Nothing is impossible

[AndrewG]

While I know nothing about the forum run by "Norm" or the feud with Mr Kewlj, a comment by Mr Kewlj sent up a red flag:

"Whether it be a card counter claiming a 5% advantage using his super 'duper count', a guy claiming 18 y.o.'s in a row, or a guy claiming he won millions playing progression betting....all of which are essentially mathematically impossible."

Nothing is impossible, Mr Kewlj. It might be unlikely but if the sacred math that you speak of says there's a chance then there is a chance.

Is there a chance that a suicide fired three gunshots into his own heart? Yes, and the case is documented. Is there a chance a suicide fired three shots into his own head? Yes, and documented again.

Nothing is impossible. Unlikely, yes, impossible no.

Perhaps you should reconsider the reason behind your forum woes? It's possible you're at fault.

[kewlJ]

Andrew I am not a math guy, not one of the group that I sometimes jokingly refer to as Math geeks. I have great respect and admiration for such people, especially when it comes to gambling math. When people start talking formulas and such, it almost always is over my head. Even in my own field of blackjack, I don't understand the formulas and math behind everything. But I can take math proven.....PROVEN by those smarter than me and those that came before me and use that to my advantage. And I have done that pretty successfully supporting myself from blackjack play (and a little bit of non BJ advantage play) for 16 years now next month.

So lets look at some of these things that you want to say are possible.

1.) It is a proven mathematical fact that Negative expectation can not be overcome by progressive wagering. Mathematicians have tried since the dawn of time. It can't be done. Well not on a long term basis. All progressive wagering does is re-distribute the series of win and losses in a way that you will have many smaller win, but eventually a large loss that will wipe out all those wins plus some. There just is no debate Andrew. Claiming to play a negative expectation game and win by progressive wagering (and special plays ) is voodoo nonsense.

2.) Up until about two decades ago card counting could provide a 1-2% advantage depending on bet spread, rules penetration ect. The 2% number was rare. You really needed just the right favorable conditions. 1% range was more realistic for most card counters. In the last couple decades, of worse blackjack conditions, rule changes like stand soft 17, six and 8 deck games replacing single deck and penetration a very mediocre 75% on most shoe game, most card counters aren't even seeing a 1% advantage, unless they are playing a big bet spread and escaping at least a portion of the negative counts. Most card counters are now playing to a .5% to .75% advantage IF the don't make too many mistakes.

So different counts, level 2 and 3 counts with side counts, as opposed to the traditional hi-lo count, can increase performance maybe 10% if there are not too many mistakes made. But that is an increase of 10% of the 1% (at best) that card counters are able to get. So some advanced super duper count may be able to increase a players advantage from 1% to 1.1%, somewhere in that range, or someone playing less that 1% advantage as most are now a days, maybe this gets them closer to 1%....IF they don't make too many mistakes.

So 5%?? Impossible. You can not get a 5% advantage from card counting if you were allowed to sit your laptop right there on the felt. Can't be done. And too his credit, the person making this claim, years later after it was debunked admitted that his claim was based on a very small sample size. As he got a realistic sample size, his results came back down to earth. I mean the guy who made the original claim eventually said that (to his credit).

And I have saved the best for last. 3.) 18 y.o.'s in a row. I don't play craps and actually know zero about craps myself. But this claim of 18 y.o.'s in a row has been debunked by every math guy (including Wizard Michael Shackleford) from the time it was made at WoV. On this forum Dan Druff, the owner, professional poker player and a pretty good math guy himself, did the math and showed his math and placed the chance of it occurring at about the same odds as someone being struck by lightning 243 times (or some similar number) and surviving.

To me that is good enough to say impossible. In the movie Dumb and Dumber, the guy asked the girl of the odds of them being together and she said a million to one. He responded "so you are telling me there is a chance". If you want to go with that attitude, fine. I am comfortable with saying impossible.

[Rob.Singer]

Looks like kew just got ticked off by someone calling it like it is. Anytime he goes into a scrambling diatribe, you know a nerve was hit.

Good job!

[AndrewG]

Mr Kewlj you need to get your definitions straight. No one said you can beat a negative expectation game, but you can win at a negative expectation game. I'm afraid you don't know the difference. While I'm not a blackjack player is it possible someone had a 5% advantage at some point even though you didn't?

And if you're not a math geek why are you quoting others? It seems to me you must know all conditions?

