Wrong, Krigman!

Or at least this gambling writer put it badly at the conclusion of what's otherwise a good article.

I was looking again for information on those match play coupons I've been getting.

the troublesome final paragraph is summed up by this line:

"players think they've blown their chances once they've used their match play coupons and are entirely back to chips"

I just think he's got this wrong. In my thinking, if you play your match play coupons and they all lose, your further gambling can not save the day unless what follows is very good, unconnected random luck; in other words, the dice and roulette balls etc. have no memory of those match play events and therefore the player has just started off on a bad foot [if he lost]. The player should expect to have a bad [or good] session, if a short session, depending on how those bets went. The table showing very high player advantage with match play short sessions has to be viewed as an a priori condition. IMO Krigman suggest otherwise, or perhaps someone can enlighten me if that is not what he is saying. See the link.

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/article/the-enduring-effect-of-match-play-coupons-on-house-edge-5761

I'm not sure exactly how you're interpreting that article, but I interpret it as saying that the larger percentage of your total wager you make with free money, the more favorable the edge is to you. Alternately, as free money becomes a smaller percentage of your overall handle (because you keep betting your own money), the house edge approaches the standard theoretical edge (from above).

Quote: MathExtremist

I interpret it as saying that the larger percentage of your total wager you make with free money, the more favorable the edge is to you.

Yes, overall the article makes sense, but the conclusion of the last paragraph surely is wrong or badly stated.