Feedback Requested
  • About 10 years ago my book, 21st Century Blackjack, caused quite a bit of discussion regarding the merits of its content. I'd like to hear from any players who actually read the book and applied the positive progressive system with quit points that I recommended. The book is no longer available due to the bankruptcy of the publisher, but I'm thinking about making it available as an e-book publication. Please, no negative comments unless you've actually read the book. Thanks!
  • Hello. I read your book about three years ago and I use the positive progression every time I play BlackJack. As far as using the "quit points", I need to be more disiplined as I don't necessarily quit after four straight losses. I have had moderate success (I log my results) over the last three years, basically breaking even. I average going to the Casino about 17-20 times a year and consider play BlackJack a hobby. As long as I break even over the course of time, I am happy. Or maybe I should set my goals higher?
  • Hi Bob. Thanks for your response. Breaking even is a GOOD thing, especially after about 50 trips to the casino! Hopefully you've received some casino comps as a reward for the time invested, and that you've enjoyed playing the game. I would suggest that you try to use the "quit point" strategy more often, although I know it's difficult if you play in crowded casinos where changing tables can be difficult. As far as "goals" are concerned, you should play at the "comfort level" that feels right for you. Best of luck!
  • As has been known for centuries, progression systems and quit points do not work. See Modern Blackjack pages 207-211: www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage207.htm
  • QFIT said:
    As has been known for centuries, progression systems and quit points do not work. See Modern Blackjack pages 207-211: www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage207.htm

    Sooo.... You've read my book? I assume so since you responded to my request. What parts of the book did you find to be critical of card counting?
  • Walter Thomason said:
    Sooo.... You've read my book? I assume so since you responded to my request. What parts of the book did you find to be critical of card counting?


    Sooo.... You've read my post? I assume so since you responded. What parts of the post said that your book is critical of card counting?
  • QFIT said:
    Sooo.... You've read my post? I assume so since you responded. What parts of the post said that your book is critical of card counting?


    Point well taken... I guess I'm too defensive.
  • Hi, Walter. My name is Eric and I'm new to this site/message board.

    I have not read your book, but I found it available through Amazon and I'm about to order it. I've played backjack casually now and then over the years, but I'd like to get more involved and learn more strategy. This site listed your book as the best out there for non-counters, and that appeals to me. Although I believe I could learn to count cards, I'm not a math whiz and the prospect of diving headlong into complex systems pretty much takes the fun out of it for me. I enjoy learning new things and I'd like to play the game well enough to be successful, but I'm not willing to explore card-counting, at least not at this point.

    Just wanted to say hello for now and tell you I've got your book on the way. I'll be sure to post feedback after I read it.

    In the meantime, if you don't mind me asking a quick question -- is it realistic to think that over time, I might be able to make a little money playing blackjack? I have a job, a family and plenty of responsibilities, but I'd like to get to the point where that could happen. I live among a bunch of casinos here in the northwest Arkansas/eastern Oklahoma area and I'd like to start playing more often which a plan and some structure. It would be great if I could sort of treat it as a part-time gig and make a little money on the side while enjoying myself, maybe help pay for a vacation now and then, help with home projects, that sort of thing. I think I have the kind of even temperment that would allow me to handle the ebbs and flows of the game.... Again, maybe I'm delusional, but I figured it was worth asking. :)

    Thanks for your availability here. I look forward to reading your book and providing feedback.
  • Hi Eric,
    Hope you've received the book by now, and had a chance to read it. It answers many of your questions and should help you be a good player. First, learn Basic Strategy, and practice playing on this site. I achieved the goals that you are setting for yourself by using the betting system recommended in the book, and believe that it can work for you, also. Keep me posted!
    Walter
  • Eric, if you want to make money at BJ, it is a big mistake to buy Walter's book. It advises progressions and quit points which are mathematically proved to fail. It is a shame that he has advised you that his strategy can work for you when numerous people have shown him that it is a losing system.
  • QFIT said:
    Eric, if you want to make money at BJ, it is a big mistake to buy Walter's book. It advises progressions and quit points which are mathematically proved to fail. It is a shame that he has advised you that his strategy can work for you when numerous people have shown him that it is a losing system.


    Eric, Seems like Qfit's primary goal in life is to attack me anytime I make a post on any website... Check out the book reviews on Amazon -- most of which are positive, and you'll see his negative review. Check any other online site where I've ever posted and you'll find similar posts from him. It's just the way things are...
    Walt
    PS: Odds are he'll post a response to this post with something else negative to say about me...
  • Walter, I've checked out the Amazon reviews, and they are decidedly positive. This site also recommends yours as the best book for non-counters, so I believe I will give it a try. Don't know why Qfit has such hate for you, but life's too short to expend that much negative energy. I figure any system takes time and practice in order to work properly. I have a job and a family, I only have so much free time, I'm no math whiz and I have no designs on becoming a professional gambler, but I do enjoy the game and I'd love to be able to make money at it; at least enough to make the effort worthwhile. I'll be sure to give you feedback after I've read your book. Thanks.
  • Eric, Here's a suggestion-after you've read the book, and if you decide to try the system in a live game:
    One way to get a feel for the system is to compare it to flat betting, and try to have your average bet using my positive progression be the same as it would be if you were "flat" betting each hand. In other words, if you normally bet $10 per hand, use a progression like $6,8,10,12,12,12... This way your average bet will be about what your flat bet would have been. This will give you a chance to try out the system without putting much more at risk than you woud be risking if you were flat betting. This will make more sense after you read the book...I hope! Best of luck, Walter
  • Walter Thomason said:
    Eric, Seems like Qfit's primary goal in life is to attack me anytime I make a post on any website... Check out the book reviews on Amazon -- most of which are positive, and you'll see his negative review. Check any other online site where I've ever posted and you'll find similar posts from him. It's just the way things are...
    Walt
    PS: Odds are he'll post a response to this post with something else negative to say about me...


    Well, you got that right. I have NO review of you on Amazon. You are, simply put, a liar. Not that there is anything wrong with giving your book a bad review -- but why do you lie? Seriously, you have been telling lies like this for ten years. Your own publisher has told you your system doesn't work. And, if you look at Mein Kampf's reviews on Amazon, it has positive reivews too. Does that mean Hitler was right? Walter, expert after expert has told you that your system does not work. Not one expert in ten years has said anything else. You are harming people with your lies. Why do you continue this? At long last, do you have any sense of responsibility whatever?
  • QFIT said:
    Well, you got that right. I have NO review of you on Amazon. You are, simply put, a liar. Not that there is anything wrong with giving your book a bad review -- but why do you lie? Seriously, you have been telling lies like this for ten years. Your own publisher has told you your system doesn't work. And, if you look at Mein Kampf's reviews on Amazon, it has positive reivews too. Does that mean Hitler was right? Walter, expert after expert has told you that your system does not work. Not one expert in ten years has said anything else. You are harming people with your lies. Why do you continue this? At long last, do you have any sense of responsibility whatever?

    Sorry, Norm,
    I've always assumed that the review "Dangerously inaccurate" was written by you because it sounds EXACTLY like everything you've had to say about me and my book on other sites.
    You stated that my publisher even told me that my system doesn't work... where did this come from? Do you know where my publisher is and how to reach him? His website is disabled and the only phone number I have for him is nevered answered, and he owes me two years or so in back royalties. And how would you know what my publisher told me? Please provide a source for this information, since I believe this to be a complete fabrication on your part.
    Have a nice day,
    Walter
  • I have never written any review of any book on Amazon. The reviews are a joke. Of course it sounds like what I have said, because EVERY expert says exactly the same thing. The reason your system fails has been well-known for over a century. And now, you are falsely accusing me of a lie. Your publisher told me this long ago. I have no idea how to contact him. Seriously, the research in your posts is just as sloppy as what you call research in your book.
  • I'm sure that Amazon would disagree with your opinion of their book review system, as do I. I'm also dubious of your "conversation" with my publisher, and why he would bother to tell you anything about my book. Did he approach you, or did you contact him? What was his name? For someone who prides himself in making factual statements which can be substantiated, this claim of yours is a bit out of character.
  • Of course Amazon would disagree. So what? Look through the reviews. Mein Kampf reviews say things like "Finally the truth about the Jews." Their are rave reviews over total trash all over Amazon. And why would anyone judge the contents of a book by what an anonymous person on Amazon says? Don's book has a terrible review by Stalker wehere he claims he is a friend of Don's. A completely fraudulent review. Serioiusly, is this how you rate a book?

