Betting Systems And Blackjack

BETTING SYSTEMS AND BLACKJACK: IS OSCAR'S SYSTEM A WINNER?

By Arnold Snyder
(From Player Magazine, November/December 1995)
© 1995 Arnold Snyder

Players ask me more questions about betting systems for blackjack than just about any other topic. Not betting systems for card counters—just betting systems. I always start by going into my spiel that pure betting systems don’t win in the long run. And the usual response I get is, “I don’t care about the long run. I’m going to Vegas this weekend. I just want to win on this one short run.”

As a matter of fact, there are betting systems that provide a player more of a chance of finishing a trip with a win than a loss. If you use this type of betting system, and you look over your records after years of play, you’ll see a whole lot of small wins—and one (or a few) big losses, big enough to wipe out the profits from all of your small wins, and then some. (Mustn’t forget that house edge!)

But, you don’t care about the long run. You just want a win this weekend. So, let’s look at what betting system works best in the short run. We can’t guarantee a win, but there is a logic to betting systems that can greatly increase your chances of success.

There are two main types of betting systems—positive progressions and negative progressions. With a positive progression, the general theory is that you raise your bets after wins, which means that your bigger bets are primarily funded by money won. This is a conservative betting system insofar as a long string of losses will not wipe out your bankroll as quickly as with a negative progression.

With a negative progression, you raise your bets after your losses. This is more dangerous, since a bad run of losses can wipe you out quickly. In its favor, however, it allows you to win on a session in which you’ve lost many more hands than you’ve won. Since your bets after losses are bigger bets, you don’t have to win so many of them to come back, assuming you can avoid a truly disastrous series of losses that empties your pockets.

There are dozens of variations on betting systems that incorporate features of both the positive and negative progressions, in an attempt to create the “perfect” betting system that wins the most often with the least chance of busting out. The best system of this type I’ve seen for accomplishing this end was first published 40 years ago by mathematician Allan N. Wilson, in his Casino Gambler’s Guide (Harper & Row, 1965). Dr. Wilson called it “Oscar’s system,” named after the dice player who’d invented it. Here’s how it works:

The goal for any series of bets is to win just one unit, then start a new series. Each series starts with a one-unit bet. After any win, the next bet is one unit more than the previous bet. After any loss, the next bet is identical to the previous bet. That is, if you lose a two-unit bet, your next bet is a two-unit bet until you have a win, at which point you raise your bet one unit to a three-unit bet.

That is the whole system, except for one stipulation—Never place any bet that would result in a win for the series of more than one unit. In other words, if you win a 4-unit bet, and you are now down only 2 units for the series, you would not raise your next bet to 5 units because of the 4-unit win; you’d only to 3 units, which would be all you’d need—if successful—to achieve a one-unit win for the series.

Oscar’s betting system combines the best features of both the positive and negative progressions. You can suffer much longer runs of losses without busting out than you can with a negative progression, since you don’t raise your bets after losses. Yet, a much shorter run of wins can get back your previous losses on a series, since you raise your bets following wins. It’s kind of brilliant, actually. Strings of losses hurt less, yet strings of wins pay more.

When Oscar told Dr. Wilson that he had been using this system for many years and had never had a losing weekend in Las Vegas, Dr. Wilson did some mathematical and computer simulation analysis on it. Was this possible? His findings were amazing. Using a $1 betting unit on an even money payout game, the betting progression is so slow that the player would bump up against the house’s $500 maximum bet (at that time) on only one series of every 5,000 played. On 4,999 of those series, the player would expect to achieve his $1 win target.

Since Oscar was shooting for a weekend win of only $100 (back in 1965, this was a very healthy win!), Dr. Wilson concluded that it was quite likely that Oscar had played on many weekends over a period of years with never a loss.

So, should we all start using Oscar’s system? One word of caution: Watch out for that one losing series. How much does Oscar lose when his system fails on that one unlucky series out of 5,000?

About $13,000.

You see, even though he’s just bumped into the house’s table maximum of $500, he’s gotten to this point by losing lots of bets in the $100+, $200+, $300+, and $400+ range during this horrendously long series. So, if you try Oscar’s system, you still have to be prepared to lose.

