Card-Counting Is A Waste Of Time For Real Profitting

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks Once Dear. All you had to say was "OK Alan. 20% loss rebate cannot influence whether you win the next hand, or throw of the dice."

Thank you.

Do loss rebates help you by allowing you to lose less? Of course they do.

Thank you again.

[OnceDear]

Thanks Once Dear. All you had to say was "OK Alan. 20% loss rebate cannot influence whether you win the next hand, or throw of the dice."

Thank you.

Do loss rebates help you by allowing you to lose less? Of course they do.

Thank you again.

Fuck me if Alan didn't think I was agreeing with him. SMH!

[mickeycrimm]

Thanks Once Dear. All you had to say was "OK Alan. 20% loss rebate cannot influence whether you win the next hand, or throw of the dice."

Thank you.

Do loss rebates help you by allowing you to lose less? Of course they do.

Thank you again.

Fuck me if Alan didn't think I was agreeing with him. SMH!

I thought his response was going to be "I don't play roulette." LMAO!

[OnceDear]

I thought his response was going to be "I don't play roulette." LMAO!

Yes. Or "What's roulette got to do with it?"
In any case, it was always absolutely certain that Alan Maths Moron would throw back a troll's response that did not address his own ignorance.

Every true advantage play helps you win a bet.

SO FUCKING WRONG!

Or are you telling me that when you lose less because of a loss rebate that that constitutes some kind of an advantage even though it doesn't help you to win the next bet?

YES. JUST FUCKING YES.
A 200% Loss rebate gives you an advantage, regardless of the house edge.
A 100% Loss rebate gives you an advantage, regardless of the house edge.
A 50% Loss rebate almost certainly gives you an advantage, depending on the house edge.
A 20% Loss rebate almost certainly gives you an advantage, depending on the house edge.
A 1% Loss rebate almost certainly does not give you an advantage, depending on the house edge.

It's maths, Moron. Not your forte.

An advantage player would exploit that and without too much regard to the outcomes of individual games, would MAKE A PROFIT.

The outcomes of the games would be the same. The outcome on the players bankroll WOULD NEVER BE WORSE and WOULD OFTEN BE BETTER.

[Moses]

I mean my dear, dear friend, Norman Wattenberger created the best blackjack software that has helped 1000's of blackjack players, professional and recreational alike and he has yet to receive this honor. But a guy has 3 decent session wins and he is in? Just seems like BJHoF should be about a larger piece of work that 3 lucky sessions. That is my opinion of course.

Perhaps, if the BJHoF was in Shawshank...And the winner is? It's fatass by a nose. I can just hear his tearful acceptance speech. "I'm not supposed to be here. I wa- I wa- I want my mommy."

[mickeycrimm]

Alan, I receive 100 coupons for a 20% loss rebate on each bet at roulette. I go to the roulette wheel and 100 times I bet black for $100.

18/38 means I have a 47.37% chance to win each bet and a 52.63% chance to lose each bet.

So in 100 spins the expectation is to win 47.37 times which would pay $4737.
The expectation would also be to lose 52.63 times which would cost me only $80 each time. That would be a loss of $4210

So the expectation is to WIN $527 on the play (4737 minus 4210).

Without the 20% loss rebates the expectation would be to LOSE $527 ($10,000 x 5.27%).

You are right that the loss rebates won't help you hit black. But you lose less money when it doesn't hit.

So would you rather play it with or without the loss rebates?

I know. Your answer is "I don't play roulette."

[OnceDear]

And now we have MickeyCrimm trying to train the donkey.
Alan is one successful troll. Gotta give him that.

[mickeycrimm]

And now we have MickeyCrimm trying to train the donkey.
Alan is one successful troll. Gotta give him that.

Alan is untrainable. He's a died in the wool donkey and will never change. I do the math for the benefit of others that read this forum. Alan is just the foil.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm wrote:

"You are right that the loss rebates won't help you hit black. But you lose less money when it doesn't hit."

Thank you Mickey. Why couldn't you guys say that all along? It was exactly what I was saying and wanted to hear.

Thank you again.

[OnceDear]

Well I play craps so I'd like to comment.
First, I think Mission had a typo and meant "back" instead of "bet."

Now the numbers.

If I get a 20% discount on my losses this happens:

Bet $1,000,000 but lose 800,000.
Net loss is $200,000. I don't see anything positive yet?

Bet $1,000,000 again and win. I collect $1,000,000.

I have bet a total of $2,000,000.
I won $1,000,000 and lost $800,000.
Total win is $1,800,000.
Total bet is $2,000,000.
Net loss is $200,000.

Where's the positive in that?

What's positive is that YOU just demonstrated that YOU can't do simple arithmetic.

Bet $1,000,000 but lose 800,000.
Net loss is $200,000. I don't see anything positive yet?

