Progression better than flat betting

[Walter T.]

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

zg: Thanks for your support, but it might be time for you to circle the wagons and reload... I don't want you to get into trouble with the big boys!

 

[Sonny]

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?

If he didn't even follow my advice to Google "expected value" then I don't think he's going to read TOB. I'd really love to get a job as his research assistant. I could do nothing for ten years and still talk about how much I've achieved.

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

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?

No, nothing. We all agree ... Except ... This curious anomaly >>

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.

 

[zengrifter]

zg: Thanks for your support, but it might be time for you to circle the wagons and reload... I don't want you to get into trouble with the big boys!

Thats okay Walter, I appreciate your concern. z:laugh:g

 

[Walter T.]

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.

Then tell me what you show is the average bet for a $20/30/40/50 positive progression, reset at end of shoe, bettor. You say my numbers are "very wrong"; I say the average bet for a $10 flat bettor is about $11.17 and that the average bet for my $20/30/40/50 progressive player is about $31.00. Run a sim, post the results, and prove me wrong. I'll wait.

 

[iCountNTrack]

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...

why are you thinking in terms of average bet per hand. It is simpler if you look at the total bet, clearly the progression has a higher total bet and therefore the player is expected to lose more. If the progression and the flat betting have the same total bet (this is only possible if the base bet in the progression is SMALLER that the flat bet) progression and flat betting are equally horrible.

The key idea is in the total bet, for a negative expectation game the larger the total bet the more the player is expected to lose.

 

[Walter T.]

why are you thinking in terms of average bet per hand. It is simpler if you look at the total bet, clearly the progression has a higher total bet and therefore the player is expected to lose more. If the progression and the flat betting have the same total bet (this is only possible if the base bet in the progression is SMALLER that the flat bet) progression and flat betting are equally horrible.

The key idea is in the total bet, for a negative expectation game the larger the total bet the more the player is expected to lose.

Of course!

 

[iCountNTrack]

Of course!

so do you basically agree that progressions at best are as good as flat betting?

 

[Walter T.]

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-

Yes. Could you please allow time for Qfit to respond to my request for an average amount bet by my progressive player? He told me I was wrong, and he should have the right to prove me wrong.

 

[Walter T.]

so do you basically agree that progressions at best are as good as flat betting?

No, but I would agree that my positive progression is NO WORSE than flat betting, although Qfit might dispute this point.

 

[zengrifter]

why are you thinking in terms of average bet per hand. It is simpler if you look at the total bet, clearly the progression has a higher total bet and therefore the player is expected to lose more.

Can two schemes have the same average bet, though one has a much higher total bet?? zg

 

[Walter T.]

Can two schemes have the same average bet, though one has a much higher total bet?? zg

I'm putting my math skills to work.... (calculate... calculate... calculate)... OK, I have the answer! NO.

 

[QFIT]

Then tell me what you show is the average bet for a $20/30/40/50 positive progression, reset at end of shoe, bettor. You say my numbers are "very wrong"; I say the average bet for a $10 flat bettor is about $11.17 and that the average bet for my $20/30/40/50 progressive player is about $31.00. Run a sim, post the results, and prove me wrong. I'll wait.

I did this ten years ago. AGAIN, time after time, you ask the same questions. Over and over. This is so pointless. No matter how many times I answer your questions, you ask them yet again.

 

[QFIT]

Walter, what is the point of answering your questions. You just claim I said something I never said.

 

[Walter T.]

If he didn't even follow my advice to Google "expected value" then I don't think he's going to read TOB. I'd really love to get a job as his research assistant. I could do nothing for ten years and still talk about how much I've achieved.

-Sonny-

I'm familiar with "expected value" and I've read Theory of Blackjack, along with more than 100 other books about casino gaming that I personally own.
It's disappointing to me that you would rather post personal insults than request that other posters answer several of the simple questions that I've asked in this thread. Perhaps in your role as Moderator you might consider being a bit more moderate... just a small suggestion.

 

[Walter T.]

I did this ten years ago. AGAIN, time after time, you ask the same questions. Over and over. This is so pointless. No matter how many times I answer your questions, you ask them yet again.

Again, time after time, you tell me I'm wrong, but then tell me it is pointless to answer a simple question, in this particular case a question posed as a result of one of your sims. I don't know what else to say, except...
Have a nice evening, and sleep well!

 

[QFIT]

Again, time after time, you tell me I'm wrong, but then tell me it is pointless to answer a simple question, in this particular case a question posed as a result of one of your sims. I don't know what else to say, except...
Have a nice evening, and sleep well!

I answered the question. Over and over for ten years. If I answer it again, you will ask it again.

I ran sims exactly according to your demands. They show that your system fails. The reason that the numbers are different than your numbers, is because your numbers are wrong. Your numbers are based on dealing an insignificant number of hands and trying to keep results by hand. This is not acceptable.

Now, you will ask me the same question yet again.

 

[Walter T.]

I answered the question. Over and over for ten years. If I answer it again, you will ask it again.

I ran sims exactly according to your demands. They show that your system fails. The reason that the numbers are different than your numbers, is because your numbers are wrong. Your numbers are based on dealing an insignificant number of hands and trying to keep results by hand. This is not acceptable.

Now, you will ask me the same question yet again.

Norm, how many times do I have to say it: I"M USING YOUR NUMBERS!!! FROM YOUR SIM!!! You're billion hand sim! The only number I used from my research is the amount I show to be the average bet for my positive progressive bettor, which you claim is wrong, but don't say what you believe the correct number to be. It's not rocket science! Either you don't know the answer to a simple question or you refuse to post it... which is it?

 

[QFIT]

Norm, how many times do I have to say it: I"M USING YOUR NUMBERS!!! FROM YOUR SIM!!! You're billion hand sim! The only number I used from my research is the amount I show to be the average bet for my positive progressive bettor, which you claim is wrong, but don't say what you believe the correct number to be. It's not rocket science! Either you don't know the answer to a simple question or you refuse to post it... which is it?

I have answered this so many, many times. It's in the post. It's also irrelevant. What matters is the EV.

So many people have tried to help you over the last ten years. So many have put in so many hours of work to show you your errors. Two of us even wrote entirely new simulators, and posted the source code, to show the errors in your thinking. Errors which any mathematician can quickly point out. We gave you the time and our own code. And after ten years, it's like we said nothing. You have failed to understand a word that we have said. A total waste of time.

I sum it up in my personal blog at (Dead link: http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=72) _http://www.qfit.com/blackjackblog/?p=72_

 

[iCountNTrack]

No, but I would agree that my positive progression is NO WORSE than flat betting, although Qfit might dispute this point.

Norm is talking about the situation where the base bet in your progression is the same bet used while flat betting, clearly if one is using your system with a $10 dollar base bet versus someone who is flat betting $500 a hand, your system will be "better" because the total bets using your system are lower than the flat bettor betting $500 a hand.

However if we normalize the base bet to a unit bet to standardize the comparison i.e all progressions and flat betting start with a base bet of 1 unit , with flat betting your total bets in units are the smallest, therefore the player's negative expectation value in units will be the smallest, making flat betting superior to any sort of progression (again if the base bet is normalized to one unit)