Progression in possitive counts

[elkobar]

Luck or Skill?

Hi Aslan,
thanks for your comment,I understand what you mean regards giving other folk the wrong impression about whether they can win or not, following what I do, But the same applies to all the books and systems that are on the market encouraging people to follow this or that way, or strategy;
Basic Strategy, Card Counting, etc, are all designed to give folk some sense of control over their game plan. And there are folk who win consistantly, eg. Mr Stanford Wong.
It is still gambling , and the house will always have the edge, otherwise they would not be in business.
From my own observation over the years of playing, I believe that the average person losses because of the way they play the game.
They have no game plan,( Basic Strategy ) they just guess each hand.
They have no money management, they put any amount of money on the table.
They play perfect pairs, they never work out the odds, ( house advantage )
They take Insurance.
They take even money when they have Blackjack, if the dealer has an Ace.
They have no control over their emotions.
They continually talk and drink alcohol.
They also allow past results to effect their play.
They do not play splits or double downs, because of the fear of extra money on the table.
They do not have suffient bank roll to cover the ups and downs of the game.
I must admit that it is still a game of probabilities, as to whether the cards fall as the mathematics suggest, But I do not except your premise that I must eventualy lose, Life is a gamble at the best of times, and to suggest that in the Long Run I will lose, also cannot be proven mathematicaly.
In the mean time I will just go on winning ( Sorry )
Elkobar.

 

[aslan]

Hi Aslan,
thanks for your comment,I understand what you mean regards giving other folk the wrong impression about whether they can win or not, following what I do, But the same applies to all the books and systems that are on the market encouraging people to follow this or that way, or strategy;
Basic Strategy, Card Counting, etc, are all designed to give folk some sense of control over their game plan. And there are folk who win consistantly, eg. Mr Stanford Wong.
It is still gambling , and the house will always have the edge, otherwise they would not be in business.
From my own observation over the years of playing, I believe that the average person losses because of the way they play the game.
They have no game plan,( Basic Strategy ) they just guess each hand.
They have no money management, they put any amount of money on the table.
They play perfect pairs, they never work out the odds, ( house advantage )
They take Insurance.
They take even money when they have Blackjack, if the dealer has an Ace.
They have no control over their emotions.
They continually talk and drink alcohol.
They also allow past results to effect their play.
They do not play splits or double downs, because of the fear of extra money on the table.
They do not have suffient bank roll to cover the ups and downs of the game.
I must admit that it is still a game of probabilities, as to whether the cards fall as the mathematics suggest, But I do not except your premise that I must eventualy lose, Life is a gamble at the best of times, and to suggest that in the Long Run I will lose, also cannot be proven mathematicaly.
In the mean time I will just go on winning ( Sorry )
Elkobar.

It has been proven mathematically that counting cards puts the advantage in the player's favor. It has also been proven mathematically that progressions do not change the house advantage. It is still gambling if you have a 99% chance of winning. So what? Would you rather have a 99% advantage, or a 1% disadvantage? After all, you can win with either one.

 

[aslan]

There is a chance the long run will never catch up with you in your lifetime. There is also a chance I will win the Virginia Mega-millions lottery. I wish us both good luck. :grin:

 

[Sonny]

Thomason vs. Counters

This link seems relevent here:

http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/prog__systems.html

-Sonny-

 

[elkobar]

Thomason vs Counters.

Hi Sonny,
Thanks for link, read with interest; what can I say, all evidence would suggest that one should give up, if you cannot count cards; ?
My understanding of the principle of increasing your bets when you win, and decreasing them when you lose, is the betting strategy of both card counting and progression.?
The difference between the 2 is that the card counter uses the count to identify whether to raise or lower the bet, and the amount, (spread)
The progressive better uses the last hand played, ( win or lose ) to either raise or lower the bet,( according to the betting strategy used )
In essence it would appear that what the counter is stating is, his method is more efficient at identifying the next hand,( predicting ),
Whereas the progressive better is following along behind the last hand played,
and betting accordingly.
From this understanding I feel that it is not the progression that is causing the loss of revenue, but the method of identifying the next bet ?
Elkobar..

 

[daddybo]

Hi Sonny,
Thanks for link, read with interest; what can I say, all evidence would suggest that one should give up, if you cannot count cards; ?
My understanding of the principle of increasing your bets when you win, and decreasing them when you lose, is the betting strategy of both card counting and progression.?
The difference between the 2 is that the card counter uses the count to identify whether to raise or lower the bet, and the amount, (spread)
The progressive better uses the last hand played, ( win or lose ) to either raise or lower the bet,( according to the betting strategy used )
In essence it would appear that what the counter is stating is, his method is more efficient at identifying the next hand,( predicting ),
Whereas the progressive better is following along behind the last hand played,
and betting accordingly.
From this understanding I feel that it is not the progression that is causing the loss of revenue, but the method of identifying the next bet ?
Elkobar..

1. Without information on deck configuration before the bet is placed.. each hand has the same chance to win or lose as the last.

2. You don't increase/decrease your bet based on the outcome of the last hand... it just doesn't work.

3. Progressions will at some point in reality cause an insurmountable and unrecoverable lose of revenue.(bankroll, table and time limits)

 

[Sucker]

Getting back to the OPs' original question "Why would a progression fail if only used in a players' advantage?" -
After reading throughout this entire thread, I'm simply amazed at the the number of otherwise smart people who SOMEHOW believe that it eventually WOULD fail; using the reasoning that ALL progressive betting systems fail.

It's TRUE that betting progressions are destined to failure, but ONLY if they're used when the house has the advantage, as they almost always are. But if used when the PLAYER has the edge, ANY betting progression that you may choose to employ is 100% certain to SUCCEED.

THINK about it. After all, card counting ITSELF is nothing more than a progressive betting system, one that that kicks in ONLY when the player has the edge. And what about someone who is a follower of the Kelly Criterion? By DEFINITION, he has to raise and lower his bet in accordance as to whether or not he has won or lost the previous hand.

The fact is, if your advantage is x; on that hand you will earn exactly x times the amount of your bet, no matter HOW much you bet; and no matter how much you bet on your previous hand(s). THE CARDS HAVE NO MEMORY.

 

[aslan]

Getting back to the OPs' original question "Why would a progression fail if only used in a players' advantage?" -
After reading throughout this entire thread, I'm simply amazed at the the number of otherwise smart people who SOMEHOW believe that it eventually WOULD fail; using the reasoning that ALL progressive betting systems fail.

It's TRUE that betting progressions are destined to failure, but ONLY if they're used when the house has the advantage, as they almost always are. But if used when the PLAYER has the edge, ANY betting progression that you may choose to employ is 100% certain to SUCCEED.

THINK about it. After all, card counting ITSELF is nothing more than a progressive betting system, one that that kicks in ONLY when the player has the edge. And what about someone who is a follower of the Kelly Criterion? By DEFINITION, he has to raise and lower his bet in accordance as to whether or not he has won or lost the previous hand.

The fact is, if your advantage is x; on that hand you will earn exactly x times the amount of your bet, no matter HOW much you bet; and no matter how much you bet on your previous hand(s). THE CARDS HAVE NO MEMORY.

This was Sonny's response (below) earlier via a link, which does not quite agree with what you are saying. You must be assuming a form of progression that does not double up, like Oscar's grind, which would slow down the action, although does it make sense to use a progression rather than Kelly criteria for optimal betting? Also, do you normally have enough time is positive counts to complete a winning cycle of Oscar's grind or other such progression?

A progression system is not a smart way to bet your money. In fact, even if you have an advantage you are very likely to go broke. If you are increasing your bets after every win/loss/whatever it won’t take long before you are making very big bets in order to recoup your previous losses. You could easily go broke by losing only 6-7 hands in a row. Your overall risk is very high because you are often overbetting your advantage.

Imagine a coin flip where you always bet your entire bankroll on every flip. It only takes one loss to bankrupt you. If you start with $635, bet $5 and double-up after every loss, you will be bankrupt after losing 7 hands in a row. Even a $1275 bankroll will not last 8 hands in a row. And, as you mentioned earlier in this thread, the house is always more likely to win the next hand. Even after a loss (or series of losses) you are still more likely to lose the next hand. Why would you increase your bets if you are expecting to lose?

Even if you have an advantage you will probably go broke during a normal unlucky swing. You are either underbetting at the start and not making much money or wildy overbetting after a few hands and risking your entire bankroll to win back a few dollars. A progression system is a very dangerous way to bet your money. It can easily turn a winning player into a loser and turn a loser into a broke loser very quickly.

 

[assume_R]

And what about someone who is a follower of the Kelly Criterion? By DEFINITION, he has to raise and lower his bet in accordance as to whether or not he has won or lost the previous hand.

I agree with your poster, sucker. However, I have some problems with the above statement. It seems that's only correct if the TC remains the same as the last hand.

Allow me to explain. If the TC remains unchanged, then yes, by definition some1 following Kelly would indeed raise his bet if he won the last hand (since his total BR increased) and also lower his bet if he lost the last hand (since his total BR decreased).

However, if the TC changed from the last hand, then imagine this scenario:

Scenario 1:
Hand 1: Total Bankroll = $10,000, TC = 3, advantage = 1.5%, Bet $150.
Win, yet TC drops to TC = 2, advantage = 1%.
Next Hand: Total bankroll = $10,150, TC = 2, advantage = 1%, Bet $101.50.

Therefore, the player won his previous hand, was a fully Kelly better, yet decreased his bet.

Scenario 2:
Hand 1: Total Bankroll = $10,000, TC = 3, advantage = 1.5%, Bet $150.
Lose, yet TC drops to TC = 2, advantage = 1%.
Next Hand: Total bankroll = $9,850, TC = 2, advantage = 1%, Bet $98.50.

So as you can see, the player dropped his bet whether or not he won or lost his previous hand if the TC changed.

Correct? QED?

 

[Sucker]

I agree with your poster, sucker. However, I have some problems with the above statement. It seems that's only correct if the TC remains the same as the last hand.

Allow me to explain. If the TC remains unchanged, then yes, by definition some1 following Kelly would indeed raise his bet if he won the last hand (since his total BR increased) and also lower his bet if he lost the last hand (since his total BR decreased).

However, if the TC changed from the last hand, then imagine this scenario:

Scenario 1:
Hand 1: Total Bankroll = $10,000, TC = 3, advantage = 1.5%, Bet $150.
Win, yet TC drops to TC = 2, advantage = 1%.
Next Hand: Total bankroll = $10,150, TC = 2, advantage = 1%, Bet $101.50.

Therefore, the player won his previous hand, was a fully Kelly better, yet decreased his bet.

Scenario 2:
Hand 1: Total Bankroll = $10,000, TC = 3, advantage = 1.5%, Bet $150.
Lose, yet TC drops to TC = 2, advantage = 1%.
Next Hand: Total bankroll = $9,850, TC = 2, advantage = 1%, Bet $98.50.

So as you can see, the player dropped his bet whether or not he won or lost his previous hand if the TC changed.

Correct? QED?

This is just a matter of semantics. Depending upon how you put it, we're both correct. You are absolutely right. He HAS lowered his bet from his FIRST bet. But in scenario 1, because he won the first hand, he was able to RAISE his bet, from what would have been $100.00; to $101.50 on the second hand. In scenario 2, he had to bet $98.50 on the second hand, whereby LOWERING it from the $100.00 that he would have been able to bet. I guess to get my point across better;my statement SHOULD have been "By DEFINITION, he has to raise and lower his OPTIMAL bet in accordance as to whether or not he has won or lost the previous hand".

 

[assume_R]

This is just a matter of semantics. Depending upon how you put it, we're both correct. You are absolutely right. He HAS lowered his bet from his FIRST bet. But in scenario 1, because he won the first hand, he was able to RAISE his bet, from what would have been $100.00; to $101.50 on the second hand. In scenario 2, he had to bet $98.50 on the second hand, whereby LOWERING it from the $100.00 that he would have been able to bet. I guess to get my point across better;my statement SHOULD have been "By DEFINITION, he has to raise and lower his OPTIMAL bet in accordance as to whether or not he has won or lost the previous hand".

Okay, cool, sounds like we were both trying to say the same things.

