+ Register

[warrior]

I  disagree if you sit to long at any table you will lose .this is why casinos use comps and give you free stuff if your winning a lot of their money ,they know that the longer you play the more you will lose.

[NathanDetroit]

A real Pro  has always one  foot pointed towards the  door.

[Bayes]

A person can only do hit and run once in their life, when they play for a second time, and then again and again, they are just carrying on from before.

Agreed, but even then you have to win that one time you play in order to say that hit & run has succeeded.

Hit and run is another fallacy that is related to the fact that there is no expected value on a non-wager.

It's actually more basic than that. Warrior said:

if you sit too long at any table you will lose .

Many think that this implies that "if you don't sit too long at any table then you won't lose" (and reasoning thus, they are led to the idea of hit & run). But this is a textbook logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent".



If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.


It doesn't matter what the propositions P and Q actually are, because ANY argument which has this form is invalid. The only conclusion you can draw from "if you sit too long at any table you will lose" is that


"if you don't lose, you haven't been sitting at any table too long"

[Sputnik]

 
Hit and run is any different then any other method.
All gamblers have there own personal permanence.
No matter how they play.

If everything is based upon fallacies, then how do we deal with does who win.
They make money out of Gamblers fallacy, how can that be true.

Should we regard all this person as lier at this forum board.
Or just regard them as lucky for a short period of time.

[Number Six]

Agreed, but even then you have to win that one time you play in order to say that hit & run has succeeded.

For sure, that's what I meant, but also by that logic, a person has only one chance to succeed anway, so win or lose, it can still only be attempted once, especially with real money. Then they can never play the game again in any form, even a roulette shots drinking game, without entering a longer personal perm and being at the mercy of luck, which, when you're playing not to drink jagermeister, can have a more "projectile" impact.

It's actually more basic than that. Warrior said:

Many think that this implies that "if you don't sit too long at any table then you won't lose" (and reasoning thus, they are led to the idea of hit & run). But this is a textbook logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent".

Well, again at the risk of splitting hairs, the statement of sitting at the wheel is not actually accurate is it? Are the subtle differences between definitions really important? They probably are, sometimes they may lead to a eureka moment. The more money you wager, the more likely you are to lose. If I sit at the wheel for four hours and don't place a bet, I have no probability of losing anything.

If everything is based upon fallacies, then how do we deal with does who win.

I would tend to agree that a gambler might not know the difference between luck and something else. I mean, it is possible to be lucky for what might seem like a long time. But at what stage does a fallacy stop being a fallacy? Does it stop at all. I would say if you can prove the premise of what you do makes an actual difference, and once it's proved to be effective, there is nothing fallacious about it. For example if there is a conditional situation that offers a better than normal EV, it can't be a fallacy can it? Even if it is based on passed spins.

[warrior]

If you sit to long at any table and don't have enough BR you will lose and if you have enough you will lose.casinos know if you play long enough you will lose .

[warrior]

We can sit here until next year on this and resolve nothing ,unless you have have bet selection that has powers .video poker you might have  a chance.

[Sputnik]

 
The question is if members lie at this forum board.

1. We have members who claim they can stay ahead.
2. We have members who claim making a living on gambling.

And all that based upon fallacies.
Why did not randomness bite a big hole into there bankroll ?
Or why did not the house edge grind out there bankroll ?

[warrior]

The ? Is are they making a living at it . I have my doubts a very hard way to make easy money.

[Sputnik]

 
Well take one member like "flat in one" something ...
He say he did all that in the past, make a living on gambling.
Different methods and progressions.

If he can do it, then others can do it, if its true ...
My 2 cents ...

How long does it take before zero grind out your bankroll.
Seems like forever.
Feels like variance is a bigger animal.

[Blood Angel]

How long does it take before zero grind out your bankroll.
Seems like forever.
Feels like variance is a bigger animal.

The HE is but a pimple on the backside of variance......in my opinion.

[Xander]

In the random game of roulette:

Variance is a double edge sword.  It's why you can sometimes win during a session. (And why you may lose)

The house edge is why you will always lose in the long run.  And it exists on each and every bet made.

[Bayes]

Xander,


I disagree. If the house edge doesn't exist you will still lose, assuming that the casino has a much larger bank than you do. That's because it will outlast the losing runs (variance), whereas the player's comparatively puny bank will be lost. Conversely, if the house edge is present, but the variance is reduced enough, then the player can win (although maybe not flat betting). If consecutive losing bets are limited to a few (say between 6 and 8) a standard martingale will do the trick.

[warrior]

I play for a set number of of spins each session and my wins are more then my loses . I'm not there all day like gamblers

and lose everything back that's a waste of time. I do this flat betting and there is a time when to raise a bet to win more money or else big wins are not possible.

[Bayes]

If you sit to long at any table and don't have enough BR you will lose and if you have enough you will lose.casinos know if you play long enough you will lose .

Yes but the solution to this problem is not to go home or switch tables after making a limited number of bets (hit & run) but to find a bet selection which reduces the variance. Hit & run, as a strategy, is not a bet selection at all, but just a different way of breaking up your betting in time.


What is "too long" anyway? at precisely what point in your betting does the house edge or variance begin to bite? The house edge is present on every spin, and if you don't have a decent bet selection the variance could get you at any time, maybe from the very first bet.