The purpose of the link is to show that without counting, CSM and hand shuffle is almost the same.

Sure, the only thing significant about continuous shuffling is that you can't count cards (that's the context it was raised in), and therefore it's impossible to play with an advantage or have a positive expectation. For a non-counter, it's mostly irrelevant.

Take out the mumbo jumbo about discipline and short sessions and all you're saying is somebody wins Powerball, which I agree with. The last part is more philosophical than other gambling games (I think you're saying you believe in pre-destination). Do you have a point beyond that?

No decent sized breaks in between shoes so they're less likely to practice the art of the hit 'n run, which is all you need to win, at a high level. Stores know the only reason they aren't shut down is that the people on the other side of the table aren't disciplined enough. Has nothing to do with paying 7/6 on 6/5 props or getting a button spot every single hand it's all about making sure it's very hard for people to be disciplined enough to burn some gas in between sessions.

OP, do you believe that if you play an infinite number of hands in one session you'll lose money? Visually imagine this session as something like

+-+-+--++-+---++-+--+-++-+-+-

(there are 14+ and 15-)

It sounds like you agree with the OP's fallacy, that discipline and stop-wins can overcome the house edge. Casinos love you guys.

100%. I also know, and the house knows, that there are regular winners at CSM blackjack. House doesn;t mind it bcuz it encourages others to attempt the same and the vast majority of those that do will end up losers.

I get what you are saying. You consider 3 trips to the casino a week, 365 days a year for years the same thing as one infinite session. It is and it isn't.

Really odd that you understand the logic but can't draw the obvious conclusion. If it is you admit there's no way you can win long term. So you obviously think my above data changes if you walk away and come back.

Of course there are, they are normally distributed around the mean of losing the house edge x total wagers.

If we let 1024 monkeys flip coins and eliminate each one who flips tails, at the end of 10 rounds, on average, we will be left with one genius monkey who never lost. If the house uses a coin that is weighted to flip tails 1% more often, it will still happen that way, with the average just being slightly less than 10 rounds to get down to 1 monkey.

He's the monkey who had discipline and a winning system.

Nah. Thought you were better at picking up on context than that. Everybody has their weak points though I imagine. Some form of casino loves us all, op's and slightly slow to pick up on context guys alike.

I suspected sarcasm for a minute but read it again and thought not. I should have looked back at your other posts ITT. Sorry.

On the other hand, maybe my post was a higher level with double reverse sarcasm.

OP's friend is the freak result.

He is the story that goes 'I won the lottery with the first ticket I ever purchased'.

His friend is lucky and yes, players can get lucky for years.

It is possible for a gambler to make 10,000 bets and win them all. The likelihood if expressed mathematically would be a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery big number.

The same goes for a gambler who makes 10,000 bets and loses them all.

Most of us fall in between these extremes.

Casino managers have a saying 'all players go broke but system players...go broke systematically'.

All players go broke but disciplined players go broke in a disciplined manner.

You're wrong.

It could be close until the last line I suppose.

I can agree with this but it could be lifetimes for certain players to go broke in that disciplined manner. Yet, I wouldn't compare lottery and CSM blackjack the same thing. House edge for CSM BJ is less than 1% and some with bankrolls and discipline can, and do whether the swings and ride their streaks and walk away when they are ahead consistently. Call it a freak result, call it managing your luck, call it whatever.

No.

Variance has no "side" ...

No. Clearly you haven't done much gambling if you believe this. You will have plenty of sessions where you lose at the beginning, and keep losing. In a -EV game, the more you play, the lower your probability of being ahead. Quitting when you're ahead feels good, and is a good thing to do, because anything that reduces the number of bets that you expose to the house edge will reduce your expected loss.

The only rational reason to play any -EV game is entertainment, and surely, sometimes leaving with more money than you came with is a big part of that entertainment. But to believe that you can beat a game with a house edge through "discipline" is a sure way to the poor house. My guess is that you will have to lose a significant amount of money before you figure this out, if you ever do figure it out.

I agree with everything except

I know what you are saying, and not to nitpick (but OP will if I don't), but consider a game where you pay $1 and have 1% chance of winning $50.

Play 1 time - probability of being ahead = 1% (EV = -0.49)
Play 2 times - probability of being ahead = 1.99% (EV = -0.98)

discipline is not playing online blackjack.

CSM blackjack makes it impossible to count, so the only strategy left after that is to play perfect blackjack and hope the variance swings your way, but it sounds like you don't even do that. The player who still finds ways to "tilt" while playing blackjack is the same player that starts thinking the game is rigged when they're losing.

Also I wonder what would happen if you went on a 30-minute heater. Would the blackjack site automatically blame it on end-user hacking? No, because the casino knows how the game works.

Good luck making your billions. I'd say the way you think right now is very -EV.

call it a fantasy

Check your math, Mr. Math. The house edge in the above game is 5%.

And this is all we need to know. You're not an intelligent player, you're just hoping to luckbox wins at a -EV game. You're the classic sucker.

I'm not sure. This game has been played on Wall Street for 40+ years. Sometimes the bank always wins -- it doesn't matter if it's -EV -- it only matters whether or not it supports the illusion of the narrative. It's a win for the broker either way.

Who's the sucker?

If you only quit when you're ahead you'll never lose.