Profit Report Revisited

[Kasi]

So Sonny said "Since you are not willing to discuss your system there is no reason for this thread to continue. This thread will now become just another dead thread in the voodoo forum. Just another thread about a guy with a magic system who couldn't deliver the goods. We should rename this forum the graveyard."

I don't get it.

Maybe Ken will agree with you for re-naming the forum. Ask him. What rules did this thread violate? Was anybody threatened? Anybody doing anything other than expressing opinions?

Isn't naming the forum "Voodoo" prejudicial enough for you? Why not re-name it something more neutral like "Progressive Betting Systems"?

I don't have a freakin clue what you are talking about. A guiy who only wants to post some "voodoo" results?

Maybe we should rename "Card-Counting" "If you can add 1 +1, you will win money forever" or "Posting here makes you a Feared Card-Counter".

Maybe re-name "General" "Mostly Ploppies post here becasue otherwise they'd know the answer".

And, if you ask me, re-name "Advanced Strategies" "Advanced Voodoo plays".

Why isn't "voodoo" given even a wider latitude of bulls*it since, after all, it's "VOODOO" for God's sake.

By DEFINITION it assumes -EV. Why bother getting upset about someone who has won for a long time and, perhaps, believes he will win for longer too? The only question left to answer is how often and how long will an x unit roll last?

Stan Dev defines "long-run" as 500,000 hands. He'd (sorry she'd) be laughed out of CC playing a game with an N0 of 500,000 hands.

And good for you all for realizing it's a -EV betting system. DUHHHH. Any of you AP guys care to address for how long he might likely be ahead?

I never see anyone, except ZG in that thread, making the point of asking the lilihood of being ahead after a certain length of time.

Right. A guy with a "magic system who can't deliver the goods". You don't know his system. You don't know his roll. You don't know jack. All you know he is ahead for some period of time betting somehow.

What, you scared to death after he promised to post his next month's results, they'd be positive too and you'd have no way of measuring the chances of that?

Let threads die out naturally from lack of interest by anyone of posting a reply.

Or close them if they are insulting.

I'd love to know what rule of this site was violated by the "Post results" thread.

Just wasn't aware of the "magic system" rule or the "I haven't posted a reply soon-enuf yet" rule.

BEA utiful. Close a thread that by definition cannot win in infinity becasue a guy has not proven the obviously impossible.

What he is proving, is that betting systems have a place in life over fixed periods of time in order to increase the probability of finishing ahead more at the expense of losing more infrequently.

What is wrong with that?

Or he would be, had he been given the chance. No doubt he is by now yet another poster who will never bother to post here again for having been prevented from expressing his opinions and/or results.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

Reopen the damn thread, silly as it may be.

I'm beginning to think ZG is right in thinking (I think he thought lol somewhere) a moderator's time is better served otherways than banning threads.

Sorry, Sonny - this has just been galling me for a few days now.

You tell me your reasons and I'm listening.

Either way, no big deal. You have a tough job and I respect that. And I will always respect what you say either way. You have helped me out many times in the past and that can never change.

Maybe I missed something thruout the thread that prompted your closing of it.

 

[RJT]

Voodoo - because mathematically the systems don't work and that the maths doesn't work is all that matters.
Locking the thread is a responce to the ususal crap that gets posted here. Encouraging other people to damage their financial health should be reserved to forums that discuss gambling rather than advantage play. In honesty, i'm not entirely convinced that we should have a Voodoo forum either. They post saying that their mighty progression system work - every time it's mathematically flawed - they don't believe the maths and it ends in arguments. Nothing productive comes out of these discussions otherwise it'd be allowed in the other forums and as IC&T pointed out the other day, it's the quality of the information provide in the post that matters. If you keep talking crap then yes it should be called into question whether you have a voice here.
If people really want to just spout non-sense about gambling or other topics and feel they are having their freedoms repressed here, there's absolutely nothing to stop them setting up their own forum and letting people who are interested in these topics know to go there.
Freedom extends as far as your host's good will. I wouldn't complain if i went over to a friends house and wasn't allowed to express my dislike for the police. If they find my opinion offensive, or distastful, then they are well within their rights to ask me not to express it while in their house.
I find progressions systems distastful and generally feel the same about those that push them. Not that my opinion matters here either.
Ken has elected Sonny and IC&T as his representative. If he has a problem with their actions he'll discipline them. Everything else is just non-sense.

