Please help destroy this strategey

[Midnite]

Counting vs Progresion

Leon- I have been able to count cards for over thirty years.
I remember when it was almost all single deck and was delt to the last card in the deck.
What would be a counters dream today, was common back then.

I was talking to the newbies that can't or don't want to, learn how to count cards.
In todays game (and there are still a few good one's out there) counting just isn't as good as it was.
Six or eight deck shoes and bad rules, just for starters.

If anyone is looking for a progression as a "magic bullet", can't lose system, they are barking up the wrong tree.
If they just want more bang for the buck, than flat betting, they can be more exciting.

Progressions are not all the same.
Some carry a very high ROR, such as the Mortingale.

A few years ago we tested a progression that was supposed to win 95% of it's sessions.
It was tested by several people from all over the united states.
I tested it on over 50,000 hands, as did some others.
It did in fact, win slightly over 95% of the sessions.........
I can not tell how it worked, as I gave my word not to and to me my word is sledom given and Never broken,,,,,

 

[newyorkbear]

Hey,Leon.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Oscars Grind has a mathmatical meter to it so that playing $1 units,you will win 4,999 out of 5,000 times.
Does card counting? I'm a fairly astute CC and I know I don't win anywhere close to that.
If you think advantage play is the only road to riches,and it works for you. Great.
Living in NYC and thus having to play most of my casino play in AC,CC is not as important to me as it would be in Vegas. 8 decks with garbage penetration don't do much for me.Nor do $25 minimums.
I do know that several big names in the BJ world that have numerous books published think higher of The Grind than you seem to.
The obvious drawback to the Grind is IF you hit that monster losing streak,you lose your bankroll.So you need to set your stop-losses,and the lower you set it,the more often you'll lose everything.
Playing $5 with a $100 stop-loss might cause you to lose once every X amounts of the time,while having a $500 stop-loss reduces your risk of ruin at least five times.Playing with a $1000 SL might bring your risk down to 1%.
Nice little story you wove there.I guess no one has ever done just that,in your opinion.
The idea,auctually is to hire a couple dozen people to sit in the casinos for you,while you lounge on that new houseboat out on Lake Meade.

 

[newyorkbear]

Hey Midnite,
While I can completely respect your not disclosing the system,can you say if you still use it,and if not,why not?

 

[Midnite]

Method

Bear- While I never lost with it in the casino. I haven't used it for quite some time. It has a bigger buy in than I like.

I figured you were trying to dodge the chop (win one and lose one) with the $10.00 second bet.
I also tried that (way back) and figured it was just a wash, in the long run.

"IF" you are going to use it.......set stop limits.
I use a 40 unit stop, when I play it. (and a win bank)
You can use that you are comfortable with, but I would suggest you use them........

 

[Mikeaber]

I've played progressions. Just about all of them at least that I know about, I've either tried in casinos or set up on simulators and played them out. I haven't found one yet that when run thru several hundred thousand hands, does any better than flat betting the same number of hands. I've discussed several of them along with my experiences with them with Midnight. They do get the adrenalin flowing but overall, I haven't found one that actually worked for me better than just flat betting.

My BR isn't that large so the commitment one must make to take on a casino with a progression is beyond my comfort zone. If you guys can make the progs work for you then I wish you well in your game! Really!

But to those just starting out, I emphasize to you the size of bankroll you need versus the size of yoiur average bet. It will take a much larger BR than taking on the table with flat betting.

 

[LeonShuffle]

In my experience with progressions (and I did have some years ago), stop limits aren't the answer because: Whatever the stop limit is, however much you would have lost once you hit it, you won't be able to make up before you hit it again.

In other words, if your stop limit is 40 units, you'll need to have the progression work 40 times before you hit it. And I believe this would even out in the long run.

By the way, I hope no one's taken offense to anything I've said. This is actually a debate I'm enjoying. Although I don't believe in progressions, I find the subject somewhat fascinating.

 

[Mikeaber]

By the way, I hope no one's taken offense to anything I've said. This is actually a debate I'm enjoying. Although I don't believe in progressions, I find the subject somewhat fascinating.

Me too Leon. I play progressions a LOT in practice on my table (hand dealt) and also with simulators. They facinate me and I'd dearly love to be convinced that they would do better for me than just flat betting. But so far, if I play long enough, they seem to do about the same amount of damage. Sometimes I win with them, sometimes I lose....about the same as with flat betting.

