D'Alembert Success
Quote: Buzzard" 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 ?
In a previous post, Bob claimed that he had a daughter who was a math prof. I'm suggesting that this may not be true. I suggest that most of what Bob says may not be true. I know for a fact that some of it is untrue (like the part about his beating roulette, for example)
There is no insult there. Bob has certainly claimed that others on this forum are not who they claimed to be. Even after they posted pictures!
Which reminds me, Buzz, you owe me a penny.
" as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality "
Quote: thecesspitKelly 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.
Yeah I realized I messed up after I wrote that.
Quote: EvenBobAnd 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.
The point of Kelly is that you bet the right amount so that you don't get killed on drawdowns.
Maybe you should read this: https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/ and notice that the bettors who are betting with the edge did not get killed on drawdowns. In fact they parlayed $1000 into $1,000,000 in about 3 months, with only a 1/250,000 chance of going broke (assuming a min bet of $1). And that was with "only" a 2% edge. With a 4% edge, the chance of going broke would be even smaller.
Quote: BuzzardThis is all a rational man needs to know about Kelly :
" as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality "
All I need to know is that is a beautifully written paper, and the result is used by many people who are using it as a valuable tool (not the only tool) in their investments.
Quote: BuzzardThen Einstein was wrong, is that what you are saying ? Validating Keely theory by many people believing in it, must mean the earth was at one time flat. LOL
Erm, if you are saying the theory of the Kelly Criterion is wrong, you'll have to point out where the fault is in the 50 year old paper.
If you are saying it has no practical application, you'll have to argue that with the likes of Buffet.
So, I am saying, practically and theoretically, it has value, is used and works.
So, I'm unsure what the objections are to it. As the paper states it's best for a -certain- goal. If your goal is different from that, then Kelly sized bets won't be a good idea. if you are saying you can bet $23.47, then sure, and you bet underneath that value, knowing you give up a little expected growth. If you are saying in sports you don't know the exact size of your edge... then, well, you take estimates and bet at half-Kelly. If your complaint is about the short term, then double-duh, read the paper.
If you claim a flat betting approach is 'better', I would have to know what you mean by 'better', but it's certainly pragmatic and easier. Even flat bettors tend to increase their flat bet as the bankroll grows though (unless they are taking money from it, which they may, in which case again, duh, why wouldn't you do that with a growing bankroll under the Kelly-criteria?).
So yeah, you'll need to define your objections better than that.
Quote: thecesspit
I'm not getting into a drawn out discussion of
the Kelly again, did that about 8 years ago and now
it bores me to tears. If you like the Kelly, use it.
I think it's pointless.
"Kelly betting leads to highly volatile short-term outcomes which many people find unpleasant, even if they believe they will do well in the end."
That's it in a nutshell. The Kelly looks great on paper
in the long term, and sucks majorly in real play. The
drawdowns will murder you. 'Unpleasant' is a nice way
of putting it.
In the fact that Kelly is NOT talking about gamblers, but about information. Also, at one point he switches from log(E) to E(log), which I find, to say the least, unorthodox.Quote: thecesspitErm, if you are saying the theory of the Kelly Criterion is wrong, you'll have to point out where the fault is in the 50 year old paper.
Like I wrote in Wikipedia/fr, it is impossible for Thorpe (or Buffett) to prove that their end result was "the best possible" in an ex post stochastic situation. They won? fine! But who knows what they would have won with another bet schedule? No experimental proof, unless we have many Thorpes and can rerune the twenty past years. You only have the theory to argue that it is somehow "best", and then you should define your criterion of "best".Quote: thecesspitIf you are saying it has no practical application, you'll have to argue that with the likes of Buffet.
Practically, it is used. Works? See above. Theoretically, I don't know what you mean by "it is used and it works"? As for value, ...Quote: thecesspitSo, I am saying, practically and theoretically, it has value, is used and works.
Quote: kubikulannIn the fact that Kelly is NOT talking about gamblers, but about information. Also, at one point he switches from log(E) to E(log), which I find, to say the least, unorthodox.
What? Where? Please explain.
Maximizing log(E) is silly; is is the same as maximizing E.
