1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play section.
    Dismiss Notice

Casino Ah ha! The Wiz is wrong!!!

Discussion in 'Casino Forum' started by karumba, Dec 12, 2022.

  1. karumba

    karumba Active Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2021
    Likes:
    57
    Location:
    australia
    I have challenged the Wiz on another site about negative progression, and how it is mathematically possible to win using this strategy. I explain this with my paradox: Wellbush Paradox. The Wiz actually acknowledges this fact in his webcast here:

    If you listen carefully around the 1min 20sec mark, he states: "So....assuming an infinite bankroll, you would actually fall off the series and have a win of one unit. Of course that's a big 'if.' If you hit a bad run of luck you could lose whatever ammunition you bring to the table."

    What I would like to emphasise is the first sentence where the Wiz acknowledges the mathematical fact that negative progression will bring the gambler back into profit if the gambler is permitted to use a large enough bankroll. The bankroll does not need to be infinite, but the Wiz is rightly stipulating that with a bad losing streak, the amount of bankroll required could be seriously large indeed, and will most undoubtedly exceed the casinos maximum table limit anywhere within the casino.

    Where the Wiz is wrong is in several statements. First, as I alluded to in the above paragraph, the gambler does not need to have an "infinite" bankroll, but a large one. This is only a small error, and it's forgivable considering that he may have been referring to 'any' seriously bad run of luck by a gambler, which could easily amount to some ridiculously large amounts (but not infinite amounts) being wagered, that no casino could expect to accept those kind of wagers.

    I will follow up this post with further posts, so as not to overload any one post with too much info.
     
  2. karumba

    karumba Active Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2021
    Likes:
    57
    Location:
    australia
    Where the Wiz is also wrong is when he met me head on, on another website, and told me I was wrong to state that it was possible to beat the house at blackjack. He has already acknowledged the mathematical truth that using negative progression can theoretically beat the house in most live casino games.

    So therein lies the quandary. How can the Wiz know that any negative progression betting system cannot beat the house? It's easy for the Wiz, or any mathematician, to acknowledge that the Fibonacci system would get a gambler into an exceedingly high stakes betting amount fairly quickly. What however, if a gambler used a less risky type of negative progression system, that did not let wagers incline too steeply through a run of losses?
     
  3. karumba

    karumba Active Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2021
    Likes:
    57
    Location:
    australia
    Games at casinos are meant to win and lose for both the casino and the gambler. If this were not true, casinos may not exist. Who would go to a casino if the casino won every bet? Conversely, which casino would stay profitable if the gamblers won every bet?

    Whilst games at the casinos win and lose for both the gambler and the casino, the games favour the casino winning in the long run if the gambler flat bets. In fact, in most cases, even if gamblers use various betting strategies (which some do), they also end up losing to the casino. It doesn't take much of a gaming advantage, for the games to be almost impossible to beat. A 2% advantage to the casino, is a serious hurdle for any savvy gambler to overcome.

    But are these games impossible to beat? Not necessarily! We already know of one such method - card counting - that has become a bug bear for most casinos to deal with. The way casinos deal with such savvy gamblers using this technique, is to ban them from playing blackjack. Card counting is not cheating, but makes use of math to beat the house.

    And herein is the other error the Wiz makes. He states on a website, or two, something similar to: no betting system can beat the house, and that all betting systems are equally worthless.

    How can the Wiz be correct with the above statement, when the math community already acknowledges 'card counting' to be a legitimate mathematical way of beating the house at blackjack?
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2022
  4. karumba

    karumba Active Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2021
    Likes:
    57
    Location:
    australia
    As I mentioned in the previous post, games at casinos win and lose for both the gambler and the casino. The casinos invariably win due to their small % advantage incorporated into each of their games.

    From my own analysis over several recent years, I do believe it may be possible to beat the house at blackjack, using negative progression. I am not referring to any known negative progression system, but my own. My system generally increases the size of the wagers after losing bets, and eventually raises a profit for the gambler over time.

    In order to try out my system at a casino, I would need a bit more of a bankroll than what I can currently afford on my measly welfare payment in Australia. I'm on what's called the "Disability Support Pension" here, for chronic fatigue (among other things). One day however, I may just be in a position to try out my system.
     
  5. mdanamul

    mdanamul New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2023
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    I dont't know about betting system
     
  6. Alan Shank

    Alan Shank Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Likes:
    17
    Occupation:
    retired software engineer
    Location:
    Woodland, CA
    Counting in blackjack works because the composition of the deck changes until they re-shuffle. This has no meaning for craps or roulette, in which the probabilities never change.
    Cheers,
    Alan Shank
     

Share This Page