D'Alembert Success

Quote: endermike

No. People most frequently see 50/50ish results.
.

No they don't, far from it. Most have streaks of
wins and losses, you seldom see anybody with
one or two wins and one or two losses, back
and forth. Losses of 5-6-7 in a row is what
kills a progression. If you play around even
with no more then 2-3 losses in a row, any
progression will get you a winning session
every time. Is this new to you? The problem
is, most people aren't good enough to stay
that close to even.

deleted

Quote: EvenBob

No they don't, far from it. Most have streaks of
wins and losses, you seldom see anybody with
one or two wins and one or two losses, back
and forth. Losses of 5-6-7 in a row is what
kills a progression. If you play around even
with no more then 2-3 losses in a row, any
progression will get you a winning session
every time. Is this new to you? The problem
is, most people aren't good enough to stay
that close to even.

Of course not. I'm not saying one up, one down. If you don't get this oh well. Best of luck at the tables.

deleted

Quote: endermike

Of course not. I'm not saying one up, one down.

Well that's what I am saying, staying close to even.
If you can do this, and there are players that do,
the house still has the edge, but with a simple
progression the player always wins the session.
Edge or no edge. What the casino depends on
is the players having losing streaks of 6-7 or
more that ruins him. Somebody skillful enough
to play the game correctly and not blindly, is
a major threat.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Since when did guessing which side will win become a "skill"?

Hey man prescience would be a totally awesome skill.

deleted

deleted

I don't get it, what does guessing and psychics
have to do with gambling. It's a 50/50 game,
yet you aren't supposed to be able to play around
50/50? Who says. The math says indeed you are.

deleted

I've never been a fan of the d'alambert progression. I've always favored the parlay double win style, hey hey.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

You keep saying 50/50. Its NOT 50/50

It's about 50/50, close enough for our purposes.
Certainly close enough to win if you can stay
close to even. That's rather the point of playing,
to win, right?

The Wiz says Banker .458 of the time and player
.446, that's awfully close to 50/50. A tie is a push.

Quote: EvenBob

No they don't, far from it. Most have streaks of
wins and losses, you seldom see anybody with
one or two wins and one or two losses, back
and forth. Losses of 5-6-7 in a row is what
kills a progression. If you play around even
with no more then 2-3 losses in a row, any
progression will get you a winning session
every time. Is this new to you? The problem
is, most people aren't good enough to stay
that close to even.

How do you know there is anyone good enough to do this? have you ever been able to do this? Why do I get the feeling you have tried this and lost, and the only way you can justify doing this to others, and not feel dumb, is by claiming it is 100% possible.

Even if you watched someone do this 50 times in a row. How do you know they wont lose the next 50 times in a row? How can they tell when a losing streak is coming or going. Do they just guess?

How do they know when the streaks start and stop? Lets assume everything you are saying is true about BS, how come no one has taken up the challenge? Please don't give me any BULL about them wanting to keep it a secret because they obviously don't try keeping it on the DL. They could remain hidden or do this semi privately. BS guys are never willing to put up any significant amount of money proving this.

How is it that the guy with the most posts on a site, have such different view then the site owner?

" How is it that the guy with the most posts on a site, have such different view then the site owner? "

That's the difference between a blog and a forum. Different views are welcome here as long as you are polite.

Not Bob's fault that he is almost always right !

Quote: AxelWolf

How is it that the guy with the most posts on a site, have such different view then the site owner?

Because the guy with the most posts likes to posit a contrary or indefensible point and then take on all comers, and the guy that owns the site is more reticent. Like this thread; EB's dangling a ball of yarn among a bunch of cats and laughing as they chase it around.

Quote: Buzzard

" How is it that the guy with the most posts on a site, have such different view then the site owner? "

That's the difference between a blog and a forum. Different views are welcome here as long as you are polite.

Not Bob's fault that he is almost always right !

True, I guess just because you believe in systems that doesn't make you a bad person. Lets not get into the polite thing, or half the board including me would be long gone.

