Wake up

[sagefr0g]

I agree. There are some situations where a progression system might be justified. For example, you are playing a craps tournament and in order to win the grand prize you must give yourself the best chance of winning money. Since you expect the other players to lose money (the house does still have the edge after all) you only need to break even or win a small amount in order to beat the others. In this case you might consider using a progression system to maximize your chances of coming out on top. Using a higher variance method might give you a better chance of making a big score, but a progression system will give you an expected win more frequently and with less variance.

-Sonny-

Quote: callipygian

Most generally, the progression system works best when there's not a lot of difference between losing a little and losing a lot.

Examples would be if you were in a tournament, if you owed money to the Mafia, or if you were a gambling addict. That's why progression systems have a bad reputation - most people who use them belong to the latter categories.

sounds as if most people think of progression systems, stop loss & stop win systems as something set in stone. something done mindlessly such as card counting. i'd say thats a justified way to look at it as well since thats mainly how systems such as that are portrayed. but one can think about these concepts in other ways.
one can have an idea of some application of judgement or thought in conjunction with the idea of doing something like those systems. one can have a recognition that luck happens as well as the counter arguement that so does bad luck. one can give consideration to the fact that one's prospects for various degree's of luck can be gauged ahead of time, planned for one way or the other. maybe have a plan for what to do should luck occur and a plan for what to do should bad luck occur. so it's not like as if one has to play some progression for the rest of their playing days but they might if they chose. thing is it might depend on results and prospects.
imagine you employ some system that delivers 80% of the time and you just happen to get lucky enough to realize that 80% win before the devastating 20% loser rears it's ugly head. maybe you set some goal and achieve it. you don't have to employ the same tactic that you reached the goal with until you lose the amount of that goal and more.
maybe you decide to take some amount won and play for a while with orthodox AP techniques.
maybe you lost some amount and decide to play for a while with orthodox AP techniques to make up for the loss.
i'm not saying a professional should consider doing this. just saying there are options other than the orthodox techniques that are not necessarily so devastating as it seems the common viewpoint is.

 

[Kasi]

I will give you $15 000 US if you can prove your method works over a billion hand sample.

At least we're down to a billion hand sample now. And a whole whopping $15K at risk on the result. Is that all? Why not $1MM. What are you afraid of?

What happened to "Accept the fact that there is NO betting system that works. Period."?

What - you implying you're scared to risk the same money over a 100,000 sample even though "Card counting works, betting systems do not."?

How much money would you risk on a 500,000 hand sample?

Is the only criterion that you finish with more money than you started with?

Suddenly, apparently, your original apparent absolute truth isn't so absolute, when a time limit and/or goal is placed on it, is it?

Maybe you actually are getting it.

 

[sagefr0g]

......

Suddenly, apparently, your original apparent absolute truth isn't so absolute, when a time limit and/or goal is placed on it, is it?

Maybe you actually are getting it.

well maybe but aussie might need to consider something else.

Originally Posted by unknown_aussie
You suck or have minimal success at card counting, probably because you refuse to stick with the rules, and lost when you bet big on high count, so you fall back to betting systems. Accept the facts. Card counting works, betting systems do not.

card counting works true. lets not forget one of the factors that comes with it. that being some very possibly real risk of ruin.
and that's a fact of life for which if it were'nt it wouldn't even be a topic of conversation. not to mention the huge (for most mere mortals) bankroll one might need to make card counting work more often than it fails if you want to make 'significant' money. or not to mention the vagaries of life (you know the things known as reality such as gas prices and the like) that are not concommitent with card counting theory that might crop up from time to time for a really person who might also just happen to be counting cards.