Opinions wanted on style I have been playing for a year

[grdred944]

Critical but civil responses encouraged.

For about a year I have played this style for 4-6 days a week and I have been running about 70% winning sessions.

- Only play DD games
- Two bets (for demonstration purposes we will say, $25 and $50)
- First deal of a new deck bet $25
- If I win I keep betting $50 until I lose. I'll split or double but that is it.
- Once I lose, I go back to $25 and only bet $25 each hand through the end of the shoe.
- I religiously stick to basic play strategy.
- I stick to win/loss stops for each session.

I've never been a system guy. I used to count cards in AC and Vegas going back to the 80's but had a successful life away from the tables and enjoyed the casino life (read: comps) too much to get wrapped up in winning. When I moved to Vegas in 2004 it was to play poker and blackjack stayed a casual pursuit. I started dabbling with a 'system' more so for my wife to use since she had zero discipline. Now she makes money playing this way (she plays 2 sessions for every 10 I play) and runs the same rate for winning sessions as I do. A few locals I know have tried it as well and, while I think they find it tedious, they have reported that it has been profitable.

I'm not writing this to tout it as some great winning strategy. I shake my head when I try to do the math on it. But, after doing it for a year, it works for me. For me the real key is the stop-loss number for each session. If I had let that fluctuate I feel I might have different results. Some sessions have lasted 30-45 minutes and others 5-6 hours but remaining disciplined works. Someone who would want to put in 8 hours a day at the table regardless of outcome would not want to try this.

I am very interested in comments from anyone. I'm mainly interested in the math on this and for something other than being told I have had a lucky year. I know it has been lucky but why is this style of play not going to hold up? That is what I think the math majors on this board can assist with -- assistance that is appreciated.

 

[cardcounter0]

"I used to count cards in AC and Vegas going back to the 80s"

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[shadroch]

Critical but civil responses encouraged.

For about a year I have played this style for 4-6 days a week and I have been running about 70% winning sessions.

- Only play DD games

I assume you have the proper BS for DD games.
- Two bets (for demonstration purposes we will say, $25 and $50)
- First deal of a new deck bet $25

As you always have a disadvantage on a fresh deck,good call


- If I win I keep betting $50 until I lose. I'll split or double but that is it.

Okay,nothing wrong that I see

- Once I lose, I go back to $25 and only bet $25 each hand through the end of the shoe.

Okay,but you may be dropping and raising bets at the wrong time countwise.


- I religiously stick to basic play strategy.

BS should change based on the count,but not terrible.


- I stick to win/loss stops for each session.

Admirable,but you may be leaving money on the table.



I've never been a system guy. I used to count cards in AC and Vegas going back to the 80's but had a successful life away from the tables and enjoyed the casino life (read: comps) too much to get wrapped up in winning. When I moved to Vegas in 2004 it was to play poker and blackjack stayed a casual pursuit. I started dabbling with a 'system' more so for my wife to use since she had zero discipline. Now she makes money playing this way (she plays 2 sessions for every 10 I play) and runs the same rate for winning sessions as I do. A few locals I know have tried it as well and, while I think they find it tedious, they have reported that it has been profitable.

I'm not writing this to tout it as some great winning strategy. I shake my head when I try to do the math on it. But, after doing it for a year, it works for me. For me the real key is the stop-loss number for each session. If I had let that fluctuate I feel I might have different results. Some sessions have lasted 30-45 minutes and others 5-6 hours but remaining disciplined works. Someone who would want to put in 8 hours a day at the table regardless of outcome would not want to try this.

I am very interested in comments from anyone. I'm mainly interested in the math on this and for something other than being told I have had a lucky year. I know it has been lucky but why is this style of play not going to hold up? That is what I think the math majors on this board can assist with -- assistance that is appreciated.

If you stop win is $250,and your stop-loss is $500, you'd better be winning 70%.
Nothing you have said gives you any sort of advantage. You may be ahead,but you aren't playing with any sort of advantage.
Before we go on,why don't you explain what part of your system will allow you to overcome the house edge long-term?

 

[callipygian]

I stick to win/loss stops for each session.

