you counters be nice and join the conversation

[Math Demon]

Please stop, every time I accidentally read something you've written I grow stupider.

The entertainment value of this thread is growing exponentially. Thanks Aussie!

[Math Demon]

Attachment 1107

Hey Rich! There's still hope for you after all.
.
.



Thanks RS.

[Three]

I feel stupideriest of everybody. All these progressionius can beat the math people are confusalating me.

[hardin county boy]

I feel stupideriest of everybody. All these progressionius can beat the math people are confusalating me.

i agree.

[alexost]

Norm is to blackjack what Warren is to stocks. If you want to learn about successful investing in stocks go to Warren. If you want to find information about achieving legitimate advantages in casino games based on decades of experience and sound mathematical analysis - go to Norm.

Also, they both are people of integrity. When they disagree with you they are trying to help you.

You can take that to the bank.

[hitthat16]

in the case of your baccarat guy, his OUTLIER WIN came to pass and if he sat down to disciplined, 5000$ future sessions, it would take him FIFTY straight losing sessions, ZERO wins, in a row to give it all back---now THAT would be an outlier, indeed.

Dude, you're not getting it.

There are no such things as sessions. What's the difference if this guy gives it all back at once or over time? Nothing. He still gives it all back.

If you get beat up one night and decide to stop and go to bed, what's to say you won't continue to get beat up in the morning?

One long "session". Period.

[hardin county boy]

Dude, you're not getting it.

There are no such things as sessions. What's the difference if this guy gives it all back at once or over time? Nothing. He still gives it all back.

If you get beat up one night and decide to stop and go to bed, what's to say you won't continue to get beat up in the morning?

One long "session". Period.

you are very articulate, hitthat16, so i do understand. i agree, life is one long blackjack game with no "sessions". HOWEVER, if you, I, the baccarat or lotto guy, or any advantage player---if we "artificially" "construct" "sessions" in which, with a good count, we will NOT spread as much when "losing" and WILL spread more when "up", we have NOT magically made more money---you know that, as do I. we HAVE made it very hard for fluctuation to change our life overnight to the downside, while still allowing that next monster or at least semi-monster win on the upside---not only is this NOT magic, there is a straightforward mathematical price we will pay for not exploiting the good count more on the down side.

playing this way (advantaged play, smaller spread below "zero" and larger above--still spread below zero with good count, just not as much) you will INCREASE the probability of reaching +100 units before experiencing 100 unit loss COMPARED TO betting the same spread on both sides of even. so far, BIG DEAL. longer term, all we have done is REDUCE spread and bet size during "losing" times BUT BUT BUT, if, at + or minus 100 units you establish a new "zero" or "even" point, around which you "start over", the net effect is more frequent, somewhat smaller, "wins". THIS will result in a far more "reliable" bankroll that will allow either letting the "wins" run to larger ie 150, 200 units or the sky. or, use the more reliable, larger bankroll, that does not so easily "disappear" overnight to INCREASE bet size = MORE MONEY and a lot better life without the roller-coaster , OVER THE LONG RUN---the "price" you pay for not spreading so much on downside is "recouped" over time as bankroll/bet size is increased.

this strikes me as a far better way to use advantage play and, I BET, more advantage players would grow a better bankroll and not wash out of the enterprise. a guy on another forum recently did a great post, detailing his 4 long years from red chip to green---this approach would require a smaller bankroll to green chip sooner= benefit.

[Norm]

Good grief.

[Three]

By not having a consistent spread you increase fluctuation. You start relying on luck as to whether your +4 count bets win more or less due to the inconsistent bet sizing. This greatly increases your N0 and makes you less certain to make money in the long run. I could see a reason for a small modulation of your bet based on how deep into the shoe you are and how many rounds are left but basing bet size on whether or not you were fortunate in the resent past is voodoo. The past is gone. The future is what matters when you play.

If you bet less when down you are less likely to recover and less likely to lose as much FOR THOSE BETS but without altering your entire spread that just means your EV will be reduced when you are behind due to a reduced spread. This in fact will make you far less likely to win enough to be at the ahead amount than reach the behind amount. Your thinking is a fallacy. What you are talking about is a micro of drawdown to bankroll. This is when you have to resize down to keep an acceptable risk of ruin due to excessive losses. It is done reluctantly and makes recovery take sooooo much longer. It is not something to use in a micro setting for a session BR. Just get up and leave rather than resize down. It is just to costly to do unless it is absolutely necessary.

[hardin county boy]

By not having a consistent spread you increase fluctuation. You start relying on luck as to whether your +4 count bets win more or less due to the inconsistent bet sizing. This greatly increases your N0 and makes you less certain to make money in the long run. I could see a reason for a small modulation of your bet based on how deep into the shoe you are and how many rounds are left but basing bet size on whether or not you were fortunate in the resent past is voodoo. The past is gone. The future is what matters when you play.

If you bet less when down you are less likely to recover and less likely to lose as much FOR THOSE BETS but without altering your entire spread that just means your EV will be reduced when you are behind due to a reduced spread. This in fact will make you far less likely to win enough to be at the ahead amount than reach the behind amount. Your thinking is a fallacy. What you are talking about is a micro of drawdown to bankroll. This is when you have to resize sown to keep an acceptable risk of ruin due to excessive losses. It is done reluctantly and makes recovery take sooooo much longer. It is not something to use in a micro setting for a session BR. Just get up and leave rather than resize down. It is just to costly to do unless it is absolutely necessary.

Tthree--thanks. best of 74 replies so far, in my view.

[hardin county boy]

Good grief.

not clear to me when a guy posts in the disadvantage section and seeks to discuss disadvantaged play, he encounters monosyllables and insults with a dearth of on-point response or explanation beyond "because" but a guy posts disadvantage play in the non-disadvantage, general section "seeking investors" and he gets conversation and does not get re-routed to disadvantage play, where it belongs--i will keep reading---i think the forum is great even though some members prefer reciting dogma over engaging over substance.

[Norm]

What you espouse has been posted on gambling forums literally tens of thousands of times, and proposed tens of millions of times over centuries. How many times can we answer the exact same nonsense with detailed answers? Particularly when your first post suggests that we are all closed-minded jerks too stubborn or foolish to look at alternatives to reality. At some point, you just give up and respond with a one or two word accurate assessment. Seriously, how many times are we to explain that 1 is not equal to 2 and perpetual motion machines do not exist?

[Mr BJ75]

No comment, yet reading every bit. Thank you for the entertainment.