+ Register

[Blue_Angel]

Xander,


The best MM (according to you) is nothing more than Kelly criterion which is working like a positive progression, or "up as you win" to lay it in your terms.
You should know better by now, negative, positive and flat bets MMs have no advantage in comparison with each other, only a selection could generate a real edge.


1) Up as you lose favors more balanced distribution and fails when there are extensive losses.


2) Up as you win favors less balanced distribution and fails when there is quite evenly distribution of wins and losses.


3) Flat bets are a mild approach which both, the BR highs and lows, are milder, less intensive fluctuations both ways, but all in all offers no advantage.


When you ask what is better, positive or negative, is like you are asking: "what is more probable, a win after a win or a win after a loss?"
You may even extend that from a single win to 100 wins/losses, or a session (whatever the definition of session might be), or a month of results, or...whatever!


The main principle doesn't change regardless of the quantities of results involved, the more will only magnify what already exists, whether it's something positive or negative.


The same goes for another popular misconception; "what's better, betting more or betting less numbers?"
The majority mistakenly believes that less is better, but if this was true then all we had to do was to pick 2 to 4 numbers in order to become victorious like Ken! 


Once again, it's NOT about how many, the quantity, but about "what","which" and this is being determined by the timing effect, or synchronisation if you will.
Consider results as a frequency and try to synch yours to it, by swimming against the torrent brings no profit, nor glory!

[Blue_Angel]

In regards to your original question, "what MM is better...", my answer is nothing when you have no winning selection and on the same time, every MM when you have a really good selection.
Money managements only change the distribution of profit and loss, whether frequent small chunks, or infrequent larger ones, all in all provide no advantage.


Long term is the accumulation of many sessions and each session includes many bets, since we are not 100% certain for a single bet (any single bet) then what's the point of increasing and/or decreasing in spin by spin (hand by hand, decision to decision) basis?
If we were 100% sure then we would wanted to place as much as possible in that single bet, right?
Therefore the point of MMs is to accumulate a profit within a total of bets.


How many bets should this total be?
That depends from the general probability of the bet, more probability the less times, the less probability the more times our total bets should aim for.


Everything is a trade between time and money, gamble is no exception.
You don't need 100,000 bets in order to realize that something is not working, as a matter of fact you don't even need 10,000 bets, the same could be said for the opposite.
Like they say; "the good day shows from the mourning...", what's more possible to occur will happen first.
What could be confusing and deceptive is that some progressions are causing small, regular wins and big infrequent losses.
So unless you are using such progression, it will be clear the value of your bet selection, especially when you flat bet.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not advocating flat betting, a sophisticated MM could boost the profits, but only if there is a really good bet selection in the first place.


There are 2 kind of probabilities, one is the sequential which speculates about the order of the results and the other is the general probability which indicates the totals.


Thus if we take a 50-50 chance for 100 bets then according to the theoretical mean we should expect 50 to go one way and 50 to go the other way, I suggest you to consider such averages with a grain of salt...
On the other hand, sequential probability would have too many permutations to distribute 50 VS 50 in 100 outcomes, when progressions are aiming to win in a certain order of results then are being challenged by the sequential probability.


Like I said, there could be 1 permutation which have 50 times in a row for one side and then 50 times in a row for the other, it could be one side after the other interchangeably for 100 times, the point is that are so MANY ways, permutations to distribute THAT mean (50/50), let alone for 49/51 or 51/49 or 48/52...!
By attempting to predict the order your bets are just drops in the randomness ocean!


Why casinos are above this issue?
It's because they are not attempting to predict the sequences, the order of the outcomes, but are capitalizing in something much more solid, the totals in the long term...!
It all comes down to the perception and the approach, if you think and act like there's no tomorrow then eventually you will find out that there is not for you because this is what you have chosen, to live and die in the short term.

[Xander]

Xander,

-Blue Angel The best MM (according to you) is nothing more than Kelly criterion which is working like a positive progression, or "up as you win" to lay it in your terms.

The best progression is a modified Kelly.  Edge/expectation x confidence level in betting conditions

1) Up as you lose favors more balanced distribution and fails when there are extensive losses.

The progresson to which I'm referring, which is like the Kelly, enables the player theoretically indefinitely subdivide their bankroll if they encounter long losing stretches. 

2) Up as you win favors less balanced distribution and fails when there is quite evenly distribution of wins and losses

.

Up as you win provides the largest possible win over basically all scenarios.  I'm guessing you have zero experience playing with an edge and using such a progression.

3) Flat bets are a mild approach which both, the BR highs and lows, are milder, less intensive fluctuations both ways, but all in all offers no advantage.

Flat bets open the door for larger losses during draw downs caused by variance.  Again, betting a percentage of your bankroll as I described earlier in the thread is vastly superior.

When you ask what is better, positive or negative, is like you are asking: "what is more probable, a win after a win or a win after a loss?"
You may even extend that from a single win to 100 wins/losses, or a session (whatever the definition of session might be), or a month of results, or...whatever!

No that's ludicrous.  I'm talking about when the gambler has the edge.  You appear to be talking about something else. There is a correct answer.  And the correct answer has to do with the probability of ruin, and what provides the opportunity to win the most while risking the least amount of money.  An up as you lose progression, mathematically doesn't make sense when compared to betting a percentage of your bankroll when the gambler has an edge.

The main principle doesn't change regardless of the quantities of results involved, the more will only magnify what already exists, whether it's something positive or negative.

I'm not completely sure what it is that you're trying to say in the phrase above, and it appears that you don't know either.  The cut and paste job from the article you copied it from doesn't exactly fit in the discussion.

The same goes for another popular misconception; "what's better, betting more or betting less numbers?"
The majority mistakenly believes that less is better, but if this was true then all we had to do was to pick 2 to 4 numbers in order to become victorious like Ken! 

Again, there is a correct answer for this as well.  The answer is, on how many numbers do you actually have an edge, what is their edge, and what is their effect on variance.

Once again, it's NOT about how many, the quantity, but about "what","which" and this is being determined by the timing effect, or synchronisation if you will.
Consider results as a frequency and try to synch yours to it, by swimming against the torrent brings no profit, nor glory!

Again, your using words that don't fit the discussion.  "Synchronisation,"  "swimming against torrent???"   

What matters is winning as much as possible while risking the least amount of money.  In the end the correct answer is to bet a percentage of your bankroll at each spin using the progression that I've described.

[Blue_Angel]

Probably you are the one who doesn't take a hint...such a pity!


There are selections which no matter how much money you bet they are generating net profit, the size of the profit only changes.
But there are not any MMs which are winning regardless of the selection.


What you suggest will not be the optimal when you have frequent ups and downs in your BR because when you raise it will be followed by losses and when you'll decrease it will win less on the forthcoming wins.
You think it's better because it doesn't change in spin by spin basis, but after all is like a partial parlay in a greater results' scale.
It would be best if losses and wins all fall one after the other, in bunches, but probability doesn't work  this way...


Whether you want to understand it or not, it is not my problem, you brought forth a subject about money managements which is of secondary importance and then you think that you are in position to judge my abilities by saying:
"I'm guessing you have zero experience playing with an edge and using such a progression." ...allow me to know better what my experience is and what I'm doing.

[Xander]

There are selections which no matter how much money you bet they are generating net profit, the size of the profit only changes.
But there are not any MMs which are winning regardless of the selection.

So?  What's your point?    A progression alone can not turn a negative expectation game into a positive one.  When the player has the edge the best progression is to bet a percentage of your bankroll at each spin or hand.

What you suggest will not be the optimal when you have frequent ups and downs in your BR because when you raise it will be followed by losses and when you'll decrease it will win less on the forthcoming wins.
You think it's better because it doesn't change in spin by spin basis, but after all is like a partial parlay in a greater results' scale.
It would be best if losses and wins all fall one after the other, in bunches, but probability doesn't work  this way...

You're obviously looking at very short term results based on your limited experience, rather than extended periods of time.  The optimum strategy is as I've stated.

Whether you want to understand it or not, it is not my problem, you brought forth a subject about money managements which is of secondary importance and then you think that you are in position to judge my abilities by saying:
"I'm guessing you have zero experience playing with an edge and using such a progression." ...allow me to know better what my experience is and what I'm doing.

Sorry, but based on the replies that you've written it appears that you have little experience in dealing with progressions when the player has the edge.

[owenslv]

Again I must congratulate all of you contributing to this thread for the massively, intelligent, interesting and relevant information that is being introduced. Indeed any money management system cannot overcome an inadequate bet selection protocol.

When you have a betting protocol in place that allows you to win consistently, creating a positive edge, then of course, a structured money management system will allow the player to maximize winnings and minimize losses.

So now the big question, as professionals our main, or perhaps initial focus, should be on bet selection.

How, in an ocean of probabilities, do we gain a positive edge on say, Baccarat when an individual session (80 hands or less) represents a "drop in the ocean of probabilities ?

The only concrete tools we appear to have is past performance, developing trends and the like. Is there a method we could develop as a like-minded group, with various backgrounds and skills that would provide enough shift in betting protocol to give us that positive edge ?

I totally realize that each individual hand is essentially random, and that, "The past does not equal the future." HOWEVER, every session produces variable results and that may be our strength. The player who is able to step back and see the bigger picture of a string of outcomes, look at those outcomes in a new and different creative manner, may be able to instinctively and intelligently predict (guess) at a different and superior level.

If you add up all of the years of experience each one of you have personally, collectively, as a group we likely have centuries of experience, right here in this form. What an amazing privilege !

I sincerely believe that there really is a very subtle difference between losing to the house advantage and shifting the bet protocol to a consistent player advantage and if anyone can figure that out, this is the group that will do it.

Next step ?

Garry

[Mike]

The same goes for another popular misconception; "what's better, betting more or betting less numbers?"
The majority mistakenly believes that less is better, but if this was true then all we had to do was to pick 2 to 4 numbers in order to become victorious like Ken! 

You're right in that betting fewer numbers doesn't give any advantage in itself, its value lies in the fact that the variance is higher betting fewer numbers, and exposes less to the house edge. When you don't have an edge, betting fewer numbers means the swings will be larger in BOTH directions. A gambler relies on these swings if he wants to quit while ahead, but of course, because variance is a two-edge sword, it means that when betting fewer numbers the losses will also be larger. Either way (betting more or fewer numbers), in the absence of a real edge, the expectation (mean) will overcome short term variance eventually. The merit of fewer numbers lies in the duration of the swings which enables more opportunities to quit with a profit. But these are not "real" opportunities in the sense that they confer an edge; you're just relying on luck.

[Gizmotron]

I have a brainless, no edge test to consider. I did it so that I can prove variance, randomness, has opportunities. Spin out 300 spins, any source that you consider fair, real spins if you must. Now track the results of just the red numbers as the winners and the others as losers. Now that takes care of having a bet selection, that includes a so called bet selection with an edge too.


With me so far? Now, if any of you have a rudimentary education, let's see if you can find opportunities that occurred in that 300 spins among the red winners. Don't give me any of that stuff that it all happened in the past. Just because you are unskilled at recognizing an opportunity, as it happens, does not mean that someone else with the right skills is as helpless as you claim to be.


I'll bet there were at least two sleeping dozens that lasted more than 14 spins in a row. There were probably at least one streak of the even chances that lasted the same for 12 to 16 times in a row. There were dozens of streaks of singles. All these things are exploitable, even though there are intellectuals in this world that insist that they can't be. You guys are too sacrosanct for your own goods, and that you are blinded by a self serving arrogance. I don't have your definition of an edge. So what. All of that crud is summed up by this single experiment. I hope you approach all of life by your philosophy. Win at gambling or not, you are blind never the less. I think that is fitting too. There is no law of the universe that says you have to have an edge in order to win.

[Blue_Angel]

There is no law of the universe that says you have to have an edge in order to win.

Yes, of course, you could be lucky but luck is not controllable.

[Blue_Angel]

Again I must congratulate all of you contributing to this thread for the massively, intelligent, interesting and relevant information that is being introduced. Indeed any money management system cannot overcome an inadequate bet selection protocol.

When you have a betting protocol in place that allows you to win consistently, creating a positive edge, then of course, a structured money management system will allow the player to maximize winnings and minimize losses.

So now the big question, as professionals our main, or perhaps initial focus, should be on bet selection.

How, in an ocean of probabilities, do we gain a positive edge on say, Baccarat when an individual session (80 hands or less) represents a "drop in the ocean of probabilities ?

The only concrete tools we appear to have is past performance, developing trends and the like. Is there a method we could develop as a like-minded group, with various backgrounds and skills that would provide enough shift in betting protocol to give us that positive edge ?

I totally realize that each individual hand is essentially random, and that, "The past does not equal the future." HOWEVER, every session produces variable results and that may be our strength. The player who is able to step back and see the bigger picture of a string of outcomes, look at those outcomes in a new and different creative manner, may be able to instinctively and intelligently predict (guess) at a different and superior level.

If you add up all of the years of experience each one of you have personally, collectively, as a group we likely have centuries of experience, right here in this form. What an amazing privilege !

I sincerely believe that there really is a very subtle difference between losing to the house advantage and shifting the bet protocol to a consistent player advantage and if anyone can figure that out, this is the group that will do it.

Next step ?

Garry

Hey Garry, what's up?
Warming up the chair for me?


It would be a pity not to address your inquiry properly, but since you've posted that your selection is doing well for thousands of bets, then why don't you make the start by explaining about your selection criteria?
By doing so others would be encouraged to step forth and fulfill your request, what do you think?

[Jimske]

Yep, that is a very steep dive into shallow water. It happens to me about 20% of the time when I start to play money. I've also opened with a massive win streak before too. I even experienced a four day repeating characteristic of the same 18 numbers dominating all day play. It all goes to bet big when you are doing good and bet small when you are doing bad.


But it looks like you played through it flat betting.

No, I don't flat bet.

You control when to stop. You can stop at a point that is near breaking even instead of at the killer point of 4 wins to 15 losses. You can play to negate downturns as an edge. Selecting the stop point is an edge, I think.

Right. We can speed up, slow down, stop, but we just can't back up.  The trick is learning when.  Fortunately it's fairly forgiving due to the low negative expectation.  For those who cannot grasp why we can't back up; the simple reason is we cannot recoup lossses by winning the small bets and losing the big ones.

[Blue_Angel]

You're right in that betting fewer numbers doesn't give any advantage in itself, its value lies in the fact that the variance is higher betting fewer numbers, and exposes less to the house edge. When you don't have an edge, betting fewer numbers means the swings will be larger in BOTH directions. A gambler relies on these swings if he wants to quit while ahead, but of course, because variance is a two-edge sword, it means that when betting fewer numbers the losses will also be larger. Either way (betting more or fewer numbers), in the absence of a real edge, the expectation (mean) will overcome short term variance eventually. The merit of fewer numbers lies in the duration of the swings which enables more opportunities to quit with a profit. But these are not "real" opportunities in the sense that they confer an edge; you're just relying on luck.

Furthermore, all numbers are the same and are not the same on the same time!

If we consider them as static and fixed probabilities then are all the same, but what makes the difference is their condition, they all transit through all phases...and that is what someone should aim for, the tendencies/phases rather than the numbers themselves.

The progression must be adjusted according the expectation and the expectation must adapt the tendencies.
Which tendencies?
Those which we encounter on every session.

[Jimske]

Hey Garry, what's up?
Warming up the chair for me?


It would be a pity not to address your inquiry properly, but since you've posted that your selection is doing well for thousands of bets, then why don't you make the start by explaining about your selection criteria?
By doing so others would be encouraged to step forth and fulfill your request, what do you think?

Gary, please clarify.  Are you proposing that a defined selection can overcome the EV?

My perspective is that no defined bet selection will overcome the EV.  This is not to say we shouldn't use bet selections, just that we must understand their flaws and adjust for them.

J

[Jimske]

Furthermore, all numbers are the same and are not the same on the same time!

If we consider them as static and fixed probabilities then are all the same, but what makes the difference is their condition, they all transit through all phases...and that is what someone should aim for, the tendencies/phases rather than the numbers themselves.

The progression must be adjusted according the expectation and the expectation must adapt the tendencies.
Which tendencies?
Those which we encounter on every session.

Well said.  allow me to repeat. "The progression must be adjusted according the expectation and the expectation must adapt the tendencies."

[Gizmotron]

We can speed up, slow down, stop, but we just can't back up. 

Great point. I never heard that before in the past 12 tears.