You can read the coroner's reports on the suicides that required three bullets to the heart and to the head. Those reports are good examples of why you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

There is another case of two shotgun blasts to the back being labeled a murder... but it was another suicide as the first blast reached no vital organs.

But you're missing my point. Perhaps it is you who is wrong. Have you ever doubted yourself or is Mr Kewlj always right?

It is very easy to support your own position with quotes from others... and quotes from yourself.

[pepe]

You can read the coroner's reports on the suicides that required three bullets to the heart and to the head. Those reports are good examples of why you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

If I read a coroner's report on a suicide that required 3 bullets to the heart and the head, I figure the person who committed suicide had information that could lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.

[tableplay]

You can read the coroner's reports on the suicides that required three bullets to the heart and to the head. Those reports are good examples of why you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

If I read a coroner's report on a suicide that required 3 bullets to the heart and the head, I figure the person who committed suicide had information that could lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.

AKA "Suicided". Seth Rich comes to mind.

[kewlJ]

Don't quit your day job Andrew.

[AndrewG]

Don't quit your day job Andrew.

You are a wise ass.

[Rob.Singer]

Don't quit your day job Andrew.

You are a wise ass.

Being "wise" at anything is light years away from anything this internet character "kew" says or does.

[AxelWolf]

While I know nothing about the forum run by "Norm" or the feud with Mr Kewlj, a comment by Mr Kewlj sent up a red flag:

"Whether it be a card counter claiming a 5% advantage using his super 'duper count', a guy claiming 18 y.o.'s in a row, or a guy claiming he won millions playing progression betting....all of which are essentially mathematically impossible."

Nothing is impossible, Mr Kewlj. It might be unlikely but if the sacred math that you speak of says there's a chance then there is a chance.

Is there a chance that a suicide fired three gunshots into his own heart? Yes, and the case is documented. Is there a chance a suicide fired three shots into his own head? Yes, and documented again.

Nothing is impossible. Unlikely, yes, impossible no.

Perhaps you should reconsider the reason behind your forum woes? It's possible you're at fault.

It might be theoretically possible for somebody to roll eighteen years in a row there's actually math that can support and calculate the odds of it happening. But how can someone claim playing a super duper count system will gain you a 5% advantage long-term if the math shows it's impossible? 1+1 can't =5.

Now if someone was claiming when they happend to use the count they were averaging a 5% advantage I guess that's theoretically possible they just happen to always get a super duper count all the time. From my understanding that's not what this person was claiming they were claiming if you do something a certain way the math shows you have a 5% advantage.

[AndrewG]

I remember this phrase being very popular: lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place.

But then someone took a photo of the tower on the Empire State Building during an electrical storm.

[AxelWolf]

I remember this phrase being very popular: lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place.

But then someone took a photo of the tower on the Empire State Building during an electrical storm.

Sure that's a common phrase, it's not supposed to be taken literally, it's just a modern day proverb basically reassuring someone an unlikely bad luck event probably won't happen again. So if that's your argument.... you failed miserably. I don't know why it's so hard to understand a mathematically impossible event vs an event that's extraordinary unlikely. There's a huge difference, one is possible and one isn't.

It's not even theoretically possible to use a super duper count and gain an overall mathematical 5% advantage. AGAIN, 1+1 can't =5, apparently this guy was making claims that was along those lines.

[AndrewG]

I remember this phrase being very popular: lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place.

But then someone took a photo of the tower on the Empire State Building during an electrical storm.

Sure that's a common phrase, it's not supposed to be taken literally, it's just a modern day proverb basically reassuring someone an unlikely bad luck event probably won't happen again. So if that's your argument.... you failed miserably. I don't know why it's so hard to understand a mathematically impossible event vs an event that's extraordinary unlikely. There's a huge difference, one is possible and one isn't.

It's not even theoretically possible to use a super duper count and gain an overall mathematical 5% advantage. AGAIN, 1+1 can't =5, apparently this guy was making claims that was along those lines.

I guess I didn't make my points clear.

First of all I deal in facts, not theory. It's theory when you come upon a crime scene and see three bullet holes in a man's head. It's facts after the coroner determines that the first two wounds were superficial and other evidence proves it was a suicide.

You Mr AxelWolf used the phrase "along those lines" which tells me you lack facts.

Mr Kewlj has admitted he has no facts and quotes others and then quotes himself to prove his point.

To be blunt what a crock of shit this all is. Some of the members here use their own definitions. Others appear to use theory to dispute reported observations. I'll stick with reported observations.

