Progression better than flat betting

[Sonny]

Are you saying that expected value is time-sensitive? That expected value in the short run is different than expected value in the long run? That negative progressions are worse than positive progressions? Please elaborate.

I thought the analogy was pretty clear. Both people die, just in different ways. How did you not understand that?

I'm sure that if you Google the term "expected value" you will learn the answers to your questions above. It seems like something you should already understand since you have been creating and selling gambling systems to people for a long time now. I mean, it is the only reliable way to confirm the effectiveness of a system. Without that it would be impossible to have any real confidence in a strategy. But I suppose someone could still sell it...

-Sonny-

 

[Sonny]

I've thought about it reeeeally hard, and believe that my statements regarding why I won are reasonable, and that your interpretation of what I said is entirely unreasonable, but thanks for expressing your opinion.

You're welcome. Maybe if you read through the sticky threads you will begin to understand what everyone is trying to show you. It sounds like you need to do less talking and more research. I can help you with both aspects if you need it.

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

So now we know your secret! Your system is a consistent winner as long as the player remains lucky. Brilliant! :laugh:

So we are left with an interesting situation. Unless a player's luck is far above average, he will not win using your system. But in that case he would win using any system. And he would very likely win more using a different system.

So your system will cause the vast majority of players to lose more and the few remaining players to win less. Brilliant.

-Sonny-

just exactly what is Walter's system? or do we need to read the book for that? whatever, might it have anything to do with intelligent decision making as to what tact to take?
like ok, consider the following excerpt from Casino Security and Gaming Surveillance:
"In my experience we lose the most to the money management player. Usually, this
type of player is a wealthy individual who is intelligent and plays intuitively well.
Such a player just seems to know when to bet conservatively and when to go for blood.
Additionally, this player has the resources (more cash or the ability to obtain credit/
markers) to ride out a negative turn of the cards or the discipline to walk away."
errh i mean, true, anything can happen in the short run and the author's 'experience' is likely colored by well possibly anything but is there any truth to his suspicions? does intelligence have any part to play here, i guess is what i'm asking.

 

[Sonny]

just exactly what is Walter's system?

It's a positive progression mixed with a stop-loss limit. Here's the info:

Blackjack Scams Website

-Sonny-

 

[Walter T.]

I thought the analogy was pretty clear. Both people die, just in different ways. How did you not understand that?

I'm sure that if you Google the term "expected value" you will learn the answers to your questions above. It seems like something you should already understand since you have been creating and selling gambling systems to people for a long time now. I mean, it is the only reliable way to confirm the effectiveness of a system. Without that it would be impossible to have any real confidence in a strategy. But I suppose someone could still sell it...

-Sonny-

I asked three questions directed to the original poster. You responded, without answering my three questions. I'd appreciate it if either of you would answer the questions, without being concerned about my book sales.

 

[Sonny]

I asked three questions directed to the original poster. You responded, without answering my three questions. I'd appreciate it if either of you would answer the questions, without being concerned about my book sales.

I told you exactly where to find your answers. I assume that you have the motivation and diligence to research the most important aspects of your chosen field. It seems strange to me that you have not done such vital yet basic research in the past decade, and that you still refuse to do so even when the answers are right in front of you. I answered your questions. Please take some time to think about those answers.

-Sonny-

 

[Walter T.]

It's a positive progression mixed with a stop-loss limit. Here's the info:

Blackjack Scams Website

-Sonny-

I find it interesting that this is part of Qfit's website, and that his findings are based on computer simulation. And that he says, "But any progression will do as they are all the same.", while at the same time stating many times in posts that my progression is worse than others. "Tiz a puzzlement."

 

[Sonny]

I find it interesting that this is part of Qfit's website, and that his findings are based on computer simulation.

The same conclusion will be reached without the use of computers. It can be proven through straight mathematics and even simple logic. Just read the sticky threads. The answers are all around you. Stop hiding from them. Either learn the truth or stop spreading misinformation. As I said, I will help you with either path if you need me to.

-Sonny-

 

[Walter T.]

I told you exactly where to find your answers. I assume that you have the motivation and diligence to research the most important aspects of your chosen field. It seems strange to me that you have not done such vital yet basic research in the past decade, and that you still refuse to do so even when the answers are right in front of you. I answered your questions. Please take some time to think about those answers.

-Sonny-

Huh? You said, "I answered your questions." When? Where? How?
Enough for now... gotta go to work.
Cheers!
Walter

 

[Sonny]

Huh? You said, "I answered your questions." When? Where? How?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

So your system will cause the vast majority of players to lose more and the few remaining players to win less. Brilliant.

