Progressions with CSMs

[elkobar]

I would like to offer my opinion on CSM's, I play with these all the time, and I have found that they are most compatable with Basic Strategy only, and not for card counting;
The original strategy was formulated on a full deck, less 3 cards; (the players, and the dealers), so it is logical that if you are playing with a constant 6 decks, or 312 cards less the cards just played, then you are playing the game as it was formulated.
If you read the book " Blackjack Bluebook" by Fred Renzey, you will read on page 80, he states trust the odds, if you have A7 and the dealer has 9.10.A, you hit.
Play Basic Strategy perfectly as in this book, and play the odds;
Another view I have is, that there is no lossing in the long run, in my vocabulary, each hand I play is separate and distinct from every other hand, and each is treated as the odds dictate, 1/2% house advantage, playing basic strategy correctly, with progressive money management, I find the game profitable and pleasurable;
Elkobar..

 

[UK-21]

. . .
Another view I have is, that there is no lossing in the long run, in my vocabulary, each hand I play is separate and distinct from every other hand, and each is treated as the odds dictate, 1/2% house advantage, playing basic strategy correctly, with progressive money management, I find the game profitable and pleasurable;
Elkobar.

This is not correct I'm afraid. There isn't a house advantage on each and every hand - some hands dealt favour the player, and some the dealer. ie, if you are dealt a 20 and the dealer shows a 6, the odds are greatly in your favour to win. If you are dealt a 15, and the dealer shows a 10, the odds are that you will lose.

Netting all of the odds off on the different combinations of hands, and assuming players play correct basic strategy at all times, over half a million hands or more the average loss will be +/- 0.50% depending on the rules of the game being played. Playing a basic strategy game is a long term loser (albeit it still represents the best game in the house, house advantage wise).

Good that you are in profit, but over time the maths suggest you will lose money. Progression betting will not affect the house edge, it just means the variance in your wins and losses will be greater than flat betting a single unit.

 

[elkobar]

Hi UK-21,
Thanks for reply, what you are saying means that no one will ever be a winner in the long run; even card counting only tells you when you should increase or decrease your bets, so that is really only progressive betting as well, but using a different mode of calculating.
It is not very encouraging to keep being told that we are playing a losing game, I wonder if the people who formulated the strategy thought this way?
I have read several books on the subject of progressive betting, which in simple terms is increasing your bet when winning, and decreasing your bet when losing, and the authors of these books seem to be more positive about the outcome, if fact they advise that this does give the player a slight advantage;
Books written by;
Charles Einstein,
Donald Dahl,
John Patrick,
Mike Goodman,
Walter Thomason.
These books have been written by professional players who used progessive betting, and all suggest that this style of play gives the player an advantage over the house. So who do I believe?
thank you,
Elkobar..

 

[aslan]

Hi UK-21,
Thanks for reply, what you are saying means that no one will ever be a winner in the long run; even card counting only tells you when you should increase or decrease your bets, so that is really only progressive betting as well, but using a different mode of calculating.
It is not very encouraging to keep being told that we are playing a losing game, I wonder if the people who formulated the strategy thought this way?
I have read several books on the subject of progressive betting, which in simple terms is increasing your bet when winning, and decreasing your bet when losing, and the authors of these books seem to be more positive about the outcome, if fact they advise that this does give the player a slight advantage;
Books written by;
Charles Einstein,
Donald Dahl,
John Patrick,
Mike Goodman,
Walter Thomason.
These books have been written by professional players who used progessive betting, and all suggest that this style of play gives the player an advantage over the house. So who do I believe?
thank you,
Elkobar..

I absolutely guarantee you that if you increase your bet when winning and decrease you bet when losing, you will make a veritable fortune. Unfortunately, I am unable to come up with a system that tells me when I am going to win so I can increase my bet, and when I am about to lose, so I can decrease my bet. When I get this part worked out, I will apply my system, make a trillion dollars, and retire to yachting around the world and donating vast sums of money to my favorite charities.

 

[UK-21]

Hi UK-21,
Thanks for reply, what you are saying means that no one will ever be a winner in the long run . . .

I didn't say that at all. Betting more when the edge is in the player's favour, and less when it isn't (and favours the house) will over time provide the player with an overall advantage/win rate - call it what you like. Counting cards, or using techniques to identify when advantageous cards are in play or likely to appear all go towards identifying the 20%ish of the time when the edge has moved in favour of the player

I have read several books on the subject of progressive betting, which in simple terms is increasing your bet when winning, and decreasing your bet when losing, and the authors of these books seem to be more positive about the outcome, if fact they advise that this does give the player a slight advantage;
Books written by;
Charles Einstein,
Donald Dahl,
John Patrick,
Mike Goodman,
Walter Thomason.
These books have been written by professional players who used progessive betting, and all suggest that this style of play gives the player an advantage over the house. So who do I believe?

Believe who or what you like. Increasing bets when winning and decreasing them when losing will not effect the house edge one iota. Take roulette as an example - how does increasing your bet every time you win affect the house edge? If you were betting on red the possibility of winning will remain 18/37 and the house edge will remain at 2.7% (assuming a single zero wheel).

Unless these authors are advocating the use of some complimentary AP techniques to use alongside the progressions they advocate (whatever they are - I haven't read any of them by the way) then they need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

It is possible to win playing any -EV game in the house but that doesn't mean to say you've won as a result of having a mathematical advantage. Winning solely through the application of progression systems are the same. Inversely, it's possible to play BJ only when the edge is in favour of the player and still lose.

Take a look in the Voodoo section of the forum where there are bundles of threads discussing the validity of progression systems.

Stay lucky !

 

[Sucker]

It is not very encouraging to keep being told that we are playing a losing game, I wonder if the people who formulated the strategy thought this way?

You are correct - it's NOT very encouraging - but it's what's known as "tough love", and it tends to make me wonder what's wrong with people's heads that anyone would EVER play blackjack. And yes; the person who formulated basic strategy DID think this way; IT'S A LOSING GAME.

I have read several books on the subject of progressive betting, which in simple terms is increasing your bet when winning, and decreasing your bet when losing, and the authors of these books seem to be more positive about the outcome, if fact they advise that this does give the player a slight advantage;
Books written by;
Charles Einstein,
Donald Dahl,
John Patrick,
Mike Goodman,
Walter Thomason.
These books have been written by professional players who used progessive betting, and all suggest that this style of play gives the player an advantage over the house. So who do I believe?
thank you,
Elkobar..

Julian Braun
Peter Griffin
Stanford Wong
David Sklansky
Lawrence Revere
Ken Uston
James Grosjean
Qfit
Sucker
Automatic Monkey
Sonny
iCountNTrack
Oh - what the heck; because it would take all day to list EVERYONE; I'll just have to say: 90% or more of the regular posters to this site.

THESE are some of the people that you should believe. Almost everyone on THIS list IS (or was while they were alive) a professional player. The ones that are NOT are WORLD-CLASS mathemeticians and/or geniuses in their own right.

Most of the names on YOUR list are NOT; I repeat NOT professional players. They are nothing more than professional WRITERS and snake-oil salesmen. I would call Sir Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) a "detective" before I would call some of these scamsters "professional players".

 

[elkobar]

Hi
To all who have responded to my latest thread, 'wow' what a great bunch of people you are, so exciting getting this response, keeps you on your toes, guess I will just keep playing and enjoy what ever happens,
Actually now that you mentioned roulette, there was a chap in England called Norman Leigh,who put together a team of people in the 1950's, and used a progressive system called Reverse Labouchere, increasing the bet when winning, and decreasing when losing and playing only the even chances.
They made so much money from the Casino in Nice that they were escorted out of the country by the Police des Jeux.
It can be done, keep the lights burning;
Thanks,
Elkobar.

 

[Sucker]

The betting system that Norman Leigh describes in his book "Thirteen Against the Bank" has been fully debunked countless times. There are only three possibilities:
1) The whole book is fiction. The event never took place.
2) His team didn't play long enough to get into the long run, and just got lucky.
3) He's lying about the system they used. Perhaps they were exploiting biased wheels. Perhaps they were "clocking" the wheels. Maybe they were using one of the other proven roulette AP methods. They may have even been cheating.

Two things for sure:
1)Anyone who goes into a casino and attempts to beat roulette by using the methods described in that book is a fool.
2) A casino manager who bans someone for using this method is an even BIGGER fool.

 

[UK-21]

As a keen roulette player my wife read this book. From what she's told me I think the team's results were a combination of the second with a degree of the third (perhaps unwittingly) - to the best of my knowledge there's nothing in it regarding stats on spins, results etc so make any sort of judgement as to bias that some wheels may have demonstrated.

And you have to remember that in the 50s/60s, corruption in public office in most European countries was far more prevailent than perhaps today, and the local police chief probably received a bung to run them out of town as "undesirables", rather than because they had found a method to break the bank.

If the same thing happened today in LV, I've no doubt that casino managers would be queuing up to comp them rooms and meals galore and encourage them to spend as much time as possible at the tables. Sure "it can be done" (coming out ahead as a result of applying a progression system), although the longer it's applied the greater the chances that it will eventually fail - and everything won to that point will go back to the cashiers till, and more.

If you're so far up on the game, use the winnings to support playing with an advantage, and not on following one of these progression systems. No guarantees of course (if you want one of those buy a toaster), but on balance of probability you're more likely to hold on to them.

Good cards!

 

[elkobar]

Hi
Sucker, and UK-21, thanks for reply, oh well shot down again,worth a try, I cannot play roulette here as the table minumum is $25 for even bets and $5 for others, so you could not do this system on most tables any where, even if it worked, you would need a very large bank.
Back to the drawing board.
Elkobar..

 

[UK-21]

Read this and smile:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218061/In-money-Gambler-banned-UK-casinos-winning-28-000-using-secret-system.html

Do you think he had his membership cancelled as a result of finding a system that guaranteed winning and "broke the bank" as he put it (although I'm not sure how winning £28K would bankrupt the Grosvenor group)? Or was it something to do with the coincidence that he now endeavours to flog his system on EBay and Amazon at £100 a time? Hmmm . . .

If you're interested you can find more details by googling "sequential roulette". It's as much rubbish as every other betting "system" that's ever been devised.

Out of interest where are you based? Even in London some casinos will take bets across the roulette table at a quid a time (in the West End) - and in some places at 50p a time.

 

[elkobar]

Hi
UK-21,
Thanks for reply, I am based in Townsville, North Queensland.
The Casino here has just been refurbished and a new manager has taken over, and raised all the table limits, I suppose to recover the cost, but it has had a bad effect on clients, as they have dropped off quite a lot.
My opinion is that the table limits should be very low, then every one can play, and if you want to play big then you can.
Elkobar..

 

[UK-21]

Townsville? Isn't there a military base close by? I'm pretty sure one of my relatives has been posted there in the past.

Don't worry, the table mins won't stay that high for long. Au$25.00 on an even bet is just being silly and simply excludes people who would like to play but can't afford that level. I think you'd be hard pressed to justify those levels in Sydney city centre, let alone in a place that isn't a state capital. Unless of course the place in the middle of a tourist/visitor belt that attracts the wealthy - how far away are the islands where the rich go to play with nice yachts? I visited Great Keppel in my younger days - am I thinking about the right area?

From what I've read, gaming conditions in the relatively few casinos in Australia are pretty tight unless you can afford to play high limits, and I've told one of my younger relatives who I gave some books to not to bother and to save his money and throw it across the felt when he visits the UK or the US.

I'd advise the same if you're a serious player and aim to play with the intention of making money. If you haven't got a hefty bankroll that can fund the high limits comfortably then save your pennies and plan a trip to the US or UK. If you're counting cards then I think you'll find less heat in UK casinos, and of course there is the joy of all of the cultural stuff within London (where the better casinos are) assuming you're into that. If you want the glitz, LV is the place (my says) although I've never been.

If it's all for fun, then stick with basic strategy on the low end tables (all CSM now I'm told) and consol yourself with the thought you're probably exposing yourself to a lower house edge than most of the other players sitting at the table. But forget about the silly progressions - you'll just be exposing more money to the HE, and so over time will lose more.

 

[21gunsalute]

The progression only works with a very large bank roll and you should note that at the beginning! Aslan How ever much you will refute anything i say you cannot refute fact!

Uh, what fact would that be?

 

[21gunsalute]

Try doing that system with a bank of five hundred! i have numerous times just for fun here at home and and it only works for very short time play if that and that was with me using the modified martingale! With my earlier system and tutor dealing, shuffling exactly like they do at the casinos, at the begininng of my blackjack venture, i sat at my place with ten what i called five dollar chip's and played for 5 hours on what would be fifty at the casino! I may have ended up losing it but it still proves my earlier system is still far better than the martingale progression! I would honesly like to see you do that! My long term play may not be great but i honestly believe that my short term play and system is unbeatable!

No thank you. I'll stick to a proven system that's working very well for me right now, not some fantasy system based on illogical nonsense.

 

[21gunsalute]

I may have ended up losing it but it still proves my earlier system is still far better than the martingale progression!

And the Hindenberg was designed better than the Titanic!

 

[elkobar]

Hi
UK-21 and the rest of the gang, who responded to my thread, yes Casinos in Australia are very much into high table limits,we do not have the competition as in America or UK, normally only in the main cities. some have installed computer type roulette, which is cheaper, but it is a programmed format that is governed by random mathematics.
I heard a rumor that the casino here will be lowering its even chances minumum to $5, it will help a bit but not much, people do not play as much anymore.
And yes to UK-21, there is an army, and airforce base here, we are called a garrison city, the army personal get trained here for overseas deployment, especially the SAS, who use the islands for jungle training, and the islands you mentioned are about 500 kls. south of here.
Thought I would throw in a curve ball as it were, any comments on the strategy that was formulated by John Scarne, in the early 1950's ?
Thanks for your feedback,
Elkobar..

 

[aslan]

The progression only works with a very large bank roll and you should note that at the beginning! Aslan How ever much you will refute anything i say you cannot refute fact!

My friend, do not insult my intelligence. It is quite easy to refute such "facts." I simply relegate it, if it actually happened, to the realm of chance, not science, until and unless you can demonstrate it mathematically or by use of valid, verifiable simulations. All the scams in the world are sold foremost by the use of testimonials. Why? Because there is no body of scientific evidence to support their claims. Now, I am not charging you with a scam; I am simply challenging you to prove your methods and claims.

 

[21gunsalute]

All i am saying is that i HAVE PLAYED 360 session's on basic strategy and or the plus minus count factoring into my game play the chance's of a 7, 8, or 9 coming up as the next card and not lost one single session! which i use only when the math is right and the chances are 60%or over. Netting me $33,000 in profit! Basic has been proven and the plus minus count has been proven by mathmatians and Professional blackjack players! And the 7, 8, and 9 thing i have proven myself to myself not needing validation from anybody i am confident in it and am not going to spend my time learning AP techniques that are going to get me barred blackbooked or griffened by being to greedy!

And about your comment about challenging me to prove my methods and claims! I all ready have to the people that matter the casinos and myself! I challenge you to check my methods and claims! although you being so advanced should already know they work and I can do what i say i can do.. Although you are so set against me that, idk if you would be honest about the results! And most of the time i just flat bet my way to fifty dollars or like the last ten sessions a hundred! But like i said earlier if you dont think i can get to fifty or a hundred dollars with a bank of 1500 every single time, which is two and a half times the bank Revere suggest's, and have the common sense to get up and leave than your brain is telling you a lie not me lol:laugh:!

Big deal. I climbed Mt. Everest 100 times in 1 day. My tutor will verify this fact.

 

[21gunsalute]

I NEVER play past my limit! Aslan Straight up no bull! If you know ur basic like i think you do and you know ur counting like i also think you do, can you honestly say u have not had at one time over fifty or a hundred dollars every single session, reguardless of having a losing session or not! The math is there! I just get up and go to another casino or home once I reach that mark! My three years of study was almost strickly basic and plus minus counts! I recorded my results and commited my bad plays to memory as i didnt need to commit my good play's since they would come naturally! I studied three year's before i ever stepped foot in a casino! And had basic memorized before I even really picked up a deck and tried it out! I did not want to go into a casino if there was even a small percent chance of me losing everytime! And incase you are wondering yes i did up my bank to $3000 when i uped my limit per casino to $100! I have over a thousand hours of practice probably two or three maybe four dont know never kept track of the hours! Do you honestly think i dont know a thing or two about the two subjects I use (basic and plus minus) after three years of hard study. I have never looked at the GAME of blackjack as a game but more a subject in school! And with these novice techniques it sounds like by the way you are challenging me that i have done better than even you! And i got my SKILLS from what was it an outdated 40 year old book with no modern techniques! lol:cool2:

Well that explains it then. You obviously did very well in school.