Quote:
Originally Posted by BJennet
There is no mathematical validity supporting the use of progressions in gambling, and they've been thoroughly debunked by every respected authority. Those interested can take check out Richard A. Epstein's recently revised edition of 'The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic' for more detail.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always understood that what is debunked is the notion of a progression method (e.g. 'martingale') turning a flat bet loss series into a positive return. Schwartz' HMI (including 'Opponent Method') makes no claim to do so, and even acknowledges that truth. His methods seek to improve on any flat-bet profit and smooth out the wild fluctuations which come with full Kelly proportion betting (and outperform various fractional Kellys).
The HMI spreadsheet template accepts a series of bets (which presumably show a flat bet profit) and proposes fluctuating bet sizes (i.e. modified following Wins and Losses) and compares the resulting bankroll growth to flat-bet, full and fractional Kelly. I confess I have not made use of it in the past 2 years, but my recollection is that HMI outperforms flat betting, and even Kelly varieties.
It sure helps to have a flat-bet profitable method (otherwise I presume HMI merely mitigates your losses), and also a fairly high hit rate (e.g. >= 50%)
I will plug in my last 50 bets and see what it says.
Ted