Wellbush
About 9 months ago. Can't remember the exact date. Wanted to trial my BJ basic strategy skills for the first time, using the Fibonacci Sequence. Handed over about $500 cash. Played for about an hour and half, and was up. Don't recall how much I was up. Then the table min went from $15 to $25. I switched tables to another $15 min.
Slowly started descending. After another couple of hours, all $500 given up! hmm..
Side note: The Crown Casino in Perth, Western Australia, is the only casino permitted to be licensed in Western Australia. Other Australian states have casinos, too. They are probably limited in number though, as politicians here want to limit gambling exposure in the community.
Shocker!!!Quote: Wellbush
Slowly started descending. After another couple of hours, all $500 given up! hmm..
.
Quote: WellbushI went to the Betting Systems area and posted there. Could a mod please hide this thread there? I don't need any naysayer's comments.
Well if you play with the right system and lose the roulette, your losses would markedly decrease.
Then don't post.
That's what these forums are about, reading what someone says and then commenting / following up on it.
What, you think you deserve a bye?
Bwa ha ha ha!
Quote: WellbushThen the table min went from $15 to $25. I switched tables to another $15 min.
In Vegas you are allowed to keep playing at the prior table minimum until you leave. All newcomers have to abide by the new minimum though. Would have thought that that policy was universal.
there's more to come, and it's not pretty. But it's honest.Quote: unJonI think Wellbush should be applauded for testing his system and reporting that he had a loss. Bravo, sir.
to naysayers who can't help themselves (not UJ), you're just showing what kind of posters you are. Go and post in your boring naysayer columns if your only comments are take downs
i'm in perth, western australia, RJ. They gave me about an hour's warning for the change up. i thought it was fair, and i could leave and join another $15 table.Quote: rsactuaryIn Vegas you are allowed to keep playing at the prior table minimum until you leave. All newcomers have to abide by the new minimum though. Would have thought that that policy was universal.
Quote: WellbushCould a mod please hide this thread there? I don't need any naysayer's comments.
I graciously decline to honor your request at this time.
If you feel sheepish about these things, I hope it may serve as a motivation for self-betterment.
Good luck in your endeavors.
Edit: I won't hide the thread, but I will relocate it to Betting Systems.
will that mean it won't show up in the recent threads list? That's all I wantQuote: DieterI graciously decline to honor your request at this time.
If you feel sheepish about these things, I hope it may serve as a motivation for self-betterment.
Good luck in your endeavors.
Edit: I won't hide the thread, but I will relocate it to Betting Systems.
Quote: Wellbushwill that mean it won't show up in the recent threads list?
Nay, I say; nay.
Quote: Wellbushwill that mean it won't show up in the recent threads list? That's all I want
That would be hiding the thread.
That is the request I have graciously declined to honor.
Thank you; enjoy the day.
Quote: WellbushI went to the Betting Systems area and posted there.
Could a mod please hide this thread there?
Quote: DieterI graciously decline to honor your request at this time.
I won't hide the thread, but I will relocate it to Betting Systems.
Quote: Wellbushwill that mean it won't show up in the recent threads list?
That's all I want
Quote: DieterThat would be hiding the thread.
That is the request I have graciously declined to honor.
Brilliant manipulation tactics...Well played, Wellbush.
Quote: WellbushNot manipulating. Genuine request as I'm reporting about my betting systems attempts. Oh well, it can't be hidden so I won't post my reports. WOV miss out 🤷
This thread has been moved to the "Betting Systems" heading.
You may post about your martingale, fibonacci, d'alembert, or similar exploits without undue fear of official reprisal.
You have asked for the thread to be hidden, which would keep it off the "Recent threads" list whenever an update is posted.
I continue to graciously decline to honor this request.
While I understand it's somewhat rare for system payers and degens to tell the truth about their wins and losses, people shouldn't be applauded if and when they are telling the truth.Quote: unJonI think Wellbush should be applauded for testing his system and reporting that he had a loss. Bravo, sir.
And just because someone reports a loss, that doesn't mean their stories should be more believable.
One should always toss in some losses to make their stuff seem more belivable.
