Progression better than flat betting
- Thread starter picasso
- Start date
- Status
Renzey, I ran my modified MG using youre W-L-chart using a standard bet of $ 10.
Modified MG, meaning you only double the bet 3 times after losses. Then, with another loss, cut back to the original $ 10 bet.
It came out to where I had won $ 20!
I have run many charts that were even profitable, on a 40% W-L scenario.
Now if you run it say on a 60% W-L chart, and are ramping up bets, because
crads may be favorable in your count, you will see that when you compare it side-by-side with your normal bet ramps, it pays you a LOT more money!
By cutting the bet back after 3 losses, you limit the amount of money you loose on a loss streak of over 3 losses in a row.
There again, I am not reccomending that anyone actually try this in real play, its just for experimentation. I have seen it work well in real play, but it will backfire on you if you go into a prolonged tailspin.
Modified MG, meaning you only double the bet 3 times after losses. Then, with another loss, cut back to the original $ 10 bet.
It came out to where I had won $ 20!
I have run many charts that were even profitable, on a 40% W-L scenario.
Now if you run it say on a 60% W-L chart, and are ramping up bets, because
crads may be favorable in your count, you will see that when you compare it side-by-side with your normal bet ramps, it pays you a LOT more money!
By cutting the bet back after 3 losses, you limit the amount of money you loose on a loss streak of over 3 losses in a row.
There again, I am not reccomending that anyone actually try this in real play, its just for experimentation. I have seen it work well in real play, but it will backfire on you if you go into a prolonged tailspin.
There you go again, attacking my avatar! Its supposed to be funny, and you call it unpleasant.
Run some side by side charts, and you will see what I mean. Or, just ignor it.
I just find it an interesting concept.
When you run some charts, then get back with me, without the snide remarks. And, mayby we can have a real discussion about it.
Run some side by side charts, and you will see what I mean. Or, just ignor it.
I just find it an interesting concept.
When you run some charts, then get back with me, without the snide remarks. And, mayby we can have a real discussion about it.
Well, the unpleasant part is that as I read your words I keep seeing the avatar as the person who wrote them. I'm not sure that is funny; more like, why am I talking with this drool (a deliberate misappropriation of the word).
On the topic at hand, why run charts? Some will be good, some will be bad, but in the long run, all will be bad. The mathematics of what I am saying has been tested too many times to mention, yet everyone continues to try and reinvent the wheel. Believe me, circular with a center axle hole is better; if you continue to use your version of the wheel, it will wind up in wreck after wreck until your bankroll is exhausted. Stop limits only prolongs the agony. You will lose in smaller quantities, but they will eventually add up to the larger losses you would have experienced without them.
On the topic at hand, why run charts? Some will be good, some will be bad, but in the long run, all will be bad. The mathematics of what I am saying has been tested too many times to mention, yet everyone continues to try and reinvent the wheel. Believe me, circular with a center axle hole is better; if you continue to use your version of the wheel, it will wind up in wreck after wreck until your bankroll is exhausted. Stop limits only prolongs the agony. You will lose in smaller quantities, but they will eventually add up to the larger losses you would have experienced without them.
The problem is we're trying win $, not lose proportionately less. And proportionality is irrelevant in this case since you indeed lose a far greater amount of money in total.
Even if your progression worked it would be unplayable in an actual casino environment.
The scary part is that you obviously devoted a rather large amount of time to come up with such a losing system, even if this is just supposed to be a joke (and not a very funny one at that).
Even if your progression worked it would be unplayable in an actual casino environment.
The scary part is that you obviously devoted a rather large amount of time to come up with such a losing system, even if this is just supposed to be a joke (and not a very funny one at that).
metronome said:
Off Topic, but Aslan, is this one better? We'll have to get better lucky's 2 cents:laugh:
Attachments
Stop loss limits
I disagree with your assumptions regarding "stop loss" or quit point" strategies. Since long-term play is just an accumulation of short-term experiences, there's no way that a series of short-term outcomes with losses in smaller quantities can add up to being larger losses in the long term. Also, a stop loss or quit point player will bet less money and/or play fewer hands than a player who did not apply this strategy during the same period of time, thus reducing his exposure in a negative expectation game (assuming he is a non-counter).
Theoretically what you say is true -- if two players, one a stop-loss player and the other a "non-stop-loss" player -- each played a million hands their financial outcome would be about the same, but in the real world the stop-loss player will play fewer hands or bet less money, resulting in smaller losses, than the other player during the same period of time.
I disagree with your assumptions regarding "stop loss" or quit point" strategies. Since long-term play is just an accumulation of short-term experiences, there's no way that a series of short-term outcomes with losses in smaller quantities can add up to being larger losses in the long term. Also, a stop loss or quit point player will bet less money and/or play fewer hands than a player who did not apply this strategy during the same period of time, thus reducing his exposure in a negative expectation game (assuming he is a non-counter).
Theoretically what you say is true -- if two players, one a stop-loss player and the other a "non-stop-loss" player -- each played a million hands their financial outcome would be about the same, but in the real world the stop-loss player will play fewer hands or bet less money, resulting in smaller losses, than the other player during the same period of time.
