Am I missing something here? So I'm not a fan of deviation. I was contemplating ways to somehow have conservative, surefire gains, instead of having to deal with determining a net gain after significant losses. I thought, if I decrease the spread, maybe that would make more steady and conservative gains. Of course, this goes against conventional wisdom of having big bet spreads.
As I ran simulations to find spreads that would still work, I was able to lower S.D. at a cost to everything else. win rates, N0, DI, SCORE, yada yada. Of course the opposite was true, the best SCORE, win rates, etc, would have the highest S.D.
I play using a small spread for camouflage purposes and because at least from the looks of it, it does give surefire small gains. What am I missing here?
P.S.
I remember reading in BJ Attack about how Don advocates using flat bets even! of course this is wonging in @ +2. Not necessarily the most efficient way to play, but he emphasized the camouflage advantage of flat betting this way.
As I ran simulations to find spreads that would still work, I was able to lower S.D. at a cost to everything else. win rates, N0, DI, SCORE, yada yada. Of course the opposite was true, the best SCORE, win rates, etc, would have the highest S.D.
I play using a small spread for camouflage purposes and because at least from the looks of it, it does give surefire small gains. What am I missing here?
P.S.
I remember reading in BJ Attack about how Don advocates using flat bets even! of course this is wonging in @ +2. Not necessarily the most efficient way to play, but he emphasized the camouflage advantage of flat betting this way.