you sure about that? With a rigged coin that on a 100 tosses flips heads 60 vs tails 40, you sure there is no advantage to bet sizing? Many mathmaticians have tried to explain this to me, but it defies my simple common sense.Quote from JackDogII:
In this case bet size does not matter as every bet carries a positive expectation.
There is no way to achieve a positive expectation in BlackJack by varying bet size alone. If a player's game does not carry a positive expectation then increasing bet size either with winners or losers will not achieve a positive expectation.
The only way to achieve a positive expectation in BlackJack is by counting cards. It is true that while basic blackjack strategy will get a player very close to a positive expectation - it is still negative without some knowledge of the makeup of the remaining cards in the deck/shoe (achieved through counting) and nothing that you do with bet size will change that.
Jack
Quote from oldtime:you sure about that? With a rigged coin that on a 100 tosses flips heads 60 vs tails 40, you sure there is no advantage to bet sizing? Many mathmaticians have tried to explain this to me, but it defies my simple common sense.especially like I said, when it comes up tails 40 times in a row.
Quote from asap:
hmmm looks like many dont know what expectancy is about.
say, in blackjack, if you're NOT counting cards, you've negative expectancy, while the house has positive expectancy.
if you're counting cards, then, you reverse the roles, thus the player reading cards has positive expectancy and the house has negative expectancy.
there's nothing else that can do to turn the odds around for the player than counting cards. obviously, no casino ever allow card counting, therefore, in normal circumstances, you always have negative expectancy in blackjack.
any betting system you use will never revert the negative expectancy, unless you'd be allowed to, for example, increase the bet geometrically every time you lose, until you finally win, but that's not allowed in any casino and even if it would, you'd have to have an infinite bankroll to play.
now, you can play blackjack lots of time without counting cards and still make money. why is that possible, if you have negative expectancy? well, it is because you got lucky.
so, you can make lots of money in a negative expectancy game or in a positive expectancy game. the main difference is while in a negative expectancy you only make money if you get lucky, in a positive expectancy game, you'll make money no matter what, it is a question of playing it enough times until the law of large numbers kicks in.
in trading, the above principles apply like a glove. find yourself a way of counting cards in trading, and you'll be long term winner no matter what happens in short term.
Quote from asap:
hmmm looks like many dont know what expectancy is about.
say, in blackjack, if you're NOT counting cards, you've negative expectancy, while the house has positive expectancy.
if you're counting cards, then, you reverse the roles, thus the player reading cards has positive expectancy and the house has negative expectancy.
there's nothing else that can do to turn the odds around for the player than counting cards. obviously, no casino ever allow card counting, therefore, in normal circumstances, you always have negative expectancy in blackjack.
any betting system you use will never revert the negative expectancy, unless you'd be allowed to, for example, increase the bet geometrically every time you lose, until you finally win, but that's not allowed in any casino and even if it would, you'd have to have an infinite bankroll to play.
now, you can play blackjack lots of time without counting cards and still make money. why is that possible, if you have negative expectancy? well, it is because you got lucky.
so, you can make lots of money in a negative expectancy game or in a positive expectancy game. the main difference is while in a negative expectancy you only make money if you get lucky, in a positive expectancy game, you'll make money no matter what, it is a question of playing it enough times until the law of large numbers kicks in.
in trading, the above principles apply like a glove. find yourself a way of counting cards in trading, and you'll be long term winner no matter what happens in short term.
yeah, you still don't get it. The coin is rigged, it comes up heads 60 times out of 100.Quote from JackDogII:
Your simple common sense doesn't make sense statistically.
The issue is - "Can bet sizing change a negative expectation to a positive expectation?" and the answer is NO.
As to 40 in a row - the statistical term is clumping and is a pehenomenon that can be seen in tests that are not of adequate sample size.
Even with 40 winning hands in a row in a BJ game w/o counting you will still wind up a loser once you have played enough hands to normalize the data.
It is just like at the wheel or the crap table - nobody ever makes a long term living at either because every bet carries a negative expectation and no manner of bet sizing will change that.
The logic is in the posts below. As your simple common sense is not getting the job done, maybe you should do the math instead.
Jack
Quote from oldtime:
yeah, you still don't get it. The coin is rigged, it comes up heads 60 times out of 100.
because most traders are not so sure about their 60% "edge" and don't bet the optimum amount hoping their backtested statistics prove true.Quote from CT10Gov:
So what? that probability doesn't change every time you toss a coin. There's an optimal amount you are supposed to bet everything time, unvaryingly. This is one of the easiest problem to solve in statistics beyond 101-level.
Why do you think your 'common-sense' is better than an actual proveable mathematically result?
Quote from oldtime:
you're betting on a trend in negative expectency game.
to make it more like futures, I would be betting on what I think you are going to do
Quote from oldtime:yeah, you still don't get it. The coin is rigged, it comes up heads 60 times out of 100.
Quote from oldtime:
because most traders are not so sure about their 60% "edge" and don't bet the optimum amount hoping their backtested statistics prove true.