I said it was ploppy like thought but it also is a fact. Some call it an alternating bet ramp. The part about not raising your bet after a loss was in almost every blackjack book when it came to increasing longevity. I stated it costs EV. It also affects the ride just the way betting schemes affect the ride for ploppies. Nothing I wrote wasn't factual. Why didn't you take Don to ask for suggesting only raising your bet after wins in his book? Why not Carlson for the alternating bet ramp in his book? What I suggested was using both Don's advice and Carlson's advice. I pointed out it cost EV, but also pointed out it restructured the way you win and lose money in a way that trades severe downswings for less severe downswings, while increasing the severe upswings and changing pushed runs of alternating wins and losses to losses every other round of the difference between your larger TC bet and your smaller TC bet for the same TC.
I guess when the bigot reads the same advice in Don's book or Carlson's book with the explanation of how it affects you in the short term and the explanation from the books of how useful it is for increasing longevity it is okay it is all the sudden bad advice. When I say the exact same concepts but go into more detail about their effects on your wins and losses round to round you take me to the woodshed. The stuff about RA indices is well established. RA insurance play goes back all the way to Peter Griffin as what is optimal for BR growth. Typical bigotry. Didn't you realize the altrernating bets is Carlson's masterpeice, and the only raising bets when winning was in every blackjack book including Don's as good cover? You do realize RA insurance play goes back to Griffin? Perhaps now you see how badly your bigotry stains your thought process. All the stuff I wrote is long established and accepted concepts for more efficient play or longevity. Just RA insurance was mine. I just went into more detail about how all this affects the short run. Basically you are limiting downswings while not hurting EV much. That makes your BR grow more steadily. All I have done is use all these concepts at once and explain their effect on the likelihood of BR growth by relating some of what is going on to ploppy betting schemes. I didn't come up with any of these concepts, except RA surrender. I would be willing to bet a number of people have been quietly doing that for a long time. It is just way too obvious for me to be the first to look into it.
Now don't you feel silly. I didn't intentionally set you up. But when you challenge all the major contributions and established concepts simply because I talked about the effects of using them, you either show your ignorance or your blinding bigotry.
I guess when the bigot reads the same advice in Don's book or Carlson's book with the explanation of how it affects you in the short term and the explanation from the books of how useful it is for increasing longevity it is okay it is all the sudden bad advice. When I say the exact same concepts but go into more detail about their effects on your wins and losses round to round you take me to the woodshed. The stuff about RA indices is well established. RA insurance play goes back all the way to Peter Griffin as what is optimal for BR growth. Typical bigotry. Didn't you realize the altrernating bets is Carlson's masterpeice, and the only raising bets when winning was in every blackjack book including Don's as good cover? You do realize RA insurance play goes back to Griffin? Perhaps now you see how badly your bigotry stains your thought process. All the stuff I wrote is long established and accepted concepts for more efficient play or longevity. Just RA insurance was mine. I just went into more detail about how all this affects the short run. Basically you are limiting downswings while not hurting EV much. That makes your BR grow more steadily. All I have done is use all these concepts at once and explain their effect on the likelihood of BR growth by relating some of what is going on to ploppy betting schemes. I didn't come up with any of these concepts, except RA surrender. I would be willing to bet a number of people have been quietly doing that for a long time. It is just way too obvious for me to be the first to look into it.
Now don't you feel silly. I didn't intentionally set you up. But when you challenge all the major contributions and established concepts simply because I talked about the effects of using them, you either show your ignorance or your blinding bigotry.
