OK, here's my voodoo system

[Kasi]

But thats not how it works.I use a quit point of a 20 unit win and a 100 unit loss.Playing roulette or Sic Bo,I win about 8 sessions for every one I lose..

So you're saying you play Oscars Grind at roulette? Single or double zero?
And your starting roll is 100 units for each session?

Anyway, if so, cool.

Don't know Sic Bo so if you have any segregated results (or estimates lol) for each game that'd be cool. Like how many roulette sessions do you think you may have played etc.

 

[LeonShuffle]

The original Oscar claims to have never had a losing weekend,playing with a $1 starting point and trying to win $100 for the weekend.

If it worked every time, then why would he limit himself to once a weekend? Just do it over and over, and retire.

 

[shadroch]

According to the story(legend),Oscar was a groundskeeper who went to Vegas every weekend and came up with the system to cover his expenses.
Oscars Grind is not a get rich quick system,hence the term Grind.It is an extremely boring repetious way of playing that I suspect very few players would want to sit and play for days or even hours at a time.

 

[LeonShuffle]

I don't care how boring it is, if it actually worked than I'd play it all day long. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[shadroch]

Knock yourself out.It's available all over the internet.

 

[LeonShuffle]

I know exactly what Oscar's Grind is. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense when someone says that a betting progression works every time. And then they say just do it once a day or a week or whatever, as if something magically gets "reset".

 

[Kasi]

I know exactly what Oscar's Grind is. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense when someone says that a betting progression works every time. And then they say just do it once a day or a week or whatever, as if something magically gets "reset".

I don't think Oscar ever claimed that it won every time - he only claimed that he had never lost in years of weekend play.

I believe it was later borne out in computer simulations by Braun and Wilson that he very well could have been telling the truth.

I think he did a pass-line bet, always brought a large bankroll, and won a couple hundred bucks every weekend kind of thing - hey this was back in the early 60's (I think).

I believe his sequence had a goal of winning $1 at a table with a max of maybe $500. I think the simulations revealed that the goal of winning $1 using his system only failed 1 time out of like 4200 or so before table max defined the loss.

I don't think anyone would disagree the system mathematically proves that many people, exactly how many not sure, but maybe 50-100?, would win at least a few hundred if that was their only goal compared to the one loser.

But, yeah, that one theoretical loser pretty much pays for everbody else's winnings lol.

So a classic example, maybe even one of the first, of how a betting system can greatly increase the probability of winning a certain goal offset by infrequent large losses.

And here we are, 40+ years later, still talking about it lol.

And that's with a craps game HA 3+ times worse than blackjack!

 

[shadroch]

I believe his goal was to win
$100 and he claims to have done it every time.I find it works great for comp counting. You can play the auto-roulette games for $1 or $2.50 a pop,put $200 at risk and rarely lose more than you get in comps,not to mention usually winning a very few bucks in the process.But its as much fun answering a phone on an 800 switchboard and might just pay better.

 

[shadroch]

I know exactly what Oscar's Grind is. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense when someone says that a betting progression works every time. And then they say just do it once a day or a week or whatever, as if something magically gets "reset".

And yet thats exactly what the grind does. You play until you've reached a certain point and then start out as if everything prior had never happened.
Nothing magical about it. It's just a different way of sizing your bets.

 

[shadroch]

If it worked every time, then why would he limit himself to once a weekend? Just do it over and over, and retire.

Because the idea was to cover his expenses,not to get rich at it.Gambling was a hobby that he wanted to keep inexpensive,not a partime job.

 

[LeonShuffle]

I guess I'm just not explaining myself well enough.

 

[shadroch]

Your problem is you are looking at it as a get rich quick or even a get quick slow proposition. Which it isn't. It's a grind. You might as well get a job than to try and play this fulltime.If you were to play this fulltime,with say a $20,000 BR,I have no doubt that you could pull in $25-30,000 a year every year for the rest of your life.And get another$20,000 in food and room comps. But you'd be sitting in a dank casino 40-45 hours a week every week.
Sound good to ya? Sounds suspiciously like work to me.

 

[LeonShuffle]

The main point where we differ is I don't think you could make nearly that much in a year. As a matter of fact, I think you'd be behind by quite a bit playing it full time.

 

[Kasi]

I guess I'm just not explaining myself well enough.

I'd say you're doing just fine lol.

If you're interested in more details try to find Dr. Allan Wilson's 1965 "The Casino Gambler's Guide."

I think that's where the results of Braun's computer simulations are.

It's such a simple system it probably wouldn't be real hard to sim results for a pass-line bet. Well, for somebody that knows what they are doing lol.

It's just a very conservative betting system with a modest session goal of winning 1 unit before beginning a new session that succeeds on average like 4249 times out of 4250 sessions with underlying assumptions as to bankroll and loss limits.

Don't get me wrong - you'll still lose 1.4% of total dollars wagered lol.

But obviously you'll win that one unit quite frequently. If I got my facts straight lol.

I believe it's also true they concluded that it was likely some degree of plain old "luck" was on his side but apparently also concluded it was certainly possible he was telling the truth. I believe he claimed he never had a losing weekend, not that he always won at least a certain amount each weekend.

At least that's my recollection of reading about it.

Are you perhaps just having difficulty believing that a betting system can win 1 unit that frequently under defined conditions in a neg EV game?

 

[LeonShuffle]

No, I understand all that. What you wrote about still losing overall is the point I was trying to make. Sessions don't matter; Oscar's grind is a losing proposition just like any other progression. Show me someone who can make $30,000 a year using Oscar's Grind and I'll show you someone who can do it flat-betting.

 

[dacium]

This progression is a classic example of applying appauling mathematics.

In this case the person said he only made the $25 level twice, and won twice. This was pure luck. His claim that this system works is EXACATLY the same as saying the martingale works because you tried it twice, and didn't loose.

This is the same problem that the cipher blackjack system has. SUre it seems to win and win and win, but when you add it up, you are only making a few $500 bets, and once you make enough of them, you end up miles behind.

In this case it is 100% certain that if the person continued at this system, he would eventually see himself loose the $25 session, and the next session etc. and drop potentially $1,000 on the $25 and $2,000 or more betting $50, this would wipe out all wins and more.

His system is just a temporary way to stay ahead, just a delayed oscars grind.

 

[shadroch]

Show me someone who can make $30,000 a year using Oscar's Grind and I'll show you someone who can do it flat-betting.[/QUOTE]


But no one is disputing that.What OG does that flat betting doesn't is to insure that your sessions end up winning or breaking even.Even though a session is a completely artificial method of tracking your overall ev,it still helps for the weekend warrior.

 

[LeonShuffle]

If you were to play this fulltime,with say a $20,000 BR,I have no doubt that you could pull in $25-30,000 a year every year for the rest of your life.

It seems to me that you ARE disputing it.

 

[shadroch]

Why?
What does one statement have to do with the other? It appears that you have a bug up your arse and are looking for a fight. Look elsewhere.

 

[LeonShuffle]

I think this is a misunderstanding. I have not intended any of my posts to be hostile, and reading over them again, I don't see how they can be construed that way. If you wish to discontinue the conversation, that's fine with me, maybe someone else will answer. All I was inquiring about was, if Oscar's grind has a negative overall EV (which it certainly does) than how can you say that you have no doubt someone could make $25,000 to $30,000 a year? If that were really the case, then I could certainly deal with spending so much time in casinos, as it's preferable to many jobs, and I already spend a lot of time there counting anyway, which is itself a "grind".