Oscar's Grind... Don't do it!
- Thread starter ko_preferred
- Start date
Sure they do - they do exactly what they were designed for. Generally speaking, allowing one to achieve a goal more often than flat-bettingblackjack avenger said:
And maybe thereby being able to greatly extend how long it will be before you are expected to go broke.
It's not like they're designed to reduce HA lol.
Well just because "Oscar" by definition, at least in my mind, is designed only for an even pay-out bet like in craps or roulette.shadroch said:
Like Oscar would say after a loss bet the same amount as your previous bet. Oscar's goal is always 1 unit in a session.
So, if BJ, your last hand when you bet 1 unit, but split 4 times, doubled on each and lost 8 units in 1 round. What would your next bet be? Oscar doesnn't address what to to do if up 0.5 units rather than 1 unit. Etc.
So, I'd say, whatever you were doing, wasn't exactly "Oscar" but your own unique "system" you chose to play
Not that that invalidates in any way the success of whatever you were doing or that I am in anyway surprised by it.
But, whatever you were doing or choose to call it, you pretty much validated the potential usefulness of "voodoo" betting in a constant -EV environment.
I mean how many AP card-counters with a 200 unit roll are going to make, it sounds like, 240 min units in 1500 to 1800 hands? Not a single one I'd guess. And maybe all you actually needed was a 100 unit roll.
And now you apparently have the $200 roll you started with + the $240 you made. If you chose to just bet $1 from here forward you're good to go for what - maybe 100,000 hands, maybe 2000 hours or so, before losing all $440 when if you had flat-betted $1 with a $200 roll you may have lasted only 40,000 hands in the first place?
I doubt if you were "lucky" or unusually so anyway, - I don't think the machine suddenly happened to win, lose or push any more often than it usually would.
You took the added risk of losing it all in a period of time in exchange for achieving a winning goal a high percentage of the time. Like the chance of losing your $200 (units) flat-betting $1 in 1500 hands are way out there I'd guess - way way more than losing your $200 in 1500 hands doing what you did.
Not to mention, once you reached a 300 unit roll at some point in the interim, you will lose that 300 units even less often from that point forward.
I played one of those $1 machines at Bill's in Tahoe (if it's the same one anyway - I think it offered LS) ) and had a blast on it with a $20 buy-in. Mostly, but not always lol, nothing so radical as "Oscar" or what you did, flat-betting. I had $5K in my pocket but it absolutely would have killed me to lose my $20 buy-in. That was the game for me - how long can I make my 20 units last :grin: 3 hours later I was either down or up $3, can't remember, but had about 6 beers and a couple vodka-tonics for $8 in tips to the waitress. That's just what this country lacks - a really good buzz for $5 :grin:
That was my comp-hustle lol - but nothing compared to the master. Winning $8/hr for 30 hours with $100 and still a little miffed at the small amount of comps :grin: Those b*stards :laugh:
Be honest now - just curious - would you say, whatever it was how you chose to bet, did you always do that or not - could you tell a programmer all the rules of your chosen betting method? I know I never could do the same thing for 30 hours anyway. More like Capt Kirk playing Fizzbin - the second card is turned up except on Tuesdays...
Keep in mind that the approx 30 hours was spread over a week.
My method is this- Bet a unit. If you win,you've won a sequence,start over.
If you lose,bet the same amount. If you win the second bet,start over. After three bets,you want to break even on the sequence,not win.
example- you've lost three in a row. Down 3, betting 1. You win. Down 2,you bet 2.
Down 8,betting 2. You win and are down 6 betting 3. A win puts you down 4,and you bet 4.
Doubles and splits are irrelevant. Split 7s,get a 4,double down and lose. Get a second 7 and lose all- you count the number of lost units and continue with the same bet you started with.Win a few /lose a few- same thing
Yes,its a rote system and boring as hell. Hopefully,you are playing with some entertaining tablemates. I'm good for anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half before I go stir-crazy.
Next time,I double the stakes. I want to see if my results double,as well. I plan on 2 hours a day. one in the morning,one at night., to go with a few hours of real BJ
My method is this- Bet a unit. If you win,you've won a sequence,start over.
If you lose,bet the same amount. If you win the second bet,start over. After three bets,you want to break even on the sequence,not win.
example- you've lost three in a row. Down 3, betting 1. You win. Down 2,you bet 2.
Down 8,betting 2. You win and are down 6 betting 3. A win puts you down 4,and you bet 4.
Doubles and splits are irrelevant. Split 7s,get a 4,double down and lose. Get a second 7 and lose all- you count the number of lost units and continue with the same bet you started with.Win a few /lose a few- same thing
Yes,its a rote system and boring as hell. Hopefully,you are playing with some entertaining tablemates. I'm good for anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half before I go stir-crazy.
