tops - after that I go back to the beginning and start all over with 10 spins



and that's not all - all the while I'm doing bet selection angling for streaks

if I don't immediately catch a streak on red or black I switch to looking for a streak on odd/even

if I don't right away catch a streak on odd/even I try to get myself a streak on Hi/Lo



I'll be doing this for a very long time at a brick and mortar casino that I have not yet chosen

and I will be doing regular trip reports so everybody can have undeniable proof that my multi - systematic methodology is a 5 star winner in the long run






Edit: and btw it won't matter at all if I play on a one zero or a two zero wheel

my calculations indicate that the results will be the same


.

oh, you've beaten me to the "eclectic" gambling approach strategy LRR. i was going to explain it and, well, it's no use me doing something you've already thought of. oh well 🤷‍♂️

Quote: lilredrooster

on July 14, 2015 Nasa's "New Horizons" rocket flew to within 7800 miles of Pluto

Pluto is more than 3 billion miles away from Earth

if computer simulations are not real or authoritative, and they undoubtedly did multiple sims to engineer this trip - then wouldn't that mission have failed?


.

link to original post

Are you aware of the exact goal of the mission? There is no doubt that their achievement of getting within the vicinity of Pluto was successful. The difference is that the mission was not a random exercise in that most all variables were predetermined based on fixed calculations of speed, time, and distance. Those calculations created certainty regarding the flight. The only major uncertainty was whether the mechanical integrity of the rocket and its electronic components would hold up for the entirety of the flight and the mission.

Computers can try to simulate randomness, but as Sabre said don't always mirror the actual events (paraphrase). "Live cards and roulette wheels (and dice; my words added) have a sentence that makes their behavior IMPOSSIBLE (emphasis) to SIMULATE (emphasis) or mathematically MODEL (emphasis)."

tuttigym

Quote: Dieter

Quote: sabre

Quote: MichaelBluejay

What's your evidence for this absurd claim?

link to original post

Live cards and roulette wheels have a sentience that makes their behavior impossible to simulate or mathematically model. Whether this sentience was imbued through mystical means or is extraterrestrial in origin is irrelevant.

link to original post

One would think that after fifty years of trying, the scientists could come up with a formula to approximate when red has been hot, black is due.

link to original post

Dieter are you agreeing with Mr. sabre that computer simulations regarding cards, roulette, dice (my words) are IMPOSSIBLE to SIMULATE?

tuttigym

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.

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.

Quote: billryan

Quote: FastEddie

Did you win or lose ? impossible to give you an intelligent answer without that information !

link to original post

Let's say I lost $15.

link to original post

Are you sure you lost $15 ?Just asking before giving my answer. Not doubting you, but my my math teacher “ Professor Al Kaufman “ says if you had the same size bankroll when you left the table as when you first sat down, how could you have lost $15 ? .?

Quote: SOOPOO

I gotta stop responding. You don’t want to learn. Just wasting my time.

link to original post

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is why I thank your post. Commendable decision.