Ferretnparrot
Well-Known Member
I was on yahoo answers, answering a wuestion about a progressive bettign scheme and blackjack. And a curious thought occurred.
We all know progressive systems fail, and we know why. but for the people that are using them, i beleive there is a potential to manipulate their ROR by optimising basic playign strategy. I dont think im too ouside the box on this one because risk averase index plays are not much different.
The thought is in refference to net win/net loss probibilities, which for a progressive betting system, are most important. This is not the amount of money you are expecting to win or lose each hand, as most gambler focus on, but simply, weather or not you win or lose that hand period.
Using basic stratagy, you attempt to make the most money by doubling and splitting, when it will offer the highest ev after you have effectively doubled your bet, however, many times while doing so you actually increase your chance of losing that hand, since you can no longer draw additional cards.
I beleive, that a player using a progressive bettign system, may be able to have a lower ROR if they dimply did not double at all, and possibly if they split more often on certain hands.
I am curious as to how far off from the standard win/loss rate using basic strategy you coudl get by modifiing basics strategy in this way. Obviously, you coudl never get above 50%, but to my knowledge, the odds fo a win in contract to a loss are 47.49% and 52.51 respectfully, so there is some room for play.
This without a doubt would increase the players expected dollar loss, but this is no different than a card counter reducing expected dollar win, for a lower ror by using risk averse indexes, and less agressive betting schemes. If players are already using this kind of system, im sure they have already accepted the fact that they have expected follar loss. In my opinion, money thrown out the window is the same as additional money lost.
We all know progressive systems fail, and we know why. but for the people that are using them, i beleive there is a potential to manipulate their ROR by optimising basic playign strategy. I dont think im too ouside the box on this one because risk averase index plays are not much different.
The thought is in refference to net win/net loss probibilities, which for a progressive betting system, are most important. This is not the amount of money you are expecting to win or lose each hand, as most gambler focus on, but simply, weather or not you win or lose that hand period.
Using basic stratagy, you attempt to make the most money by doubling and splitting, when it will offer the highest ev after you have effectively doubled your bet, however, many times while doing so you actually increase your chance of losing that hand, since you can no longer draw additional cards.
I beleive, that a player using a progressive bettign system, may be able to have a lower ROR if they dimply did not double at all, and possibly if they split more often on certain hands.
I am curious as to how far off from the standard win/loss rate using basic strategy you coudl get by modifiing basics strategy in this way. Obviously, you coudl never get above 50%, but to my knowledge, the odds fo a win in contract to a loss are 47.49% and 52.51 respectfully, so there is some room for play.
This without a doubt would increase the players expected dollar loss, but this is no different than a card counter reducing expected dollar win, for a lower ror by using risk averse indexes, and less agressive betting schemes. If players are already using this kind of system, im sure they have already accepted the fact that they have expected follar loss. In my opinion, money thrown out the window is the same as additional money lost.
