Progression better than flat betting

[QFIT]

Walter, I answered these questions TEN YEARS AGO. The average bet for the flat bettor is whatever you want it to be. It doesn't matter. And yes I ran sims with quit points. They don't matter. Why would anyone think they would? I ran the sims EXACTLY the way you demanded ten years ago. Progressions and quit points do not help a gambler, as has been known for a century.

 

[aslan]

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?

What's the point? Do you think this has never been done before?

 

[Walter T.]

Walter, I answered these questions TEN YEARS AGO. The average bet for the flat bettor is whatever you want it to be. It doesn't matter. And yes I ran sims with quit points. They don't matter. Why would anyone think they would? I ran the sims EXACTLY the way you demanded ten years ago. Progressions and quit points do not help a gambler, as has been known for a century.

Norm, I believe it DOES matter. You displayed a chart that implied that my progressive system lost about twice as much as the flat bettor (-5,895,908 compared to -11,160,380), while in truth my progressive bettor's average wager was about three times larger than the flat bettor (MY studies indicate that my progressive bettor's average wager is about $31.00 per hand, due to the 20-50 progression and splits and double-downs) while the flat bettor's average bet is $11.17 per hand. If the flat bettor were wagering the same average amount per hand as the progressive bettor, his losses would have been about three times the amount you stated -- -17,587,724 compared to
-5,895,908 -- and 6,427,344 more than was lost by the progressive bettor.
THATS WHY IT MATTERS!

 

[Walter T.]

Walter, I answered these questions TEN YEARS AGO. The average bet for the flat bettor is whatever you want it to be. It doesn't matter. And yes I ran sims with quit points. They don't matter. Why would anyone think they would? I ran the sims EXACTLY the way you demanded ten years ago. Progressions and quit points do not help a gambler, as has been known for a century.

Also, you indicated you would run a sim on quit points, so it must have mattered at the time. You then ran the sim, and now it doesn't matter. How did we go from mattering to not mattering?

 

[iCountNTrack]

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?

Mr. Walter,

Let's forget about simulations, go back to the basics and answer together a bunch of primitive questions.

a) If you don't like simulations, do you like math and in particular a branch of it called combinatorics?

b) If so, do you know that the so called basic strategy which is a bunch optimum playing decisions that maximizes your expectation value based on your cards and the dealer's up-card, is calculated using combinatorial analysis?

c) If so, did you know that for typical Blackjack game these days such as a 6 deck shoe double after split, dealer stands on soft 17. The player expectation value as a percentage is -0.411%?

d) If so, do you agree that the player's expectation value in units or dollars is given by the following equation
EV(in Units)=EV(percentage)*TotalBets ; where total bets is the sum of all the bets made by the player (also called total action)?

e) If so, do you agree that the total bets placed by the player (total action) is not dependent on how that total is achieved meaning all the following betting sequences will have the same total bets of %250?

10, 20, 10, 40, 20, 10, 50, 30, 40, 20
25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25
12.5, 25, 50, 100, 50, 12.5

f) If so, do you agree based on the equation in d) that the expectation value for the player in units will be the same negative value for all three sequences or any other sequences where the total bets is $250?

g) If so, do you understand now why certain progressions are worse than other progressions because some progressions advocate betting more money thus increasing the player total bets and consequently he is expected to lose more money if the game has a negative expectation value (expressed as a percentage)?

 

[QFIT]

Also, you indicated you would run a sim on quit points, so it must have mattered at the time. You then ran the sim, and now it doesn't matter. How did we go from mattering to not mattering?

I can't believe you keep asking the same questions, year after year, when they have all been answered. It's like watching Groundhog Day. I ran the sim with quit points because you demanded that I run it that way. I NEVER said they mattered. You demand I run the sims a certain way, and then make the claim that since I did this, I must believe that it is logical.

The study is linked to in this thread. The study was done EXACTLY as you demanded, including the ridiculous quit points and nonsensical idea of dealing everyone the same cards. Your system does not work. You cannot improve your EV by leaving the table after some number of losses, wins, or anything else unrelated to your advantage.

 

[QFIT]

Norm, I believe it DOES matter. You displayed a chart that implied that my progressive system lost about twice as much as the flat bettor (-5,895,908 compared to -11,160,380), while in truth my progressive bettor's average wager was about three times larger than the flat bettor (MY studies indicate that my progressive bettor's average wager is about $31.00 per hand, due to the 20-50 progression and splits and double-downs) while the flat bettor's average bet is $11.17 per hand. If the flat bettor were wagering the same average amount per hand as the progressive bettor, his losses would have been about three times the amount you stated -- -17,587,724 compared to
-5,895,908 -- and 6,427,344 more than was lost by the progressive bettor.
THATS WHY IT MATTERS!

Your "studies" are wrong. And it has been explained to you, over and over for years, why they are wrong.

 

[Walter T.]

Your "studies" are wrong. And it has been explained to you, over and over for years, why they are wrong.

Sorry, but this answer doesn't fly. I used YOUR study... flat vs. progressive bettor... same number of hands played, same hands played, same w/l ratio, same basic strategy. The only difference is the average amount bet by each player. If each player had the same average amount wagered on each hand, one would expect their total amount won or lost to be identical. If the average amount bet per hand by the flat bettor in your study is $11.17, and the average amount bet per hand by my progressive player is around $31.00 (the amount that I show from my work), then you would expect that if you increased the average bet for the flat bettor from $11.17 to $31.00, both players would be betting the same amount per hand and have about the same overall outcome.
But, YOUR study indicates that this would not have transpired, because the numbers I posted earlier indicate that the flat bettor lost FAR more than the progressive bettor when their average bet per hand is the same.
So, either I'm wrong about the $value of the average bet for the progressive bettor or for the flat bettor, or their is some merit to my claim that my progressive system is superior to flat betting.

 

[zengrifter]

I used YOUR study... flat vs. progressive bettor... same number of hands played, same hands played, same w/l ratio, same basic strategy. The only difference is the average amount bet by each player. If each player had the same average amount wagered on each hand, one would expect their total amount won or lost to be identical.

That is correct and Norm does not debate that. zg

 

[Walter T.]

Mr. Walter,

Let's forget about simulations, go back to the basics and answer together a bunch of primitive questions.

a) If you don't like simulations, do you like math and in particular a branch of it called combinatorics?

b) If so, do you know that the so called basic strategy which is a bunch optimum playing decisions that maximizes your expectation value based on your cards and the dealer's up-card, is calculated using combinatorial analysis?

c) If so, did you know that for typical Blackjack game these days such as a 6 deck shoe double after split, dealer stands on soft 17. The player expectation value as a percentage is -0.411%?

d) If so, do you agree that the player's expectation value in units or dollars is given by the following equation
EV(in Units)=EV(percentage)*TotalBets ; where total bets is the sum of all the bets made by the player (also called total action)?

e) If so, do you agree that the total bets placed by the player (total action) is not dependent on how that total is achieved meaning all the following betting sequences will have the same total bets of %250?

10, 20, 10, 40, 20, 10, 50, 30, 40, 20
25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25
12.5, 25, 50, 100, 50, 12.5

f) If so, do you agree based on the equation in d) that the expectation value for the player in units will be the same negative value for all three sequences or any other sequences where the total bets is $250?

g) If so, do you understand now why certain progressions are worse than other progressions because some progressions advocate betting more money thus increasing the player total bets and consequently he is expected to lose more money if the game has a negative expectation value (expressed as a percentage)?

Thank you for your thoughtful explaination. I understand. A progressive bettor whose average bet is $31 per hand will lose more money than a flat bettor whose average bet is $11.00 per hand in a negative expectation game... Is this what you wanted me to understand? If so, I do.
But what if the flat bettor's average bet is the same as the progressive bettor's average bet?

 

[zengrifter]

But what if the flat bettor's average bet is the same as the progressive bettor's average bet?

Dr. ICnT agrees that their would be no difference. Do YOU agree, Walter? zg

 

[21gunsalute]

Walter, I answered these questions TEN YEARS AGO. The average bet for the flat bettor is whatever you want it to be. It doesn't matter. And yes I ran sims with quit points. They don't matter. Why would anyone think they would? I ran the sims EXACTLY the way you demanded ten years ago. Progressions and quit points do not help a gambler, as has been known for a century.

What if you ran a sim to quit running sims when the answer isn't what Walter wants to hear?

 

[Sonny]

This is the logic that trips me up:

If each player had the same average amount wagered on each hand, one would expect their total amount won or lost to be identical...

So, either I'm wrong about the $value of the average bet for the progressive bettor or for the flat bettor, or their is some merit to my claim that my progressive system is superior to flat betting.

If the results are identical, how is one better than the other?

