noti -- No doubt, to some extent, my comments betray my own bias.
I'm a very conservative player. There's no question that were I to tackle higher risk progressive (say, one that presented a ror of 5%+ for the bankroll I were willing to "throw" at it), a min-cost strategy is very appropriate.
However, for 90%-95% of my play these days, I'm playing my bankroll within a 1% ror. The advantages of alternate strategies in bankroll preservation are nominal, at best, and (frankly) of no added value to me.
Admittedly, the "typical" player is ill-defined. But I assert that for the player who isn't 99.95%+ proficient in their play, alternate strategies are an undesirable distraction from key basics of play.
__._,_.___
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (10) |
.
__,_._,___
