Frequently, they will provide a two-pronged argument:

Assume, first and foremost, that the House Edge has no, “real,” impact on anybody in the near term. Remember that you cannot wager $10.00 on the Pass Line and lose 14.1 cents on the bet! There are just two possible outcomes: winning $10 or losing $10.

Furthermore, B.) That some negative progression methods, such as the Martingale, could not be overcome if a player had an unlimited bankroll and the casino did not impose Table Limits on the game.

In the first place, the argument itself is internally contradictory, since they first point out the difference between the short-term and long-term nature of the game, and then question, “Well, at what particular moment does the house advantage become absolute in terms of a player’s REAL results?”

Unquestionably, it is an unanswerable question in the context of a particular player. As soon as it was clear that the answer was always correct and held true for everyone, we would no longer be talking about gambling anymore. By its very nature, gambling entails not knowing what will happen in advance of the outcome of the transaction.

In this case, we may say that there is a point, given a certain set of starting circumstances, at which we can say that even the volatility (which is inherent in gambling) is not even adequate to ensure that any of the participants is even or ahead, given that initial state.

It is unavoidable that this be characterized as “not real” or “not what occurs in the actual world!”

Okay, Mr. Real World, then why are you bringing up casinos with no table maximums and players with unlimited bankrolls in this context? Do you like to deal in real-world terms, or do you prefer not to?

The problem is this: Probability is a word that is used in the actual world.

Please read that sentence again: Probability is a word that is used in the actual world.

Repeat the process again and over until you fully understand it.

Probability and variation are inherent to the fundamental essence of life in the actual world, as is the law of large numbers.

It is not just true in casinos, but it is also true in other places.

Here’s a true tale of someone who was struck by a vehicle at random.

I chose a location near where she lived. Despite the fact that this essay is already gloomy,

Okay, so this demonstrates that more than zero individuals have been killed or injured by automobiles. However, the vast majority of individuals are not struck by automobiles, at least not on a regular basis.

Isn’t it true that if someone believed that being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street was more probable than not, then they’d need a VERY GOOD reason to ever cross the street?

I don’t believe anyone has ever conducted an exhaustive study to determine the specific probability of a random person being hit by a car at all possible times, but we do know that the probability of such an event occurring generally falls between 0 percent and 100 percent if a person is in close proximity to a street.

Were there a 100 percent chance of being struck by a vehicle on every crossing, no one would ever cross the street unless they had the intention of being hurt or committing suicide. If the chance of being struck by a vehicle was zero percent, our parents would never have taught us to “look both ways before crossing the street.”

Whether or not the words are precisely measurable to us, the idea of probability permeates the majority of our day-to-day life and affects the majority of our decisions. Some may argue that the idea is inextricably bound up with the physical world.

Chance plays a role in determining the edge in a game of chance. The notion that the House Edge does not apply in the short term is ridiculous, since the House Edge exists not just because probability exists, but also because the casinos embrace and depend on long-term probability in their operations.

This is the same likelihood that proponents of Betting Systems would reject.

Who, in my opinion, has a greater understanding of probability?

Combining all of the knowledge and expertise of every single casino, game developer, analyst, and gambling mathematician that has ever existed in the history of the world is Option A.

**Summary**

A random person who thinks he has discovered the secret to cracking the safe of negative expectation games by subtracting negative numbers from other negative numbers in a certain way, by which the outcome will be a positive number, but who is not sure how.

Option A is the one I’m going to go with.

If the ridiculous Betting System proponents’ positions had any intellectual merit, which they don’t, they rely on an argument that is based either upon the shortest of short-runs or the concept of, “Infinity,” which is a long-run that is so long that it can’t possibly exist in the “Real World,” as defined by definition.

Consider the term “Long-Term” gambling to refer to a gambling strategy that exists somewhere in the center of the spectrum—-the region in which virtually all gamblers operate.

What stage do you think the system advocate is in when they say they are in “Denial?” Instead of denial, I almost want to term it “deliberate stupidity,” but I don’t want to insult anybody by calling it that.