You've just shown how little you understood of what I wrote, yet again. Nobody has ever clearly addressed what I asked. To get it, you first have to clear the blindness within that says -EV always loses and +EV always wins. It doesn't, and the math proves it doesn't.

Over time, there are some winners on -EV games and some losers on +EV games. That is a mathematical fact. Nothing is finite when it comes to GAMES of skill or chance. How can there be winners? Easy. And the same the other way around. I'm not gonna keep explaining how to you unless and until you open your "+=win and -=lose" mind. You simply take that easy way out, every single time you're cornered with sensible points.

And you did it again. This isn't roulette, where you have no input other than a bet. Obviously you're right about what you said there. The biggest blockade I see for you is the continuous escaping the fact that the big jackpots are FAR bigger than the majority of the losing sessions. Instead of using a computer that tells you what formulas equal, use the far more useful computer attached to your neck and come out into the light.

Critics feel good about continually claiming "the one or two big losses will wipe out all the small wins". Yet they for some reason ignore, even though they KNOW the strategy goes into some sky high denominations, that there are some HUGE hits. No critic will accept that, and my guess is by rejecting that, they can comfortably keep saying how the big losses wipe out all the winners and more.

I've played about 200 sessions. There ARE huge hits. You've seen me post pictures even recently of hits that I've gotten WITHOUT playing my strategy, so you know these hits exist at the $10 and up levels. Even 6-figures. So where's the disconnect? You can't keep denying they happen.

Then we have your insinuation that I see huge session losses. There's a few. My largest was about $33k. Next largest was $11k. And down from there---to as low as under $1000. That's 30 sessions of losses and 170 sessions of winners between $2540 and $96,000. (I'm rounding).

Remember the holy grail of casino games: what has already occured has no bearing on past results or results yet to come. IE, if a strategy had an 85% chance of winning yesterday's session, it has an 85% chance of winning all future sessions. Where is it written that I must hit a big enough loser in a session to wipe all the winners out? And where is it written that HUGE jackpot winners just can't happen?

Look, your world isn't gonna end if you admit you either don't understand how the strategy works so you're not yet qualified to form an educated opinion, or you might be getting closer to seeing how the strategy is better than grinding away at 4% +EV opportunities.

Here's another question: the math cannot and does not dictate what will or should happen in a single session. Then how could it possibly predict a devastating loss "somewhere" within the structure of an 85% opportunity of winning? And why doesn't it also predict the huge jackpots?

Answer: because this strategy, unlike AP play, completely and totally stops after every session is over. Remember, again, that no hand of vp has anything to do with hands that have come before or that are yet to come. The same with sessions.