In the pzhon
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you arguing that it is +EV for someone to play roulette under certain conditions on bankrolls?

[/ QUOTE ] (sigh) No.

Here:


[ QUOTE ]
Progression betting : A form of betting which requires one to change the size of his bet based upon the results of the last hand or series of hands. Progressions can be negative, which usually means a bet is raised after a loss, or positive, which usually means the bet is raised after a win. No progression has ever been devised which can change the actual expectation in any given game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright? That was one of my contributions to Bootlegger's Blackjack Glossary. Do I get a pass now? (Another one of my entries was about TARGET. Do I get called a supporter of Jerry's snake oil next?)

[ QUOTE ]
If the house is underfunded and you win the house's entire bankroll, you win very little compared to how much you lose if they win yours.

[/ QUOTE ] Correct. But you have busted the house! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: In the pzhon
 

Okay, so you concede it's not +EV.

FWIW, I don't think of having a large probability of winning as "beating the crap out of the house."

My merry way
 

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so you concede [progression betting is] not +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not concede. The word means "To acknowledge something, often reluctantly, as being true". I have always maintained that progession betting is not +EV in itself.

Re: My merry way
 

Then you must think it is sometimes +EV, which is what I asked you to demonstrate. But when I asked you if it was +EV under certain conditions, you replied by saying "(sigh) No."

How is someone supposed to interpret what you're saying?

I claimed \"Progressions are good\" 18% definitely, 16% possibly
 

[ QUOTE ]
You must think [progression betting] is sometimes +EV, which is what I asked you to demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ] I am not responsible for what you think and the way you interpret my text. Expected value and ruin are different concepts. One may go bust playing a +EV game; one may bust the bank playing a -EV game.


[ QUOTE ]
When I asked you if [progression betting] was +EV under certain conditions, you replied by saying "(sigh) No."

[/ QUOTE ] I'm sorry that my sighing confused you.

It was exasperation, not pathos.

[ QUOTE ]
How is someone supposed to interpret what you're saying?

[/ QUOTE ] By reading what's written and not what you think is written. And by constructing logical and sensible conclusions from the text.

I'm sure, for example, that the sentence "Progression betting has provided me with a positive-expectation game in Blackjack in the past", which happens to be true for me, would be thoroughly misunderstood by a lot of folks in this forum (about 34% of 'em, at the latest count [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) who would take it to mean that "progression betting can change a game from -EV to +EV". It's called myopia.

Well, I am grateful that it's impossible to eradicate myopic logic from the gambling public! Otherwise, who'd pay for those lights?

Re: I claimed \"Progressions are good\" 18% definitely, 16% possibly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Expected value and ruin are different concepts. One may go bust playing a +EV game; one may bust the bank playing a -EV game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. In fact, it appeared that YOU didn't understand it, which is why people responded in the first place. I agree with you that you can have -EV and still a high P(house ruin).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is someone supposed to interpret what you're saying?

[/ QUOTE ] By reading what's written and not what you think is written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I thought you had something to say other than, "You can break the house if they're underfunded," since that is obvious.

Also, why do you think that multiple people are confused about what you're saying? Do you think we're all careless? Do you think we don't understand math well enough?

If I felt I were being misinterpreted by more than one person who was logical, mathematically competent, and fluent in English, I would wonder if the fault really were completely others'.

Re: Negative Progression roulette
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
This is a fine system, if you have unlimited funds, with unlimited wagering ability.

[/ QUOTE ] Nah. If you bet on the roulette wheel an unlimited ammount of times, there is a 100% chance you will face an (unlimited number of) unlimited losing streak(s) at some time during this betting. (You will also face unlimited winning streaks, so your unlimited bankroll will be multiplied unlimited times, at the same time as unlimited ammounts will be lost.)

Okok, my point: You can deduct some stupid [censored] if you're allowed to presume "unlimited" anything.