Then Why Count?

[MAZ]

Seems like an awful lot of bankroll swinging, and variance for a 1% profit/advantage. My buddy has a business selling atv products, he makes about 20% profit when it's all said and done... and I thought THAT was low

There ya go man, the answer to the whole deal.....counting cards is no get rich quick scheme. The only way you will make a million bucks counting, is if you have more than that already. If counting cards frustrates you, don't friggin do it. Get a job if you want gauranteed money. Get a good job if you want gauranteed good money. Playing progessions with no knowledge of advantage is just plain ignorant if you think its a winner of system. Counting cards gives you a chance, but few do it right, or enough, to gain what they ignorantly expect. I'd shoot myself in the face if all I could do to gain an advantage against a casino was count. But that doesn't mean the average player not trying to lose money shouldn't count, it is a viable way to come out ahead, its just that most that try don't have the patience, the knowledge, or the bankroll to do it right.

 

[creeping panther]

Death

I've lost $900 with a combo of flat, and progressive betting, and I've won closer to $1,400 with it. At that point in time, I was $500 ahead. There have been smaller win and losses, but I've never "given it all back"... Now I count, and I've been doing well, but one night I won $5...

My brother won close to $8,000 in a 5 week period after our father passed away. Then one night, lost $800, came back the next day and got the $800 back plus $180. Lost $1,000, came back a few days later got the $1,000 back + $1,300. Won $1,450 clear the next day, then lost $2,000.... He stayed until noon the next day, all night and got his $2,000 back, but only broke even.... It's called a BANKROLL... He did nothing special, but he has the money to play.... He's a SGT. with the sheriff's office, and he no longer works details... He plays blackjack, and when he leaves for the casino, he says... "I'll be back, I'm going to work..."




Death,

I know what you are saying, now I will tell you to incorporate both types of play into 1 strategy, find a fine game and you seldom lose, if you have skillz. Now if you throw in ST and HC you will become as deadly as a angry Panther.

I would hope if you are doing progressive betting it is of the positive kind and in smallish increments of even denom.

CP

 

[blackchipjim]

voodoo vs math

We all want to theorize on what just happend to us in a beat down. We review and review and go over the mistakes we could of made or decisions we should made. I don't think one of us has not done this there will be many more to follow. The truth is it's in the math and we have to trust the math. The tables and sims along with indexs go with the grand scheme of things that we called advantage play. It is just that advantage play, no real guess work here. Beat me up and send me away babbling if you must but gambling with no advantage is just that gambling. Advantage play is just that advantage play and if you stick with the program you will win in the long run and that what we are talking about.:devil:

 

[Jack_Black]

Right, I get that, but at TC= +4 the basic strategy player has that same 2% advantage, they just don't know it. And if a counter's betting strategy is the reason for the gains compared to a playing strategy... then his bets, as well as the flat bettor's AND the progressive bettor's, are still subject to the house edge in the long run... If, of course, that above statement is even true...

You're not considering the bet amount and how important that is to the strategy. Yes, everyone has a 2% advantage at the same time. Only, the counter knows it though. The flat bettor will always flat bet whether he has the advantage or not. the progressor will always be progressing whether he has the advantage or not. So, they will all win the same amount of times, but when the advantage IS NOT THERE, the flat bettor will still be betting the same amount, as will the progression bettor. so obviously, during the times when the advantage goes over to the house, they both give all the gains they got BACK to the house. The counter however, knows that he doesn't have an advantage, so he puts the minimum amount out, and waits till it swings back into his favor of 2% to put the max amount out.

Gotta go, hopefully someone else will answer the other questions, or I will when I get back.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

No, you're right on the money, but in the long run, does it matter when we eventually succumb to the house edge?

We don't. We win because we are also betting very little or nothing when the house has the 2% edge. The progressionist is just as likely to be betting big into the house edge or the player edge. The reason he loses is because he runs out of money. A counter also can run out of money, anyone can, but the casino will usually run out of money first.

It's very easy to think that even the best counter will eventually face the "losing streak from Hell" and lose it all, but his bankroll will usually have soared into the heavens before that ever happens. The math is similar to that used in space exploration. We all know "What goes up must come down," but that doesn't apply to a projectile that has reached escape velocity from the earth. It's never coming back.

 

[Deathclutch]

Now that I count, I've seen plenty of negative shoes that have thrown out blackjacks, and poitive shoes that didn't. What if a counter has big bets out in pos. TC and loses, then catches blackjacks at neg. TC with small bets out.

This is starting to get a bit ridiculous. Of course you saw blackjacks come out in negative shoes, do you think they pack them in all nice in one big clump just to wait for us? You're using knowledge of cards played to determine the composition of the remaining deck, you aren't sitting there predicting cards off the top of a shoe (counting anyway :whip.