Most of the system players who tout their systems oftentimes start off with how they had been losing for years until they finally refined their system to the current one that works. Someome may even claim they have/had a mentor that showed them the light.
Mee too, and yet it's still here.Quote: Wellbushwill that mean it won't show up in the recent threads list? That's all I wantQuote: DieterI graciously decline to honor your request at this time.
If you feel sheepish about these things, I hope it may serve as a motivation for self-betterment.
Good luck in your endeavors.
Edit: I won't hide the thread, but I will relocate it to Betting Systems.
You don't get to dictate what people post on the forums.Quote: Wellbushthere's more to come, and it's not pretty. But it's honest.
to naysayers who can't help themselves (not UJ), you're just showing what kind of posters you are. Go and post in your boring naysayer columns if your only comments are take downs
I think you had me blocked before but don't now?
I too tried the Fibonacci sequence and different variations in my Ploppie days.
Fibonacci seems so perfect.
1) It's a natural recurring series in nature so it makes sense it might work in gambling.
2) It extends the time to ruin for your bankroll by not having to double up while still raising your bets.
3) You can suffer a number of losses and then quickly recoup them and with more than just a one unit profit.
That said, The Fibonacci has a fatal flaw (If you are interested I will explain the fatal flaw in using Fibonacci)
You may already know it but I haven't seen you mention it so I am throwing it out there.
Quote: AxelWolfMee too, and yet it's still here.
I believe the forum's Block Thread feature will allow you to perform this function, should you so choose.
Thank you; enjoy the day.
Ah, ha, ha, ha. Tell us AW, what is the pattern for someone telling the truth then?Quote: AxelWolfWhile I understand it's somewhat rare for system payers and degens to tell the truth about their wins and losses, people shouldn't be applauded if and when they are telling the truth.
And just because someone reports a loss, that doesn't mean their stories should be more believable.
One should always toss in some losses to make their stuff seem more belivable.
Most of the system players who tout their systems oftentimes start off with how they had been losing for years until they finally refined their system to the current one that works. Someome may even claim they have/had a mentor that showed them the light.
Quote: AxelWolfWhile I understand it's somewhat rare for system payers and degens to tell the truth about their wins and losses, people shouldn't be applauded if and when they are telling the truth.
And just because someone reports a loss, that doesn't mean their stories should be more believable.
One should always toss in some losses to make their stuff seem more belivable.
Most of the system players who tout their systems oftentimes start off with how they had been losing for years until they finally refined their system to the current one that works. Someome may even claim they have/had a mentor that showed them the light.
Disagree. He made a believable trip report. Those are some of the best posts on this forum.
If he does things later that we should shame him for, then we should shake him for those things. Not this thing.
that's fine DOz, I'm happy to hear you out, here. I reserve the right to agree/disagree/remain on the fence.Quote: darkozWellbush,
I think you had me blocked before but don't now?
I too tried the Fibonacci sequence and different variations in my Ploppie days.
Fibonacci seems so perfect.
1) It's a natural recurring series in nature so it makes sense it might work in gambling.
2) It extends the time to ruin for your bankroll by not having to double up while still raising your bets.
3) You can suffer a number of losses and then quickly recoup them and with more than just a one unit profit.
That said, The Fibonacci has a fatal flaw (If you are interested I will explain the fatal flaw in using Fibonacci)
You may already know it but I haven't seen you mention it so I am throwing it out there.
I won't be exposing further trials without this thread 1. being hidden, 2. Can't have derisive comments. Derisive comments can be made about betting systems threads in any other areas of WOV.Quote: unJonDisagree. He made a believable trip report. Those are some of the best posts on this forum.
If he does things later that we should shame him for, then we should shake him for those things. Not this thing.
It's totally unfair and only feeds trolls, for derision to be tolerated by believers in believers threads, but the same cannot be tolerated by naysayers in naysayers threads.
I will add that I think WOV needs to modernize and can only get bigger and better, if they start realising the benefits of what I'm suggesting. WOV can still hold the mathematical point of view in every other area of its site, and at the same time, have a protected believers area.