Quote: Buzzard

Not Bob's fault that he is almost always right !

Buzz, time to take your meds

Quote: AxelWolf

How is it that the guy with the most posts on a site, have such different view then the site owner?

I agree with everything the Wiz says, point out where
I don't. You have to ask, does math definitively answer
the questions, or just set the parameters.

Parameter: a rule that controls how something should be done.

Quote: EvenBob

I agree with everything the Wiz says, point out where
I don't.

There is a bet to be won here...

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

There is a bet to be won here...

You have to ask, does math definitively answer
the questions, or just set the parameters.

You don't know do you. And I know you don't
know.

Quote: EvenBob

You have to ask, does math definitively answer
the questions, or just set the parameters.

You don't know do you. And I know you don't
know.

Bob, I have several math degrees.

Math definitively answers many questions, such as the ones that are being talked about in this thread.

I have no clue what you mean by "set the parameters". I seriously doubt that you have a clue what you mean.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Bob, I have several math degrees.
.

You actually made me LOL. My daughter has
3 and is a math professor, head of her dept.

Parameters, as in it's not the end but
the starting point. The math is not the
definitive end.

Quote: EvenBob

You actually made me LOL. My daughter has
3 and is a math professor, head of her dept.

Skips a generation, I guess.

Quote:

Parameters, as in it's not the end but
the starting point. The math is not the
definitive end.

For simple questions like this, it's the end. You're not doing anything groundbreaking here. You're talking about stuff that's been known for 100s of years.

It's like asking, what's 1+1? I'd say it's 2. You'd say that that's not the definitive answer.

Quote: EvenBob

You actually made me LOL. My daughter has
3 and is a math professor, head of her dept.

definitive end.

Was that before or after you lost money on roulette?

I think you are purposely trying to talk in riddles. Its like a trick question, where you are trying to get us on a technicality. I have a feeling you don't believe people can continuously beat a game with a built in HA str8 up.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

For simple questions like this, it's the end. .

It's certainly the end of this discussion.

lol

Quote: Walkinshaw30t

Hi just wondering if anyone here has had any overall long term success using D'Alambert progression?

Hello, Walkinshaw30t.

I have been playing my version of the d'Alembert for years now. If interested, simply google "gr8players progression" and you should find it.

(Sidenote: The preferred source would be my original post at the Gamblers Glen site, I think you'd be best served with that one.)

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Buzz, time to take your meds

I can't. My delivery man got busted at Mile Marker 148.

Quote: gr8player

Hello, Walkinshaw30t.

I have been playing my version of the d'alembert for years now.

GR8 and I don't like each other, but he
is somebody who stays around even
with bet selection and uses a progression
to win. He doesn't have the edge and he
still wins more than he loses. Amazing,
huh. He won't tell you how he does it,
why would he. He wants to keep doing
it, duh.

Quote: gr8player

Hello, Walkinshaw30t.

I have been playing my version of the d'alembert for years now. If interested, simply google "gr8players progression" and you should find it.

(Sidenote: The preferred source would be my original post at the Gamblers Glen site, I think you'd be best served with that one.)

Do like the progression but then again I lose my ass and I'm not gambling anymore.

Quote: EvenBob

GR8 and I don't like each other

We go back a long way, so any opinions regarding each other have been forged over time. For me, it's more a lack of respect.

You see, EvenBob, the disagreements, the differing viewpoints, those I can both accept and handle. But I must say, to be honest, for me it's more a matter of a lack of respect for you, as a person. I feel as if you're not entirely honest, and I've simply no time for anyone's baloney; and I also feel as if you're not the sort of person that I'd ever want to befriend. Your personality and my personality appears as oil and water to me...not a compatible combination.

Lastly, EvenBob, it's actually a bit funny...I can be candid and blunt with you because, as we both know, you couldn't give a rat's behind about what I, or anyone, thinks of you. That said, I wish you well. You are certainly a unique sort.