I remember decades ago going thru the museum at the NYPD Academy. There was a display of a curtain rod that fell out of a high rise apartment window and pierced a pedestrian's skull. The display told the story of the rescue and survival of the victim. What would your theory say?

I recall seeing bullets that pierced each other in the air. What would your theory say? And in fire fights it happened multiple times. Again, what would your theory say?

Again, a question I asked previously: is Mr Kewlj never wrong? Then why does he have such problems on some forums?

If something can happen only once in a trillion times and it happened, then the one in a trillion happened. Deal with it.

I came here looking for info on casino promotions. My local newspaper does a better job with its weekly Las Vegas column.

[redietz]

I remember this phrase being very popular: lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place.

But then someone took a photo of the tower on the Empire State Building during an electrical storm.

Sure that's a common phrase, it's not supposed to be taken literally, it's just a modern day proverb basically reassuring someone an unlikely bad luck event probably won't happen again. So if that's your argument.... you failed miserably. I don't know why it's so hard to understand a mathematically impossible event vs an event that's extraordinary unlikely. There's a huge difference, one is possible and one isn't.

It's not even theoretically possible to use a super duper count and gain an overall mathematical 5% advantage. AGAIN, 1+1 can't =5, apparently this guy was making claims that was along those lines.

I guess I didn't make my points clear.

First of all I deal in facts, not theory. It's theory when you come upon a crime scene and see three bullet holes in a man's head. It's facts after the coroner determines that the first two wounds were superficial and other evidence proves it was a suicide.

You Mr AxelWolf used the phrase "along those lines" which tells me you lack facts.

Mr Kewlj has admitted he has no facts and quotes others and then quotes himself to prove his point.

To be blunt what a crock of shit this all is. Some of the members here use their own definitions. Others appear to use theory to dispute reported observations. I'll stick with reported observations.

I remember decades ago going thru the museum at the NYPD Academy. There was a display of a curtain rod that fell out of a high rise apartment window and pierced a pedestrian's skull. The display told the story of the rescue and survival of the victim. What would your theory say?

I recall seeing bullets that pierced each other in the air. What would your theory say? And in fire fights it happened multiple times. Again, what would your theory say?

Again, a question I asked previously: is Mr Kewlj never wrong? Then why does he have such problems on some forums?

If something can happen only once in a trillion times and it happened, then the one in a trillion happened. Deal with it.

I came here looking for info on casino promotions. My local newspaper does a better job with its weekly Las Vegas column.

AndrewG, there are two distinct elements to this. First is, what did "Singer" allegedly accomplish? You're correct in that whatever he claims to have done was not theoretically "impossible." It was just highly, highly unlikely. Like winning the lottery. The more important element, to me, is that he claims his systems will (not can or may, but will) produce similar results for others going forward. Putting aside the problem that "Singer" makes an understanding of his "systems" a moving target with intricacies only he can interpret in-the-field (red flag number one), this claim is not a historical possibility question. It is a math question. And there is no math that supports it. Can one out of a thousand people following his "systems" generate similar positive results? Sure, that can happen. Will the "systems" work, in total, counting all results for everyone using them going forward? No, they will not. That is math. It would be like a lottery winner (historical event) saying they have a system that will win (not can or may) going forward. Same thing. Now if you think that you are blessed by God (or "Singer") and you'll be the one in a thousand who wins going forward, more power to you. We should all be blessed by God.

Another example. The most sports bets I have ever won consecutively was 17. It was in a public contest, online, with my actual plays. I wrote a couple of articles for that website after I hit 13 in a row. In one I said that I was shooting for 17 in a row because those were the same odds, as established by insurance companies, as "death by reptile." It was in print, viewed by thousands of people, and the plays could be seen before the games were played. It was an established accomplishment, unlike the accomplishments claimed by "Singer." It was a historical event. Do I go around saying my brilliant expertise will do that again? Of course not. It's absurd. That was a historical anomaly. I will probably never do that again. It was the very definition of a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

Anyone can win the lottery. Winning the lottery is not impossible, by definition. Should you give credence to the lottery winner claiming "systems" were responsible? That is the key question.

For casino promotions, yeah, tough to come by these days. I took some criticism from the high muck-a-mucks here a few years back for lugging a boatload of coins into Ellis island to get a 10% bonus. I did it twice, and I'd do it again if they still had the promo. The Las Vegas Advisor current issue lists a rebate opportunity and the usual -- Ellis island $10 steak and so on. Check it out if you haven't read this month's issue. Also, the online sports book Draft Kings is offering a $500 rebate on a first losing wager for those states in which they have now set up shop. So check that out, also.

