Page 100 of 501 FirstFirst ... 509096979899100101102103104110150200 ... LastLast
Results 1,981 to 2,000 of 10016

Thread: The WoV Thread

  1. #1981
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    The expectation is constant and exerts itself after M grows sufficiently large. That is, when M is sufficiently large the actual results will converge to expectation. If the expectation is positive then profit will occur if M is big. M for the casino is extremely large and that is why a profit occurs for the casino. It is up to the player to bet sufficiently small and to play at a positive expectation in order to get in enough plays to make M sufficiently large to converge to positive expectation (i.e. to act as a mini-casino). A single loss is not viewed as successful or not successful (in reply to your 2nd question) - success (or failure) is an adjective that is attached to a series of plays in aggregate where the series is very, very large and the expectation is positive for the player. The answer to your first question is Yes - but M must be very large. How large is a function of the variance of the game and the magnitude of the positive expectation.
    With regard to question #3, success is applied to the sum of all plays of a positive expectation game, not to an arbitrary dividing line of the first X plays and the ensuing X+1 plays up to when the player plays his or her last hand. The game must converge to its expectation for a large M. So play games with a positive expectation and play sufficiently small to make M large and profit (success) will be achieved. This is what KewlJ meant - if you and/or others wish to focus on the semantics of Kewlj's delivery of this important message, then you will miss this important point. My goal here was to say what I said in red and bold above, so I will not comment further on this topic - that is, I am satisfied with what I have stated there whether others here are or aren't and so will not comment further on it.
    Wow. Tableplay, you are making me look smarter than I am. I am just a simple guy, playing a simple game, using simple techniques (perhaps the simplest by AP standards) to play at an advantage. Nothing new about what I do, although I have put some of my own 'twists' on some things. I am not a "math guy". The formulas and such (like you are laying out) are often far over my head. But that is the beauty of card counting. I don't have to be Einstein. I can rely on 'math guys' like yourself and others that have done the math before me.

    My whole approach is about simplicity. People that know me from other forums know I often argue for simplicity. I think many players get into trouble trying to overthink the game, go in a direction of complex counts and approaches thinking that adds strength. For most it does just the opposite. As a matter of fact, when I was working on my book 2 years ago, before I put the project on hold and returned the money I was paid, I referred to my style of play as "Blackjack Fusion", a fusion of simple techniques and approaches resulting in a sum greater than it's parts. (yeah somebody will probably steal that before I get back around to working on that project, if I ever do )

    And you are quite right, my 'delivery' of things is often what gets me into trouble. I am not a great communicator, orally or written. I frequently have trouble getting across what I am trying to convey and/or say/write. And often do so in such a manor as to turn people off. I will continue to try to improve in that area.

    The thing is that my simple delivery of things is usually enough to have people/players understand the basis of what I am talking about and while I can't lay out formulas and such like you do, they are able to understand that there is solid math behind what I say and do. Problem with this site is there are deniers of that math. Deniers of all thing reality, actually. Guys that live in an alternative universe that believe total nonsense, like that they can will a million dollars profit from long-term negative EV play. Neither you, nor I are going to get these folks believing anything but their own alternative reality.
    Last edited by kewlJ; 05-16-2018 at 07:54 AM.

  2. #1982
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    you Singer supporters and enablers, don't take my word for this....look it up.
    I'll look it up, provide a link.

    Or, copy and paste the info that you found.

    Or better yet post a screenshot like the wormm did.

  3. #1983
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    I am satisfied with what I have stated there whether others here are or aren't and so will not comment further on it.
    I asked a yes or no question, your explanation did not contain a yes or no answer,
    therefore I view your answer as evasive.

    Not sure why you would dance around such a simple question.

    The EV for mX hands = Y

    A loss occurs after X hands

    The EV for the remaining (m-1) hands = Y(m-1)/m

    Y(m-1)/m < Y

    So in order for results for mX hands to reach expectation Y,
    then you must win at a rate above expectation for the remaining (m-1) hands.

    Isn't that correct?

    How else would the loss be overcome, except to win at a rate above expectation?

  4. #1984
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    you Singer supporters and enablers, don't take my word for this....look it up.
    I'll look it up, provide a link.

    Or, copy and paste the info that you found.

    Or better yet post a screenshot like the wormm did.
    Me providing a link or screenshot IS NOT "you looking it up" coach belly.

    Stop being lazy and asking others to do the work for you. If you want to look it up....look it up. It's not that hard. If I could find it anyone can.

    And I suspect, you don't even need to look it up. You have known, this was all a charade for years. In your heart you already know everything I stated is truth. You just want to challenge until the very end. Shades of the 'black knight' from Monty Python. Time to get a grip on reality coach, and stop being complicit and enabling this fraud.

