I do have a stetegy, but not the kind with gambler's fallacy. JD's game has an exploit, by which I could easily create large variation. I've talked about that before, but no body believes me. And then, I proved by actions, won again and again, reaped the whole profit, until I was beaten by Doog changing rules. Believe it or not, if I was not UNFAIRLY trapped, I might well win more.

However, most people here tend to believe they truly are masters of Mathematics, with biased wishful thinking. No one could have that LUCK, used 700 bankroll (the maximum down I had), up to at most 16000. That's not luck, that's only because JD has something wrong. I'm reluctant to elaborate what's the exploit. I have no obligation to do so.



On the one hand: I agree the game has an exploit he has found, and I find it odd that there are so many intelligent people on here just continuously saying it's luck. It would have been luck if he won once or twice, but he showed he could win continuously over an extended period of time.

On the other hand: He should be reluctant to elaborate on the exploit since he's part of a competing business and that favors him, but that fact also makes you wonder why he still isn't playing. Reducing the max bet doesn't change strategy or eliminate the exploit ... it just causes it to take more time to bleed the house dry. Regardless if your mad the rules were changed, most people would still be playing if they could basically print money.