What are these stop limits? You can normalize to $25 bets if that makes things clearer.

I have been running about 70% winning sessions.

What is your average win when you win? And what is your average loss when you lose?

Win rate only means something when you lose the same amount that you win. The Martingale system with a sufficiently high bankroll will produce win rates of 99% - it's just that the average win is 1 unit and the average loss is 100+ units.

 

[EasyRhino]

Okay, the base method (start at $25, on win increase to $50, on loss decrease to $25) has VERY SLIGHT elements of a positive progression system. This would have a tiny tendency to encourage more, smaller losses, and fewer, larger, wins.

However, the stops that you play with will have a bigger effect.

IF the stops are equal amounts, then they will just shorten the amount of time that you play. (and this is a good thing when you're playing at a disadvantage).

If the stops are dissimilar, then they will tend to result in more sessions the tighter allotment.

None of it affects the house edge.

 

[jay28]

Why don't you just switch to the martingale systems, you can make it work 100% of the time absolutely guaranteed, just by doing two things:-

1. Find a game with an unlimited table max

2. Get yourself an infinite BR.

Works every time - good luck!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[sagefr0g]

Critical but civil responses encouraged.

For about a year I have played this style for 4-6 days a week and I have been running about 70% winning sessions.

- Only play DD games
- Two bets (for demonstration purposes we will say, $25 and $50)
- First deal of a new deck bet $25
- If I win I keep betting $50 until I lose. I'll split or double but that is it.
- Once I lose, I go back to $25 and only bet $25 each hand through the end of the shoe.
- I religiously stick to basic play strategy.
- I stick to win/loss stops for each session.

I've never been a system guy. I used to count cards in AC and Vegas going back to the 80's but had a successful life away from the tables and enjoyed the casino life (read: comps) too much to get wrapped up in winning. When I moved to Vegas in 2004 it was to play poker and blackjack stayed a casual pursuit. I started dabbling with a 'system' more so for my wife to use since she had zero discipline. Now she makes money playing this way (she plays 2 sessions for every 10 I play) and runs the same rate for winning sessions as I do. A few locals I know have tried it as well and, while I think they find it tedious, they have reported that it has been profitable.

I'm not writing this to tout it as some great winning strategy. I shake my head when I try to do the math on it. But, after doing it for a year, it works for me. For me the real key is the stop-loss number for each session. If I had let that fluctuate I feel I might have different results. Some sessions have lasted 30-45 minutes and others 5-6 hours but remaining disciplined works. Someone who would want to put in 8 hours a day at the table regardless of outcome would not want to try this.

I am very interested in comments from anyone. I'm mainly interested in the math on this and for something other than being told I have had a lucky year. I know it has been lucky but why is this style of play not going to hold up? That is what I think the math majors on this board can assist with -- assistance that is appreciated.

well i think your describing a progression of some sort or another. and you asked about the math of this. i can't provide the math but i know there is a mathematical proof floating around 'out there' that proves that no betting system can beat a game for which the house holds an advantage.
that said i'd say your system needs a hedge against the almost certain prospect of ruin that lies ahead. you know the thing about a progression is that yeah maybe you win 70% of the time but you just can't know when those 30% or so loss's are going to come. so trying to limit your loss's by stop loss strategies only breaks up your loss's in small chunks that in the final analysis add up to big loss's. and that tiny percentage of losing sessions compared to the large percentage of winning sessions is saddled with the unfortunate fact that the small number of losing sessions tend to have such large loss's compared to a large number of much smaller wins that in the end your losing amounts add up to way, way more than your winning amounts.
you stated that you used to count in AC. your ability to count and wreak an advantage could be your hedge against the looming prospect of ruin. if you watch your bottom line as far as your betting system you can gauge the amount lost against the prospects of winning that amount over time with a real AP approach.
finally i'd just say that IMHO (and this isn't meant as advice just a word to the wise) your 'system' seems to rigid, to recursive. the thing is that you want to fashion your approach after (if your so inclined as to gamble some) is to only expose a small amount of your money to (high level) risks that may pay off big while exposing the majority of your money to very low level or no level of risks even though the pay off may be small.
not saying i know how to do that, but just maybe ask your self if your system can do that.

 

[grdred944]

"I used to count cards in AC and Vegas going back to the 80s"

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You find this humorous, why? Do you not feel that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who have tried this and done this over the years without having written a book?

Did I write anything about returns? No, I simply pointed out that I have been around and have played for going on three decades. Not all of us are experts such as yourself or have screenames that try to leave readers with the belief that we are as your screen name claims you to be -- a card counter.

How pathetic that this is the best you can come up with to fill space and add to your message count.

 

[grdred944]

If you stop win is $250,and your stop-loss is $500, you'd better be winning 70%.
Nothing you have said gives you any sort of advantage. You may be ahead,but you aren't playing with any sort of advantage.
Before we go on,why don't you explain what part of your system will allow you to overcome the house edge long-term?

I either win or lose the same number. Sometimes it is a real grind to get to that win number and 30-35% of the time I don't before I hit the loss target.

I have no explaination on how to overcome the house edge. I have always been a firm believer that the only possible way is to count. That is one reason why I posted my original message. I was hoping for someone to give me the math on how bad this is. I'm not hooked on this as a way to play -- I am just sharing with the board that this is one way that has worked for the past year.

 

[grdred944]

well i think your describing a progression of some sort or another. and you asked about the math of this. i can't provide the math but i know there is a mathematical proof floating around 'out there' that proves that no betting system can beat a game for which the house holds an advantage.
that said i'd say your system needs a hedge against the almost certain prospect of ruin that lies ahead. you know the thing about a progression is that yeah maybe you win 70% of the time but you just can't know when those 30% or so loss's are going to come. so trying to limit your loss's by stop loss strategies only breaks up your loss's in small chunks that in the final analysis add up to big loss's. and that tiny percentage of losing sessions compared to the large percentage of winning sessions is saddled with the unfortunate fact that the small number of losing sessions tend to have such large loss's compared to a large number of much smaller wins that in the end your losing amounts add up to way, way more than your winning amounts.
you stated that you used to count in AC. your ability to count and wreak an advantage could be your hedge against the looming prospect of ruin. if you watch your bottom line as far as your betting system you can gauge the amount lost against the prospects of winning that amount over time with a real AP approach.
finally i'd just say that IMHO (and this isn't meant as advice just a word to the wise) your 'system' seems to rigid, to recursive. the thing is that you want to fashion your approach after (if your so inclined as to gamble some) is to only expose a small amount of your money to (high level) risks that may pay off big while exposing the majority of your money to very low level or no level of risks even though the pay off may be small.
not saying i know how to do that, but just maybe ask your self if your system can do that.

Thanks! I really appreciate your comments and I know that you are spot-on. Everyone I have spoken to in Vegas has echoed your view that it is too rigid and also has warned me about the inevitible swing. I can see how both of those will become negative factors at some point.

 

[cardcounter0]

You find this humorous, why? Do you not feel that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who have tried this and done this over the years without having written a book?

Did I write anything about returns? No, I simply pointed out that I have been around and have played for going on three decades. Not all of us are experts such as yourself or have screenames that try to leave readers with the belief that we are as your screen name claims you to be -- a card counter.

How pathetic that this is the best you can come up with to fill space and add to your message count.

I find this humorous because as any legitimate card counter (and there are a more than a few here who also haven't written books) can tell you, once you play with an advantage you never come back.

Did I write anything about returns? No, I simply pointed out that I have been around and have played for going on three decades.

No, you did not say you "have been around" or that you "played for going on three decades". What you said was you COUNTED CARDS way back in the 80s. Big difference. Sure, I know a 1000 ploppies who have played blackjack for 30 years. Everyone does.

Like I said any card counter can tell you, once you have played with an advantage it would be extremely hard to blindly play a 'system' like you describe. You win the first hand of a shoe, so you blindly bet $50 every hand for the rest of the shoe. What happens when the count keeps going negative, you still blindly bet your $50 into a TC -5 simply because you won the first hand? You lose the first hand, then the count goes positive, on the last hand of the shoe are you still betting your minimum $25 with a TC of +6?