  5. #1985
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    perhaps coach will revisit his logic of thinking posting jackpot photos means something.
    tewlj hasn't presented evidence of his claims...telling others to "look it up" is ditzy, but it's not proof.

    I hope that he has evidence, why not post it here?

    This is a point I've made several times, why bother claiming something if you are unwilling to prove it?

    Jackpot photos with accompanying documentation (W2G) are proof of wagering and winning that jackpot, don't you agree?
    Last edited by coach belly; 05-16-2018 at 08:32 AM.

  6. #1986
    I see what coach is saying here. Rather than using y's and m's and theory, let's put it in english. If you had a 51.5% chance of winning in session 1, and a 51.5% chance of winning in session 2,3,4..........., then don't you have to exceed this 51.5% to recoup the $8,000 since the $8,000 was well below the 51.5%. The answer is obviously yes. The problem some have here is recognizing the losing of $8,000 as a good thing.

    I personally would rather win way more than expected and have a negative expectation going forward. But that's just me.

    Now obviously, every session is not going to result in 51.5%. But can you explain this in a way that answers coach's question?

  7. #1987
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Me providing a link or screenshot IS NOT "you looking it up" coach belly.
    And you telling others to "look it up" is not proof.

    I tried to look it up, I couldn't find anything.

    Does that mean that it doesn't exist? Is it in a storage locker?

    Don't you want us to see the proof? Can you mail it to Alan?

  8. #1988
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    perhaps coach will revisit his logic of thinking posting jackpot photos means something.
    tewlj hasn't presented evidence of his claims...telling others to "look it up" is ditzy, but it's not proof.

    I hope that he has evidence, why not post it here?

    This is a point I've made several times, why bother claiming something if you are unwilling to prove it?

    Jackpot photos with accompanying documentation (W2G) are proof of wagering and winning that jackpot,
    don't you agree?
    Coach belly, I have lead you to water. I am not going to stand there and force feed you to drink it. You already know what I have said is the truth.

    To be honest, I am not super comfortable with what I have already done on that matter. My goal isn't to destroy or humiliate anyone....even someone I believing is intentionally fraudulently misleading others. I just want the nonsense to stop. The anti-mathematical, "I won a million dollars playing negative EV". "Turned negative EV into positive EV playing a progression". And all the trolling, name calling and personal attacks against anyone that challenges this alternative reality crap.

    These aren't opinions. It's alternative reality that goes against the proven math. Differing 'opinions' are fine and healthy. This ongoing "flat earth" shit is not.

    I want this site to be based in reality. A place where players, professional and recreational can come together and share experiences....just as the name 'Vegas casino talk" implies. And although I personally have little use for it, that includes players playing negative EV and losing. I welcome their sharing of experiences. Alan for example at least is grounded enough in reality to acknowledge that he doesn't win....never had a winning year. That's fine. But enough of this "willing" wins from long-term negative EV play. That is fantasyland stuff.

  9. #1989
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    I see what coach is saying here. Rather than using y's and m's and theory, let's put it in english. If you had a 51.5% chance of winning in session 1, and a 51.5% chance of winning in session 2,3,4..........., then don't you have to exceed this 51.5% to recoup the $8,000 since the $8,000 was well below the 51.5%. The answer is obviously yes. The problem some have here is recognizing the losing of $8,000 as a good thing.

    I personally would rather win way more than expected and have a negative expectation going forward. But that's just me.

    Now obviously, every session is not going to result in 51.5%. But can you explain this in a way that answers coach's question?
    Hi Regnis, I answered each of his 3 questions with a yes or no response. In any case I will answer your question (and, by proxy, Coach Belly's questions) even though you nicely answered it yourself. If you take all of the sessions, the sum of all the winning sessions will exceed the sum of all the losing sessions (which of course includes the $8000 losing session) and it will converge on 51.5% if there are a large number of sessions. So yes, of course there will be sessions that exceed 51.5% to offset the $8000 session (and other losing sessions). This is what the Central Limit Theorem actually is - each session is a sample, and the average of the samples will converge to the population mean of 51.5%. What's hard for me believe is that people accept the recipe for success that casinos use (house edge and a large sample size), but when the player applies the same recipe, they can't believe it works . . .

  10. #1990
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    You already know what I have said is the truth. I want this site to be based in reality.
    Reality? How would I know what you've written about Singer's food stamps is the truth?

    You've written plenty of lies before, you even wrote them about me.

    After all your lies, now this is the claim that's to be believed?... and why is that?

