Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
• Posts: 283
Thanks for this post from:
April 26th, 2021 at 8:50:53 AM permalink
Dear WOV.

Is it my fault that a number of posters here are upset, and then try to savage me? Who's motivations are out of whack? I don't think questioning math as many people think it applies to gambling, is anything insulting.
Don't poke the bear!
Mission146

Joined: May 15, 2012
• Posts: 13288
April 26th, 2021 at 8:55:43 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Dear WOV.

Is it my fault that a number of posters here are upset, and then try to savage me? Who's motivations are out of whack? I don't think questioning math as many people think it applies to gambling, is anything insulting.

It is insulting. You seem not to understand that taking insult is a matter of perception from the perspective of the insulted.

I'm sure that you feel insulted by some of my more derisive statements as relates your posts. You've used the word, "Derision," several times. It should come as no surprise to you that my derisive statements as relates your posts I did not find insulting at all.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
• Posts: 283
April 26th, 2021 at 10:43:51 AM permalink
Continuing to debunk 146, he says in relation to:

The math theory can HOPE that the player will come back to the table after a break, and resume the losing streak each time, but this type of thinking defeats itself because it's not how the real world plays out. The casino card decks are always shuffled. Anyone would know, IN ADVANCE, that winning AND losing streaks can only last so long before the normal variation comes back to rule the game. One CANNOT rely on math theory if it CANNOT account for a negative progression betting strategy IN CONJUNCTION WITH the player breaking up losing streaks.

that

2.) Math can account for everything that you just said because no, "Breaks," that you take are going to change the situation. I guess they do in Baccarat since a concept called Effect-of-Removal changes the house edge slightly based on the remaining composition of the shoe. Judging from your post, I don't expect you to know that. Anyway, the player can leave after a particular number of losses and return to start a different shoe, but the house edge is going to just be based on whatever the composition of that shoe is----or the base house edge, if the shoe hasn't had any hands come out yet.

I say:

Breaks make no difference? Okay, I won't even use breaks, to satisfy naysayer protests. I am still not convinced the paragraph above (the paragraph beginning with 2), is correct. Let me explain why:

It's true that if a player continues to bet at a table using a negative progression strategy, that they often run out of their bankroll, due to the inherent variation of long losing streaks in the game of BJ. However, does this mean that if a player had an obscene bankroll (a large whale), and they started with a small bet, say \$5, that they too would run out of bankroll? Doesn't the math say, in theory, that using a negative progression strategy would allow a player to win, so long as a player had sufficient bankroll to keep them in the game, during a long losing streak?

I am not talking about a situation where the player's losses continue to mount and mount and mount, ad infinitum. If that were the case, then yes, this kind of scenario would show that the house would always win, in the end.

But what I am talking about, is the normal variation within the game of BJ, where a player experiences a set of losing streaks. And I am talking about a large whale with an insane bankroll, using a negative progression strategy. Don't be fooled by the word negative.

If we assume that the house edge is 8% (excluding ties), then we can make another assumption, for the sake of an example. Let's use the Fibonacci sequence as our betting strategy of choice. As mentioned, I am not even going to use breaks away from the gambling table, to satisfy naysayers protests.

If the player uses the Fibonacci sequence, then this means he only needs to win 50% of his hands, in comparison to the number of hands used to lose, to get him back to his starting pot. Agreed?

If that's true, how can the house edge of 8% mean that the player will lose, as many posters say? How can a strategy that needs just a 50% win rate, lose, if the house edge is just 8%?

I think this post asks some serious questions about 146's paragraph 2, and many other naysayers on this site.
Last edited by: Wellbush on Apr 26, 2021
Don't poke the bear!
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
• Posts: 5007
April 26th, 2021 at 10:56:27 AM permalink
Wellbush,

I've seen you duplicate your wall of word soup a couple of times now.
DON'T do it again.
Also, when quoting, please use the quote feature.
Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed..
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
• Posts: 925
April 26th, 2021 at 11:09:10 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Continuing to debunk 146...

