Hello all,
I realize that most of you either believe my 'system' (I don't like that word) is some kind of scam or that my system is not a dishonest proposition (i.e.., scam) but rather represents inaccurate conclusions based on too small of a sample size.
In my previous post, I made the argument for the ability to INFER from small samples the nature of reality (of a population).
Results
I applied my strategy (system) to over 800 hands. Unlike card counting, my strategy does not incorporate details from every hand. From the subset of decisions (hands) involving the strategy, I calculated a net number of wins representing 3.25 standard deviations above the mean. If my knowledge of statistics isn't too rusty, this means that there is only a 0.0577% probability that these results were due to chance!!
For those of you who believe the above to be unfounded due to too small of a sample size, I ask you to again consider that, in computing the above, 'n' (sample size) is utilized. Further, though I have not yet calculated it, I believe the EFFECT SIZE of my system would be large, thereby partially silencing those wedded to problems of sample size.
And again, the system has nothing to do with progressions, regressions, betting high after two losses, etc.
I understand that it seems like the above is too good to be true. Scoffers insist I should just walk over to my nearby casino and start raking in the loot. It's not that easy, for a number of reasons. For one, though my system is much more powerful than card counting, it is practically more difficult to implement in a real casino. Further, I am currently unemployed and have debts to pay before I can, in clear conscience, 'gamble,' even with a winning system, any money I do have.
That brings me again to why I am so frustrated. I have a winning system, but lack the bankroll to implement it.
I realize that most of you either believe my 'system' (I don't like that word) is some kind of scam or that my system is not a dishonest proposition (i.e.., scam) but rather represents inaccurate conclusions based on too small of a sample size.
In my previous post, I made the argument for the ability to INFER from small samples the nature of reality (of a population).
Results
I applied my strategy (system) to over 800 hands. Unlike card counting, my strategy does not incorporate details from every hand. From the subset of decisions (hands) involving the strategy, I calculated a net number of wins representing 3.25 standard deviations above the mean. If my knowledge of statistics isn't too rusty, this means that there is only a 0.0577% probability that these results were due to chance!!
For those of you who believe the above to be unfounded due to too small of a sample size, I ask you to again consider that, in computing the above, 'n' (sample size) is utilized. Further, though I have not yet calculated it, I believe the EFFECT SIZE of my system would be large, thereby partially silencing those wedded to problems of sample size.
And again, the system has nothing to do with progressions, regressions, betting high after two losses, etc.
I understand that it seems like the above is too good to be true. Scoffers insist I should just walk over to my nearby casino and start raking in the loot. It's not that easy, for a number of reasons. For one, though my system is much more powerful than card counting, it is practically more difficult to implement in a real casino. Further, I am currently unemployed and have debts to pay before I can, in clear conscience, 'gamble,' even with a winning system, any money I do have.
That brings me again to why I am so frustrated. I have a winning system, but lack the bankroll to implement it.
