Newbie Question

With regards to Oscars grind...
So am I correct in assuming that Oscars grind requires that when you lose, you bet the same amount you lost? IE. lost 2 units, the next bet is 2 units.

If so then isn't Oscars Grind more susceptible to large bankroll fluctuations because of this? You may not run into a table limit that often (1 out of 4999) but you can dig pretty deep into your bankroll to the point of ruin.

If this is the case, then why don't you catch a losing streak just as you are trying to catch a winning streak with Oscars Grind? For instance, the progression is requiring me to bet up. For examples sake, lets say 5 units. I make this bet and I lose it. Why not regress immediately to a 1 unit bet, not knowing if this is a losing streak or not since these trials (assuming roulette) are independant of each other. The detriment is obvious because if you won that 1 unit bet you are still down 4 units from the previous 5. But then you could try to "catch" the winning streak by applying the up as you win motion. You could do this a number of ways, you could bet the remaining 4, or you can bet the original 5 and try to get ahead of the previous loss. You could even bet 6 units as would have been the next logical step in the original series.

Now I realize that this betting pattern would have you going nowhere for a long time but I ask, how is that different from Oscars Grind anyway, except for the fact that Oscars Grind has the potential to give you wild bankroll fluctuations that would scare away any recreational player. And just like Oscars Grind, this would give you the possibility to play for a while and generate some action towards comps.

Of course all of this is moot if I misinterpreted how to play with Oscars Grind. Not that I advise playing this way, or that I even play this way. Just trying to throw something out there for the people that want money for nothing and chicks for free.

I am drunk when posting this but it sounds like the Martingale method where you keep doubling your bet or mathcing your loss so if you ever did win it owuld put you ahead one bet. Not a good way to play.

gotta love drunk replies. I agree it does sound somewhat like a martignale. Maybe I created a "disguised" martignale. Another method could be just to slowly regress the big bets. For instance, 5 unit bet, lose, then 4 unit bet. It is my understanding that Oscars Grind is simply designed to "ride" a winning streak so the thinking is, why not "ride" the losing streak as well. In the end it becomes a system that goes nowhere, for the most part. Any rebutts?

The idea of Oscars Grind is to win a specfic amount each sequence. For example-you bet $10(1 unit). If you win,you pocket the money and start again.
If you lose,you bet the same amount. If you lose several hands in a row and win one,you raise your bet 1 unit,and follow this progression until you are 1 unit ahead for the sequence. Ex.- You start by losing 5 hands in a row,then win.You are down 4 units for the sequence(5L-1W). Now you bet 2. A win means you are down 2 and betting 3. Another win means you are up 1 for the sequence and it is over.
Suppose you find yourself down 8,betting 5. A win means you are down only 3,so instead of raising your bet after a win,you lower it to 4 so a win results in winning 1 for the sequence.
.

Oscar

Yes, you repeat the last bet when playing Oscar's Grind. You only raise your bet on a win and it is always ONE unit. If you drop down to a one unit bet, there will be times that it will help, but it also takes away the quick recovery of Oscar.

As for hitting the table limits :
Lets say you have a $1,000 trip bankroll.
Why risk it all in one session ?
You could use a 20 or 40 unit session, for example. ($100/$200 for a $5 unit)
Using 40 units you, would have five sessions.
Any chips won are not bet........
Any time you do not have enough left to repeat the last bet, you stop. (end session)

In a negative EV game of independant trials, a long enough losing streak can occur that will bust out any player, flat bet or otherwise. The method I am proposing isn't designed to overcome that, just to be able to withstand it longer. I agree that it does forfeit the strength of quick recovery so I suggest this compromise, using the same example as before...
I am to the point in the system where I am placing a 5 unit bet. I lose this bet so ordinarily I would place another 5 unit bet but instead, I regress to a 4 unit bet. If I catch the win then I am still down 1 unit. If I lose, I am down 9 instead of the normal 10. After the loss I would then place 3 unit bet etc.
I discussed earlier how to handle wins in this situation. Personally I would treat a win as a potential streak (in the same manner as the original oscars grind) and bet one more unit than my biggest loss. example series. Each first number is the unit bet.

1 unit loss = -1
1 unit loss = -2
1 unit win = -1
2 unit loss = -3
1 unit loss = -4
1 unit win = -3
3 unit win = 0
1 unit win = 1 end of series

As you can see, at any loss over 1 unit, I would regress to one unit less (to ride the losing streak) and at any win (regardless of units bet) I would bet up one more than the largest unit bet lost. In this case the largest unit bet lost was 2 so when I experienced a win I jumped my bet up to 3.

