Rename this forum Voodoo Betting Strategies?

[zengrifter]

I vote that we rename this forum Voodoo Betting Strategies. zg

 

[adt_33]

True, I'm still a novice, but I don't understand betting systems anyway. Ever since the blackjack bug bit me a few months ago, I've spent countless hours during my workday trying to discover that "One Great System" that no one else has figured out yet.

But every time I think I've found it, there's always that one catch:You don't know if you will win or lose the next hand. The gambler's fallacy goes hand in hand with betting strategies (from what I currently understand).

Therefore, I am curious as to why there even IS a betting strategy forum. Senior/Executive members are quick to debunk new strategies, and I am usually convinced (as is the case with my previous Martingale fascination).

So, no, "Voodoo Strategies" shouldn't be the new name because it should be implied from the start.

P.S. I think flat bets are best primarily because they allow for easy bankroll-tracking-status (for lack of a much better term).

 

[sagefr0g]

i vote no. betting strategies have their place in legitimate advantage play.
examples: kelly betting & optimal betting. what could be more important. the philosopy of never over betting and why it is important. bankroll considerations are related to betting strategies and vice-a-versa. choosiing tables to play with respect to the table min and max, ante's ect. is a betting strategy concern.
it is to our advantage to understand how it is that progression betting is not a legitimate part of advantage play. actually it can be in certain circumstance such as tournament play.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[zengrifter]

i vote no. betting strategies have their place in legitimate advantage play.
examples: kelly betting & optimal betting. what could be more important. the philosopy of never over betting and why it is important. bankroll considerations are related to betting strategies and vice-a-versa. choosiing tables to play with respect to the table min and max, ante's ect. is a betting strategy concern.
it is to our advantage to understand how it is that progression betting is not a legitimate part of advantage play. actually it can be in certain circumstance such as tournament play.

Current description of forum: Discuss betting strategies other than card counting.

 

[sagefr0g]

Current description of forum: Discuss betting strategies other than card counting.

right i missed that.
basic strategy only players can employ betting strategies that are not strictly card counting related betting schemes. example: just watching table composition for 'babies' versus aces and faces could help a basic strategy player decide whether to join in the action on a table or pass it by. a decision to play is a decision to bet to pass by is a decision to not bet.
basic strategy players and novice players need to understand the implication of progression betting as opposed to flat betting. they need to understand the implication of overbetting with respect to their recreational bankroll.
situational betting has potential to help the recreational player basic strategist and novice to realize better playing conditions and times when they might want to decide to take a gamble and bet a little higher.
recreational gambling is not purely a voodoo venture. there are real possibilities to realize a short term gain. an understanding of standard deviation, house edge, player disadvantage ect. can help a recreational gambler make intelligent decisions. an understanding of card counting and how betting is employed for advantage play can also be of benifit to the recreational basic strategist and novice player.
i still vote no.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[EasyRhino]

But why have a forum for a topic which is worthless?

Perhaps expanding it to a betting/bankroll/money management forum would be more useful. Maybe including counting topics, maybe not.

 

[sagefr0g]

But why have a forum for a topic which is worthless?

Perhaps expanding it to a betting/bankroll/money management forum would be more useful. Maybe including counting topics, maybe not.

makes sense to me. betting strategy i think deserves a section of it's own.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Canceler]

I'm hoping this is not a serious proposal! I voted no, because I don't think anyone would post in a forum called Voodoo Betting Strategies.

Some have asked why this forum even exists. Only Ken knows what he had in mind for this.

It could be that he wanted to provide a place for any aspect of blackjack to be discussed. And there are some progression fans out there. Not to mention the person of the week that invents the Martingale again. In this case we should just leave those who want to discuss these things alone.

However, if a primary purpose of this site is education, and I think it should be, then we need this forum to set people straight. If they want to have fun playing a progression, fine, but if they think a progression will give them an advantage, then they need some information.

 

[Mikeaber]

I tend to go along with Cancler on this. I think just about everyone who tackles blackjack will, early in their experience, gravitate toward some sort of betting system...even if it's "flat betting". If we could get folks to read through this forum before getting in too deep with their expert systems, they might save considerable money.

And, like it, approve of it, or whatever, there are always going to be people who play very infrequently and who do not wish to progress (forgive the pun) further.

By the way, I think that if we were going to rename it, "Voodoo" would be an appropriate description for most everything I've seen in this area

 

[sagefr0g]

is it voodoo?

right. i'm not proposing an orthodox progression. it is not the frequency of wins, loss's that i'm banking on. it is the relative number of winning sessions to losing sessions over the long run. i would be banking on the (hopefuly) fact that the #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.
basicly the same thing the casino banks on with respect to blackjack hands but i would be doing it on sessions.
if i'm playing a winning long run game and i succeed in constricting what i win to a lot of small sessions relative to fewer losing sessions the result should be
#winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run. and yes a typical losing session would constitute a considerably larger capital loss than a typical winning session capital gain. the point would be to raise the overall amount bet above and beyond what your normal ROR calls for across the board so to speak to take advantage of the fact that #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.

.......

i'm truley not insisting that i'm correct in what i suspect may be a small advantage here. i think it is worth investigating and i'm going to try and simulate it with my clunky lil simulator if i can.
admittedly a large string of losing sessions could prove a disaster but that is the truth of the matter regardless if your ROR is a few percentage points higher or lower.

dear friends, now that i'm responding to my own quotes you know just how crazy i may infact be. none the less i hope you'll read on for entertainment value if nothing else. hopefuly else.
believing as i do that wisdom is the better part of valor i decided to post this nonsense in the either voodoo section or psuedo voodoo section what ever the case may be. that way the ZenGrifter will at least tolerate my musing even if he may shred them from syllable to syllable.

again i defer to an argument for consideration of voodoo approachs by John May author of Get The Edge At Blackjack one of my favorite authors and blackjack personalities:
http://may.casinocitytimes.com/article/finding-an-edge-in-every-game-5999

earlier i posted some Parrando voodoo considerations complete with errors as explained by Sonny....:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=14403&postcount=15

the idea that a small (or huge if hoped for truth prevails) advantage may be lurking hidden in the shrouds of voodoo ideas and accepted statistical practices with regards to positive, negative fluctuation, expected value and bankroll risk of ruin considerations came about as i became aware through discussions in posts on this site with Sonny how my practice of constraining winning sessions should result in #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.
here is how i constrain my winning sessions:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=13648&postcount=16

well anyway i did fire up my clunky but much beloved blackjack simulator in an attempt to determine if my exit strategy did infact bring about the phenomenon of #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.
best as i can tell from the results of my simulation my exit strategy does infact yield #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run.
my simulator limited as it is would only allow me to approach my exit strategy not completely model it.

note: because of the limitations of my simulator i had to define a session as play after and before wonging in or out. also i was forced to wong out of some positive shoes something that i'd never do in live play but it was necessary because of the limitations of the simulator.
the simulation to be brief was a multi-million round simulation.
the game was a 6D s17 DAS lsr nrsa 75% pen
the results for sessions are as follows:

normal approach (non-limited playing) yield:
44.87% winning sessions
44.90% losing sessions

constrained approach (exit play if win >8Units/session)
47.64% winning sessions
42.85% losing sessions

as a side note the ev for each approach was virtually identical. 1.26% for the normal approach and 1.25% for the constrained approach.

i need to qualify the above statistics by stating that my simulator program is very unwieldy and difficult to control for the situation that i was trying to model. in short i was unable to model the situation perfectly and equally in all respects. but i do have a level of confidence in the results that i can now at least state that my exit strategy does indeed yield #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run. the validity of the percentages i'm not so sure about at this point.

conclusion: constraining sessions by a set win ceiling exit strategy has the affect of yielding #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run for an advantage player with a positive ev .

so what is the point? the point is that most of us when we use the normal non-limited play approach have a set ROR that is acceptable to us often mainly as a result of our bankroll limitations. this constrains the overall amount of our betting according to optimal betting practices. we would like to bet more and possibly win more but we don't want to take the risk above some arbitrary mark that is acceptable to us. but now we know that if we constrain our play by a carefully crafted exit strategy that we can continue to enjoy our normal ev and we also know that #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run. the implication is that there is some amount above our normally computed ROR that we can bet above and beyond our normal betting level safley and realize the advantage that equally spreading said amount over the greater number of winning sessions to lower number of losing sessions in the long run. how to do this exactly, well at this point i don't know. still working on this.....

ok guys tear me up..... i can take it after all i do play blackjack ya know.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[QFIT]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. But, setting an arbitrary exit point based on a winning or losing amount or hands will reduce the overall EV of a counter. For a non-counter, there is a well-known miniscule effect on EV after consecutive winning or losing hands - but this is simply a weak counting effect.

