Quote:ThatDonGuyBecause we know how to use the term "house edge" properly. I assume that what you are trying to say is, if you ignore ties, the house wins 54% of all hands. If not, then please tell us what the number 54% represents.

The only "maximum variation" in terms of house wins is 0% and 100%, and there is a simple proof of this.

Assume that there is some maximum variation of house win percentage less than 100% - in other words, some percentage N above which the percentage of house wins cannot reach.

Now, assume you get to that point. It is possible to get to that point, as otherwise the maximum variation would be less than N%.

Since you are using the same cards for the next hand as you were for the previous hands, there is a chance that the house can win again - but if the house does win the next hand, the percentage of house wins now exceeds N%, which violates the assumption that N% is the maximum.

Also, if there is more than one deck in the game, the variation from your 54/46 would be less than with one deck, because there is less variation in the card values as there are more cards of each value in the deck. In other words, suppose your first card is an Ace. In a one-deck game, the percentage of Aces remaining in the deck is 5.882% (3 out of 51), but in a four-deck game, it is 7.246% (15 out of ,207).

Pardon me for asking, but if you already answered this, it seems to have been lost in the noise...

What is your main hypothesis in all of this? You started out asking whether or not the only reason negative progression systems don't work (which you define as reaching a point where you are making a profit) is because nobody has a large enough bankroll to cover long losing streaks.

I won’t be continuing on this thread, not because I don’t have the ability, but because OD has basically told me to **** off! It’s unfortunate but that’s how things seem to run here for contrarian thinkers. So I’m reducing my input to side comments

Quote:WellbushI won’t be continuing on this thread, not because I don’t have the ability, but because OD has basically told me to **** off! It’s unfortunate but that’s how things seem to run here for contrarian thinkers. So I’m reducing my input to side comments

Pertaining to how Once Dear has been treating you, I believe you have been very lucky as OD has given you plenty of leeways. He has shown you nothing but kindness, so please stop your whining. No one should pay attention to anything that you say.

Quote:BoSoxPertaining to how Once Dear has been treating you, I believe you have been very lucky as OD has given you plenty of leeways. He has shown you nothing but kindness, so please stop your whining. No one should pay attention to anything that you say.

Just read it as if it has a laugh track.

Quote:EvenBobEverybody. They screamed at me for years on GG that the math says roulette cannot be beat. It was a mantra, they screamed at me in capital letters. Mister V remembers, he was one of the screamers.

It cannot be everybody, because virtually no one here would do that. Most everyone here understands exactly how straightforward the math is: If there is a 2.8% chance or greater of hitting an inside number (on a single zero wheel), there is a player advantage, and the player will earn profits over time (for even money bets, the odds have to be 51.4% or greater; slightly higher on double zero) . As that percentage increase, the player advantage increases, and profits increase. Can be as high as $10 million per hour, making max bets.

I would be very surprised if anyone here disagrees with that, including Mr V. My guess is that you spent years falling for their trolling.

Quote:TomGIt cannot be everybody, because virtually no one here would do that. Most everyone here understands exactly how straightforward the math is: If there is a 2.8% chance or greater of hitting an inside number (on a single zero wheel), there is a player advantage, and the player will earn profits over time (for even money bets, the odds have to be 51.4% or greater; slightly higher on double zero) .

Wow, math. I fell asleep..

all of those here and elsewhere who claim to have winning systems using progressions or bet selection - not a single one has ever proven anything

and you're talking about thousands who have made these false and misleading claims

they're like a guy who goes to a track for the first time and watches all 9 races on the card

there are 4 grey horses running in 4 different races

3 of the grey horses win

he then proudly goes to a bar and announces that he knows how to beat horse racing

just bet on grey horses - they win 75% of the time

^

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

just bet on grey horses - they win 75% of the time

Better system, for use at greyhound races: Bet on the ones that have a big poop just before the race.