So, I determined that until I take up counting seriously, I'll play the game for the entertainment value and suck up the loses with a smile.

 

[LeonShuffle]

I practice with them also. Just last night, after reading Deltaduke's post, I played the trainer on this site, using Dahl's positive progression and $50 units. It took about an hour to win over $3,000 and then another hour to lose it all back plus the initial $1,000.

 

[newyorkbear]

I practice with them also. Just last night, after reading Deltaduke's post, I played the trainer on this site, using Dahl's positive progression and $50 units. It took about an hour to win over $3,000 and then another hour to lose it all back plus the initial $1,000.

Thats because you didn't quit when you wee ahead!
EVERYONE knows thats the key to gambling,no?

Seriously,though,as I titled this tread "Destroy this strat",how can I get offended at those who disagree with it.
What I am beginnning to see in my simulations is that while this system may not be that great over the long run,it seems quite good on short-term play.
What I am finding is that by having a finite goal,you keep going until you achieve it. My goal is to win one unit or break even.So far,the longest amount of hands it has taken me to break even on a sequence is 54 hands and the biggest bet was $55.
I figure as long as you don't have to catch a plane or a bus,and your wife isn't expecting that day,there is no practical reason to quit in the middle of an inning.
Either you play until you are even,or you drop your whole starting bankroll.
Going in,I set my goal as playing X hours,plus whatever time it takes to finish my last inning.
A series of seven days of 15 to 20% profits will more than offset a total meltdown loss of 100% of my bankroll on the eigth.Short of losing everything,every other visit should produce a profit.

 

[Quinc]

I practice with them also. Just last night, after reading Deltaduke's post, I played the trainer on this site, using Dahl's positive progression and $50 units. It took about an hour to win over $3,000 and then another hour to lose it all back plus the initial $1,000.

what is the dahl's positive progression?

 

[Mikeaber]

Dahl's progression is a positive progression:

A $5 progression is 5-5-7-7-10-10-15-15-25-25-35-35-50

Basically, each time you win two in a row, you increase your bet and try to win two in a row. If you hit a blackjack or win a doubledown, you skip to the next step. A loss and you go back to step #1.

Another sort of popular progression is sometimes called the New York method (so named because of the zip code)

It goes something like (in units) 2,1,2,3,3,4,5 or something like that. This one is sort of designed to protect you from "choppy" decks (win/lose/win/lose/etc)

 

[LeonShuffle]

Right, expect that Dahl suggests you skip two steps after a double or split win unless that step is more than twice what you just bet.

 

[Mikeaber]

Dahl's is a pretty conservative positive progression. You win two hands in a row at one step before you kick up the amount.

Choppy deck

5 - 5 win
5 - 0 lose break even just as with flat betting.

Take a 2 in a row win streak.

5 - 5 win
5 - 10 win
7 - $3 net when you lose 3rd hand (this is the most common "streak" and it's set up so that you net a little bit even if you lose it)

5 - 5 win
5 - 10 win
7 - 17 win
7 - 24 win
10 - 14 net when you lose the first in 5th step. Flat betting you would be ahead $15.

5 in a row lose 6th

5 - 5 win
5 - 10 win
7 - 17 win
7 - 24 win
10 - 34 win
10 - $24 net when you lose 6th hand (flat, you would win $1 more)

Carrying it way on out

5 - 5 win
5 - 10 win
7 - 17 win
7 - 24 win
10 - 34 win
10 - 44 win
15 - 59 win
15 - 74 win
25 - loss nets you $49. Flat betting, you would have been ahead $35.

I haven't analyzed this completely, but on the first glance, it looks like you will be better off as long as you don't lose the first hand of the next step.

Nor have I factored in the skipped steps on successful doubles and splits and Blackjacks.

 

[Quinc]

Thank you for breaking that down. you gave me a good understanding of it.

 

[Mikeaber]

Sorry for hijacking the thread NewYorkBear. Last post on Dahl's in this thread.

Just ran 100,000 hands through my simulator. Set it up 6-deck dealer hits 17's using basic strategy. What I couldn't do was factor in the skipped steps because of won doubles and BJs and Splits.

$10,000 BR. $200 session loss limit. Infinite win boundary.

