Search BlackjackInfo

 Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com Martingale still a fallacy when you have statistical advantage?
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Thread Tools Display Modes
#31
November 28th, 2011, 05:09 PM
 QFIT Executive Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: NO LONGER HERE Posts: 2,884

Quote:
 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.

Last edited by QFIT; November 28th, 2011 at 05:39 PM.
#32
November 28th, 2011, 05:13 PM
 QFIT Executive Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: NO LONGER HERE Posts: 2,884

Quote:
 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.
#33
November 28th, 2011, 08:10 PM
 Midnightblues Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 16

Quote:
 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.
#34
November 28th, 2011, 08:23 PM
 iCountNTrack ChemMeister Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 780

Quote:
 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

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Welcome to the BlackjackInfo Forums     Site Announcements Blackjack Forums     Blackjack - General     Blackjack - Voodoo Betting Strategies     Blackjack - Card Counting     Blackjack - Advanced Strategies     Blackjack - Variations     Blackjack - Theory and Math     Blackjack - Online Casinos     Blackjack - Stories Land Based Casinos     Las Vegas     Nevada - Outside Vegas     Eastern US     Southern US     Midwest US     Western US     Canada     Australia     Europe     Asia, Africa & Far East     Caribbean & Latin America Online Casinos     Reputable Casinos     Problem Casinos     Latest Promotions Miscellaneous     Other Games     Gambling Law     Blackjack in the Media     Site Discussion     News     Sports Betting     Investing and Financial     Anything Else

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:33 AM.

 Contact Us - BlackjackInfo.com - Archive - Top

Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC