Progression better than flat betting

[QFIT]

If "stop losses" results in lower losses because you play fewer hands, then why wait for three losses? Why not just leave after three hands, win or lose? You will lose even less. Claiming that "stop losses" is a superior betting strategy because it causes you to lose less due to playing fewer hands is like saying drinking large amounts of water is a good strategy because you'll spend more time in the bathroom instead of playing.

I'll run a sim.

 

[Walter T.]

If "stop losses" results in lower losses because you play fewer hands, then why wait for three losses? Why not just leave after three hands, win or lose? You will lose even less. Claiming that "stop losses" is a superior betting strategy because it causes you to lose less due to playing fewer hands is like saying drinking large amounts of water is a good strategy because you'll spend more time in the bathroom instead of playing.

I'll run a sim.

Spending a lot of time in a casino bathroom doesn't sound like much of a strategy to me... I'd rather stay out where the action is, if it's OK with you.

 

[QFIT]

Spending a lot of time in a casino bathroom doesn't sound like much of a strategy to me... I'd rather stay out where the action is, if it's OK with you.

Walter, this is exactly what you are proposing. Playing less. And as you say, it's not much of a strategy.

 

[21gunsalute]

The "point" is that losing less is superior to losing more...

Hey, that makes sense...if you're a loser that is.

 

[zengrifter]

Walter, this is exactly what you are proposing. Playing less. And as you say, it's not much of a strategy.

If you are relying on progression, playing less is a good one. zg

 

[aslan]

Walter

You should add up all the money you will save by NOT playing for the next year. Then take your savings and purchase a new car or renovate your home, etc. That way you will be doing yourself a favor and helping to stimulate the economy at the same time.

PS-- If you don't plan to lose that much this year, you may have to save over several years.

 

[Walter T.]

Walter

You should add up all the money you will save by NOT playing for the next year. Then take your savings and purchase a new car or renovate your home, etc. That way you will be doing yourself a favor and helping to stimulate the economy at the same time.

PS-- If you don't plan to lose that much this year, you may have to save over several years.

Already did these things (car purchase, landscaping, new sprinkler system, house painted, computer, bathroom redo, cruise, jewelry) with BJ profits from progressive betting, but thanks for your suggestion.

 

[aslan]

Already did these things (car purchase, landscaping, new sprinkler system, house painted, computer, bathroom redo, cruise, jewelry) with BJ profits from progressive betting, but thanks for your suggestion.

In that case, donate it all to charity.

 

[gamblingghost]

Already did these things (car purchase, landscaping, new sprinkler system, house painted, computer, bathroom redo, cruise, jewelry) with BJ profits from progressive betting, but thanks for your suggestion.

Alright, I'll bite. So, how do you account for all of these winnings when you use what you yourself agrees to is a losing system?

 

[blackjacktilt]

Already did these things (car purchase, landscaping, new sprinkler system, house painted, computer, bathroom redo, cruise, jewelry) with BJ profits from progressive betting, but thanks for your suggestion.

BS, just stop already. If this is true, then you're bankroll is so big you don't need to play blackjack.

 

[aslan]

Alright, I'll bite. So, how do you account for all of these winnings when you use what you yourself agrees to is a losing system?

It's simple. He always quits when he is winning.

 

[Walter T.]

Alright, I'll bite. So, how do you account for all of these winnings when you use what you yourself agrees to is a losing system?