  11. #1991
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    The expectation is constant and exerts itself after M grows sufficiently large. That is, when M is sufficiently large the actual results will converge to expectation. If the expectation is positive then profit will occur if M is big. M for the casino is extremely large and that is why a profit occurs for the casino. It is up to the player to bet sufficiently small and to play at a positive expectation in order to get in enough plays to make M sufficiently large to converge to positive expectation (i.e. to act as a mini-casino). A single loss is not viewed as successful or not successful (in reply to your 2nd question) - success (or failure) is an adjective that is attached to a series of plays in aggregate where the series is very, very large and the expectation is positive for the player. The answer to your first question is Yes - but M must be very large. How large is a function of the variance of the game and the magnitude of the positive expectation.
    With regard to question #3, success is applied to the sum of all plays of a positive expectation game, not to an arbitrary dividing line of the first X plays and the ensuing X+1 plays up to when the player plays his or her last hand. The game must converge to its expectation for a large M. So play games with a positive expectation and play sufficiently small to make M large and profit (success) will be achieved. This is what KewlJ meant - if you and/or others wish to focus on the semantics of Kewlj's delivery of this important message, then you will miss this important point. My goal here was to say what I said in red and bold above, so I will not comment further on this topic - that is, I am satisfied with what I have stated there whether others here are or aren't and so will not comment further on it.
    Wow. Tableplay, you are making me look smarter than I am. I am just a simple guy, playing a simple game, using simple techniques (perhaps the simplest by AP standards) to play at an advantage. Nothing new about what I do, although I have put some of my own 'twists' on some things. I am not a "math guy". The formulas and such (like you are laying out) are often far over my head. But that is the beauty of card counting. I don't have to be Einstein. I can rely on 'math guys' like yourself and others that have done the math before me.

    My whole approach is about simplicity. People that know me from other forums know I often argue for simplicity. I think many players get into trouble trying to overthink the game, go in a direction of complex counts and approaches thinking that adds strength. For most it does just the opposite. As a matter of fact, when I was working on my book 2 years ago, before I put the project on hold and returned the money I was paid, I referred to my style of play as "Blackjack Fusion", a fusion of simple techniques and approaches resulting in a sum greater than it's parts. (yeah somebody will probably steal that before I get back around to working on that project, if I ever do )

    And you are quite right, my 'delivery' of things is often what gets me into trouble. I am not a great communicator, orally or written. I frequently have trouble getting across what I am trying to convey and/or say/write. And often do so in such a manor as to turn people off. I will continue to try to improve in that area.

    The thing is that my simple delivery of things is usually enough to have people/players understand the basis of what I am talking about and while I can't lay out formulas and such like you do, they are able to understand that there is solid math behind what I say and do. Problem with this site is there are deniers of that math. Deniers of all thing reality, actually. Guys that live in an alternative universe that believe total nonsense, like that they can will a million dollars profit from long-term negative EV play. Neither you, nor I are going to get these folks believing anything but their own alternative reality.
    You did a good job of describing the situation in your $8000 loss post. IMHO you were getting trolled.

  12. #1992
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    What's hard for me believe is that people accept the recipe for success that casinos use (house edge and a large sample size), but when the player applies the same recipe, they can't believe it works . . .
    Who doesn't believe it works? I believe it works.

    Back to the question at hand....

    If a loss is incurred after X hands, in order for results to meet expectation after mX hands,
    then the player must win at a rate above expectation for the remaining (m-1)X hands.

    Is this correct?

  13. #1993
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    What's hard for me believe is that people accept the recipe for success that casinos use (house edge and a large sample size), but when the player applies the same recipe, they can't believe it works . . .
    Who doesn't believe it works? I believe it works.

    Back to the question at hand....

    If a loss is incurred after X hands, in order for results to meet expectation after mX hands,
    then the player must win at a rate above expectation for the remaining (m-1)X hands.

    Is this correct?
    Several people don't believe it, I've read their posts. The answer to your question (by the central limit theorem) is yes. M may have to get close to infinity depending on the magnitude of the variance and of the expectation.

  14. #1994
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Hi Regnis, I answered each of his 3 questions with a yes or no response. In any case I will answer your question (and, by proxy, Coach Belly's questions) even though you nicely answered it yourself. If you take all of the sessions, the sum of all the winning sessions will exceed the sum of all the losing sessions (which of course includes the $8000 losing session) and it will converge on 51.5% if there are a large number of sessions. So yes, of course there will be sessions that exceed 51.5% to offset the $8000 session (and other losing sessions). This is what the Central Limit Theorem actually is - each session is a sample, and the average of the samples will converge to the population mean of 51.5%. What's hard for me believe is that people accept the recipe for success that casinos use (house edge and a large sample size), but when the player applies the same recipe, they can't believe it works . . .
    Tableplay, notice the highlighted "which includes the $8000 losing session"? This seems to be the part confusing these guys. They simply have no understanding of long-term (LAW of Large Numbers). That $8000 losing day (and it was actually $8800), is just part of that long-term results. A very small part. There are many such segments, both positive (winning) and negative (losing), sessions, days, weeks, whatever you want to measure that make up that long-term. These small segments have little or no meaning on their own. It is the totality of these segments that make up long-term and the mathematically based expectation.

    Unfortunately, I feel like my simple explanations, as well as you math based formula explanations fall on death ears because they choose not to understand. It's all a trolling game to these guys.

  15. #1995
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Hi Regnis, I answered each of his 3 questions with a yes or no response. In any case I will answer your question (and, by proxy, Coach Belly's questions) even though you nicely answered it yourself. If you take all of the sessions, the sum of all the winning sessions will exceed the sum of all the losing sessions (which of course includes the $8000 losing session) and it will converge on 51.5% if there are a large number of sessions. So yes, of course there will be sessions that exceed 51.5% to offset the $8000 session (and other losing sessions). This is what the Central Limit Theorem actually is - each session is a sample, and the average of the samples will converge to the population mean of 51.5%. What's hard for me believe is that people accept the recipe for success that casinos use (house edge and a large sample size), but when the player applies the same recipe, they can't believe it works . . .
    Tableplay, notice the highlighted "which includes the $8000 losing session"? This seems to be the part confusing these guys. They simply have no understanding of long-term (LAW of Large Numbers). That $8000 losing day (and it was actually $8800), is just part of that long-term results. A very small part. There are many such segments, both positive (winning) and negative (losing), sessions, days, weeks, whatever you want to measure that make up that long-term. These small segments have little or no meaning on their own. It is the totality of these segments that make up long-term and the mathematically based expectation.

    Unfortunately, I feel like my simple explanations, as well as you math based formula explanations fall on death ears because they choose not to understand. It's all a trolling game to these guys.
    100% agree sir.

  16. #1996
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    You did a good job of describing the situation in your $8000 loss post. IMHO you were getting trolled.
    And STILL am.

    I guess that makes me the idiot....referring back to that definition of insanity...."doing the same thing, thinking there will be a different outcome".

    Ok, I am off to work now. I have a new 'chauffer' and she (Mom) seems to think she sets the schedule. I am going to have to break her in, if it works out at all.

  17. #1997
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    What's hard for me believe is that people accept the recipe for success that casinos use (house edge and a large sample size), but when the player applies the same recipe, they can't believe it works . . .
    Who doesn't believe it works? I believe it works.

    Back to the question at hand....

    If a loss is incurred after X hands, in order for results to meet expectation after mX hands,
    then the player must win at a rate above expectation for the remaining (m-1)X hands.

    Is this correct?
    Why is it that you end almost every post with a question?....you sound like a fucking 12 yr old moron

  18. #1998
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    you Singer supporters and enablers, don't take my word for this....look it up.
    I'll look it up, provide a link.

    Or, copy and paste the info that you found.

    Or better yet post a screenshot like the wormm did.
    Me providing a link or screenshot IS NOT "you looking it up" coach belly.

    Stop being lazy and asking others to do the work for you. If you want to look it up....look it up. It's not that hard. If I could find it anyone can.

    And I suspect, you don't even need to look it up. You have known, this was all a charade for years. In your heart you already know everything I stated is truth. You just want to challenge until the very end. Shades of the 'black knight' from Monty Python. Time to get a grip on reality coach, and stop being complicit and enabling this fraud.



    You should 100% post your sources for this one otherwise it is no better than the bullshit Singer spews out. Like when you posted the abusive rants that Qfit sent you, this will give your claims legitimacy.

  19. #1999
    Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
    Why is it that you end almost every post with a question?....you sound like a fucking 12 yr old moron
    I'm trying to confirm information, so I ask questions.

    What's it to you, anyway?

    You continue to act like a deeply disturbed nothing,
    no doubt a mommy's basement-dwelling turd.

  20. #2000
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

    Back to the question at hand....

    If a loss is incurred after X hands, in order for results to meet expectation after mX hands,
    then the player must win at a rate above expectation for the remaining (m-1)X hands.

    Is this correct?
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    The answer to your question (by the central limit theorem) is yes
    And since the game must converge to to its expectation, then the player will win at a rate greater than expectation after a loss is incurred.

    Isn't that what you're claiming?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 42 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 41 guests)

  1. smurgerburger

Similar Threads

  1. The Genealogy Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 06:29 AM
  2. Closed Thread
    By coach belly in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 08:29 PM
  3. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:48 PM
  4. A thread for losses.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 02:01 AM
  5. The Kicker Thread
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •