nolinks://nolinks (nolinks://nolinks). quatloos.com/quatloosia-goodlife/gamble2.htm
Does their math seem a little fuzzy or is it me?
It sure does.
I also disagree with statements such as:
QuoteSo, Money Management is actually a dangerous thing, because it can benefit the House, which is never in your best interest.
or:
QuoteIf the bettor can get even a slight edge, then with multiple rolls the bettor has no chance of losing!
The best-known system for beating the odds is counting cards in Blackjack. A good card counter can turn the tables on the odds so that he has an approximately 1.5% advantage over the House. Over 100 hands, this means that the bettor has a risk compounded advantage of 6.5% over the house -- very significant, and terrifying enough to the casinos that they will eject and Blacklist any bettor whom they believe is card-counting.
But the truth is that humans are not perfect, and there is probably nobody and no system that can play without making an occasionally error. So really, what you end up doing is finding systems that will statistically allow you to play "even" against the House over a long period of time, with the goal being to have the most amount of fun while gambling with the least amount of loss.
So what they're saying here is: Even if you do get a statistical edge you can't really win because you're human. LOL
Sounds like a casino employee.
Some of their math in the risk compounding seems flawed also.