Computer Sim for Progression Betting

[Sonny]

What are other secrets lie hidden within the game that can be exploited?

Here’s a short list of a few well known strategies:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=21994

But the important thing is not that you win every time . . . but that you win more than you lose.

But that will never happen in roulette, nor will it happen to a basic strategy player or progression player in BJ. You will always be more likely to lose the next hand because the house edge is always against you.

-Sonny-

 

[SPX]

Here’s a short list of a few well known strategies:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=21994



But that will never happen in roulette, nor will it happen to a basic strategy player or progression player in BJ. You will always be more likely to lose the next hand because the house edge is always against you.

-Sonny-

O ye of little faith. . .

Anyway, let's also not forget this: Randomness only exists on the surface. As a determinist, I believe that ultimately everything (physical) is up to the laws of physics and, even though neither of us has the information or the mental supercomputer power to figure it out, the exact cards that you will be receiving for every hand for the rest of your life is already determined. And so is every spin of the roulette wheel.

We say every spin is random but what we really mean is that every spin is dependent upon things like velocity, force, backspin and inertia. . . But it's easier to just say "random."

 

[Sonny]

We say every spin is random but what we really mean is that every spin is dependent upon things like velocity, force, backspin and inertia. . . But it's easier to just say "random."

In this case "random" simply means unpredictable by current standards. Things like casino shuffles are also wildly nonrandom. Any good shuffle tracker or sequencer knows that. People have made huge scores from the first several generations of "random" CSM machines as well as current hand-shuffled games. But anyone who doesn’t have that inside information must treat the shuffle as though it were random because they do not have the power to predict it or any control over the outcome. Those with the extra information can easily see that the outcomes are completely deterministic and therefore non random.

As a determinist, I believe that ultimately everything (physical) is up to the laws of physics and, even though neither of us has the information or the mental supercomputer power to figure it out, the exact cards that you will be receiving for every hand for the rest of your life is already determined.

So you’re looking for a way to predict fate? Interesting. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, none of us has the information to make such predictions about such events that behave according to the theories of nonlinear dynamics. Even “simple” linear events like a roulette spin are still far beyond our capacity. Heck, we can’t even predict long-term weather patterns!

I’ll agree that I am not a man of faith, but I really don’t see “fate prediction” happening in our lifetime.

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

O ye of little faith. . .

Anyway, let's also not forget this: Randomness only exists on the surface. As a determinist, I believe that ultimately everything (physical) is up to the laws of physics and, even though neither of us has the information or the mental supercomputer power to figure it out, the exact cards that you will be receiving for every hand for the rest of your life is already determined. And so is every spin of the roulette wheel.

We say every spin is random but what we really mean is that every spin is dependent upon things like velocity, force, backspin and inertia. . . But it's easier to just say "random."

i take it you don't have much faith in the uncertainty principle, ala Heisenberg.

 

[dacium]

What SPX is talking about though just isn't possible for us feeble humans.

Sure if we remembered every card in the shoe, then was able to watch the shuffle perfectly, we would know the sequence of cards. But you would require immense speed.

The thing about card counting that makes it the 'ultimate' solution to blackjack is that is the perfect solution that is then only simplified a bit by making it a high/low ratio tracking.

We do not know the order of cards from the shuffle, it is to hard to tell. Yes it is predetermined, but there are far to many variables. So the as each card comes out we take that information. We know the remaining cards, and we act in the best way possible considering every possible sequence those remaining cards could come out in. This would be playing with a perfect stratedgy. We then notice that mainly counting the ratio of high cards to low cards is good enough compared to remembering every card, its not perfect but it still gives us the advantage.

The point is card counting is THE PERFECT solution to blackjack and it assumes we DO NOT know the shuffle. This is why card counting works and other 'systems' always fail. They try to assume the sequence of cards when they are actually unknown.

It will be possible with the advance in technology to one day conceal a computer that is so powerful and has such a high resolution and speedy camera that it will simply be able to watch and the last shoe, watch the shuffle and know the order of cards. This is will happen one day.

As for CSM's, they will just get better with technology. Sure the ones at the moment are not perfect. They typically have 50ish holders each one holding 4 to 8 cards. That typically means that any single card will not appear before 4 other specific cards. CSM's also have about 20 cards in the out tray already, so the last hands shuffle can't. So they are far from perfect. Technology will make them cheaper until the point where they can each card individually and truly randomly shuffle in 1 card at a time.

 

[QFIT]

As for CSM's, they will just get better with technology.

CSM's are unwieldy, Rube Goldberg devices that will fade away; as will cards. BJ tables will become horizontal video screens and cards will become images that can be manipulated by touch. Chips will be placed on the screen and sensed by the table for bets, splits, Insurance and double downs. The 'dealer' will simply be a cashier controlled by the table. And Vegas will start to lose its appeal.

Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Kasi]

The grand total bankroll of the systemers is $6Bil.
Let's assume every single one of these people are PERFECT Basic Stratters, and okay rules. House Edge = 0.005%. In the end, they should have lost, in total, $4.5Mil, leaving them with a final bankroll of $5,995,500,000.00
Here's the bet: Let's run the sim. If the grand total earnings of all these people, playing the trends and not entering the long term, is positive (that is, above the starting $6bil)-- I will paypal you $1000. If it isn't, you paypal me $500. 2-1 odds on your sure thing!

I'd be happy to take that bet as long as you would be willing to play a few thousand more hands and let me change my unit size as I choose.

Let me do that every billion hands, and I'll still take the bet up to 10 billion hands.

I think that's the point of SPX - how long can one play with what bankroll and what winning goal varying one's bet by whatever.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone betting how they choose to prolong their chances of winning x or to maximize their chance of winning x.

As he says, one might not live that long.

 

[Kasi]

Sure, why deal the hands when YOU KNOW what the result will be - it will be the housEdge x the average bet x 1B hands. Right? zg

Actually I think it would be the HA * the average initial bet, not total wagered *HA.

 

[Sonny]

Actually I think it would be the HA * the average initial bet, not total wagered *HA.

But if you only use the initial bet then you are not including the money lost from splits and doubles. That’s why ZG uses the total wagered instead of the average initial bet. All money that touches the table is affected by the house edge.

-Sonny-

 

[positiveEV]

The only way to have a "winning" system would be to have one that have a higher standard deviation over a billion hand than the house edge, so it could be possible to overcome the house edge with the standard deviation.

With a 0.3% house advantage and a standard deviation of X, your EV over a billion hands is 1,000,000,000*.997 so -3 million units. To have (SQRT1,000,000,000)*X > 3,000,000 the standard deviation of your system would have to be 95. Then you would have as many chances to be break even with the house as you would have to be minus 6 million units.

If someone can find a system with a SD of 95 please post it, even video poker have nowhere near that kind of SD.

 

[ScottH]

The only way to have a "winning" system would be to have one that have a higher standard deviation over a billion hand than the house edge, so it could be possible to overcome the house edge with the standard deviation.

With a 0.3% house advantage and a standard deviation of X, your EV over a billion hands is 1,000,000,000*.997 so -3 million units. To have (SQRT1,000,000,000)*X > 3,000,000 the standard deviation of your system would have to be 95. Then you would have as many chances to be break even with the house as you would have to be minus 6 million units.

If someone can find a system with a SD of 95 please post it, even video poker have nowhere near that kind of SD.

The highest standard deviation "system", would seem to be betting everything you have on one hand.

 

[positiveEV]

The highest standard deviation "system", would seem to be betting everything you have on one hand.

You can't do that, because then without the ability to double/split the house edge just jumped to 2%. We are talking about winning after a billion hands, not a single hand. If it's about betting small after the first big win, there would be no point in betting millions on the first hand and then bet a dollar a hand after that only to make sure you don't go down. Even using that system you would still be down more than half of the time.

 

[ScottH]

Even using that system you would still be down more than half of the time.

Yeah, i know that. But you were asking for a high variance "system", and betting it all is as high variance as you can get. This may or may not come to a surprise to you, but after 1B hands online you will be down more than half of the time, regardless of your system...

 

[dacium]

Here is my latest crazy idea following on from what was originally said here about sequences.


In blackjack after a win the change of winning the next hand drops by around 0.11%, after a loss it increases by about 0.09% and after a push it drops by about 0.13%. (this is because if you loose, usually lack of high cards has caused the loss, if you win usually high cards have come outs, so the counts change and the you get more and less likly to win).

This will surely affect the probabilities of sequences of loosing streaks. For example after 10 hands in a row lost (if its just you against the dealer) the probabability that the count is now good is very high and it actually results in the next hand being +ev. So in blackjack streaks of loosing may not have their expected probabilities.

So if this is true you should be able to exploit it based on a progression that has it break points just past the loosing streaks that aren't yet ending in +ev hands.

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. In roulette, there is only 1 random event, the fall of the single ball. In blackjack each hand consists of a random even for each card that comes out. Each random event effects the next event and each makes a win or loss more likly/unlikly.

 

[QFIT]

No, the changes that you are talking about are not cumulative.

 

[Kasi]

But if you only use the initial bet then you are not including the money lost from splits and doubles. That’s why ZG uses the total wagered instead of the average initial bet. All money that touches the table is affected by the house edge.-Sonny-

Well, I thought the house edge was defined as the ratio lost to average initial amount wagered. That's how all the EV tables are defined too.

That way one can compare games by the original wager rather than some games like BJ, where one's average bet averages 10-12%% more than than the original bet due to doubles and splits, compared to other games like 3-card poker where, while the house edge is higher than BJ, due to your average bet per hand being much higher than your initial bet, you don't lose nearly as much as HA*total dollars wagered.

So it's very possible to play a game with a higher house advantage but yet lose less money over the same number of initial hands compared to a game with a lower HA.

So, if I play a billion hands of a standard AC game at $1/hand with a HA of 0.43%, my expected loss will be $4.3 million even though I will have wagered around $1.11 billion or so due to doubles and splits.

Alternatively, if I have played 900,000,000 hands at a $1/hand, I will have wagered about $1BB but only lost $3.87 million or so.

Anyway, that's the way I've always looked at it.

Go ahead and sim it and see.

 

[aslan]

Okay, a few points. . .


1: In regard to progression systems, or any betting system for that matter, it seems to me that the failure is progression systems might have to do with the simplicity of the progression. As I've mentioned before, if you want to rely on computer simulations and believe them to be an accurate representation of real-life shuffles, then by analyzing the nature of the game you could determine methods in which to bet optimally. I remember reading something in Blackbelt in Blackjack about "situational betting" I believe it was called, in which a number things were determined to be true by analyzing trends in the game. For instance, the player is slightly more likely to lose a hand after a win, lose a hand after a push, to win a hand after a hard double down, and a number of other things that were determined.

Snyder determined the advantage wasn't much if you played according to all these rules--less than for a standard counting system--but still it was an advantage.

Perhaps when I say that I think a betting system can work, perhaps I am merely saying that there may be an equally powerful--or even more powerful--way to play the game other than card counting. After all, card counting is merely a betting system in which data from the game in progress is incorporated into your decisions to bet in certain ways. Perhaps with further analysis of the game, an even better way to bet could be determined.

And that's what we all want, right? To be clever enough to beat the game and win more money!


2. You're right, just because something is likely to happen doesn't mean it will--or won't--happen right away. As you say, that losing session could be session #1. But what you fail to mention is that even if you're a master card counter the first session could be a total bust. To refer back to Blackbelt in Blackjack, Snyder mentions a number of teams who, betting according to Kelly guidelines and counting properly, succeeded marvelously in losing their entire bankrolls!

Counting ONLY looks at the long run. Any single session can be a total bust. One thing that always annoys me is when a player who has been playing a progression shows up on a forum and says something like, "I was using Thomason's progression and it didn't work! Why?!" And then someone else answers, "I didn't work because it DOESN'T work!"

But that's intellectually dishonest. Because a progression CAN work for any single session. It can also fail. HiLo is the same way. Martingale is the same way. Whatever. To say it didn't work for you on your weekend in Vegas because it doesn't work over a billion hands is simply wrong. It didn't work because you didn't get the right cards. Just like those guys mentioned by Snyder.


3. It remains a statistical fact that 20-loss losing streaks happen a lot less frequently than 3-loss losing streaks. Period. Just like roulette. Red will come up seven times in something like 1-in-300 spins (or some number, I forget exactly) while an 11-loss losing streak will come up in 1-in-9,716 spins (or something like that). Consider this: There's never been a single instance of Red coming up 1,000 times in a row. So while the wheel is random, that doesn't change the fact that there are still certain characteristics that you can expect out of the game and it's not unintelligent to bet according to these (statistical/mathematical) realities.

Furthermore, it's also a fact that losing streaks, on average, are generally shorter in blackjack than in roulette. That's more data that can be taken into account as you play.


Sorry for being long-winded. I look forward to your reply and admire you for being a good sport (unlike some others who come along).


SPX

I can't believe you would put a betting progression or martingale on a par with a card counting system. The two are diametrically opposed. The betting system will lose in the long run and the card counting system will win in the long run. Could there be anything more opposite, and yet you seem to see them as the same. To believe in a martigale or other betting system is tantamount to believing in luck. To believe in a card counting system is to believe in science---reality---reason---you name it---but not luck. As for the infrequency of long losing streaks, after losing twenty times in a row at craps, the chances of winning the next time are exactly the same as in the beginning. Do some more reading on this subject. It is well documented.

 

[Kasi]

This may or may not come to a surprise to you, but after 1B hands online you will be down more than half of the time, regardless of your system...

Not true.

 

[Kasi]

But if you only use the initial bet then you are not including the money lost from splits and doubles. That’s why ZG uses the total wagered instead of the average initial bet. All money that touches the table is affected by the house edge.-Sonny-

Just thought I'd try one more time.

In which standard AC game with DOA and DAS with a 0.43% HA, will u lose $4.3MM expected value?

You play a billion hands at $1/hand

You stop wagering at $1/hand when you hit $1BB in wagers?

It can't be both.

 

[dacium]

What are you asking? What do you mean by BB and MM?