 

[sagefr0g]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. But, setting an arbitrary exit point based on a winning or losing amount or hands will reduce the overall EV of a counter. For a non-counter, there is a well-known miniscule effect on EV after consecutive winning or losing hands - but this is simply a weak counting effect.

i realize that my post was long and convoluted. i've abstracted the pertainent points below with a few more comments. also i relalize an arbitrary exit point may reduce overall ev for a counter. notice below there wasn't a significant overall reduction in ev.

i'm not setting an arbitrary exit point but a very specific one. in the
case of my simulation the exit point was exit play if won
>8Units/session. a session in my simulation was constituted by two exit
parameters. it was begun if and when the tc>=0 and ended if and when
tc<=0 or if >8units was won in a session.

in the other post i neglected to give the spread. the spread employed
for the simulations was 1:8 units.

again the simulation is summarized below:

note: because of the limitations of my simulator i had to define a
session as play after and before wonging in or out. also i was forced
to wong out of some positive shoes something that i'd never do in live
play but it was necessary because of the limitations of the simulator.
the simulation to be brief was a multi-million round simulation.
the game was a 6D s17 DAS lsr nrsa 75% pen

the results for sessions are as follows:

normal approach (non-limited playing) yield:
44.87% winning sessions
44.90% losing sessions

constrained approach (exit play if win >8Units/session)
47.64% winning sessions
42.85% losing sessions

as a side note the ev for each approach was virtually identical. 1.26%
for the normal approach and 1.25% for the constrained approach.
conclusion: constraining sessions by a set win ceiling exit strategy
has the affect of yielding #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the
long run for an advantage player with a positive ev .

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[Canceler]

ok guys tear me up.....

For one thing, you're off topic.

now that i'm responding to my own quotes you know just how crazy i may infact be.

No comment!

my exit strategy does infact yield #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run.

This might be good for psychological reasons, but little else. In fact, to me it seems like you concede that point here...

as a side note the ev for each approach was virtually identical.

I don't think that's a side note, I think that's the main point! What you're suggesting has no effect on your overall long-term outcome.

 

[QFIT]

If you have a hard stop point, based on win or loss, based on consecutive hands or amount lost, based on pretty much anything - you are reducing your SCORE. See http://www.qfit.com/blackjackstoplosses.htm for an example.

 

[sagefr0g]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sagefr0g
ok guys tear me up.....

For one thing, you're off topic.

lol this is just like blackjack dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.:laugh:

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by sagefr0g
my exit strategy does infact yield #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run

This might be good for psychological reasons, but little else. In fact, to me it seems like you concede that point here...

i believe the yield of #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS in the long run could be of benifit. imagine a given number of horse races in the future. now imagine that you know the outcome of of that given number of races will have your horse win in more of the races than it will lose but you don't know which of the races your horse will win in and which it will lose. no problem since you know the horse will win in more of the races than it will lose. so you can bet the same amount on every race and be sure that you will come out ahead! the same is true if you know that your #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by sagefr0g
as a side note the ev for each approach was virtually identical.

I don't think that's a side note, I think that's the main point! What you're suggesting has no effect on your overall long-term outcome.

no really Cance it's meant as a side note. it's meant to make the point that using a exit strategy in the manner i propose has no significant effect good or bad on ones ev.
it's what i hope to be able to do in addition to the exit strategy that is the real main point. the possibility of taking advantage of the fact of #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS is the main point.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[sagefr0g]

If you have a hard stop point, based on win or loss, based on consecutive hands or amount lost, based on pretty much anything - you are reducing your SCORE. See http://www.qfit.com/blackjackstoplosses.htm for an example.

that is a kewl chart QFIT ! one of these days i'm gonna be the proud owner of your fantastic programs.

quoting from your chart :
"The SCORE decreases are a result of leaving the shoe when the count is high. Unfortunately, the card count is very likely to be high when you reach either a target or stop loss. Obviously, if you play out the shoe or wait for the count to drop back before ending the session, you won't see any decrease."

my exit strategy that i had to use in my simulation does indeed reduce my score as your chart indicates.
however my exit strategy as i would put it into practice would not have me leaving positive shoes. as i would put it into practice it should have no negative effect on my ev other than my playing time would be limited. but actually the playing time would not necessarily need to be significantly limited. but the issue is more one of imposing control so that the #winning SESSIONS turns out greater that the #losing SESSIONS in the long run.
then the idea is to take advantage of the fact that you know the #winning SESSIONS > #losing SESSIONS.

best regards,
mr fr0g

 

[zengrifter]

I vote that we rename this forum Voodoo Betting Strategies. zg

I still think this is a good idea, if for no other reason to prevent counting questions from being placed here. zg

 

[KenSmith]

The poll says "Yes" is currently winning. Since this thread was recently resurrected (and I missed it the first time, sorry), let's have the votes accumulate for a couple of days, and I'll act on the decision.

 

[ScottH]

I say keep it as it is, but bold the OTHER THAN CARD COUNTING to emphasize that part that everyone seems to miss.

 

[zengrifter]

I say keep it as it is, but bold the OTHER THAN CARD COUNTING to emphasize that part that everyone seems to miss.

Maybe emphasize progression and other NON-COUNTING bettins systems... AND have a couple of card-counting forums - one for count-betting strategies. zg