denflo60 wrote:
As a retired auto exec with advanced degrees in both Engineering and
math, I completely support the math published and supported by the
advantage players for the long run and I have read all of it. As a
four times a year or so Vegas visitor, only the short run exists.
I'll comment, without reference to any particular "system" of play ...
You have a grasp on the long run; no need for me to remark extensively
there. I think you have a grip on the "short run"; ER drives
expectations to a degree, but variance is typically the driving
factor. This leaves those who play relatively infrequently that some
strategy other than "advantage play" will lead to a higher expectation
of a profit. It can.
Take a game with a 99% ER and very low variance. If you plug away
over a weekend at a given denomination, short of hitting a jackpot
hand, you likely are looking at a low expectation of ending the
weekend with a net win. If you ramp up variance through varying
denomination, when according some fixed set of rules or randomly, your
odds of breaking into significant profit territory without a jackpot
hit increase remarkably.
At the same time, you increase your risk of a very large loss. One
doesn't come without the other. And, it's a mistaken notion to think
that you can improve your overall odds of being a net winner over time
by "quitting while you're ahead". While you again increase your
probability of a winning trip, you also can expect that (given the
increased variance of your play) there will be trips where you quickly
descend into the abyss of quick and swift losses.
···
------
Of course, since under such a play approach your play is likely to
become abbreviated, win or lose, the fact that you play fewer hands
will mean that your net expected losses are potentially curtailed on a
negative ER game, as are your winnings for a positive ER game -- in
both cases, actual outcome will be driven more by the variance for
which you've given emphasis in your play.
The bottom line for play in which variance is ramped up is that you
don't change your expected return ... you merely increase your
probability of being both a significant winner and a significant loser.
btw, in addition to increasing your variance through varying
denomination (bet size), you can also do so by alternating between
lower variance games and higher variance games. The same change in
expectations apply.
------
There are a subset of players for whom the greater expectation of
profit through increased variance is a desired play approach. Not
everyone desires the "grind it out" experience of advantage play.
However, such players do themselves a disservice if they don't get a
handle on the downside as well as the upside.
I'll note that there are a great many number of players who eschew low
variance games in favor of high variance games. The driving force
again is that over the short run, high variance games typically yield
a higher probability of winnings. Such players approach play
reasonably given their play preferences. And, it's my experience that
active players who take this approach have a decent expectation of
both upside and downside expectations.
------
To touch briefly on "the long term": There should be no question that
over the long run a high ER game yields greater expectation of long
term winnings -- and that both higher ER and lower variance can serve
to make that "long term" surprisingly short.
For moderately actively players who record 200 hours of play a year, a
9/6 Jacks or NSUD player playing with .8%-1% of bounceback/cash
bonuses can likely look to play profitability with a very high
expectation of a profit well within 10 years of play -- within a
comparable amount of time, a 9/6 DDB player can look to play at a
cumulative loss with a strong expectation (although they continue to
have an upside expectation "advantage" session to session).
- Harry