Best Ever Vodoo System

[apex]

Ok guys I am going to go ahead and claim I have thought of a vodoo system that lowers the house edge. In no way am I claiming this is a winning system, but I think at least SOME of you will agree that this slightly lowers the house edge. Also if people implemented this system it would be great news for us because they would look like card counters at first glance, which would make this the best vodoo system ever invented. This is most certainly a vodoo, losing strategy, but I do think it lowers the house edge. Maybe only from .5 to say .495, but that would make it better than all other vodoo systems.

Here it is: Start each shoe with your base bet. If you are losing at the end of the shoe, raise your bet. At the end of the shoe go back to your base bet.

Why do I think this lowers the house edge? I am going to lay out my reasoning step by step. If you disagree, point out where I went wrong. Whenever I say more likely I mean compared to a game you know nothing about, such as joining a game in progress or playing a new shoe.

You are more likely to lose money playing a -count deck.
You are more likely to have lost money if you just played a - count deck.
Losing $ is positively correlated with playing in a - count deck.
Losing $ in a specific shoe or portion of a shoe is positively correlated with playing in a -count deck.
If you have just played a portion of a shoe with a - count, the count in the rest of the deck is +.
If you have just lost money, you are more likely to have a + count deck left to play.

Disclaimers:
Not a winning system
I know my post is in no way a "proof" but I think the reasoning is sound.
Im not claiming a strong correlation between losing money and having a favorable deck left to play, but I do think a weak correlation exisits, which should be enough to slightly move the house edge in the player direction. My thought is this may change the house edge from .5 to .495 or something insignificant like that.

So what?
If this is true and it can be proven that people are slightly better off playing this way, maybe we can convince the masses to raise their bets at the end of shoes at roughly the same frequency we do. This would make it harder for the casino staff to tell the difference between us and them.

 

[21gunsalute]

So instead of counting cards you're going to count how much money you've lost or gained to that point and base your remaining bets on this info, assuming that the correlation of money lost or gained is inversely propotionate to the composition of the remaining cards in the deck. That's a good sound strategy, because we all know we win every hand when the count is positive and we lose every hand when the count is negative.

Wouldn't it be easier (not to mention much more reliable) to count cards rather than count how much money you've won or lost every hand?

So if you have a hot shoe and are winning almost every hand are you going to lower your bets or wong toward the end of the shoe? Conversely if you are losing almost every hand are you going to raise your bets at the end of the shoe because you think your "due to win"?

Methinks someone partied too hard on New Years Eve.

 

[Southpaw]

Ok guys I am going to go ahead and claim I have thought of a vodoo system that lowers the house edge. In no way am I claiming this is a winning system, but I think at least SOME of you will agree that this slightly lowers the house edge. Also if people implemented this system it would be great news for us because they would look like card counters at first glance, which would make this the best vodoo system ever invented. This is most certainly a vodoo, losing strategy, but I do think it lowers the house edge. Maybe only from .5 to say .495, but that would make it better than all other vodoo systems.

Here it is: Start each shoe with your base bet. If you are losing at the end of the shoe, raise your bet. At the end of the shoe go back to your base bet.

Why do I think this lowers the house edge? I am going to lay out my reasoning step by step. If you disagree, point out where I went wrong. Whenever I say more likely I mean compared to a game you know nothing about, such as joining a game in progress or playing a new shoe.

You are more likely to lose money playing a -count deck.
You are more likely to have lost money if you just played a - count deck.
Losing $ is positively correlated with playing in a - count deck.
Losing $ in a specific shoe or portion of a shoe is positively correlated with playing in a -count deck.
If you have just played a portion of a shoe with a - count, the count in the rest of the deck is +.
If you have just lost money, you are more likely to have a + count deck left to play.

Disclaimers:
Not a winning system
I know my post is in no way a "proof" but I think the reasoning is sound.
Im not claiming a strong correlation between losing money and having a favorable deck left to play, but I do think a weak correlation exisits, which should be enough to slightly move the house edge in the player direction. My thought is this may change the house edge from .5 to .495 or something insignificant like that.

So what?
If this is true and it can be proven that people are slightly better off playing this way, maybe we can convince the masses to raise their bets at the end of shoes at roughly the same frequency we do. This would make it harder for the casino staff to tell the difference between us and them.

This is briefly mentioned in Ian Anderson's Burning the Tables in Las Vegas.

For example, if you had to limit yourself to only raising your bets after a win or after a loss (you could only pick one or the other), regardless of the count, it would be marginally better to allow yourself to raise your bets after losses, because of the reasons you stated. Like you said, though, the difference is minuscule.

SP

 

[SleightOfHand]

Why not raise your bets when the last hand has lots of small cards and lower your bet when the last hand has lots of big cards? I would think this has a better correlation with a winning strategy. Still not +EV, but perhaps lowers the HE more than your system.