 

[johnny]

Progression does not always mean martingale

When I started this thread I was looking for input about using a progression similiar to or like Oscar's Grind only when I had a positive part of the shoe. What I am actually saying is I would play 2 progressions. 1. When the count is neutral or slightly negative and 2. when the count moves to the plus advantage for me.

Ill give another example: I start off the shoe using a 1 unit progression like Oscar's Grind. If the shoe gets negative I walk away and when I return continue where I left off. If the shoe goes into positive range I increase my first bet in the progression to 10 units and play thru all positive hands. If the shoe comes back to neutral or negative range I revert back to smaller progression or walk away.

My main point is that the higher unit progression is only played in the positive range. I know a Martingale type progression in any count is suicide.

 

[aslan]

When I started this thread I was looking for input about using a progression similiar to or like Oscar's Grind only when I had a positive part of the shoe. What I am actually saying is I would play 2 progressions. 1. When the count is neutral or slightly negative and 2. when the count moves to the plus advantage for me.

Ill give another example: I start off the shoe using a 1 unit progression like Oscar's Grind. If the shoe gets negative I walk away and when I return continue where I left off. If the shoe goes into positive range I increase my first bet in the progression to 10 units and play thru all positive hands. If the shoe comes back to neutral or negative range I revert back to smaller progression or walk away.

My main point is that the higher unit progression is only played in the positive range. I know a Martingale type progression in any count is suicide.

The question is, what is to be gained by playing a progression in positive territory, that is, when you have the advantage? What you should be doing is betting whatever your bankroll can afford and the heat will allow. Screw the progression; bet what your intellect and training tells you is the most advantageous to you.

 

[Finn Dog]

When I started this thread I was looking for input about using a progression similar to or like Oscar's Grind only when I had a positive part of the shoe. What I am actually saying is I would play 2 progressions. 1. When the count is neutral or slightly negative and 2. when the count moves to the plus advantage for me.

Ill give another example: I start off the shoe using a 1 unit progression like Oscar's Grind. If the shoe gets negative I walk away and when I return continue where I left off. If the shoe goes into positive range I increase my first bet in the progression to 10 units and play thru all positive hands. If the shoe comes back to neutral or negative range I revert back to smaller progression or walk away.

My main point is that the higher unit progression is only played in the positive range. I know a Martingale type progression in any count is suicide.

Johnny:

Your are to be commended for your out-of-the box thinking in an attempt to avoid heat but still get the money.

However, under the scenario you described above (two separate positive progressions: one low, one high) if Surveillance was to run a skills check on you, it would be revealed that your top bets only coincide with high counts.

The determination would be you'd still be playing with an advantage--albeit, less of an advantage. And of course, if you're playing with an advantage, they will back you off--because someone could be sitting in your seat playing with a disadvantage (such as a pure progession player whose top bet is the same at both high and low counts)--or because they just don't like counters (or a toned-down version of one).

In the final analysis, your idea might be akin to someone who counts but plays with a very small spread. Just seems to be prolonging the inevitable (and taking less with you on the way out) IMHO.

Will the advantage be enough for them to care? Only time would tell (and depends on the house).

Best regards,

FD

 

[FLASH1296]

Read and re-read this until you understand.

The chances of winning your upcoming bet is

hardly altered by the True Count.

Under all circumstances you will win but a minority of your hands.

Off-the-top, your win % is about 43%.

You are likely never going to see much better than that.

We bet more at higher True Counts because we get more blackjacks

and we get to do better on our doubles and splits.

 

[aslan]

Read and re-read this until you understand.

The chances of winning your upcoming bet is

hardly altered by the True Count.

Under all circumstances you will win but a minority of your hands.

Off-the-top, your win % is about 43%.

You are likely never going to see much better than that.

We bet more at higher True Counts because we get more blackjacks

and we get to do better on our doubles and splits.

That's it, in a nutshell!

 

[Finn Dog]

Read and re-read this until you understand.

The chances of winning your upcoming bet is

hardly altered by the True Count.

Under all circumstances you will win but a minority of your hands.

Off-the-top, your win % is about 43%.

You are likely never going to see much better than that.

We bet more at higher True Counts because we get more blackjacks

and we get to do better on our doubles and splits.

Yes, understood.

The point I was attempting to make was: would he not still have a small advantage by employing this scheme?

I'm not sure what the OP had in mind (perhaps he can chime in), but suppose he employed a very mild spread based on a positive progression--such as 1 to 3 at slightly negative, even, and slightly positive counts--and wonged out at TC-2. Then, at high counts, he employed a larger spread (ostensibly equaling 1 to 8 or more of his low bet)?

Of course other factors would come in to play here, however: such as if he lost a bet a high counts, would he go all the way down to his low bet (as a traditional Voodooist would), or would he consistently maintain the same high bet (as a counter would).

Those were the factors I was referring to as far as Surveillance is concerned. That is, if he maintained a high bet at high counts after losing, such a move might be a tell to Surveillance that he was indeed moving his money with the count--despite any progression attempts at cloaking (similar in a way to traditional betting camo--but employed in a different fashion).

Regards,

FD

 

[aslan]

Yes, understood.

The point I was attempting to make was: would he not still have a small advantage by employing this scheme?

I'm not sure what the OP had in mind (perhaps he can chime in), but suppose he employed a very mild spread based on a positive progression--such as 1 to 3 at slightly negative, even, and slightly positive counts--and wonged out at TC-2. Then, at high counts, he employed a larger spread (ostensibly equaling 1 to 8 or more of his low bet)?

Of course other factors would come in to play here, however: such as if he lost a bet a high counts, would he go all the way down to his low bet (as a traditional Voodooist would), or would he consistently maintain the same high bet (as a counter would).

Those were the factors I was referring to as far as Surveillance is concerned. That is, if he maintained a high bet at high counts after losing, such a move might be a tell to Surveillance that he was indeed moving his money with the count--despite any progression attempts at cloaking (similar in a way to traditional betting camo--but employed in a different fashion).

Regards,

FD

One thing about a progression at positive counts is that you may never get to finish it [the progression] before the cards run out. Of course you have the advantage, but you don't have the matching of your bet to the amount of edge that you have. Of course over time you will be in the black, as with anytime you bet in positive counts, but I don't think you are going to be fooling anybody. It could cause you to overbet your advantage or on the other hand to underbet your advantage. Still, you have the advantage, so nothing lost other than squeezing the most out of your advantage within the limits imposed (self-imposed) by RoR considerations.

If you have the br to afford it, a progression that works well in positive counts is, "Let it ride!" It looks like a stupid martingale type move from the outside, but it's really a way to get large money on your advantage. What I don't like about it is the fact that you still only have a 43% chance of winning the hand, and by doubling up each time, the odds are that your "disadvantage at number of hands won" will nullify your "advantage at amount of cash won." Does that make any sense? In the long run that will still work to your advantage, because one of those times when you have let it ride a couple of times in a row you will have huge amounts out for double downs and splits or for blackjacks. Just make sure you haven't jacked your RoR out of sight resulting in your going bust and never reaching the long run!

It kind of reminds me of the times when you hit a losing streak and try to make up for it by doubling your max bets in positive counts. That's a perfect way to go bust fast!

 

[Finn Dog]

Of course over time you will be in the black, as with anytime you bet in positive counts, but I don't think you are going to be fooling anybody.

Agreed.

I believe the angle the OP had was worthy of investigation--but unless he's following the progression to the letter as Ploppies due, they'll ultimately see through it anyway.

Regards,

FD

 

[SleightOfHand]

Depending on your bankroll, the use of a progressive betting system in addition to cc can be catastrophic or negligible depending on various factors. In a general sense, all progressive betting systems do is add variance. As long as your average bet at high counts is big enough compared to your average bets at negative counts, you will be in the black. However, there will be times when you are betting a much, much larger amount than your average bet, which is why the variance will be much bigger. For a person with an extremely large bankroll, this effect could be negligible. This will probably add some cover to your play, but by adding variance, this means your average bets will have to be smaller, which will decrease your profits, in addition to increasing your N0, making it take longer to have a good chance o winning. The reason we use proportional Kelly to pick our bet sizes is to maximize our bankroll growth and minimize the time it takes to come out ahead while reducing our risk.

If you want to extend your welcome, there are other measures you can take that isn't so costly.

Moral of the story: progressive betting with cc can work, but for all intents and purposes, it's better to bet fractional Kelly.