I'm not sure why some progrssion system that didn't involve counting or some form of it would work in Blackjack and not say roulette?
No winners ever?
- Thread starter titan2782
- Start date
I'm not sure why some progrssion system that didn't involve counting or some form of it would work in Blackjack and not say roulette?
QFIT
Well-Known Member
BJ isn't really independent trials. There is an ever-so-slight effect in BJ that results in an increase in advantage after you lose a hand. But, it's not enough to turn a profit with today's rules.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
Of course there is, but it is guarded by a greedy leprechaun who never sleeps. You must play an ancient song on a mystical flute carved from the bones of a dragon to induce his slumber. Only then will you be able to learn the holy grail of all progression systems – a system so powerful that it defies all logic and laws and will allow you to beat the casinos without any skill or knowledge whatsoever. The odds will magically turn in your favor every time you adjust your bets in just the right way. You can laugh at the foolish APs who spend their lives studying and practicing the skills to beat the games the hard way. What fools they must be to choose hard work over a life-long free lunch. Your entire family for generations to come can be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams without ever having to do any work at all.
Shhhhhh, nobody wake him. He’s paying our salaries. :laugh:
-Sonny-
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
right it goes something like the results shown for a five million hand simulation done back in 1980 (Dubey, No Need To Count) or so for a single deck game one on one with the dealer as depicted below:
note: there are some redundancies in the data so the trials add up to over five million hands....
oh and four card hands are total number of cards between dealer and player, while seven or more card hands are total number of cards between dealer and player...
Attachments
fredperson
Active Member
Was this supposed to be funny?
BTW, how does one become a "bullet chaser" on this forum ?
In Sonny’s case I believe it went something like this…
1. Have someone propose that you become one.
2. Have an overwhelming number of members agree that’s a good idea.
3. Have KenSmith also think it’s a good idea, and offer you the position.
4. Decide that you are, in fact, willing to become one.
standard toaster
Well-Known Member
fredperson
Active Member
fredperson sir,
i think you keep missing my question.
does your system work for multiple deck or just single deck?
All the development simulations were 4 deck, 3 deck penetration.
In practice, it won consistanty in 4,6 and 8 deck games.
It doesn't work well in single deck, double deck or CSM games.
I can rationalize a reason for this. Remember, the whole premise is to take advantage of win strings. I suspect 4 or more decks are required for win streaks to develop with positive counts.
standard toaster
Well-Known Member
Win and loss streaks are not predictable or dependant on the number of decks or penetration. You have just as great a chance of a streak in a csm as you do in a 20 deck game.
fredperson
Active Member
The Fibonacci System
I think one of the reasons there are so many objections to my posts is due to the fact that I have called it a progression system.
When people hear progression. they think of the Martingdale system, which of course is fatally flawed, and even when it works temporarily, produces only a minimal return.
The system I developed, and used sucessfully for many years at casinos in Atlantic City and Nevada was based on Fibonacci numbers, and was designed to maximize the return when a win streak of 5 or longer was encountered.
So from now on, we will refer to it as the "Fibonacci System", not a progression system.
Those esteemed members of this forum that would like more information on Fibonacci might want to look here: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/
I think one of the reasons there are so many objections to my posts is due to the fact that I have called it a progression system.
When people hear progression. they think of the Martingdale system, which of course is fatally flawed, and even when it works temporarily, produces only a minimal return.
The system I developed, and used sucessfully for many years at casinos in Atlantic City and Nevada was based on Fibonacci numbers, and was designed to maximize the return when a win streak of 5 or longer was encountered.
So from now on, we will refer to it as the "Fibonacci System", not a progression system.
Those esteemed members of this forum that would like more information on Fibonacci might want to look here: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/
Sonny
Well-Known Member
So from now on, we will refer to it as the "Fibonacci System", not a progression system.
Apparently you didn't bother to read the links at the top of this forum:
http://www.bj21.com/bj_reference/pages/10537.html
-Sonny-
fredperson
Active Member
Actually, I didn't realize that there was a progression system call the Fibonacci System. My bad.
So from now on we'll call my system the FF system. (Fred's Fibonacci).
itakeyourmoney
Well-Known Member
Actually, I didn't realize that there was a progression system call the Fibonacci System. My bad.
So from now on we'll call my system the FF system. (Fred's Fibonacci).
Perhaps we should call it FWPSTISTLYAOYHEM (Fred's Worthless Progression System That Is Sure To Lose You All Of Your Hard Earned Money -- but that's just a working title :laugh
.standard toaster
Well-Known Member
Perhaps we should call it FWPSTISTLYAOYHEM (Fred's Worthless Progression System That Is Sure To Lose You All Of Your Hard Earned Money -- but that's just a working title :laugh
lol judging by that name and your sn I see you have a hard time picking original names:laugh:
But I like them both!:eyepatch: lol
fredperson
Active Member
There is a huge,fundamental difference.
The reference the one Sonny posted is a loss string progression system.
The FF system always bets the minumum on loss strings. If you would take the time to read all my posts you would know this. You guys are hilarious.
You take my last post and nit-pick it...forgetting everything that was posted previously.
For the last time..my system was developed after 2 years of computer simulations. It produced highly profitable play for 20 years, far exceeding what I read here about counting systems. I have no doubt as to the validity of card counting systems. But I think there is a better way.
Frankly I don't care if you believe me or not. If you want to play your card counting systems for the equivalent of minimum wage, then be my guest.I think you are the ones doing a disservice to the readers of this forum.
Amen
Sonny
Well-Known Member
Why would you think that there is a huge fundamental difference between a negative progression system and a positive progression system?
-Sonny-
itakeyourmoney
Well-Known Member
I think one of the reasons there are so many objections to my posts is due to the fact that I have called it a progression system.
When people hear progression. they think of the Martingdale system, which of course is fatally flawed, and even when it works temporarily, produces only a minimal return.
The system I developed, and used sucessfully for many years at casinos in Atlantic City and Nevada was based on Fibonacci numbers, and was designed to maximize the return when a win streak of 5 or longer was encountered.
So from now on, we will refer to it as the "Fibonacci System", not a progression system.
Those esteemed members of this forum that would like more information on Fibonacci might want to look here: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/
Could you please explain in "dumb dumb" language how exactly your non-progression system works? I went to that site and only found info on Fibonacci, not on any blackjack betting system...