Quote: EvenBob

but he
is somebody who stays around even
with bet selection and uses a progression
to win. He doesn't have the edge and he
still wins more than he loses. Amazing,
huh. He won't tell you how he does it,
why would he. He wants to keep doing
it, duh.

I've been telling forum members "how I do it" for years, and, frankly, to this day, still enjoy reading of their successes. Those that wish to can glean what they want to from my, or, frankly, anyone's posts. There's a lot of information floating around these forums, but it becomes a personal obligation to learn to disseminate that information for your own best interests.

My bet selection does better than "around even". My strike rates hover between 53 and 54 percent. And there's a key to my over-all success. Not the only reason, by no means, but certainly a key. I am of the opinion that one must begin with a bet selection process that will carry strike rates at better than 50%, and as close to 53-54 that they can get them. Why? Variance.

If one were seeking strictly 50/50, any bet selection...heck, B v P...will get you 50/50. Alas, that just won't cut it. The variances (specifically: drawdowns) will bury you at certain intervals of your long-term play. Gotta get over 50% if you're seeking to: A) counter the -EV; and B) control drawdowns.

My friends, I've said it a thousand times: Ain't what you win, rather, it's what you don't lose that truly matters. Control your downside, and the upside will take care of itself.

The casino has, for all intents and purposes, limitless units. Do you? Or does your variance upturn occur just when you're handing the valet your parking ticket after you've absorbed that much too expensive drawdown/loss?

Two Thursdays ago...Jan 9th...I lost 2 units at that night's session. 2. That's right...2. How many of you could walk from a table with a 2-unit loss? I mean...you just gotta get even, don't you? Not I. That session had me in "4-ville" in my "Gr8Players Progression", and, for me, that's not a "ville" that I'm comfortable playing in. So I got three wins out of four and aborted the session right there. Lost 2 units. But recouped a -10. You know how often my play takes me to a -10? R.A.R.E.L.Y. Very rarely. (BTW, since that losing session, I've not even gone to "2-ville"...in other words, strictly flat-betting...I'm at a +21. Flat-betting. Sidenote: As a matter of fact, that's a subject for another thread...my variance upturn, as it stands right now, is a bit too high for my liking. But that's an entirely different issue that would simply take too much time to address in this post.)

Although I do utilize my slight progression when necessary, I do so rather conservatively, and I find myself "flatting" most of the time, anyhow. I built my progression around my strike rates and variances, and it does serve me well. Again, not so much for profit as for efficient recoup. I am a patient and disciplined player who makes but 14 to 18 bets per shoe on avg., so profit is attained through my "normal" sessions.

Now, that all said, please know that I am fully aware that there exists members of this forum that would label my claims of success as "baloney". Please also know that I have all due respect for the majority of those esteemed members, including, but not limited to, our forum administrators.

Now, that all said, might those members/admins at least acknowledge the very real possibility that one can, in fact, turn a -EV into a +EV? I feel no different than any card counter at BJ would...they have found a way to reverse a neg into a pos. I feel as if I've accomplished the same with my play. I definitely have the better of it as to bet selection and strike rates, and my custom-tailored MM perfectly suits both. And suits me.

I just don't feel as if the "negative math" absolutely has to trump all sorts of play and/or players. In fact, I'm convinced that it is surmountable. You see, the "math" is correct, there's no denying it, but the math is played out "mechanically" over the long term. I don't play a "mechanical" game. I play an "advantage" game...my advantage. I know what they are and I know what they aren't. I know what I can control and what I can't. I choose to play my game, not the casino's game, and I am of the opinion that my play can, in fact, skew the mathematics into my favor.

As always, I wish you all the very best of it.

You have provided a link for your progression, is there a link for your bet selection that returns a 53-54% strike rate?

Quote: EvenBob

You have to ask, does math definitively answer
the questions, or just set the parameters.

As usual, you've got it backwards. Math doesn't set the parameters, the parameters are set by people. Math describes what happens when you play a game according to those parameters.