 

[pogostick]

APEX , If you feel good about your betting system ,then stay with it, However it does make me feel better about my system. I play at $10 table > I keep my bet a $10 on all minus count & 15 on all plus count. I do go to $25 on high + c example , 6 deck shoe & penetration appx 3 decks with count of +10 or 12 then I go to $25 bet for remained of shoe , not bothering to count out. I am ahead ,but not much. I never win or lose a lot of money ,but counting the comps , I am ahead. POGO. PS > Sometime, I just stop counting depending on the count .

 

[apex]

So instead of counting cards you're going to count how much money you've lost or gained to that point and base your remaining bets on this info, assuming that the correlation of money lost or gained is inversely propotionate to the composition of the remaining cards in the deck.

No, I am going to continue counting cards. This system i came up with is somewhat of a thought experiment, based on the same ideas that make counting cards work. Yes, that is the relationship I am talking about.

Wouldn't it be easier (not to mention much more reliable) to count cards rather than count how much money you've won or lost every hand?

Easier, no. Looking at your chip stack and seeing if it is higher or lower than when you started the shoe would be way easier, something even a money management or vodoo system player could do. Counting is clearly more realiable. I would guess it is about 100 times more reliable.

That's a good sound strategy, because we all know we win every hand when the count is positive and we lose every hand when the count is negative.

So if you have a hot shoe and are winning almost every hand are you going to lower your bets or wong toward the end of the shoe? Conversely if you are losing almost every hand are you going to raise your bets at the end of the shoe because you think your "due to win"?

Methinks someone partied too hard on New Years Eve.

I think I was pretty clear that this has nothing to do with counting or playing a winning game. I am not saying anyone here should use this system. I think it is complete garbage. Actually that isn't completely true. I guess what I am claiming is that this system is 99% garbage, where martingale type systems are 100% garbage this is at least based on correct math (I think.)

I was hoping to come to some sort of concensus on whether or not my thought process is correct and playing this way is slightly better than the other "money management "systems. Not for actual play by those of us who use our brains, but for a better understanding of the game and how it works.

The second part of my arguement is that it would be good for counters if non counters played this way.

 

[victorino]

I was hoping to come to some sort of concensus on whether or not my thought process is correct and playing this way is slightly better than the other "money management "systems. Not for actual play by those of us who use our brains, but for a better understanding of the game and how it works.

The second part of my arguement is that it would be good for counters if non counters played this way.

FWIW, Snyder wrote something similar to this, "the no need to count system" (or "situational betting") in Blackbelt in BJ, pp. 98-100. Snyder references a study from CalState in the late 70s.

 

[blackjacktilt]

Me thinks someone partied too hard on New Years Eve. [/QUOTE]



I agree

 

[tallmanvegas]

FWIW, Snyder wrote something similar to this, "the no need to count system" (or "situational betting") in Blackbelt in BJ, pp. 98-100. Snyder references a study from CalState in the late 70s.

Any results from this type of play?

 

[victorino]

Any results from this type of play?

found snyder's answer to a reader's question on the topic, from 1994 (?):
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm

he provides a number of situational betting strategies, and states, "all of these indicators combined might provide the player who is making small bets of $5 and high bets of $100 (1-20 spread) with an expectation of about $1-$2 per hour"...for a 1d, good pen game.

he further says that the strategy is impractical not only because of the expectation, but also because of the heat it will generate in order to make it profitable.

 

[better lucky than good]

voodoo betting strategies

Let me elaborate on Apex idea, I think it has merit.

I whacked an Indian Casino for $ 1000, in just two hours at a $ 10 table, cards up, 6 deck shoe, just to test out my idea. NO COUNTING!

The concept is that the cards will run lean for a while, then turn rich, and vice versa. I have noticed that my winning streaks usually only came once or twice in a 4 hour period, but usually didn't last long.

I call this TRENDING-a betting tracking system.

I start out with a minimum bet, and keep track of wins and loses by putting a chip in front of my stack on the left for a win, and a chip on the right for a loss. DD's, splits, BJ count as two wins, pushes nothing.

When the win stack gets much higher than the loss stack, say at least a 3-1 ratio, I up the bet by a chip or two. If higher than a 3-1 ratio, I may bump the bet 3-5 times minimum.

If the wins stop, I go back to a minimum bet, or leave the table.
I was sitting with 3-6 others at the six deck shoe, and it works out good at that situation, as enough cards get played at a good clip.

I am not sharp enough to count down a 6 deck shoe, as well as bet track, but some of you may be able to do that, although counting would defeat the purpose of bet tracking.

I never play SD anymore! The house knows that thats where the counters will be! And the rules are tighter, anyway. I am 65, and my eyesight is not good enough anymore to count well anymore, so I tried this. It worked!

So lets explore this a bit more. I know one trial is not enough to prove anything.

 

[apex]

Let me elaborate on Apex idea, I think it has merit.

:sad:
The idea does not have merit! Don't bet this way! I must be really bad at explaining what I am trying to get at. I give up.