[kewlJ]

Someone showing up here and arguing these things is just looking to argue.

In the case of progressive wager overcoming negative expectation, we are NOT talking short term. The original claim was to the tune of 900k over 10 years. That is NOT short-term or a small sample size. Later the claim magically grew to almost 1.5 million over 10 years.

And finally once he went to his new "greatest" claim of the double up bug, he had to shorten this original progression years claim because the years overlapped. I forget what the latest revised progression system claim even is? 350k over 4 years maybe? Point is it just didn't happen.

Now Alan and 18 y.o.'s in a row. I believe Alan saw something that made an impression on him...but it wasn't 18 in a row. How many I don't know. Maybe even a couple of short streaks briefly interrupted that he is mis-remembering.

And finally the 5% advantage from blackjack card counting is easiest of all. Its bullshit because it can't be done. And here is the most important detail: the guy making that claim had since stated he was wrong. I mean he didn't actually use the word 'wrong', instead spinning it that his original claim was based on a small sample size and as his trial size grew the numbers came back to where they should have been.

So that guy recanted his own claim (finally and to his credit), so now why is someone new here arguing that is possible? Like I said Andrew apparently just wants to argue.

[Rob.Singer]

It appears kew has never been to a math class and instead, has been to numerous "creating forum chaos" classes . Again, to educate, it is mathematically possible to be ahead $375,000 after 49 months playing on average, a 99% video poker game. To claim anything different is to portray extraordinary mathematical ignorance as well as displaying a lack of mathematical knowledge. It is, in effect, what he does on every forum he has been banned from. He just can't translate what he reads in gambling books effectively enough to make any sense.

[MaxPen]

Not sure what a Clinton Foundation sponsored forensic analysis has to do with anything.

[kewlJ]

First, you are NOT even playing 99% return machines. Your "special" plays....translation less optimal plays makes your long term expectation even lower than you think it is.

The math you are using isn't real math. It is Rob Singer alternative math and it only works with a magic potion and incantation. It's pure voodoo Rob.

If your claims were backed up by math...real math, I never would have said anything. I would have kept the fact that I find you not credible and don't believe you to myself. But I just can't do that with your twilight zone math.

[Rob.Singer]

First, you are NOT even playing 99% return machines. Your "special" plays....translation less optimal plays makes your long term expectation even lower than you think it is.

The math you are using isn't real math. It is Rob Singer alternative math and it only works with a magic potion and incantation. It's pure voodoo Rob.

If your claims were backed up by math...real math, I never would have said anything. I would have kept the fact that I find you not credible and don't believe you to myself. But I just can't do that with your twilight zone math.

I'm happy to make you look like even more of an idiot than your own incompetence identifies you as.

The MACHINES are in fact 99% as stated. All machines have a payback based on optimal play. How one plays them does not alter the machines' payback percentages. It changes the player's ER.

Next, do something you have never done before. Step onto a college campus, find a math professor, and ask if it's possible to result a double-the-starting-bankroll return on 99% machines after 49 months with a total bankroll of $171,600.

The more people look the more they can see how much of a clown and a menace you have been across internet forums, highlighted by numerous banning all laced with humiliation and bad feelings. All you're doing here is digging your own grave even deeper. And I'm enjoying every bit of it!

[MaxPen]

First, you are NOT even playing 99% return machines. Your "special" plays....translation less optimal plays makes your long term expectation even lower than you think it is.

The math you are using isn't real math. It is Rob Singer alternative math and it only works with a magic potion and incantation. It's pure voodoo Rob.

If your claims were backed up by math...real math, I never would have said anything. I would have kept the fact that I find you not credible and don't believe you to myself. But I just can't do that with your twilight zone math.

I'm happy to make you look like even more of an idiot than your own incompetence identifies you as.

The MACHINES are in fact 99% as stated. All machines have a payback based on optimal play. How one plays them does not alter the machines' payback percentages. It changes the player's ER.

Next, do something you have never done before. Step onto a college campus, find a math professor, and ask if it's possible to result a double-the-starting-bankroll return on 99% machines after 49 months with a total bankroll of $171,600.

The more people look the more they can see how much of a clown and a menace you have been across internet forums, highlighted by numerous banning all laced with humiliation and bad feelings. All you're doing here is digging your own grave even deeper. And I'm enjoying every bit of it!

I thought the claim was a 375k profit. That would require tripling the initial bankroll and then some. Just trying to get the details.