The Meaning of Discipline

[royal flush]

the only thing that works in the long run is playing 100+ ev games correctly al the rest is fiction

[MikeA]

BigBoy, as you should have surmised from my posts, I am not a great proponent of progression play.  However, you must also understand that my bias is the result of Blackjack progressions which more closely resemble that analogy of the coin flip.  This for sure will bring to bear the statement by Shadowman that sooner or later, you will lose and lose BIG.I have not researched this possibility (VP Progressions) thoroughly.  I have to consider that there are more variations (necessary variations) with progressions in Video Poker than with Blackjack.  It is hard to equate a VP "session" with a Blackjack hand or series of hands to emulate a Martingale Negative Progression for example.Consider first that you would have to define what the basis of the progression in VP would be.  It would be very difficult if not impossible to set your bet ramping to lost hands in VP.  You would almost have to set it first by some predefined "session".  Compound that with the possibility of integrating loss limits and win goals with the "session".  Amplify that with the potential decision to change to a different game yielding differing EVs and different Variance.There is a LOT to consider before you could completely rule out the possibility of a progression being a "good thing."  My little demonstration did one thing and one thing only (besides giving analysts like me, an insight into the relationships of various factors in VP).  It showed to my satisfaction, that you CAN play a progression that will guarantee that you will ALLWAYS win "something" more than you've risked.  But can occur only in a Utopian setting.  You must have unlimited funds and you must have unlimited opportunity to advance to the next tier in the progression.  Neither of these are stipulations that many (if ANY) of us have.So, my example is not typical of that which you are searching.  You would need to tackle the chore of coming up with a PRACTICAL progression that would make winning a more likely prospect than losing and doing it in such a way that it would not put your financial security at risk.  That is a challenge that I doubt that "practical" players (okay, the math folks) are going to be likely to undertake.  Speaking for myself, were I to undertake that, it would be purely as an intellectual challenge for my bias is already set.  While I can contemplate such a system, I could very likely never practice it.

[faygo]

[QUOTE=shadowman][QUOTE=bigboy]
Sorry, i will re-phrase it. I have not seen anything published by a known and respected published author that substantiates the claim of a progression system being the better way.
 
And, you never will. There's a big difference between stating it will win more sessions and that it is a "better way".  
I'm not sure what else you're looking for here. We're talking pretty simple math. Maybe I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
 
 
Oy vey! I'll try one last time.  My initial question related to the fact that i have never read anything from Dancer/Scott,etc. about their experience with using a progression system. I was asking benford if he had read something on the progression subject that had been written by a noted author(other than R** S****r), or if he had a  personal "progression" casino experience or experiences to share with the forum. That's it. No math questions, no references to the sim that was performed by Mike(which was an informative and appreciated piece-thanks Mike A.). If anyone is'nt clear on my question, than PM me with your questions. I really don't want to do the Fa La La La La.... La la la la semantics word games where everything is taken literally.[/QUOTE]
 
In a Jan.19, 2004 article Bob Dancer (bobdancer.com) kind of touched on progression. The article is titled Standardization of Bet Size. His lead in to the article  mentions another writer's idea of increasing bet size in beatable games.  I have never read anything else by any of the writers that have recommended  a progression betting system for VP, only have read articles against it. I know I didn't add much to your question but I tried.
 
Faygo
 
 

[bigboy]

[QUOTE=bigboy][QUOTE=shadowman][QUOTE=bigboy]
Sorry, i will re-phrase it. I have not seen anything published by a known and respected published author that substantiates the claim of a progression system being the better way.
 
And, you never will. There's a big difference between stating it will win more sessions and that it is a "better way".  
I'm not sure what else you're looking for here. We're talking pretty simple math. Maybe I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
 
 
Oy vey! I'll try one last time.  My initial question related to the fact that i have never read anything from Dancer/Scott,etc. about their experience with using a progression system. I was asking benford if he had read something on the progression subject that had been written by a noted author(other than R** S****r), or if he had a  personal "progression" casino experience or experiences to share with the forum. That's it. No math questions, no references to the sim that was performed by Mike(which was an informative and appreciated piece-thanks Mike A.). If anyone is'nt clear on my question, than PM me with your questions. I really don't want to do the Fa La La La La.... La la la la semantics word games where everything is taken literally.[/QUOTE]
 
In a Jan.19, 2004 article Bob Dancer (bobdancer.com) kind of touched on progression. The article is titled Standardization of Bet Size. His lead in to the article  mentions another writer's idea of increasing bet size in beatable games.  I have never read anything else by any of the writers that have recommended  a progression betting system for VP, only have read articles against it. I know I didn't add much to your question but I tried.
 
