Quote:ThatDonGuy

Every system runs up against the same problem: no matter what the probability of eventual success is, if the expected value of each bet is negative,

If the majority of the time you know what the next outcome will be, that means the expected value of every bet is positive. There is nothing in the math that says you cannot find a way to figure out what the next outcome will probably be. Once you figure that out the math goes out the window and flies away. You are now playing a positive expectation game and no longer gambling.

Quote:EvenBob. Once you figure that out the math goes out the window and flies away. You are now playing a positive expectation game and no longer gambling.

another false statement from you

math didn't fly out the window because you have a positive expectation

math will determine what your long run expectation is based on your edge

and what your variance will be

and your Risk of Ruin - if undercapitalized you are more likely to get wiped out from a bad run which happens even with + EV

those kinds of calculations are what an effective pro blackjack player (AP - advantage player) relies on

*

Quote:EvenBobIf the majority of the time you know what the next outcome will be, that means the expected value of every bet is positive. There is nothing in the math that says you cannot find a way to figure out what the next outcome will probably be. Once you figure that out the math goes out the window and flies away. You are now playing a positive expectation game and no longer gambling.

You are contradicting yourself. If you can figure out what the next outcome will probably be, the math fits perfectly. If you cannot do that, then your statement about "playing a positive expectation game" is false.

Quote:lilredrooster.....................

he's not the first to say that somehow what the math indicates is different from the real world

that is false

math perfectly describes the real world

that's why engineers were able to use math to get a rocket within 5,000 miles of Pluto which is more than 3 billion miles from earth

gamblers see all kinds of unusual things happen in casinos and they think the math can't explain it

they're failing to see that they're looking at a small number of trials

nothing, I repeat nothing, happens in a casino that cannot be explained and understood using math

*

If the math were right about gambling, yes. It's not math, it's how math is applied to gambling. Have you heard about MDawg and Don Johnson, to name but two? Go figure! 🤷♂️

Have you not read I don't dispute math one bit? Another one without the faintest clue!

Yes, there you go again with #9.Quote:WellbushIf the math were right about gambling, yes. It's not math, it's how math is applied to gambling.

Yeah, except for this gem:Quote:WellbushHave you not read I don't dispute math one bit?

"Mathematicians have been saying that it's theoretically impossible to beat the dealer using such a strategy. Don't be fooled by their ignorance. I will tear their theories apart and shove them in the bin, where they belong." —Wellbush

Ditto to what I just wrote.Quote:ThatDonGuy"Will"? Not necessarily.

"Can"? Yes - and what is probably the largest fallacy in any system is that something "won't" happen.

Are you implying that "a losing streak veyond the bounds of normal variation" is impossible? I am NOT implying that the normal variation in the game of BJ exceeds that variation allowable in the course of a 46%/54% win/loss variation. Are you? If so, your variation exceeds that applied to the game. That is the variation limit I say must exist. Otherwise you are in a land of mathematical make-believe, no matter how well you may try and word it. For that matter, how are you defining "the bounds of normal variation"? Is it a particular number of standard deviations above/below the expected probability? Ditto to above.

You remind me of my Guaranteed Surefire Foolproof Cannot Miss System:

1. Determine the smallest number N for which "Black cannot come up N times in a row" is true.

2. Wait until black comes up N-1 times in a row, then bet heavily on red (and something on green as well, to cover that possibility).

3. Profit!

4. Oh, did black win again? Don't look at me; you're the one that claimed that black cannot come up N times in a row.

I also answer this comedic scenario, above. It's true that freakish streaks can happen. It's also true that gamblers can, and do, take breaks away from the table. Are you implying they can't? How can you tie gamblers down in a real world scenario, because you want them to fit mathematical lotto-like theory, that doesn't necessarily apply exactly lotto-like?

It might, but I have my doubts.