The obvious detriment to this method is that a series of alternating wins and losses make you a loser in the end but does nothing to the traditional oscars player. But then the traditional Oscars player has to worry about if they brought enough money with them to handle a long losing streak when they are deep in the series.

The question that would quantify this for the roulette player (I'll get to blackjack in a minute) is which is statiscally more likely at any given point in the series...
W-L-W-L-W-L-W-L-W (which would kill my bankroll, though slowly) or
L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-W (which would kill traditional oscars players bankroll quickly)

As for the value of my system to the blackjack player, it would again be just a good cover for the counter. Even more so than traditional oscars since most gambler drop their bets down when losing a multiple unit bet. Imagine how much better you would blend in and only at the risk of 1 unit per round. Of course if you don't complete the series then you lose much more but it's slightly less than the traditional Oscars player.

Thank you everyone for your comments. Keep em coming.

Progressive as Cover

I've given this some consideration (using a progressive system as cover). And I've tried it out with CVBJ. The only time that it is at all feasible is when the count on a shoe is so low that it has no possiblitity of returning to the positive, but this leads to a major complication. My "magic" number has been -40 for a running count; this trigger the time for "cover through Oscar". Now the problem that I've run into is that there are times that the shoe will be over and I'm down 20-30u (using Oscar's Grind). Now I have to continue until I'm back to +1 so that I'm at least back to where I start plus a little, because if not then that was some very expensive cover. I might finally go positive during a high count shoe and I'm not getting to take advantage of knowing the count and betting according to my advantage instead of betting according to some losing strategy. I guess the solution is to keep your Oscar count as well as the running count for a new shoe, but let's be practical: who's going to do that?

My verdict: this type of cover is just too expensive, when acting like a lucky novice only costs your ego.

Max

Thank you for humoring a new guy...with that said, here we go.

MadMax said:

The only time that it is at all feasible is when the count on a shoe is so low that it has no possiblitity of returning to the positive

Click to expand...

why is that? Since an advantage doesn't exsist of the top of a shoe then you would immediately start making waiting bets. It's your choice whether those waiting bets are flat or Oscars.

MadMax said:

Now the problem that I've run into is that there are times that the shoe will be over and I'm down 20-30u (using Oscar's Grind). Now I have to continue until I'm back to +1 so that I'm at least back to where I start plus a little, because if not then that was some very expensive cover.

Click to expand...

Continuing Oscars Grind (either one) is not a big deal off the top of the shoe since an advantage in shoe doesn't exsist off the top and you have to play the waiting game once again.

MadMax said:

I guess the solution is to keep your Oscar count as well as the running count for a new shoe, but let's be practical: who's going to do that?

Click to expand...

That is precisely the solution. I have only been playing seriously (ie card counting) for 2 months after an initial month of learning to count and memorizing BS and the illustrious 18. Keeping a traditional Oscars count while keeping a running count is pretty easy to me. Keeping track of where I am at in my own version of Oscars is a little bit more difficult cause I have remember how far I am down (in units) and what the last big bet I lost (in units) but practice would make that disappear.

Personally, I would abandon the grind as soon as the count went good. It's not a bad play if your only a little into the series (not too many units down). However, if your deep into the series with a lot of units down, playing by the count is only helping you dig out of your hole. In that respect, either Oscars system will not look very attractive. However mine will look less so (depending on how you look at it) since it forfeits a certain amount of recovery strength in favor of controlling bankroll a little more. I appreciate your work on this. I am looking forward to your response.

When I grind,I use a Bankroll of 100 units
A losing sequence of L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-W would result in me being down 9 units and betting 3 on my next bet. I'm into my BR roughly 10%.It takes a much worse sequence before a grinder would be getting deep into the BR.

I see your point but I think you are missing mine. Indeed, any person who decides to use any gambling system (counting or some "crazy" bet progression) should be smart enough to know what effect it has on bankroll. Imagine the sequence at some future point in the series rather than at the front and what % of your bankroll is being used. For instance, if that L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-W occurs when you are betting 3 units. for this example I will use a W/L series that will get us there quickly.

