Quote from HowardCohodas:
1. You might want to acquaint yourself with the Socratic method. I am an engineer and a teacher and I use questions to stimulate dialog to help discover truth. I do not apologize if this makes some uncomfortable. Learning and truth are more important.
You might want to realize we are already aware of this. The problem is how you react to the responses. This is not the Socratic method. The premise of the thread is naive, and you have been belaboring the point like a deer in the headlights.
2. There are few bets available in a casino that have a positive expectation, except for Blackjack. That's why system players are banned. They are banned because even with a small edge, lots of money is made.
Blackjack does not have positive expectancy; it has negative. And if quoting blackjack, then you need to include poker. And system players are not necessarily "banned" unless they are using overt or illegal methods (handheld devices for probability, using partners, a dealer who is in on it, etc.). There is nothing illegal about something like a photographic memory or having an idea whether the shoe has so far been heavy or light on Aces, 10s or such.
3. You might want to acquaint yourself with Thorp, one of the first to write a book about winning at Blackjack and the practical application of the Gambler's Ruin Theorem. With a little research you will find that he has been very successful in the market using his mathematical skills.
With a little forum etiquette, you include a link, rather than obtuse references. Giving the last name only, you will mostly turn up someone named Jim who played football and who had a town in PA named after him.
4. If practice does not mimic the science, I'm more likely to suspect that the practice was imperfect than the science being faulty.
You might be an engineer. but this is gibberish.
