Thanks alrelax, ADulay, Asymbacguy , et al for the pos wishes.
asymbacguy:
"If we have found an advantage, best way we'll exploit it is by flat betting as we significantly reduce the variance."
My thinking is that if one has an advantage (verified not just the V swaying) greater than the house edge we want as much money as possible on said advantage as often as possible(as many compounds as possible).
When you say "flat betting" to reduce the Variance I would agree.
However, re: flat betting with a verified advantage I would be more in agreement if your term flat betting means increasing as a function of our buyin or bankroll. Meaning as the buyin/bankroll increased so does the "flat bet" increase.
If your term "flat betting" means always keeping the bet size the same regardless of buyin increasing or decreasing, then I would be in less agreement.
For example:
Lets say if one starts with a $2000 buyin and $50 wager size (.025) and one wins +400. So now buyin is 2400. I would prefer the wager size to also increase to $60(.025) vs remaining at the original flat bet size of $50. Still a flat bet though now a function of buyin.
The $60 is still a flat bet(meaning it doesn't change within the shoe), yet it has upward potential "or growth" and compounding into our buyin/bankroll, (Especially if one has a verified advantage greater than house edge). Most players do in my opinion although most players may not perceive it(their advantage) when Variance is swaying (-) against their bet selection. Thus they go on tilt or abandon their methodology when it was really just a little blip.
To my thinking we want growth (or compounding) of our advantage vibrating through our bet, through our buyin, and through our bankroll. This compounding can be applied "bet-to-bet" or "bet-to-buyin" (as mentioned above), as it is still growing. Which is a good thing.
Continued success,
asymbacguy:
"If we have found an advantage, best way we'll exploit it is by flat betting as we significantly reduce the variance."
My thinking is that if one has an advantage (verified not just the V swaying) greater than the house edge we want as much money as possible on said advantage as often as possible(as many compounds as possible).
When you say "flat betting" to reduce the Variance I would agree.
However, re: flat betting with a verified advantage I would be more in agreement if your term flat betting means increasing as a function of our buyin or bankroll. Meaning as the buyin/bankroll increased so does the "flat bet" increase.
If your term "flat betting" means always keeping the bet size the same regardless of buyin increasing or decreasing, then I would be in less agreement.
For example:
Lets say if one starts with a $2000 buyin and $50 wager size (.025) and one wins +400. So now buyin is 2400. I would prefer the wager size to also increase to $60(.025) vs remaining at the original flat bet size of $50. Still a flat bet though now a function of buyin.
The $60 is still a flat bet(meaning it doesn't change within the shoe), yet it has upward potential "or growth" and compounding into our buyin/bankroll, (Especially if one has a verified advantage greater than house edge). Most players do in my opinion although most players may not perceive it(their advantage) when Variance is swaying (-) against their bet selection. Thus they go on tilt or abandon their methodology when it was really just a little blip.
To my thinking we want growth (or compounding) of our advantage vibrating through our bet, through our buyin, and through our bankroll. This compounding can be applied "bet-to-bet" or "bet-to-buyin" (as mentioned above), as it is still growing. Which is a good thing.
Continued success,