[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
pzhon casino sets up a coin toss game, heads the casino wins, tails the player wins. The coin used is absolutely fair. However, pzhon casino charges a $1 fee per toss and allows a $100 max bet, giving it at least a 1% house edge.

[/ QUOTE ]
For simplicity, assume the casino wins 50.5% of the time instead. That way, there is no need to deal with bets under $100.

[ QUOTE ]
[Out chipped 150:2] Cursing what he figures to be pure luck to overcome his 1% house edge, pzhon can't believe he is broke.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have dozens of posts here on bankroll management (and several of my comments were even added to the Beginners FAQ), and I stated on the earlier thread that there was a high risk of ruin for a casino with a small bankroll. How do you come up with the idea that I would be shocked to lose? You are grossly misrepresenting my position. You are attacking a straw man because that is all you can defeat.

[ QUOTE ]
How many times will pzhon have to lose his $200 bankroll to realize his 1% edge is useless against a much larger bankroll, when the bet size is $100????

[/ QUOTE ]
The 1% HA is not useless, despite your repeated statements that it doesn't matter in the face of the bankroll disparity. In fact, the average amount the casino would have at the end is $626, for a $426 profit. The average number of rounds is 426. The casino wins 1/24 of the time instead of 1/76. That looks like the 1% edge has a large effect to me.

Perhaps you wouldn't want to be the casino here, getting 75:1 on a 23:1 shot. However, the question was whether the situation is good for the player, who loses $426 on average. My position is that this gamble would not be a good one for the player, particularly if the player is risk-averse.

The size of your opponent's bankroll does not affect whether your wagers are +EV or not. That your opponent mighht be risk-averse, and might not be happy to accept a wager in his favor, does not make it a good one for you.

By the way, cardcounter0, the other 9 out of the first 10 people who voted disagreed with you. The consensus is that answer Cyrus gave was not appropriate. You were also alone in voting to say that his comment suggests progressions are a bad idea. You are trying to defend what Cyrus admitted was "intentionally provocative."