Roulette was invented by people, not by some ephemeral, disembodied pseudo-scientific notion that you like to call "math". On the other hand, once you agree to play roulette according to the rules that those people have set forth, you can use math to understand how roulette behaves -- both over the long run and, yes, the short run.

Quote: gr8player in response to EvenBob

Quote: EvenBob

GR8 and I don't like each other but he is somebody who stays around even with bet selection and uses a progression to win. He doesn't have the edge and he still wins more than he loses.

We go back a long way, so any opinions regarding each other have been forged over time. For me, it's more a lack of respect.
You see, EvenBob, the disagreements, the differing viewpoints, those I can both accept and handle. But I must say, to be honest, for me it's more a matter of a lack of respect for you, as a person. I feel as if you're not entirely honest, and I've simply no time for anyone's baloney; and I also feel as if you're not the sort of person that I'd ever want to befriend. Your personality and my personality appears as oil and water to me...not a compatible combination.
Lastly, EvenBob, it's actually a bit funny...I can be candid and blunt with you because, as we both know, you couldn't give a rat's behind about what I. or anyone, thinks of you. That said, I wish you well. You are certainly a unique sort.

Check it out, folks. A well-known adversary of gr8player is getting put in the corner by the teacher. After Bob voluntarily offers to bring respect to the classroom, the teacher decides his apple is not good enough.

Quote: gr8player (pontificating)

I've been telling forum members "how I do it" for years, and, frankly, to this day, still enjoy reading of their successes. Those that wish to can glean what they want to from my, or, frankly, anyone's posts. There's a lot of information floating around these forums, but it becomes a personal obligation to learn to disseminate that information for your own best interests.
You desire to "wax eloquence"? "I'm your huckleberry!"
Since when has it become a personal obligation to spread information gleaned from these forums?
Did you perhaps intend to state that each individual has the personal responsibility to dissect and evaluate information gleaned from these forums?

My bet selection does better than "around even". My strike rates hover between 53 and 54 percent. And there's a key to my over-all success. Not the only reason, by no means, but certainly a key. I am of the opinion that one must begin with a bet selection process that will carry strike rates at better than 50%, and as close to 53-54 that they can get them. Why? Variance.

If one were seeking strictly 50/50, and bet selection...heck, B v P...will get you 50/50. Alas, that just won't cut it. The variances (specifically: drawdowns) will bury you at certain intervals of your long-term play. Gotta get over 50% if you're seeking to: A) counter the -EV; and B) control drawdowns.

My friends, I've said it a thousand times: Ain't what you win, rather, it's what you don't lose that truly matters. Control your downside, and the upside will take care of itself.

The casino has, for all intents and purposes, limitless units. Do you? Or does your variance upturn occur just when you handing the valet your parking ticket after you've absorbed that much too expensive drawdown/loss?

Two Thursday ago...Jan 9th...I lost 2 units at that night's session. 2. That's right...2. How many of you could walk from a table with a 2-unit loss? I mean...you just gotta get even, don't you? Not I. That session had me in "4-ville" in my "Gr8Players Progression", and, for me, that's not a "ville" that I'm comfortable playing in. So I got three wins out of four and aborted the session right there. Lost 2 units. But recouped a -10. You know how often my play takes me to a -10? R.A.R.E.L.Y. Very rarely. (BTW, since that losing session, I've not even gone to "2-ville"...in other words, strictly flat-betting...I'm at a +21. Flat-betting. Sidenote: As a matter of fact, that's a subject for another thread...my variance upturn, as it stands right now, is a bit too high for my liking. But that's an entirely different issue that would simply take too much time to address in this post.)

Although I do utilize my slight progression when necessary, I do so rather conservatively, and I find myself "flatting" most of the time, anyhow. I built my progression around my strike rates and variances, and it does serve me well. Again, not so much for profit as for efficient recoup. I am a patient and disciplined player who makes but 14 to 18 bets per shoe on avg., so profit is attained through my "normal" sessions.

Now, that all said, please know that I am fully aware that there exists members of this forum that would label what my claims of success as "baloney". Please also know that I have all due respect for the majority of those esteemed members, including, but not limited to, our forum administrators.
You have "respect for the majority", yet you blatantly refuse to reciprocate said respect to the very individual that has more-or-less brought the white flag of truce to the table?
I have no need to defend EvenBob. He's a big boy, and he should defend himself; however, I do have to admit that this provides additional insight regarding your character.

Now, that all said, might those members/admins at least acknowledge the very real possibility that one can, in fact, turn a -EV into a +EV?
That fact has already been acknowledged; the proper term is Advantage Play.
I feel no different than any card counter at BJ would...they have found a way to reverse a neg into a pos. I feel as if I've accomplished the same with my play.
We've been through this many times. You are certainly free to feel as you wish, but you have not, in reality, accomplished the same. The counter puts the money up when a mathematical edge exists, whereas you have proven no such edge.
I definitely have the better of it as to bet selection and strike rates, and my custom-tailored MM perfectly suits both. And suits me.
If it suits you, then "I wish you the very best of it"; however, I do contend that your statement ("I definitely have the better of it") remains unproven, and therefore misleading.

I just don't feel as if the "negative math" absolutely has to trump all sorts of play and/or players. In fact, I'm convinced that it is surmountable.
Now you're repeating yourself, and so shall I. The "math" is indeed surmountable if the wager is made when the individual placing the wager has a mathematically-proven advantage.
You see, the "math" is correct, there's no denying it, but the math is played out "mechanically" over the long term. I don't play a "mechanical" game. I play an "advantage" game...my advantage. I know what they are and I know what they aren't. I know what I can control and what I can't. I choose to play my game, not the casino's game.
Here is a perfect example of why your ideas have been met with resistance in the other threads.

As always, I wish you all the very best of it.
The same to you. "Good Luck".

Rather than adhere to your requirement of dissemination, I have elected to be rebellious via the processes of dissection and evaluation.
Conclusion: You're still guessing.

Quote: RolexWatch

You have provided a link for your progression, is there a link for your bet selection that returns a 53-54% strike rate?

No.

Work such as that, the development of a personal bet selection, is a process best performed individually. Only then....ONLY THEN....will it be given its proper due respect and diligence.

I wish you all the very best of it.

And thank you, rob45, for your commentary. It would appear to the naked eye that you've put quite a lot of thought into your "flashing" responses. Good for you.

I have always held the utmost respect for your stated position(s), our disagreements notwithstanding, so I perceive no personal need to dissect your flashpoints. Believe as you will......

But, my friend, if you know nothing else of me, please know that I don't ever "guess". There exists no room for any guessing at the tables if long-term success is one's paramount goal.

Stay well.

Quote: gr8player

My strike rates hover between 53 and 54 percent.

To anyone who is unsure (I realize that not everyone is a mathematician here) this is clearly a lie. With a 2% edge and proper bet sizing (Kelly), you can start with $1000 and turn it into $1,000,000 in around 100 days (playing 8hrs/day, 60 hands/hr). This could be easily done within the betting limits of any high-limit baccarat room, too (never betting more than $20k per hand)

Everything you need to know about this nonsense is here: https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

To anyone who is unsure (I realize that not everyone is a mathematician here) this is clearly a lie.

"Lie", AxiomOfChoice? Really? Little quick with that accusation, no?

You obviously know not much about me or my Bac play, lest you'd have been alot more reluctant to accuse me of lying.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

With a 2% edge and proper bet sizing (Kelly), you can start with $1000 and turn it into $1,000,000 in around 100 days (playing 8hrs/day, 60 hands/hr). This could be easily done within the betting limits of any high-limit baccarat room, too (never betting more than $20k per hand)

Are you serious?

Sure, AxiomOfChoice, why didn't I think of that? I could be making a million dollars, and, the best part is, never betting more than twenty thousand dollars per hand....why, oh why, didn't I think of that!!!!! Sheeesh.....

This, my friends, is a perfect example of the main difference between "computer players" and "real casino players".

Mr. AxiomOfChoice, all due respect, ever hear of the term: "Drawdown"? Any edge I've got still suffers through drawdowns. Heck, the casino, given their edge, suffers through drawdowns. The thing is, they can afford theirs. But, if I were to accept your "computer simulation analysis", I'd need a humongous bankroll (not to mention balls of steel) to bet such as you're suggesting.

My advice, again offered with all due respect:

Take a step back from your computer, and put some real currency onto the felt, and then get back to me, after you've experienced the very real variances that accompany any true edge. You see, AxiomOfChoice, I really play this game. With my money. Please don't speak of me as if I do not.

Quote: gr8player

Mr. AxiomOfChoice, all due respect, ever hear of the term: "Drawdown"? Any edge I've got still suffers through drawdowns. Heck, the casino, given their edge, suffers through drawdowns. The thing is, they can afford theirs. But, if I were to accept your "computer simulation analysis", I'd need a humongous bankroll (not to mention balls of steel) to bet such as you're suggesting.

My advice, again offered with all due respect:

Take a step back from your computer, and put some real currency onto the felt, and then get back to me, after you've experienced the very real variances that accompany any true edge. You see, AxiomOfChoice, I really play this game. With my money. Please don't speak of me as if I do not.

No you wouldn't need a humungous bankroll specifically Axiom said you would only need 1k as a starting bankroll hardly very significant. I mean yeah if you are starting with a 20k bet you would need a huge bankroll but you aren't starting anywhere near that much specifically your starting bet would only be about 15 dollars on your 1k investment. Doesn't seem to bad for a million after only 8 months of work.

Quote: gr8player

"Lie", AxiomOfChoice? Really? Little quick with that accusation, no?

Nope.

Quote:

You obviously know not much about me or my Bac play, lest you'd have been alot more reluctant to accuse me of lying.

I know that if you don't have information about the next cards out of the shoe (from next-carding or edge-sorting, or whatever), you can't get any better of a hit rate than random guessing. That's really all I need to know.

Quote:

Are you serious?

Yup.

Quote:

Sure, AxiomOfChoice, why didn't I think of that?

Because your claimed hit rate is a lie.

Quote:

I could be making a million dollars, and, the best part is, never betting more than twenty thousand dollars per hand....

Yup, you could, if your claimed hit rate was true. Which it is not.

Quote:

why, oh why, didn't I think of that!!!!! Sheeesh.....

Because your claimed hit rate is a lie. We've been over this.

Quote:

This, my friends, is a perfect example of the main difference between "computer players" and "real casino players".

This is what all the scammers say about their fraudulent betting systems.

Quote:

Mr. AxiomOfChoice, all due respect, ever hear of the term: "Drawdown"? Any edge I've got still suffers through drawdowns. Heck, the casino, given their edge, suffers through drawdowns. The thing is, they can afford theirs. But, if I were to accept your "computer simulation analysis", I'd need a humongous bankroll (not to mention balls of steel) to bet such as you're suggesting.

No, you wouldn't. You'd need $1000.

Quote:

Take a step back from your computer, and put some real currency onto the felt, and then get back to me

No problem. Give me the magic formula for the 53% hit rate and I'll do that. Otherwise, I'll stick to games where I have a real edge, not the fake crap that you are peddling.

Quote:

after you've experienced the very real variances that accompany any true edge.

I am well aware of the variance. Kelly betting solves that problem. Of course, if you don't have an edge, the correct bet is 0. And we all know that you don't have an edge.

Quote:

You see, AxiomOfChoice, I really play this game. With my money. Please don't speak of me as if I do not.

I don't doubt that you play. I doubt that you win.

Quote: gr8player

This, my friends, is a perfect example of the main difference between "computer players" and "real casino players".
Mr. AxiomOfChoice, all due respect, ever hear of the term: "Drawdown"? Any edge I've got still suffers through drawdowns. .

Pretty much. Not only that, but the Kelly
has been proven again and again to be
almost worthless. Here's just one example,
I can post others.

"Time to check the profits from flat betting against the record of the Kelly criterion, and ta-daa! There’s your proof. Using the average size of your Kelly bets as your flat bet, the Kelly loses, and it loses every time. In fact, using most forms of the Kelly criterion, I would be surprised if after 70 or 80 ‘bets’ you are not - for all intents and purposes – broke."

Debunking the Kelly Criterion- http://www.professionalgambler.com/debunking.html

Quote: EvenBob

Pretty much. Not only that, but the Kelly
has been proven again and again to be
almost worthless. Here's just one example,
I can post others.

"Time to check the profits from flat betting against the record of the Kelly criterion, and ta-daa! There’s your proof. Using the average size of your Kelly bets as your flat bet, the Kelly loses, and it loses every time. In fact, using most forms of the Kelly criterion, I would be surprised if after 70 or 80 ‘bets’ you are not - for all intents and purposes – broke."

Debunking the Kelly Criterion- http://www.professionalgambler.com/debunking.html

I've actually read that before. This guy doesn't understand Kelly. I can understand why it would appeal to the sort of mathematically challenged people who think that they can predict which cards are coming out of the shoe next.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I've actually read that before. This guy doesn't understand Kelly. I can understand why it would appeal to the sort of mathematically challenged people who think that they can predict which cards are coming out of the shoe next.

Seriously the article seems to be trying to maximize expectation when kelly is meant to minimize risk of ruin. If you just want to maximize expectation its easy just bet your entire bankroll on every positive EV decision.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I've actually read that before. This guy doesn't understand Kelly. .

Oh bull. I'm not even a math guy and I
figured out the Kelly was crap all on my
own about 7 years ago. It does not work
unless you have a big edge, and if you
have a big edge you don't need a progression.

If you start reading, you'll see the biggest flaw
in the Kelly has to do with large drawdowns,
just like GR8 said. This is all very old news,
BTW, yawn.

Quote: EvenBob

Oh bull. I'm not even a math guy and I
figured out the Kelly was crap all on my
own about 7 years ago

Did you "figure this out" before or after you "figured out" how to "beat" roulette through bet selection and negative progressions?

Maybe you should get your math prof daughter to explain it to you, if she really exists.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Maybe you should get your math prof daughter to explain it to you, if she really exists.

That's nice, personal insults. In debate class they
taught that anytime your opponent resorts to
insults, you've won because they're out of real
arguments.

The flaw in the PG's article, as I recall, is that he post-hoc decides the flat bet based on the Kelly bets, then uses that on the same series of bets as the Kelly, that generated the size of average bet.

It's also notable, that though he flats bets, he does readjust his bet size at certain points. This is a reasonable approach. Kelly doesn't work (well) if you don't the exact edge for each bet made, which is often the case for the sport bets.

Kelly does work very well under the terms that the Kelly Criterion was generated. It's not always pragmatic to use the Kelly Criterion precisely. This does not make it worthless.

Quote: EvenBob

That's nice, personal insults. In debate class they
taught that anytime your opponent resorts to
insults, you've won because they're out of real
arguments.

Who did I personally insult?

" Maybe you should get your math prof daughter to explain it to you, if she really exists. "

Do you need Kelly to explain the implied insult ?

Quote: Twirdman

Seriously the article seems to be trying to maximize expectation when kelly is meant to minimize risk of ruin. If you just want to maximize expectation its easy just bet your entire bankroll on every positive EV decision.

Kelly maximizes the rate of growth. There is no risk of ruin in the Kelly (as every bet is a fraction of the bankroll), though at the point you can't make a unit bet, you are effectively ruined.

Quote: thecesspit

This does not make it worthless.

And it doesn't make it worthwhile. And it certainly
has no merit to make a million dollars if you only have
a lousy 3-4% edge. You'll get killed on the drawdowns.