This is a rather odd reaction to a not unreasonable thread
. The only aggressive remark was "liars and chickens", and I've seen a lot worse from many other posters (not just me). The poster is clearly intelligent, although he doesn't express himself as well as he could. Informed players have been trying - and failing - to call progressionists to substantiate their nonsensical claims since the first blackjack hand was played. Michael Shakelford's 20K challenge is more than enough to put these claims to bed once and for all. He is offering a ten to one bet against any "system" beating the house. He has had one taker - that failed, after 150,000 hands. Of the two possible contenders here, one has said Shakelford probably cheats
and the other one has apparently STILL failed to elicit a reply.
I agree with the above remark to put up or shut up, and I'm very, very empathetic with the poster's point of view. The only people who benefit from the claim that betting systems can beat negative value games are casinos, because, like it or not, there are readers out there who will believe what they read and try it for themselves - I nearly did, once. Those people will lose money in the endeavour. That bothers me. The fact that they're adults who are old enough to think for themselves does mitigate against that, but I'm not the only person to find extremely irritating that these misleading and false claims constantly get aired.
Betting systems cannot overcome the house advantage. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are either foolish or malicious. If you don't understand why and want to know, ask me and I'll explain in detail.