Yet again, that's #6.

Quote: Wellbush

The math theory can HOPE that the player will come back to the table after a break, and resume the losing streak each time, but this type of thinking defeats itself because it's not how the real world plays out. The casino card decks are always shuffled. Anyone would know, IN ADVANCE, that winning AND losing streaks can only last so long before the normal variation comes back to rule the game. One CANNOT rely on math theory if it CANNOT account for a negative progression betting strategy IN CONJUNCTION WITH the player breaking up losing streaks.

That's both #8 and #9

Quote: Wellbush

I think this post asks some serious questions about 146's paragraph 2, and many other naysayers on this site.

LOL
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
• Posts: 8124
April 26th, 2021 at 11:36:40 AM permalink
I have always hoped a friend or a girl friend would create an account here, and be talked out of their gambling ways by the membership, but I realize now this will never happen. I hear people talking the way they understand gambling, all these ignorant ideas, such as this bet is hitting today, or them talking about their mojo, or them thinking this machine is worth playing because a progressive is so high, hasn't been hit in months, or whatever the case is, but conversion to rarely or never straight gambling takes time for someone to grasp, let alone converting to advantage only. People spend too much time manufacturing an easy way to win against odds in their minds, because they don't know better, they need to win, might not have any other way to make what they think they need. In their minds, they think they have seen things, and even when they lose, they don't stop getting up when they are beat down. You could be the ghost of Christmas future and they probably still would not change and not believe you. After all, there is more discussion amongst gamblers than amongst APs. We don't want them to stop gambling, we only want the people we care about to stop forfeiting their money. How can we expect them to just not gamble, but dig ditches or wait on tables, or take care of patients? Sometimes the ones who can't really get it, I give bogus made up advice and they believe it.

Something I did learn today I hope I remember, do not try to tell someone what do or what to think, find a way to have them tell you what they should think or do, by guiding them to come up with their own ideas on themselves. Don't bring a horse to water to drink, plant ideas and let them walk to water themselves to drink.
Last edited by: onenickelmiracle on Apr 26, 2021
ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
• Posts: 4668
April 26th, 2021 at 12:04:45 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

It's true that if a player continues to bet at a table using a negative progression strategy, that they often run out of their bankroll, due to the inherent variation of long losing streaks in the game of BJ. However, does this mean that if a player had an obscene bankroll (a large whale), and they started with a small bet, say \$5, that they too would run out of bankroll?

"Would"? Not necessarily.
"Could"? Yes.
Quote: Wellbush

Doesn't the math say, in theory, that using a negative progression strategy would allow a player to win, so long as a player had sufficient bankroll to keep them in the game, during a long losing streak?

Not if "sufficient" is less than infinite - and even if you had an infinite bankroll, it would require infinite time as well, which does not exist, even if you take breaks.

You are also making a very large assumption - that every player will not stop playing until either there bankroll is exhausted or they are ahead. What about all of the times somebody stops playing while behind but with some of their bankroll remaining?
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
• Posts: 10352
April 26th, 2021 at 12:12:37 PM permalink
If I have an infinite bankroll and lose my first three bets, is my BR still infinite?
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
• Posts: 2417
April 26th, 2021 at 12:13:28 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

If I have an infinite bankroll and lose my first three bets, is my BR still infinite?

There’s always a vacancy at the Infinity Hotel.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
• Posts: 283
April 26th, 2021 at 2:35:50 PM permalink
Quote: OnceDear

Wellbush,

I've seen you duplicate your wall of word soup a couple of times now.
DON'T do it again.
Also, when quoting, please use the quote feature.

Thanks OD. I wasn't trying to fill up space, if that's your objection. I just thought both posts applied to the two different threads. Could you confirm this is against the rules? If so, I'll refrain.
Don't poke the bear!