Next time,I double the stakes. I want to see if my results double,as well. I plan on 2 hours a day. one in the morning,one at night., to go with a few hours of real BJ
Cool. I have to hand it to you for always doing the same thing. You're a better man than I Gunga Din.shadroch said:
While I myself may not call it "Oscar" and therefore not expect the same liklihoods of achieving goal as Oscar, compared to say making the don't pass bet at craps, or even have the slightest clue as to how often your system may achieve it's goal, or how long each session may on avg last, or how many avg units may be bet while doing this, etc, if you've done what you've done and one assumes that was "expected", why not double your stakes. Just double your orig roll too. No reason to expect anything radically different.
Unless maybe, as luck would have it, your original 30 hours were very "lucky".
That's what we don't, and can't, without a computer, know.
The table max allowed at your $1 machine could also effect things especially if you switch to a $2 unit - like if you ever had to bet 60 units betting $1 with a 1-100 table limit obviously you would not be able to bet 60 $2 units with a $100 table max.
Another thing to keep in mind maybe would be to compare to use of roll per hour compared to just playing don't pass or pass at craps. Like what is it maybe 3 rolls or so on avg before a decision on a pass bet even happens? At how many rolls per hour etc.
And then there's always the possibility of setting stop-loss limits per session lol.
Not that it matters, and believe me it doesn't lol, but, in your system, I still don't know what "if you lose, bet same amount" means. You bet 1 unit and lose 8 for that round. Do you bet 1 again or 8? Could you be down 8^3 units in 3 rounds or just 24? Either way what would you bet on the 4th round?
Wow, an extremely disciplined voodoo bettor. What an oxymoron. :cool2:
If your original bet was one unit, and you somehow ended up betting eight thru various splits and doubles, your next bet would be one if your net W/L on the hand was zero or less. If your net was a postive number,you'd up the bet to two unless your win gve you a positive sequence or brought you back to even. Then you'd start a new sequence,but still bet one. Kapish?
The way I was taught OG, if you don't win in the first few hands, then all you want is to break even for that particular sequence. It reduces the violitility tremendously, but it does cut your winning a good bit as well.picasso said:What is the logic here, usually Oscar wants to make a one-unit profit per sequence.
Other related question: at a 10$ table, can the increments be of 5$, or do they require 10$ increments?
Thanks!
No you dont. A four hand win streak will fix a long losing streak quickly, but a prolonged set of two out of three wins will do it as well. Flat betting, you'll almost never recover from a prolonged losing streak. Lose eight hands in a row, with a double down or two thrown in and you need a ten win streak to break even.Thunder said:
Shadroch, say you have a sequence like this where you're betting in $10 increments.shadroch said:
-10 -10 -10 +10 -20 -20 +20 -30 +30 -40 -40 -40 +40 +50 -60 -60 +60 -70 -70 . I count that you would be down -$270 at this point. Now at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, but you would need to win at least 3 in a row to have a chance of getting back even. If you only won 2 in a row then you would be at -270 +70+80 = -120 and then you would bet 90 and if you lsot that, you'd be back at -210, followed by say -90 -90 -90 +100 + 110 -120 -120 -120. At this point you'd be down -$630 and I would imagine it would be very tough to get out of this if you had an $800 bankroll. Am I doing something wrong? If you had flat bet the whole time, you'd only be down $100.
Listen, I'm not going to go over every possible sequence that can arise.
Would you feel like responding to me if I kept making up extremely rare sequences for flat betting?
It is what it is. Use it or don't. Your choice. You want to highlight the weak points, and cover-up the good points, go right ahead.
Would you feel like responding to me if I kept making up extremely rare sequences for flat betting?
It is what it is. Use it or don't. Your choice. You want to highlight the weak points, and cover-up the good points, go right ahead.
Sorry,
This was just one sequence that came up when I was actually playing on my computer. I just wanted to make sure I was doing it right since I've never used it in the casinos. If that is indeed right, then to me it seems like you should have a cutoff where you stop after 3 wins in a row or when you're betting 6 times your initial bet assuming you're increasing your bets by double the initial bet. This would stop yourself from possibly going into deep, deep holes.
This was just one sequence that came up when I was actually playing on my computer. I just wanted to make sure I was doing it right since I've never used it in the casinos. If that is indeed right, then to me it seems like you should have a cutoff where you stop after 3 wins in a row or when you're betting 6 times your initial bet assuming you're increasing your bets by double the initial bet. This would stop yourself from possibly going into deep, deep holes.