[Sandra Bullett]

[ QUOTE ]
am just going to keep playingi until I stop running so good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat less verbose than my normal response, but MicroBob says it all for me:

[ QUOTE ]
is wrong in so many different ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(after that, I think I'm giving up)

[/ QUOTE ]


---------------

OK, I can't resist adding....

When I play gambling games the entire motivation is to win money (isn't that the point of gambling?) Yet the vast majority of players (=fish) seems perfectly happy to do almost nothing to understand any game and/or to improve their skills at it. Statements like:

[ QUOTE ]
I already cashed out a fair amount and am just going to keep playingi until I stop running so good

[/ QUOTE ]

show total disconnects from reality. Any money you left in your account is YOUR money. If you lose it, you've lost YOUR money. It's exacty the same financial result as if I stole it from your wallet. The fact that it came out of winnings (which I've heard claimed thousands of times, but has probably been true somewhat less than that) is irrelevant.

And what is this bizarre belief that people have that "running good" persists into the future? You may, or may not, have been running good in the past, but the very next hand you play has exactly the same house advantage as every other hand you've played, as every other hand everyone else is the casino is about to play. THEY ARE INDEPENDENT EVENTS! What mechanism can you possibly think exists that will alter your odds at the next hand because you've been lucky enough to win a few hands in the recent past? Perhaps the Tooth Fairy?

I read a post a couple of weeks ago where the poster believed BJ dealt from a single-deck had more chance of a ten being dealt than from a multi-deck shoe (no preconditions, eg. not reliant on non-tens being dealt first). Simply that tens were more likely to be dealt. You've got to wonder what (if anything) is in these peoples' heads.


I read a story a while ago about a park ranger in Yellowstone, who stopped a mother who was covering little Johnnies head with honey. She was about to send him to a nearby bear, in order to get cute pictures of the bear licking her son's face. "Cute" would have rapidly become "horror" and "snuff".

Aparently the ranger was having nightmares about that for years afterward.

The woman was both ignorant and stupid: Ignorant as unexposed to enough facts (probably lived in a big city and had no exposure to real bears, only a never-ending stream of cute bear TV images, probably didn't know they were meat-eaters, etc). Stupid because what information she did have she didn't process properly (look at the bear, it has a really big mouth full of really sharp teeth, I wonder what it would do with those if something really tasty was put right in front of its mouth?)

She was operating in an environment that she was totally unsuitable for (a wildlife area).

The OP, and others like him, are the same. They are ignorant and stupid (actually I will partly excuse the OP from this, as he was asking us to explain the flaws, which is far better than most Martingale players do).

They deliberately seek out, and operate in, an environment (gambling) in which they are woefully unequiped. They have no concept of the reality that operates in these environments ("until I stop running so good", etc., etc, etc.)

They will get eaten.

I hope I am the bear (yummy).