Progression better than flat betting

[Walter T.]

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_

Please stop talking about the past and stay on point here. You're turning my hair grayer by the minute. Let me try a "fill in the blank" question:
"In the post that I (Norm) wrote, I simmed a comparison between a flat bettor and Thomason's positive progressive bettor. The average dollar amount bet per hand for the positive progressive bettor was $_________." Hint: The answer will contain four digits, as in "$00.00"
Easy enough? I hope so.

 

[aslan]

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!

The fallacy in your thinking is that the flat bettor's average bet can never be the same as the progression player's average bet without losing the basis for comparing the two systems. The basis for comparing flatbetting with progression betting is that both begin with the same initial bet, sometimes called the base unit or one unit. The differences in the two systems occur as the flat bettor continues to bet the initial amount (one unit) while the progression bettor bets according to his progression system which works from that initial or base amount. To make both bettors average bet the same, then, loses the basis for comparability.

 

[QFIT]

Please stop talking about the past and stay on point here. You're turning my hair grayer by the minute. Let me try a "fill in the blank" question:
"In the post that I (Norm) wrote, I simmed a comparison between a flat bettor and Thomason's positive progressive bettor. The average dollar amount bet per hand for the positive progressive bettor was $_________." Hint: The answer will contain four digits, as in "$00.00"
Easy enough? I hope so.

ONCE AGAIN, it is irrelevant. It is meaningless. If you really want the number, just look at the study. Just do a simple divide. "Easy enough? I hope so."

 

[aslan]

ONCE AGAIN, it is irrelevant. It is meaningless. If you really want the number, just look at the study. Just do a simple divide. "Easy enough? I hope so."

Calm down. Don't let him get your goat. In a few more years, I'm sure he'll get it.

 

[QFIT]

Calm down. Don't let him get your goat. In a few more years, I'm sure he'll get it.

Just copying his churlish words. For ten years we have been trying to help him, and he responds by making false claims about what his critics say. He is now on another forum making false claims about my responses.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Just copying his churlish words. For ten years we have been trying to help him, and he responds by making false claims about what his critics say. He is now on another forum making false claims about my responses.

I thought i was so close to convincing him, but at least he admits now that the expecation value of his system is still negative

 

[zengrifter]

The fallacy in your thinking is that the flat bettor's average bet can never be the same as the progression player's average bet without losing the basis for comparing the two systems.

Disagree. zg

 

[Walter T.]

ONCE AGAIN, it is irrelevant. It is meaningless. If you really want the number, just look at the study. Just do a simple divide. "Easy enough? I hope so."

OK, I think we are making progress... In order to obtain the average bet per hand for the Quit Point Players, I need to know the TOTAL NUMBER OF HANDS PLAYED by these two players. I can then divide the total bet (total action) by the total number of hands played and have the number that I'm seeking. Yes, you ran a billion-hand sim, and it's easy to get the average bet for the flat bettor with no quit points ($11.71, with a $10.00 base bet), because he played every hand. But the two Quit Point players played LESS than a billion hands because they each quit play somewhere in many shoes, and resumed play at the start of the next shoe. Thus, the two Quit Point players "sat out" hands while the flat bettor continued to play to the end of each and every shoe until a billion hands had been dealt...
So, The new question is, "How many hands did the two quit point players play from the one billion hands dealt?"
If you disagree with anything I've said in this post, please don't just tell me I'm wrong and then pontificate on our somewhat colored history. I'm sure by now that anyone reading these posts is aware of the fact that you and I are not the best of friends

 

[Walter T.]

The fallacy in your thinking is that the flat bettor's average bet can never be the same as the progression player's average bet without losing the basis for comparing the two systems. The basis for comparing flatbetting with progression betting is that both begin with the same initial bet, sometimes called the base unit or one unit. The differences in the two systems occur as the flat bettor continues to bet the initial amount (one unit) while the progression bettor bets according to his progression system which works from that initial or base amount. To make both bettors average bet the same, then, loses the basis for comparability.

I also disagree. Both players MUST have the same average bet in order to make the comparison viable. And this concept can easily be applied in real casino play: Let's assume a recreational BS Flat Bet player wants to try out a positive progression, and his normal base bet while flat betting is $10.00 per hand. By using a $6/9/12/15 positive progression, over time his average bet will approximately equal his normal flat bet, and he can experience the "thrills and chills" of progressive betting without risking more money than he would have by flat betting. Also, his base bet is decreased from $10 to $6.00 -- not a bad thing in a Negative EV game.
Again, these tactics and strategies are directed to those who can't or don't want to learn to be a card counter.

 

[iCountNTrack]

I also disagree. Both players MUST have the same average bet in order to make the comparison viable. And this concept can easily be applied in real casino play: Let's assume a recreational BS Flat Bet player wants to try out a positive progression, and his normal base bet while flat betting is $10.00 per hand. By using a $6/9/12/15 positive progression, over time his average bet will approximately equal his normal flat bet, and he can experience the "thrills and chills" of progressive betting without risking more money than he would have by flat betting. Also, his base bet is decreased from $10 to $6.00 -- not a bad thing in a Negative EV game.
Again, these tactics and strategies are directed to those who can't or don't want to learn to be a card counter.

Mr Walter,

Again why do we need to think in terms of average bet, that complicates things because you will have to worry two variables the average bet and the number of hands. Why don't we just look at the total amount of money bet. As I have mentioned before and I am sure you agree with me, that in a game with a negative expectation the more money we bet the more we are expected to lose. That said, a negative progression could be better than a positive one and a negative one could be better than flat betting and so on, it all depends on how much total money we bet.

 

[Sonny]

Okay Walter, this thread seems to have run it's course. You are just talking in circles now. Qfit's research speaks for itself and the supporting data is available literally everywhere. You were told many times where to find the answers to your questions, and the fact that you haven't done so in over ten years indicates that you have no intention of learning anything new or participating in a productive discussion. You only seem to want to promote your system.

We all agree that your system is, at best, identical to flat betting a higher base amount and, more realistically, worse than flat betting. Your claim that stop-loss points make a difference is false. Your claim that your system is better than flat betting is false. Your claim about progression systems being profitable is false. Your claim about your system being better than card counting is false. You have broken all three posting guidelines:

"This forum is not a place to promote your voodoo system, make false/unfounded claims about the effectiveness of such systems or spread inaccurate information about playing/betting strategies."

If any other members want to discuss the system they can start a new thread, but I'm afraid your time is up. Banned.

-Sonny-