is it voodoo?
sagefr0g said:
right. i'm not proposing an orthodox progression. it is not the frequency of wins, loss's that i'm banking on. it is the relative number of winning sessions to losing sessions over the long run. i would be banking on the (hopefuly) fact that the #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.
basicly the same thing the casino banks on with respect to blackjack hands but i would be doing it on sessions.
if i'm playing a winning long run game and i succeed in constricting what i win to a lot of small sessions relative to fewer losing sessions the result should be
#winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run. and yes a typical losing session would constitute a considerably larger capital loss than a typical winning session capital gain. the point would be to raise the overall amount bet above and beyond what your normal ROR calls for across the board so to speak to take advantage of the fact that #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.
.......
i'm truley not insisting that i'm correct in what i suspect may be a small advantage here. i think it is worth investigating and i'm going to try and simulate it with my clunky lil simulator if i can.
admittedly a large string of losing sessions could prove a disaster but that is the truth of the matter regardless if your ROR is a few percentage points higher or lower.
dear friends, now that i'm responding to my own quotes you know just how crazy i may infact be. none the less i hope you'll read on for entertainment value if nothing else. hopefuly else.
believing as i do that wisdom is the better part of valor i decided to post this nonsense in the either voodoo section or psuedo voodoo section what ever the case may be. that way the ZenGrifter will at least tolerate my musing even if he may shred them from syllable to syllable.
again i defer to an argument for consideration of voodoo approachs by John May author of Get The Edge At Blackjack one of my favorite authors and blackjack personalities:
http://may.casinocitytimes.com/article/finding-an-edge-in-every-game-5999
earlier i posted some Parrando voodoo considerations complete with errors as explained by Sonny....:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=14403&postcount=15
the idea that a small (or huge if hoped for truth prevails) advantage may be lurking hidden in the shrouds of voodoo ideas and accepted statistical practices with regards to positive, negative fluctuation, expected value and bankroll risk of ruin considerations came about as i became aware through discussions in posts on this site with Sonny how my practice of constraining winning sessions should result in #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.
here is how i constrain my winning sessions:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=13648&postcount=16
well anyway i did fire up my clunky but much beloved blackjack simulator in an attempt to determine if my exit strategy did infact bring about the phenomenon of #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.
best as i can tell from the results of my simulation my exit strategy does infact yield #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run.
my simulator limited as it is would only allow me to approach my exit strategy not completely model it.
note: because of the limitations of my simulator i had to define a session as play after and before wonging in or out. also i was forced to wong out of some positive shoes something that i'd never do in live play but it was necessary because of the limitations of the simulator.
the simulation to be brief was a multi-million round simulation.
the game was a 6D s17 DAS lsr nrsa 75% pen
the results for sessions are as follows:
normal approach (non-limited playing) yield:
44.87% winning sessions
44.90% losing sessions
constrained approach (exit play if win >8Units/session)
47.64% winning sessions
42.85% losing sessions
as a side note the ev for each approach was virtually identical. 1.26% for the normal approach and 1.25% for the constrained approach.
i need to qualify the above statistics by stating that my simulator program is very unwieldy and difficult to control for the situation that i was trying to model. in short i was unable to model the situation perfectly and equally in all respects. but i do have a level of confidence in the results that i can now at least state that my exit strategy does indeed yield #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run. the validity of the percentages i'm not so sure about at this point.
conclusion: constraining sessions by a set win ceiling exit strategy has the affect of yielding #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run for an advantage player with a positive ev .
so what is the point? the point is that most of us when we use the normal non-limited play approach have a set ROR that is acceptable to us often mainly as a result of our bankroll limitations. this constrains the overall amount of our betting according to optimal betting practices. we would like to bet more and possibly win more but we don't want to take the risk above some arbitrary mark that is acceptable to us. but now we know that if we constrain our play by a carefully crafted exit strategy that we can continue to enjoy our normal ev and we also know that #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run. the implication is that there is some amount above our normally computed ROR that we can bet above and beyond our normal betting level safley and realize the advantage that equally spreading said amount over the greater number of winning sessions to lower number of losing sessions in the long run. how to do this exactly, well at this point i don't know. still working on this.....
ok guys tear me up..... i can take it after all i do play blackjack ya know.
best regards,
mr fr0g