Sorry, I can't directly respond to this question without risk of being banned from posting on this site. But I think I can safely say the following:
Perhaps I was "lucky". Perhaps for an extended period of time I experienced "positive fluctuation" in card flow that resulted in my positive progression producing greater profits than would have been gained by a flat bettor. Perhaps I experienced longer and more frequent "strings" of consecutive winning hands than were predicted by long-term computer simulation. Perhaps I didn't suffer as many "choppy" shoes (WLWLWLWL) as are predicted by long-term computer simulation, which would have caused me to lose more money than a flat bettor. Perhaps my "quit loss" strategy -- quitting play at a table if experiencing four consecutive losses -- produced a different outcome than is predicted by long-term computer simulation.
So, my system doesn't have to be a loser, but I fully acknowledge the premise that progressive betting is a losing system if you accept that long-term computer simulations accurately reflect what happens in real-life play.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Sorry, I can't directly respond to this question without risk of being banned from posting on this site. But I think I can safely say the following:
Perhaps I was "lucky". Perhaps for an extended period of time I experienced "positive fluctuation" in card flow that resulted in my positive progression producing greater profits than would have been gained by a flat bettor. Perhaps I experienced longer and more frequent "strings" of consecutive winning hands than were predicted by long-term computer simulation. Perhaps I didn't suffer as many "choppy" shoes (WLWLWLWL) as are predicted by long-term computer simulation, which would have caused me to lose more money than a flat bettor. Perhaps my "quit loss" strategy -- quitting play at a table if experiencing four consecutive losses -- produced a different outcome than is predicted by long-term computer simulation.
So, my system doesn't have to be a loser, but I fully acknowledge the premise that progressive betting is a losing system if you accept that long-term computer simulations accurately reflect what happens in real-life play.

So if you dont like simulations how about MATHEMATICAL PROOFS, do these also don't reflect what happens in real life?

 

[Walter T.]

So if you dont like simulations how about MATHEMATICAL PROOFS, do these also don't reflect what happens in real life?

Please allow me to answer a question with a question: Renzey and others state that all progressions produce the exact same mathematical outcome; Qfit and others claim that some progressions are worse than others. Who is correct?

 

[iCountNTrack]

Please allow me to answer a question with a question: Renzey and others state that all progressions produce the exact same mathematical outcome; Qfit and others claim that some progressions are worse than others. Who is correct?

yes the mathematical outcome is the same i.e the expectation value is the same, however negative progressions are worse than others because one bad loss streak can wipe out, it is like comparing a slow poison like arsenic to a fast poison like potassium cyanide, the first one will kill you slowly, the second one will kill you in a minute however the end result is the same you will die.

 

[Sonny]

Perhaps I was "lucky".

So now we know your secret! Your system is a consistent winner as long as the player remains lucky. Brilliant! :laugh:

So we are left with an interesting situation. Unless a player's luck is far above average, he will not win using your system. But in that case he would win using any system. And he would very likely win more using a different system.

So your system will cause the vast majority of players to lose more and the few remaining players to win less. Brilliant.

-Sonny-

 

[Walter T.]

So now we know your secret! Your system is a consistent winner as long as the player remains lucky. Brilliant! :laugh:

So we are left with an interesting situation. Unless a player's luck is far above average, he will not win using your system. But in that case he would win using any system. And he would very likely win more using a different system.

So your system will cause the vast majority of players to lose more and the few remaining players to win less. Brilliant.

-Sonny-

I have no idea how to respond to your post, because I have no idea how you reached these conclusions.

 

[Walter T.]

yes the mathematical outcome is the same i.e the expectation value is the same, however negative progressions are worse than others because one bad loss streak can wipe out, it is like comparing a slow poison like arsenic to a fast poison like potassium cyanide, the first one will kill you slowly, the second one will kill you in a minute however the end result is the same you will die.

Are you saying that expected value is time-sensitive? That expected value in the short run is different than expected value in the long run? That negative progressions are worse than positive progressions? Please elaborate.

 

[Sonny]

I have no idea how to respond to your post, because I have no idea how you reached these conclusions.

Think about it reeeeeeaaally hard Walter. I promise it will all make sense if you just put some thought into it. Or maybe you're just trying to avoid the questions again.

-Sonny-

 

[Walter T.]

Think about it reeeeeeaaally hard Walter. I promise it will all make sense if you just put some thought into it. Or maybe you're just trying to avoid the questions again.

-Sonny-

I've thought about it reeeeally hard, and believe that my statements regarding why I won are reasonable, and that your interpretation of what I said is entirely unreasonable, but thanks for expressing your opinion.