Quote from: actmyname on July 11, 2019, 04:11:56 PM

Quote from: My_name_is_Amicus on July 11, 2019, 04:07:11 PM

Quote from: actmyname on July 11, 2019, 03:46:45 PM

Quote from: My_name_is_Amicus on July 11, 2019, 03:45:09 PM

I can show all of the accounts and prove that I own them. I understand your scepticism and its appropriate.

Quote from: My_name_is_Amicus on July 11, 2019, 03:45:09 PM

I also agree that the players can't beat the house, but it is also true that a player can beat the house, ask any casino operator.

Read back what you just wrote.

Honestly.

If you decide to take the "semantics" route, then I will retort with the fact that if you are arguing variance, then you cannot guarantee results over any duration of time, making this "investment" and your winnings out to be purely luck-based.

I stand over what I have written, a player can beat the house but "the players" can't beat the house. This is well established, I'm not sure how to simplify it for you.

I stand over my predetermined reply to your semantics.

How do you expect to consistently win without factoring in luck, at all? Tell me how you can beat the mathematical certainty of a sub-1 expected value.

Do you mean tell you how I did it? I see no advantage in discussing that with you here, and see several disadvantages.