--------------------
Oscar’s System: Sample Betting Sequences

Bet Result Total Next Bet
1 L -1 1
1 L -2 1
1 W -1 2
2 W +1 done

Bet Result Total Next Bet
1 L -1 1
1 L -2 1
1 L -3 1
1 W -2 2
2 L -4 2
2 W -2 3
3 W +1 done

Bet Result Total Next Bet
1 L -1 1
1 L -2 1
1 W -1 2
2 L -3 2
2 L -5 2
2 W -3 3
3 W 0 1
1 W +1 done
---------------------

No betting system will ever overcome the house edge in the long run. But they’re not worthless. Professional gamblers do find opportunities for profiting from various types of betting systems in gambling tournaments, as “camouflage” to disguise an advantage play that is not based on the betting system itself, and especially in online casinos where betting systems can be used to milk the casino “bonuses.”

If you’re interested in these genuinely profitable applications of betting systems, and especially if you play blackjack or other casino games online in the Internet casinos, check back with us. We will be doing a definitive article on the properties of betting systems for blackjack and other games soon.

Here's one good way to bet, not really a system.

Since all knowledgeable people seem to agree that no betting system really works long term(I have tried about all of them over 10 years of active playing both positive and negative progressions), here's a way I have been playing recently that has been working. I have won 9 sessions and lost one for a net profit of about $800.
*Flat bets with escalating one unit buy-in on loss.* Try it and let us know if it works for you also..
Here it is: first buy in is $100, 10 units times $10 flat bet. If you lose go to $15 flat bets x 10 units equals $150 buy in, then $20 for $200 buy in, $25 units for $250 buy in, then finally $30 for $300 buy in. Once you get plus $100 ahead at the end of the 6 deck shoe for the session no matter what level you are at, then revert back to $10 bets. Need $1000 session bankroll to cover the $10 to $30 spread at 10 units each, and you will be effectively playing with 50 units per session, which is enough win or lose. Most sessions will win I have found to date. Let me know if you too can win, hopefully I am on to something here and I have not seen this printed anywhere or seen it used by other gamblers to date.

You didn't say how to play the hands, what the house edge is. But we don't go by limited trials subjective results... we use high-speed simulation software. You can see the reality in 10 minutes and 10 million hands played.
So what strategy do you play the hands with? zg

Reply:

I am not sure of your question but here goes..
I use basic blackjack strategy as to playing the cards. As to betting strategy, flat bets only. I start at $10 for 10 units buy-in equals $100. If I lose the $100, then my next buy-in is $150 and I play with $15 units always flat betting then continuing increasing $5 each on each 10 unit loss and so on unit I get to $30 units.
If I have a overall win for that session at the end of the 6 deck shoe at any betting level that I am currently at (i.e. $10, $15, $20, $25, or $30), then I revert back to $10 flat bets for 10 units and start over.

Ok, so you have taken the time to learn BS. And of course you know then that it has no bearing on whether the betting system has thus far worked for you. The housEdge is immutable, like gravity, and there will be a correction at some point.

The thing about any neg-progression is that it will work much more often than not... BUT when it finally doesn't work it will be severe.

And if the housEdge is .50%, then after 10+ million hands you will have lost .50% of your total wagers, but then you did already know this just as surely as you really know BS, correct? zg

Oscar's at low counts

Here's a hypothetical question:

Assume that you are playing a 6 deck shoe, couldn't it be profitable to use Oscar's at really low counts when there seems to be no chance that the count will turn around?

If it would be worse than flat betting or leaving (to a greater extent), then the answer is obviously no.

But what about the camouflage factor? Doesn't it throw the pit a little for a loop. "Not only is he staying while the count is negative, he's increasing his bet when the count is obviously negative?"

Any response?

Max

MadMax said:

But what about the camouflage factor? Doesn't it throw the pit a little for a loop. "Not only is he staying while the count is negative, he's increasing his bet when the count is obviously negative?"

Click to expand...

Yes, that is a plausible use for a progression. The other appropriate use for certain progression systems is in table games tourneys. zg

I have not read Walter Thomason's book entirely, but I know he is a proponent of progressions. Does he base his results on computer simulations?
Does Walter not agree with the consensus that any betting system, other than card counting, does not provide a mathematical advantage?

tribute said:

I have not read Walter Thomason's book entirely, but I know he is a proponent of progressions. Does he base his results on computer simulations? Does Walter not agree with the consensus that any betting system, other than card counting, does not provide a mathematical advantage?

Click to expand...

