Quote:WellbushHi Sarbe. Back to deride further? Glad I can't see it! 😁

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

Have you used math in any post you've made in this thread?

Wellbush's earlier action: .[Blocks several members whose facts he doesn't agree with.]Quote:WellbushThere needs to be an acceptance of different views here...

Quote:ThatDonGuyLet 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.

Oh ****! I thought you knew something! Everyone knows in BJ the house edge is approx. 0.5%. And everyone SHOULD know that when ties are removed from that statistic, the house edge is approx. 8% - 54% to the house, 46% to the player. Why don't people here know this, yet they think they know it all!

So no, it's not a case of 'the Law of Large Numbers.' There's no flaw, but there is a flaw when people here apply statistics to something they just don't properly understand.

Okay. I'll use an example because it'll explain it better. If a gambler was playing BJ at a casino that was using just one deck of cards at their tables, they could expect a certain variation of wins/losses in the short-term, away from the long-term 54%/46% house edge. And no, there is no such thing as an infinite variation away from the long-term variation.

Furthermore, if this casino made a change and put two decks at their tables, instead of one, then this would allow for further variation away from the 54%/46% house edge, simply because there would be more cards at play. If the casino were to make another change after this, to three or four decks per table.....you get my drift?

What I'm explaining is that there is only a certain maximum variation away from the long-term 54%/46% house edge simply due to the fact that there are only so many cards in the game. There is no infinite streak, that some people here may think exists.

I'll reply to the rest later.

Quote:lilredroosteranother false statement from you

Nope.

Quote:TomGYou are contradicting yourself.

Either way, the math is useless. If you can figure out what the next outcome is, what the math says is meaningless. If I had known the math says you can't beat the game I never would have tried. But I didn't know that till much later. By then it was too late; too late to obey the math.

Quote:EvenBobEither way, the math is useless. If you can figure out what the next outcome is, what the math says is meaningless. If I had known the math says you can't beat the game I never would have tried. But I didn't know that till much later. By then it was too late; too late to obey the math.

It is somewhat interesting that you end up proving the exact opposite point you are trying to make. The math is only useless and meaningless if you choose not to use it and choose to ignore all meaning in has. If you can figure out what the next outcome is, and apply the math correctly, profits from casino games increase. Depending on how well someone is at figuring out the next outcome, those profits could be in the millions, every month. It is fascinating that you choose not to use the math, earn hardly anything from these casino games, then spend the time trying to find a 15-year-old car that isn't going to fall apart.

Quote:TomGThe math is only useless and meaningless if you choose not to use it

Bingo. I did not choose to use it or to ignore it, I did not even know it existed till much later. That shows you how meaningless it is. If the math is correct and the game cannot be beaten, it should not have mattered whether I knew the math or not. I should have failed. You do not have to know how gravity works to be killed by jumping off a cliff.

I love reliable older cars and I've always thought new cars are for suckers.

Quote:EvenBobBingo. I did not choose to use it or to ignore it, I did not even know it existed till much later. That shows you how meaningless it is. If the math is correct and the game cannot be beaten, it should not have mattered whether I knew the math or not. I should have failed. You do not have to know how gravity works to be killed by jumping off a cliff.

I love reliable older cars and I've always thought new cars are for suckers.

You have turned into Wellbush word salad level.

By choosing not using the math, you have beaten the game at far lower levels than you could have. If you truly loved reliable older cars, why continue to refuse to accept the math, when it would mean you could spend an hour at the casino, then have more than enough money to buy any one you wanted?

Using your analogy, it is like how people are able to jump off cliffs and survive because they know how gravity works.

Quote:TomG

By choosing not using the math,

You still don't get it, I didn't choose not to use the math, I didn't know the math existed. Then when I started talking about this 15 years ago I was told over and over I was full of crap because the math says the game can't be beat. And the math is never wrong.

I pity the poor newbie who is going to read some of EB's fantastical fantasies and thinks he's going to beat roulette

hopefully this hypothetical newbie will get around to reading Tom G and Don and realize what a load of you know what it is

*