Advantage play / cheating / crime....where is the line?

[Rob.Singer]

Let's apply some data to your theory. Are you asserting 150 sessions, where the player plays between 1 minute and 15 hours/session, is long term or short term?

Next, what is the mathematical reason why the math geniuses, complete with Mensa diplomas et al, were unwilling to bet that I could both win at least 8 out of 10 sessions, as well as net at least a $25k profit? I say "mathematical reason" because atheists know no other way.

Finally, who here would be willing to bet me $10,000 that I could play and win at least $2500 in one session of my play strategy. How about the 2nd session? How about the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc.etc.etc.?

And, who wants to bet that any and all losing sessions will be easily mitigated and overcome by double the number of LARGER winning sessions?

Ron, a "session" consisting of denominational and bet switching (along with one or more VP themes/variants) can be broken down into its constituent components where each component consists of the same bet size, theme, and denomination (and same pay table). Since it has already been established that the constituent components cannot win at the 85% clip that you claim (a success rate of 61% was established for the 8/5 BP component of the switching "session"), then it follows that the aggregate of these constituents which form the denominational switching "session" in total also cannot win at this 85% clip (I'd imagine somewhere in the 60-65% range). The bet that you won't take is one where you don't lose money after playing one million hands using your system. The 61% of your "sessions" that win will make less money in total than the 39% of your sessions that lose resulting in a net loss - again you would never take such a bet.

You haven't proven anything with your contrived and misrepresented "61%" guess. You have no idea what the correct data is to begin with. "$1 8/5 BP" all day long combined with "progressive betting (up or down or both??) means you "might win more sessions, but for me to feel good about this I have to add that you will have BIGGER losers too".

Then that dealer-turned-big-time-7 Stars AP, RS__, chimes in with his goofy support. Only critics like you two could talk yourselves into being mathematical analysts by guessing at what the data and parameters really are. You know, it's the good thing you guys chose gambling and aren't working in a business of any real consequence. You'd never get away with inputting faulty data so you can get the results you'd rather see.