Faygo
 
 [/QUOTE] I appreciate that you understood my question.Thanks.

[bigboy]

BigBoy, as you should have surmised from my posts, I am not a great proponent of progression play. 
 
Nor am i, Mike. I experienced the same difficulty with defining the parameters for a simulated progression when i attempted it many years ago at home on the computer. However, it seemed that no matter what parameters i set, the end result of the sim was a monstrous loss.   

[rascal]

I'm doing all I can do to assist the progression discussion....this is about a progressive win. I hit aces with kicker at $1 last night with kicker being deuce of diamonds, and then 44 minutes later on same machine hit exactly the same hand, including deuce of diamonds, at a higher denomination. Of course I tried to find Rob to share the proceeds, but word going around the casino was that he hightailed it over the desert on his Harley as soon as he heard about my win.

[oej719]

Ha ha. Rascal if he had been using his slot card but it was your money he would have tried to split the profits with you.
He has no Harley or Vette. He has to rent a car to get to Nevada because his 1998 Tarus is too risky to drive that far.

[shadowman]

Bigboy, I think you're looking in the wrong place if you're looking for an expert opinion on progressions from Jean Scott or Bob Dancer (although Bob probably has a sufficient math background). Jean was an English teacher and Bob an economist. That is the reason I wondered exactly what you were looking for when you used their names and considered that they might have an "expert" opinion on the subject. I'm not trying to demean Jean or Bob in any way. They have both admitted many times that they are not the experts in all areas of VP.
 
In the discussions with Fa La La La La.... La la la la I posted a link to a mathematical proof by a professional mathematician (a real expert) that demonstrated that a finite progression can not change the expected return of any VP game. Talking about infinite progressions is of no value as no such thing can or does exist. I believe the coin-flip example demonstrates exactly why a progression can lead to more session wins.
 
So, if playing a progression does not change the overall return then it neither helps nor hurts. Play one if that is something you find more entertaining. I did several simuations of Fa La La La La.... La la la la's system a couple of years ago and decided to modify it at the time to simulate positive games. It clearly showed that you can increase session wins as expected. It also showed an increase in variance over a non-progression. If you wish to discuss some things I found in the simulations let me know. Otherwise I have probably went way beyond your interest level already.

[Benford's Law]

Bigboy,            I don't know if you are going to read this since you said your question had been satisfactorily answered by Faygo, but since I am a "weekend warrior" at the casinos I wasn't here to answer your question right away.            In short, yes, I was referring to the "mysterious man on the motorcycle's" progression in denomination & game volatility.            There are no other authors in video poker I was referring to in my post.            I do realize that the coin flip example has been brought up here as a simplistic example.....but I also want to add that I still have a liking to Mr. Fa La La La La.... La la la la's ideas of increasing game volatility WITHIN a certain denomination.            To me, this does indeed add flavor and variety to casino sessions and it makes the range of outcomes more complex and involved (and more exciting!) than simple coin flips or playing the same game/denomination for an entire session.            Shadowman, in case you are reading this, I am well aware of your arguments mathematically and I respect them (You certainly won't see me taunting advantage players!).....Yet, I am still very much neutral on the Shadowman/Fa La La La La.... La la la la debate and, personally, I find the TIMING issue to be paramount in video poker.~Benford's Law

[shadowman]

 Shadowman, in case you are reading this, I am well aware of your arguments mathematically and I respect them (You certainly won't see me taunting advantage players!).....Yet, I am still very much neutral on the Shadowman/Fa La La La La.... La la la la debate and, personally, I find the TIMING issue to be paramount in video poker.
~Benford's Law
 
I'm not sure what neutral means. The issue is a very simple one. Can you predict the future or can't you? The only way bet adjustments (either negative as in Fa La La La La.... La la la la's system or positive as in Denny's ideas) can work is if you can predict or influence future outcomes. If results are TRULY random then no betting system can make a difference. That has been proven mathematically. I don't make this last statement lightly. I realize that many folks don't understand exactly what it means to be "proven". In simple terms it means there is absolutely NO doubt.
 
Personally, I'm more of a believer in intuition. which essentially says that future results can be predicted, but accepts that the cause is unknown and not a factor of any system. It just appears to be something very few people have that makes the rest of us envious.  Naturally, it is most often called "luck" and there is essentially no way to determine if it's true or not.