Progressions is better than flat bettting?

[stevel96a1]

Bills and Jstarks no need to apply!

just picked up my copy of conquer the casinos 2004 edition there is a slot/video poker chapter inside.
what intrigued me his computer study of the table games. containing a 100-unit buy in followed by a betting progression out shined flat betting. is this correct Gronbog? he described the ratio of being ahead/behind on how you handle your 100 unit BR and his fndings showed flat betting did the worst which contradicts 8 of spades study on a blackjack flat betting side by side various systems and his work showed flat betting did the best LOL (or the least worst out of the other systems) i dont believe he used Koetch system however both of these gentle are in disagreement with each other.

is the author simply suggesting if player A has a 200$ BR plays nickle machine the highest he will reach is 3 standard devations of a royal if player B has a 200$ BR and plays Quarter he may hit 2 royals and be ahead nearly 2,000$ is that what the author was going for if anyone has read it?

P.S again to all the bills and Jstarks and Hops out there he mentioned you cannot over come the houses edge by altering your bet

[Eduardo]

In order to decide if it is "better" you need to say what your goals are.

If your goal is to win more money in the long run, it will probably will not be better.

If your goal is to come out ahead on more sessions of a certain number of hands played, it may be better.

If your goal is to win a big jackpot of a certain amount, it probably will not be better.

If your goal is to come out ahead on any given day, it may or may not be better depending on your bankroll and parameters for when you will decide to quit.

[billryan]

If someone published a winning formula in 2004, what are the chances it was undiscovered for fifteen years?

[onemoretry]

....... he mentioned you cannot over come the houses edge by altering your bet

Isn't that the answer to the question?

[Gronbog]

One of the enticing things about progressions is that they seem to work in the short term. You will experience many more winning sessions than losing ones. You will experience long streaks of winning sessions before you lose one. This ratio of winning to losing sessions it what the author of the study referenced by Steve seems to be focusing on.

The problem is that when the sequence fails, you end up losing many many times more than any of the individual wins. More than enough to put you in the red overall. This is true regardless of whatever limits you end up putting on the sequence.

At the end of the day, as the author himself seems to acknowledge, the house edge does not change. Over time, you will lose an amount close to your total coin-in multiplied by the house edge.

[Gronbog]

Ironically, the high success rate of individual progressive sequences makes them an extremely powerful tool in most kinds of casino tournaments. This is because, while the upside can be substantial, the downside is limited to the loss of your entry fee.

[Vman96]

Progressions just change your variance. Like gronbog said, your overall expected loss will be total coin-in x (house edge + error rate).

But if progressions increase your enjoyment while playing, then there is something to be said about that. But that's a matter of personal preference. Personally, I don't tend to play much of a progressive style. If I do, it will likely be to maximize play time for my bankroll (i.e. move down denominations when losing).

[Jstark]

Sounds like another book to scam people.

[billryan]

Sounds like another book to scam people.

Would you rather give your money to an enterprising individual or a corporate casino?
The more money you spend on books, the less you will have to lose in the casino.
.

[Jstark]

Sounds like another book to scam people.

Would you rather give your money to an enterprising individual or a corporate casino?
The more money you spend on books, the less you will have to lose in the casino.
.

Why buy them when I can borrow them from others?