A new twist on an old system?

[shadroch]

It's possible that you could do this hundreds of times before you lose ten in a row. Its also possible you could lose ten in a row your first time. Let me ask this? Are you comfortable risking $10,000 in order to win $10?
Bottom line is that your system sucks and will fail. Think about it for a minute- with all the mathaletes and deep pocketed players out there,why do they end up counting cards when your system is so much easier?
I don't blame you for thinking it will work. Almost everyone does, at some point. But ignore the advice here at your own peril.

 

[GeorgeD]

Math says a golf player has a 1:5,000 chance of hitting a hole in one. Many players go a whole lifetime without hitting one.

I played golf probably 5 times in my life.

It was about dawn after an all night drinking session, and we each had a six pack in our bag. I got a hole in one. So for me it was a once in 5,000 chance if I was drunk.

I quit golf afraid I'd become an alcoholic.

 

[GeorgeD]

Another thing to consider. You gave this example:


Example:

1st bet: $10, W (up $10)
2nd bet: $10, L (even)
3rd bet: $20, L (down $20)
4th bet: $40, L (down $60)
5th bet: $80, W (up $20)

On the 5th bet you risked $80 to win $20. Do you like 4-1 odds? You still need to win 8 hands to make your $100 goal

If you lost th e5th brt


1st bet: $10, W (up $10)
2nd bet: $10, L (even)
3rd bet: $20, L (down $20)
4th bet: $40, L (down $60)
5th bet: $80, L (down $140)
5th bet $160 W (up $20)

Now you risked $160 to win $20 and are still 8 wins from $100

See where this is going? What are the odds you will win 8 hands in a row?

You said you aren't going to $10,000 then where do you stop in trying for your $100 goal?

 

[SleightOfHand]

Bottom line is that your system sucks

LOL! Sorry pvt, but its true.

Good point, that does make sense; however at 312 chances a year. Most avid golfers can play well into theirs 70's. You would think every 15 years a hole in one would happen. If you start playing golf at 25 and stop at 70, your odds say you should hit 3 whole-in-ones in your life. Again, not very likely. I'm just trying to find a way against this method. Sure I'm hard headed and slowly but surely you guys are convincing against it.

Odds also say that you should get 10 heads in 20 coin flips (in a fair coin). But flipping a coin 20 times doesn't always produce 10 heads. Sometimes you will get 8-12, 10-10 and even 20-0. Sometimes a golfer will have no hole in ones in a lifetime, sometimes a golfer will have 2 in the same day.

Sorry to be a burden, but two last questions. Ok, EVENTUALLY, this method will not work. Would you recommend it short term to build up a decent BR. At $10 unit, it's recommended to have at least $5,000.

Absolutely not. A short term progression bet you may want to consider if you don't want to count is Oscar's Grind. But remember, its still a losing strategy.

Second, what is considered "the long run"?

Technically, the "long run" is infinite. It is possible for a counter to still have an overall negative after years of play. Conversely, its possible for a ploppy to have an overall positive after years of play.

For a more mathematical way to understand (being the guru you are ), my N0 (# of hands until your expected value = standard deviation) for a nearby game is 12000 (/100 hands per hour = 120 hours).

 

[SystemsTrader]

Would anyone care to try this method out on a simulator. My OCD won't allow me to let go of it seeing as how it have never failed me.

I mean, at what point do you stop with the numbers and go with real world logic?

Pvtcarter you don't need a computer simulation of this method. Just go to the dollar store and pick up six decks of cards and a box of poker chips. Dedicate at least one hour a day dealing to yourself and playing your system and at the end of one month you will have the answers you are looking for and the best part is it will only cost you $7 for cards and chips + tax but the real world logic you gain will be priceless!

 

[Sonny]

I mean, at what point do you stop with the numbers and go with real world logic?

They are not two different things. Real world logic is based on the math that proves it. If the math didn’t accurately describe how things work in the real world, why would people use it?

Math says a golf player has a 1:5,000 chance of hitting a hole in one. Many players go a whole lifetime without hitting one.

That is because of variance. You’ll hear people talking about variance and standard deviation a lot on this website. It is a very important concept to understand because it tells you what kind of results you will have in the short run. The math might tell you that you expect to lose 1 unit during a session, but in reality you could easily win 30 units or lose 35 units. That is where the standard deviation comes in. It will tell you what your range of results will be based on what kind of “luck” you have during that session. Here's a good introduction:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Blackjack_Basic_Strategy_Betting_And_Risk.htm

Sonny, you stated that a lost of 10 in a row has .17% chance of happening or happens out of every 600 hands. Can you please reiterate how you come to those numbers.

Excluding ties, there is a 53% chance that you will lose the next hand. Losing 10 hands in a row will happen 0.53^10 = 0.001667 = 0.17% of the time. That gives you a 1/0.001667 = 1-in-599.79 chance of losing 10 hands in a row.

Second, what is considered "the long run"?

It is the point where the “good luck” and “bad luck” have canceled out and you have reached the results you expect. This will get you started:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4891

Trust me, if using a simple progression system could beat the game none of us would bother counting cards.

-Sonny-

 

[Sonny]

Would anyone care to try this method out on a simulator.

Okay, I decided to take a closer look at this system. The player achieved his $100 win in 98.38% of his sessions. That’s an average win of $98.30. Unfortunately, he lost $10,230 the other 1.62% of the time for an average loss of -$165.73 and a net loss of -$67.35 per session. With a 98% success rate you could easily play for a long time and keep winning money, but the system will eventually fail just like every other progression system. The house still has the advantage and you should not expect to earn money using this system.

-Sonny-

 

[pvtcarter]

Thanks again for your help and input guys :grin:

Oh yeah sonny, just out of curiosity, how many hands were played?

 

[GeorgeD]

Okay, I decided to take a closer look at this system. The player achieved his $100 win in 98.38% of his sessions. That’s an average win of $98.30. Unfortunately, he lost $10,230 the other 1.62% of the time for an average loss of -$165.73 and a net loss of -$67.35 per session. With a 98% success rate you could easily play for a long time and keep winning money, but the system will eventually fail just like every other progression system. The house still has the advantage and you should not expect to earn money using this system.

-Sonny-

Hmmmmmmm .. $67.35 net loss per session doesn't sound too bad. I would have guessed worse. Makes me wonder what you can get in comps playing like this.

Don't think I want to risk losing $10K to find out.

 

[zengrifter]

By not doubling down or splitting, you may give the house an extra 2% advantage, but you decrease your risk of losing 10x in a row (and thus your whole bankroll). I would gladly give up a 2% advantage if it meant I would never go broke. (and when I say never, obviously there is a chance; albeit a slim one it could happen).

You double your money to get back what you lost. Simple enough right? As I said, I have no idea "who's favor" this works out for in the long run. All I can say is to try it. Try it, and try it again. If you lose 10x in a row, then come back and tell me I'm an idiot. Also, I don't know how much money you make or are trying to make playing BJ. I'm not a high roller by any means, but like I said before if I'm up $100 after each session, how can you go wrong?

Welcome, and thank you for selecting wisely the correct forum for your initiatory post.

As to the fallacious system that you espouse, a simple computer simulation will prove that it doesn't work and that after some apparent success you WILL hit the 10x barrier - think of the housEdge like gravity - it will eventually take its toll. zg

 

[josh3623]

why your simple martingale progression won't work in the long run.

The problem with this system is simple, you will eventually lose ten times in a row, and when you do you will lose the entire $10,000, and once you have lost that $10,000 the odds are much better than not, even if you are lucky, that all your previous $100 wins won't add up to 10 grand. If I had a dollar for every time I have lost 10 times in a row in the casino, I could treat us both to a good meal at the Bellagio Buffet(Alaskan King Crab watch out, I'm on the way!).

Hey guys/gals

This is my first post so I thought I'd give everyone something to think about.

I love the game but I get more kicks trying to figure out different strategies and what not. I guess you can say I'm a numbers guru. Anyhow, I've read and tried a lot on different strategies and have kind of tweaked a progression system to my own advantage.

I thought I'd share and let you guys pick it apart before I try it out for real. Even though through thousand's of hands at home It has worked every time for me.

It's basically pretty simple. My goal is to win $100 per "session".

I start off with $10 bets and double my bet every time I lose. If I win, I keep the same $10 bet.

