I have good results wuth my system for two years now.

[EugeneMiami]

Hello guys,

First of all excuse me my English, its my second language.

I'm new at this forum, but I feel like I need to share my experience.
Hopefully it will be useful for some of you.

Between 1997-2005 I lost $1,500,000 playing $100 tables using basic strategy, no betting system, no card counting in Atlantic City, NJ and Niagara Falls, Canada. It was painful, I didnt play for a year after that.

In 2006 I moved from Brooklyn to Miami and began to play in Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood, FL.

Card counting is impossible here, every table has continuus shuffling machine.

I was always very sceptic about betting systems. I completely realize that every hand is unique, has absolutely nothing to do with outcome of previous hand and amount of previous bet.

But!

During 2006 I developed my owned method of play I was comfortable with, followed it, and have very good results so far. I come to casino witn pen and writing all my results for 2 years now.

I come once-twice a week and play at $15 tables with CSM (no card counting possible). Sometimes I dont play for week or two.

I use regular D'Alembert in series (like Oscar's) until I win at least 1 BU (betting unit) or loose 20 BU (it is important to not exceed 20 BU, I will explain you why), then I start new series.

I play 10 tables 10 series each with coffr breaks between tables, then I leave no matter if I'm winning or losing at the moment. It is 100 series per gambling day. I use strict basic strategy each hand.

I analysed 100 trips to casino (or 10,000 series, or 50,000-100,000 hands played by me, in real life). My total wins are $52,500 for these two years.

I couldn't explain it first, because mathematics and house edge against me.
I tought maybe this is just luck and I will start losing soon. But I kept winning (not every trip of course).

The only explanation I have is this.

If I play ideal game with true odds I will lose 1 series (20 BU loss) for each 20 series I won, and we will be even.

But house edge is still there, and in real life according to my records I lose 1 series (20 BU loss) for each 19 series I won, which is mathematically correct.

But when I lose - I lose 20 BU only, and never more, but in lot of winning series I win 1.5, 2, or 3 BU. Once in a while I win even 6 BU per series. All this because of blackjacks, splits and doubles. I NEVER played a table when I won all 10 series with 1 bu, always one or few series win is 2-3 BU.

I made calculations of all my records, it was not easy, all results are written on different pieces of paper.

Playing 100 series a day at $15 table, I have average win $5.25 per series (sometimes series is one hand, sometimes 30 hands). My average trip brings me $525. I takes few hours of play, but this is fun.

However, maybe 50,000-100,000 hands played is small number to make a conclusion, but so far I keep winning, even knowing that house edge against me.

Please do not criticize me from mathematical point of view, but if you know please tell me how many hands should I play to consider my results statistically correct.

Thank You

 

[johndoe]

Hands

You'll need many more hands than this to have any statistical significance. Hundreds of millions. So far you've been lucky. But you have no advantage, and will eventually lose.

At least this system is keeping you from betting so much. Clearly you have a problem.

Also, there are plenty of shoe games at the hard rock properties.

 

[EugeneMiami]

To johndoe

Thank You,

This is what I actually was thinking myself.

I never take more than a $1,000 with me now and no credit cards.

At least my losses will not be so big when I start losing.

 

[EugeneMiami]

To JohnDoe

Thank You for quick response.

I assume you are active forum member and count cards when playing BJ.

Question: if you MUST to paly CSM, would you just bet minimum, or play any different way.

I'm not asking about best way, the best way do not play CSM at all or play minimum bets.

Just curious how other players play against CSM. What would you personally do?

 

[shadroch]

Theres a casino I really like and is great for comps. Problem is the game is impossible to count. I do just what you do and have had sort of similar results as you. Guess we are just two wild and lucky guys.

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

Unfortunately, the Hard Rock Hollywood is worthless in terms of comps. Like John said, at least you're using a relatively conservative system, so when the big losses come, they won't be combined into one crippling loss, just 20 units at a time.

If you can count, at least try and count the 8D games they have. They're garbage games, but you can at least play about break-even.

 

[SleightOfHand]

Thank You for quick response.

I assume you are active forum member and count cards when playing BJ.

Question: if you MUST to paly CSM, would you just bet minimum, or play any different way.

I'm not asking about best way, the best way do not play CSM at all or play minimum bets.

Just curious how other players play against CSM. What would you personally do?

The best way to play CSM, as you mentioned is to not play at all. If you MUST play, play minimum bet and as slow as possible, while trying to hoard comps. Anything more, you are giving up more money than you need to.

 

[RISJR]

Eugene

Plz go into detail on your loss limits, money management style, win goals..etc..pls be as detailed as possible..

thnx in advance

Risjr

 

[KOLAN]

1. counting strategy 10000 after 2 years 11000 ,or -10000
2. good beting strategy 1000 after 2 years 11000, 0r -10000
good beting strategy beter dem counting

 

[ExhibitCAA]

"Please do not criticize me from mathematical point of view,"

OK. Fortunately, it is easy to criticize you from other points of view. Let's go right to it then, shall we?

"In 2006 I moved from Brooklyn to Miami and began to play in Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood, FL."

Perhaps--like other progressionists--you are careless with details, something I find dangerously similar to the approach of degenerate gamblers everywhere. Are you saying you were playing the Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood in the year 2006? Do a fact check--find out when they first offered table BJ (hint: June 2008).

"Card counting is impossible here, every table has continuus shuffling machine."

Really? Are you saying they don't have an entire pit or two of regular shoe games?

"I was always very sceptic about betting systems." blah blah

What I don't understand is: what is your agenda? Are you going to try to sell a system at some point, or is this a religion with you?

Since K-dog took away our ball and won't let us play, I have to refrain from using the "l" word, but let me just say that my personal opinion is that if you were to scratch your nose, you would get a splinter. Or, put another way, methinks your pants are on fire.

 

[picasso]

Question for EugeneMiami,

When you say you often win more than 1 BU per session because of BJ, splits and doubles, I suppose the same goes for losses; if you are down say 19 BU and lose a BIG double, you would be down more than 20 BU, right?

Anyway, I can read you even if English is your second language; it's the same with me...French Canadian...

 

[Mister_No_Count]

You'll need many more hands than this to have any statistical significance. Hundreds of millions. So far you've been lucky. But you have no advantage, and will eventually lose.
QUOTE]

I was frankly flabbergasted when I read JohnDoe's post above which I apply the following interpretation: You must play hundreds of millions of hands before receiving an acknowledgment that you have a viable strategy.

Hope all of you got that scintillating comment from John. Don't post anything here about any success you've had unless you been doing it for at least 66,000 years because you are going to get shot down. :whip:

Over the last 100 trips which covers a two year span, Eugene made $56,500 playing Continuous Shuffle Machines (CSM) with a minimum starting bet of
$15. This equates to an average win of $565 per trip. If true, that is a laudable achievement and one that few counters could achieve. Eugene, I salute you and wish you continued success.

There is a lesson learned here. Eugene lost a great amount of money over an 8 year span of time. Then he took a year off and evidently used some of that time to create a better strategy. Had he done this at the beginning, he could have banked the 1.5 million and be drawing interest on that money.

 

[johndoe]

I was frankly flabbergasted when I read JohnDoe's post above which I apply the following interpretation: You must play hundreds of millions of hands before receiving an acknowledgment that you have a viable strategy.

If you are flabbergasted, then it's clear you (like many others who have popped up here recently) don't even have an elementary understanding of statistics, expectation, or how to objectively analyze a strategy.

In order to determine whether the result is from the strategy, rather than from luck, you need to simulate enough rounds so that the error due to luck (variance) is reduced to an acceptable level.

If you ignore this, you have no way of determining whether the result was obtained by a good strategy or simple luck. That's the point. In this case, absent any other evidence (even assuming the claims are true), it's pure luck. Good for him, but it won't last.

 

[Sonny]

Don't post anything here about any success you've had unless you been doing it for at least 66,000 years because you are going to get shot down. :whip:

The original poster specifically asked how many hands are required for statistical significance. Johndoe answered that question. I don’t see how that could be considered being “shot down”. Overall I think there has been some very good advice given in this thread and it should be very helpful to anyone who reads it. I don't understand where your negativity comes from.

-Sonny-

 

[Mister_No_Count]

The original poster specifically asked how many hands are required for statistical significance. Johndoe answered that question. I don’t see how that could be considered being “shot down”. Overall I think there has been some very good advice given in this thread and it should be very helpful to anyone who reads it. I don't understand where your negativity comes from.

-Sonny-

Sorry that my surprise at those extremely large numbers sounded negative. But, 100,000,000 hands equates to about 66,000 years of live play. But JohnDoe said hundreds of millions of hands were required before a system could prove itself?

My question to those that run simulations: Have you ever seen a non-counting system that held up over 1,000,000 hands that wasn't a viable one? How many non-count systems survived 150,000 hands later proved unviable?
My guess is that most systems break down at about 50,000 hands or less of testing.

 

[QFIT]

Sorry that my surprise at those extremely large numbers sounded negative. But, 100,000,000 hands equates to about 66,000 years of live play. But JohnDoe said hundreds of millions of hands were required before a system could prove itself?

My question to those that run simulations: Have you ever seen a non-counting system that held up over 1,000,000 hands that wasn't a viable one? How many non-count systems survived 150,000 hands later proved unviable?
My guess is that most systems break down at about 50,000 hands or less of testing.

It has nothing to do with "breaking down." Large numbers of hands are simmed to see on average what happens with small numbers of hands. Systems that do not involve gaining an advantage don't work. They don't work in one hand or a billion. There is no "break-down" point.

 

[FLASH1296]

ExhibitCCA's post is "spot-on"

I played the well-cut games there (aggregate: 120 hrs) until they went to H17.

If he is playing there and is blithely unaware of what games are being offered that is a "red light".

Only the lowest stakes are C.S.M.'s. Hand shuffled 8 deck games at modest stakes are available.

it is doubtful that he is of the minimum intellectual caliber to fathom the self-destructive absurdity of a betting progression.

It is even less likely that he will ever come to grips with the obvious implication - that he is victimizing himself via "pathological gambling"

 

[Sonny]

But, 100,000,000 hands equates to about 66,000 years of live play.

Or about 5 seconds of simulation time. Do you see how much time you can save by testing a system properly? And the results are much more reliable too. There really is no excuse for testing a system manually.

How many non-count systems survived 150,000 hands later proved unviable?

We are not talking about non-counting systems, we are talking about progression systems. That is a very important distinction. There are absolutely no progression systems that will give you an advantage but there are many non-counting systems that will. Anyone looking at progression systems as a way to beat the game is barking up the wrong tree. The sooner they realize that the sooner they can start taking the game seriously.

-Sonny-

 

[Mister_No_Count]

Or about 5 seconds of simulation time. Do you see how much time you can save by testing a system properly? And the results are much more reliable too. There really is no excuse for testing a system manually.



We are not talking about non-counting systems, we are talking about progression systems. That is a very important distinction. There are absolutely no progression systems that will give you an advantage but there are many non-counting systems that will. Anyone looking at progression systems as a way to beat the game is barking up the wrong tree. The sooner they realize that the sooner they can start taking the game seriously.

-Sonny-

I was under the assumption that a non-count system that didn't involve a progression is flat-betting and that a flat-betting strategy cannot win. So, what am I missing here?

 

[Sonny]

I was under the assumption that a non-count system that didn't involve a progression is flat-betting and that a flat-betting strategy cannot win. So, what am I missing here?

There are many non-counting systems that do not flat bet and even a few progression systems that do flat bet.

A progression system is any system that adjusts the bets based only on the result of the previous hand(s). Card counting systems adjust the bets based on the estimated advantage of the remaining cards. Other non-counting systems adjust the bets based on estimating the player’s advantage using other information. This thread will get you started:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=3995

It is very possible to get an advantage even with flat betting in some cases. I do it quite often.

-Sonny-