The NO RETREAT BJ scheme is winning

[davidmcclung]

Refinement of the No Retreat

I have now moved up to playing quarters($25) as this No Retreat Scheme continues its winning ways. Have made one minor change, now waiting for any 2 wins, then doubling my bet. So start the double deck shoe with $25 bets, wait for 2 wins, does not have to be consecutive, then double your bet to $50 and keep at $50 for the remainder of the shoe, no regression and no furthur progression either. Then start anew at $25 bets with the same betting scheme on the new shoe. $1000 session bankroll is optimal, not too much but enough for the normal swings for playing quarters. For you non-counters, you may just like the results of this betting scheme if you choose to try it. It has been winning 9 out of every 10 sessions, for a substantial net win for every 10 sessions.

 

[sagefr0g]

Sure, go for it David.

I like betting systems, always interested in just how often they may "win", i.e produce a desired win goal by betting in such-and-such a way with so many units of roll.

I see absolutely no problem whatsoever with anyone who chooses to win x a higher percentage of the time by betting a certain way than, say, flat-betting. Why the heck not?

That's what betting systems do. They win a desired goal more often. If a guy is maybe only going to play 10,000 spins, roll the dice 10,000 times, play 10,000 hands of BJ it might even make alot of sense.

You got 1000 units and want to win 10 units 98.5+% of the time at craps, why not? It could be hundreds and hundreds of hours before you lose the original 1000 units. And that's alot crappier of a game than BJ but only even money pay-offs. Think how often a 5000 unit roll might win or the liklihood of another 1000 unit roll with twice the original unit of recovering the original 1000 unit should it be lost at some point in time.

These guys that want to spread 12-1 in some basically crappy game with $500 but would be real happy with winning $50 at a $5 table on an occasional nite, might be alot better off using a betting system in a -EV game and 100 unit roll at games like craps and roulette where they have a very high chance of achieving that goal.

It's always "eventually you'll lose" (and one will, make no mistake, lol) - but it's never "you got a 50-50 chance of being ahead 3000 hours from now" on the chance that that's maybe all one may be asking for in the first place.

Even the guy who lost his money to the Wiz betting on his betting system was, I think, still ahead 168,000 hands later. That could be a lifetime's play for alot of people who might just be real happy with breaking even after all those hands.

Maybe there's a Voodoo thread here because it maybe it actually may have a place in this world.

Woohoo for Voodoo lol.

so what betting system are you refering to? how complex would such a system be? more difficult than counting? one that could be used in conjunction with counting? like maybe fuzzy betting?
there was a book. i never read it. i think it was called 21 Century Blackjack or something. that i think had some progression systems or arguements for them maybe. i think the author used to post over on hitorstand.net . ever read that book?
i think sage-software (no relation lol) can simulate some progression systems.
but anyway i think some of the things we are seeing over on the weekend warrior postings shows just how much luck is in play along with EV. man if one could only harness luck
ok found this on Walter Thomason author of 21st Century Blackjack....
http://www.casinocitytimes.com/article.cfm?contentandcontributorid=1335
ect. ect. i guess.......
hmm so far i've been able to read a bit of his stuff. not much. but wondering if anyone else has. seems to me he doesn't put any weight onto the advantage that doubling down and betting higher when blackjacks are more likely has. right?
so but anyway here is something he wrote:
Follow my logic:

The chances of winning one hand and then losing or winning the next hand are about the same.
Consequently, the chances of winning two consecutive hands or losing two consecutive hands are about the same. Or winning three consecutive hands and then losing three consecutive hands are about the same and so on.
Consequently, the long-term probability is that any blackjack player, regardless of his betting method or the rationale behind it, is likely to win--or lose--about the same number of consecutive hands.
Consequently, if you are betting more money after a winning hand and less money after a losing hand, your average amount wagered during consecutive winning hands will be greater than your average amount wagered during consecutive losing hands and your profits from play will be greater than your losses. It's that simple!
What about flat bettors? The player who bets the same amount each time will always win less or lose more than the progressive bettor, given the same cards in the same order of play. The opportunity to have larger bets during consecutive winning hand runs doesn't exist for the flat bettor. But losing runs will result in the same loss for both the progressive and the flat bettors.

does this make sense?

 

[sagefr0g]

so what betting system are you refering to? how complex would such a system be? more difficult than counting? one that could be used in conjunction with counting? like maybe fuzzy betting?
there was a book. i never read it. i think it was called 21 Century Blackjack or something. that i think had some progression systems or arguements for them maybe. i think the author used to post over on hitorstand.net . ever read that book?
i think sage-software (no relation lol) can simulate some progression systems.
but anyway i think some of the things we are seeing over on the weekend warrior postings shows just how much luck is in play along with EV. man if one could only harness luck
ok found this on Walter Thomason author of 21st Century Blackjack....
http://www.casinocitytimes.com/article.cfm?contentandcontributorid=1335
ect. ect. i guess.......
hmm so far i've been able to read a bit of his stuff. not much. but wondering if anyone else has. seems to me he doesn't put any weight onto the advantage that doubling down and betting higher when blackjacks are more likely has. right?
so but anyway here is something he wrote:
Follow my logic:

The chances of winning one hand and then losing or winning the next hand are about the same.
Consequently, the chances of winning two consecutive hands or losing two consecutive hands are about the same. Or winning three consecutive hands and then losing three consecutive hands are about the same and so on.
Consequently, the long-term probability is that any blackjack player, regardless of his betting method or the rationale behind it, is likely to win--or lose--about the same number of consecutive hands.
Consequently, if you are betting more money after a winning hand and less money after a losing hand, your average amount wagered during consecutive winning hands will be greater than your average amount wagered during consecutive losing hands and your profits from play will be greater than your losses. It's that simple!
What about flat bettors? The player who bets the same amount each time will always win less or lose more than the progressive bettor, given the same cards in the same order of play. The opportunity to have larger bets during consecutive winning hand runs doesn't exist for the flat bettor. But losing runs will result in the same loss for both the progressive and the flat bettors.

does this make sense?

i gotta say one thing i can't get Thomason's progression to work with sage-blackjack software in the long term.
i have it set up a flat betting basic strategy player, a card counter 1:24 spread and a progression player betting one unit unless a win then bet five units then back to one unit until another win. when i have them set up to stop play if they make $140 then there seems to be a decent number of 'winning' sessions for all three especially the counter and the progression player. but thats only been for maybe ten trial of them playing till they either lose a $500 bankroll or till they make $140.
so but when i just let the simulator run for near long term sessions with out quit points and with a large bankroll then the card counter wins big time and the basic strategy player and the progression player lose big time.

 

[polypoop]

hmmm...david im trying something similar even though your win rate is much higher than mine...youre using more of a system so i guess mines more relaiant on luck. maybe you can start a thread where only you post and keep updated on each session so we can track the progress.

My system so far is:

200 buy in per day session.
ill play Basic Strategy only with a little bit of counting because my cards are reshuffled every 2 hands.

Actually wait...i dont know if they are reshuffled...they are put back into the shoe...i assume its being reshuffled but will have to verify that.

I play till i get to 800 and then take out 400 so i at least doubled my money. then if the shoe feels good and i have no time pressure ill play with the 400 either till its gone or my profit is considerable increasing my bets as i get a run of two good hands or a very positive count after two hands.

ive had 8 sessions (days spread over a month), 5 win and 3 loss.
Up 2500.

now i know my results are most probably because of positive variance.
I want to get my sessions up to 100 and if it is still largely positive then i know i have something.


I must add that i am playing kind of a hail mary bankroll system since i play at 50 minimum tables.
My buy in is only 4 bets so that is a reason why ive lost close to 50% of the time but also explains why my wins are much bigger.

 

[QFIT]

so what betting system are you refering to? how complex would such a system be? more difficult than counting? one that could be used in conjunction with counting? like maybe fuzzy betting?
there was a book. i never read it. i think it was called 21 Century Blackjack or something. that i think had some progression systems or arguements for them maybe. i think the author used to post over on hitorstand.net . ever read that book?
i think sage-software (no relation lol) can simulate some progression systems.
but anyway i think some of the things we are seeing over on the weekend warrior postings shows just how much luck is in play along with EV. man if one could only harness luck
ok found this on Walter Thomason author of 21st Century Blackjack....
http://www.casinocitytimes.com/article.cfm?contentandcontributorid=1335
ect. ect. i guess.......
hmm so far i've been able to read a bit of his stuff. not much. but wondering if anyone else has. seems to me he doesn't put any weight onto the advantage that doubling down and betting higher when blackjacks are more likely has. right?
so but anyway here is something he wrote:
Follow my logic:

The chances of winning one hand and then losing or winning the next hand are about the same.
Consequently, the chances of winning two consecutive hands or losing two consecutive hands are about the same. Or winning three consecutive hands and then losing three consecutive hands are about the same and so on.
Consequently, the long-term probability is that any blackjack player, regardless of his betting method or the rationale behind it, is likely to win--or lose--about the same number of consecutive hands.
Consequently, if you are betting more money after a winning hand and less money after a losing hand, your average amount wagered during consecutive winning hands will be greater than your average amount wagered during consecutive losing hands and your profits from play will be greater than your losses. It's that simple!
What about flat bettors? The player who bets the same amount each time will always win less or lose more than the progressive bettor, given the same cards in the same order of play. The opportunity to have larger bets during consecutive winning hand runs doesn't exist for the flat bettor. But losing runs will result in the same loss for both the progressive and the flat bettors.

does this make sense?

Walter has less knowledge of BJ than my cat. And I don't have a cat.

 

[sagefr0g]

Walter has less knowledge of BJ than my cat. And I don't have a cat.

lol QFIT! that answer belongs in the advanced strategiies forum. :cat:

but sir please be so kind as to unravel Walter's logic as he layed it out.

"Follow my logic:

The chances of winning one hand and then losing or winning the next hand are about the same.
Consequently, the chances of winning two consecutive hands or losing two consecutive hands are about the same. Or winning three consecutive hands and then losing three consecutive hands are about the same and so on.
Consequently, the long-term probability is that any blackjack player, regardless of his betting method or the rationale behind it, is likely to win--or lose--about the same number of consecutive hands.
Consequently, if you are betting more money after a winning hand and less money after a losing hand, your average amount wagered during consecutive winning hands will be greater than your average amount wagered during consecutive losing hands and your profits from play will be greater than your losses. It's that simple!
What about flat bettors? The player who bets the same amount each time will always win less or lose more than the progressive bettor, given the same cards in the same order of play. The opportunity to have larger bets during consecutive winning hand runs doesn't exist for the flat bettor. But losing runs will result in the same loss for both the progressive and the flat bettors".

 

[Sonny]

Consequently, the chances of winning two consecutive hands or losing two consecutive hands are about the same. Or winning three consecutive hands and then losing three consecutive hands are about the same and so on.

The chances are about the same for a small number of consecutive hands, but they are not quite equal. That is where he starts a slippery slope.

Consequently, the long-term probability is that any blackjack player, regardless of his betting method or the rationale behind it, is likely to win--or lose--about the same number of consecutive hands.

That’s where his big mistake is. He assumes that the chances are the same but in reality they are not. You are more likely to lose any number of hands in a row than to win them. For example, there is about a 1-in-68 chance that you will win 5 hands in a row, but the chances of losing 5 in a row are about 1-in-35. That’s a big difference, but based on his false assumption he concludes that they are equal.

Consequently, if you are betting more money after a winning hand and less money after a losing hand, your average amount wagered during consecutive winning hands will be greater than your average amount wagered during consecutive losing hands and your profits from play will be greater than your losses.

That conclusion is based on the faulty logic I mentioned above. In reality, you are always more likely to lose the next hand (even if only slightly). It doesn’t matter what happened in the last hand or the last few hands, you are still more likely to lose the next hand. If you raise your bet you will lose more. It doesn’t matter when you raise your bet, you will probably lose.

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

thank you Sonny i was really having trouble seeing that flaw in his reasoning.
my sims showed he couldn't be correct but i couldn't catch the mistake you described below. and i knew about the always your likely gonna lose the next hand. lol, thats my motto.

......
That’s where his big mistake is. He assumes that the chances are the same but in reality they are not. You are more likely to lose any number of hands in a row than to win them. For example, there is about a 1-in-68 chance that you will win 5 hands in a row, but the chances of losing 5 in a row are about 1-in-35. That’s a big difference, but based on his false assumption he concludes that they are equal.

That conclusion is based on the faulty logic I mentioned above. In reality, you are always more likely to lose the next hand (even if only slightly). It doesn’t matter what happened in the last hand or the last few hands, you are still more likely to lose the next hand. If you raise your bet you will lose more. It doesn’t matter when you raise your bet, you will probably lose.

-Sonny-

so i'm guessing here but for say all those hands where the progression would bet up in hopes of winning for those types of hands your still more likely to lose a larger percentage of those hands than your gonna win hence a deficit in the long run.

ok so one more question about this sort of betting.
i think it's supposed to be that if say your playing relatively short sessions and betting a progression system that you can expect to come out ahead in some percentage of your sessions. i think it's commonly circa 70%, 80% or so of relatively small wins. then comes along the lower percentage of times where you lose a relatively larger amount that tends to wipe out any gains and maybe your bankroll.
so ok i know that one should expect to lose more and so the above is gonna happen. so but why does it tend to happen that 80% small win, 20% large loss sort of way that is commonly reported? i'm guessing the quirks of standard deviation bring this about?

ok and i'm sorry lol. just one more question.
so like lets say your counting. and i dunno it's like 70% or so of the time in the long haul that you just have zero and negative true counts so your not gonna be betting up.
and then i believe it's supposed to be the case that over the long haul a progression and a flat bet player are supposed to come out pretty much the same dismal end results.
so but back to the counting thing and the 70% nuthin happening situation. so the question becomes if your playing all (by choice) and your in that 70% lull that counters experience why not throw in a progression system that might give you some nice results maybe 80% of the time or so but still bet properly for the positive true counts? i mean especially if your a player say like me that's not able to play all that often or that doesn't want to put a large bankroll on the line that a counter needs to have backing him up?
i mean in the long haul wouldn't the progression part of such a scheme lose about the same as the flat betting would for the zero, negative TC's one endures?

 

[Kasi]

so what betting system are you refering to? how complex would such a system be? more difficult than counting? :

Well, mostly I think about even-money games when I think about it since BJ has so many payoffs other than 1-1 lol. Just stuff like the Cancellation system or Oscar's, etc that can be easily simmed with computers once it is defined in detail like bankroll and goal I guess. A "session" isn't about time, it's about achieving the goal or losing roll. We've been through it before lol. You can look it up at The Wiz. So the betting strategy is simple and never varies lol.

Just even simple stuff like in roulette where one can increase your chances of winning half your roll by playing fewer numbers with more spins with smaller portion of roll vs maybe more numbers with fewer spins and a larger portion of roll. Same roll, same goal, same -EV but yet a higher chance of reaching goal.

I think the guy's name was Rainsong who lost his money after accepting the Wiz challenge in BJ. I don't think the exact system was defined in detail but involved a large spread I think.

All I can say about BJ, as far as all those streaks go, etc, is that don't forget when you win in BJ you win say 1.2 units but when you lose you only lose say 1.05 units. No doubt depending on rules etc lol.

I'm not sure but maybe QFIT's stuff could actually handle some BJ "betting system" based on prior wins or state of roll. Maybe lol. Not even sure where I got that from lol. Maybe like it would be some kind of extreme "camo" betting in his or an AP world or something lol.

So, obviously, in a strict sense, at least the way I look at it, there's no one real "system" going on here since it seems to constantly change in time, goal, roll etc lol.

On the other hand, say, his only goal was from the beginning was to not lose money, maybe enjoy comps or drinks along the way, etc and he's up $3000 at some point, no matter how, and then chooses to just flat-bet a $5 full table. It could be years and years before he'd lose his 600 units and be right back where he started to employ his original "system" again.

So maybe a little voodoo and maybe a little probability too lol.

 

[sagefr0g]

........
We've been through it before lol.
......

yeah i know lol.

.............
So, obviously, in a strict sense, at least the way I look at it, there's no one real "system" going on here since it seems to constantly change in time, goal, roll etc lol.
.......
So maybe a little voodoo and maybe a little probability too lol.

yeah an art & science or sport meets science sorta thing i guess. probably thats why i can't get a handle on it since it's a nothing set in stone idea lol.
kind of just a gamble and how much you think you can afford to gamble sort of thing i guess.
so but i guess i was getting away to much from my ploppyism of wanting to ever be able to apply some thought and decision making into the game when i was looking at it from Thomason's perspective of setting some approach in stone.
so but what ever in this area of consideration that i've dreamed up or considered it's like things might work out short term but if you set some approach in stone then the long term will grind you down.
gotta be quick on your feet to get a dance with lady luck.
i think i like the idea of trying some sort of slick stuff like that during those 70% lulls in advantage times. so i guess it's a good idea to keep nothing set in stone though mostly keep to the minimun bet kind of thing. probably would need to guess how much to adjust the advantage bets up to correct for the damage done with the voodoo stuff i guess.
those spread sheets we're using over on the weekend warriors forum gets one to thinking about the allure of standard deviation. i mean i know it's a double edged sword and all. just it's very tempting the idea of tapping into the positive side. pipe dream i guess. :cat:
but thanks for your explaination the part i dotted (....) out. interesting way to think about all that.

 

[aslan]

I have now moved up to playing quarters($25) as this No Retreat Scheme continues its winning ways. Have made one minor change, now waiting for any 2 wins, then doubling my bet. So start the double deck shoe with $25 bets, wait for 2 wins, does not have to be consecutive, then double your bet to $50 and keep at $50 for the remainder of the shoe, no regression and no furthur progression either. Then start anew at $25 bets with the same betting scheme on the new shoe. $1000 session bankroll is optimal, not too much but enough for the normal swings for playing quarters. For you non-counters, you may just like the results of this betting scheme if you choose to try it. It has been winning 9 out of every 10 sessions, for a substantial net win for every 10 sessions.

Sometimes, you must be patient; you are only expected to lose in the long run.

 

[sagefr0g]

Well, mostly I think about even-money games when I think about it since BJ has so many payoffs other than 1-1 lol. Just stuff like the Cancellation system or Oscar's, etc that can be easily simmed with computers once it is defined in detail like bankroll and goal I guess. A "session" isn't about time, it's about achieving the goal or losing roll. We've been through it before lol. You can look it up at The Wiz. So the betting strategy is simple and never varies lol.

yes i like that a session isn't about time it's about achieving a goal or losing a roll. i know it's not part of advantage play but i like the point. shooting for a goal can't hurt an advantage player (long as they don't bail out of positive count). i did check the wiz site. turned out i'm just to unwilling and probably lazy to seriously examine the system he wrote about the martingale and the cancellation systems. thing that i get is apparently such systems can change the way in which losses occur. lose by winning lol.

Just even simple stuff like in roulette where one can increase your chances of winning half your roll by playing fewer numbers with more spins with smaller portion of roll vs maybe more numbers with fewer spins and a larger portion of roll. Same roll, same goal, same -EV but yet a higher chance of reaching goal.

so ok what i think i get from this is you might get lucky and win big. i'm ok with that. a little scary maybe but ok. so i dunno it seems like in a way it's a bulldozer sort of attack kind of thing. too where i might got some nice size bankroll and i take so much of it and bull my way forward with it like a bulldozer and so maybe with my first push i didn't make my goal but i've still got more fuel and power for the dozer so i push forward again. maybe this time i make it. lol.
still maybe the long term doesn't look so bright. but then maybe after that one could take another tact. such as just flat betting and seeing if you get lucky or maybe even counting or some AP play for a while.

All I can say about BJ, as far as all those streaks go, etc, is that don't forget when you win in BJ you win say 1.2 units but when you lose you only lose say 1.05 units. No doubt depending on rules etc lol.

ok thats interesting. 1.2 units when you win and 1.05 units when you lose? sorry that went right over my head. how so? are you talkin how snappers and double downs affect things?

On the other hand, say, his only goal was from the beginning was to not lose money, maybe enjoy comps or drinks along the way, etc and he's up $3000 at some point, no matter how, and then chooses to just flat-bet a $5 full table. It could be years and years before he'd lose his 600 units and be right back where he started to employ his original "system" again.
So maybe a little voodoo and maybe a little probability too lol.

yeah i like that. the idea say that by some miracle you do get ahead 'significantly' then the game affords some pretty good opportunities for 'surfin that wave' kind of thing. maybe even shift to advantage play.
like when i was playin on the seaescape i knew this guy that was a basic strategy player only. but he would bet up on a whim or what ever a lot. sometimes he'd win a lot sometimes not. but the thing was he was playin on $10,000.00 he'd previously won on a slot machine. lol. even had his picture on the walls of the seaescape as a big winner. lol.
so but i wanted to tell a story what happened to me last night. i went to my favorite local joint. played about four hours. the game had really bad pen. only got to play four decks out of six. so but i was just mainly playing basic strategy and sometimes counting and mainly just doin my fuzzy count. just for the most part flat betting. losing my butt off to. was finally down a little over a third of my trip bankroll. got to that point in about an hour at a full table. so to me that represented some crap standard deviation that i was enduring. losing way more than the house's EV. so of course i don't know what's going to happen any more than the man in the moon. i mean i was losing the best of the basic strategy plays, the double downs, splits, twentys and pushing snappers against the dealer. then i was not even getting a 'fuzzy' sense of a decent count. so you know when it's like that you start feeling pissed and down and those steaming ideas start welling up. lol. well i was feelin all that but made myself just keep on flat betting my lil nickles. and i was thinkin about those standard deviation charts like in this post:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=89123&postcount=1
and i was thinkin well i'm down about two standard deviations of the C square chart. and i'm thinkin how folks say and it makes sense to me that hey it's an almost fifty fifty sort of thing to be on one side or the other of the bell curve and heck things can turn around if they just don't keep getting worse lol. i mean heck i'm no where near the long run to be losing big bucks. so i just hung in there and played another three hours. up and down it went but to where i was just staying in that one third hole in my trip bankroll thing. and things did turn around where i believe i was getting some of the positive standard deviation on the right side of the bell curve lol. to where i was about only down about one fifth of my trip bank. and then along comes a shoe that me even with my fuzzy way of counting could see that it was in some positive territory. so i just 'fuzzy bet' up what i thought i could get away with and maybe at least end up even on my trip roll.
to where i did end up even with 4.5 extra units! lol so i really only lost $2.50 for my total gas expenses.