I can poke around on other sites. I don't need WOV!
Quote: Wellbushthat's fine DOz, I'm happy to hear you out, here. I reserve the right to agree/disagree/remain on the fence.
I'm only going to state facts.
The fatal flaw in the Fibonacci is there must be two back-to-back wins to have a winning sequence. Sometimes this will work out for you but other times you will find it leads to your destruction.
For example, it's possible after just two losing games you wind up winning nearly fifty percent of the next dozen spins and still lose.
I haven't seen you describe how your system proposes to overcome this.
Let's take six losses followed by a win.
1+1+2+3+5+8 = 20 units lost.
Next spin in the sequence is 13 units. You win! Great but you haven't profited yet. You are still 7 units down.
I call that the primary win.
What is your secondary win?
If you just wager the same, 13 units again and win, fantastic you have profited 6 units. But you could literally spend half an hour on a chop for that secondary win (lose, 13, win 13, lose 13, win 13) and then lose two in a row and you are literally back in the Fibonacci sequence only starting way in the middle.
You could go aggressive and make the secondary wager the next in the Fibonacci. So win 13, wager 21. If you get two back to back wins you have really good profit, 14 units. But lose and you find yourself sinking deeper and closer to table max.
Or you could go conservative and reduce your secondary to the prior level. Win 13, wager 8. With that your profit is one unit (21 units minus the 20 you lost). With a chop table you may do well but any other time you are spending a long time for minimum return.
At any rate, you will find the times you win twice in a row will greatly be outweighed by the times you don't.
Quote: WellbushI won't be exposing further trials without this thread 1. being hidden, 2. Can't have derisive comments.
1. No.
2. No.
If you don't want others to easily find what you write, keep it in your diary.
If you don't want others to respond to what you write, keep it in your diary.
We also have a blog section that most people don't bother to look at.
People politely and graciously telling me that I'm dumb has been extremely motivating on my journey of self-improvement; I would be remiss to deprive you of the benefits of criticism.
there's the school of hard knocks and the school of nurtured progression. I prefer the latter ☺️Quote: Dieter1. No.
2. No.
If you don't want others to easily find what you write, keep it in your diary.
If you don't want others to respond to what you write, keep it in your diary.
We also have a blog section that most people don't bother to look at.
People politely and graciously telling me that I'm dumb has been extremely motivating on my journey of self-improvement; I would be remiss to deprive you of the benefits of criticism.
thanks DOz. I appreciate the discussion. I recently became aware of how the initial chopping back and forth in the sequence, can deceptively keep the bettor behind.Quote: darkozI'm only going to state facts.
The fatal flaw in the Fibonacci is there must be two back-to-back wins to have a winning sequence. Sometimes this will work out for you but other times you will find it leads to your destruction.
For example, it's possible after just two losing games you wind up winning nearly fifty percent of the next dozen spins and still lose.
I haven't seen you describe how your system proposes to overcome this.
Let's take six losses followed by a win.
1+1+2+3+5+8 = 20 units lost.
Next spin in the sequence is 13 units. You win! Great but you haven't profited yet. You are still 7 units down.
I call that the primary win.
What is your secondary win?
If you just wager the same, 13 units again and win, fantastic you have profited 6 units. But you could literally spend half an hour on a chop for that secondary win (lose, 13, win 13, lose 13, win 13) and then lose two in a row and you are literally back in the Fibonacci sequence only starting way in the middle.
You could go aggressive and make the secondary wager the next in the Fibonacci. So win 13, wager 21. If you get two back to back wins you have really good profit, 14 units. But lose and you find yourself sinking deeper and closer to table max.
Or you could go conservative and reduce your secondary to the prior level. Win 13, wager 8. With that your profit is one unit (21 units minus the 20 you lost). With a chop table you may do well but any other time you are spending a long time for minimum return.
At any rate, you will find the times you win twice in a row will greatly be outweighed by the times you don't.
I'm working on a solution but acknowledge that there may not be one (if naysayers can cope with that?)!
Quote: Wellbushthanks DOz. I appreciate the discussion. I recently became aware of how the initial chopping back and forth in the sequence, can deceptively keep the bettor behind.