That article thinks Kelly Criterion is about adapting your bet size according to the win probability. On the contrary, it is about establishing a CONSTANT rule in a REPEATED (infinite!) SAME-probability sequence of bets.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceDebunking 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
Exact. Kelly says "maximize the EXPECTED rate of growth". As there are exponents involved, he turns them in logs. But he does Max E(log(rate)), where I would have done Max log(E(rate)).Quote: AxiomOfChoiceMaximizing log(E) is silly; is is the same as maximizing E.
N.B. I don't get all his "information theory" stuff, so maybe I'm missing something.
In the Wiki/fr page, I developed another argument for his E(log) but I'm afraid I missed something with the limits to infinity. Work in progress.
Quote: EvenBobThat's it in a nutshell. The Kelly looks great on paper
in the long term, and sucks majorly in real play. The
drawdowns will murder you. 'Unpleasant' is a nice way
of putting it.
EvenBob, please excuse my ignorance of the terminology, but what is a "drawdown"?
Quote: kubikulannExact. Kelly says "maximize the EXPECTED rate of growth". As there are exponents involved, he turns them in logs. But he does Max E(log(rate)), where I would have done Max log(E(rate)).
N.B. I don't get all his "information theory" stuff, so maybe I'm missing something.
In the Wiki/fr page, I developed another argument for his E(log) but I'm afraid I missed something with the limits to infinity. Work in progress.
Sorry, I only took french for 13 years in school, so I don't understand it yet :)
My understanding of the Kelly Criterion is that you just maximize E(log) at every step and you are done.
You may have to make modifications if there is a minimum bet amount, of course, but you can take that into consideration as well.
I'm not sure what all the outrage about KC is. Look a the wizard's page on betting systems. That gives a pretty good example. With 1000 units to start, your risk of ruin is almost nil and you can easily increase your stake 1000-fold in a relatively short amount of time. (The only reason that the risk of going broke is not exactly 0 is that there is a minimum bet size, of course)
It is true that it is only optimal in the long term (ie, at infinity) but even for practical-sized short-term periods, I don't think that too many people would be too unhappy about turning 1000 minimum bets into 1,000,000 such bets in 3 months with only a 1/250,000 chance of going broke. And that's with a 2% edge... smaller than the edge that some of the self-professed "bet selection" experts on this thread claim to possess.
Quote: rob45EvenBob, please excuse my ignorance of the terminology, but what is a "drawdown"?
An excess of losses compared to wins.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't think that too many people would be too unhappy about turning 1000 minimum bets into 1,000,000 such bets in 3 months.
That's right, there is no middle, no short
term, just the idea and the end result. That's
why so many math people make terrible gamblers,
they can't tell the difference between theory
and practice.
Quote: EvenBobThat's right, there is no middle, no short
term, just the idea and the end result. That's
why so many math people make terrible gamblers,
they can't tell the difference between theory
and practice.
3 months is too long term for you?
Quote: AxiomOfChoice3 months is too long term for you?
In the bet to bet short term the Kelly sucks,
and is not any better than other progressions
if you have a positive edge.
Quote: EvenBobIn the bet to bet short term the Kelly sucks,
and is not any better than other progressions
if you have a positive edge.
So you would prefer not to multiply your money by 1000 in 3 months?
Quote: soxfanSome very good bj counters have prolonged downturns, at times, even with an edge. Some bj counters even go broke then have to go in hock to friends, family, credit cards, loan sharks to raise a new roll and get back in the game. So, whay don't bj card counters just Kelly their way to millions in risk and stress free profits, hey hey?
The short answer is that blackjack is nothing like baccarat. The details are:
Blackjack is not a game where you can get a 2% edge on every hand.
Blackjack is not a game where you can bet whatever you want on every hand, even sitting out the majority of hands if you want to, without getting backed off.
The casino knows that blackjack is beatable so they watch it carefully. The casino knows that baccarat is not beatable without having next-card information so they let you swing your bets as wildly as you want and use a pen and paper (they even provide it!)
Give me a variety of 6-deck games where you deal 5 out of 6 decks from the shoe, with good rules, and have some games with min-bets as low as $10 and other games with max-bets in the hundreds of thousands (and everything in between), and let me back-count to my heart's content; playing only the hands I want to play, for whatever amount I choose to bet, and I could easily turn $10k into $10M.
But, no casino is going to give me these conditions, because they know exactly what will happen if they do. On the other hand, they gladly give you these conditions at baccarat because they know that the game is unbeatable without next-card information.
hey hey!
Then what happen to you?Quote: EvenBobThat's right, there is no middle, no short
term, just the idea and the end result. That's
why so many math people make terrible gamblers,
they can't tell the difference between theory
and practice.
Some of the most successful gamblers are math guys. Playing with a disadvantage gets everyone eventually.Being over aggressive when you have an advantage can do the same thing.
You might have a good bet, but if you bet it all and lose it all, all the math in the world wont help you. It all comes down to risk vs reward and if the risk can cause you to go broke, then its never worth the reward, other then in extreme cases. If an extreme case comes up, then that's when some other skills come in to play.
Quote: EvenBobAn excess of losses compared to wins.Quote: rob45EvenBob, please excuse my ignorance of the terminology, but what is a "drawdown"?
Thank you for the response; it is much appreciated.
Now that I have your definition, I need to determine the context.
Are you using the word "drawdown" in reference to probability, or are you using it in reference to variance?
Quote: soxfanSome very good bj counters have prolonged downturns, at times, even with an edge. Some bj counters even go broke then have to go in hock to friends, family, credit cards, loan sharks to raise a new roll and get back in the game. So, whay don't bj card counters just Kelly their way to millions in risk and stress free profits, hey hey?
Hello, Soxster. I trust all is well with you.
Yeah, you and I both know, most of these fellas are not even real players, or they'd be whistling a different tune.
And not a one of them has even figured out that my roughly 53% strike rate does not, in fact, give me anywhere near a 3% edge.
What happened to the HE? It's still right there. Affecting each and every one of my bets, as I'm paid out at less than true odds.
So my 53% in pared down to a bit over a point, point and a half, maybe...when factoring in the HE.
Still, they'd have me betting thousands into it...absolutely mind-boggling, especially given the intelligence of most of the WoV members; some speak as if they'd never even put 2 dollars onto the felt. That said, far be it for me to seek to promote any sort of gaming, but, please, I would ask them not to lecture me from their chair in front of their computer screen; get back to me when they've got some real time/real table experience.
I play a patient, conservative game. When my plays perform as expected, combined with my slight progression, I, virtually, cannot lose. That is so true and so important that it bears repeating: given "normalcy" (read: my plays acting as, well, my plays "should", as calculated), I cannot lose.
Now, if "normalcy" were to occur at each session I play, then I might think of betting "thousands". Alas, it does not. So, I suffer through drawdowns, sometimes as much as a dozen units or more. And that, for a conservative player such as myself, is simply too much. (It bears noting here that I am a "black chip" player.) So, for me, I feel the need to go into "recoup mode" and grind it back. Doesn't even have to be all the way back, just enough to pare the loss to make it palatable. That, I can accept. Why? Because my "normalcy" sessions far outweigh those "larger drawdown" sessions, and that's were I turn...dare I say it aloud around here?...a PROFIT.
So I'll continue to approach this game my way, and play this game my way. Those that wish to can play their "Kelly Criterion" method to their heart's content, and I wish them all the best with it. Just as, I would like to assume, those would wish me continued success with my method of choice.
Stay well.
Quote: gr8playerAnd not a one of them has even figured out that my roughly 53% strike rate does not, in fact, give me anywhere near a 3% edge.
What happened to the HE? It's still right there. Affecting each and every one of my bets, as I'm paid out at less than true odds.
So my 53% in pared down to a bit over a point, point and a half, maybe...when factoring in the HE.
A 53% strike rate gives you a 6% edge on player bets and a 3.35% edge on banker bets. Thanks for coming out though.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceA 53% strike rate gives you a 6% edge on player bets and a 3.35% edge on banker bets. Thanks for coming out though.
GR8player pretends he knows the Math of the game he plays. He doesn't. He knows the -feel- of the game he plays.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceA 53% strike rate gives you a 6% edge on player bets and a 3.35% edge on banker bets. Thanks for coming out though.
You cannot be serious about this, can you?
Please tell me that you're not simply subtracting the 47 from 53 percentiles to arrive at my "supposed" 6% "supposed" edge?
If that is, in fact, the case, I think it might be prime time for a "computer break".....
Quote: thecesspitGR8player pretends he knows the Math of the game he plays. He doesn't. He knows the -feel- of the game he plays.
Hello, thecesspit. I trust all is well with you.
You know me well, my friend.
I do not "pretend" anything, but I do know my strengths v weaknesses.
I am much more Bac savvy than I'd ever be math savvy, so I cannot argue your stated assertion.
But I'm not playing with anywhere near a 6% edge, and I needn't be an Einstein to arrive at that conclusion.
Quote: thecesspitGR8player pretends he knows the Math of the game he plays. He doesn't. He knows the -feel- of the game he plays.
I am not expecting him to understand the math of the game he plays. I am expecting him to be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, like we all learned in grade school.
Clearly my expectations were too high, though, so I will readjust.
His lack of ability to divide two numbers DOES explain how he ended up with the 53% strike rate, though. So that is one mystery solved.
Quote: gr8playerBut I'm not playing with anywhere near a 6% edge, and I needn't be an Einstein to arrive at that conclusion.
If you can bet on player (or any other bet, in any other game, that pays 1:1, for that matter) and be correct 53% of the time, what do YOU think that your edge is?
Oh, right, you already answered that. You think it's about half a percent. And simple arithmetic be damned!
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIf you can bet on player (or any other bet, in any other game, that pays 1:1, for that matter) and be correct 53% of the time, what do YOU think that your edge is?
AxiomOfChoice, that winning Player bet is being paid out at less than true odds.
Yes, I am receiving 1:1, but I should be paid more, because the unique drawing rules of Baccarat favor the Banker's side to win.
In that case, to assume my so-called 6% edge would be to disregard that built-in house's edge.
Quote: gr8playerYou cannot be serious about this, can you?
Please tell me that you're not simply subtracting the 47 from 53 percentiles to arrive at my "supposed" 6% "supposed" edge?
If that is, in fact, the case, I think it might be prime time for a "computer break".....
Seriously man its not complicated you predict 53% right and get 47% wrong which given player pays even money gives you an edge of .53(1)-.47(1)=.06 or 6% for banker its .53(.95)-.47=.0335 or 3.35% the .95 comes from the 5% commission, exactly what Axiom quoted. What other magical means would you use to calculate your edge? This method works for any game under the sun its just probability you guessed right times payout when you guess right minus probability you guess wrong. There is no advanced math at work here and there no voodoo going on to change it. If you guess player and guess right 53% of the time your edge is 6% nothing supposed about it.
Quote: gr8playerAxiomOfChoice, that winning Player bet is being paid out at less than true odds.
Yes, I am receiving 1:1, but I should be paid more, because the unique drawing rules of Baccarat favor the Banker's side to win.
In that case, to assume my so-called 6% edge would be to disregard that built-in house's edge.
Thats why number was different for banker and he quoted that at 3.35% which again significantly different then 6% which is only for games that pay even money like the player bet in baccarat. So assuming you can correctly predict 53% your edge fluctuates somewhere between 3.35%, only betting banker, or 6%, only betting player.
Your input is much appreciated, and I thank you, both for your explanation and your respectful comportment.
Quote: gr8playerHello, thecesspit. I trust all is well with you.
You know me well, my friend.
I do not "pretend" anything, but I do know my strengths v weaknesses.
I am much more Bac savvy than I'd ever be math savvy, so I cannot argue your stated assertion.
But I'm not playing with anywhere near a 6% edge, and I needn't be an Einstein to arrive at that conclusion.
No you didn't need to be Einstein. You just needed to be able to do basic statistical math. Math you claim you CAN do, and have mentioned it various previous posts when we've challenged you.
Except, it seems you can't.
Either you guess at 53% or not, all you like. If you do, you have way the best of it.
Quote: gr8playerBut I'm not playing with anywhere near a 6% edge, and I needn't be an Einstein to arrive at that conclusion.
We agree that you're not playing anywhere near a 6% edge; that's why Axiom said your "strike rate" of 53% is false.
Think about it; the casinos offer all of us a baccarat game with a comparatively small overall house edge of 1.06% (Banker).
Even with this seemingly tiny edge of 1%, the casinos have been certain to continue to offer us the game.
Axiom even directed the readers to the Wizard's web page on betting systems where it was demonstrated how powerful that tiny 1% edge really can be.
Granted, the Kelly criterion was used in that example to demonstrate how one may take a small bankroll and turn it into a truly large amount of money. Here's the caveat: If you know anything at all about the Kelly formula, it becomes glaringly evident that, for our purposes, the Kelly criterion is to be applied only in a situation of positive expectation.
One might easily be inclined to label the Kelly strategy as a self-adjusting, positive progression betting system, but follow the formula, and it becomes evident that it was designed to be used only when probability is on our side.
With the example of the Kelly strategy aside, you do not need any type of betting progression to show overall gain if you truly have a "strike rate" of 53% on your "bet selection". Just flat bet and enjoy your winnings. But you will not do that, because doing so means that you no longer have a need to utilize your "gr8player progression".
Quote: gr8playerAxiomOfChoice, that winning Player bet is being paid out at less than true odds.
Yes, I am receiving 1:1, but I should be paid more, because the unique drawing rules of Baccarat favor the Banker's side to win.
In that case, to assume my so-called 6% edge would be to disregard that built-in house's edge.
That is so sad.
You make 100 bets which pay 1:1. You win 53. You lose 47. That gives you a profit of 6 bets. 6/100 = 6%.
This is not math. This is simple grade school arithmetic.
Quote: rob45
Are you using the word "drawdown" in reference to probability, or are you using it in reference to variance?
This is what author Laurance Scott says about
drawdowns:
Drawdown is a very specific term used for statistical analysis. I would hope we could all agree on this:
1) Even if you have an edge, you will experience losses. For example, I know of one time back in the 70's that the entire main pit at Caesars was down for a whole week.
2) The larger your edge, the smaller your drawdowns (losing streaks). For example, if you have a 100% edge in an even money game, you should never have any draw down.
3) The higher the variance, the greater the drawdown. For example, if you had a 10% edge betting only one number you could experience a substantial string of losses.
What drawdown analysis does is give you a frame of reference to know if you are still playing within your given parameters. For example, you might be setting up a play where you are betting 5 numbers (a 7 to 1 shot) and are assuming you have a 10% edge. Given these assumptions, what can you expect to be a "normal" drawdown? There are statistical formulas that can compute this.
If you find yourself at the limits of your drawdown expectations, then you have to ask yourself: Am I experiencing a random fluctuation, or has my edge evaporated? Typically an AP player will stop playing when they approach their drawdown expectation because more than likely something has affected their edge. Possibly not, but it is better to err on the side of caution and regroup.
With proper drawdown analysis you have a better chance of knowing when you are just experiencing a fluctuation vs. not playing with an edge.
Actually, drawdown analysis only applies to AP play. If you don't have a real edge, drawdown analysis has no meaning. You shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrrFP3-XwB0
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThat is so sad.
Not really, AxiomOFChoice.
Much more saddening are your futile attempts to have me appear the fool. I neither relish such treatment, nor will I accept it.
You have yourself a fine day, AxiomOfChoice.
Quote: gr8playerNot really, AxiomOFChoice.
Much more saddening are your futile attempts to have me appear the fool. I neither relish such treatment, nor will I accept it.
You have yourself a fine day, AxiomOfChoice.
I'm not making you appear the fool; I'm just pointing out how foolish your statements are. You are making those foolish statements all on your own.
Quote: gr8playerNot really, AxiomOFChoice.
Much more saddening are your futile attempts to have me appear the fool. I neither relish such treatment, nor will I accept it.
You have yourself a fine day, AxiomOfChoice.
One way to stop having to accept it, is to stop making statements that are incorrect, and very much demonstratively so. I know understand your reluctance to calculate your edge in your Bacc play... you are unable to, rather than unwilling.
Quote: rob45We agree that you're not playing anywhere near a 6% edge; that's why Axiom said your "strike rate" of 53% is false.
Think about it; the casinos offer all of us a baccarat game with a comparatively small overall house edge of 1.06% (Banker).
Even with this seemingly tiny edge of 1%, the casinos have been certain to continue to offer us the game.
The casinos will continue to offer the game for a multitude of reasons, the "comparatively small overall house edge" is but one of them. And, frankly, as an experienced Bac player, a rather minute part of the reason.
You must witness the majority of these Bac players, and how they bet and how they approach the game, to fully appreciate what I'm attempting to convey here, but, trust me on this, their "comparatively small overall house edge" has little to do with their actual Bac table windfall.
Quote: rob45...you do not need any type of betting progression to show overall gain if you truly have a "strike rate" of 53% on your "bet selection". Just flat bet and enjoy your winnings. But you will not do that, because doing so means that you no longer have a need to utilize your "gr8player progression".
While I still utilize my progression when I deem it necessary, I flat bet most of the time, most of my sessions. My drawdowns are, generally speaking, rather limited, and in that scenario flat betting is sufficient.
Again, rob45, I am an unusual sort....my Bac game puts the preference of "loss prevention" over any "must win" scenario. Wins are commonplace. It's the occasional tougher-than-usual session that I am always seeking to counter.
So, in a nutshell, regardless the size of any edge, I am forever protecting my bankroll.
One might ask, what with my expressed strike rates, why that might be?:
Spoiler Alert
Because the casino has it all over me, bankroll-wise. They'll continue to deal this game forever, and, yes, that includes the time it would take for me to replenish my current bankroll. So the logical answer, as far as I'm concerned, is to prevent any necessary replenishments. Bankroll preservation, if you will.
Quote: EvenBobThis is what author Laurance Scott says aboutQuote: rob45Are you using the word "drawdown" in reference to probability, or are you using it in reference to variance?
drawdowns:
Drawdown is a very specific term used for statistical analysis. I would hope we could all agree on this:
1) Even if you have an edge, you will experience losses. For example, I know of one time back in the 70's that the entire main pit at Caesars was down for a whole week.
2) The larger your edge, the smaller your drawdowns (losing streaks). For example, if you have a 100% edge in an even money game, you should never have any draw down.
3) The higher the variance, the greater the drawdown. For example, if you had a 10% edge betting only one number you could experience a substantial string of losses.
What drawdown analysis does is give you a frame of reference to know if you are still playing within your given parameters. For example, you might be setting up a play where you are betting 5 numbers (a 7 to 1 shot) and are assuming you have a 10% edge. Given these assumptions, what can you expect to be a "normal" drawdown? There are statistical formulas that can compute this.
If you find yourself at the limits of your drawdown expectations, then you have to ask yourself: Am I experiencing a random fluctuation, or has my edge evaporated? Typically an AP player will stop playing when they approach their drawdown expectation because more than likely something has affected their edge. Possibly not, but it is better to err on the side of caution and regroup.
With proper drawdown analysis you have a better chance of knowing when you are just experiencing a fluctuation vs. not playing with an edge.
Actually, drawdown analysis only applies to AP play. If you don't have a real edge, drawdown analysis has no meaning. You shouldn't be playing the game in the first place.
EvenBob, thank you for the response.
To further narrow things down, I have italicized the concluding statements presented by the author.
Another interpretation of that conclusion: Dealing with fluctuation is a function of bankroll, but one need not even consider it if not playing with an edge in the first place.
Quote: rob45Dealing with fluctuation is a function of bankroll, but one need not even consider it if not playing with an edge in the first place.
You don't have much to consider at all if
you don't have an edge, except controlling
your losses.
Quote: EvenBobYou don't have much to consider at all if
you don't have an edge, except controlling
your losses.
Whatever happened to just gambling for the fun of it (entertainment) don't get serious on us or we will have to bring out billy bob and his red neck trio to give ya's all red bellies n' wet willies in the ears. :P
Quote: EvenBobYou don't have much to consider at all if
you don't have an edge, except controlling
your losses.
Very true.
Minimizing the amount we lose while playing under negative conditions is very important.
The contention is not about minimizing loss, but whether the claims of being a "winner" can be proven.
Consider the statements made below:
Quote: EvenBobGR8 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.
Quote: gr8playerMy 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.
Quote: rob45
Consider the statements made below:
53%-54% is still no guarantee to stay around
even. You can easily stray to 8-10 wrong in
a row with a slim margin like that.
Quote: CrapsGeniousWhatever happened to just gambling for the fun of it (entertainment) don't get serious on us.....
Hello, CrapsGenious.
I realize your comment was made, most likely, in a sarcastic tone, but, just for clarification:
If I am seeking "entertainment", I'll take in a movie. I take my gambling, with my money, very seriously.
