No winners ever?
- Thread starter titan2782
- Start date
Hey, fredperson, if you're so confident your system can win money no matter what, then make yourself an easy $30,000 by defeating this guy's challenge. You've said it was for blackjack, but surely you couldn't alter it a little to make it work for baccarat, roulette or craps? Being a computer expert with great knowledge of software development, you should be able to verify that this guy's software is legitimate.
Think about it- if you win, you can get a free advertisement on the website saying that your system beat the odds. With that kind of exposure, you could sell your system at over $1,000, and just about anyone would pay that price.
Think about it- if you win, you can get a free advertisement on the website saying that your system beat the odds. With that kind of exposure, you could sell your system at over $1,000, and just about anyone would pay that price.
fredperson
Active Member
Sorry Vic....it will only work for blackjack.Slick Vic said:
The reason is the dynamics of blackjack allow one to increase their bet with a positive expectation (ie: doubling and splitting). Although craps allow one to increase the bet (ie;odds) that is an even expectation.
As I have said many times, I am not interested in promoting any system. I only want to encourage other players who are searching for a winning system that does not involve card counting.
By the way Ken....if you read this I think we need a new forum category. This is not a voodoo system. It is a statistically sound progression based
blackjack system that is in fact, better (and far more fun) than card counting.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
is it Dubey's system?fredperson said:
i believe Dubey's book was published around the time you wrote your program.
was your program set up for single deck? they didn't have much multiple deck back in 1979 did they?
i get the sense that your system isn't a pure progression but perhaps a 'quasi' progression that is based on some knowledge of information regarding the history of cards dealt and real advantage that is likely to exist.
like for instance back in the day, with just basic strategy on some single deck games on had an advantage from the get go.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
The only computers from that family I've used are the IBM 7040, 7044 and 7094. Prior to that the IBM 1620, LGP-30, RPC-4000, Monroe Monrobot, SDS 900, IBM 1130, IBM 1800, PDP-8, Xerox Sigma 7, and GE 635. Only RCA computer was Spectra series a bit later. I wrote my first simulator 43 years ago and gave a lecture on simulation at the University of Pennsylvania in the mid-60s. I've also lectured on technology strategy and architecture in 24 countries. But, I'm still learning and maybe I'll catch up.fredperson said:
fredperson
Active Member
QFIT said:The only computers from that family I've used are the IBM 7040, 7044 and 7094. Prior to that the IBM 1620, LGP-30, RPC-4000, Monroe Monrobot, SDS 900, IBM 1130, IBM 1800, PDP-8, Xerox Sigma 7, and GE 635. Only RCA computer was Spectra series a bit later. I wrote my first simulator 43 years ago and gave a lecture on simulation at the University of Pennsylvania in the mid-60s. I've also lectured on technology strategy and architecture in 24 countries. But, I'm still learning and maybe I'll catch up.
The IBM 7040 and 7090 series were compatible solid state (non tube) versions of the 704 and 709. The RCA Spectra 70 series was RCA's answer to the IBM System 360 series. During the 1960s virtually every major electronics company introduced main frame computers, most incompatible with anything else. It was IBM and the seven dwarfs...the dwarfs being Univac, Burroughs, NCR, Honeywell, Philco, GE, and RCA. Eventually IBM captured about 90% of the main frame market.
During this period, I wrote a simulation program (not blackjack
) that was used extensively by federal and state governments and major corporations. It was the largest selling proprietary software program for the entire decade.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
RPC-4000 was the solid state version of the tubed LGP-30. LGP-30 had a drum for main memory. I wrote an LGP-30 emulator on an IBM 1130 for the National Science Foundation when I was 17. Xerox also had IBM 360 compatibles, after they bought SDS and sold them for some time. I built one of the first spreadsheet systems on an SDS 940 in the 60s. IBM started with the 650, which was actually bought from a German company. Of course Magnusan, Amdahl, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Itel all built 360 compatibles. Dec also built the DecSystem 20 as a mainframe, although it was really an overblown PDP-10. Friend of mine was the chief operator of the first Univac 1 at a university. When it had a memory dump, that meant mercury dripped on the floor. Visited their plant in the 60s with huge drums turning in copper sulfate. You forgot CDC. The powerful 6600, 7600 for FORTRAN users. Burroughs, with their ALGOL OS, remained popular for decades in Asia Pacific.fredperson said:The IBM 7040 and 7090 series were compatible solid state (non tube) versions of the 704 and 709. The RCA Spectra 70 series was RCA's answer to the IBM System 360 series. During the 1960s virtually every major electronics company introduced main frame computers, most incompatible with anything else. It was IBM and the seven dwarfs...the dwarfs being Univac, Burroughs, NCR, Honeywell, Philco, GE, and RCA. Eventually IBM captured about 90% of the main frame market.
During this period, I wrote a simulation program (not blackjack
It was the largest selling proprietary software program for the entire decade.
standard toaster
Well-Known Member
Fredperson do you not realize who qfit is? Im telling you there ate hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars out there if you just prove it once... and thats without even gambling.fredperson said:
It seems like there are so many progression players out there who feel like they have found the holy grail and need to keep it secret... until they realize it was a fake
fredperson
Active Member
Hey toastman...standard toaster said:
No, I don't know who qfit is. Please let me know, either here or by pm
Based on your previous offer, get a cashiers check for $100,000.00 and give it to Ken Smith for safekeeping. When he tell me that he has it, I will release the details of the system to him, who in turn can give them an impartial 3rd party for simulation validation. If these tests reveal a positive expectation, then Ken will forward the check to me, otherwise you get your 100K back.
If you are unwilling to do this, please stop with the insults to my integrety.
Note to Sagefrog....
I have never heard of Dubey, or read his book. However, it has occurred to me, that the simulated and actual results of this system may very well be based on a favorable deck when a win streak occurs. I can tell you that the system does not have a positive expectation when a CSM is in play.
Final note....
The reason I don't publish the system is simply that once the details were common knowledge, it could be easily spotted by casinos, and countermeasures easily adopted. This is of course what happened to all the big mouth card counters with their books and bragging. They killed the goose that laid the golden egg :cool2:
Give it a rest, Fred. If you're going to come onto a forum full of knowledgeable people and make far-out claims (especially similar to those thoroughly debunked previously), you can't expect anyone to take you seriously without some evidence.
On the contrary, you can expect to be roundly ridiculed, and rightly so.
The silly "deal" you offered to ST does little to help your credibility.
If you can prove your claims, do so, otherwise you might as well shut up about it.
On the contrary, you can expect to be roundly ridiculed, and rightly so.
The silly "deal" you offered to ST does little to help your credibility.
If you can prove your claims, do so, otherwise you might as well shut up about it.
standard toaster
Well-Known Member
It is my fault for being childish and offering the silly challenge to begin with. However it was to prove a point... what the point was... im not to surejohndoe said:
fred check out qfit.com and you will realize what your up against.
Back to the roulette question... there are winners but they have to find an unbalanced wheel and risk a lot of money for something that has little profit...
RingyDingy
Well-Known Member
winning system
What a load of baloney.
Great if you have a winning system for you, thats bloody fantastic, and congrats!
there are a lot of people here that are just as applied as you are in developing systems and the maths behind blackjack and the various systems, and are quite rightly cautious/dubious when it comes to "progression systems" because in all our experiences thus far over time, they have ALL proven to be smelly.
Now if you have a new system thats a winner as you proport then great, why not pick someone here who is more than capable of dissecting your system objectively and can indeed say to us "yeah he speaks the truth".
until you do that, go and chat with JSTAT.
cheers
Ringy.
What a load of baloney.
Great if you have a winning system for you, thats bloody fantastic, and congrats!
there are a lot of people here that are just as applied as you are in developing systems and the maths behind blackjack and the various systems, and are quite rightly cautious/dubious when it comes to "progression systems" because in all our experiences thus far over time, they have ALL proven to be smelly.
Now if you have a new system thats a winner as you proport then great, why not pick someone here who is more than capable of dissecting your system objectively and can indeed say to us "yeah he speaks the truth".
until you do that, go and chat with JSTAT.
cheers
Ringy.
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
oh, ok on Dubey, his book was published around the time you wrote your simulation, so i was wondering. Dubey wrote No Need to Count. well anyway his betting methods depend on situational histories of the cards that present during play. i was just wondering if your system used situational histories (hand types, number of cards in a round, that sort of stuff) as part of the betting scheme. also i was wondering if your system works as well for multiple deck as it does for single deck?fredperson said:
fredperson
Active Member
Mr Doe,johndoe said:
I was not aware that I needed your permission to post on your forum.
In the future I try to obtain your blessing in advance.
In the meantime, please accept my apologies.
Fred
fredperson
Active Member
Mr Toast...standard toaster said:
As you suggested I checked out qfit.com and found this:
"QFIT has been in the business of creating highly realistic software for the practice and simulation of beatable casino games and other advantage play, in particular Blackjack, since 1993. We can be reached at the following"
First of all, I'm unaware that I am "up against" anything or anyone.
But you must have a point, so please explain ?
Fred
That's more like it!fredperson said:Mr Doe,
I was not aware that I needed your permission to post on your forum.
In the future I try to obtain your blessing in advance.
In the meantime, please accept my apologies.
Fred
But seriously, if you're going to make outlandish claims, you need to be able to back them up. You haven't done so, so you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously.
Why can't you just post some evidence?
I know the Wizard of Odds for a while had a challenge for anyone who could prove that their betting system could win in the long run over 1 billion hands. Now his associate is running the challenge. You can see it at http://vegasclick.com/gambling/betting-system-challenge.html
He's giving 10-1 odds so I suggest you put your money where your mouth is.
He's giving 10-1 odds so I suggest you put your money where your mouth is.
fredperson
Active Member
From his web site:Thunder said:
" will wager my $30,000 against your $3,000 (or my $10,000 against your $1,000, if you prefer) that your betting system cannot beat a game of roulette (single- or double-zero), baccarat, or craps as the player using standard U.S. rules over one billion computer-simulated rounds, as per the additional terms below. You win the challenge if your system shows a profit at the end of the simulation, I win if it does not"
My question....whats this got to do with blackjack?
Nevertheless, as I have been trying to explain...(doesn't anyone listen), I am not trying to promote or sell any system. I am simpley trying to encourage
those players interested to continue to look for positive progression systems for blackjack (not craps or baccarat or roulette).
By the way...I agree 1000% with the challenge. There is no way in hell that he would ever have to pay off.