The fools club

[shadroch]

Who says it was successful? Oh, I don't know. How about Arnold Snyder and the others who looked into it. I suppose Oscar could just have been experiancing a twenty year run of fantastic luck, but if thats the case,perhaps it will rub off on me.
Once again, I never said that stopping at a certain loss does a thing to change the cards. What it does is preserve my bankroll. I can't lose what I'm not betting. If I suffer a series of losses that wipes out twenty units,I stop. Perhaps I'll play in five minutes,perhaps I'll play in two days. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that when I resume play, instead of having the larger bets out I had in the losing series,I'm starting over with a smaller bet. So that even if the losing streak contines,I am now losing much less money. How can this not make a difference?

 

[QFIT]

Who says it was successful? Oh, I don't know. How about Arnold Snyder and the others who looked into it. I suppose Oscar could just have been experiancing a twenty year run of fantastic luck, but if thats the case,perhaps it will rub off on me.
Once again, I never said that stopping at a certain loss does a thing to change the cards. What it does is preserve my bankroll. I can't lose what I'm not betting. If I suffer a series of losses that wipes out twenty units,I stop. Perhaps I'll play in five minutes,perhaps I'll play in two days. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that when I resume play, instead of having the larger bets out I had in the losing series,I'm starting over with a smaller bet.

Neither Arnold Snyder nor any other BJ expert ever said OG alters the edge. He simply said that you are more likely to win, but a tiny amount, and will lose huge amounts on some occasions. And that losing occasion could be your first weekend. If you want to limit losses, bet less.

So that even if the losing streak contines,I am now losing much less money. How can this not make a difference?

Yes if you lower your bets, you will lose less. So don't raise them in the first place. But why would you think this changes the house edge in any way? All that OG does is make it more likely that you will win a small amount at the cost of losing a very, very large amount on some occasions. Adding what you call a "stop loss" will decrease the size of big losses, but increase the number of losses. It all balances out. All betting methods that ignore the cards played simply alter the frequency and size of losses. BUT, you will still lose, on average, the same percentage of the amount bet.

 

[shadroch]

.



Yes if you lower your bets, you will lose less. So don't raise them in the first place. But why would you think this changes the house edge in any way? All that OG does is make it more likely that you will win a small amount at the cost of losing a very, very large amount on some occasions.


How can I possibly lose a very, very large amount with a twenty unit stop loss? On average, nine times I'll win my 5 units, one time I'll lose my 20 units.
My losses could double and I'd still be making a small profit. Now factor in the freebies, cash back and free slot play and it's a damn fine game.
Figuring an average of 50 hands an hour, four hours a day over some 75 days, what would be the chance that I'd be ahead cashwise in a 6D,H17, DOA, DAS late surrender game if I was flat betting? Thats a fairly simple question, isn't it?
I'm not interested in losing less, I'm interested in winning. Using OG at this particular place has been very very good to me, when you factor in everything I've recieved for playing there.

 

[QFIT]

How can I possibly lose a very, very large amount with a twenty unit stop loss?

If you have what you call a "stop loss," you are no longer using Oscar's Grind. You are now using a progression which has lower major losses, but more losing sessions. Again, it all balances out. In any session, on average you will lose the amount bet times the house edge. And progressions do not alter the house edge.

 

[johndoe]

How can I possibly lose a very, very large amount with a twenty unit stop loss?

It's quite simple, you'll be losing twenty units that much more often. Your average loss rate over time will be equal to the house edge times your average bet, sure as 1+1=2.

 

[shadroch]

It's quite simple, you'll be losing twenty units that much more often. Your average loss rate over time will be equal to the house edge times your average bet, sure as 1+1=2.

Then it should be fairly easy to show this in a sim,no?
I play BJ in two casinos,for the most part. In one, it's a DD game where I use a modified KISS and get results somewhat in line with what Mr Renzey says is the systems edge. In this other casino,I use OG and have results far superior to what the expected results should be. Am I somehow unlucky in the one casino,but very lucky in the other? Does it make sense to just say anytime the results aren't what you'd expect thats it's simply variance? It's got to be at least 10,000 hands, perhaps 15,000. It's not yet in Jacobsons Blackjack Zone,but it's a pretty fair sampling, wouldn't you say?
I went into this,thinking I'd lose a small bit but the comps would more than make up for it. Instead,I'm generating a profit as well as getting the comps and stuff.
As I've said, if there was a BJ table that I could play with my BR and be able to spread and count,I would. But there isn't ,so I make due with what I've been given.

 

[QFIT]

Then it should be fairly easy to show this in a sim,no?

Yes it is trivial to show it in a sim. And an enormous number of sims have been run on progressions, and they all say the same thing. Progressions do not affect EV.

I play BJ in two casinos,for the most part. In one, it's a DD game where I use a modified KISS and get results somewhat in line with what Mr Renzey says is the systems edge. In this other casino,I use OG and have results far superior to what the expected results should be. Am I somehow unlucky in the one casino,but very lucky in the other? Does it make sense to just say anytime the results aren't what you'd expect thats it's simply variance? It's got to be at least 10,000 hands, perhaps 15,000. It's not yet in Jacobsons Blackjack Zone,but it's a pretty fair sampling, wouldn't you say?
I went into this,thinking I'd lose a small bit but the comps would more than make up for it. Instead,I'm generating a profit as well as getting the comps and stuff.
As I've said, if there was a BJ table that I could play with my BR and be able to spread and count,I would. But there isn't ,so I make due with what I've been given.

Yes, you have been lucky. That many hands doesn't get you close, particularly with progressions which typically have a very high standard deviation.

 

[Mister_No_Count]

Why do people keep pushing such nonsense. Sims can sim anything. The landing on Mars was simulated. Nuclear explosions are simulated. Why would you think a simple stop loss or stop win can't be simulated. CVData can certainly sims this. And the EV will be the same as flat betting.

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

A computer can only simulate a scenario based upon it's input parameters. Some variables are dynamic when dependent upon the realtime environment the player is operating in and thus impossible to program. I must conclude from your non-surprising and predictable response that there is a realm of thinking on this subject that you have not imagined or considered. Perhaps stop win and stop loss has been considered in a simulation, but these parameters most likely comprised a fixed range. This is a very important variable and obviously the wrong value and/or other flawed combination of parameters were utilized in the simulation and therefore, flawed conclusions were drawn.

One needs have an open mind otherwise nothing new will ever be explored or discovered. Yes, I am new to the forum but I am not new to the game. So I'm not sure who "you people" are unless they are the ones that you disagree with. Whenever you hear the word progression (a word I have not used until now), you make a certain assumption. But why is it okay for a card counter to use a progression, such as a 1-4 spread and nothing wrong with that. Open your mind and be receptive to others.

To those of you that have an idea and you are not getting the answers you are looking for from this forum, I urge you to thoroughly test it out yourself (practice mode). You should get some sense in a few days of testing if it is worthwhile for serious consideration. Then, put it through a 30-day test and if it holds up, then you've got something that is ready for live play. It is a time consuming process and gruelling work to develop a successful system, but is better than losing your money testing your thesis with real money. :band:

 

[QFIT]

Well, I wrote my first simulator 43 years ago. There is little I haven't "imagined or considered." Tell me, what is it that you think "impossible," what is this "fixed range" you are talking about and what have I not imagined?

And I'm sorry, but stop losses and wins are not important at all.

Your advice to "test" progressions through practice is very poor advice indeed. Gamblers have been doing just that for centuries and losing.

 

[RJT]

To those of you that have an idea and you are not getting the answers you are looking for from this forum, I urge you to thoroughly test it out yourself (practice mode). You should get some sense in a few days of testing if it is worthwhile for serious consideration. Then, put it through a 30-day test and if it holds up, then you've got something that is ready for live play. It is a time consuming process and gruelling work to develop a successful system, but is better than losing your money testing your thesis with real money. :band:

You do realise that it would be physically impossible to play enough hands in 30 days to create a statistically valid sample size?

RJT.

 

[Mister_No_Count]

Well, I wrote my first simulator 43 years ago. There is little I haven't "imagined or considered." Tell me, what is it that you think "impossible," what is this "fixed range" you are talking about and what have I not imagined?

And I'm sorry, but stop losses and wins are not important at all.

Your advice to "test" progressions through practice is very poor advice indeed. Gamblers have been doing just that for centuries and losing.[/QUO

Your assertion that gamblers have been trying systems for centuries is true. Your implication that these systems have been thoroughly tested before gamblers employed them in the live play arena is false. Because if they had tested them in that manner, they would not have used those that didn't show promise (well, they might have anyways). I am referring to the myriad of failed systems that have been published because only unsuccessful ones are. Have you considered there are successful methods that have not been published? How is testing a methodology and obtaining a successful outcome over a 30 day period poor advice? This is not an easy objective to achieve. In your testing over the last 43 years, have you simulated 150,000 hands over a 30 day period where the result showed a relevant gain such as 2000+ units using a non-counting method? That equates to a year of live play. If not, then you left out some crucial factors from your testing. If you did achieve such results, then I'd like to hear about it. By the way, your years of experience is not relevant to this conversation since you have been unable to identify a successful non-counting method during that time.:grin:

 

[QFIT]

Well, I wrote my first simulator 43 years ago. There is little I haven't "imagined or considered." Tell me, what is it that you think "impossible," what is this "fixed range" you are talking about and what have I not imagined?