Every system runs up against the same problem: no matter what the probability of eventual success is, if the expected value of each bet is negative, then the probability of eventual success multiplied by the amount of profit is less than the probability of eventual failure multiplied by the amount of loss. I don't know all the ins and outs of higher level math, here. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong about what I've written above. Again, I question the math, AS APPLIED, to real-world gambling play. At least you seem to have some knowledge, rather than many here who just produce angry derisive discourse and nothing more, all hidden behind mathematical one-liners that they more than likely know nothing about.

I may come up to speed with the math your enunciating here. It'll take time, though. And again, I'm not conceding at this point in time.

You also might want to look up something called the Gambler's Ruin problem - especially the version with a stop condition after a certain amount of profit (i.e. you start with bankroll B and stop either when your bankroll is 0 or reaches some value B + P, where P is the desired profit). Almost needless to say, the larger the ratio of B to P is, the more likely you will win in the end - but again, the ratio of wins to losses will be less than P/B.

I will also say that this kind of argument impresses me much more than the Michael Bluejays, and others. They think they're on the right side of the argument, when really they've just got a lot of others here on their SIDE of the argument. Group think tends to make them think they're right. If they were placed in another environment they may question themselves. Here, they join the chorus and think they need to defend the math, of which they know very little. As soon as I debunk, they saturate the thread. They probably think justice has won! All that's happened is that constructive, knowledge-advancing arguments, have been shut down via saturation.

There needs to be an acceptance of different views here, otherwise potential advancement in the understanding of math, as applied to gambling, is gonna be missed by everyone here, and go somewhere else. Those that miss the boat here, can't argue I didn't try here.

Quote:Wellbush

There needs to be an acceptance of different views here, otherwise potential advancement in the understanding of math, as applied to gambling, is gonna be missed by everyone here, and go somewhere else. Those that miss the boat here, can't argue I didn't try here.

Have you tried to use math in any single post you've made?

You haven't debunked squat (as many have pointed out). You're also repeating #6 ad nauseum.Quote:WellbushAs soon as I debunk, they saturate the thread.

You're conflating acceptance of different opinions with acceptance of provably false b.s.. Those of us who understand the math will never be welcoming when someone is essentially claiming to have procured magic beans.Quote:WellbushThere needs to be an acceptance of different views here...

And Michael Bluejay, you win! What a surprise. You're achieving victory through saturation, but not sound argument! What a star!

Quote:WellbushI am NOT implying that the normal variation in the game of BJ exceeds that variation allowable in the course of a 46%/54% win/loss variation. Are you? If so, your variation exceeds that applied to the game.

Let me see if I understand you correctly; you are saying that eventually, a player's sessions of blackjack, including the ones where he takes a break in the middle of a session, will eventually result in 46% wins and 54% losses. This is usually referred to as "the Law of Large Numbers," and you are not the first to try to use this here as some sort of proof that systems can work. The flaw here seems to be that you think that it always applies after a small number of results, when in fact it takes trillions of bets to get to that value with any degree of confidence.

Quote:WellbushIt's true that freakish streaks can happen. It's also true that gamblers can, and do, take breaks away from the table. Are you implying they can't?

Not at all, but a situation where a gambler loses eight hands in a row, takes a break, comes back, and loses another eight hands in a row is every bit as likely as one where the same gambler loses eight hands in a row, decides not to take a break, and loses another eight hands in a row. Breaks have nothing to do with this.

Quote:WellbushAgain, I question the math, AS APPLIED to real-world gambling play.

What's your definition of "real world gambling play"?

The math is simple: if your bets have a negative expected value - that is, if you take every possible result, and for each result, multiply the probability of that result happening by the profit or loss of that result, then sum the values, the result is negative - then there is no possible way to "guarantee" that you will come out ahead without having both an infinite bankroll and infinite time. You can come very close to 100% if the ratio of your bankroll to how much profit you are willing to accept is very, very large (for example, you have 11 trillion dollars and play a 40-step Martingale with a starting bet of 10), but it is possible to lose 40 bets in a row, and the entire $11 trillion with it.