Optimal VS Practical betting

[Aslan]

The inevital losing streak is almost a scientific certainty. Rather than accepting the resulting loss, one can ameliorate the effect on your bankroll by going into recovery mode as soon as a large bet is lost. To do this , one lowers to the minimum bet until the large bet is fully recovered. The sum of all the losing minimum bets accumulated, while this is happening, becomes your new max bet when you return to normal counting.

There is one problem, that of patience and lots of it. Trying to recover a $500 losing bet with 100 times $5 or some other minimum bet is certain to happen. Another way to look at it is converting all large losing bets into minimum losing bets before reverting back to your normal betting pattern. Applies to betting on sports, horse racing or table games.

If it's a sure thing to recover the big bet with all the minimum bets, then why the heck would you risk the big bet in the first place. All you have to do is bet your sure thing minimum bets and you're home free! Or are you? Can't you see the obvious fallacy in what you are saying?

[falling star]

Are you sure? He used a word like, "ameliorate...."

Had me convinced...

You change your mind to easily. Your first impression was the correct one.

[falling star]

What are you crazy. If you know what you are doing that big bet is out there for a reason. The next bet most of the time that reason is still there. You know you will be ahead a cartain percentage for the sum of all bets made at that advantage which made you bet big. You are going to lose some along the way. These lost bets may even come in clumps but each bet whether won or lost adds the same percentage to your long term EV. Once you have made enough bets you will approach that EV percentage on the sum of all the bets made. If you go to min bet you make the long term further away and you give up a lot of EV at that big advantage. This is utter nonsense unless you are foolish enough to be betting big at a disadvantage because you are playing some losing progression.

Move this to disadvantage forum.

The long term recedes , but the short-term is enhanced. Neither of us can prove our point without a simulation.

[truthiness]

You're impressed. You just can't bring yourself to say it.

LOL! So funny! How about not making the big bet and just doing the recovery with minimum bet? Then you have a nice profit after the recovery.

[Aslan]

LOL! So funny! How about not making the big bet and just doing the recovery with minimum bet? Then you have a nice profit after the recovery.

Hey, you're stealing my thunder.

[falling star]

Uhhh...he said let the accolades begin, good sir, not the critiques. Your fancy sciency theory mumbo jumbo is only serving to make showing a profit in this game more difficult than need be.

We all want to show a profit, but safety should always come first if you want to survive games of chance.

[Aslan]

The long term recedes , but the short-term is enhanced. Neither of us can prove our point without a simulation.

How about simple logic?

[Aslan]

We all want to show a profit, but safety should always come first if you want to survive games of chance.

Study RoR and Kelly betting strategies; then play only when you have a proven advantage.

[falling star]

ZERO "noted experts" would find this anything other than utter nonsense. It is pure gambling voodoo and why casinos make so much money.

Read your friends epilogue page 338 in Blackjack Attack or Snyder's comments on his own site , admitting very few are going to make any money because of variance. My post at least tries to offset the effects of negative variance .

[falling star]

LOL...ur a good mr. white

Sycophant.

[falling star]

If you were betting optimally then why would you ever go broke? Doesn't make any sense.

VS

Lowering your bet and letting the house grind you down. Going broke more slowly doesn't make sense either.

-Sonny-

Ask all the ones who went broke, what happened? I admit it's a grind and requires a great deal of patience. The bet is lowered only for a short period of time in relation to the long term.

[falling star]

Everyone has losing streaks. Then they have winning streaks. In the long run they are ahead unless they follow your advise.

I'm not responsible for anyone's losses. Could be counter's false sense of security. Their result may have been different if they had access to the stated advice, just released.

[sagefr0g]

We all want to show a profit, but safety should always come first if you want to survive games of chance.

safety yes, but what else? your original post would not be such a disastrous tactic if during the post high negative variance transition period scenario you suggested had contained one crucial aspect. can you guess what that would be?