Okay, a few points. . .
1: In regard to progression systems, or any betting system for that matter, it seems to me that the failure is progression systems might have to do with the simplicity of the progression. As I've mentioned before, if you want to rely on computer simulations and believe them to be an accurate representation of real-life shuffles, then by analyzing the nature of the game you could determine methods in which to bet optimally. I remember reading something in Blackbelt in Blackjack about "situational betting" I believe it was called, in which a number things were determined to be true by analyzing trends in the game. For instance, the player is slightly more likely to lose a hand after a win, lose a hand after a push, to win a hand after a hard double down, and a number of other things that were determined.
Snyder determined the advantage wasn't much if you played according to all these rules--less than for a standard counting system--but still it was an advantage.
Perhaps when I say that I think a betting system can work, perhaps I am merely saying that there may be an equally powerful--or even more powerful--way to play the game other than card counting. After all, card counting is merely a betting system in which data from the game in progress is incorporated into your decisions to bet in certain ways. Perhaps with further analysis of the game, an even better way to bet could be determined.
And that's what we all want, right? To be clever enough to beat the game and win more money!
2. You're right, just because something is likely to happen doesn't mean it will--or won't--happen right away. As you say, that losing session could be session #1. But what you fail to mention is that even if you're a master card counter the first session could be a total bust. To refer back to Blackbelt in Blackjack, Snyder mentions a number of teams who, betting according to Kelly guidelines and counting properly, succeeded marvelously in losing their entire bankrolls!
Counting ONLY looks at the long run. Any single session can be a total bust. One thing that always annoys me is when a player who has been playing a progression shows up on a forum and says something like, "I was using Thomason's progression and it didn't work! Why?!" And then someone else answers, "I didn't work because it DOESN'T work!"
But that's intellectually dishonest. Because a progression CAN work for any single session. It can also fail. HiLo is the same way. Martingale is the same way. Whatever. To say it didn't work for you on your weekend in Vegas because it doesn't work over a billion hands is simply wrong. It didn't work because you didn't get the right cards. Just like those guys mentioned by Snyder.
3. It remains a statistical fact that 20-loss losing streaks happen a lot less frequently than 3-loss losing streaks. Period. Just like roulette. Red will come up seven times in something like 1-in-300 spins (or some number, I forget exactly) while an 11-loss losing streak will come up in 1-in-9,716 spins (or something like that). Consider this: There's never been a single instance of Red coming up 1,000 times in a row. So while the wheel is random, that doesn't change the fact that there are still certain characteristics that you can expect out of the game and it's not unintelligent to bet according to these (statistical/mathematical) realities.
Furthermore, it's also a fact that losing streaks, on average, are generally shorter in blackjack than in roulette. That's more data that can be taken into account as you play.
Sorry for being long-winded. I look forward to your reply and admire you for being a good sport (unlike some others who come along).
SPX
