Most impressive win I've ever seen at the table

[sagefr0g]

First of all,losing $5,000.00 playing one shoe would be impossible.
...

just curious, cause you did walk away with five grand, how is it that it would be impossible to lose five grand?
is it some how the Fibonocci sequence system would prevent that?

 

[MAZ]

Just recently wonged into a shoe with 2 decks left with 1 purple chip, finished the shoe up $5500. Was promptly escorted off the property before I left the table. I was however allowed to cash in my chips and keep the cash. It was my first and only shoe of the day at this joint.


Just to be noted, this is by far not my most impressive win ever, just though it might interest some.

 

[fredperson]

just curious, cause you did walk away with five grand, how is it that it would be impossible to lose five grand?
is it some how the Fibonocci sequence system would prevent that?

Fred's Fibonocci system is a win streak progression system. When losing, you contunue to bet the minimum (in my case $50.00) until the next win streak.
So to lose $5000.00 would mean to lose 100 hands in a row, kind of unlikely with an 8 deck shoe, even if you were stubborn enough to sit there and continue losing.

 

[Bojack1]

Fred's Fibonocci system is a win streak progression system. When losing, you contunue to bet the minimum (in my case $50.00) until the next win streak.
So to lose $5000.00 would mean to lose 100 hands in a row, kind of unlikely with an 8 deck shoe, even if you were stubborn enough to sit there and continue losing.

Really? What if you had a large/max bet out and you split to say 3 hands with 2 double downs and the dealer pulls a 21 to beat all hands? You just lost 5 max bets. Couple that with even a small losing streak involving splits and doubles and you can very well lose $5000 in one shoe with a min bet of $50. It definitely could take far less than 100 rounds of play to get the hands in neede to lose that much.

 

[daddybo]

Really? What if you had a large/max bet out and you split to say 3 hands with 2 double downs and the dealer pulls a 21 to beat all hands? You just lost 5 max bets. Couple that with even a small losing streak involving splits and doubles and you can very well lose $5000 in one shoe with a min bet of $50. It definitely could take far less than 100 rounds of play to get the hands in neede to lose that much.

Ouch! I had that happen, (Spilt to 4 hands two doubled), against a dealer 16. It was half of that on one hand. Kinda takes the wind out of your sails.

 

[Katweezel]

Ouch! I had that happen, (Spilt to 4 hands two doubled), against a dealer 16. It was half of that on one hand. Kinda takes the wind out of your sails.

Yeh Dad, limp sails can be tough to get full again... When this happens, it really fuels any victim mentality that might be hanging in there, between the ears; and makes you feel like whacking someone in that moment... :cry:

I just got out my cc chart to remind myself of the math chances of the dealer scoring a 21 from these dealer upcards:

2 11.8% 3 11.5% 4 11.1% 5 10.8% 6 9.7% 7 7.4% 8 6.9%

9 6.1% 10 3.5% A 5.4%

And I wondered what is the math for a dealer scoring 21, overall, longterm? Should I add all these and divide by 11?

 

[sabre]

And I wondered what is the math for a dealer scoring 21, overall, longterm? Should I add all these and divide by 11?

You need to weight the T probability at 4/13, and the others at 1/13.

 

[creeping panther]

Rjt

Sorry CP, but this is utter hobbledie hoy. If you were going to win just because the rest of the table were winning, blackjack would be a very easy game to beat. Just because the count has plummeted for the last two rounds does not suggest in any fashion that it will keep going down. Streaks are non-predictable until after they occur. There seems to be a good amount of gambler's instinct involved in what you have just said.....

RJT.

Sorry if I have upset you but ...have you really read what I am saying??

I generally play all and increase a small amount after each win and go back to flat after a lose, and always bet with the count in the pos,,,,what harm in that, I think none, as I usually win far more sessions than I lose and the cover is a killer. At least when I am winning hand after hand in the neg. I don't have to look like a complete ass sitting there flat betting.:laugh:

Call it Vodoo?????...be my guest.

CP

 

[psyduck]

At least when I am winning hand after hand in the neg. I don't have to look like a complete ass sitting there flat betting.:laugh:

Call it Vodoo?????...be my guest.

CP

What if you run into a choppy streak (WLWLWLWLWL)?

 

[Leaveawinner]

The biggest win I've seen was at 3 card poker. The guy bet 250 and nailed a royal flush. He gave away several 100 to the table mates.

I think that if you are playing a system and win consistently, you're moving in the right direction.

 

[Renzey]

Have you experienced $5000 in the other direction with your system? I bet your wife said "I've never seen anything like that before".

It's true that with any positive progression, it's much tougher to lose as much as you can win thru any streaky sequence. The subtle killer is that the chops gradually drain you. The wins are impressive and few -- the losses are small and many.

Progressions merely compress your wins into a concentrated space (your streaks), then spread out your losses across all the choppy sequences. The bottom line however, is unchanged.

Notice that there is only one way to win 10 in a row -- all W's, which will produce a glorious profit.
But there are 252 ways to win 5 and lose 5 and nearly all of them will cost you money when using any win progression.

 

[UK-21]

. . .

I just got out my cc chart to remind myself of the math chances of the dealer scoring a 21 from these dealer upcards:

2 11.8% 3 11.5% 4 11.1% 5 10.8% 6 9.7% 7 7.4% 8 6.9%

9 6.1% 10 3.5% A 5.4%

Something I'd be interested in would be the percentage of the dealer busting on each hole card, adjusted at each rising TC point using the hi-lo count. I reckon it must rise significantly between a 4 and a 5 due to the effect of the 7 cards still left in the deck, but decrease as the dealer's card is lower. As 7,8,9s are not counted, the figures would have to be based on simming; say ten sims of 1mn hands each?

 

[RJT]

Sorry if I have upset you but ...have you really read what I am saying??

I generally play all and increase a small amount after each win and go back to flat after a lose, and always bet with the count in the pos,,,,what harm in that, I think none, as I usually win far more sessions than I lose and the cover is a killer. At least when I am winning hand after hand in the neg. I don't have to look like a complete ass sitting there flat betting.:laugh:

Call it Vodoo?????...be my guest.

CP

You've not upset me in the slightest i take no offense and intend none. I just like to be straight when i call things. I can see the purpose of using a progression as cover, but when you start talking about winning because the table is winning - whether you're only using the progression as cover or not, your winning is nothing short of luck, not a streak, just luck.

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

You've not upset me in the slightest i take no offense and intend none. I just like to be straight when i call things. I can see the purpose of using a progression as cover, but when you start talking about winning because the table is winning - whether you're only using the progression as cover or not, your winning is nothing short of luck, not a streak, just luck.

RJT.

CP plays some very profitable games that a local should not risk getting barred from.

There are different types of progressions, and it is possible to play only progressions, varying the type of progression with the count, and be playing with a very large advantage. Progression players are almost always welcomed.

 

[RJT]

CP plays some very profitable games that a local should not risk getting barred from.

There are different types of progressions, and it is possible to play only progressions, varying the type of progression with the count, and be playing with a very large advantage. Progression players are almost always welcomed.

Gee wizz - really?
Using the progression as cover wasn't the part i had issue with -

I believe for an AP to be left out of these situations is a major mistake, these streaks.

and

we need to ride the free streaks and not ignore them

Both indicate some belief that the streak is something profitable - perhaps that's not what CP meant, but that's what those statements say to me.

RJT.

 

[Katweezel]

What's this I hear? More progressions?

CP plays some very profitable games that a local should not risk getting barred from.

There are different types of progressions, and it is possible to play only progressions, varying the type of progression with the count, and be playing with a very large advantage. Progression players are almost always welcomed.

On yer bike, AutoMonk, over to Voodoo with FredPerson.:bomb: :cool2:

 

[creeping panther]

Rjt

You've not upset me in the slightest i take no offense and intend none. I just like to be straight when i call things. I can see the purpose of using a progression as cover, but when you start talking about winning because the table is winning - whether you're only using the progression as cover or not, your winning is nothing short of luck, not a streak, just luck.

RJT.

Thank you, and yes, a progression, even a positive one is luck, and you need a lot of that when you are playing, because in a straight counting situation you really are just gambling..unless you are a highly skilled tracker such as a few Veterans are on this board, such as Maz, and Bojack and ICNT. In fact hole carding is still gambling, imho.

But since so many here are worried about cover and heat, boardering on paranoia, what I am speaking of gives great cover, and in my experience can actually give you some nice wins, with a little luck...which we all need.

CP

 

[psyduck]

Progressions merely compress your wins into a concentrated space (your streaks), then spread out your losses across all the choppy sequences. The bottom line however, is unchanged.

Right on and perfectly stated!

 

[creeping panther]

Renzey

It's true that with any positive progression, it's much tougher to lose as much as you can win thru any streaky sequence. The subtle killer is that the chops gradually drain you. The wins are impressive and few -- the losses are small and many.

Progressions merely compress your wins into a concentrated space (your streaks), then spread out your losses across all the choppy sequences. The bottom line however, is unchanged.

Notice that there is only one way to win 10 in a row -- all W's, which will produce a glorious profit.
But there are 252 ways to win 5 and lose 5 and nearly all of them will cost you money when using any win progression.

Here is the item which you do not figure...when using this strategy I am also using heavy strategy deviations, not playing like a brain dead moron.

Also you have no real basis in saying "the wins are impressive and few, the losses are small and many", (surely not in my case) unless you claim a sim, which also tells straight counters how they have an edge and will win, only to find that over 95% wash out, primarily because they lose those big bets and are winning the small.

If you can wong out in the neg. counts then do so, just not everyone can, or wants to, especially if they are looking at a very trackable shuffle.

I do have great respect for you Mr. Renzey, especially enjoy your articles in Midwest Player.

CP

 

[Renzey]

You have no real basis in saying "the wins are impressive and few, the losses are small and many"

With regard to the progressive part of your betting, that is exactly what I'm saying! The mere fact that you will win 5 and lose 5 more than 252 times as often as you will win all 10 (even with many index plays), and that going 5 and 5 will cost you money (in the progressive part of your bet) exemplifies this. The subtle losses will be many, and the sensational gains will be few.

No hard feelings CP, just trying to get thru. And thanks for the compliment BTW.