Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 200

Thread: Nothing is impossible

  1. #1
    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.

  2. #2
    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.
    Last edited by kewlJ; 11-19-2019 at 10:59 AM.

  3. #3
    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!

  4. #4
    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.
    Last edited by AndrewG; 11-19-2019 at 01:50 PM.

  5. #5
    Don't quit your day job Andrew.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Don't quit your day job Andrew.
    You are a wise ass.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    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.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    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.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 11-19-2019 at 04:17 PM.

  12. #12
    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.

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    Here is Rob's math:

    Start at 99% return.
    Play sub-optimally (meaning you subtract).

    And some how end up over 100% return.

    I mean is this Trump University math?

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    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!

  17. #17
    Alternate reality Rob.

    Twilight zone stuff.

    Alternative universe.

    Take your pick.

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    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.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    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.
    Uhhhh,no. Triple is over $500,000. I love people who go by the.math.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post

    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.
    Uhhhh,no. Triple is over $500,000. I love people who go by the.math.
    Well, if you start with 171.6k and claim to have made a profit of 375k. What would your ending amount be...lol
    Yet he wants to ask only if it's possible to double the starting bankroll. I'm trying to figure out the question that needs to be answered.
    Claims that are highly questionable always seem to be surrounded in clouded descriptions and lacking in detail. I love people who are idiots.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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