Hit and run with oscars grind
- Thread starter chitown
- Start date
- Status
BETTING SYSTEMS AND BLACKJACK: IS OSCAR'S SYSTEM A WINNER?
By Arnold Snyder
(From Player Magazine, November/December 1995)
© 1995 Arnold Snyder
Players ask me more questions about betting systems for blackjack than just about any other topic. Not betting systems for card counters—just betting systems. I always start by going into my spiel that pure betting systems don’t win in the long run. And the usual response I get is, “I don’t care about the long run. I’m going to Vegas this weekend. I just want to win on this one short run.”
As a matter of fact, there are betting systems that provide a player more of a chance of finishing a trip with a win than a loss. If you use this type of betting system, and you look over your records after years of play, you’ll see a whole lot of small wins—and one (or a few) big losses, big enough to wipe out the profits from all of your small wins, and then some. (Mustn’t forget that house edge!)
But, you don’t care about the long run. You just want a win this weekend. So, let’s look at what betting system works best in the short run. We can’t guarantee a win, but there is a logic to betting systems that can greatly increase your chances of success.
There are two main types of betting systems—positive progressions and negative progressions. With a positive progression, the general theory is that you raise your bets after wins, which means that your bigger bets are primarily funded by money won. This is a conservative betting system insofar as a long string of losses will not wipe out your bankroll as quickly as with a negative progression.
With a negative progression, you raise your bets after your losses. This is more dangerous, since a bad run of losses can wipe you out quickly. In its favor, however, it allows you to win on a session in which you’ve lost many more hands than you’ve won. Since your bets after losses are bigger bets, you don’t have to win so many of them to come back, assuming you can avoid a truly disastrous series of losses that empties your pockets.
There are dozens of variations on betting systems that incorporate features of both the positive and negative progressions, in an attempt to create the “perfect” betting system that wins the most often with the least chance of busting out. The best system of this type I’ve seen for accomplishing this end was first published 40 years ago by mathematician Allan N. Wilson, in his Casino Gambler’s Guide (Harper & Row, 1965). Dr. Wilson called it “Oscar’s system,” named after the dice player who’d invented it. Here’s how it works:
The goal for any series of bets is to win just one unit, then start a new series. Each series starts with a one-unit bet. After any win, the next bet is one unit more than the previous bet. After any loss, the next bet is identical to the previous bet. That is, if you lose a two-unit bet, your next bet is a two-unit bet until you have a win, at which point you raise your bet one unit to a three-unit bet.
That is the whole system, except for one stipulation—Never place any bet that would result in a win for the series of more than one unit. In other words, if you win a 4-unit bet, and you are now down only 2 units for the series, you would not raise your next bet to 5 units because of the 4-unit win; you’d only to 3 units, which would be all you’d need—if successful—to achieve a one-unit win for the series.
Oscar’s betting system combines the best features of both the positive and negative progressions. You can suffer much longer runs of losses without busting out than you can with a negative progression, since you don’t raise your bets after losses. Yet, a much shorter run of wins can get back your previous losses on a series, since you raise your bets following wins. It’s kind of brilliant, actually. Strings of losses hurt less, yet strings of wins pay more.
When Oscar told Dr. Wilson that he had been using this system for many years and had never had a losing weekend in Las Vegas, Dr. Wilson did some mathematical and computer simulation analysis on it. Was this possible? His findings were amazing. Using a $1 betting unit on an even money payout game, the betting progression is so slow that the player would bump up against the house’s $500 maximum bet (at that time) on only one series of every 5,000 played. On 4,999 of those series, the player would expect to achieve his $1 win target.
Since Oscar was shooting for a weekend win of only $100 (back in 1965, this was a very healthy win!), Dr. Wilson concluded that it was quite likely that Oscar had played on many weekends over a period of years with never a loss.
So, should we all start using Oscar’s system? One word of caution: Watch out for that one losing series. How much does Oscar lose when his system fails on that one unlucky series out of 5,000?
About $13,000.
You see, even though he’s just bumped into the house’s table maximum of $500, he’s gotten to this point by losing lots of bets in the $100+, $200+, $300+, and $400+ range during this horrendously long series. So, if you try Oscar’s system, you still have to be prepared to lose.
The above is from Arnold Snyders web site.
He even says that OG is not a worthless system. Just like card counting a player using OG can still lose. I decided to use stop loss limits to prevent a long series loss. I also use win limits at the table to prevent a long series loss.
I wanted to post the entire article instead of just parts of it that sonny posted in his reply.
By Arnold Snyder
(From Player Magazine, November/December 1995)
© 1995 Arnold Snyder
Players ask me more questions about betting systems for blackjack than just about any other topic. Not betting systems for card counters—just betting systems. I always start by going into my spiel that pure betting systems don’t win in the long run. And the usual response I get is, “I don’t care about the long run. I’m going to Vegas this weekend. I just want to win on this one short run.”
As a matter of fact, there are betting systems that provide a player more of a chance of finishing a trip with a win than a loss. If you use this type of betting system, and you look over your records after years of play, you’ll see a whole lot of small wins—and one (or a few) big losses, big enough to wipe out the profits from all of your small wins, and then some. (Mustn’t forget that house edge!)
But, you don’t care about the long run. You just want a win this weekend. So, let’s look at what betting system works best in the short run. We can’t guarantee a win, but there is a logic to betting systems that can greatly increase your chances of success.
There are two main types of betting systems—positive progressions and negative progressions. With a positive progression, the general theory is that you raise your bets after wins, which means that your bigger bets are primarily funded by money won. This is a conservative betting system insofar as a long string of losses will not wipe out your bankroll as quickly as with a negative progression.
With a negative progression, you raise your bets after your losses. This is more dangerous, since a bad run of losses can wipe you out quickly. In its favor, however, it allows you to win on a session in which you’ve lost many more hands than you’ve won. Since your bets after losses are bigger bets, you don’t have to win so many of them to come back, assuming you can avoid a truly disastrous series of losses that empties your pockets.
There are dozens of variations on betting systems that incorporate features of both the positive and negative progressions, in an attempt to create the “perfect” betting system that wins the most often with the least chance of busting out. The best system of this type I’ve seen for accomplishing this end was first published 40 years ago by mathematician Allan N. Wilson, in his Casino Gambler’s Guide (Harper & Row, 1965). Dr. Wilson called it “Oscar’s system,” named after the dice player who’d invented it. Here’s how it works:
The goal for any series of bets is to win just one unit, then start a new series. Each series starts with a one-unit bet. After any win, the next bet is one unit more than the previous bet. After any loss, the next bet is identical to the previous bet. That is, if you lose a two-unit bet, your next bet is a two-unit bet until you have a win, at which point you raise your bet one unit to a three-unit bet.
That is the whole system, except for one stipulation—Never place any bet that would result in a win for the series of more than one unit. In other words, if you win a 4-unit bet, and you are now down only 2 units for the series, you would not raise your next bet to 5 units because of the 4-unit win; you’d only to 3 units, which would be all you’d need—if successful—to achieve a one-unit win for the series.
Oscar’s betting system combines the best features of both the positive and negative progressions. You can suffer much longer runs of losses without busting out than you can with a negative progression, since you don’t raise your bets after losses. Yet, a much shorter run of wins can get back your previous losses on a series, since you raise your bets following wins. It’s kind of brilliant, actually. Strings of losses hurt less, yet strings of wins pay more.
When Oscar told Dr. Wilson that he had been using this system for many years and had never had a losing weekend in Las Vegas, Dr. Wilson did some mathematical and computer simulation analysis on it. Was this possible? His findings were amazing. Using a $1 betting unit on an even money payout game, the betting progression is so slow that the player would bump up against the house’s $500 maximum bet (at that time) on only one series of every 5,000 played. On 4,999 of those series, the player would expect to achieve his $1 win target.
Since Oscar was shooting for a weekend win of only $100 (back in 1965, this was a very healthy win!), Dr. Wilson concluded that it was quite likely that Oscar had played on many weekends over a period of years with never a loss.
So, should we all start using Oscar’s system? One word of caution: Watch out for that one losing series. How much does Oscar lose when his system fails on that one unlucky series out of 5,000?
About $13,000.
You see, even though he’s just bumped into the house’s table maximum of $500, he’s gotten to this point by losing lots of bets in the $100+, $200+, $300+, and $400+ range during this horrendously long series. So, if you try Oscar’s system, you still have to be prepared to lose.
The above is from Arnold Snyders web site.
He even says that OG is not a worthless system. Just like card counting a player using OG can still lose. I decided to use stop loss limits to prevent a long series loss. I also use win limits at the table to prevent a long series loss.
I wanted to post the entire article instead of just parts of it that sonny posted in his reply.
The point is that with Oscar's system, as well as ALL progression systems, you're just moving your losses around, stacking them up to just one big one (or a few). The trouble is, you never know when that's going to hit you, and it is guaranteed to MORE than wipe out your winnings eventually.
It's just an obfuscated Martingale system.
Counting gives you an advantage, progression does NOT. Anyone betting these progression systems and is expecting to win overall is a fool.
(Sure, anyone can get lucky, but if you're winning with OC, you would have won without it, too.)
I hope newbies around here aren't being suckered into this nonsense.
It's just an obfuscated Martingale system.
Counting gives you an advantage, progression does NOT. Anyone betting these progression systems and is expecting to win overall is a fool.
(Sure, anyone can get lucky, but if you're winning with OC, you would have won without it, too.)
I hope newbies around here aren't being suckered into this nonsense.
I will never go thru one of those really big losing sessions because I have stop loss limits! Thats what your not understanding. Just because a player is using OG doesn't mean he can't stop the progression.johndoe said:
You think because the computer says you will have one big losing session means that a player is going to keep the progression going on and on for 10 hours?
The player just needs to have a stop loss limit and jump tables when its reached.. This isn't any different than a card counter leaving a table after losing his butt on a juicy positive count shoe when the mathmatics says he was at an advantage.
To come on here and say that a player cant win using OG is a load of garbage, Even one of the best BJ players in the world says its NOT worthless.
Yes, you will. It won't be as big, but it'll get you, and you'll lose overall. I guarantee it.chitown said:
Any card counter that leaves a positive shoe just because he lost a few hands is an incredible fool.
I didn't say they can't win. I said they can't expect to win. Any idiot at the tables wins sometimes. Just like my lucky-rabbit-foot system. Or the moron I saw that stood on all hands, 12 and higher. Even he won. But eventually, the losses will outrun the wins.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
A stop loss limit does not protect you from losing big. All it does is break your loss up into several smaller losses. The end result will be the same no matter when you start and stop. As others have said, all you are doing is redistributing your wins and losses. You should still expect to lose money because the house still has the advantage. Unless you can change that you will be stuck with a losing system.chitown said:
Please read through the links in the Welcome thread at the top of this forum. They will answer all of your questions and show you exactly where the common mistakes are.
-Sonny-
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
ok, sorry, i know the TCP example is a special case not applicable.ExhibitCAA said:
just i wondered if there is a general principle underlying that special case that relates to how one bets and the degree of uncertainty associated with making the bet.
i found that question interesting in terms of thinking about players who may be counting, flat betting or playing OG.
sorry bout the keyboard.
:whip:
iCountNTrack
Well-Known Member
This is an automated response generated in the Vodoo Section:
Attachments
Hi, I have been playing blackjack for 12 years. I currently use hi-opt II with a side count of Aces, I also shuffle track and use sequencing to determine location of Aces and clumps of 10s.chitown said:
When I first started playing blackjack I was more or less homeless. I went to the casino every day with the goal of winning my hotel bill for the night. I didn't know anything about comps so I wasn't staying at the casino. I was working on a contract at the time that paid me at the end of the contract so the blackjack was my only income for 2 months. I knew nothing about card counting. I used a hit and run method. EVERY day whether I had a place to stay or not depended on winning a few $ at blackjack.
I read up on Oscar's Grind after I read your post. I don't agree with the anti-progression NAZIs in here that progressions must always lose in the long run. I have seen a lot of strange things happen at blackjack tables in the last 12 years. Getting into the long run takes a while. As long as you aren't fooling yourself that you have found some sort of magical formula to beat the house edge I don't see anything wrong with a hit and run approach.
One question I do have for you though. If you are going to learn a card counting system, why don't you learn a real one? Like Hi-Opt II with a side count of Aces? The increase in wins from proper playing decisions will surely help Oscar's Grind be more effective. Also you will get better triggers on when to exit a table. The other day I was playing a 2 deck shoe and had seen 8 Aces after 3/4 of a deck. EXIT STAGE LEFT is the only possible play in that situation.
Learning to count cards is not difficult at all. The key is to learn to count cards in clumps because that is the way you see them on the table. I don't count the cards as they come out of the deck. I count them as they are laying on the table. If a player has a 10 and a 6 it is easy to count that as 0. When not playing heads up I usually first scan the table looking for the 10 value cards paired with 4, 5, or 6 which cancel each other out, then I count everything else.
A lot of people will say that learning a level 2 count is too "Hard" but this is nonsense. It is a simple plus minus. Any 3rd grader can learn this. You just need to practice to get proficient. Start by counting down a single deck as fast as you can deal out the cards one at a time. Then deal out the cards 2 at a time and count the pairs as a single unit, then deal them out 3 at a time and count the triples as a single unit. Then start dealing out hands around a table the way they are dealt at blackjack tables. Or have someone deal them and then scoop them up quickly.
Im not sure why you don't want to learn how to count or to use the count to your advantage while playing. It isn't that difficult to do and given the amount of hours you are willing to invest in winning your win goal you obviously are dedicated to this endeavor.
If a $25 minimum bet is too steep for your bankroll then you should NEVER play it. Overbetting your bank will be the one thing that ruins you.
Another reason to learn to count using a system that tracks the Aces separately. The Insurance bet correlation in such systems is relatively high and playing insurance properly is an important weapon in your arsenal.
Also, the indices for a lot of really valuable plays cause you to vary from basic strategy when the count is high and/or there are extra Aces left in the remaining cards. Conversely, the indices will also tell you to vary some very common plays when the count is negative. Hitting 12s and 13s vs dealer stiffs is the most common.
Now, there are people here who will tell you that it is a waste of time to track Aces separately. I don't understand their logic. If you do track Aces separately the index number you use for the Ace can vary from +4 to -7 depending on the situation, using proper index numbers is important. I guess some systems don't valuate the Aces properly, then I guess the naysayers have a point. In terms of bet sizing the Ace is the most powerful card in the deck so I can't imagine why knowing that the deck is rich or poor in Aces can be a bad thing.
I typically only play 2 deck games with good to excellent penetration. If all you play is 6 deck shoes then that might be different. So, a count system more tailored for 6 decks might be important.
One thing I would suggest, since you are putting so much effort into this endeavor, it might be worth your while to take plane rides to places that have 2 deck games with good to deep penetration. The extra value that such games have over 6 deck shoes with poor to fair penetration is worth the cost of a cheap ticket.
question for the anti-progression crowd
Hello,
I count cards but that is because it works for me. Whether it works for someone else or not I couldn't say. I'm not anti-progression as long as the person talking about it knows that it is a betting scheme and not a +EV approach. Everyone has to use what works for them. To say that a progression betting scheme does not/ can not work for Player X is not for anyone else to say, only Player X can say that.
In reading these "you can never win with a progression" posts, one thing I noticed is that no one has simulated the Oscar grind to determine if there is any merit to what this poster is saying. Of course the anti-progression crowd will say they don't need to simulate OG, but that is a cop out.
What I am envisioning is a simulation that uses the kind of shuffle that the poster is likely to encounter in the Illinois riverboat casinos and plays a number of shoes and keeps track of things like, for a given betting scheme, "what was the largest amount the shoe was ever up and at what point"?, "what was the largest amount the shoe was ever down and at what point"?, "what is the optimal loss amount to leave the table at?", "what is the optimal win amount to leave the table at"?.
I don't agree that blackjack will always work out with the law of large number probabilities in the short run. Yes, the house has an edge unless you use some strategy that can defeat that edge. But during one shoe a lot of things can happen that have nothing to do with the probabilities in the long run.
What would be interesting to see, as opposed to the standard "we simulated one trillion hands over 800,000 years and blah blah blah" arguments, is some analysis of the characteristics of individual shoes in terms of "how likely is it to win X more hands than you have lost before the shoe ends?", or, "how likely is it to win N hands in a row before the end of the shoe?", and other questions that would impact whether or not Oscar's Grind is viable. Yes, the probabilities over trillions of hands and millions of years says that the dealer will win 49% of the hands, the player will win 42% of the hands and the rest will be push. That's great, but tells you nothing of the characteristics of THIS shoe.
I don't think that blackjack played after a poor shuffle adheres to the laws of randomness. I was just in Vegas and played a 2 deck shoe where all the Aces were behind the cut card. I knew this because I was using a side count of Aces and had seen no Aces after a full deck. I stayed in the game because it was my turn to cut. I watched the cards after the cut card through the shuffle and cut them so that they would be the first cards dealt. I then played table maximum off the top. This was not a random game.
When the cards come out to the players they go into the discard tray according to certain patterns. Players do not hit 10s paired with 7s, 8s, 9s, 10s or Aces so these pairs tend to stay together through play into the discard tray. Players will keep drawing to low hands so low clumps tend to stay together. Of course you will also have things like 10 5 10. Perhaps if shuffling that does not induce randomness streaks of winning hands or losing hands tend to stay together and might be encountered after the shuffle more than a truly random game would dictate.
Anyway, the point I am making is that I think a better way to discuss Oscar's Grind would be to analyze shoe characteristics of shoes that use the same shuffle that the poster is going to run into in terms of characteristics that are good/bad for the Oscar's Grind.
I'm guessing some of the relevant characteristics would be
1. Number of units won/lost after each number of hands in each shoe.
2. Number of times that the net number of units lost exceeds the stop loss.
3. Number of times that the net number of units won exceeds the win goal.
Since the shoe composition will not be totally random after a poor shuffle, and the shoe can not then adhere to the totally random probabilities of he "trillions of hands over millions of years" analysis, then who can say that there are not shoe characteristics that something like OG might exploit? The only way to know is to simulate a typical trip using the rules this poster explained and using a poor shuffle as he is likely to encounter. Then we have something concrete to talk about.
Anyway, that is my two cents.
PS
Please don't flame me by explaining probability theory to me, I am a statistician by trade.
Hello,
I count cards but that is because it works for me. Whether it works for someone else or not I couldn't say. I'm not anti-progression as long as the person talking about it knows that it is a betting scheme and not a +EV approach. Everyone has to use what works for them. To say that a progression betting scheme does not/ can not work for Player X is not for anyone else to say, only Player X can say that.
In reading these "you can never win with a progression" posts, one thing I noticed is that no one has simulated the Oscar grind to determine if there is any merit to what this poster is saying. Of course the anti-progression crowd will say they don't need to simulate OG, but that is a cop out.
What I am envisioning is a simulation that uses the kind of shuffle that the poster is likely to encounter in the Illinois riverboat casinos and plays a number of shoes and keeps track of things like, for a given betting scheme, "what was the largest amount the shoe was ever up and at what point"?, "what was the largest amount the shoe was ever down and at what point"?, "what is the optimal loss amount to leave the table at?", "what is the optimal win amount to leave the table at"?.
I don't agree that blackjack will always work out with the law of large number probabilities in the short run. Yes, the house has an edge unless you use some strategy that can defeat that edge. But during one shoe a lot of things can happen that have nothing to do with the probabilities in the long run.
What would be interesting to see, as opposed to the standard "we simulated one trillion hands over 800,000 years and blah blah blah" arguments, is some analysis of the characteristics of individual shoes in terms of "how likely is it to win X more hands than you have lost before the shoe ends?", or, "how likely is it to win N hands in a row before the end of the shoe?", and other questions that would impact whether or not Oscar's Grind is viable. Yes, the probabilities over trillions of hands and millions of years says that the dealer will win 49% of the hands, the player will win 42% of the hands and the rest will be push. That's great, but tells you nothing of the characteristics of THIS shoe.
I don't think that blackjack played after a poor shuffle adheres to the laws of randomness. I was just in Vegas and played a 2 deck shoe where all the Aces were behind the cut card. I knew this because I was using a side count of Aces and had seen no Aces after a full deck. I stayed in the game because it was my turn to cut. I watched the cards after the cut card through the shuffle and cut them so that they would be the first cards dealt. I then played table maximum off the top. This was not a random game.
When the cards come out to the players they go into the discard tray according to certain patterns. Players do not hit 10s paired with 7s, 8s, 9s, 10s or Aces so these pairs tend to stay together through play into the discard tray. Players will keep drawing to low hands so low clumps tend to stay together. Of course you will also have things like 10 5 10. Perhaps if shuffling that does not induce randomness streaks of winning hands or losing hands tend to stay together and might be encountered after the shuffle more than a truly random game would dictate.
Anyway, the point I am making is that I think a better way to discuss Oscar's Grind would be to analyze shoe characteristics of shoes that use the same shuffle that the poster is going to run into in terms of characteristics that are good/bad for the Oscar's Grind.
I'm guessing some of the relevant characteristics would be
1. Number of units won/lost after each number of hands in each shoe.
2. Number of times that the net number of units lost exceeds the stop loss.
3. Number of times that the net number of units won exceeds the win goal.
Since the shoe composition will not be totally random after a poor shuffle, and the shoe can not then adhere to the totally random probabilities of he "trillions of hands over millions of years" analysis, then who can say that there are not shoe characteristics that something like OG might exploit? The only way to know is to simulate a typical trip using the rules this poster explained and using a poor shuffle as he is likely to encounter. Then we have something concrete to talk about.
Anyway, that is my two cents.
PS
Please don't flame me by explaining probability theory to me, I am a statistician by trade.
He explained this. He meant in terms of his bankroll. When it came time to make the big bets that OG required, the amount needed was too high in terms of his comfort level given his bankroll.ExhibitCAA said:
I have experienced the same thing when counting and the count said that my next bet had to be 20 units and I was playing $200 a unit. I felt like I was hit in the stomach with a baseball bat. I'm sure this is what chitown is talking about.
ExhibitCAA
Well-Known Member
"He explained this. He meant in terms of his bankroll. When it came time to make the big bets that OG required, the amount needed was too high in terms of his comfort level given his bankroll."
And I am explaining (though if you are a "statistician by trade" this should be obvious to you) that if his system is a winning system in any fashion, then it would be trivially easy to grow his bankroll, starting at $10 unit, and rapidly progressing to ever higher limits, AS IS THE CASE WITH ANY REAL AP WHO PLAYS WITH AN EDGE. Pretty soon he would be blasting with $10000 units, and there would be no casino left on earth that would take his action. But of course, his system is garbage.
You see, OG and other progressions are simple, so there is no problem with implementation, and there is no problem with casino heat. For these reasons, there is no problem getting in the hours required to grow a bankroll. And grow it would, except that the system is a loser.
Furthermore, you seem to not understand what simulations do. I have tried to explain this in my book, because those who have no statistics training never seem to get this. Simulation of billions of hands is generally used as a COMPUTATIONAL method to figure out the expectation of a game, FOR A SINGLE HAND. That is, a long simulation might then say that the expectation for a given set of rules is -0.42%. THIS EXPECTATION APPLIES EVEN IF YOU PLAY ONLY ONE HAND, OR ONE SHOE. A simulation of a billion hands is not because we care what happens in a billion hands. It's just a way of figuring out the answer, which applies for each and every hand. A combinatorial analyzer can be used instead, and it does not play out billions of hands.
That said, we know what happens for one hand (see Appendix D of Exhibit CAA), and if you want to know what happens for a shoe, this, too, is a trivial exercise. You make it sound as if the math tyrants refuse to look at such things--not true. Every branch of science has already debunked it--mathematicians, computer scientists, logicians, empiricists, economists. Even casino bosses, who have a brain the size of a walnut (according to paleontologists), are smart enough not to bar a progressionist. What does that tell you? The single-celled paramecium also has never barred a progressionist. If you operated a casino, would you bar a progressionist?
If you were counting with a $200 unit, and then couldn't afford the 20-unit bet dictated by your system (although I don't know why you need a 1-20 spread), then you are playing too high a unit, obviously. But I highly doubt that you are a counter with a $200 unit, and trained statistician, if in fact you are trying to defend chitown's hunt of windmills.
(PS, you know I must be waiting on some hellishly long sim if I can find the time to flame progressionists.)
And I am explaining (though if you are a "statistician by trade" this should be obvious to you) that if his system is a winning system in any fashion, then it would be trivially easy to grow his bankroll, starting at $10 unit, and rapidly progressing to ever higher limits, AS IS THE CASE WITH ANY REAL AP WHO PLAYS WITH AN EDGE. Pretty soon he would be blasting with $10000 units, and there would be no casino left on earth that would take his action. But of course, his system is garbage.
You see, OG and other progressions are simple, so there is no problem with implementation, and there is no problem with casino heat. For these reasons, there is no problem getting in the hours required to grow a bankroll. And grow it would, except that the system is a loser.
Furthermore, you seem to not understand what simulations do. I have tried to explain this in my book, because those who have no statistics training never seem to get this. Simulation of billions of hands is generally used as a COMPUTATIONAL method to figure out the expectation of a game, FOR A SINGLE HAND. That is, a long simulation might then say that the expectation for a given set of rules is -0.42%. THIS EXPECTATION APPLIES EVEN IF YOU PLAY ONLY ONE HAND, OR ONE SHOE. A simulation of a billion hands is not because we care what happens in a billion hands. It's just a way of figuring out the answer, which applies for each and every hand. A combinatorial analyzer can be used instead, and it does not play out billions of hands.
That said, we know what happens for one hand (see Appendix D of Exhibit CAA), and if you want to know what happens for a shoe, this, too, is a trivial exercise. You make it sound as if the math tyrants refuse to look at such things--not true. Every branch of science has already debunked it--mathematicians, computer scientists, logicians, empiricists, economists. Even casino bosses, who have a brain the size of a walnut (according to paleontologists), are smart enough not to bar a progressionist. What does that tell you? The single-celled paramecium also has never barred a progressionist. If you operated a casino, would you bar a progressionist?
If you were counting with a $200 unit, and then couldn't afford the 20-unit bet dictated by your system (although I don't know why you need a 1-20 spread), then you are playing too high a unit, obviously. But I highly doubt that you are a counter with a $200 unit, and trained statistician, if in fact you are trying to defend chitown's hunt of windmills.
(PS, you know I must be waiting on some hellishly long sim if I can find the time to flame progressionists.)
I expected this kind of holier than thou nonsense, just didn't expect it to come so soon.ExhibitCAA said:
I didn't say I couldn't afford to make a $4,000 bet, just said that psychologically it was a baseball bat to the stomach, which is what chitown said about his not being comfortable with making big bets.
I really don't care what you doubt or what you don't doubt in terms of whether I count cards or not or work in statistics or not.
I wasn't defending chitown's pro-progression stance as much as I was defending his ability to discuss it without the holier than thou types like you saying ridiculous nonsense like you did in this post where you question the poster's intelligence, etc.
Yes, I do say that the math tyrants refuse to look at shoe characteristics as opposed to the trillions of hands over millions of years argument that they always beat people over the head with.
You aren't going to browbeat me into submission with your "I am smarter than you" bullshit that might work on other posters.
I also disagree with your premise that if chitown has a winning system he can "easily" build up a bankroll where a $10,000 bet is trivial. Boy, your skill at throwing out total rubbish is pretty astonishing, but I digress. The trip reports that Chitown posted show a grind, grinding out small profits. Even the best counters playing the most advantageous games can't grow their bankrolls with an exponential slope like you suggest.
If running the kind of sims I suggested is so trivial then why don't you do it instead of trying to beat up posters with how smart you are and how ignorant they must be? Unless you are just a punk ass bully who gets off on looking big and smart? Which I imagine is what you are seeing how you have bullied other people on here. And I am new here and the first post you make to me you insult me and call me a liar. Who the **** do you think you are you punk ass mother ****er?
I also reject your telling posters that card counting is a winning approach for the same reason that you don't like "newbies" being told about progressions. VERY few people make money counting cards and having a theoretical advantage does not equate to winnings you take home with you. The variance in blackjack is too large for any but the most well financed full time players to have their actual results equal expected results. But of course you know this.
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
A Loser is a Loser is a Loser
Let's say you are playing a game with a 49% disadvantage and you decide to use a progression. With each and every hand you play during the progression you have a chance of losing it, so can you see that no matter how much you bet you are more then likely to lose that hand. If you continue to play you will eventually lose all.
Let's say you are playing a game with a 49% disadvantage and you decide to use a progression. With each and every hand you play during the progression you have a chance of losing it, so can you see that no matter how much you bet you are more then likely to lose that hand. If you continue to play you will eventually lose all.
Guys im going out with my wife and some friends tonight and leaving in a couple min. I wont have time to post my results or answer the replies tonight. I will post the results tomorrow since I will have much more time. Its going to take me a while to post the results (it was a good week at the casinos) and answer replies.
Thanks to all that replied.
Thanks to all that replied.
iCountNTrack
Well-Known Member
jimbob said:
Hmmm i am going to be as delicate as possible, last time i checked 10 and 6 in Hi-Opt II combines to -1 not 0, and you are mixing up Ace-side count for betting and for playing, I suspect you dont have a clue about what you are talking about. I am sorry somebody who has been using a system for 12 years should not be making those mistakes.
Progression systems are garbage, they have no statistical appeal to them, it is basically a hit and hope. I cant believe a person who has been counting and tracking for 12 years and who is a statistician to have the slightest sympathy to any progression system. That is blasphemy :flame:,
ExhibitCAA
Well-Known Member
"I didn't say I couldn't afford to make a $4,000 bet, just said that psychologically it was a baseball bat to the stomach,"
If you can afford it, then it really shouldn't be a baseball bat to the stomach, or, on the other hand, you have a weak psyche.
"I really don't care what you doubt or what you don't doubt in terms of whether I count cards or not or work in statistics or not."
You said you are a "statistician by trade." I can read between the lines well enough to know that you are exaggerating your statistical training, and you are probably an actuary or less, or in some other job that requires you to use an Excel spreadsheet from time to time. From your posts, it is obvious that your statistical training is minimal to nonexistent.
"I wasn't defending chitown's pro-progression stance as much as I was defending his ability to discuss it without the holier than thou types like you saying ridiculous nonsense like you did in this post where you question the poster's intelligence, etc."
And many have discussed it, and it is always the progressionist who refuses to answer the simple, direct questions, such as "How can a series of negative-expectation bets create a winning system?"
"Yes, I do say that the math tyrants refuse to look at shoe characteristics as opposed to the trillions of hands over millions of years argument that they always beat people over the head with."
Are you incapable of reading English? I tried to explain to you once, and I will try in vain again, that the trillions of hands are NOT an investigation into what happens to a human who plays trillions of hands. The use of simulation techniques is an alternative to combinatorial analysis (which does not use trillions of hands), and is merely a computational tool to determine what happens for a single trial of the game. When books say, "The probability of losing a hand of blackjack is 48%," how do you think they got that number? That's the number for a single hand, but in order to COMPUTE that number, they probably used a simulation of billions of hands, but if it pleases you, they could have arrived at the same answer by using different computation methods (such as combinatorial analysis) that do not require billions of hands at all. The analogy would be: We are trying to figure out the probability of heads on a particular biased coin, which conveniently can be physically modeled and simulated by computer. So, to determine the probability, we run a simulation of a trillion flips to estimate the probability, which turns out to be 0.53. Having done that, we now know that EVEN FOR A SINGLE FLIP, the coin has a heads probability of 0.53, and that you would have positive expectation if you bet on heads, even if you played only one hand.
"You aren't going to browbeat me into submission with your "I am smarter than you" bullshit that might work on other posters."
I know, because you are the type who likes to argue outside your areas of expertise ad nauseum. This has nothing to do with "I am smarter than you." I would not presume to tell you one thing about fixing cars, flying airplanes, repairing damaged arteries, defusing roadside IEDs, etc. But regarding gambling systems, I am willing to bet my entire bankroll that I AM more trained than you and the original poster. I am academically trained in the areas of math, computer science, and statistics, and currently MAKE A LIVING beating casino games, which I guarantee you and the original poster do not. This is not because I am smarter than you. It is because of the life path that I have chosen (think "Outliers"; think "10000+").
"I also disagree with your premise that if chitown has a winning system he can "easily" build up a bankroll where a $10,000 bet is trivial. Boy, your skill at throwing out total rubbish is pretty astonishing, but I digress. The trip reports that Chitown posted show a grind, grinding out small profits. Even the best counters playing the most advantageous games can't grow their bankrolls with an exponential slope like you suggest."
The trip reports show grinding profits because he is playing a worthless system. Like any other garbage system, Chitown will have numerous trips with small wins, until, like a train wreck, it all ends in a fiery crash. The reason the best counters playing the most advantageous games can't grow their bankrolls with an exponential slope is because of HEAT. If a counter is left to play unfettered, and can keep stepping up to casinos allowing higher limits, it would be quite simple indeed to grow a bankroll. And, since Chitown's garbage system triggers no heat from the casino, growing his bankroll would be no problem. And I notice that your ability to ignore questions and instead spew irrelevant rubbish is pretty astonishing, but not really. I asked previously: If you operated a casino, would you bar chitown or any of his progressionist cronies?
"If running the kind of sims I suggested is so trivial then why don't you do it instead of trying to beat up posters with how smart you are and how ignorant they must be? Unless you are just a punk ass bully who gets off on looking big and smart? Which I imagine is what you are seeing how you have bullied other people on here. And I am new here and the first post you make to me you insult me and call me a liar. Who the **** do you think you are you punk ass mother ****er?"
Yeah, the truth comes out. We were talking about the idiocy of progression systems, but look who brings out the schoolyard talk. Anyway, yes, I am calling you a liar/exaggerator, and it's frustrating getting called out on it. You are obviously not a "statistician by trade." This is, at best, an exaggeration. Furthermore, I strongly doubt that any floorperson at Binion's told anyone that bet tripling is restricted. It's nonsense. I see bet tripling all the time. I live in Vegas. I have been to Binion's literally hundreds of times. I have played in front of probably every pit boss and floorperson they have. This vast experience there is compared to someone who admits being unable to find the tables with better rules.
"I also reject your telling posters that card counting is a winning approach for the same reason that you don't like "newbies" being told about progressions. VERY few people make money counting cards and having a theoretical advantage does not equate to winnings you take home with you. The variance in blackjack is too large for any but the most well financed full time players to have their actual results equal expected results. But of course you know this."
You obviously have mistaken me for someone else. Where did I ever tout the advantages of card counting, or claim that it is a "winning approach"? Is counting positive-expectation (for some)--yes. Is it a worthwhile, winning approach--no. But only a loser would defend progression as a worthwhile alternative, against the advice of trained professionals in the field.
Suppose your doctor tells you you have a tumor requiring immediate surgery, and several other doctors (all professional doctors by trade) all tell you the same thing, and they clarify by saying, "You will die very soon if you don't get immediate surgery." Would you tell them, "Well, I had some medical training in health class in 7th grade, and I think I'll just follow my own remedy--chicken soup and a Vitamin C tablet. And don't try to bully me with your 'I am smarter than you' speech about cancer surgery and all that. Who do you think you are, Dr. Bigshot? Don't expect me to cave in after the same cancer speech you gave the other dying patients here."
If you missed the analogy, I am the doctor in that story. Chitown is the soon-to-be-dead patient. You are the Christian Scientist parent who refuses the medical treatment. You, more than Chitown, are the fool. Chitown will come around to see that there is no merit to the progression, except if it entertains him at some price. He will find that other approaches are equally entertaining, at a better price (ie, he might even have an edge if he counts). He has participated openly and honestly, as opposed to you, a liar/exaggerator who quickly reverts to the schoolyard.
You know, I really hate casinos, and don't want to see chitown lose his money, when he has a superior alternative. But after casinos, you know what is equally repugnant? The degenerate loser who refuses the sound advice of those with obviously more training. There is definitely a piece of me that won't care if the casino crushes all you guys like bugs.
Now, it is easy to use my abrasive style as a red herring, and you will notice that my posts in a thread will only become increasingly abrasive. But why do you guys ALSO ignore iCountNTrack, Sonny, Norm/QFIT, KenSmith, etc., who are all basically telling you the same thing that I am, but with greater tact.
(PS. In case you haven't figured it out, I am trying to turn this into enough of a flame war that The Powers will just lock the thread, which should have happened years ago.)
If you can afford it, then it really shouldn't be a baseball bat to the stomach, or, on the other hand, you have a weak psyche.
"I really don't care what you doubt or what you don't doubt in terms of whether I count cards or not or work in statistics or not."
You said you are a "statistician by trade." I can read between the lines well enough to know that you are exaggerating your statistical training, and you are probably an actuary or less, or in some other job that requires you to use an Excel spreadsheet from time to time. From your posts, it is obvious that your statistical training is minimal to nonexistent.
"I wasn't defending chitown's pro-progression stance as much as I was defending his ability to discuss it without the holier than thou types like you saying ridiculous nonsense like you did in this post where you question the poster's intelligence, etc."
And many have discussed it, and it is always the progressionist who refuses to answer the simple, direct questions, such as "How can a series of negative-expectation bets create a winning system?"
"Yes, I do say that the math tyrants refuse to look at shoe characteristics as opposed to the trillions of hands over millions of years argument that they always beat people over the head with."
Are you incapable of reading English? I tried to explain to you once, and I will try in vain again, that the trillions of hands are NOT an investigation into what happens to a human who plays trillions of hands. The use of simulation techniques is an alternative to combinatorial analysis (which does not use trillions of hands), and is merely a computational tool to determine what happens for a single trial of the game. When books say, "The probability of losing a hand of blackjack is 48%," how do you think they got that number? That's the number for a single hand, but in order to COMPUTE that number, they probably used a simulation of billions of hands, but if it pleases you, they could have arrived at the same answer by using different computation methods (such as combinatorial analysis) that do not require billions of hands at all. The analogy would be: We are trying to figure out the probability of heads on a particular biased coin, which conveniently can be physically modeled and simulated by computer. So, to determine the probability, we run a simulation of a trillion flips to estimate the probability, which turns out to be 0.53. Having done that, we now know that EVEN FOR A SINGLE FLIP, the coin has a heads probability of 0.53, and that you would have positive expectation if you bet on heads, even if you played only one hand.
"You aren't going to browbeat me into submission with your "I am smarter than you" bullshit that might work on other posters."
I know, because you are the type who likes to argue outside your areas of expertise ad nauseum. This has nothing to do with "I am smarter than you." I would not presume to tell you one thing about fixing cars, flying airplanes, repairing damaged arteries, defusing roadside IEDs, etc. But regarding gambling systems, I am willing to bet my entire bankroll that I AM more trained than you and the original poster. I am academically trained in the areas of math, computer science, and statistics, and currently MAKE A LIVING beating casino games, which I guarantee you and the original poster do not. This is not because I am smarter than you. It is because of the life path that I have chosen (think "Outliers"; think "10000+").
"I also disagree with your premise that if chitown has a winning system he can "easily" build up a bankroll where a $10,000 bet is trivial. Boy, your skill at throwing out total rubbish is pretty astonishing, but I digress. The trip reports that Chitown posted show a grind, grinding out small profits. Even the best counters playing the most advantageous games can't grow their bankrolls with an exponential slope like you suggest."
The trip reports show grinding profits because he is playing a worthless system. Like any other garbage system, Chitown will have numerous trips with small wins, until, like a train wreck, it all ends in a fiery crash. The reason the best counters playing the most advantageous games can't grow their bankrolls with an exponential slope is because of HEAT. If a counter is left to play unfettered, and can keep stepping up to casinos allowing higher limits, it would be quite simple indeed to grow a bankroll. And, since Chitown's garbage system triggers no heat from the casino, growing his bankroll would be no problem. And I notice that your ability to ignore questions and instead spew irrelevant rubbish is pretty astonishing, but not really. I asked previously: If you operated a casino, would you bar chitown or any of his progressionist cronies?
"If running the kind of sims I suggested is so trivial then why don't you do it instead of trying to beat up posters with how smart you are and how ignorant they must be? Unless you are just a punk ass bully who gets off on looking big and smart? Which I imagine is what you are seeing how you have bullied other people on here. And I am new here and the first post you make to me you insult me and call me a liar. Who the **** do you think you are you punk ass mother ****er?"
Yeah, the truth comes out. We were talking about the idiocy of progression systems, but look who brings out the schoolyard talk. Anyway, yes, I am calling you a liar/exaggerator, and it's frustrating getting called out on it. You are obviously not a "statistician by trade." This is, at best, an exaggeration. Furthermore, I strongly doubt that any floorperson at Binion's told anyone that bet tripling is restricted. It's nonsense. I see bet tripling all the time. I live in Vegas. I have been to Binion's literally hundreds of times. I have played in front of probably every pit boss and floorperson they have. This vast experience there is compared to someone who admits being unable to find the tables with better rules.
"I also reject your telling posters that card counting is a winning approach for the same reason that you don't like "newbies" being told about progressions. VERY few people make money counting cards and having a theoretical advantage does not equate to winnings you take home with you. The variance in blackjack is too large for any but the most well financed full time players to have their actual results equal expected results. But of course you know this."
You obviously have mistaken me for someone else. Where did I ever tout the advantages of card counting, or claim that it is a "winning approach"? Is counting positive-expectation (for some)--yes. Is it a worthwhile, winning approach--no. But only a loser would defend progression as a worthwhile alternative, against the advice of trained professionals in the field.
Suppose your doctor tells you you have a tumor requiring immediate surgery, and several other doctors (all professional doctors by trade) all tell you the same thing, and they clarify by saying, "You will die very soon if you don't get immediate surgery." Would you tell them, "Well, I had some medical training in health class in 7th grade, and I think I'll just follow my own remedy--chicken soup and a Vitamin C tablet. And don't try to bully me with your 'I am smarter than you' speech about cancer surgery and all that. Who do you think you are, Dr. Bigshot? Don't expect me to cave in after the same cancer speech you gave the other dying patients here."
If you missed the analogy, I am the doctor in that story. Chitown is the soon-to-be-dead patient. You are the Christian Scientist parent who refuses the medical treatment. You, more than Chitown, are the fool. Chitown will come around to see that there is no merit to the progression, except if it entertains him at some price. He will find that other approaches are equally entertaining, at a better price (ie, he might even have an edge if he counts). He has participated openly and honestly, as opposed to you, a liar/exaggerator who quickly reverts to the schoolyard.
You know, I really hate casinos, and don't want to see chitown lose his money, when he has a superior alternative. But after casinos, you know what is equally repugnant? The degenerate loser who refuses the sound advice of those with obviously more training. There is definitely a piece of me that won't care if the casino crushes all you guys like bugs.
Now, it is easy to use my abrasive style as a red herring, and you will notice that my posts in a thread will only become increasingly abrasive. But why do you guys ALSO ignore iCountNTrack, Sonny, Norm/QFIT, KenSmith, etc., who are all basically telling you the same thing that I am, but with greater tact.
(PS. In case you haven't figured it out, I am trying to turn this into enough of a flame war that The Powers will just lock the thread, which should have happened years ago.)
- Status