My thanks to most of you!

[Walter T.]

When "Twenty-first Century Blackjack" was first published in 1999, it was my hope that other players/researchers would "take up the cause" and try to continue my research along the same lines that I followed. This has come true to some extent, as I've corresponded with many others who are using manually-dealt results and comparing various betting methods. Hopefully all of this work will eventually shead more light upon the subject. Since my book still generates some interest from players and seems to be helpful to many of them, I've made it available as a Kindle e-book which can be ordered through Amazon at less than half the cost of the original book.
Thanks to all of you that read the book and offered feedback, and thanks to ZG for placing my post on this site. I'll continue to "hang around" this site and will answer any questions that you may have regarding the book's content. Best of luck!
Walter Thomason
Note to Norm: Math is King! Long live the Math!

 

[zengrifter]

... and thanks to ZG for placing my post on this [FINE] site. I'll continue to "hang around" this site and will answer any questions that you may have regarding the book's content.

De nada, amigo.

Originally Posted by zengrifter
Walter, does your 21st Century BJ system require a significantly smaller BR than counting, in say a 2D game? I would recommend that a proficient counter have 600+ units min for a 2D game spread 1u-2x4u.
=================
THOMASON: In my book I compared the results of a positive progressive bettor with a $20/30/40/50 spread, a flat bettor betting $20, and a card counter with a $20 to $240 spread. They all played the same 102, 6-deck shoes. They all had the same win/loss/push record at the end of Shoe #102. The only difference in the three players was how much they chose to bet on each hand and their motivation for betting that amount.

Without applying a quit point strategy (quit play after 4 consecutive losses and wait for the start of the next shoe), I looked at how often each type of player could have quit playing at the end of a shoe with some of the casinos money (a net profit for the session), and the maximum bankroll required from each player to survive losing periods.

Results were as follows:
Number of times each type of player could have quit play with some of the casino's money --Flat Bettor= 5, Progressive bettor= 26, Counter Bettor=23.
Maximum bankroll required to survive losing periods -- Flat Bettor=$1,710, Progressive Bettor= $1,425, Counter Bettor -- $3,640.

So, to answer your question, my progressive bettor needed a bankroll of $1,425 in order to stay in the game and finish playing all 102 consecutive shoes of play. At 60 hands played per hour, my guy (girl?) in this 71 hour marathon session would have needed $1,425 in cash in order to stay the course.

So, unlike my advice to counters (600u+ BR), you are saying that 100u
is sufficient for the Twenty First Century Blackjack practitioner? zg

 

[Walter T.]

No, I didn't say that.

I said that I'm comfortable with 60 to 80 times my base bet for a four hour session.
Looking at worst and best case scenarios for a four hour session (excluding splits, double-downs, and blackjacks for simplicity's sake) it's possible that my worst case positive progressive bettor using a $20/30/40/50 progression could lose $4,800 by losing every hand. Or my best case scenario positive progressive bettor could win $11,200 if he won every hand.
A flat bettor with a fixed bet of $20 per hand could lose $4,800 by losing every hand or win $4,800 by winning every hand. If the flat bettor were betting $28 per hand -- an amount closer to being the long-term average bet for the positive progressive bettor -- his worst case loss would be $6,720 and his best case win would be $6,720.
I'm sure that this answer doesn't answer your theoretical ROR question, but I find the numbers to be interesting.

 

[QFIT]

When "Twenty-first Century Blackjack" was first published in 1999, it was my hope that other players/researchers would "take up the cause" and try to continue my research along the same lines that I followed. This has come true to some extent, as I've corresponded with many others who are using manually-dealt results and comparing various betting methods. Hopefully all of this work will eventually shead more light upon the subject. Since my book still generates some interest from players and seems to be helpful to many of them, I've made it available as a Kindle e-book which can be ordered through Amazon at less than half the cost of the original book.
Thanks to all of you that read the book and offered feedback, and thanks to ZG for placing my post on this site. I'll continue to "hang around" this site and will answer any questions that you may have regarding the book's content. Best of luck!
Walter Thomason
Note to Norm: Math is King! Long live the Math!

So, it was your hope that people would continue your method of "research" that has been obsolete for half a century. It is a shame that you have actually convinced others to throw out the concepts of math and statistical analysis and are sitting at their kitchen tables trying to disprove math. As I have pointed out, following your religion, they will eventually "prove" that magical patterns will make them money, as have so many people over the centuries. At least it will keep the casino industry happy.

 

[zengrifter]

As I have pointed out, following your religion, they will eventually "prove" that magical patterns will make them money, as have so many people over the centuries. At least it will keep the casino industry happy.

Well we all want that, yes? zg

 

[iCountNTrack]

Another waste of key strokes, Thanks QFIT for trying to reason with a bunch of mathematically challenged individuals. Threads locked!