    Walter, your strategy does not work. This has been proved to you numerous times over the last ten years, and yet you are still advising people that don't know better that your system will improve their chances in a casino.
  • OK, Don. Don't answer my questions regarding your conversation with my publisher. I understand.
  • Walter Thomason said:
    OK, Don. Don't answer my questions regarding your conversation with my publisher. I understand.


    I am not Don. And, clearly you don't understand anything. You have made five completely false statements about me since you restarted posting. Your posting is as sloppy as your work on BJ.
  • OK, Don't answer my questions regarding your conversation with my publisher. I understand.
    There... I corrected my sloppy post. Earlier in this thread you typed "wehere" when you meant to type "where". Sloppy.
  • Astounding. You have made now six false accusations against me. You called me by an entirely different name. And, you consider this the same as a typo caused by my arthritis.

    Folks, Walter has been told by many experts over ten years that his system fails. This has been proved both with mathematics and three simulators written and run by three people. His response is to post false accusations against his reviewers.
  • Norm, I'm through with this thread, at least as far as responding to your comments. I pointed out a typo, and you call it a "false accusation". Sorry to hear about your arthritis... I'm told it can be quite painful.
  • Walter Thomason said:
    Norm, I'm through with this thread, at least as far as responding to your comments. I pointed out a typo, and you call it a "false accusation". Sorry to hear about your arthritis... I'm told it can be quite painful.


    You seem completely incapable of truth. I did NOT say pointing out a typo was a "false accusation" or anything like that. I have lost count of the number of times you claim that I said something I never said.

    I review systems. I have been for many, many years. I, and many others, reviewed your system, and it failed. If your reaction to a negative review is to post personal attacks containing lies and suggesting mental problems, then perhaps you should stop responding to anyone.
  • I've been playing the hit or stand as practice and was browsing through these forums. I decided to register an account just to post this.

    @Walter

    Amazon reviews are useful in seeing a general satisfaction of users with their purchase. They mean absolutely jack shit concerning whether the contents of a book are scientifically accurate. I'm sure there are plenty of books with good reviews about ghosts and bigfoot but that doesn't make it true.

    If you have scientific evidence in the form of mathematical studies or computer simulations that show your method gives an advantage, then show it. Otherwise stop peddling your BS.
  • Animus said:
    I've been playing the hit or stand as practice and was browsing through these forums. I decided to register an account just to post this.

    @Walter

    Amazon reviews are useful in seeing a general satisfaction of users with their purchase. They mean absolutely jack shit concerning whether the contents of a book are scientifically accurate. I'm sure there are plenty of books with good reviews about ghosts and bigfoot but that doesn't make it true.

    If you have scientific evidence in the form of mathematical studies or computer simulations that show your method gives an advantage, then show it. Otherwise stop peddling your BS.


    My book contains both mathematical analysis and the results of computer simulations, but you wouldn't know that because you obviously haven't read it. Keep practicing on the hit or stand game... I'm sure you need it.
  • Walter Thomason said:
    My book contains both mathematical analysis and the results of computer simulations, but you wouldn't know that because you obviously haven't read it. Keep practicing on the hit or stand game... I'm sure you need it.


    What you call "mathematical analysis and the results of computer simulations" is laughable. Simulations by three people in the field with three different simulators ALL come to the same results. Your system fails, exactly as the math says it should. OTOH, no one has ever heard of the simulator you used in the book, you yourself state that it no longer works and you can’t get in touch with the guy you paid to write it. It is a shame that you continue to push a failing strategy with such claims and throw churlish insults at critics.
  • QFIT said:
    What you call "mathematical analysis and the results of computer simulations" is laughable. Simulations by three people in the field with three different simulators ALL come to the same results. Your system fails, exactly as the math says it should. OTOH, no one has ever heard of the simulator you used in the book, you yourself state that it no longer works and you can’t get in touch with the guy you paid to write it. It is a shame that you continue to push a failing strategy with such claims and throw churlish insults at critics.

    Here you go again, Norm. Please answer the question that I asked on another blackjack website, or stop posting unsubstianted accusations about me.... makes you look petty and foolish, and I don't like to think about you being that way.
  • I bought Twenty-First Century Blackjace about 7 years ago. To my surprise I haven't posted here since then.
    I just now got around to reading it and am half way through, trying to keep an open mind.
    Name calling and accusations doesn't help either of your positions.
  • I answered it many times. Stop lying.
  • BruceinGa said:
    I bought Twenty-First Century Blackjace about 7 years ago. To my surprise I haven't posted here since then.
    I just now got around to reading it and am half way through, trying to keep an open mind.
    Name calling and accusations doesn't help either of your positions.


    My "position" is that math works and in this particular case, is outlined here: http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage207.htm
  • BruceinGa said:
    I bought Twenty-First Century Blackjace about 7 years ago. To my surprise I haven't posted here since then.
    I just now got around to reading it and am half way through, trying to keep an open mind.
    Name calling and accusations doesn't help either of your positions.

    Bruce, I totally agree. I'll make a serious effort to refrain from responding to his personal and professional attacks. Thanks for your advice.
    Also, your opinion of the book would be most appreciated.
  • Walter Thomason said:
    Bruce, I totally agree. I'll make a serious effort to refrain from responding to his personal and professional attacks. Thanks for your advice.
    Also, your opinion of the book would be most appreciated.


    You do realize don't you, that that was a personal attack?
  • QFIT said:
    You do realize don't you, that that was a personal attack?


    No, it was a personal defence.
  • Walter Thomason said:
    No, it was a personal defence.


    No, it was one of the numerous personal attacks you have made over the last ten years against anyone that dares review your book. You do not seem to comprehend that reviewers reviewing your work are not making personal attacks when they give a bad review. They are providing honest reviews. And, I see that you have yet again been banned from the "other site" you just mentioned for repeatedly making false statements. For ten years, dozens of people in our business have told you that your book pushes a system that does not work. When they patiently explain why, you bombard them with false statements about what they have said.
  • QFIT said:
    No, it was one of the numerous personal attacks you have made over the last ten years against anyone that dares review your book. You do not seem to comprehend that reviewers reviewing your work are not making personal attacks when they give a bad review. They are providing honest reviews. And, I see that you have yet again been banned from the "other site" you just mentioned for repeatedly making false statements. For ten years, dozens of people in our business have told you that your book pushes a system that does not work. When they patiently explain why, you bombard them with false statements about what they have said.

    In keeping with my new philosophy, no comment. Have a nice day.
  • Walter Thomason said:
    In keeping with my new philosophy, no comment. Have a nice day.


    Funny. How many times have you claimed no comment? And then you make a comment?

    I don't like the word liar. But, I have a problem resisting it in your case. Nine times in the last two months you have claimed that I made statements I never made. Hundreds of times in the last ten years you have posted false statements about your "system." I am certain that you will continue posting bad advice and harming people here. But fortunately, you have again been banned from a site that will not allow constant scam postings - www.blackjackinfo.com. And, no, it isn’t my site.
  • QFIT said:
    Funny. How many times have you claimed no comment? And then you make a comment?

    I don't like the word liar. But, I have a problem resisting it in your case. Nine times in the last two months you have claimed that I made statements I never made. Hundreds of times in the last ten years you have posted false statements about your "system." I am certain that you will continue posting bad advice and harming people here. But fortunately, you have again been banned from a site that will not allow constant scam postings - www.blackjackinfo.com. And, no, it isn’t my site.


    No comment.
  • I have had moderate success (I log my results) over the last three years, basically breaking even. I average going to the Casino about 17-20 times a year and consider play BlackJack a hobby. As long as I break even over the course of time, I am happy. Or maybe I should set my goals higher?
  • Spam, spam, spam... boring.
  • Although I believe I can learn to count cards, I am not a math prodigy, diving headlong into the prospect of very complex systems to need it for my pleasure. I like learning new things, I like to play games is not enough to be successful, but I do not want to card count, at least not at this point to explore.
  • You don't really need to be a math prodigy to count cards. (The mathematics of counting are in fact quite simple - e.g. in the most well known hi-lo system, cards 2-6 are worth +1 and 10-A -1 point - that's it. [Well, that and being able to estimate how many decks are left to deal.])

    If you don't want to bother with card counting, at least learn the basic strategy (at least its simplified version). This will help you to minimize the house edge. (If you want to play the exact basic strategy, make sure that you know the rules of the game - it matters if the dealer hits or stands on soft 17, and whether or not you are allowed to double after split.)

    And don't bother with any progression systems. They won't help you to gain an edge over the house; they can just decrease your chance of losing in the short term, at the cost of losing more (or, in the case of such strategies as Martingale, MUCH more) if/when you are unlucky.


    Mike Rosoft
  • Mike Rosoft said:
    You don't really need to be a math prodigy to count cards. (The mathematics of counting are in fact quite simple - e.g. in the most well known hi-lo system, cards 2-6 are worth +1 and 10-A -1 point - that's it. [Well, that and being able to estimate how many decks are left to deal.])

    If you don't want to bother with card counting, at least learn the basic strategy (at least its simplified version). This will help you to minimize the house edge. (If you want to play the exact basic strategy, make sure that you know the rules of the game - it matters if the dealer hits or stands on soft 17, and whether or not you are allowed to double after split.)

    And don't bother with any progression systems. They won't help you to gain an edge over the house; they can just decrease your chance of losing in the short term, at the cost of losing more (or, in the case of such strategies as Martingale, MUCH more) if/when you are unlucky.


    Mike Rosoft

    Mike,

    I'd like to respectfully question the content of your last paragraph. You state that progressions, "...can decrease your chance of losing in the short term, at the cost of losing more if/when you are unlucky." Question: If you decrease your chance of losing in the short term, don't you increase your chance of winning in the short term? After all, there's only three options -- win, lose, or break even. Also, since the long term is nothing more than lots of short-term sessions, losing less (or winning more) might also apply to the long term. In terms of "luck", almost anything is possible, especially in the short term.
    BTW, I agree with you regarding Martingale. Table limits make this strategy almost impossible.
    Here's a question for you... How many hands must you play to reach long-term expectation?
    Cheers!
    Walter
  • I assume so since it has responded . Which parts of the scene said that your book is critical of card counting ?
  • My wife and I just returned from Harrah's Cherokee. I played their Pot O' Gold machine with very good results.
    The rules were single deck, shuffled after each hand, doubling on 9-11, dealer stands on all 17's, no surrender, insurance pays 2 to 1, multiple hits on aces when split, no re splitting, no doubling on splits, bj pays 3/2, and 7 card auto win.
    The minimum was $2 and max was $50. I started with $2 and increased to $4 after a win. Next win I increased to $6 but capped it at $8. After a loss I return to the $2 bet. After 4 straight losses I move to another machine or just take a breather. They only have 20 of these machines and it wasn't hard finding an idle one.
    I probably played only 2 or 3 hours at a time, maybe 3 times a day, logging all my results.
    During one session I believe I had 14-16 winning hands without a loss. As I mentioned before most of these were at the $8 level and 3 or 4 were hands that I either split or doubled. Yesterday I had one session with 10 winning hands that included only one push.
    Some may not agree with progressive betting but I find it works for me.
    I can't wait for our next visit.
  • BruceinGa said:
    My wife and I just returned from Harrah's Cherokee. I played their Pot O' Gold machine with very good results.
    The rules were single deck, shuffled after each hand, doubling on 9-11, dealer stands on all 17's, no surrender, insurance pays 2 to 1, multiple hits on aces when split, no re splitting, no doubling on splits, bj pays 3/2, and 7 card auto win.
    The minimum was $2 and max was $50. I started with $2 and increased to $4 after a win. Next win I increased to $6 but capped it at $8. After a loss I return to the $2 bet. After 4 straight losses I move to another machine or just take a breather. They only have 20 of these machines and it wasn't hard finding an idle one.
    I probably played only 2 or 3 hours at a time, maybe 3 times a day, logging all my results.
    During one session I believe I had 14-16 winning hands without a loss. As I mentioned before most of these were at the $8 level and 3 or 4 were hands that I either split or doubled. Yesterday I had one session with 10 winning hands that included only one push.
    Some may not agree with progressive betting but I find it works for me.
    I can't wait for our next visit.

    Bruce,
    I like your system -- positive progression, return to base bet after a loss, and quit point at 4 consecutive losing hands. You also point out the signifigance of strings of consecutive winning hands -- they can really boost your profits when they occur.
  • Walter Thomason said:
    Mike,

    I'd like to respectfully question the content of your last paragraph. You state that progressions, "...can decrease your chance of losing in the short term, at the cost of losing more if/when you are unlucky." Question: If you decrease your chance of losing in the short term, don't you increase your chance of winning in the short term? After all, there's only three options -- win, lose, or break even. Also, since the long term is nothing more than lots of short-term sessions, losing less (or winning more) might also apply to the long term. In terms of "luck", almost anything is possible, especially in the short term.
    BTW, I agree with you regarding Martingale. Table limits make this strategy almost impossible.
    Here's a question for you... How many hands must you play to reach long-term expectation?
    Cheers!
    Walter


    This has been explained to you hundreds of times over the last dozen years. If you win more often, but less than when you lose, or lose more often, but lose more than when you win, it all balances out to losing at the house edge. Both negative and progression systems LOSE. Each hand has a negative EV. Playing more hands just increases the expected loss. Any positive number times a negative number is a negative number. This has been known for over a century. The math is trivial. And, for the hundredth time, this has NOTHING to do with table limits. Progression systems have negative EV. Period.
  • As previously stated, I don't respond to posts submitted by Qfit, even if he responded to a post I directed to Mike. But a clarification of my remark about the Martingale progression might be helpful. Martingale is a negative progression betting system that requires that you double your previous bet after each consecutive loss with the goal of eventually winning the original bet in the series. Table limits -- the maximum bet allowed -- would make this system impossible to continue after losing a certain number of hands, because the next bet required would exceed the maximum table limit allowed. For instance, a $5 initial bet would require that the player bet $640 after losing 7 consecutive hands, but this amount exceeds the normal $500 table limit on a $5 minimum bet table, and makes it impossible to maintain the progression. Obviously, table limits DO affect the use of a Martingale system.
    Also, not all progression systems have negative EV. Card counting is a progression system. Counters raise (positive progression) or lower (negative progression) their bets based on the count, rather than basing their bet variations on the results of the previous hand played. Consequently, not all progression systems have negative EV. Period.
  • Walter Thomason said:
    As previously stated, I don't respond to posts submitted by Qfit, even if he responded to a post I directed to Mike. But a clarification of my remark about the Martingale progression might be helpful. Martingale is a negative progression betting system that requires that you double your previous bet after each consecutive loss with the goal of eventually winning the original bet in the series. Table limits -- the maximum bet allowed -- would make this system impossible to continue after losing a certain number of hands, because the next bet required would exceed the maximum table limit allowed. For instance, a $5 initial bet would require that the player bet $640 after losing 7 consecutive hands, but this amount exceeds the normal $500 table limit on a $5 minimum bet table, and makes it impossible to maintain the progression. Obviously, table limits DO affect the use of a Martingale system.
    Also, not all progression systems have negative EV. Card counting is a progression system. Counters raise (positive progression) or lower (negative progression) their bets based on the count, rather than basing their bet variations on the results of the previous hand played. Consequently, not all progression systems have negative EV. Period.


    For over a decade we have been explaining this to you, and you still don't understand basic math. The reason Martingale fails has absolutely nothing to do with table limits. It doesn't amtter how much you bet when you have no knowledge of the cards. It is a progression system. All progression systems fail. Card counting is NOT a progression system. It is a system based on actually observing the cards and therefore knowing the advantage at the start of a round. Progression systems, without this knowledge, have exactly the same advantage at the start of every round. It is negative. Any number of hands (a positive number) times a negative edge (a negative number) produces a negative result on average. Any positive number times any negative number is a negative number.
  • BruceinGa said:

    Some may not agree with progressive betting but I find it works for me.
    I can't wait for our next visit.


    All, I repeat ALL, mathematicians and gambling experts will tell you that progressive betting fails. There are mathematical proofs. It is as certain as 1+1=2. It is why casino rake in billions and have been around for centuries. Because people think simple patterns can somehow beat the odds. About 40% of people win on a typical trip. That's how casinos hook you. You can't wait for your next visit. The casinos can't wait either, because if you keep going, you will lose. If you are going to play, bet all your money on one bet and then leave and never goback. That gives you a 49% chance of winning. Do this twice, and you have an oevrall 48% chance of winning. The more hands you play, the more the casino wins. Unless you use a strategy that actually measures the odds and bets accordingly. Card counting is one of those strategies. Progression systems have absolutely no knowledge that alters the casino edge.
  • It recommended that the progression and exit point is a mathematical proof failure. It is a shame, he said that his strategy can work for you, many people have that he is a failed system.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!