Optimal VS Practical betting

[falling star]

I assume you mean "negative" variance, not variance. Variance is not another word for losing streak; it is another word for luck, which comes in two varieties, good and bad. If it were predictable, either the good or the bad variety, I would personally wipe out this country's national debt, if I did not first get barred from every casino on earth. As it is, I can barely pay my own debts.

Yes I meant negative variance.

[falling star]

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?

By certainty I ment even the world's worst player would eventually win enough minimum bets to recover a large lost bet. The money is won on large bets that didn't lose, as is presently the case with everyone .

[falling star]

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.

You obviously didn't read and understand the post. The money is made on large bets. Recovering a large losing bet is just a detour.

[falling star]

How about simple logic?

I thought it was.

[falling star]

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

The advantage is only proven after you win.

[falling star]

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?

You could encounter some positive variance while in recovery mode. If this happens, you recover the large loss sooner.

[sagefr0g]

You could encounter some positive variance while in recovery mode. If this happens, you recover the large loss sooner.

no, that's not it, hint, the crucial aspect was present in period described in your original post in which the negative variance occurred.

[Aslan]

The advantage is only proven after you win.

The advantage is proven both by laws of probability and demonstrably by simulations.

One of the strange things you say is that you are certain to be able to regain the loss of a large bet by a series of small bets. Are these small bets at minimum bet? Are they without the usual bet spreading that goes with card counting? If not, then are you not playing at a disadvantage with your small bets? If so, are playing at a disadvantage (e,g,, basic strategy) with your small bets, then mathematically you may well never regain the large bet you previously lost. I really don't get whawt you are driving at. There is no sure way, even with all the patience in the world, to regain a certain dollar amount, except the almost sure way of doing so by playing at a proven advantage, which as I said before, has been proven both by sims and by the laws of probability.

[iCountNTrack]

0020.gif

[Norm]

By certainty I ment even the world's worst player would eventually win enough minimum bets to recover a large lost bet. The money is won on large bets that didn't lose, as is presently the case with everyone .

For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would believe this. Your entire argument is based on the premise that you will eventually win back a loss by flat-betting. If it were true, everyone could beat the casino simply by flat-betting.

[Norm]

FS, please stop using the report post feature to argue. It is for reporting SPAM or other violations. No one is reading your reports.