Whoa Nelly! Even IF Walter's progression is not a "proven" longterm winner, he does advocate BS AND suggests methods for reducing the amount of hourly "exposure" ... SO it is grossly incorrect to summarize his '21st Century BJ' method as something that would "...cause the vast majority of players to lose more..." zg

 

[aslan]

I've thought about it reeeeally hard, and believe that my statements regarding why I won are reasonable, and that your interpretation of what I said is entirely unreasonable, but thanks for expressing your opinion.

No, reeeeeeaaally hard, Walter; reeeeally hard is not hard enough.

 

[Sonny]

No, reeeeeeaaally hard, Walter; reeeeally hard is not hard enough.

Actually, just a little bit of thought should be enough.

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

SO it is grossly incorrect to summarize his '21st Century BJ' method as something that would "...cause the vast majority of players to lose more..." zg

Recreational players who use Walter's system will lose no more than any BS players, on and averaged bet basis.
And if they didn't already play BS they will lose LESS NOT MORE with a greatly improved game. zg

 

[aslan]

Recreational players who use Walter's system will lose no more than any BS players, on and averaged bet basis.
And if they didn't already play BS they will lose LESS NOT MORE with a greatly improved game. zg

Piantala! How ever you dress it up, a losing game is still a losing game. And if he just plays BS, he will lose even less on a hand by hand basis.

 

[aslan]

Whoa Nelly! Even IF Walter's progression is not a "proven" longterm winner, he does advocate BS AND suggests methods for reducing the amount of hourly "exposure" ... SO it is grossly incorrect to summarize his '21st Century BJ' method as something that would "...cause the vast majority of players to lose more..." zg

Read it carefully, zg... not lose more, but lose more than the few... who are lucky. No?

 

[iCountNTrack]

Recreational players who use Walter's system will lose no more than any BS players, on and averaged bet basis.
And if they didn't already play BS they will lose LESS NOT MORE with a greatly improved game. zg

If you play BS your expectation value expressed as a percent will always be the same however your expectation value expressed in units/dollars lost or won (also called return) will be change depending on the amount of money you bet
If we look at the equation

EV(in units)=EV(%)*total money bet(total of all bets made)

Since EV(%) is negative for most games for a BS player, you are always expected to lose units/dollars, more importantly when the total money bet (also called total action) is greater i.e we bet more, we are expected to lose more money.

Progressions ARE ALWAYS WORSE than flat betting in terms of expected units lost because we bet more money.
Some progressions are worse than others because they make you bet more money thus you are expected to lose more in units, but again your EV in % is always the same

 

[zengrifter]

If you play BS your expectation value expressed as a percent will always be the same however your expectation value expressed in units/dollars lost or won (also called return) will be change depending on the amount of money you bet
If we look at the equation

EV(in units)=EV(%)*total money bet(total of all bets made)

Since EV(%) is negative for most games for a BS player, you are always expected to lose units/dollars, more importantly when the total money bet (also called total action) is greater i.e we bet more, we are expected to lose more money.

Progressions ARE ALWAYS WORSE than flat betting in terms of expected units lost because we bet more money.
Some progressions are worse than others because they make you bet more money thus you are expected to lose more in units, but again your EV in % is always the same

I think we are in agreement, mon ami? Qui?>>

Recreational players who use Walter's system will lose not more than any BS players, on an averaged bet basis.
And if they didn't already play BS (before they learned Walter's system) they will lose LESS NOT MORE with a greatly improved game. zg

 

[QFIT]

I find it interesting that this is part of Qfit's website, and that his findings are based on computer simulation. And that he says, "But any progression will do as they are all the same.", while at the same time stating many times in posts that my progression is worse than others. "Tiz a puzzlement."

I have explained this to you numerous times in the last ten years. You either are unable or refuse to understand simple mathematics. Read Theory of Blackjack.

 

[Walter T.]

I have explained this to you numerous times in the last ten years. You either are unable or refuse to understand simple mathematics. Read Theory of Blackjack.

Speaking of simple math, here's a simple math question regarding
your billion hand sim and charted outcomes (referenced earlier in this thread) comparing a $10 flat bettor with a four-loss quit point to a progressive player with a $20/30/40/50 positive progression and a four-loss quit point: What was the average dollar amount wagered per hand by the progressive QP player?
I'm assuming that the average dollar wagered by the flat QP play is about $11.17 per hand, since this was the average bet wagered by the flat bettor with no quit points, and this would also be the average amount wagered per hand for the flat QP player, and these two should be the same.
Also, you indicated earlier in this thread that you would run a sim on quit points. Did you do so, and what were the results?