noal

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by noal 14y ago

   Coming from a background of working with security for financial institutions (Banks, Creditcard companies and so on), I'd highly recommend re-evaluating this implementation from a liability perspective. Feel free to send me a message (conta
2. 2.▲
   by noal 14y ago

   I'll clean up my code a bit and post it on pastebin, there's probably a mistake in my logic somewhere. Overall; I agree [and having played my share of a variety of strategies] I found the data to be confusing, hence my peaked curiosity. :-)
3. 3.▲
   by noal 14y ago

   Though it did (in the simulation). The accumulated winnings with the limits on bankrupt and cashing out at 1500 created a over time win percentage in a otherwise negative-biased game?
4. 4.▲
   by noal 14y ago

   Note that's 3,650 decks / 28,470 hands (not counting "War" hands). As it was run twice, it's closer to 56,940. (using two different alg.) Rerunning it (now) produces minimal differences, even at a 1,000 year setup. (3-5% variation)
5. 5.▲
   by noal 14y ago

   Interesting read; I was playing with similar thoughts over my lunch break a couple of days ago. The base of my sample program [implemented in ruby] was based (in theory) of Proportional Betting "The Martingale" - http://www.bjmath.com/bjma