Final result after 100,000 hands was player loses $3,269.00.
Won 24,760 hands
Lost 27,450
Pushed 5,812
Blackjacks won 2,745
Splits hands won 1,071
Split hands lost 932
Doubles won 1,553
Doubles lost 942

In every streak dealer won more except single hand "streaks".
Longest win streak was 15 (hapened once plus dealer had a 15 hand win)
Longest loss streak was 16 (happened twice)
Dealer had 19 streaks of 10 wins! Player had only 6

Interesting. Results would probably vary quite a bit if I ran the same thing again, but I would almost bet that the loss amount would be about the same. It does not tell me how much the total bet was but I'm thinking it's very likely a figure that would come close to making $3,269 somewhere close to .63% of it <grin> or $527,258.00. That woulld make sense since the majority of hands would be played at $5 and there were 100,000 hands.

 

[deltaduke]

My Progression

I bought Dahl's book and found it to be a total waste of money. First the progression is too slow, and he recommends taking even money against Aces to keep a streak going. I play an extremely fast progression.
50,100,150,200,300,400,500,600,700,800,ad infinatum, until I lose and then start all over again at 50.

Me Flat Bet
-50 W 1 L1 -0-
-0- W 2 L1 50
100 W 3 L1 100
200 W 4 L1 150
400 W 5 L1 200
700 W 6 L1 250
1100 W 7 L1 300
1600 W 8 L1 350
2200 W 9 L1 400
2900 W 10 L1 450

This chart does not take into account doubles, winning splits, and blackjacks which will probably occur at some point in a streak. It also does not take into account the fact that you have a higher average bet which gets you more comps. In fairness it also does not take into account ending the streak on a losing double which does at times happen.
Do you get streaks every night? No, and you go home losing. When counting, does the count ever stay negative for a long period? Yes, and you go home losing. If you had used my progression instead of Dahl's in your simulation, instead of being $3000 ahead after an hour, you would have been 10,000 ahead, or more. A prudent person would have some of this set aside and would not lose it back in further play. Of course further play means the next day, week, or even month; not just the next hour. Sometimes the system works, sometimes it doesn't.

As I stated in my previous post I used to be a counter. If I was still able to I would still be. If you can count I do not necessarily suggest you use my system. However i have played Blackjack for many years and have and still play with people who say they are counters. In truth they can't even count their own hand much less the deck. I have a bachelors degree in accounting and a masters in Aerospace Operational Management so math comes easily to me and I was able to learn counting easily and be quite successful with it. 90% of so-called counters cannot. For the recreational player, my approach is much easier, and in my opinion leads to just as many winning sessions without any heat from the pits.

Not pushing it, but a better book on progressions than Dahl's is Twenty-first Century Blackjack by Walter Thomason. He compares flat betting, counting, and progressive betting against the same hand.

 

[Midnite]

Sessions

Leon- To recoup a 40 unit loss. I would need to win Two sessions.

Session bankroll 40 units.
A losing session can be no more than 40 units.
A winning session is 20 units.
I play until one of those occur.
It is rare to lose all 40 units in a session, as anything won is now out of play, for that session.

A winning session doen't mean I stop playing.
I just start over and it is a new session.
That is just the way that like to play, in sessions.

Quitting while ahead only works if, you Never play again.....
When you play again, it doesn't matter if it is next hand, next week, or next year.........

Quitting when you are behind, is harder to do.
You want to "get it back".
In Poker they call it going on Tilt.
In BJ it is called Steaming.
Same thing.................chasing your losses.
Winning is easy to handle (for most), but how you handle losing is much more important.

I am no expert and don't claim to be.
I do have lots of experience.
I have a Cardinal Rule and it is.....Never Lose More Than You Can Afford To.
I have lost more than I like to several times, but have never lost more than I could afford to.

Just my two cents worth....

 

[Mikeaber]

50,100,150,200,300,400,500,600,700,800
-50 W 1 L1 -0-
-0- W 2 L1 50
100 W 3 L1 100
200 W 4 L1 150
400 W 5 L1 200
700 W 6 L1 250
1100 W 7 L1 300
1600 W 8 L1 350
2200 W 9 L1 400
2900 W 10 L1 450

That is agressive!

 

[Midnite]

I disagree

Sorry Mike, but I have to disagree with you here.
I don't see this as aggressive at all.
Yes, the bets are large, but the method is not aggressive.
His "unit" is $50.


Let's use a $5 unit and look at it.
Your first win, you take down. (up $5)
You now make a second $5 bet (you are even)
From here on, it is up ONE unit on a win, until a loss. (pocketing the rest)
So, it is really almost a Parloi or Reverse Martingale.
It is a structured postive progression.