As I was reading this I was thinking he is going to say why stop losses makes him a winner but alas, you agree that even with stop losses you will still lose but since you aren't playing a lot of the time it will take longer. sigh, so what is the POINT!? It is still a losing technique. I want a winner!! A winner after a few thousand hours of play. Unless you got the edge you got nothin.
Nothing in life is guaranteed (EDAT), but assuming you are gambling to make a profit, it is wise to avoid negative EV games, and to gamble only where probabilities favor you in the long run. In counting cards, I may not have a guarantee, but I have a very high chance of being winner after even a mere hundred hours of play.
This is indeed the place to consider betting strategies other than counting, but being an advantage player site, it is also implicit that it should be "winning" betting strategies. Less losing is not a winning strategy. Losing strategies, hence voodoo, should only be discussed in the context of debunking them and advocating winning strategies in their stead. Also, progressions as camo are not betting strategies per se; better say they are masking strategies within an overall winning strategy, such as, card counting.
This is indeed the place to consider betting strategies other than counting, but being an advantage player site, it is also implicit that it should be "winning" betting strategies. Less losing is not a winning strategy. Losing strategies, hence voodoo, should only be discussed in the context of debunking them and advocating winning strategies in their stead. Also, progressions as camo are not betting strategies per se; better say they are masking strategies within an overall winning strategy, such as, card counting.
Hopefully, most people on this forum understand that progression systems are not winning systems. Fine, that's what this subforum is for, no objections here. But I think a point is being missed regarding stop-losses. When you use a progression with a stop loss, the idea is to increase the amount of wins while limiting the amount loss to a comfortable minimum—sounds reasonable, right? Wrong! Here's why:
When you use a progression, you don't change the expectation of the game, which stays exactly the same, but you do increase your overall variance, since you'll be varying your bets and, thus, your wins and losses won't be evenly distributed. This is why progressions appear to work because you'll eventually hit a big win that puts you back in the black from an otherwise negative session.
That's all well and good, but what if you set caps on your losses but not your wins? What you're doing is not limiting your losses, but rather limiting your playing time. You'll still eat the same negative expectation, but you'll hit you loss far quicker than you'll how long you'll play when you're winning. This can actually make progressions worse than flat-betting because by artificially limiting your sessions due to a stop-loss, you're losing comps, which has a tangible effect when adding up travel/time expense. Consider:
$50 average bet, 100 hands/hour, house edge 0.5%. Your expectation per hour is -$25/hr. If you get 40% back in comps, you adjusted expectation is more like -$15/hr. Since you'll be gambling either way, you're essentially gaining $10/hr in comps (flawed logic, I know, but hey—we're gambling here!).
Say you're a flat bettor and you always play 8 hours per session. Your expenses to drive each way, plus estimated opportunity cost (ie. you're not making money by doing something productive) totals about $30. If you add a stop-loss, you'll be calling off sessions way before the 8 hour mark pretty frequently, but you'll still be spending the $30 every time you go on a gambling trip. This means fewer comps, but you'll still be spending the same amount on travel/opportunity cost. Higher expenses, drinks, entertainment, etc. can also magnify this effect.
So again, I know the post is a little long, tedious, and probably redundant, but the point here is that progressions with a stop-loss not only don't save you money, they can cost you more money, albeit in a slightly oblique way. A stop-loss works the same way that all other voodoo system elements work—by creating the illusion of safety or positive expectation. Progressions with or without a stop-loss provide neither, and a stop-loss in no way ensures that you'll lose less.
When you use a progression, you don't change the expectation of the game, which stays exactly the same, but you do increase your overall variance, since you'll be varying your bets and, thus, your wins and losses won't be evenly distributed. This is why progressions appear to work because you'll eventually hit a big win that puts you back in the black from an otherwise negative session.
That's all well and good, but what if you set caps on your losses but not your wins? What you're doing is not limiting your losses, but rather limiting your playing time. You'll still eat the same negative expectation, but you'll hit you loss far quicker than you'll how long you'll play when you're winning. This can actually make progressions worse than flat-betting because by artificially limiting your sessions due to a stop-loss, you're losing comps, which has a tangible effect when adding up travel/time expense. Consider:
$50 average bet, 100 hands/hour, house edge 0.5%. Your expectation per hour is -$25/hr. If you get 40% back in comps, you adjusted expectation is more like -$15/hr. Since you'll be gambling either way, you're essentially gaining $10/hr in comps (flawed logic, I know, but hey—we're gambling here!).
Say you're a flat bettor and you always play 8 hours per session. Your expenses to drive each way, plus estimated opportunity cost (ie. you're not making money by doing something productive) totals about $30. If you add a stop-loss, you'll be calling off sessions way before the 8 hour mark pretty frequently, but you'll still be spending the $30 every time you go on a gambling trip. This means fewer comps, but you'll still be spending the same amount on travel/opportunity cost. Higher expenses, drinks, entertainment, etc. can also magnify this effect.
So again, I know the post is a little long, tedious, and probably redundant, but the point here is that progressions with a stop-loss not only don't save you money, they can cost you more money, albeit in a slightly oblique way. A stop-loss works the same way that all other voodoo system elements work—by creating the illusion of safety or positive expectation. Progressions with or without a stop-loss provide neither, and a stop-loss in no way ensures that you'll lose less.
- Status