If you have a bankroll of $10,240 you would never lose as long as (and here's the kicker) you don't lose 10 hands in a row. I know people are saying it will eventually happen but please read on. The most I've been down is $1280 which means I've lost 7 times in a row. And that's only happened a handful of times. Although it may eventually happen, I can't say I've ever WON 8,9, or 10 times in row. (Can someone please explain that logic?)

Another part of this method is to never double down. Although you may "lose out" on opportunities, you decrease the chance of losing 10 times in a row.

Also, splitting. I havn't figured out all the math yet, but splitting is not necessary either, unless say you have A,A.

Example:

1st bet: $10, W (up $10)
2nd bet: $10, L (even)
3rd bet: $20, L (down $20)
4th bet: $40, L (down $60)
5th bet: $80, W (up $20)

I'm sure you get the gist. But it seems like this is a "semi" fool proof method. As long as you stop at the $100 goal.

I would say the average number of hands to get to the $100 goal is 25 hands. When playing this short number of hands, chances of losing 10 in a row are very slim. Not to mention, you're up most of the time unless you hit a losing streak. (however, your losing streak WILL eventually end) And when it does end, you double your money which usually gives you more than what you were up in the first place (see example).

One hiccup to this method would be the max bet allowed. But I'm sure another numbers junkie could help tweak this to our benefit.

I'm not sure if this method would work out in the "long run" or not. I'm not a greedy person nor am I trying to get rich playing BJ. But if I could make a couple hundred extra bucks a month playing part time without the risk of losing my @$$, I think I may be on to something.

I may have left something out and feel free ask questions and/or play devil's advocate (but you don't have to be d!ck about it :grin

Thanks in advance

 

[josh3623]

2% is a big advantage.

ihate17,


On another note, is the 1%-2% you're gaining on the house by counting cards really all that much of an advantage?

2% is a big advantage, lets say you are playing 100 hands an hour, at an average hand of $50 for 3 hours your average profit would be $300.

 

[HarryKuntz]

ihate17,


On another note, is the 1%-2% you're gaining on the house by counting cards really all that much of an advantage?


2% is a big advantage, lets say you are playing 100 hands an hour, at an average hand of $50 for 3 hours your average profit would be $300.

No it's not that big of an advantage but nobody has claimed that counting cards is a get rich scheme, well apart from hollywood.

 

[Sonny]

Hmmmmmmm .. $67.35 net loss per session doesn't sound too bad...Makes me wonder what you can get in comps playing like this.

Not nearly enough. You won’t be making those huge bets very often so the pit will probably rate your average bet around $20, maybe $30 if they like you a lot. They might estimate you at a 2% disadvantage and let's say they give you back half of that in comps, so you’re earning $30*.01 = $0.30 per hand in comps. The problem is that your average bet is closer to $43 and you are at a 2.5-3% disadvantage. You’re losing about $1.25 per hand and only getting $0.30 in comps for it. Even at only 60 hands per hour you’re giving up over $50 for $18 in comps.

If you’re going to go the comps route, you’re much better off playing perfect BS and comp hustling as much as possible. With a few tricks you could get an advantage over the casino and get comps for it.

-Sonny-

 

[pvtcarter]

Sonny, how many hands were played with the simulator?

 

[Sonny]

Sonny, how many hands were played with the simulator?

I did several sims of 10 million hands each.

-Sonny-

 

[pvtcarter]

We'll I guess the final verdict is you would eventually lose 10 hands in a row. As the system stands now at 98.4% effective, I believe it could probably be tweaked to reached as high as 99%. All in all, I wouldn't say the system "sucks", but you still run the risk of losing $10,000. Just to reiterate, a "session" doesn't necessarily mean once a day. You could keep playing, say 100 times, and win $10,000. I guess in the end you would still be gambling (that you don't lose 10 in a row). Interesting stuff though I think.

 

[GeorgeD]

Not nearly enough. You won’t be making those huge bets very often so the pit will probably rate your average bet around $20, maybe $30 if they like you a lot. They might estimate you at a 2% disadvantage and let's say they give you back half of that in comps, so you’re earning $30*.01 = $0.30 per hand in comps. The problem is that your average bet is closer to $43 and you are at a 2.5-3% disadvantage. You’re losing about $1.25 per hand and only getting $0.30 in comps for it. Even at only 60 hands per hour you’re giving up over $50 for $18 in comps.

If you’re going to go the comps route, you’re much better off playing perfect BS and comp hustling as much as possible. With a few tricks you could get an advantage over the casino and get comps for it.

-Sonny-

Nice analysis. I guess the biggest problem is the pit tends to rate you on your early bets which would be small. They're probably too lazy to change that even if they get a "black action" call when your bet goes high. That's a problem even with counting.

 

[sagefr0g]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvtcarter

Math says a golf player has a 1:5,000 chance of hitting a hole in one. Many players go a whole lifetime without hitting one.

I played golf probably 5 times in my life.

It was about dawn after an all night drinking session, and we each had a six pack in our bag. I got a hole in one. So for me it was a once in 5,000 chance if I was drunk.

I quit golf afraid I'd become an alcoholic.

On a roll: Golfer records 5 holes-in-one in a week
KAPPA, Ill. – Central Illinois amateur golfer Curt Hocker is on a roll. Five rolls, to be exact. Just ask anyone at the El Paso Golf Club, where the 22-year-old has recorded five holes-in-one in the last week, including two on Saturday. In this year alone, Hocker has seven aces, five on par-4s, and two other double eagles.

"I don't know what to think," said Hocker, who works in the club's pro shop. "After each one I say it's over, and it keeps happening."

Friends and family, 15 of whom have witnessed Hocker's strokes of luck while playing with him, are equally mystified.

"It's incomprehensible this kind of luck could happen, but it does happen," said El Paso pro Steve Fulton. "There are other things in life that have been just as weird and eerie that have happened. What are the odds?"

Hocker said he's just glad that his club membership comes with "hole-in-one insurance."

That "insurance" means the club — and not Hocker — has to honor the golf tradition of buying everyone in the clubhouse a drink after an ace is made.

"I think the golf course is getting mad at me for all the drinks," Hocker said. "It's hard to talk about, but it's awesome to have it happen."

(Dead link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_fe_st/odd5_holes_in_one)

 

[Baseball John]

Stat's on Oscar's Grind

Originally Posted by shadroch View Post
Your math is off,or you are not betting properly.
W-up 10
L-even
L-down 10
W- even
L- down 10
L-down 20
L-down 30
W- down 20
W- even( you raised your bet to 20)
Now you lose 6 $10 bets in a row and are down $60
W- down 50
L- down 70( betting 20)
W- down 50
L- down 80( betting 30)
W- down 50
L-down 90( betting 40)
W-down 50
L- down 110( betting 60)

Heres where OG is a thing of beauty. If you were flat betting,you'd be down less, but you would need 8 wins in a row to break even. Using OG,two wins and you are ahead.
W- down 50( now you don't raise your bet because a $60 bet is all you need.)
W- up $10.
Flatbetting,you'd still need 6 more wins in a row to be even. Don't forget that in this sequence,we had a number of green chip bets out, earning us extra comps as well.
Still think its silly?

I have been playing Oscar's Grind for years and I think there is a mistake above in the betting sequence.
1 unit = $10.

W-up 10 .......................... 1 unit won
L- down 10
L- down 20
W- down 10
L- down 30 (betting 20)
L- down 50
L- down 70
W- down 50
W- down 20 (betting 30)

Now you lose 6 in a row

L- down 50 (betting 30) 20+10 for 1 unit win
L- down 80
L- down 110
L- down 140
L- down 170
L- down 200

W- down 170
L- down 210 (betting 40)
W- down 170
L- down 220 (betting 50)
W- down 170
L- down 230 (betting 60)
W- down 170
L- down 110 (betting 70)
W- down 50
W- up 10 (betting 60) 50 + 10 for 1 unit win
Total of 2 units won.

I have kept track of 110K hands using this Grind and entered the results in a spreadshheet. Over the course of the 110K hands ALL the series or sequences won (almost 15,000). 100% of the time.

The bad news is that a bankroll of up to 8,800 units was needed to complete every sequence.

Over 110K hands 21,000 units were won (about 1 unit for every 5+ hands played.)

All hands were played using BS. The game was 6D DOA DAS LS

No indices were used and the count was ignored. All hands played thru positive and negative shoes.

Hope this info helps someone!
I posted this the other day, but I placed it in the wrong thread.

John