The reason this keeps coming up is because the point keeps getting misrepresented.
No one has said they "beat the math" in long-term gambling.Yet if someone comes on and says they've won over any amount of time by playing -EV games, we immediately have the conspiracy theorists jump up and down claiming "they're lying!"
In my case I net profitted in four years playing my strategy. That's hardly "long-term", in fact, it's but a relatively small slice in time. And if anybody doesn't think it's possible to win as much as I did in that amount of time at the limits I played, it is they who do not understand the math.
I took a chance when I chose to play it. I never experienced a complete loss ($57,200 in one session) and it was always possible for it to happen multiple times a year. But it didn't. I have no doubt that had I not come upon the DU bug play and continued to play my strategy instead, I would have experienced more than one of those losses. But would I have lost overall...given the continuing opportunities for huge hits along the way? No one knows--not even the math. Because the math doesn't really know if 10 years is long enough for that strategy to make it into the "long-term" or not. That can be argued on and on and on.
But the fact remains: If I have a pocket with $57,200 stuffed inside and I'm in dire need of an additional minimum $2500, it would be downright foolish if I didn't play my strategy to get the extra funds. Every. Single. Time.





Reply With Quote