And I'm sorry, but stop losses and wins are not important at all.

Your advice to "test" progressions through practice is very poor advice indeed. Gamblers have been doing just that for centuries and losing.[/QUO

Your assertion that gamblers have been trying systems for centuries is true. Your implication that these systems have been thoroughly tested before gamblers employed them in the live play arena is false. Because if they had tested them in that manner, they would not have used those that didn't show promise (well, they might have anyways). I am referring to the myriad of failed systems that have been published because only unsuccessful ones are. Have you considered there are successful methods that have not been published? How is testing a methodology and obtaining a successful outcome over a 30 day period poor advice? This is not an easy objective to achieve. In your testing over the last 43 years, have you simulated 150,000 hands over a 30 day period where the result showed a relevant gain such as 2000+ units using a non-counting method? That equates to a year of live play. If not, then you left out some crucial factors from your testing. If you did achieve such results, then I'd like to hear about it.

Arrrgh. This has been answered thousands of time. 30 days is not enough. Read RJT's post.

By the way, your years of experience is not relevant to this conversation since you have been unable to identify a successful non-counting method during that time.:grin:

That's funny. Kind of like saying that a physicist's years of experience aren't relevant to a discussion on physics since he failed to discover perpetual motion.

 

[Sonny]

Your implication that these systems have been thoroughly tested before gamblers employed them in the live play arena is false.

That is not true. All progression systems are based on the same fundamental principle, which is flawed. This has been proven. It is therefore impossible to create a progression system that gives the player an advantage. If you can prove that the basis for something is wrong, it follows that everything built on that basis is also wrong. It is pointless to examine every individual progression system when they all fail for exactly the same reason. You can save yourself a lot of time by doing a little research on this.

Because if they had tested them in that manner, they would not have used those that didn't show promise (well, they might have anyways).

The sticky thread at the top of this forum is filled with conclusive proof that shows the ineffectiveness of specific progression systems, yet people still use them and post messages saying that they work. Progression players are not known for doing research before they make claims.

By the way, your years of experience is not relevant to this conversation since you have been unable to identify a successful non-counting method during that time.:grin:

Apparently you are not aware that Qfit has developed software that supports shuffle tracking, hole carding, side bets, and other games that do not involve counting. A little research would have quickly shown you that. :grin:

-Sonny-

 

[Mister_No_Count]

Arrrgh. This has been answered thousands of time. 30 days is not enough. Read RJT's post.



That's funny. Kind of like saying that a physicist's years of experience aren't relevant to a discussion on physics since he failed to discover perpetual motion.

My reply to your comparison above: a Physicist that doesn't consider the theory of perpetual motion is sure not to discover it. Or, a Physicist that does consider the theory of perpetual motion and was unable to prove it is also sure to not discover it. That doesn't mean he/she is incompetent, just that they were unable to prove it themselves. Just try to recognize that you could be wrong. Nobody has all the answers and there may be one or two players out there that know more about certain facets of the game than you do. :band2:

150,000 hands over 30 days is not an adequate test of a system? What possible scenario would have been missed from such a large run? 5000 hands a day equates to 8 hours of play a day for 30 days on a computer at the rate of 625 hands an hour. I believe that is a solid test and shows the viability of a system. :band:

 

[QFIT]

My reply to your comparison above: a Physicist that doesn't consider the theory of perpetual motion is sure not to discover it. Or, a Physicist that does consider the theory of perpetual motion and was unable to prove it is also sure to not discover it. That doesn't mean he/she is incompetent, just that they were unable to prove it themselves. Just try to recognize that you could be wrong. Nobody has all the answers and there may be one or two players out there that know more about certain facets of the game than you do. :band2:

150,000 hands over 30 days is not an adequate test of a system? What possible scenario would have been missed from such a large run? 5000 hands a day equates to 8 hours of play a day for 30 days on a computer at the rate of 625 hands an hour. I believe that is a solid test and shows the viability of a system. :band:

Congratulations. You are the one-millionth person to make these statements. All of which have been answered ad nauseum in this forum and elsewhere. I suggest you start at the beginning.

 

[RJT]

150,000 hands over 30 days is not an adequate test of a system? What possible scenario would have been missed from such a large run? 5000 hands a day equates to 8 hours of play a day for 30 days on a computer at the rate of 625 hands an hour. I believe that is a solid test and shows the viability of a system. :band:

This is actually becoming really boring.....
Honestly - if you don't know what qualifies a large enough sample size to be mathematically and statisically relevant you really don't have any place arguing about the relevance of a system.

RJT.

 

[nightspirit]

Please, think of the kittens and don't feed the trolls!!! :laugh: