Doubling bet after a losing hand..

[ScottH]

With so many so vehemently opposed to the act of doubling up after a loss, or any "progressive" system, I have to wonder if there's anyone here who has actually had any experience trying that method. Is all the bad stuff just theory or hearsay, or have you, or someone you know ever lost your shirt trying to make that method work?

I know from experience. Anyone who keeps playing it will be in that category eventually, so the only way to avoid that is to stop martingaling...

 

[ThunderWalk]

That's a good question but it's kinda lost at the end of this thread. I'll start a new thread so that more people will find it.

-Sonny-

Thank you. It occurred to me that I might start a new thread, but I thought there might be some flack about it and remarks about the topic being already covered.

Best Regards

 

[ThunderWalk]

Honestly you are an idiot if you think no one has tried this. The system has been around since gambling itself. And 'theory' is used so you don't have to try something.

For example I could pull any stupid system out of ass and you won't know if it works until you try it. But I could tell you in theory that it will fail.

My compliments to your parents on your upbringing. Clearly, name-calling, civility, and blind rhetorical thinking are topics that were never discussed.

But seriously, friends, Romans, and countrymen...

I read almost everything here, and especially if it relates to counting. A lot of what I read is how counting... or it's application by novice counters... fails in the beginning when they're not really good at it yet. It fails because another player makes an unorthodox move, or when someone out of the blue steps up in the middle of the shoe, places a $100 bet on one hand and then leaves. Or it fails when there is a bad shoe and there are just no double-down or splitting opportunities. Or, it fails when you get marked for counting and are shown the door.

But, I know it also works for some people, some of the time, and I'm trying to become one of them.

I also know there are rules that govern all aspects of the universe. There is a limit, for example, on how tall you can construct a building before it collapses upon itself. Two heavenly bodies traveling in space (depending on their size) can only pass so close to each other before being drawn together in an explosive collision. A person can function efficiently for only so long without sleep before making mistakes. I could go on, but you get the picture.

I think most systems (including card counting and Martingale) have a failing point. The trick, therefore, is to learn to identify that point, and move out of the way before it all comes crashing down on you, leaving you in the rubble.

 

[shadroch]

He still doesn't get it.Unbelievable.

 

[Sonny]

It fails because another player makes an unorthodox move, or when someone out of the blue steps up in the middle of the shoe, places a $100 bet on one hand and then leaves. Or it fails when there is a bad shoe and there are just no double-down or splitting opportunities. Or, it fails when you get marked for counting and are shown the door.

Actually, none of those are reasons why beginning counters fail. Most of those don’t even affect a player’s performance at all. It doesn’t matter how the other players play their hands. It doesn’t matter if people keep jumping in and out of the game. A shoe without many splits and doubles can still be a profitable one, and low-stakes counters very rarely get heat from the pit.

The main reason that new counters fail is that they are often not ready. They are not properly prepared to succeed. They are so excited about winning money that they start playing before they really know what they are doing or how to properly use their system. They probably don’t know how to adjust their bet ramp to match their bankroll or what sort of fluctuations to expect. Many times they chose to play terrible games instead of scouting conditions properly. There are many reasons that new counters can fail, but they are all the fault of the player.

I think most systems (including card counting and Martingale) have a failing point.

That’s true. The difference is that betting progressions fail because they are faulty systems. Card counting only fails when the person using it is faulty and fails to use it properly. A skillful card counter is destined to win while a skillful progression player is destined to go broke.

-Sonny-

 

[ihate17]

Did you really read the posts

My compliments to your parents on your upbringing. Clearly, name-calling, civility, and blind rhetorical thinking are topics that were never discussed.

But seriously, friends, Romans, and countrymen...

I read almost everything here, and especially if it relates to counting. A lot of what I read is how counting... or it's application by novice counters... fails in the beginning when they're not really good at it yet. It fails because another player makes an unorthodox move, or when someone out of the blue steps up in the middle of the shoe, places a $100 bet on one hand and then leaves. Or it fails when there is a bad shoe and there are just no double-down or splitting opportunities. Or, it fails when you get marked for counting and are shown the door.

But, I know it also works for some people, some of the time, and I'm trying to become one of them.

I also know there are rules that govern all aspects of the universe. There is a limit, for example, on how tall you can construct a building before it collapses upon itself. Two heavenly bodies traveling in space (depending on their size) can only pass so close to each other before being drawn together in an explosive collision. A person can function efficiently for only so long without sleep before making mistakes. I could go on, but you get the picture.

I think most systems (including card counting and Martingale) have a failing point. The trick, therefore, is to learn to identify that point, and move out of the way before it all comes crashing down on you, leaving you in the rubble.

One rule the governs the card counting universe is that the guy who makes a bad play or the guy who enters the shoe for a hand mean absolutely nothing to you, can help you as easily as hurt you. Yet these are the things you mentioned and though I have no doubt someone in this thread might have brought these things up, that someone is not an advantage player. Mentioning these things is mentioning the "all mighty, mystical, all knowing, sacred FLOW of the cards. It is saying that the cards knew what they were doing and some mystical intelligence beyond our grasp was properly directing those cards but got upset because someone failed to take a hit and has shouted out screw you guys, you will lose every hand this shoe.
Blackjack is nothing but math, the cards are just pieces of paper in some haphazard order, placed in that order by a not quite random shuffle. They (the cards) have no idea if they will help or hurt you on the next hand or if the decisions you and other players make this hand will either help or hurt you in the future.
The math behind getting an edge in blackjack has been done for you already. I do not consider myself a real math person or system inventor, but do consider myself a decent technician who can take a system and the math devised by others and put it to practical work. One can accept the math and make sure the system is using the math correctly and play that way. One can explore the possibility that although the math has been done, there may be other systems that can use that math more favorably and try to discover and exploit these.
Or one can take a system that is based upon partial math (martingale of course is the example here) I say partial math because Martingale fails to take these understandable things into consideration in the real world.
1. People have personal limits and not unlimited bankrolls
2. Casinos protect themselves from variance by placing limits on all tables
3. Probably as if not more important: Unlikely events happen but you can not know exactly when they will happen. Example, you know (from computer simulations) that in a period of 1,000 hands of blackjack, you will have a 10 or more hands streak of loses. What martingale or any system can not tell you is if this streak will start on hand 1, 100, 990, or 2000! If you somehow could know this then martingale could work because you stop playing immediately before the starting hand and never play again.
So it is a seriously flawed system because the math of doubling your bet leaves out at least these three important factors.

Cardcounting if applied perfectly is not flawed in getting an edge. The failures
of novice counters are not because of the system but are because of all the imperfections we have as people, in other words they are human. They might overbet or underbet, they might steam, they might want to play so bad that they play poor games, the different things that can take a small advantage away and turn it negative are many. The math of the system works, some counting methods are better than others, but all of them will give you a little advantage. The amount of advantage gained will depend upon the rules and penetration, but based upon the many different current rules available, only small edges, generally around 1-1.5% can be gained over the house by counting. Once you start making human errorrs against this small edge it can quickly become a negative edge and that is why counting does not work for all.

Martingale: A flawed system.
Counting: A positive system with a slight edge played by flawed people.

ihate17

 

[ScottH]

Martingale: A flawed system.
Counting: A positive system with a slight edge played by flawed people.

I like that.

 

[eps6724]

Maybe Thunderwalk could try a 'small bet' progression (either neg. or pos.) during negative or neutral counts of a shoe game, and then ramp up when the count is called for? That would certainly give him cover, plus let him experiment where he really wouldn't get hurt? (Assuming that back-counting isn't an option). And if it works-great! And if it doesn't-hasn't he just kept the heat off of him when he goes for the big bets as per count?

Just trying to be helpful-not looking to be called anything.

 

[ThunderWalk]

I'm reminded of a funny story.

A guy goes into a men's clothing store to buy a suit, and as the salesman finishes buttoning the coat and brushes off the guy's shoulders, he pronounces it as "Perfect."

"What are you talking about," says our friend, "the sleeves are too long."

The salesman instructs the would-be buyer to just bunch-up the fabric and bend his arms at the elbow holding, it in place.

"But, the coat is way too large... it's not really my size," is the reply.

The salesman suggests grabbing the lapels and pulling the coat snug and then clutching it with one hand keeping the fabric taunt.

"But the pants are much too long," says the customer.

The salesman shows his client how to bend at the waist, and clutching at the crotch of the pants, to pull upward so the cuffs don't drag on the ground.

The next day, our guy is struggling to walk in public, hunched over and grasping his new suit in various places.

Two nuns across the street notice him and one says,"Look at that poor crippled man trying to walk."

And the other then says," Yes, but doesn't his suit fit him nicely."


Question:
Is it possible for several variables to come together to make an otherwise unfavorable situation successful, even if just for a short time?


I've been testing this with friends around a 6-deck shoe... a lot. More often than not, it works. And with double-downs and splitting pairs, the final payback is even better than it would be with straight doubling the bet on a loss.

I'm exploring a few of the variables; some I can't test until the next trip to the casino.

For example, I'm looking for the right amount of people at the table. So far, heads-up with the dealer seems like a 50-50 proposition, whereas having a small number of additional players... say, 2 to 3... spreads out the losses.

How many decks is optimum? I've been practicing with 6-decks, but would 8 or 2 be more advantageous? I need to explore this more.

What's the best seat? So far, this is working well (in practice) no matter which chair I choose, and I've moved all over just because friends have complained that I always get the best cards. Still, they're aware of what I'm trying to do and helping me with these rehearsals.

Might this work better or worse with an auto-shuffler? I don't like the idea of being dealt back the same cards that have just been picked up from the table, but I need to at least test it if I want an answer.

How much cash should I start with? Obviously, the more you can risk the better you can stay with any system, but with less, I've been able to turn around a bad streak by having an earlier cut-off point. Starting with $2,000, betting $10, I might start over after losing 5-6 hands, with $1000, I may want to give up after losing four hands. If things go well, I might make up my $80 loss in just eight more hands, and make it back to where I left off. I've had things go bad on me (in practice) too -- like splitting three cards, and doubling-down on one, then losing, and then, the next very hand the dealer gets Blackjack. It happens, but not a lot.

Still, I'm learning a counting system... I just need something to do until I'm comfortable enough to start employing it.

 

[dacium]

All the questions you have asked can be answered mathematically but they are extremely complicated and in the case of the majority of questions you asked, there is no difference at all compared to the advantage gained from card counting.

I think the point is people don't want to see you wasting your time. Many of us have been there (martingale systems) trying to figure out optimum players/position etc by trial and error. It just doesn't work. You have to do it mathematically.

Asking how much money to sit with is just pointless. You should bet when you have the advantage. So if a shoe is going to be 50 hands you should have 50 units. If this isn't practial you have to estimate. Counting a 'session' as when you have lost/won a certain amount is just baseless.

 

[ihate17]

Everything can work in the short term but only advantage play will work long term.

Question:
Is it possible for several variables to come together to make an otherwise unfavorable situation successful, even if just for a short time?

Even for a short period of time? You can double your 16's vs dealer ace and it might work for a short time. You will often see people you might consider horrible blackjack players win for a short time. Then again it is perspective, is a day, week, month, year etc etc a short or long time?

I've been testing this with friends around a 6-deck shoe... a lot. More often than not, it works. And with double-downs and splitting pairs, the final payback is even better than it would be with straight doubling the bet on a loss.

When you double you should always have an advantage on that hand, so doubling having a better payoff is not surprising. The same is true on most splits and even on those splits where you do not have an advantage the purpose of splitting is losing less, so again a better payoff. What you discovered is just playing martingale and ignoring advantageous situations is foolish.

I'm exploring a few of the variables; some I can't test until the next trip to the casino.

For example, I'm looking for the right amount of people at the table. So far, heads-up with the dealer seems like a 50-50 proposition, whereas having a small number of additional players... say, 2 to 3... spreads out the losses.

How many people on the table:
If you do not count you will lose long term, so the more people on the table, the less hands you play, so the less you lose.
If you count and the count is positive, the less people the better because you will get more hands in a positive situation.
If the count is negative you want to play less hands. So you want more players or you just leave the table.

How many decks is optimum? I've been practicing with 6-decks, but would 8 or 2 be more advantageous? I need to explore this more.

The fewer decks the less the disadvantage to the player, if the rules are the same. But take into consideration which game you will be playing most often and work on that. There are a few good single deck games and many good double deck and six deck, but there are tons more bad ones, so learn to recognize the good from the bad.

What's the best seat? So far, this is working well (in practice) no matter which chair I choose, and I've moved all over just because friends have complained that I always get the best cards. Still, they're aware of what I'm trying to do and helping me with these rehearsals.

If you know which seat will get the ace on the first card that is the seat you want. Otherwise there are seats better for hole card play and good seats for signaling a partner. There really is no best seat.

Might this work better or worse with an auto-shuffler? I don't like the idea of being dealt back the same cards that have just been picked up from the table, but I need to at least test it if I want an answer.

Blackjack is math. Short term, luck has its place but winning long term is nothing but math. You can not use math against an auto shuffler.

How much cash should I start with? Obviously, the more you can risk the better you can stay with any system, but with less, I've been able to turn around a bad streak by having an earlier cut-off point. Starting with $2,000, betting $10, I might start over after losing 5-6 hands, with $1000, I may want to give up after losing four hands. If things go well, I might make up my $80 loss in just eight more hands, and make it back to where I left off. I've had things go bad on me (in practice) too -- like splitting three cards, and doubling-down on one, then losing, and then, the next very hand the dealer gets Blackjack. It happens, but not a lot.

If you were a friend or relative, based upon your not counting and this post my very strong reccommendation would be for you to start with 0. It will save you money.

Still, I'm learning a counting system... I just need something to do until I'm comfortable enough to start employing it.

The time currently spent playing blackjack without counting is time you could be using to get more comfortable counting.

ihate17

 

[ThunderWalk]

I understand.

The time currently spent playing blackjack without counting is time you could be using to get more comfortable counting.

ihate17

Got the book... starting the journey, and it's already paying off. The price was $17-and-something... but because the book store didn't meet the delivery date, it was free.

 

[aslan]

For example -
On a table with a $10 min and $500 max...
You double your bet after every hand you lose. $10 to $20 to $40 all the way up to $320. When you win a hand you go back to betting $10. You'll win money so long as you do not lose 6 consecutive hands. I've tried this numerous times on blackjack simulators and have come out way on top every time. It seems like it works very well. I was wondering if anyone knew the odds on winning on this way and if it is legal?

I have run tens of thousands of simulations on all kinds of betting progressions including martingales and modified martingales. None of them work in the long run. No betting system works in the long run. And with a less than even bet (ie, betting where there is a house edge) there is just no chance of coming out ahead in the long run. You may also find out that you lose in the short run as well. In my testing of betting systems, it did happen a number of times that losses began occurring right from the start. Save your money and don't fool around with betting systems--you're only asking for trouble!

 

[ScottH]

I have run tens of thousands of simulations on all kinds of betting progressions including martingales and modified martingales. None of them work in the long run. No betting system works in the long run. And with a less than even bet (ie, betting where there is a house edge) there is just no chance of coming out ahead in the long run. You may also find out that you lose in the short run as well. In my testing of betting systems, it did happen a number of times that losses began occurring right from the start. Save your money and don't fool around with betting systems--you're only asking for trouble!

You're forgetting one thing, proggression players DONT CARE ABOUT THE LONG RUN!

 

[shadroch]

I have run tens of thousands of simulations on all kinds of betting progressions including martingales and modified martingales. None of them work in the long run. No betting system works in the long run. And with a less than even bet (ie, betting where there is a house edge) there is just no chance of coming out ahead in the long run. You may also find out that you lose in the short run as well. In my testing of betting systems, it did happen a number of times that losses began occurring right from the start. Save your money and don't fool around with betting systems--you're only asking for trouble!

But your simulations don't take comps into account,do they?
I'm certainly not advocating progression systems, but an astute comp counter can make some use of them,and in the long run recieve comps that far exceed his cash losses.
I've yet to see anyone factor that into a sim.

 

[dacium]

I think people over estimate the value of comps.

If you black chip, in most games you are loosing on average 50 cents per hand, and probably $30 per hour. A room is probably really only $60 - $90 and a flight $90 to $120. Thats only 6 or so hours of play before they make all their money back. I find it hard to believe people get anything out of comps. The might end up paying for your trip, paying for the room and the flight, but guess what, you still lost the $30 per hour at the table, so you still go home down. You don't get comped cash.

 

[shadroch]

I think people over estimate the value of comps.

If you black chip, in most games you are loosing on average 50 cents per hand, and probably $30 per hour. A room is probably really only $60 - $90 and a flight $90 to $120. Thats only 6 or so hours of play before they make all their money back. I find it hard to believe people get anything out of comps. The might end up paying for your trip, paying for the room and the flight, but guess what, you still lost the $30 per hour at the table, so you still go home down. You don't get comped cash.

No offense,my friend,but you don't understand the potential of comps.
Lets say you are a black chipper. You can get your airfare for you and your wife refunded.From NYC,on Jet Blue that would be about $650. But what if your flew first class? Now its about $4,000? Okay?
But how about if you buy tickets on both airlines,use the Jet blue ones but show your host the First Class ones and get $4,000 in cash,then return the fully refundable ticket.Thats about $3400 in your pocket.
How about getting four tix to the hottest boxing match from your host and selling them to a ticket agency for face value? Thats about $800 in your pocket? I could go on,but do you begin to see the possibilities?
You should read "Comp City" by max rubin. It is both eye-opening and highly enlightening.

 

[Sonny]

But how about if you buy tickets on both airlines,use the Jet blue ones but show your host the First Class ones and get $4,000 in cash,then return the fully refundable ticket.Thats about $3400 in your pocket.

That's true. Another trick is to book a hotel room at two different hotels and have them both reimburse your airfare. You're getting paid twice for the same flight!

-Sonny-

 

[EasyRhino]

But still, the casinos do meter out the comps so that they're under 50% of the value of the expected loss from the player. For an advantage player, they're gravy. For a regular gambler, I think their value can be illusory.

 

[aslan]

I'm not forgetting

You're forgetting one thing, proggression players DONT CARE ABOUT THE LONG RUN!

Notice I also mentioned that you may lose in the short run. The statistics don't know long from short! Sometimes a simulation of ten thousand hands would BEGIN with a loss! This is especially true if one tries to modify a martingale, for example, by only doubling 3 or 4 times, then going back to 1 unit. No matter how you slice or dice it, it's a losing proposition.