IH: I�ve delayed responding to your post in order to allow time for Roger Harris to respond to a suggestion I made to him in another thread on this site. I asked why the computer-generated results of his software program differed from those previously posted by Norm Wattenberger. He stated that the game rules were different, and that this accounted for the difference in results. Since the difference in results was (IMHO) more severe than I thought it should be, I suggested that he make minor alterations in his program so that he was playing by the same rules as Norm�s program, and then compare the two sets of results to see if they were identical. A week or so has passed without a response to my suggestion.
I�m famous for my lack of skill at designing or interpreting computer-generated data, but have had some experience using two different programs designed by �unbiased� programmers. Both programs calculate total amount wagered, allow for the establishment of a progressive betting system, and generate data that supports my claims comparing flat and progressive betting. Both Roger and Norm claim that these programs are �flawed�. There�s been no serious effort by �expert� blackjack software programmers because they say, �Why bother? Progressions don�t work.� And due to my lack of computer skills, it�s been impossible to implement programs designed by Norm and Roger so that I can personally verify their predicted results.
So much for background information...
Incidentally, I�ve never claimed that my progressive system will result in long-term (billion hands) profit, but through the analysis of dozens of short term computer sims and manually-dealt sims, I�m convinced that my progressive bettor loses less than a flat bettor, and casino comps added to a lower loss rate can make the game a positive outcome experience.
Opinions vary among the �experts.� Wong states at the top of the Progressions Page: �Progressions can be fun, but they don�t change the casino�s advantage.� Roger and Norm claim that my progression causes a player to lose MORE than a flat bettor. I claim the opposite... and so it goes.
Also, I�m not totally convinced that any computer simulation can accurately predict the outcome of actual casino play, essentially because I don�t see any way that one can be positive that random number generated shuffles are the same as dealer or shuffle machine shuffles. I make this statement after reviewing the results of tens of thousand of manually-dealt hands, and seeing the drastic difference in data generated for manually-dealt play for flat and progressive betting.
Perhaps this fact is what most upsets several other posters on this site.
I certainly don�t enjoy not being �blessed� by the computer guys, but there�s little I can do about it at this point. They throw out my manually-dealt results because the samples are too small to be relevant, they reject my sim results because they say the programs I�m using are flawed, and they don�t make their sim programs available to me in a way that I can reproduce their results (nor would I have any way of knowing if their programs are �flawed�).
I hope I�ve answered some of your questions.