RJT.

 

[johndoe]

One big problem is that a lot of people will post their "systems" and results (or just wild claims), in an attempt to promote them, validate themselves, or convince others that these systems have some merit, when the reality is (assuming their wins are real) they just got lucky.

These claims are, as we all know, totally false, and in my opinion justify a forum only so these myths can be dispelled. I think calling it "Voodoo" is pretty appropriate, or even perhaps overly generous.

If people want to talk about pure gambling, then fine, but it needs to be done honestly. They shouldn't expect to be able to lie about bogus, dangerous schemes and make wild claims without people using logic and reason to correct them.

And if these statements of logic and reason are met only with insults and flat denials, rather than rational rebuttals or proof to back up their claims, it's either close the thread down or put up with lots more noise.

 

[Sonny]

Let threads die out naturally from lack of interest by anyone of posting a reply.

I closed that thread because it had come to an end. I think that was pretty clear.

picasso: "A progression system will work and win in the long run given the correct playing conditions."

Sonny: "Feel free to update us on your progress and discuss your results, but don’t waste our time with any more claims that are blatantly false."

picasso: "I have no more to say on the matter, I will live and let live."

That sounds like a natural death to me. He essentially took his ball and went home. It is difficult to have a discussion with someone who is unwilling to participate and unable to defend their beliefs. It's also not interesting to hear the same old lines over and over again. If he had something new or original to say that hasn't been said hundreds of times in this forum I might have allowed things to continue a bit longer, but that thread was a painfully redundant dead end. It was destined to end the way it did, just like all the others. There was a clear lack of interest from both sides of the discussion.

I have no problem with people discussing their playing results here. In fact I even encouraged him to update us on his progress. Several other people in that thread were discussing their results and none of them had their posts deleted. I don't believe I've ever deleted any of your posts or closed any of your threads, even when you and sagefrog get philosophical.

The purpose of this forum is to discuss various aspects of "voodoo" systems, not to claim that they give any long-term advantage or to promote any particular system. I agree that the posting guidelines are very vague for this forum so maybe I'll put a little thought into that and run some ideas by Ken. It looks like we need to set some clear boundaries here.

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

...
I have no problem with people discussing their playing results here. In fact I even encouraged him to update us on his progress. Several other people in that thread were discussing their results and none of them had their posts deleted. I don't believe I've ever deleted any of your posts or closed any of your threads, even when you and sagefrog get philosophical.
...
-Sonny-

that's been very much appreciated on my part.

it's a truly learning experience for me to be free to 'yammer' on and on about stuff, lol. i do try and either keep it real or present the questionable stuff with a disclaimer sort of thing. at least my sign off disclaimer is always on the bottom of my posts.

more my fault than Kasi for any philosophical stuff cause i think i probably drag him into a lot of it. my gamblers fallacy ridden mind keeps coming up with all sorts of questions and often enough Kasi will engage those questions and scenarios.

i'd just say, i can and i know a lot of others can recognize in Kasi a very unique mind with respect to AP stuff and the (if you will) voodoo stuff if it needs to be called that.
like for instance, it seems to me he is able to discuss progression stuff in a reasonable manner, one that sheds more light upon the concept than the stuff that we already know, such as it isn't a supportable long term advantage gaining process.

like ok, i'd be willing to lay out a big bet that say if the gentleman had posted his results or whatever that Kasi would be right in there asking all kinds of questions that would make the gentleman think and see it all for what it is, sort of thing.

 

[sagefr0g]

Voodoo - because mathematically the systems don't work and that the maths doesn't work is all that matters.
....

kind of i'm nitpicking here, lol but i don't really mean it that way.

errhhh correct me if i'm wrong but aren't there known factors within certain limited conditions for which a progressive type of betting system would in fact 'work'?

one that comes to mind is Dubey's simple system outlined in his book No Need to Count. please allow me to forgo posting the game conditions. just let me say from memory it's a pretty close to even single deck game sort of thing.

the method is:
after all losses and four card hands, bet the table minimum.
otherwise bet your maximum.

Dubey provided statistics for such methods albeit i believe it was only for a five million round simulation.

isn't that pretty darn close to a progressive betting system?

anyway, personally i find this sort of thing fascinating. i don't really know of any documented further scientific tests of such stuff.
just to my mind it would be most interesting to better understand such stuff as this.

 

[StandardDeviant]

Stan Dev defines "long-run" as 500,000 hands. He'd (sorry she'd) be laughed out of CC playing a game with an N0 of 500,000 hands.

I know this isn't the main point of your post, but to me "long run" and "N0" are not the same concept. And I don't play games at N0 = 500,000. That would be a complete waste of time - and money.

 

[lingmag]

I think you missed the point....

Yeah, Kasi, I think you missed the point. The originator of the thread came on and said he'd (generic "he"/don't know if this was male or female) been playing for 5 days, gave his min and max bets and gave his profits. Voodoo or not, the point is to discuss your strategy/playing method. It was nearly 2 pages later before this person finally said s/he used a progressive betting method. And even that wasn't specific enough to be useful as far as getting feedback on a forum. All anyone could really say to that is "congratulations" or "good luck with that." There was nothing to discuss. And then s/he just kept repeating "I believe" and "I'm not trying to sell or scam." Yeah, so what?

I would have given a better post by coming on and saying something like, "I make by betting decisions by flipping a coin and I've won 60% of the time." At least I would have put a method out there for the forum to evaluate, discuss, and approve or shoot down. That poster gave us nothing and then went on for 4 pages of BS.

The administrator has the unpleasant job of housekeeping. There's nothing wrong with some banter and BS, but a thread has to have at least an original root of substance. Otherwise, it's just clutter. And in all fairness, again, the poster was invited back to post future results and to actually discuss his strategy/methods.

 

[Katweezel]

Voodoo, ever-popular

Kasi made some interesting points, as has Sonny on this thread. I think the moderators here generally do a very good job - in a sometimes-tough environment, but nobody is perfect...

I'd like to voice my support for the continuation of the Voodoo section, as I believe it adds value to BJInfo. How so? Let me take a guess as to how many blackjack players are superstitious. I'll guess at around 90%. Superstition in gambling is pure voodoo, right?

Let me guess how many BJ players would like to learn how to count cards. My guess, 45%. How many can actually count? 5%. How many can actually count efficiently and accurately under real casino conditions? 0.5%. How many can correlate accurately and efficiently, betting and counting? 0.1%. How many can actually win consistently with counting and betting efficiently and accurately? 0.0001%. (I remind that these are just my guesses.)

The small % of people who can count to some degree are well served on this site. What about the very large % of people who will never count cards, or cannot count cards, or who have not the time or motivation to count cards, or who simply have no interest in learning or reading anything of counting? But this vast crowd that has an interest in the game (sans counting) of blackjack may well be superstitious to some degree. I'd suggest that the Voodoo board gives them something to read here, gives them maybe a reason to come here; knowing that there is something here (other than cold, hard, very-serious BJ math discussion.) There may even be something they can get a laugh out of.

Callipygian began a Voodoo thread: 'Psychics and Blackjack' that to date had 10,982 views and 170 replies. Sure, it contains silliness, fun, craziness, laughter, tall tales, wisdom, lots of pics, stories from experience; in short, a whole smorgasboard of ENTERTAINMENT.

The large number of people who may find math tedious or boring may find something else to entertain them. As for various types of gambling systems, these can be entertaining also and the pro manner in which the moderators have become accustomed to dealing with them is a possible learning process for visitors in itself... In other words, keep up the good work guys!

PS Fredperson, congratulations on hanging around here... keep on hangin

 

[fredperson]

The large number of people who may find math tedious or boring may find something else to entertain them. As for various types of gambling systems, these can be entertaining also and the pro manner in which the moderators have become accustomed to dealing with them is a possible learning process for visitors in itself... In other words, keep up the good work guys!

PS Fredperson, congratulations on hanging around here... keep on hangin

My problem with this sites moderators is their tendency to belittle the intelligence and/or veracity of posters who present systems (theories or experience) that do not employ card counting techniques.

I tried card counting and found it sucked all the enjoyment out of the game.
So, I found another system that is fun and, at the same time, makes money.
I post here simply to encourage other readers to explore non-card counting methods.

You will notice that I have constistently refrained from providing the details on my system. I do not want the responsibilty for players losing their mortgage payment because of a run of bad luck. One wonders if the card counters who make money, not counting cards, but writeing books and giving classes promising untold riches have the same sense of responsibilty.