If you are such a long time card counter, how would you be able to make such stupid bets and not get ulcers? How pathetic that you would claim to have practiced card counting skills and then post some silly betting system that is based on pure voodoo.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[sagefr0g]

Thanks! I really appreciate your comments and I know that you are spot-on. Everyone I have spoken to in Vegas has echoed your view that it is too rigid and also has warned me about the inevitible swing. I can see how both of those will become negative factors at some point.

your welcome.
i guess the one thing it's hard for maths to do is factor in human thought, creativity and judgement. what ever that's supposed to mean, i guess maybe the part about such a rigid system sort of thing. not that i know or can say that human thought, creativity and judgement can overcome an edge either although i guess it can as thats what card counting is the result of.
i think the link below has that maths proof:
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm (Archive copy)

 

[sagefr0g]

I find this humorous because as any legitimate card counter (and there are a more than a few here who also haven't written books) can tell you, once you play with an advantage you never come back.

lol hey cardcounter0 i guess just because there's one exception to the rule doesn't mean the rule is always true after all?
scientific falsification may not always be right?
i think i at least honestly tryed for a few years the AP count thing, might have even gotten it right at least a few times in over two hundred trips.

.....If you are such a long time card counter, how would you be able to make such stupid bets and not get ulcers? How pathetic that you would claim to have practiced card counting skills and then post some silly betting system that is based on pure voodoo.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

yeah uhmm well if your a scarity cat like me your in danger of the ulcer's one way or the other anyway. :cat:
but really is it beyond ones imagination to think maybe some one learned how to count cards but never had the knowledge about the limitations of betting systems?
what would be even more pathetic would be if one day we should wake up and find that some facet of advantage play is just as voodoo as voodoo.
but what ever voodoo or not it's hard to not admitt that being able to win say 70% of the time as opposed to losing only 30% of the time or what ever doesn't have some sort of allure to it.

 

[cardcounter0]

but what ever voodoo or not it's hard to not admitt that being able to win say 70% of the time as opposed to losing only 30% of the time or what ever doesn't have some sort of allure to it.

Just play a negative martingale with a win-stop. You will win 99% of the time. Of course, the 1% of the time you lose will wipe out all your wins and then some, but if having a large amount of winning sessions is your goal, then that is the way to do it.

Myself, I prefer to make money and keep it. I don't care how many times I lose or win, as long as I am ahead when it is all said and done.

 

[sagefr0g]

Just play a negative martingale with a win-stop. You will win 99% of the time. Of course, the 1% of the time you lose will wipe out all your wins and then some, but if having a large amount of winning sessions is your goal, then that is the way to do it.

Myself, I prefer to make money and keep it. I don't care how many times I lose or win, as long as I am ahead when it is all said and done.

so why how come is that? i mean to be able to win 99% or what ever? is it just standard deviation on the right side of the bell curve? i've never understood just how it worked.

 

[InPlay]

You find this humorous, why? Do you not feel that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who have tried this and done this over the years without having written a book?

Did I write anything about returns? No, I simply pointed out that I have been around and have played for going on three decades. Not all of us are experts such as yourself or have screenames that try to leave readers with the belief that we are as your screen name claims you to be -- a card counter.

How pathetic that this is the best you can come up with to fill space and add to your message count.

Don't you know this is cyber space and you can be anyone you want to be. It's Halloween everyday over here.

 

[InPlay]

so why how come is that? i mean to be able to win 99% or what ever? is it just standard deviation on the right side of the bell curve? i've never understood just how it worked.

Or maybe it's that old bug a boo called LADY LUCK ?

 

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g
so why how come is that? i mean to be able to win 99% or what ever? is it just standard deviation on the right side of the bell curve? i've never understood just how it worked.

Or maybe it's that old bug a boo called LADY LUCK ?

really i haven't the foggiest.
i'm guessing it has to do with how one chooses to cut up one's sessions?
some how it works out to 99% little wins and 1% big loss (so big it's bigger than the sum of the little wins).
just curious as to how that physically plays out sort of thing.