Martingale still a fallacy when you have statistical advantage?

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by Midnightblues

What are you talking about? Did you even read the thread? Zerg posted a well-thought and reasoned critique of the idea and I thanked him for it as it was very helpful.

The post was a question looking by a for a serious and thoughtful response, not a statement to go unchallenged by any means. I am not offended by the useless "No, that won't work" statements. Conclusory statements without actual reasoning are simply not helpful thats all.

In the mean time, I appreciate the posters who give critique with actual reasoning behind it.

And for people that seem to be so annoyed with these posts, I say again, Don't read them!

Apparently I was mistaken. When you enter a forum, please read the posts that already exist before repeating a question that has been answered over, and over, and over.

I took time out of my day and ran many sims with about 50 billion hands and gave you answers to your question and you still demand that I don't read your posts. You convinced me -- I won't read any more.

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Why does neg-progression underperform pos-progression as cover? Why would "only raise bet in +count after win" out perform "only raise bet in +count after loss?"

Notwithstanding, I stress "quasi-progression" and not the strict adhereance that your sims suggest. zg

I was using a different definition of pos and neg, based on the count, not based on win/loss.

[Midnightblues]

Originally Posted by QFIT

Apparently I was mistaken. When you enter a forum, please read the posts that already exist before repeating a question that has been answered over, and over, and over.

I took time out of my day and ran many sims with about 50 billion hands and gave you answers to your question and you still demand that I don't read your posts. You convinced me -- I won't read any more.

I did read the posts and did not find an answer that was directly on point. There were a few closely related posts, similar to the one sonny posted, but there was none on point to the slight variations I asked about. I believe it was a reasonable question since I was still betting with a statistical advantage and also limited it to prevent HUGE busts. So, in all actuality, my post was a result of reading many other martingale posts on this sight.

Posting nuanced ideas like this bring about good discussion and give people more knowledge on the subject of blackjack.. the whole point of this forum.

Criticism with rationale is exactly what I seek out on this board. Conclusory statements without reasoning with it does not benefit anyone.

[iCountNTrack]

Originally Posted by Midnightblues

I did read the posts and did not find an answer that was directly on point. There were a few closely related posts, similar to the one sonny posted, but there was none on point to the slight variations I asked about. I believe it was a reasonable question since I was still betting with a statistical advantage and also limited it to prevent HUGE busts. So, in all actuality, my post was a result of reading many other martingale posts on this sight.

Posting nuanced ideas like this bring about good discussion and give people more knowledge on the subject of blackjack.. the whole point of this forum.

Criticism with rationale is exactly what I seek out on this board. Conclusory statements without reasoning with it does not benefit anyone.

If 200 mg of potassium cyanide is lethal, 100 mg is not a panacea. Thread locked