Immediately wrong. You have put down 1,000,000, and lost 800,000 of it. You still have 200,000 left ( your rebate )
Net loss so far is 800,000 not 200,000

Bet $1,000,000 again and win. I collect $1,000,000.

I have bet a total of $2,000,000.

That bit is correct. You now have 200,000 + 1,000,000 returned stake + 1,000,000 winnings on that second wager.
You started out holding 2,000,000. You are holding 2,200,000

I won $1,000,000 and lost $800,000.
Total win is $1,800,000.

No. Nonesense!
You lost 1,000,000. You were rebated 200,000. You won 1,000,000 on that second wager.
That's -1,000,000 + 200,000 + 1,000,000 = +200,000

Total bet is $2,000,000.
Net loss is $200,000.

No. Alan. Pay attention.
Total bet is $2,000,000.
Net PROFIT is $200,000.

[OnceDear]

Mickeycrimm wrote:

"You are right that the loss rebates won't help you hit black. But you lose less money when it doesn't hit."

Thank you Mickey. Why couldn't you guys say that all along? It was exactly what I was saying and wanted to hear.

Thank you again.

You only ever hear what you want to hear. Everything else flies [s]Over your head[/s] In one ear and out the other.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm wrote:

"You are right that the loss rebates won't help you hit black. But you lose less money when it doesn't hit."

Thank you Mickey. Why couldn't you guys say that all along? It was exactly what I was saying and wanted to hear.

Thank you again.

You only ever hear what you want to hear. Everything else flies [s]Over your head[/s] In one ear and out the other.

I don't understand why you want to argue now? All I wanted was confirmation that loss rebates won't influence the results of dice, cards and wheels. Perhaps if someone read my question and skipped preaching about math this could have been resolved a long time ago. Have a nice day.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickeycrimm wrote:

"You are right that the loss rebates won't help you hit black. But you lose less money when it doesn't hit."

Thank you Mickey. Why couldn't you guys say that all along? It was exactly what I was saying and wanted to hear.

Thank you again.

You only ever hear what you want to hear. Everything else flies [s]Over your head[/s] In one ear and out the other.

I don't understand why you want to argue now? All I wanted was confirmation that loss rebates won't influence the results of dice, cards and wheels. Perhaps if someone read my question and skipped preaching about math this could have been resolved a long time ago. Have a nice day.

But it does influence the amount of money you win or lose per the same amount of total wager.

[MisterV]

This thread confirms that you can lead a horse's ass to brain matter but you can't make him think.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm wrote this:

"But it does influence the amount of money you win or lose per the same amount of total wager."

Yes loss rebates influence the amount of money lost. But how does the loss rebate affect the amount of money won on each wager? Does a loss rebate increase payoffs on wagers?

Are you going to call me a dumass or moron or idiot for pointing out your error?

[regnis]

Alan-I look at it this way. If I win, I have more $$ in the pocket. If I lose and get a rebate, I have more $$ in the pocket than I would have had without the rebate. So that is like a win. It's as if I played one more hand at 20% of my loss and won it. I still lost, but I lost 20% less.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan-I look at it this way. If I win, I have more $$ in the pocket. If I lose and get a rebate, I have more $$ in the pocket than I would have had without the rebate. So that is like a win. It's as if I played one more hand at 20% of my loss and won it. I still lost, but I lost 20% less.

That's right. No dispute about that. But the point I was making and a point Rob made was that you still had to win your bets. Otherwise loss rebates only reduced your losses.

Now mickeycrimm who seems to always want the last word is saying about loss rebates:

"But it does influence the amount of money you win or lose per the same amount of total wager."

Well that's only partially correct. Loss rebates do impact your losses but they do not impact the payoffs on wins. Now perhaps you have more money to bet because of loss rebates but that's not what mickeycrimm wrote.

[Moses]

Alan. My hat goes off to you. Your shit stirring abilities are clearly the best I've ever seen. There was a poster posing as a blackjack playing muslim phsycologist from the midwest that always had everyone going. IMO, it wasn't a real person. But it went on for years. He isn't even in your league.

[Alan Mendelson]

Moses I wasn't stirring the pot. It's just that many people with math skills lack the ability to read and understand the English language which is why tests like the SATs had two sections -- verbal and math.

[Moses]

Moses I wasn't stirring the pot. It's just that many people with math skills lack the ability to read and understand the English language which is why tests like the SATs had two sections -- verbal and math.

LOL. No malice intended. It's amazing how many and how quickly threads here will exceed 100 posts and vastly appoach 200 before they die out. IMO, most threads begin to lose the worth around 50.

I think that largest thread ever at another blackjack site was around 700. Ironic, it was primarily two guys bantering back and forth about football. The 2nd largest was 285 and yet had nothing to do with conventional counting. Go figure. Those guys get so twitchy around 100 posts.

It's appears, to me at least, you are the straw that stirs the drink. An art form, perhaps?