I'm working on a solution but acknowledge that there may not be one (if naysayers can cope with that?)!
Fair enough. You will have to go on this journey of discovery on your own.
I did it myself.
My prediction:. In about twenty years you will be having this same conversation with someone else trying to break the Fibonacci sequence, telling them of how it doesn't work and having them refuse to believe you.
Humanity is doomed to repeat it's mistakes.
Quote: DieterI believe the forum's Block Thread feature will allow you to perform this function, should you so choose.
Thank you; enjoy the day.
I think the only time I had blocked threads was when I first started, I don't remember why, but I think it was mostly non-gambling-related threads, I only did that for a short period of time and said screw it, I haven't done so since, nor have I ever blocked a person.
That being said, I choose not to.
I'm a big boy, I can ignore somthing or someone if I wish. I don't need some computer function to aid me. Blocking stuff is for wimps.
I can't explain it to someone that can't grasp a simple +EV -EV concept. I probably can't even explain to someone who can. There are far too many variables, it's one of those things, you just know it when you see it.Quote: WellbushAh, ha, ha, ha. Tell us AW, what is the pattern for someone telling the truth then?
Of course you are, as I predicted.Quote: Wellbush
I'm working on a solution but acknowledge that there may not be one (if naysayers can cope with that?)!
The only solution is to accept you can't beat a -EV game no matter what system you use.
Quote: AxelWolfBlocking stuff is for wimps.
I agree. There used to be a lot more duesies under off-topic before DT came to be. Blocking stuff formerly offered more benefit than it now does, but the feature still exists.
if I was a naysayer on this site, or I didn't expose myself too much, I may not use the block function either.Quote: AxelWolfQuote: DieterI believe the forum's Block Thread feature will allow you to perform this function, should you so choose.
Thank you; enjoy the day.
I think the only time I had blocked threads was when I first started, I don't remember why, but I think it was mostly non-gambling-related threads, I only did that for a short period of time and said screw it, I haven't done so since, nor have I ever blocked a person.
That being said, I choose not to.
I'm a big boy, I can ignore somthing or someone if I wish. I don't need some computer function to aid me. Blocking stuff is for wimps.
Saying it's about manhood doesn't cut it. We're all sensitive, otherwise we're cold/hard.
Again, if believers on WOV were permitted to take down naysayers to the extent naysayers are believers, you may not be so tough!
I could probably grasp EV just as much as the average EV grasper. It's not the only thing I want to do in life. Hence, I don't know how long it will take.Quote: AxelWolfI can't explain it to someone that can't grasp a simple +EV -EV concept. I probably can't even explain to someone who can. There are far too many variables, it's one of those things, you just know it when you see it.
But, the other concept about EV is how well it encapsulates a winning/losing betting system. You may take the generally accepted mathematical point of view for granted. I don't. That doesn't mean I won't eventually accept it. I want to evaluate it in my own time and in my own way.
That's not being stubborn! Evaluating the maths is something that some here seem to think I'm not permitted the luxury! Who's got the problem?
Quote: Wellbush
Again, if believers on WOV were permitted to take down naysayers to the extent naysayers are believers, you may not be so tough!
Naysayers generally use science, mathematics, and logic to address the believers.
I am aware of nothing which would keep believers from doing the same.
If a system works reliably, surely there is a way to measure its performance and understand its reason for success.
Agreed, but tying everything down to one simple formula isn't necessarily the answer. Do you think that it's impossible that there may be rare gamblers beating the casinos legitimately, by using a system? If not, do you think they're gonna share that system with others?Quote: DieterNaysayers generally use science, mathematics, and logic to address the believers.
I am aware of nothing which would keep believers from doing the same.
If a system works reliably, surely there is a way to measure its performance and understand its reason for success.
There are a lot of posters here who think anyone keeping a system to themselves, is outright wrong! I don't, and it's got nothing to do with not having something legitimate. Again, who's shortsighted when it comes to that?
Do you think MDawg's a fraud?
I'm enjoying our discussion Dieter 👍
I went there a few years ago and the Crown, Perth is a pleasant casino, personally I played PGTiles there. I also went to a few casinos on the East/South side of Australia.Quote: WellbushTrip report 1. Went to my local: Crown Casino, Perth, Western Australia.
About 9 months ago. Can't remember the exact date. Wanted to trial my BJ basic strategy skills for the first time, using the Fibonacci Sequence. Handed over about $500 cash. Played for about an hour and half, and was up. Don't recall how much I was up. Then the table min went from $15 to $25. I switched tables to another $15 min.
Slowly started descending. After another couple of hours, all $500 given up! hmm..
Side note: The Crown Casino in Perth, Western Australia, is the only casino permitted to be licensed in Western Australia. Other Australian states have casinos, too. They are probably limited in number though, as politicians here want to limit gambling exposure in the community.
I'm assuming you're not counting and sticking to basic strategy (for their specific rules). In the long run the odds are in the favour of the casino (this is what -EV means) but It is perfectly reasonable that an hour long session could come out ahead. Using a betting system that increases the wager after losses will make it more likely a session comes out ahead but the downside is it increases the expected loss of losing sessions, in the long term it costs more than minimum flat betting.
Quote: WellbushDo you think that it's impossible that there may be rare gamblers beating the casinos legitimately, by using a system? If not, do you think they're gonna share that system with others?
I think that someone has to be the first to figure something out.
I think there are valid reasons to not disclose the details of a novel method or technique.
I think that if a person is trying to keep something secret, that person should generally seek to avoid publicity regarding both the results and the method.
It is possible for players to win.
It is possible for players to embellish or misreport their results.
You appear to be genuinely trying to find one.
I did it myself. They don't work.
Confession here. When my 10th grade science teacher said perpetual motion machines are impossible I set about making one. I designed and built one, using the machine shop in my high school (well, built one that doesn't work).
When you're young you believe you can conquer the world. I wasn't even very good at math, mechanical design, or physics and yet I was building a perpetual motion machine. (At age 52 I look back at my teenage self and laugh at my naivete)
When I first came onto WOV I was about forty years old and trying to beat gambling using the Fibonacci. The Wizard wrote somewhere that anyone trying to beat a negative-EV game using a system is no different than someone who believes they can build a perpetual motion machine.
It was an eye opener for me. I remembered my attempts at creating a perpetual motion machine.
I wandered into AP by accident but it has taught me a lot. What's possible and what's not.
You would be better off trying to manipulate the math so you can create an edge like AP's do rather than beat the math.
This forum is the best place to learn AP ideas. I say ideas because AP's don't like giving up trade secrets and can be cryptic about what they do but the concepts are here. From card counting to comp hustling.
That's how your time will be better spent.
Otherwise you will be like me at age 40 realizing how ridiculous you were in your youth.
Good luck.
thanks for your contribution CP. The great thing I like about Crown in Perth is that like most of Australian society these days, it's smoke free and not a hint of it about. That's something I would be wary of experiencing in the US.Quote: charliepatrickI went there a few years ago and the Crown, Perth is a pleasant casino, personally I played PGTiles there. I also went to a few casinos on the East/South side of Australia.
I'm assuming you're not counting and sticking to basic strategy (for their specific rules). In the long run the odds are in the favour of the casino (this is what -EV means) but It is perfectly reasonable that an hour long session could come out ahead. Using a betting system that increases the wager after losses will make it more likely a session comes out ahead but the downside is it increases the expected loss of losing sessions, in the long term it costs more than minimum flat betting.
Not counting, no. Hey, there you go everyone! A certain Mr Tamburin informed me that counting would not work where there are shuffling machines swallowing cards after every hand. You know amazingly, I took his word for it!!! He's not, strictly speaking, even a mathematician!! There's hope for me afterall!!!
Yeah, basic strategy and sheepishly trialling some variations of progressive systems. Had some losses that burn one's fingers into being very cautious. A good thing.
I agree with every line except secrecy to an extent. I hope naysayers are reading.Quote: DieterI think that someone has to be the first to figure something out.
I think there are valid reasons to not disclose the details of a novel method or technique.
I think that if a person is trying to keep something secret, that person should generally seek to avoid publicity regarding both the results and the method.
It is possible for players to win.
It is possible for players to embellish or misreport their results.
Quote: DieterNaysayers generally use science, mathematics, and logic to address the believers.
I am aware of nothing which would keep believers from doing the same.
If a system works reliably, surely there is a way to measure its performance and understand its reason for success.
For many believers (not necessarily anyone in this thread) of various (and unnamed) things, believers tend not to use science, mathematics and logic to address things because they have no grasp of those three things or how those three things might apply. I tend to believe, if they did, then they would no longer be believers.
Anyway, I agree with Wellbush's request to hide this thread. You'll forgive me for being so bold, but I see no reason not to acquiesce to that request if that's what he wants.
Quote: WellbushAgreed, but tying everything down to one simple formula isn't necessarily the answer. Do you think that it's impossible that there may be rare gamblers beating the casinos legitimately, by using a system? If not, do you think they're gonna share that system with others?
There are a lot of posters here who think anyone keeping a system to themselves, is outright wrong! I don't, and it's got nothing to do with not having something legitimate. Again, who's shortsighted when it comes to that?
Do you think MDawg's a fraud?
I'm enjoying our discussion Dieter 👍
Earlier posts have attacked windmills and now this one is attacking strawmen. There's nobody who ever said that, "Rare gamblers," may not be, at present, beating the casinos using a system. If there are enough people using systems, for a time, it becomes almost certain that more than zero of them are on the winning side at any given point. If you had 10,000 players all playing the Martingale, the number of trials (for each) required until they are all on the losing side AFTER a given trial is huge.
Why would you ask a question such as, "Do you think MDawg's a fraud?" I wasn't aware that this thread was about him.
Even if someone thought MDawg was a fraud, it's not as if that person could say so without violating Forum Rules. Thus, you are asking a question that a person is required to:
A.) Ignore---which could be interpreted as them answering, 'No,' even if they believe the answer is yes.
B.) Respond to with a, "No."
C.) Say, "Yes," (if that's what the respondent actually believes) and get suspended.
Please explain how asking that question is not trolling.
yeh, i know i'm an odd ball!Quote: darkozWellbush, you seem to be a little different than some of the posters claiming systems.
i heard a scotsman tell me that there isn't such a thing as perpetual motion. but he said the closest thing to it was a jew chasing a scotsman for his money.Quote: darkozYou appear to be genuinely trying to find one.
I did it myself. They don't work.
Confession here. When my 10th grade science teacher said perpetual motion machines are impossible I set about making one. I designed and built one, using the machine shop in my high school (well, built one that doesn't work).
i'm 57, but hey!Quote: darkozWhen you're young you believe you can conquer the world. I wasn't even very good at math, mechanical design, or physics and yet I was building a perpetual motion machine. (At age 52 I look back at my teenage self and laugh at my naivete)
thanks for your contribution DOzQuote: darkozWhen I first came onto WOV I was about forty years old and trying to beat gambling using the Fibonacci. The Wizard wrote somewhere that anyone trying to beat a negative-EV game using a system is no different than someone who believes they can build a perpetual motion machine.
It was an eye opener for me. I remembered my attempts at creating a perpetual motion machine.
I wandered into AP by accident but it has taught me a lot. What's possible and what's not.
You would be better off trying to manipulate the math so you can create an edge like AP's do rather than beat the math.
This forum is the best place to learn AP ideas. I say ideas because AP's don't like giving up trade secrets and can be cryptic about what they do but the concepts are here. From card counting to comp hustling.
That's how your time will be better spent.
Otherwise you will be like me at age 40 realizing how ridiculous you were in your youth.
Good luck.
Quote: Wellbush
i heard a scotsman tell me that there isn't such a thing as perpetual motion. but he said the closest thing to it was a jew chasing a scotsman for his money.
This is either trolling, an insult, or hate speech.
I don't care to figure it out; it's clearly out of line.
7 days.
You missed an opportunity to show him just how well Martingale works in the short term.Quote: Dieter
7 days.