Bet 1 = L = -1
Bet 1 = L = -2
Bet 1 = W = -1
Bet 2 = L = -3
Bet 2 = L = -5
Bet 2 = W = -3
Bet 3 = L = -6
Bet 3 = L = -9
Bet 3 = L = -12
Bet 3 = L = -15
Bet 3 = W = -12
Bet 4 = L = -16
Bet 4 = L = -20
Bet 4 = L = -24
Bet 4 = L = -28
Bet 4 = W = -24

So as you can see, if this long loss series with a win thrown in every now and again will get down 24% of your 100 unit bankroll. Let examine the same for my first proposed change to Oscars. The regression to 1 unit after a loss.

Bet 1 = L = -1
Bet 1 = L = -2
Bet 1 = W = -1
Bet 2 = L = -3
Bet 1 = L = -4
Bet 1 = W = -3
Bet 3 = L = -6
Bet 1 = L = -7
Bet 1 = L = -8
Bet 1 = L = -9
Bet 1 = W = -8
Bet 4 = L = -12
Bet 1 = L = -13
Bet 1 = L = -14
Bet 1 = L = -15
Bet 1 = W = -14

As you can see, 14% of your 100 unit bankroll lost is not too shabby and by keeping track of your last big bet and betting 1 more than that after a win, you retain the recovery power. It's not as quick as traditional oscars but it's still there. For those that desire something a little quicker then try the second variation with the regression of 1 unit on a loss.

Bet 1 = L = -1
Bet 1 = L = -2
Bet 1 = W = -1
Bet 2 = L = -3
Bet 1 = L = -4
Bet 1 = W = -3
Bet 3 = L = -6
Bet 2 = L = -8
Bet 1 = L = -9
Bet 1 = L = -10
Bet 1 = W = -9
Bet 4 = L = -13
Bet 3 = L = -16
Bet 2 = L = -18
Bet 1 = L = -19
Bet 1 = W = -18

And here we see 18% compare again with the original 24%. A difference of 6 units but look at it this way:
A smart Oscars player should know the deadly sequence that will kill him quickest
L-L-W-L-L-W-L-L-W (x forvever). Knowing that, we should try to avoid it. No one can predict when this will happen other than the knowledge that it's possible in a game of independant trials. And this applies to any permutation of this. Any amount of more than 2 losses and 1 win will deplete your bankroll. This will happen to my system too, but when it finally turns around (for both players) my system will have a much smaller hole to dig out of. Mathmatically it doesn't mean anything because the same amount of wins will finish all of these series. Psychologically it can have a huge difference on the gambler. I mean, honestly, have any of you out there ever experienced the "killer" series and felt your stomach tying itself in knots as you plowed deeper and deeper into your bankroll. You know that the quick recovery power of the system will bring you back (unless your that unlucky 1 in 5000) but it still sucks to know that you are 24% into your bankroll just for the purpose of a a lousy 1% gain.

On a side note, these system changes were devised by me for the purpose of satiating my wife. She likes to play blackjack with me and knows BS (for the most part but I coach her) but she doesn't know how to count and doesn't desire to learn. I taught her how to play with oscars grind and she immediately complained that it was really bothering her that when she lost a big bet she couldn't pull back. She hates having her session bankrolls go quickly, even if she knows it will come back with the quick recovery. So I devised these changes for her. She plays with the first variation (immediate regression to 1 unit) The funny thing is, now she doesn't like keeping track of her losses, plus her last mutiple unit bet. I can't win...

Maybe my point was overshadowed a bit, and that was that progressives for cover are more costly than other means of "fooling" the casinos. I think that remodeling a losing scheme puts us in the same place we were, with a losing scheme. Progessives don't work for making money in the long-term, and I likewise believe that they don't work for providing adequate cover.

You should never raise your bet when you are at a disadvantage, and that is what any progressive system is asking you to do.

But, I don't think that we can use the "old" mentality to make the kind of money in BJ that the "old" guys did. The casinos are not thinking ahead, but are only countering what has already been done; leaving themselves again open to exploitation.

I believe that counting is due for a mutation to exploit the new rules and preventative measures. And I believe that our time and energy as a community of bright individuals with the same goal (to win at BJ) is better spent creating that mutation. That said, progressives as cover, no matter how retooled, is a dead end.

Max

MadMax said:

Maybe my point was overshadowed a bit, and that was that progressives for cover are more costly than other means of "fooling" the casinos.

Click to expand...

I conceed on this as there is no qualitative way for me to prove otherwise since blackjack is a game of dependant trials. I just leave you with the idea that counters (not all of them) are already using Oscars Grind as a means of cover. Perhaps it not a good idea to do it but they are anyway. That says something to me.

MadMax said:

I believe that counting is due for a mutation to exploit the new rules and preventative measures.

Click to expand...

I agree but I think that is a false statement in a way. It expresses that counting is the only way to beat the casinos (something that I don't entirely disagree with). If that were true than I (a novice) could go in with any amount of money and bankrupt the casino. Obviously that isn't true since I know that counting is a good indicator of the POSIBILITY of winning, not a guarantee of winning. A counting "system" includes first and foremost, bankroll and all of the considerations regarding it. Then coutning, strategy, and cover. It's not just counting. I think the statement would be better expressed:

I believe that the counting systems are due for a mutation to exploit the new rules and preventative measures.

That way you can approach the problem from multiple angles. Maybe more needs to be done to change risk of ruin possibilities to help you be a "winner" more often. Perhaps the mutation needed is a new way to resize bets. Splitting hairs, I know but you get my point....

Oscars grind is an interesting way to "beat" the casino. It kind of leverages the odds of a series of wins and losses to come out ahead by 1 unit. Not that it's particularly a genius system. It's almost like saying I am going to lay down one unit (usually a large unit but it doesn't really matter) and if I win then I have beaten the odds of whatever game I was playing and I will walk away. That's just wishful thinking but people do it every day.

I respectfully submit my version of Oscars Grind as a mutation of the counting system as a means of controlling bankroll to exploit the casino rules. Perhaps the counters playing with Oscars Grind as cover know this and are already working it to their advantage. I'll admit that I am probably wrong in these assumptions but at any rate, I am trying.

My first response is that Oscar's Grind or any other progressive system does NOT make money in the long-term. The first obstacle that should be readily obvious and has been overly discussed on this forum is the maximum limit placed on betting at any given table. There is no reason to keep agruing a dead point.

Second, if there are successful BJ players that are using a progressive for cover (which I highly doubt), then I would love to hear from them.

Third, if you have enough money, know BS, and are proficient with a particular count, you can make money (novice or not). I don't think that anyone's goal is to bankrupt the casino, if that was the case don't count card; get a map, get a gun, have a plan and rob the casino. The idea is to extract as much as possible from the casino without the "well running dry".

For the mutation argument, you can take bankroll right out of the equation. Casinos have never tried to limit your bankroll. In fact, it is to their advantage for you to have as large of a bankroll as possible. The only thing practical to a BJ player is to get the most out of his/her bankroll: to somehow make more with less.

I agree that the other two factors are cover and knowing your advantage or disadvantage. The next step would be to decide which is more important, if one is. I think of it as a hypothetical: which would be more beneficial, knowing the cards you are going to be dealt or being allowed to play those cards. Obviously, they are of roughly equal importance: what good is it to know but can't play, or to play but don't know. Another way to look at it is whether the question is how long will the casino let you win(?) or is it how much will the casino let you win(?), or most likely a combination of both.

I think that there are already good means of cover, not perfect but ones that will keep you in the game long enough (part of the "how long will the casino let you win" question).

In my opinion the mutation has to come from better understanding your advantage or disadvantage. I'm not looking for the "magic numbers" I don't think that they will be found, but improved numbers, number that are tweaked from current conditions, not conditions of the past (because those are long gone).

We can't remain affixed to old numbers while the casinos bury us in preventative measures.

Max

One question for you.

Define Long Term.

If we are to look at a probability distribution chart for an imaginary game of Blackjack where thousands of counters are playing 8 hrs a day their whole life (long term) with a 2% advantage sometimes but mostly playing in a negative shoe game (typical conditions for a non-wonging counter). You will see that his long term earnings would even out to 2%. But with this chart (plotted with dots on a x-y axis) would show things that do not equal 2%. In fact sometimes it will show negative earnings. True that these "renegade" dots are few and far between but they represent counters in our experiment. What do you tell these people? They are statistical anomalies: A result of not having a large enough sample size. True you can tell them they should have used a better bet spread but that's not a guarantee since it increases the chances of having more negative dots. It also increases the severity of those negative dots. And in the real world, it also increases the likelihood of being thrown out of the casino.

I haven't done this myself so I can only speculate but if we use the same above scenario but just ignored counting and used oscars grind I would believe that the same sort of chart would emerge. Because of the severity of failure of traditionals oscar ($13000 on a $1-$500 table) then I imagine that the chart would look similar to the counter chart of 1-8 bet spread, only worse. In that case, something needs to be done to lower that $13000. Hence, my changes. If I am wrong in these assumptions then I apologize and I would love to see someone do this and show me.