No, he does NOT agree. He even claimed that he could PROVE his progession bullsh*t with computer sim... BUT then he NEVER DID. zg

Walter Thomason used to post on the forum at HitorStand.net. At that time he was claiming that his progression would work in real life, but not in sims, because computers don't shuffle the way humans do.

Canceler said:

Walter Thomason used to post on the forum at HitorStand.net. At that time he was claiming that his progression would work in real life, but not in sims, because computers don't shuffle the way humans do.

Click to expand...

All progression and other crackpots wind up saying that. What they are saying therefore is that SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE their great discovery.

In the case of Thomason, I bear witness that he said he COULD PROVE his progression system with computer sim. I guess he changed his mind. zg

Wasn't there a case a number of years ago where a group of engineers "proved" that bumblebees wings aren't capable of flight?

newyorkbear said:

Wasn't there a case a number of years ago where a group of engineers "proved" that bumblebees wings aren't capable of flight?

Click to expand...

You mean they are? zg

a bee's wings are too small and its body to fat to fly.

Provided that I have a stop-loss point in mind, roughly 20% of my bankroll, I've done well with a negative progression, only after wins. I bet the minimum until I get a win then I bet double my losses so far. If I lose, minimum bet again until another win, then I bet again double what I bet before. So I depend on winning two in a row, catching up with losses on the second win. I usually only play around 40 hands a session online. I don't encounter too much "one win and done" on land casinos but online, whew, it can go on forever so I will have a losing session more frequently.

newyorkbear said:

Wasn't there a case a number of years ago where a group of engineers "proved" that bumblebees wings aren't capable of flight?

Click to expand...

No this is an urban legend quoted often by those wishing to prove that math does not work. The myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan that said adequate lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at the speeds of a bee. An airplane the size of a bee and speed of a bee cannot fly. But airplane wings don't flap. This doesn't mean a bee can't fly. A bee can fly. Thomason's system does not work.

Cornell: Bumblebees cleared for takeoff

Bumblebees finally cleared for takeoff:
Insect flight obeys aerodynamic rules, Cornell physicist proves

Contact: Roger Segelken
Office: (607) 255-9736
E-Mail: [email protected]


An animated excerpt from two-dimensional computer simulation reveals the vortices of swirling air that keep the insect aloft. The figure-8 motion of the wing (shown in white, with the leading edge toward the Y axis) has produced clockwise (blue) as well as counterclockwise (red) vortices. Z. Jane Wang/Cornell University.

MINNEAPOLIS -- A computer simulation of rapidly oscillating wings and the complex motions of fluids has proved that insect flight conforms to the physical principles of aerodynamics.

The computer-modeling accomplishment - which is expected to aid the future design of tiny insect-like flying machines and should dispel the longstanding myth that "bumblebees cannot fly, according to conventional aerodynamics" - was announced by Cornell University physicist Z. Jane Wang today (March 20) at the Minneapolis meeting of the American Physical Society (APS).

"The old bumblebee myth simply reflected our poor understanding of unsteady viscous fluid dynamics," explained Wang, an assistant professor of theoretical and applied mechanics in Cornell's College of Engineering, in an interview before the APS meeting. "Unlike fixed-wing aircraft with their steady, almost inviscid (without viscosity) flow dynamics, insects fly in a sea of vortices, surrounded by tiny eddies and whirlwinds that are created when they move their wings."

... continued here -http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/March00/APS_Wang.hrs.html

I feel like an idiot. I even went to this site.edu and read exactly what I thought, the the bees are too fat and wings too small. Boy there are a lot of stupid people out there...and gullable

E-town-guy said:

I feel like an idiot. I even went to this site.edu and read exactly what I thought, the the bees are too fat and wings too small. Boy there are a lot of stupid people out there...and gullable

Click to expand...

In the 60's and 70's it was sort of accepted fact that bumblebees were too fat to fly so they really shouldn't. There was even a little saying that ended with "... but the Bumblebee doesn't know any better, so it just keeps flying". I think most everyone realized that there was actually a very sound reason for why the fat little critter could fly, but that the reason just wasn't discovered yet. Along come computers and everything changes.
In retrospect, I sort of prefer the mysterious version of bumblebees flying around that really shouldn't be able to do that.

Bankroll Ques

Hello

I have been practicing this system with very little success. I am guessing operator error.

Basic questions, when is a series determined to be over? Also, if you win on the first hand, does that mean you continue with the single unit bet until the 1st loss then subsequent win?

Also, what is the bankroll recomendation to use this system

Thanks