Progression in possitive counts

[johnny]

Why would a progression fail if only used when player advantage is at least + .1% ? Example .... flat bet ( $ 10.00 ) for shoe and then once in positive play a much larger progression. ($50.00)

 

[assume_R]

Why would a progression fail if only used when player advantage is at least + .1% ? Example .... flat bet ( $ 10.00 ) for shoe and then once in positive play a much larger progression. ($50.00)

I'm not sure what you mean by "progression" versus a bet spread. If I assume you mean progression in the traditional sense of "double your bet when you win" or "double your bet when you lose" or any of those systems, here is what will happen:

As long as your average bet at positive advantages is at least a certain amount higher than your average bet at disadvantages, you will come out ahead with an infinite bankroll and infinite time. HOWEVER, when you are using a progression instead of optimal betting (search around these threads and the blackjack school to learn about that), your RoR (risk of ruin) will most likely be way too high to not go broke at some point, even though with an infinite bankroll you would probably come out ahead over a LONG time as long as the average bet at advantages is high enough.

Take-away message: why try to use "progression systems" when you know what the optimal bet is at each advantage? (that was rhetorical - the answer is Don't.)

Oh, p.s. welcome to the forums!

 

[johnny]

Assume R .. Thanks for welcome. I am talking about using a progression ( (something like Oscar's grind) only when count is positive and then if count drops to neutral or negative revert back to flat bet.

 

[Sonny]

A very common question

Here's why:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=80421

-Sonny-

 

[blackjack avenger]

Practical Problems

I would add to the above:

Progression systems generally involve a 1 to 1 payoff. In bj what do you do if you split, double and lose? How does that work in the progression? If you decide to not split or double then you will be playing at a lower advantage or higher disadvantage.

Also, table maximums interfere with the big bets you will eventually need to make.

 

[SleightOfHand]

I would add to the above:

Progression systems generally involve a 1 to 1 payoff. In bj what do you do if you split, double and lose? How does that work in the progression? If you decide to not split or double then you will be playing at a lower advantage or higher disadvantage.

Not that its really relevent since it doesn't work for even money bets either (in -EV games)

 

[blackjack avenger]

Is Relevant, Back to Orginal Post

The original post talks about progressions in positive situations. What I pointed out is the game of blackjack has features that disrupt a progression.

As an example:

You lose a bet
You double your bet
You then lose a split and double = 3 bets
total loss 4 bets
So what is your next bet? The choice probably disrupts the progression. So just even employing a progression is difficult.

The original poster mentions a specific progression "Oscar's grind" which has fixed rules that don't conform well with bj.

:joker::whip:
player or casino

 

[Deathclutch]

Your thinking is okay. You'll make money only playing positive counts (don't flat bet neutrals and negatives, leave) with your progression system. The problem is you won't make as much money while keeping yourself safe from going broke compared to betting optimally at each count.

I like your thinking though, think of why this at times can be advantegous to you and use it to your advantage.

 

[FLASH1296]

Even at positive true counts you can expect to win about 43% of your hands !

All progressive forms of betting are self-destructive.
If that statement was false the casinos would have been bankrupted long ago.

Think.

 

[shadroch]

The original post talks about progressions in positive situations. What I pointed out is the game of blackjack has features that disrupt a progression.

As an example:

You lose a bet
You double your bet
You then lose a split and double = 3 bets
total loss 4 bets

So what is your next bet? The choice probably disrupts the progression. So just even employing a progression is difficult. With Oscar's grind there are fixed rules that don't conform well with bj.

:joker::whip:



I use OG on Video BJ machines with a degree of success. The example you offer is meaningless because with Oscars Grind, you would not raise your bet after a loss.

 

[blackjack avenger]

More Clear?

The original post talks about progressions in positive situations. What I pointed out is the game of blackjack has features that disrupt a progression.

As an example:

You lose a bet
You double your bet
You then lose a split and double = 3 bets
total loss 4 bets
So what is your next bet? The choice probably disrupts the progression. So just even employing a progression is difficult.

If you want to use a specific progression like Oscar's grind there are fixed rules that don't conform well with bj.

:joker::whip:



I use OG on Video BJ machines with a degree of success. The example you offer is meaningless because with Oscars Grind, you would not raise your bet after a loss.

My post might not have been clear, I corrected it in my post and above

So you don't split or double when on a video bj machine? If you do split and double then you are using a pseudo Oscar's Grind.

 

[SleightOfHand]

The original post talks about progressions in positive situations. What I pointed out is the game of blackjack has features that disrupt a progression.

As an example:

You lose a bet
You double your bet
You then lose a split and double = 3 bets
total loss 4 bets
So what is your next bet? The choice probably disrupts the progression. So just even employing a progression is difficult.

The original poster mentions a specific progression "Oscar's grind" which has fixed rules that don't conform well with bj.

:joker::whip:
player or casino

I understand what you were saying, but what I was saying that the reason for you to post the problem with progressions and bj was unnecessary, since even if the progression could be designed to fit the game, it still wont change the fact that the progression will lose.

 

[creeping panther]

johnny

Why would a progression fail if only used when player advantage is at least + .1% ? Example .... flat bet ( $ 10.00 ) for shoe and then once in positive play a much larger progression. ($50.00)

In a play all game I recommend in neutral to negative counts betting a very mild pos progression with each win and then in pos counts betting with the count. Example, 10,12,14,16 and go back to flat after a lose. Great cover and you will not be totally left out when you are winning all those hands in the negative counts, which can happen alot

CP

 

[assume_R]

Great cover and you will not be totally left out when you are winning all those hands in the negative counts, which can happen alot

JW if you ever calculated or guestimated wow much EV do you give up in the process of not betting optimally though?

 

[blackjack avenger]

Multiple Reasons to Not Do Something

I understand what you were saying, but what I was saying that the reason for you to post the problem with progressions and bj was unnecessary, since even if the progression could be designed to fit the game, it still wont change the fact that the progression will lose.

Is it better to have one reason to not do something or several? I supported what was said before me and added to it.

When progressions are brought up it is rarely mentioned that they are not a good fit for the game of blackjack in the first place.

 

[johnny]

Progression only in positive count

I have read everywhere on this forum that a progression can never be successful because of the negative end result. ( In my case the casino's I play at have -.4% advantage) I agree. I guess my questions of playing only an Oscar's Grind type progression only when in a positive count.

I understand a very large bankroll would be required.

The example I started the thread off with was just an off the cuff idea.
Flat bet 1 unit in neutral and slight negative counts and then progress to 5 units in positive counts.

I don't know if 5 is enough ... maybe the start point is 10.

 

[shadroch]

My post might not have been clear, I corrected it in my post and above

So you don't split or double when on a video bj machine? If you do split and double then you are using a pseudo Oscar's Grind.

I see nothing in Oscars Grind that wouldn't allow you to double and/or split.
The people who always seem to find fault with it never seem to have much familiarity with it.
I'm not advocating using it, just pointing out I have had a decent amount of success using it as a breakeven game and profiting from the cashback a certain casino gives on the money cycled thru its video games.

 

[assume_R]

I guess my questions of playing only an Oscar's Grind type progression only when in a positive count. I understand a very large bankroll would be required.

Flat bet 1 unit in neutral and slight negative counts and then progress to 5 units in positive counts.

I don't know if 5 is enough ... maybe the start point is 10.

Okay, well regardless, the point still stands that your bankroll wouldn't have to be as large if you just bet optimally at each given count. And your bankroll will grow at the fastest rate if you bet optimally. That is the bottom line. The closer you are to optimal, the better. The only reason to deviate (such as using a progression system like oscar's grind) is for cover, longevity, or things of that nature.

 

[johnny]

Okay, well regardless, the point still stands that your bankroll wouldn't have to be as large if you just bet optimally at each given count. And your bankroll will grow at the fastest rate if you bet optimally. That is the bottom line. The closer you are to optimal, the better. The only reason to deviate (such as using a progression system like oscar's grind) is for cover, longevity, or things of that nature.

I am not doubting the math or end results associated with counting and betting according to the count correctly.
I truely believe it works and have used it for many years.
The point I am trying to get more input on is simply that a progression like Oscar's Grind may work IF ONLY PLAYED IN POSITIVE COUNTS. My interest is trying to find another way to play without being shut off for counting and betting the same routine as hundreds of others who have been barred.

 

[assume_R]

No problem, that is your "cover" reason for using another betting system, just as long as you're aware of the high risk of losing a bankroll using non-optimal betting. Like I said before, as long as your average bet at positive counts is reasonably higher than your average bet at negative counts, you technically have an advantage.