RollingStoned, i count you to be a thoughtful guy--thanks for the reply.
when a thousand hand proposition involves "giving" 5 units to your enemy with a 32% chance of a more than 36 unit swing in variance and 5% chance of 72 units, it comes close to sounding like an easily constructed math problem AND, the notion that the vig is NOT insurmountable for a crack at such potential variation merits thoughtful consideration. it is made a "less easily constructed, simple math problem" because the player can attempt (at a price of course) to magnify positive variance with higher wagers and minimize the EFFECT of negative variance with smaller wagers (too bad he cant minimize the negative variance itself). the math problem gains complexity with the other variable the player enjoys for his 5 unit OR LESS concession and that is the option to quit "whenever."
the counter is able to wipe out the 5 unit tax AND to "magnify" his bets, not based on hope and luck, like Favorite-Uncle, but based on the favorable count--very good approach. BUT, like everything in life, ALSO at a price. the "COUNTER'S PRICE" is well articulated in these pages and that is, his bet sizing, though advantaged, is "irrational" relative to his daily, weekly, yearly and lifetime win/loss. correctly for the approach of counting, he ignores all that, comes up with ENORMOUS bankroll requirements, shoots the finger at the fact that the effect of variance is many-fold larger than his advantage for the moment and he CORRECTLY-FOR-THE-APPROACH plunges ahead with big bets that redefine the thrill of victory AND the agony of defeat. i admire the skill, determination, discipline and logic of this approach.
counting is not for everyone and, leaving aside the question of whether Favorite-Uncle can be a lifetime winner, it is UNDENIABLE that if he can not or will not count, there remains, mathematically and scientifically, a "best" approach for him to take. i would observe that some good math guys, loathsome as they find non-counting to be, have kindly tossed out token ideas of how one might best approach non-counting (see DSchles #4 reply and bigplayer #10 reply, as well as some of your own, previous replies).
for non counters everywhere who share with counters the desire to beat the casino and who do not intend to flat bet till they are up one unit, leave and never come back, there are intelligent, math-oriented approaches that make more sense than others and my posts are an effort to explore that with counters i respect. i think nothing said so far in response has persuasively countered the notion that, given large variance, small vig , option to increase/decrease bet size that if Favorite-Uncle elects to CONSTRUCT a LIFETIME--LONG RUN, NOT of the straw men that others demand but rather, HIS long-run is a series of single data points that he busts his ass to construct as wins, as outlined, then i am not persuaded such is voodoo, defying gravity, perpetual motion etc. and appeals to how gamblers having been saying such for centuries is not really on point, any more than if i just waved a hand and dismissively claimed counting is voodoo because the large variance wipes out the small advantage and, in some ways like martingale, the player runs into unsustainable variation that makes counting a non-enterprise. i do not happen to believe that but the "characterization" is accurate and if i invoke anecdote and non-substance to dismiss out of hand, i am wrong.
it is clear that counting shares with Favorite-Uncle that casinos are HARD to beat----put aside the assumption Favorite-Uncle is a hopeless ploppy, for a minute, accept the "challenge" of beating the casino as often and as much as can within a thousand bets and brainstorm your best ideas?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks