Fat Boy And The Rest Of You Nits Can Be At Ease.....

[Colin Colenso]

Don't forget with negative progression, you're only winning back your original bet. What is he gonna do, bet $5000 to win his original $10 and only then to win $500? Not gonna happen

If it got to betting 5k to win $510 (actually we were saying $1,000 before.... the higher the amount, the better for the player) then he'd already have lost the bet. But the odds of a player getting $50 up on a progressive system with a bankroll of (say he risks 800 to win your $1,000) is very high. Guessing high 95+% based on a $5 win.

So he gets to $50 up and then bets minimum until he gets below zero, and then bets progressive again until he gets to $50 up, or $5 up if it is the last hand of the challenge.

He may need need to enter progressive betting 3 or 4 cycles for the bet. His odds of surviving them is well over 50%.

Think of it this way. In an even game, I'm an equal chance of winning or losing 1,000 over x number of hands. So, I must be a higher chance of winning $10 than I am of losing $1,000, cause it's easier (better) odds of winning $10 or more than it is of winning $1000 or more.

Colin

 

[Jaden]

I think the house's biggest advantage is greed....

I also believe it's not realistic to find value often enough counting to make it worthwhile. I suspect the only real pros are the ones who get busted counting on purpose so they can become card counting guru coaches.

imho any of the progression type systems don't change your long term return, they just change the rate of profit and loss so you might be able to say with a bankroll of 10k, starting at $5, you've got an 80% chance of winning 1k or more in the first 5 hours, and you've got a 98% chance of blowing the lot after 80 hours. Eventually the house's 1 - 3% is gonna get ya and the way you stagger it shouldn't affect the overall odds.

The thing is, it is hard to word a bet against someone's performance in a way that doesn't give them a way to improve their odds against you. That's probably a known type of con.

e.g. I'll bet my $1,000 against your $500 that I can be $50 or more up on this roulette wheel after 100 spins or at X O'clock.

A little math and you could work out a proposition that makes you about 80% favorite but it would seem almost irresistable to the fish.

Not that I'd do that. I've never got much enjoyment out of taking people's money. A Casino's money I wouldn't mind, but it's too hard with my limited bag of tricks.

Colin

Regardless of whether people have a long term advatnage or not, people are greedy which turns into the house's biggest advantage.

The house will keep pn going 24/7, it doesn't run out of money. People may be up 2-3K playing relatively small stakes and they want to make more, so they start to lose some and instead of walking away, they just keep playing with the excuse that they had already won that much, so they should be able to win more.

Then they lose everything they made and more in some cases. the problem is that they don't know when to just walk away, and they can't keep playing indefintely like the house does....

Jaden

 

[Colin Colenso]

Regardless of whether people have a long term advatnage or not, people are greedy which turns into the house's biggest advantage.

The house will keep pn going 24/7, it doesn't run out of money. People may be up 2-3K playing relatively small stakes and they want to make more, so they start to lose some and instead of walking away, they just keep playing with the excuse that they had already won that much, so they should be able to win more.

Then they lose everything they made and more in some cases. the problem is that they don't know when to just walk away, and they can't keep playing indefintely like the house does....

Jaden

Sure, it helps them when people recirculate their winnings rather than take them home. They'd still win at the same rate though if winners walked away, it would just be the same percentage of a lower number thanks to people's urge to keep betting on the occassions they are winning.

Colin