SBR Brilliance... Which of these is worse?

[VegasDave]

Untiltheendoftime - Has came out with a profit 6 straight sessions playing blackjack. Thus, he believes that by playing perfect strategy (and altering it a bit), he can beat the house longterm at blackjack. He is without counting cards simply going to profit long run playing basic strategy (and deviating from it on occasion, making the house edge even better)

Patvenditto - Believes that the proper bet size is 1/1000 of your bankroll. Believes that losing 20 in a row at -110 odds is a very common occurrence, thus 1/100 of your bankroll on a bet OR Kelly is too risky. You should bet 1/1000 of your bankroll per game to limit risk and maximize profit. Argue with him on this or bring up math and he calls you barreled in and claims he knows better then you.

Which of these gems is worse?

[LT Profits]

Beating blackjack because that one is totally false.

Of course what Pat said is inaccurate too, but at least it is still possible to grind out a very sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow profit doing it.

[yisman]

the first one. You cannot beat blackjack long term without card-counting.

The second one is technically possible.

[BestPlay2day]

Definately the 1st one, no way you beat blackjack in the long run without counting cards. It's basic math!

[pat venditto]

Pal its common sense. The less you risk the more of a shot you have to win long term.

[LT Profits]

Pal its common sense. The less you risk the more of a shot you have to win long term.

No, but that's a discussion for another thread. I still love you babe.

[englishmike]

Pal its common sense. The less you risk the more of a shot you have to win long term.

Youre correct. I deposited a big fat ten-spot this morning and have one cent on the over in the Rays game.

Cheer me on pal, i got the idea from you.

[daggerkobe]

patty used to bet $5k now he's betting at cents-sports.com.

wah happin??????