Having a system that is a loser only 1 of 5000 times is a very attractive proposition to the average gambling public. Long term does not matter to these people even though it should. They play a lot of short terms that equal long term and one of those times they have a loss that will even out the wins. Worst case scenario is that they lose $13000 but if we modify the system we can reduce that, thus softening the blow. What can you do to soften the blow of the card counter with his airtight math? Tell him that he is a statistical anomaly?

I can only surmise (in my infinite ignorance and arrogance) that my changes to Oscar Grind are bringing the progressive system closer to the results of the counting system. Again, if I am wrong then show me. I am limited as to what I can do without simulation software. I apologize ahead of time to the person doing the work to prove me wrong. And thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far to the conversation. You comments are very valuable to me.

oh yeah, and quote from Arnold Snyder's website...

[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.”]
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Betting_Systems_Oscars_Blackjack_System.htm

There's my empirical evidence

Brief update...
After thinking aboutfor a while, I conceed defeat. I examined the previous statement I made about probability distribution and realize that I made a huge mistake in my assumptions. Anyway, thank you to everyone who participated in this conversation. It's been a great way to expand my knowledge of the mathematics of the game (like I have said in other threads, I am a math junkie).

On a side note...
I have never once believed that these changes to oscars grind can change the odds even though that's what I said in my last post. I was mistaken when I wrote those things. The reason I have been so steadfast in the "power" of this system is that I have been playing with it online (free money) since about the time I started learning about blackjack. Up until today I have had not one session where I have felt the need to worry about the amount of money I was down and thus have never felt uneasy about finishing the series. Quite the contrary, I have ended every single day with a win though I have only been shooting for small wins ($40 from a $5 unit on a $5-$500 table). If it worked then it would be great. I could work my existing job and being able to have a minimum wage side job. I think I will still do it provided the online casino offer bonuses.

With that aside, let this be a lesson to you who dare try oscars grind. You maybe only trying to win one unit but keep in mind that 1 unit may take you on a wild ride of wins and losses. Today when I went to play I suffered the most fantastic ride on my version of the grind ever.

I started with a bankroll of $1447.50
I ended with a bankroll of $1895.00
Lowest bankroll point was $430.00
I never finished 1 series!!!!!!

While this may sound like an endorsement, it really isn't. Let me clarify.
I had 132 rounds, 45 wins, 77 losses and 10 pushes. 6 of the 45 wins were BJ and 1 one of the 45 wins were double down. Only 1 of the 77 losses were double down (thank god!) Now I know you are wondering how if never finished a series then how can I be ahead that much. The answer lies in the way I handled blackjacks. Any blackjack was treated as a win of the base unit and the bonus 1/2 unit was ignored. I ignored bankroll and focused solely on units and since I ended up so far down, I was determined to either finish a series (in units) or go broke(how else to prove that a system doesn't work). Towards the end I was so relieved that I had climbed back from being almost $1000 down that I abandoned the goal of winning the series (in units) and just tried to break even (in units). By doing this I was making the blackjack strengthen my bankroll. When you hit a blackjack really low in the series and treat it the way I do, then it really helps bankroll. For instance, one of the blackjacks was one a bet of $210. The bonus on that is $105 which is only touched if you get into the series REALLY DEEP!!! If you finish the series then you have won 1 unit plus banked all the blackjack bonuses. The real reason I made so much in spite of never finishing a series is cause most of my blackjacks were won really far down in the series. That can happen to you too but I wouldn't bet on it.

I still think my changes to the grind are valid but MadMax was right. The changes to a losing system still make it a losing system. I would only advocate using a system if you absolutely have to gamble and you refuse to learn to count cards. And even then, my answer would be just don't gamble. If you persist however, I would suggest my version of the grind. Mathematically, it's still a losing system. Contrary to what I said before, it will not reduce bankroll fluctuations. Doing these changes will keep your exposure the same, it will just slow it down when you hit a losing streak. Perhaps that may be enough for the average gambler to look at themselves when they find they are over $1000 down with seemingly no end in sight and start to realize what the hell they are doing. I never claimed it to be a sure thing so don't say I didn't warn you

This was by far the worst day. Thankfully it ended up okay. And maybe I could parlay it into something good. I put over $10,000 on the table in a little over an hour. It was online so if I take it to a live casino maybe I could do that in an 8-10hour day. Is that enough to get me a free room or a free flight (or both)? That would definitely make it worthwhile.