Discussion in 'General' started by Midnightblues, Nov 26, 2011.
Some figures for using Martingale as cover: http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=337 (Archive copy)
I posted this in the Voodoo forum specifically because Martingale is a fallacy and I wanted to know how the method I proposed would work. I believe it was a different type of question than the many martingale posts I read and thus decided to post it. Either way, How can you rant on someone for posting in a portion of the forum designated for this type of question?
If you have such a problem with these posts I suggest you take your own advice. Don't read them!
I have a problem with poverty, disease, and war too. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
Shocking how you refuse to take your own advice. :laugh:
QFIT: " Don't read posts in a forum which has clearly been reserved for bad ideas."
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you knew I was talking to someone that did not understand the purpose of this forum and are just joking.
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
You were shown exactly how it would work. It fails miserably. Feel free to ask such questions here, but don't act offended when the truthful answer isn't what you might be looking for. This forum isn't for posting bad ideas that will go unchallenged, or for posting wrong information. Anyone who attempts to do so will be corrected, and that's exactly how it should be.
Here's an old response:
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!
Thanks Sonnny. That is helpful. It is somewhat different than my proposed idea though, which is a quasi-martingale in that it only bets on advantages from a 1-4 unit spread. In other words, there is no chance of going broke like you mentioned.
However, I do see that this is still less than optimal as it is better to simply bet in proportion to your advantage, as someone explained here. Doesn't seem like a bad idea for camo every once and awhile though, eh?
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 was using a different definition of pos and neg, based on the count, not based on win/loss.
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
Separate names with a comma.