please give my part to mr.monkey
Iag, I just don't understand how it is possible for us to not understand each other to such an extent. I thought it would be more fun to lower our bets from 100% to 25-50, so that we don't get wiped out with one loss and perhaps keep going for a while. If you didn't want to keep going say so. Me and Tron agreed on rules, kato and plommer didn't comment, neither did Nina. I wasn't the one who posted any of the three plays that got bet. You asked me for my logic for wanting to be aggressive I explained it.
I never asked you for logic in being more aggressive...other than when you used the all in example. You started trying to "teach" me, and then I found fault with your roulette example as being too extreme choices. I never found fault in the logic other than betting simultaneous plays.
I think you have selective memory pal. The zone was OVER. You said you wanted to keep it going. Someone agreed with you. I suggested you go small to protect your investment. You said minimum of %25-%50. Tron hesitated but finally agreed with you (later said max of %7) I was cool with whatever. I never tried to sway back to a lower amount. Everyone was all over the place. In the end, I thought it was pretty much settled in at a firm risk of %25 and that is how I was putting them in.
Then Plommer hinted I should have put in the play for win amount of %25, not risk amount so I upped that bet.
You had said if there were multiple plays put out to put them all in at the same time. THIS is the part I disagreed with...not betting %25 per play. I thought that was reasonable. You kept trying to explain why that was the easiest way to your goal...but the only example you gave was one using two extremes (roulette example) When I asked why those were the only options, you said you were using that as an example of quickest way to win ..this is where the confusion was because your example was going all in when we all had already decided %25.
The problem AGAIN was betting 3/4 or more of the bankroll at one time. I didn't like THAT approach. I don't think Tron and Nina did either...they had voiced the one at a time approach earlier. It wasn't that I couldn't understand your reasoning of betting more aggressively.
You kept insisiting on trying to "teach" me something as if I haven't been doing this for 20 years. I get the aggressive approach, but not an all-in approach by having all the bankroll out there at once. I also look at the zones differently than I do in "normal" betting since there is a limited bankroll.
I know that you were not the one who put in the 3 simultaneous plays..but you were the one who suggested it. So we went from one at a time %25 plan to complete anarchy...Plommer wanting a bet over %25 (up for debate as to whether he was serious) and then Kato and Tron throwing out plays with Plommer's play pending. It was as if the only thing that resembled a plan had been abandoned. That's where I got frustrated and you just kept trying to teach me why smaller bets weren't going to go anywhere.
Honestly, it would be easier on me if you went all=in and busted. I have no stake in the bankroll...this was done for you guys. But it was done for fun and maybe some winning....And if Tron's play had not won you would be almost back to square one. You could argue that whether or not the plays were done simultaneously or done one at a time, they still carry the same risk. But if you do them one at a time, you can step back and evaluate if you DO want to change up the system. It also allows people to get out if they choose...and in my experience it results in more selective better plays.
:
