Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
AMEN!
IMHO, statements like "Progressive betting is always bad," are just plain false.
IOW, if you have a negative expectancy the mathematically best way to play is to not play at all.
Admittedly, chase-the-money strategies are bad with a negative ROI, but then, so is every other betting system.
Understand that I am not suggesting that CtM is appropriate and/or comfortable for YOU.
|
I think it is more related to turnover rate than anything else, including bank size. A strategy based on a small number of high returns can easily go seriously haywire when wagers are increased after losses. There are a number of "plateau" schemes that work reasonably well, but I much prefer the high turnover rate. Much easier to detect when something is wrong.
I think (purely my own strategies in my own wagering and DEFINITELY not recommended for anyone else) I would much rather use increase-after-losses than percentage of bankroll or flat betting. That is based on experience wagering, not simulations (although the simulations indicate the same--or better--results). I have used all three approaches at various times, and both the flat bets and percentage of bank bets come up way short in the return area. Again, that is only my own wagering.
Increasing wagers has a tendency to weed out the wishful thinking strategies from the solid strategies rather rapidly. I think it may be a bit too fast for most.