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

This is the logic that trips me up:
If the results are identical, how is one better than the other?

Walter is no longer saying one is better.
But I will say that a non-BS ploppy who learns and uses Walter's
21st Century IS then better off, dramatically improved. zg

 

[Sonny]

But I will say that a non-BS ploppy who learns and uses Walter's 21st Century IS then better off, dramatically improved. zg

So your opinion of his system has changed?

-Sonny-

All progression and other crackpots wind up saying that. What they are saying therefore is that SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE their great discovery.

In the case of Thomason, I bear witness that he said he COULD PROVE his progression system with computer sim. I guess he changed his mind. zg

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=5744&postcount=11

[Thomason] even claimed that he could PROVE his progession bullsh*t with computer sim... BUT then he NEVER DID. zg

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=4993&postcount=13

Thomason is a progressions crackpot who used to claim that he could prove his progressions system with computer sims... but he never did.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=5734

 

[zengrifter]

So your opinion of his system has changed?

No. But his has, apparently. He only seeks BS equality now.
His "system" with BS is no better or worse than any BS play. zg

 

[Walter T.]

This is the logic that trips me up:



If the results are identical, how is one better than the other?

-Sonny-

That's my point... the results AREN'T identical. Using Norm's numbers, his flat bettor, after making the the average bet equal to the average bet of the progressive bettor, lost 6,427,344 MORE units than the progressive bettor. Keep in mind that I asked him in an earlier post what he found to be the average bet for the progressive player, and he said it didn't matter. I later said that my studies put the average bet for my progressive player at $31.00 per hand, and he replied that my studies were wrong.
On his website he said (loosely quoted) "A flat bettor making 1,000 $10 bets will lose 60 cents less than the Thomason bettor risking the same dollars." and yet his results, when adjusted so that the average bet for both players is the same, indicate that the flat bettor loses more than the progressive bettor. Go figure...

 

[QFIT]

Sorry, but this answer doesn't fly. I used YOUR study... flat vs. progressive bettor... same number of hands played, same hands played, same w/l ratio, same basic strategy. The only difference is the average amount bet by each player. If each player had the same average amount wagered on each hand, one would expect their total amount won or lost to be identical. If the average amount bet per hand by the flat bettor in your study is $11.17, and the average amount bet per hand by my progressive player is around $31.00 (the amount that I show from my work), then you would expect that if you increased the average bet for the flat bettor from $11.17 to $31.00, both players would be betting the same amount per hand and have about the same overall outcome.
But, YOUR study indicates that this would not have transpired, because the numbers I posted earlier indicate that the flat bettor lost FAR more than the progressive bettor when their average bet per hand is the same.
So, either I'm wrong about the $value of the average bet for the progressive bettor or for the flat bettor, or their is some merit to my claim that my progressive system is superior to flat betting.

AGAIN, this was all explained to you ten years ago. You keep repeating the same questions and making the same incorrect statements, over and over. It seems you have learned nothing in ten years.

What you call a "study" is some hand dealt rounds. No serious researcher would call this a study. Your numbers for average bet are very wrong. When you come to a conclusion that math shows is wrong, and all independent researches say is wrong, you should question your own results -- not everyone else's.

 

[Sonny]

He only seeks BS equality now.
His "system" with BS is no better or worse than any BS play. zg

So it sounds like we all agree then. When the average bets are the same, the system is no better than flat betting. When the progression system causes the average bet to be higher than flat betting the base bet (which it always should because of the arbitrary bet raising), the system is worse than flat betting. Anything else before we conclude this thread?

-Sonny-

 

[QFIT]

That's my point... the results AREN'T identical. Using Norm's numbers, his flat bettor, after making the the average bet equal to the average bet of the progressive bettor, lost 6,427,344 MORE units than the progressive bettor. Keep in mind that I asked him in an earlier post what he found to be the average bet for the progressive player, and he said it didn't matter. I later said that my studies put the average bet for my progressive player at $31.00 per hand, and he replied that my studies were wrong.
On his website he said (loosely quoted) "A flat bettor making 1,000 $10 bets will lose 60 cents less than the Thomason bettor risking the same dollars." and yet his results, when adjusted so that the average bet for both players is the same, indicate that the flat bettor loses more than the progressive bettor. Go figure...

And AGAIN, this was explained to you ten years ago. It is explained in detail in The Theory of Blackjack, which I keep asking you to read. Why would anyone that claims to be a Blackjack researcher not read this book?