are these sim results? im confused at what all this is.. surely you didnt memorize all this from when you played at the casino.. just so you know, the results you get from whatever system you are using prove NOTHING, as we are talking hundreds of hands here.. i could go out and say that everytime i hear somebody cough, i triple my bet, and i could easily end up with positive results after ~1000 hands.. it would take years to prove most things beyond a doubt (imo over 99%) which is why we use math and computers.. any positive results you get are just random chance, as you are not counting cards, simple as that, so if your trying to show all of us that your "free idea" is working, none of us will believe it even if you triple your bankroll..
Licentia's System
- Thread starter Licentia
- Start date
- Status
Yes indeed that is a progression system that you mention.
I have also tested my system increasing bets on Double Downs that I win and decreasing on Double Downs that I lose. My system will not work if I increase and decrease on Double Downs. My system only works with BlackJacks because of the 3 to 2 payouts winning me enough to get my bankroll back. Double Down bet increases/decreases will fail to consistently recuperate my bankroll.
Clearly I have tested everything. The only way it works without fail is with BJs and dropping my bets to base after getting my money back.
Licentia.
I have also tested my system increasing bets on Double Downs that I win and decreasing on Double Downs that I lose. My system will not work if I increase and decrease on Double Downs. My system only works with BlackJacks because of the 3 to 2 payouts winning me enough to get my bankroll back. Double Down bet increases/decreases will fail to consistently recuperate my bankroll.
Clearly I have tested everything. The only way it works without fail is with BJs and dropping my bets to base after getting my money back.
Licentia.
Hey. It is not random betting dude. You have to drop your bet to base after recuperating your bankroll. You have to remember your starting bankroll say $1000. You start at $5 bets. You will see your money go up and down as you increase and decrease your bets. Then you will get a BJ that pushes you up or over where your bankroll started. So you might then have $1010.50 for example. If your bets were higher than $5 when you got up over $1000 then you drop your bet to base. That way your bet is low when the losing streak comes.
This is abundantly frustrating that I can't show you guys this. I have to find a way to record video of myself playing so that I can clearly show you guys how this works. I will see what I can do and then try to put a video on youtube or somewhere so you can all see and understand.
This is abundantly frustrating that I can't show you guys this. I have to find a way to record video of myself playing so that I can clearly show you guys how this works. I will see what I can do and then try to put a video on youtube or somewhere so you can all see and understand.
Licentia's experience falls right into my theory of luck. I propose that, based on the probabilities, there may be someone out there who will always win at blackjack no matter what they do. In this case it's a person who has created a system that coincidentally works every time he tries it. It has him completely snowed, since he refuses to honor logical arguments, but only his limited experience. He may go on winning each and every time he plays regardless of the fact that he is using a losing system. In my theory there can be those who win sometimes, most the time, or all the time, using a single system, or using any number of systems, or using no system at all. Now it may take billions of human being to produce one who coincidentally will always win at something, and that person of course will not know whether their luck will ever quit them, or like Licentia may think it is all their own doing, when in fact it's all coincidence.
I must admit i'm impressed. You've tested 1000's of ideas over the 100,000 hand mark needed to establish whether they work or not? So you've played 100,000,000 hands? I don't think i know anyone who's played that much and i know some very experienced players. Most of us just couldn't find the hours in the day.
RJT.
RJT.
Of course you do! What if you play for 1,000 hands and you lose a bunch of money? Would you consider that system a failure? It could easily be a winning system that experienced some negative variance. You can’t just give up on it because you were unlucky with it. You absolutely have to test it long enough to know that the results are accurate. Why bother testing something if your results aren’t going to be accurate?
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
I'd also be quick to point out that - now math heads correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think i am - you'd need a good deal more than 100,000 hands to prove that a system had merit. If pro blackjack players can have losing years, then surely 100k hands proves very little. It might give you a reasonable idea that a system worked, but it would far from prove anything.
RJT.
RJT.
How long have u tried your system? It is easy to be overly confident in anything that brings positive results when it is your own making but that doesn't neccessarily mean it is legitimate, but hopefully it proves to work out for you, time will tell I suppose.
I ran a system for about 20 thousand hands and was up a little over 6k, but I am still skeptical and will always be untll it is computer simulated which I do not even know if it is possible. The neteller squeeze froze me out. Also I am in no hurry right now due to my bankroll. I went from 60 percent confident in my system to under 50 percent due to a bad losing streak. I am still up 6k (was 8k) and the only thing that keeps me somewhat hopeful is I never seen a system like mine and it is based on some theories that have not been talked about before (but it is a theory, not a trut), all other ones I have seen were flawed by just reading about them
I ran a system for about 20 thousand hands and was up a little over 6k, but I am still skeptical and will always be untll it is computer simulated which I do not even know if it is possible. The neteller squeeze froze me out. Also I am in no hurry right now due to my bankroll. I went from 60 percent confident in my system to under 50 percent due to a bad losing streak. I am still up 6k (was 8k) and the only thing that keeps me somewhat hopeful is I never seen a system like mine and it is based on some theories that have not been talked about before (but it is a theory, not a trut), all other ones I have seen were flawed by just reading about them
I am not releasing my whereabouts as I want to play without hassle. Although everyone just mocks the possibilty of creating a strategy for beating the casino so I may not be in any danger whatsoever. People just don't want to believe that it is possible. It is uncomfortable for people to change. They are happy to keep going to the casino and to keep losing.
Licentia.
Licentia.
Hello CBrown! Great to hear from a sincere poster for a change.
Your question exemplifies my frustration, I must say. People do not understand the function of the bankroll. Most will not test it at all. The few that do test have poor results because they do not understand the function of my external indicator: my bankroll.
Your system is designed to give a consistent edge over the casino. Therefore it is possible for you to be up over 6k and then hit a losing streak and lose some of that money - if your strategy works - or all of it, if your strategy does not work.
My strategy does not work in that manner. It is impossible for my strategy to ever go down more than $600 from my starting bankroll on $5 bets.
Here is a little walkthrough:
We'll say that I start with a $1000 bankroll. I begin to lose money as I play. I am increasing and decreasing bets according to the rules I have stated elsewhere. We'll say that the lowest my bankroll drops to is $580. All of a sudden the winning streak will come and I will find myself getting a BJ that puts me at or over the $1000 I started with; we'll say $1022.50.
At that point I have completed one cycle of my strategy. I lost money and then I regained it all back, most times with profit on top. In the example above I have $22.50 profit from that loss-win back cycle.
From there my bets drop to base and I complete another cycle of losing money and winning it all back.
So my starting bankroll will be $1022.50 this time. I will lose money, we'll say the lowest I drop to this time is $720. Then as my hot streak hits and my bets increase I will find myself get a BJ again that puts me up to say $1060. There again I have successfully completed another cycle of my strategy. I drop my bets to base and go again.
It is abundantly simple to tell if my strategy works or not. If I always get pushed above my starting bankroll - without fail - then my strategy works. In over 100,000 hands played I have never failed to successfully complete a cycle of my strategy. NEVER!
Do you understand the difference? Do you understand how I can know without doubt that my system does not fail?
I wish you the best of luck. Remember that you need to have an "External Indicator" to tell you when to increase and/or decrease your bets. If you increase and decrease only on wins/losses and hand totals your system will fail in the long run.
My second strategy is more like card counting and your system. It is designed to give a consistent edge over the house. My second strategy tells me when good hand totals are going to occur with a higher than average frequency. When the 21s, BJs, Double Downs etc.. are more likely to occur, I can increase my bet in order to take advantage of their appearance. Just like card counting it is a percentage play. Sometimes I will have a streak of good hand totals but the Dealer will beat or push me. But on the overall, my strategy will give an edge because I will win more often with those hand totals, and my bets will be higher.
Yeah, I'm good! Licentia. :cool2:
Your question exemplifies my frustration, I must say. People do not understand the function of the bankroll. Most will not test it at all. The few that do test have poor results because they do not understand the function of my external indicator: my bankroll.
Your system is designed to give a consistent edge over the casino. Therefore it is possible for you to be up over 6k and then hit a losing streak and lose some of that money - if your strategy works - or all of it, if your strategy does not work.
My strategy does not work in that manner. It is impossible for my strategy to ever go down more than $600 from my starting bankroll on $5 bets.
Here is a little walkthrough:
We'll say that I start with a $1000 bankroll. I begin to lose money as I play. I am increasing and decreasing bets according to the rules I have stated elsewhere. We'll say that the lowest my bankroll drops to is $580. All of a sudden the winning streak will come and I will find myself getting a BJ that puts me at or over the $1000 I started with; we'll say $1022.50.
At that point I have completed one cycle of my strategy. I lost money and then I regained it all back, most times with profit on top. In the example above I have $22.50 profit from that loss-win back cycle.
From there my bets drop to base and I complete another cycle of losing money and winning it all back.
So my starting bankroll will be $1022.50 this time. I will lose money, we'll say the lowest I drop to this time is $720. Then as my hot streak hits and my bets increase I will find myself get a BJ again that puts me up to say $1060. There again I have successfully completed another cycle of my strategy. I drop my bets to base and go again.
It is abundantly simple to tell if my strategy works or not. If I always get pushed above my starting bankroll - without fail - then my strategy works. In over 100,000 hands played I have never failed to successfully complete a cycle of my strategy. NEVER!
Do you understand the difference? Do you understand how I can know without doubt that my system does not fail?
I wish you the best of luck. Remember that you need to have an "External Indicator" to tell you when to increase and/or decrease your bets. If you increase and decrease only on wins/losses and hand totals your system will fail in the long run.
My second strategy is more like card counting and your system. It is designed to give a consistent edge over the house. My second strategy tells me when good hand totals are going to occur with a higher than average frequency. When the 21s, BJs, Double Downs etc.. are more likely to occur, I can increase my bet in order to take advantage of their appearance. Just like card counting it is a percentage play. Sometimes I will have a streak of good hand totals but the Dealer will beat or push me. But on the overall, my strategy will give an edge because I will win more often with those hand totals, and my bets will be higher.
Yeah, I'm good! Licentia. :cool2:
We understand perfectly how your system works. Other people have not had success because your system is flawed. Now you are talking about winning 'streaks' and other such term that have been proved time and time again to hold no advantage over the long run.
100k hands doesn't prove anything i'm afraid and what you describe your system mirrors the results that any negative progression system will generate. Many small wins and every so often a catastropic losing streak. Because of the very slow nature of the progression you will see a slightly more balanced result, but it will not result in a long term win.
Where did you get this figure of $600? I've got to assume that it's come from the most you've ever gone down during your trials, making it anacdotal and worthless as any sort of limit in any mathematical sense.
Oh and btw, we do believe in systems that actually do gain an advantage, but only ones that can be proved. Just say, 'but i've never had a losing session' doesn't prove anything. Expecting people to back you up when you are discussing a progression system - a varient on systems that have been proved 100's of times over to be of no merit - when the only supporting evidence you can offer is 'it works for me over a relatively small sample of hands' is never going to get you anywhere.
RJT.
100k hands doesn't prove anything i'm afraid and what you describe your system mirrors the results that any negative progression system will generate. Many small wins and every so often a catastropic losing streak. Because of the very slow nature of the progression you will see a slightly more balanced result, but it will not result in a long term win.
Where did you get this figure of $600? I've got to assume that it's come from the most you've ever gone down during your trials, making it anacdotal and worthless as any sort of limit in any mathematical sense.
Oh and btw, we do believe in systems that actually do gain an advantage, but only ones that can be proved. Just say, 'but i've never had a losing session' doesn't prove anything. Expecting people to back you up when you are discussing a progression system - a varient on systems that have been proved 100's of times over to be of no merit - when the only supporting evidence you can offer is 'it works for me over a relatively small sample of hands' is never going to get you anywhere.
RJT.
That’s ridiculous. After 2,700 hands of flat betting $5, one standard deviation would be:
Sqrt(2700) * 1.16 * 5 = $301
That makes a swing of two standard deviations about $602. Since your system has a higher average bet I’m sure the swings would be even larger. On top of that, your expected loss after 2,700 hands would be about $5 * 2700 * 0.005 = $68, so you only really need a fluctuation of $532 to fall below your “impossible” $600 mark. Again, since your average bet is more than $5 your actual loss would be higher and you would need a smaller fluctuation to reach the $600 mark. After 10,700 hands the SD reaches about $600. Suddenly the "impossible" event is within the 68% probability range.
So your strategy is based on a magical winning streak that suddenly comes along and saves you before you lose it all? And you still don’t believe this is voodoo? What happens if that winning streak doesn’t come? What happens if it comes too late? What happens if it isn’t big enough to win back your losses?
Honestly, it amazes me that you can constantly reject all of the facts that have been presented to you and simply rely on a system that has worked “so far.” How can you ignore all of the proof and still feel like you are being objective? How can you dismiss all of the other people who have used your system and failed? Do you honestly believe that they are so stupid that they can’t figure out how to raise their bets after a BJ when their bankroll is short? Why do you believe that your anecdotal evidence is more valid than theirs? Come one, you really need to get honest with yourself here. You have a system that you really want to be a winner and you are turning a blind eye to anything that proves otherwise. You’re ignoring the facts even when they are spelled out for you. You’re rejecting all the logical evidence that your system is not effective. You’re dismissing anyone’s experience that differs from your own. Basically, you’re forcing your system to be a winner. That’s not a good plan.
-Sonny-
Sqrt(2700) * 1.16 * 5 = $301
That makes a swing of two standard deviations about $602. Since your system has a higher average bet I’m sure the swings would be even larger. On top of that, your expected loss after 2,700 hands would be about $5 * 2700 * 0.005 = $68, so you only really need a fluctuation of $532 to fall below your “impossible” $600 mark. Again, since your average bet is more than $5 your actual loss would be higher and you would need a smaller fluctuation to reach the $600 mark. After 10,700 hands the SD reaches about $600. Suddenly the "impossible" event is within the 68% probability range.
So your strategy is based on a magical winning streak that suddenly comes along and saves you before you lose it all? And you still don’t believe this is voodoo? What happens if that winning streak doesn’t come? What happens if it comes too late? What happens if it isn’t big enough to win back your losses?
Honestly, it amazes me that you can constantly reject all of the facts that have been presented to you and simply rely on a system that has worked “so far.” How can you ignore all of the proof and still feel like you are being objective? How can you dismiss all of the other people who have used your system and failed? Do you honestly believe that they are so stupid that they can’t figure out how to raise their bets after a BJ when their bankroll is short? Why do you believe that your anecdotal evidence is more valid than theirs? Come one, you really need to get honest with yourself here. You have a system that you really want to be a winner and you are turning a blind eye to anything that proves otherwise. You’re ignoring the facts even when they are spelled out for you. You’re rejecting all the logical evidence that your system is not effective. You’re dismissing anyone’s experience that differs from your own. Basically, you’re forcing your system to be a winner. That’s not a good plan.
-Sonny-
- Status