That sounds like once in a lifetime type of run good or Postle run good...I might consider never stepping foot into a casino again. Most would lose every last penny trying to replicate it.Now THAT is a heater.
I’ve done it 10-20 times over the last 15 years. I don’t play very often anymore. I’ll post some more photos later.$300 to 50k on a blackjack table
I don’t use a progressive system but if I were going to I would use a positive progression system. That will allow you lose a little or win a lot. Daniel Rainsong has an interesting book on a progressive system if you are interested in that sort of thing.
I agree. I should have been more specific. 5-10 5 figure wins ($10,000 - $74,000) on $300-$600 buy ins. 5-6 6 figure wins on $500- $2,600 buy ins. Over the course of 15 years or so. Obviously not every time and not all wins are huge. Not selling a system and no reason to lie. Here are a few more of that unbelievable BS. ( Full disclosure one photo is craps).
Right lol , Sounds like you have seen me play poker
I think there's a virus going around.....
That's some real babyshit right there.
You might as well just hand your money to the casino. I think Daniel Rainsong's has been pretty much debunked by the Mike Shackleford's challenge :- Flat betting is worse than a progressive system. I’m not encouraging a progressive system but you atleast have a chance to win if you dont know enough about AP. I’m almost positive Shackleford covered that in an article around 2009 ish. I haven’t read that article regarding rainsong in years but if I remember correctly wasn’t he up more hands than most people would ever play?Spreading to max bets over 3 spots with the true count going over the roof and them not sweating you over an aggregate 24 hr session at the same joint for an unmolested run to net positive $74,000 ?
And tipping $5K to boot. Never heard of any AP who was this generous with their EV, nor any casino who was this accommodating.
Unless you're not an AP, or they did not think you were one.
In any case, nice one.
Well.....no, to any and all progessive systems.
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/challenge/rainsong/
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gam...ew-system-double-bankroll-300-10-000-a-day/6/
Most casinos, if the table limit was a $5 minimum, it's going to be at the most a $500 max allowable. What this means is the progressive system player can only double his bets 7 times before he is capped by the table limits.We both agree AP is the only long term winning strategy. I'm not saying progressive is. I was referring to the third guy that shackleford mentions:Actually, no. The progressive system comes off as the bigger loser than even flat betting. Shackleford has an article comparing the two here :-
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/
I think when you say "chance to win" it really must be qualified.
Over a small sample size anyone can be a winner. In the case of the progressives, the larger bet sizing that return a win has to be viewed in tandem with those occasions when the progressive lost and could not cover the bet either because the table betting limits are capped and/or finite bankroll.
If you read Shackleford's above, what is evident is his comment :- "In both cases, the ratio of money lost to money won was very close to [sic...he mentions a number], which is the house edge....".
So both the flat betting and the progressive are losing systems, but while the progressive won more by comparison, it also lost more by the same ratio that represented the house edge.
I believe so.
There was a lot of back-and-forth between him and Shackleford to iron out the rules pre-challenge. In the end, Rainsong was accommodated with some very favorable rules that you will never find in any casino eg, 2 deck with 75% penetration. 60% would be considered the acceptable norm for a 2-deck game, if I recall correctly.
And this :- he was allowed a bet spread of 1 to 1024 units by Shackleford.
Clearly Rainsong was not constrained by realistic BJ rules during the challenge and yet he still lost the challenge.
It was some sort of luminous ink but even after they caught the guy it took them a while to identify the markings. They basically ran multiple filters over the camera until they could finally determine the markings. The director said looking back he should have known something was wrong because they had a run in with the cheat about a month prior. When they made him empty his pockets he had an empty contact case yet he was wearing reading glasses. They felt they should have deemed that suspicious and looked into it a little further.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
