I have been playing online practice BJ at a particular site for approximately 100 15 min sessions. I utilize basic strategy betting $3 each deal. I continue to bet $3 win or lose until I have lost three time in a row. Then I progession bet until I win. I start with 6,12,24,48 for the progression. I have had good results using this method, however, have met table limit on two ocassions. I average $60 per session. I tried this using $1 initial bet for 100 session and never met table limit. Average $20 for a 15 minute session. I know these systems are not soppose to work long term but 100 sessions seems to be an adequate test run. Is there a difference in play mode and real money mode as far as this system is concerned? Thanks in advance for your advice.
Blackjack strategy question
- Thread starter jberger
- Start date
ExhibitCAA
Well-Known Member
I don't understand from your post whether you are betting $3 of real money or $3 of fake, play money. If it's not real money, then it is very possible for the "practice mode" to be different from the "real mode." Some sites offer practice modes that generate exciting hands (Full Houses and such in poker, blackjacks in BJ) and winning results, to entice players to switch over to live play with real money.
That said, we don't need to look at the results of the practice mode to determine what will happen in the real mode. You will lose your money in the real mode. I don't care if you intend to play the long run, the short run, the beer run, whatever--you have no edge, so the question is: How much are you willing to lose?
100 sessions? No one here could care less what the results of your 100-session test run are. The more patient responders will inform you that most progression systems of this ilk will give you numerous sessions with a small win, and occasional sessions with a devastating loss that wipes out all the wins and then some. That's true and all, but let's skip the explanations and cut to the bottom-line: if you don't ditch this progression idea in two seconds flat, then you're wasting your time in the casino--and here.
(If your doctor tells you, "Quit smoking now or you will die," do you really need to hear the details regarding the biochemical basis?)
That said, we don't need to look at the results of the practice mode to determine what will happen in the real mode. You will lose your money in the real mode. I don't care if you intend to play the long run, the short run, the beer run, whatever--you have no edge, so the question is: How much are you willing to lose?
100 sessions? No one here could care less what the results of your 100-session test run are. The more patient responders will inform you that most progression systems of this ilk will give you numerous sessions with a small win, and occasional sessions with a devastating loss that wipes out all the wins and then some. That's true and all, but let's skip the explanations and cut to the bottom-line: if you don't ditch this progression idea in two seconds flat, then you're wasting your time in the casino--and here.
(If your doctor tells you, "Quit smoking now or you will die," do you really need to hear the details regarding the biochemical basis?)
(If your doctor tells you, "Quit smoking now or you will die," do you really need to hear the details regarding the biochemical basis?)
Thank you for your less than patient response. My question was if there is a difference in playing practice mode v.s. real money mode. That question you adequately answered. As for the rest of your ranting, I could care less. With regards to your question printed above, you will die whether you quit smoking or not "we all do". And yes, some individuals need to hear the details to make an informed choice.
Best Regards!
Thank you for your less than patient response. My question was if there is a difference in playing practice mode v.s. real money mode. That question you adequately answered. As for the rest of your ranting, I could care less. With regards to your question printed above, you will die whether you quit smoking or not "we all do". And yes, some individuals need to hear the details to make an informed choice.
Best Regards!
UK-21
Well-Known Member
Yes, the results of your practice plays are irrelevent really, and the sample you have undertaken is, in broad terms, statistically insignificant, ie too small to read any relevence into it. If you continue to adopt a progression system then, as ExhibitCAA has said, over time you will lose the more you play and any point where you are up will be solely due to positive variance around the EV ("expected value" - the mathematical result of the game which will always be negative as online games have an irreversable house edge). Any such wins will be countered when your results shift the other way.
The question as to whether practice (no money) games differ from the "real" ones is always up for discussion. I myself have seen many suspect positive results (which defy belief) from playing the free games at sites I've never visited before - the best one was the first three hands at one being three snappers. I don't know the odds of that happening, but I suspect this page isn't wide enough to get all of the noughts on. Having said that I played one last night, and the results were at far side of 2.5 standard deviations (50 units lost in around 300 hands) - this would lead me to believe that the same random number generator was probably being used for both real and practice play. From a marketing perspective though, this result won't do the site too many favours in encouraging new players to play with real money.
If you are going to adopt a progression system, keep in mind that it won't affect the house edge, you'll be playing a long term losing game, and put a cap in the betting ramp somewhere to avoid the large bet losses that will inevitably occur. Better still, if playing online, learn to play perfect basic strategy, flat bet, and seek out the few decent bonus opportunities that still exist. I believe there's still one in the UK at Gala Casino online where on a Monday evening (GMT) you qualify for a £10 credit to your online account once you have bet through £200. So knocking off the half percent or so house edge, if you bet 200 hands at £1.00 each minimum, then you're playing a game with a positive expectation of around 4.5%. You won't find that in too many casino games.
Good (electronic) cards!
The question as to whether practice (no money) games differ from the "real" ones is always up for discussion. I myself have seen many suspect positive results (which defy belief) from playing the free games at sites I've never visited before - the best one was the first three hands at one being three snappers. I don't know the odds of that happening, but I suspect this page isn't wide enough to get all of the noughts on. Having said that I played one last night, and the results were at far side of 2.5 standard deviations (50 units lost in around 300 hands) - this would lead me to believe that the same random number generator was probably being used for both real and practice play. From a marketing perspective though, this result won't do the site too many favours in encouraging new players to play with real money.
If you are going to adopt a progression system, keep in mind that it won't affect the house edge, you'll be playing a long term losing game, and put a cap in the betting ramp somewhere to avoid the large bet losses that will inevitably occur. Better still, if playing online, learn to play perfect basic strategy, flat bet, and seek out the few decent bonus opportunities that still exist. I believe there's still one in the UK at Gala Casino online where on a Monday evening (GMT) you qualify for a £10 credit to your online account once you have bet through £200. So knocking off the half percent or so house edge, if you bet 200 hands at £1.00 each minimum, then you're playing a game with a positive expectation of around 4.5%. You won't find that in too many casino games.
Good (electronic) cards!
Well, being voodoo and all, I'll bite lol.ExhibitCAA said:
You ask the question of how much one is willing to lose, I ask the question of the liklihood of losing whatever in a fixed period of time using a voodoo system.
You tell me the lilihood of this guy losing his roll in his 100 sessions kind of thing.
Even Birdsong, who challenged the Wiz with real money had some system that didn't go negative until after 128000 hands or so, if I remember right.
What is wrong with a BS guy, playing at a constant -EV, in Vegas for a week or two, using some voodoo system that increases his chances of finishing ahead after his vacation or coming home broke?
Most normal people, after all, only play a fixed amount of time while on vacation once a year.
If they are not card-counting, I give them all the credit in the world for using a voodoo system to maximize their chances of a win for that week.
If they are card-counting and only playing 1 week a year, vaya con dios.
Care to put a probability on the odds of this guy finishing ahead after a max of 25 hours of play voodooing rather than how doomed he is after a billion hands kind of thing?
Can you blame him if it turns out he has a 97% chance of finishing ahead after that long vs a 3% chance of losing 200 units?
Would you have him increase his chances of finishing down, knowing in advance he would play a max of 25 hours, at the expense of losing entire roll, by recommending flat-betting?
I think Voodoo is to BS players as Card-Counting is to AP players. Ideally, theu know exactly what to expect over how long, they know what the risk is
to their roll.
Except voodoo guys aren't playing with the, relatively simplistic, constant +EV AP guys have. That's for sissies. C'mon, if you can't win with a +EV in 1000 hours, you ain't ever gonna win.
Think you could win with no card counting over 100 hours - what would you do to maximize your chance of finishing ahead ?
Just late-night ranting - nothing on you . I really like just about everything you say lol.
I've always been a voodoo guy at heart, never having played, for very long anyway, in a way to create a +EV game lol.
I wish there were more sims for BJ voodoo like miplet and k_c have for OG lmao.
ExhibitCAA
Well-Known Member
jberger: "..., I could care less."
Try "I couldn't care less."
jberger: "With regards to your question printed above, you will die whether you quit smoking or not 'we all do'."
Good one. So my recommendation to you, then, is to just go into the casino, and just give the casino all the money in your pocket before you play a hand. Since "[you] all do," why not save the time? As for your out-of-casino activities, I recommend that you smoke, drive without a seatbelt, and walk around Karachi with US bills leaking out of your pocket.
jberger: "And yes, some individuals need to hear the details to make an informed choice."
And some individuals are arrogant enough to think that they can make a better "informed" choice than the experts who have spent a lifetime studying and practicing the craft--at least, gambling is strangely different from other fields that way. I doubt you presume to be able to fly the plane better than the pilot when you go to the airport. In a criminal defense case, I doubt you would choose to be your own lawyer. Etc.
Anyway, to kasi and newb99: there is nothing wrong with someone coming in and saying, "Blackjack is more fun for me if I vary my bets according to some scheme, and I don't mind occasionally getting destroyed if it means I can go home winning a dollar on most visits." But that's NOT the thrust of this guy's post. He cites a WIN RATE (!) and then says: "100 sessions seems to be an adequate test run"!!!!!! "Test run" for WHAT?? He's asking if the practice mode differs from the real mode, because he wants to extrapolate the winning results from the practice mode--as if the progression's results from ANY mode mean ANYTHING!
These are the guys who keep the casino lights on. I can't fathom how anyone could think that these are actually winning systems. If a system can be described in 10 seconds, and immediately executed by ANYONE of legal age to gamble who's got a few hundo in his pocket, then it CAN'T be a winning system. An entertaining one? Maybe. But none of the practitioners of progressions justify them on the basis of entertainment. All of these practitioners think that they are good players, think their temporary wins are proof of who-knows-what, think that since they play in "the short run" the "simulations of billions of hands don't apply," etc. Not ONE of them has had any math beyond high school (and that's a stretch), and so they think that the math doesn't apply to them. (Much like the child who puts his hands over his eyes and says, "You can't see me, you can't see me.")
As much as I find casinos despicable, my inner sense of economic justice loves seeing the casinos crush these guys into dust. (Unless the light bulb goes on and the guy decides to abandon progressions and learn to count, but that won't happen with jberger. You heard it here first. Does anyone want to bet against that prediction? ... I didn't think so.)
Try "I couldn't care less."
jberger: "With regards to your question printed above, you will die whether you quit smoking or not 'we all do'."
Good one. So my recommendation to you, then, is to just go into the casino, and just give the casino all the money in your pocket before you play a hand. Since "[you] all do," why not save the time? As for your out-of-casino activities, I recommend that you smoke, drive without a seatbelt, and walk around Karachi with US bills leaking out of your pocket.
jberger: "And yes, some individuals need to hear the details to make an informed choice."
And some individuals are arrogant enough to think that they can make a better "informed" choice than the experts who have spent a lifetime studying and practicing the craft--at least, gambling is strangely different from other fields that way. I doubt you presume to be able to fly the plane better than the pilot when you go to the airport. In a criminal defense case, I doubt you would choose to be your own lawyer. Etc.
Anyway, to kasi and newb99: there is nothing wrong with someone coming in and saying, "Blackjack is more fun for me if I vary my bets according to some scheme, and I don't mind occasionally getting destroyed if it means I can go home winning a dollar on most visits." But that's NOT the thrust of this guy's post. He cites a WIN RATE (!) and then says: "100 sessions seems to be an adequate test run"!!!!!! "Test run" for WHAT?? He's asking if the practice mode differs from the real mode, because he wants to extrapolate the winning results from the practice mode--as if the progression's results from ANY mode mean ANYTHING!
These are the guys who keep the casino lights on. I can't fathom how anyone could think that these are actually winning systems. If a system can be described in 10 seconds, and immediately executed by ANYONE of legal age to gamble who's got a few hundo in his pocket, then it CAN'T be a winning system. An entertaining one? Maybe. But none of the practitioners of progressions justify them on the basis of entertainment. All of these practitioners think that they are good players, think their temporary wins are proof of who-knows-what, think that since they play in "the short run" the "simulations of billions of hands don't apply," etc. Not ONE of them has had any math beyond high school (and that's a stretch), and so they think that the math doesn't apply to them. (Much like the child who puts his hands over his eyes and says, "You can't see me, you can't see me.")
As much as I find casinos despicable, my inner sense of economic justice loves seeing the casinos crush these guys into dust. (Unless the light bulb goes on and the guy decides to abandon progressions and learn to count, but that won't happen with jberger. You heard it here first. Does anyone want to bet against that prediction? ... I didn't think so.)
Blue Efficacy
Well-Known Member
Wow, just lay into the poor guy why don't you...
fredperson
Active Member
I hate to see posters called ignorant.
Altough the Fibonacci system is technically not a pure progressive system,
it is certainly not a counting system.
And it is supported by computer simulations, and TWENTY YEARS of actual sucessful results.
Talk about arrogance !johndoe said:
Altough the Fibonacci system is technically not a pure progressive system,
it is certainly not a counting system.
And it is supported by computer simulations, and TWENTY YEARS of actual sucessful results.
The Fibonacci is just another progression system, and is certainly not supported by computer simulations, as you claim. If you have 20 years of successful results, which I highly doubt, you got lucky.fredperson said:
Fibonacci and all other progression systems are losers, mathematically and practically. This is well established and supported by every expert player in blackjack. It's also obvious to anyone with even a smidgen of understanding of mathematics or statistics.
Enough already.
fredperson
Active Member
letters
I didn't object to the word arrogant. I took issue with the word ignorant.
BTW, I have letters after my name also, one of which is an M.
Shad,shadroch said:
I didn't object to the word arrogant. I took issue with the word ignorant.
BTW, I have letters after my name also, one of which is an M.
QFIT
Well-Known Member
Show me the simulation that supports this. I need to add another page to my Blackjack Scams site.fredperson said:
And yes Fibonacci is a pure progression system.
Martin Gayle
Well-Known Member
The same as people who do not beleive in AP.ExhibitCAA said:
Just think of the times you explain the theory behind card counting or other AP systems to someone, even a normally intelligent and cautious person. Only when you think they finally are ready to get the Eureka! moment only to be told by them, "Well, in the end it all evens out right? The casino always wins as the games are fixed."
Even senior members on this fourm don't believe some of the mathematics or opportunities you layout in BC or BCECAA.
I don't get it either, these progression systems, but I can't fathom how some don't believe in card counting and they think I am nothing more than a degenerate gambler on a hot streak.
Some quotes from bad gamblers that I am sure we all have heard:
"The only way you can win in the long run is by hitting a jackpot."
"There is no way anyone can count an 8 deck shoe."
"There is no way to beat the CSM."
Just for the record-
I do not progression bet at a land based casino. I use BS with flat betting and a BR of $500 or less. I generally do not get to a casino based on the proximity to my home. Online BJ seems to be a different animal. With card counting out of the question it seems that a rouge voodoo system is your best chance at any profit. I am a novice player and do it for fun as I have full time employment. The best bet of my life was not based on math equations or voodoo. I purchased 10,000 shares of Las Vegas Sands Corp. at $4.40. Today, it is at 18.50 per share! No math, voodoo, just dumb luck I guess.
I do not progression bet at a land based casino. I use BS with flat betting and a BR of $500 or less. I generally do not get to a casino based on the proximity to my home. Online BJ seems to be a different animal. With card counting out of the question it seems that a rouge voodoo system is your best chance at any profit. I am a novice player and do it for fun as I have full time employment. The best bet of my life was not based on math equations or voodoo. I purchased 10,000 shares of Las Vegas Sands Corp. at $4.40. Today, it is at 18.50 per share! No math, voodoo, just dumb luck I guess.
That time.Kasi said:
I wish, whenever someone refers to this, they would add three little words at the end: "had some system that didn't go negative until after 128000 hands or so on that trial".
Since the system did eventually go negative, there is nothing to say that it wouldn't immediately go negative, and stay there, on the next trial.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
The best chance for a profit is to take advantage of casino bonuses, +EV progressive jackpots, beatable games or betting arbitrages. There are plenty of legitimate ways to get a mathematical advantage over online casinos. There is no reason to rely on rogue voodoo systems. It is very unwise to bet your money on pure luck.jberger said:
-Sonny-