Thank you Barry for an excellent post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BMeadow
Let's try for something much easier--converting a 1.4% loss (the pass line in craps) to a 1% profit. While this can easily be done in the short run with a mild progression, many short runs do not equal one long run. Because at some point, that terrible losing streak hits.
|
But isn't that 1.4% loss a FIXED negative edge for ALL PLAYERS?
If it is, then the formula I am investigating CANNOT do anything for such games. That's why it is useless for the roulette too.
Whenever the negative edge for players is
FIXED on account of the
fixed probability and
fixed odds, this formula
CANNOT do anything. So casinos will continue to remain safe even if this formula tomorrow proves to be too good.
But for a game like horse racing
where EDGE and ODDS both are "variable" in nature, this formula I am talking about is showing quite a promise by "improving" the bottom line. At least so far.
Despite making it clear number of times, some posters here are still muddling the discussion by bringing non-applicable arguments related to Casino or other fixed negative games.
To sum it up, I would say if the odds are "variable" (like in horse racing), this formula has turned one negative (flat bet loss) sample into positive ROI, has "reduced" the losses (algebraically, "increased" the ROI) in three other losing samples but NOT turned them to positive ROI, and improved the profitability of 15 more samples. In a way, it has shown improvement in bottom line in all the 19 samples tested so far. More will be tested in the days to come.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BMeadow
While casinos around the world routinely bar players for card counting, shuffle tracking, ace steering, hole carding (blackjack), or for tying up machines when a video poker machine's jackpot moves into positive territory (video poker), or for being just a little too sharp (sports betting), I have never HEARD of a single place which bars players for using betting systems.
|
I hope you understand from what I describe that it is NOT a "betting system" I am talking about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BMeadow
In a short run (say, 1000 horse bets), any result is possible because the sequence of wins and losses, and the prices, vary.
|
Here I would like to mention that
whichever way you shuffle the bets, the end result in terms of "the final state of capital" DOES NOT CHANGE. Isn't it a feature that is desired in a money management system? In fact, I would go to the extent of saying that it is
THE test of a theoretically sound money management formula. Do you agree? I would like to know your opinion on this.
