Progression in possitive counts

[FLASH1296]

TRY hard to understand.

Read this statement several times until you can recall it without effort.

The frequency of winning hands is not altered very much by the True Count.
You can never expect to win >50% of your hands at any (realistic) True Count.

 

[johnny]

I understand

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRY hard to understand.

Read this statement several times until you can recall it without effort.

The frequency of winning hands is not altered very much by the True Count.
You can never expect to win >50% of your hands at any (realistic) True Count.



I understand exactly how many hands are won and lost % wise. I dont think 50% win rate is necessary for a progression to work in positive counts .... only correct basic strategy with proper indices at correct count.

 

[johndoe]

I understand exactly how many hands are won and lost % wise. I dont think 50% win rate is necessary for a progression to work in positive counts .... only correct basic strategy with proper indices at correct count.

I can't believe how much energy is wasted on this.

Bottom line: If you have an advantage (+counts), playing around with progressions won't hurt your EV, in fact it will likely increase it, since you're on average (probably) betting more.

However, your variance, and risk of ruin, will go up dramatically.

Betting via progressions in advantageous situations is really no better than betting randomly in advantageous situations. There's really nothing more to it than this.

Other than for cover (assuming you have a huge bankroll), I see no point to it. Even then it's pretty silly.

 

[Sucker]

I can't believe how much energy is wasted on this.

Bottom line: If you have an advantage (+counts), playing around with progressions won't hurt your EV, in fact it will likely increase it, since you're on average (probably) betting more.

I can't believe it either.

The OPs' original question was whether or not a progressive betting system will work if used in positive counts. The question was NOT whether or not it's the BEST way to make money.

The answer, as JohnDoe correctly points out; is YES, of COURSE it will work.
If you have a 1% advantage, you will earn 1% of EACH bet that you make. Obviously, the higher the bet, the higher the earn. If you think that by doing this that you can generate enough cover to maximize your LONG-TERM profit, then I say: "Go for it!"

Personally, I kind of LIKE the idea; if you can figure out a few tweaks here & there, you may be able to fool the pit almost forever.

The logic behind this theory is absolutely valid

 

[johndoe]

Yep. Now that you mention it, stuff like this might be appropriate for a high-EV opportunity that is susceptible to unusually high heat.

But this is pretty rare, and I'm not sure that there's much cover advantage to this over flat betting in any +EV. Doing this on typical counting games seems pointless, and needlessly risky.

 

[aslan]

I can't believe how much energy is wasted on this.

Bottom line: If you have an advantage (+counts), playing around with progressions won't hurt your EV, in fact it will likely increase it, since you're on average (probably) betting more.

However, your variance, and risk of ruin, will go up dramatically.

Betting via progressions in advantageous situations is really no better than betting randomly in advantageous situations. There's really nothing more to it than this.

Other than for cover (assuming you have a huge bankroll), I see no point to it. Even then it's pretty silly.

I agree. It's always best to bet in proportion to your risk, so what's the point in a progression in a positive count anyway, unless it's for cover or you're really steamboating? I can think of a lot cheaper ways to cover, and the risk of large losses is already high enough when you're betting max without subjecting yourself to the risk of getting caught on a martingale when you're splitting or doubling down.

 

[SuperSmash]

Just a personal story, which, obviously, is ONE trial run and therefore not all that significant. HOWEVER, where heat is concerned, I think it is less math and more human vs. casino psychology that is involved, if you will...

When I was in Costa Rica, and first started getting into counting, I used a Paroli-type progressive system for betting. I would ride the bet for two to three hands, depending on my advantage. I don't remember what TC numbers I used to determine this and, frankly, I was VERY inexperienced and had no mathematical basis for my decision other than "The count is high; I will ride the bet." In addition, I changed my base bet depending on count... see below:

----
TC <= 0
Base bet: 1 unit
If I win, I ride it for one more hand. If I lose, I start over.

TC = Positive
Base bet: 2 units
If I win, I ride it for two more hands. If I lose, I start over.

TC = VERY Positive
Base bet: >2 units
If I win, I ride it for two or more hands, if I lose, I start over (or mock steaming and keep it big... whatever works)
----

Not that this means that it will always work, BUT, I turned $120 into almost $1000 in one night of play. No heat. Casinos (I hear) love progressive betting systems, and I was just some lucky progressive bettor, in their eyes. Obviously, if the count changed dramatically while I was in a run, I would change my decision to ride or what to set as my base unit. Like I said, this is not a definite win; BUT, it worked for me the time that I tried it. Just wanted to share! This conversation has me thinking I may want to try it again sometime...

 

[aslan]

Just a personal story, which, obviously, is ONE trial run and therefore not all that significant. HOWEVER, where heat is concerned, I think it is less math and more human vs. casino psychology that is involved, if you will...

When I was in Costa Rica, and first started getting into counting, I used a Paroli-type progressive system for betting. I would ride the bet for two to three hands, depending on my advantage. I don't remember what TC numbers I used to determine this and, frankly, I was VERY inexperienced and had no mathematical basis for my decision other than "The count is high; I will ride the bet." In addition, I changed my base bet depending on count... see below:

----
TC <= 0
Base bet: 1 unit
If I win, I ride it for one more hand. If I lose, I start over.

TC = Positive
Base bet: 2 units
If I win, I ride it for two more hands. If I lose, I start over.

TC = VERY Positive
Base bet: >2 units
If I win, I ride it for two or more hands, if I lose, I start over (or mock steaming and keep it big... whatever works)
----

Not that this means that it will always work, BUT, I turned $120 into almost $1000 in one night of play. No heat. Casinos (I hear) love progressive betting systems, and I was just some lucky progressive bettor, in their eyes. Obviously, if the count changed dramatically while I was in a run, I would change my decision to ride or what to set as my base unit. Like I said, this is not a definite win; BUT, it worked for me the time that I tried it. Just wanted to share! This conversation has me thinking I may want to try it again sometime...

I have beaten roulette on two different occasions, to the tune of $2,500. Unlike you, I hope I never try again. :laugh::whip:

 

[SuperSmash]

I have beaten roulette on two different occasions, to the tune of $2,500. Unlike you, I hope I never try again. :laugh::whip:

I am genuinely interested in why this method will fail. In my eyes, I see betting bigger when the count is high, and betting smaller when the count is low or negative. My layman mind is not as experienced in the world of blackjack as yours. As stated by previous posters, it isn't a question of "is this the most efficient way to win money, assuming there is no heat." It is a question of "is this a way to make money, playing bigger when the player has the advantage," and the way I see it, with my relatively inexperienced blackjack mind, I think it is. Regardless of efficiency, if you get booted from the casino, you can't play. At least with this method, ASSUMING that it works (whether very effectively or not), heat is lessened. I'm no math genious, but can someone show a mathematical proof as to why riding bets and establishing higher base bets at high counts is equivalent to playing roulette (i.e. will in the long term lose money)?

 

[muppet]

playing a progression in positive counts will lower your expected value and increase your variance (and risk of ruin).

but, the way you described the progression, it will still win you money

 

[Sucker]

but can someone show a mathematical proof as to why riding bets and establishing higher base bets at high counts is equivalent to playing roulette (i.e. will in the long term lose money)?

No one give can you mathematical proof as to why this method will lose money long-term, because mathematical proof does not exist!

Mathematical proof does exist as to why it WILL work, and why; in certain circumstances it can work BETTER than a standard counting spread.

When your advantage is x, your expectation, or profit, for each bet is x times the amount of the bet. If you have a 1% advantage and bet $100, you will have earned exactly $1.00. If you bet $500, you earn $5.00. It matters not whether or not you win or lose the hand, your PROFIT is still exactly the same. This is the ONLY correct way to look at it.

Now; let us suppose that a sequence arises where you have a 1% edge, and you know that this 1% edge will continue for exactly 6 hands(This DOES commonly come up BTW, just ask any shuffle tracker). Let's say that your basic unit is $5. If you were to spread 1-12, after six hands you will have bet $360, and your profit for the 6 hand sequence will be $3.60. But NOW suppose you decide to employ a progressive bet spread, by doubling your bet on the first hand, and continuing to double it for each subsequent hand. You will be betting $10,$20,$40,$80,$160,and $320; for a total amount of $630, and a profit of $6.30!

Bear in mind that I'm NOT arguing whether or not this system is better or worse than traditional spreads; This is just meant to show that your idea WILL earn money. And I'm CERTAINLY not arguing against the variance argument that others have made, because I absolutely AGREE that the variance will be huge. After all, one $320 bet can ruin your entire day.

If you have the guts, and most importantly; the BANKROLL to stand the variance, and wish to employ this betting strategy; then I say "GO FOR IT"! You WILL show profit in the long run.

 

[aslan]

I am genuinely interested in why this method will fail. In my eyes, I see betting bigger when the count is high, and betting smaller when the count is low or negative. My layman mind is not as experienced in the world of blackjack as yours. As stated by previous posters, it isn't a question of "is this the most efficient way to win money, assuming there is no heat." It is a question of "is this a way to make money, playing bigger when the player has the advantage," and the way I see it, with my relatively inexperienced blackjack mind, I think it is. Regardless of efficiency, if you get booted from the casino, you can't play. At least with this method, ASSUMING that it works (whether very effectively or not), heat is lessened. I'm no math genious, but can someone show a mathematical proof as to why riding bets and establishing higher base bets at high counts is equivalent to playing roulette (i.e. will in the long term lose money)?

All I am saying is that I want to bet my money optimally based on my bankroll and the advantage I have. No progression is needed to do that. In fact, a progression cannot do that.

Mathematically, I can bet 100 times my minimum bet in positive counts and it will win for me in the long run so long as my bankroll can stand it and I don't bump up against the table max. I have limited bankroll, however, and I choose not to bet beyond a reasonable RoR. For one thing, if I ruin, then the long run means nothing because I'm out money to get me there.

 

[SuperSmash]

All I am saying is that I want to bet my money optimally based on my bankroll and the advantage I have. . . For one thing, if I ruin, then the long run means nothing because I'm out money to get me there.

All I am saying is that if you are barred, then the long run means nothing because you can't win if you can't play. Altering a betting strategy that the casinos think is a guaranteed losing strategy to take into account the shoe's true count in order to make it a WINNING strategy (even if it is a less-efficient strategy) is a way to avoid such a problem. Perfect counting and bankroll management via kelly betting or whatnot fails to take into account a CRUCIAL part of playing in a casino: the heat. THIS takes into account the periods of player advantage and, well, takes advantage of them while ALSO taking into account the very real existence of casino heat and, one would hope, will lessen its impact.

Anyone know of a good way to run some numbers, maybe figure out way to maximize wins while keeping RoR at a reasonable level? Note, I realize that inherently this method DOES increase RoR where another method with similarly sized small bets would have a much smaller RoR. I realize this.

Thank you all for the valuable insight!

 

[johndoe]

If your betting is not correlated with your advantage, but is instead randomly distributed (either by betting randomly, or via an uncorrelated progression), the RoR is always higher than flat-betting the same average amount, but the EV is the same.

As for reducing heat, I'm pretty certain that any variation in bets, even when uncorrelated with advantage, will draw more scrutiny than flat betting would. If your betting is correlated with advantage, it's pretty easy for the eye to know this. For this reason, if you want to minimize heat by betting patterns, reduce spread or flat-bet during advantageous situations. It's probably more effective, and much less costly than progressions.

But it's still a bad idea, IMO. Still too expensive, and not effective enough.

 

[aslan]

All I am saying is that if you are barred, then the long run means nothing because you can't win if you can't play. Altering a betting strategy that the casinos think is a guaranteed losing strategy to take into account the shoe's true count in order to make it a WINNING strategy (even if it is a less-efficient strategy) is a way to avoid such a problem. Perfect counting and bankroll management via kelly betting or whatnot fails to take into account a CRUCIAL part of playing in a casino: the heat. THIS takes into account the periods of player advantage and, well, takes advantage of them while ALSO taking into account the very real existence of casino heat and, one would hope, will lessen its impact.

Anyone know of a good way to run some numbers, maybe figure out way to maximize wins while keeping RoR at a reasonable level? Note, I realize that inherently this method DOES increase RoR where another method with similarly sized small bets would have a much smaller RoR. I realize this.

Thank you all for the valuable insight!

Maybe we're saying the same thing. You use progression betting to mask counting behavior. I either take advantage of a positive run of cards and leave (no masking), or use oppositional betting to mask my play. In oppositional betting (ie, delaying my max betting until a higher plus count than recommended) one forfeits the benefits of timely betting in positive situations. I do not think it raises the RoR as high as does progression betting, since the worst mistake it makes is minimum betting in positive counts.

 

[elkobar]

progression betting.

I have read with interest your various remarks about progresion betting, and I would like to give you my opinion, I play at Townsville North Queensland, Australia, with casino shuffling machines, previously I played with the shoes;
As there is always the full 6 decks in the machine, less the cards from the last deal, you cannot count cards, I play with the Basic Strategy, that is mentioned in the Blackjack Blue Book, by Fred Renzey, and Ken Smith, who has graciously printed , into card form.
I also use the progressive betting strategy as mentioned in a book written by Walter Thomason, namely "Twenty First Century Blackjack".
Playing with a unit of $10, You play flat money while lossing, and increase only when winning, and when you lose, you go back to the $10 unit again,
the betting sequence is; $10.$10.$15.$20.$25.you stay on $25 whilst winning.
As there are always winning and lossing runs, you get the advantage of the winning runs with the progressive betting, and you reduce your exposure to losses by coming back to the $10 unit when a lossing run occurs;
Double Downs and Splits do not effect the strategy, you treat them as either a single win or loss;
I also use his method of exiting the game when I lose 4 games in a row, so the casino never get back my profits;
I have found this combination to be very successfull.
Hope this is of some assistance.
Elkobar..

 

[assume_R]

We were referring to progressive betting at positive counts only. While I'm happy you've made some money, what you've described is a losing system. Let me repeat that - it is a losing system, and the only question is how long it will take to lose all your money. Please please please search and read these forums (search for progressive betting) to understand why you WILL lose all your money with this system.

FYI be prepared for some posts in response to what you said which may seem harsh, but are only trying to prevent you from playing in a way that will lose you all your money.

 

[Elhombre]

I also use his method of exiting the game when I lose 4 games in a row, so the casino never get back my profits;

Hi elkobar, I like Walt's system too ( is he still alive ?)
My question, you said to play against CSM's without shoes.
Walt said to quit playing the special shoe after 4 losses,
but you play against a machine, do you leave the table instead
to another machine ?
And how long do you play this system successful ? In sessions.

regards Eh.

 

[elkobar]

Progressive Betting

Hi EH,
thanks for the reply, regards Walts. System,
I do not know if he is still alive, I have sent him several letters, with no response.
I have been playing this method for about 4 years, and I play only on the weekends, as I go to work during the week.
I play the weekends only ,to allow me the time to stay at the table, which is usually about 3 to 5 hours, sometimes longer depending on how the game is going, or until I get stopped out, by 4 losses;
I have had several games that lasted only the first 4 hands, which I lost, so I left in about ten minutes.
But generally I get several hours of play.
With regards to moving to another table when I lose, I always go; and come back the next day.
The casino here closes at 0300. in the morning and reopens at 10 am, I like to get the table when it opens, with the first shuffle, I have found that greed is a very dangerous opponent, many folk make money and then give it back, because they do not control their emotions, I play a very disciplined game and follow the rules without question,
The strategy is followed 100% without mistakes, and the progressive betting the same,
And I cannot comment about other folks views on whether I will lose in the long run or not, I see only the results now, and they have been very good for the last 4 years.
Runs of wins and losses occur at random, and cannot be predicted,
Progressive betting is only taking advantage of this empirical fact.
Elkobar..

 

[aslan]

Hi EH,
thanks for the reply, regards Walts. System,
I do not know if he is still alive, I have sent him several letters, with no response.
I have been playing this method for about 4 years, and I play only on the weekends, as I go to work during the week.
I play the weekends only ,to allow me the time to stay at the table, which is usually about 3 to 5 hours, sometimes longer depending on how the game is going, or until I get stopped out, by 4 losses;
I have had several games that lasted only the first 4 hands, which I lost, so I left in about ten minutes.
But generally I get several hours of play.
With regards to moving to another table when I lose, I always go; and come back the next day.
The casino here closes at 0300. in the morning and reopens at 10 am, I like to get the table when it opens, with the first shuffle, I have found that greed is a very dangerous opponent, many folk make money and then give it back, because they do not control their emotions, I play a very disciplined game and follow the rules without question,
The strategy is followed 100% without mistakes, and the progressive betting the same,
And I cannot comment about other folks views on whether I will lose in the long run or not, I see only the results now, and they have been very good for the last 4 years.
Runs of wins and losses occur at random, and cannot be predicted,
Progressive betting is only taking advantage of this empirical fact.
Elkobar..

In the long run you will lose enough 4-in-a-rows to make up for all the wins. The house advantage cannot be defeated in the long run by this system. If thousands of people played your system, some of them would be like you and start off winning, but others would start off losing and may never see the light of day due to the house advantage. You should do what I did at roulette--quit while you're ahead, because you're playing a losing game. Sure, I won money, but that was because I was stupid and got lucky. The only smart thing I did was to quit. Also, realize that you are talking other people into playing a losing game because of your lucky start, which you attribute to a winning system. You will in effect be responsible for talking others into a losing system. There is simply no science that can support your system or justify your continuing to play. Prove me wrong. Your luck is proof of nothing. Show me the math, and I will believe.