Thanks Kat for the atta boy. I WILL certainly stay around.

 

[Katweezel]

Progressions cannot possibly win longterm. False premise?

My problem with this sites moderators is their tendency to belittle the intelligence and/or veracity of posters who present systems (theories or experience) that do not employ card counting techniques.

I tried card counting and found it sucked all the enjoyment out of the game.
So, I found another system that is fun and, at the same time, makes money.
I post here simply to encourage other readers to explore non-card counting methods.

You will notice that I have constistently refrained from providing the details on my system. I do not want the responsibilty for players losing their mortgage payment because of a run of bad luck. One wonders if the card counters who make money, not counting cards, but writeing books and giving classes promising untold riches have the same sense of responsibilty.



Thanks Kat for the atta boy. I WILL certainly stay around.

FredP, I don't think I'm the only one intrigued by your claim to have a BJ progressions system that you've won with for 20-odd years... (I think it was you said.) Now without you revealing details of your system, I'll just ramble a little and I'd appreciate if you might respond to a a few points. If you don't feel like it, no big deal.

The consensus of opinion here seems to be that progressions systems cannot possibly be long term winners and they will always arrive at the same eventual result: they will all be losers. Obviously, you disagree. Could you be the exception that proves the rule? I believe what you say and being a voodoo fan myself, I certainly have an open mind when it comes to what might be possible...

Creeping Panther has recently mentioned progressions betting; particularly as cover... but it could be he also employs a progressions system occasionally when appropriate and the timing is right. (Speculation on my part.
He might be kind enough to risk telling us a little something.) Because the consensus here is strongly against most progressions betting, any others who might have found something positive in this area of betting is no doubt keeping quiet about it... for obvious reasons.

With so many Math Boys here in agreement, from your point of view, I guess you may have identified the small or large hole in their vessel of consensus; (if there is one.) I wonder how long it took you to perfect such a system and how many blind alleys you went up... I wonder if you play a certain way, the same, over and over and whether it matters how many other players are on the table...

As card counting is not employed, I wonder if you count anything else, such as Aces seen, dealer busts, dealer streaks, losing streaks, win streaks, blackjacks and so on. I rambled enough.

 

[QFIT]

Because the consensus here is strongly against most progressions betting, any others who might have found something positive in this area of betting is no doubt keeping quiet about it... for obvious reasons.

There is nothing "quiet" about voodoo players. The majority of books on gambling push voodoo techniques -- to the delight of casinos and the shame of their publishers.

 

[fredperson]

There is nothing "quiet" about voodoo players. The majority of books on gambling push voodoo techniques -- to the delight of casinos and the shame of their publishers.

I have read a number of books on blackjack. None of them push
progressive techniques. All of them advocate card counting suggesting
the fortunes that can be earned with their methods. One wonders why
thses guys don't keep their techniques secret and spend their time in
casinos instead of touting their systems in books and courses.

On the other hand, over the years, I have met a few other guys, like me,
sucessful business or professionals, who occasionaly play for enjoyment,
and who make money doing it. They also talk about positive progression.
But we never exchange specific stategies.

 

[QFIT]

I have read a number of books on blackjack. None of them push
progressive techniques. All of them advocate card counting suggesting
the fortunes that can be earned with their methods.

IMO, if ALL of the books you have read suggest fortunes can be made, you have not read any recent, good books. My book specifically advises to NOT become a "pro."

I am aware that many people believe they make money from progression systems. But then after a Poker game or visit to the track, most everyone claims to have won or broke even.

 

[fredperson]

With so many Math Boys here in agreement, from your point of view, I guess you may have identified the small or large hole in their vessel of consensus; (if there is one.) I wonder how long it took you to perfect such a system and how many blind alleys you went up... I wonder if you play a certain way, the same, over and over and whether it matters how many other players are on the table...

As card counting is not employed, I wonder if you count anything else, such as Aces seen, dealer busts, dealer streaks, losing streaks, win streaks, blackjacks and so on. I rambled enough.

Kat
First of all, I agree with the Math Boys that no betting method can overcome a negative expectation in games like roulette, or baccarat. However, pure mathemetics ignores the dynamics of a game like blackjack, where the frequency of premium hands and the ability to vary playing strategy comes into play. Hence the reason for SIMULATIONS to which the same Math Boys subscribe.

Fred's Fibonacci system was developed over a period of two years, not by casino trial and error, but through computer simulation during the period 1978
to 1980. I had purchased a Radio Shack TRS 80 (8 bit 1.5 MH) machine and was looking for something to do with it. I programmed and validated a BJ simulator and for the next two years, ran a significant number of simulations
varying the betting method and playing strategies.

The first casino test came in fall of 1982, when I was in Vegas for the Comdex convention. The results of the test were spectacular, but that's another story. Since then, I averaged maybe 6 to 9 trips a year, to Nevada or Atlantic City, always playing the same system. I have played head to head with the dealer, and at full tables. Makes no difference. However, I have never won at 6:5 or at a CSM table.

The only counting done to keep track of where one is in a win streak, because that determines what the next bet is to be.

 

[psyduck]

I had purchased a Radio Shack TRS 80 (8 bit 1.5 MH) machine and was looking for something to do with it. I programmed and validated a BJ simulator and for the next two years, ran a significant number of simulations
varying the betting method and playing strategies.

I assume that you simulated a large number of plays and it showed a positive EV?

 

[Sonny]

However, pure mathemetics ignores the dynamics of a game like blackjack, where the frequency of premium hands and the ability to vary playing strategy comes into play.

Huh? It was pure mathematics that derived the playing and betting strategies. It was pure mathematics that discovered the dynamics of the game and the movement of the house edge. How can you say that the math ignores these factors? That doesn't make any sense. That's like saying a car manufacturer ignores the dynamics of the cars it makes.

The only counting done to keep track of where one is in a win streak, because that determines what the next bet is to be.

Then it suffers from the same flaw that every other progression system does. It relies on the same fundamental fallacy as every other streak-chasing system. It's so prevalent that it's actually called the Gambler's Fallacy! If a system doesn't even stand up to that simple fallacy, it is pointless to look at it (or develop it) any further. Someone who claims to have a degree in statistics should already understand that.

I programmed and validated a BJ simulator and for the next two years, ran a significant number of simulations
varying the betting method and playing strategies.

And we've seen that your simulation program is not accurate. We've also seen that your simulation techniques are not valid. Not only is your tool broken, you are using it the wrong way. It's not surprising that you can create results that support any system you choose.

Now if you were willing to share some of your source code with us I'm sure we could help you to fix it. After all, we get requests all the time from other progression players looking for a simulator to test their system. Since you've already written one, you could be a huge help to the entire community. You keep encouraging people to look for effective progression systems and now you have the chance to help them create one! And if your program works properly you would be able to make "math boys" like me look completely foolish. Your program could turn the Voodoo forum into the main forum of this website! C'mon fredperson, this could be a huge step for progression players around the world.

-Sonny-

 

[fredperson]

And we've seen that your simulation program is not accurate. We've also seen that your simulation techniques are not valid. Not only is your tool broken, you are using it the wrong way. It's not surprising that you can create results that support any system you choose.
-Sonny-

Sonny...
We have been over these points before. But they are worth repeating.
I validated my simulator against every known blackjack basic strategy
and was in COMPLETE agreement except for ONE AND ONLY ONE parameter.
and that was doubleing an 11 vs a dealer ace. I checked, and double checked the code to insure it was correct. But if you think that invalidates my simulator, you are entitled to your opinion.
Let me make one more point. I have been a professional computer software engineer since 1957. I designed and wrote my first simulation system in 1962.
It became the largest selling software program for the decade of the 60s.
I suspect my credentials for writing computer simulations are as good, if not better than anyone posting on this forum.

 

[Sonny]

You seem very confident that your code is reliable. I'm excited to see what you present to us. Hopefully it wasn't all just empty bragging.

-Sonny-

 

[Katweezel]

There is nothing "quiet" about voodoo players. The majority of books on gambling push voodoo techniques -- to the delight of casinos and the shame of their publishers.

I'm pleased there is still the odd BJ author about who holds to old fashioned values, such as truth, honesty, integrity, ethics and so on. Perhaps those others took their cue from the casino industry lead?...

For those who may like to improve their BJ skills in areas other than counting, would you recommend: 'The Shuffle Trackers' Cookbook' by Arnold Snyder?