Let's just take a real simple look at this. The count is extremely high. Plenty of tens and aces left. What's likely to happen? More blackjacks, but is it still possible to get 15 and 16? Of course!

Now the count is extremely low, meaning less tens and aces, are you still able to receive a blackjack? Of course, but why put out more money when it is LESS likely you'll receive one?

You're just using selective memory to remember times where things didn't quite go your way. By the way, as for you signature, you may want to start reading at page 43 where Fred talks of progression betting systems. Not that you want to listen at this point anyway, you've already made up your mind.

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

No, if it is true that no matter what you bet, it is still subject to the house edge, why would it matter at what point the bet was placed? I was playing some months back and as I was positively progressing, After my 4th straight win I threw a $45 bet out there and caught a blackjack on the 5th win. Maybe it was a positive TC, I don't know, back then I didn't count, but whether the count was positive or negative I won "that hand" with a bigger bet. Now that I count, I've seen plenty of negative shoes that have thrown out blackjacks, and poitive shoes that didn't. What if a counter has big bets out in pos. TC and loses, then catches blackjacks at neg. TC with small bets out. Did I overcome the house on my $45 blackjack? Did the counter succumb to the house on his $10 blackjack?

I think AM's post says it all, but I'm going to try and simplify this as much as possible:

You're playing a coin toss game. Every 5 minutes, the odds change. You're assigned tails and for the first five minutes, you get paid 1:1 for every tails and have to pay 2:1 to your opponent for every heads. During the next 5 minutes, the odds are reversed. You have no option to sit out during the 5 minutes. If the limits on the game are $1-$100, how would you bet this?

During the 5 minute intervals in which you get paid even money on a win but have to pay 2:1 on a loss, you bet the minimum of $1. You expect to lose money, but it's no big deal—just a dollar here and there. Now when the next 5 minutes is up, what do you bet? Assuming you're adequately bankrolled, you bet the maximum of $100. Now you stand to make a lot of money, much more than you lost when you were playing with the odds against you. What have you done here? You've maximized your wins when the odds favor you and minimized your losses when the odds are against you. Card counting 101.

Now if you were a progression bettor instead, you would certainly find yourself playing during the same advantages and disadvantages as the AP coin tosser. Do you think you would make any money? Since you're playing an essentially break-even game off the top, your results are based solely on luck. You could win or lose depending on the way the coin flips. The AP coin tosser, on the other hand, is not subjected to the negative edge like his progression-betting counterpart is because his wins will far overshadow his losses. The progression bettor's results are at the mercy of total randomness.

 

[Jack_Black]

Truthfully, there are counters making a living off of books as well... Ken Uston was down $35,000 after a 22 day period of playing positive shoes, and single deck games, betting with the TC and proper bankroll.... Now that's not the 'long run', but even in the long run he would theoretically be playing with a 1% advantage for example. Win $1,000, lose $900? $100 profit... Let's say he picked a date on which to produce the $100 profit, and you had to at least match it. You could go in the night before and win $100 progressive playing in probably less than an hour, without winning the $1,000 or losing the $900 first....

You didn't pay attention at all to my answer for this. progression betting does work in the short term, but there will be a day where you will have the losing streak from hell and you will either run out of money or hit the table limit before you get the chance to make your measly 1 unit back. You obviously have not played enough to see that losing streak yet. But it will come if you continue to pursue progression betting.

Counters making a living off of books isn't the point. they make money off of blackjack first, books second. As opposed to progression authors who make a living off of books first, blackjack second.

 

[StandardDeviant]

what are you doing up at this ungodly hour Ms. Deviant? also, what combination of cards are you holding up in your avatar?

It's black jack, Jack_Black.

 

[fredperson]

You didn't pay attention at all to my answer for this. progression betting does work in the short term, but there will be a day where you will have the losing streak from hell and you will either run out of money or hit the table limit before you get the chance to make your measly 1 unit back. You obviously have not played enough to see that losing streak yet. But it will come if you continue to pursue progression betting.

Counters making a living off of books isn't the point. they make money off of blackjack first, books second. As opposed to progression authors who make a living off of books first, blackjack second.

One of the things that bother me the most about this forum is when some of you "experts" see the word "progression" you can only think Martingale
The quote above is true but it ONLY applies to a specific negative progression system.

 

[Jack_Black]

One of the things that bother me the most about this forum is when some of you "experts" see the word "progression" you can only think Martingale
The quote above is true but it ONLY applies to a specific negative progression system.

ehhh, my apologies, I think. Either way, the point is that it doesn't work. And I was using the martingale to show an example. But most popular systems are variants of martingale. Not to mention, all progression systems will show exactly what I described. steady gain, and then a huge loss unless the table has no limit and the player has a ginormous bankroll.

One of the things that bothers me is when people use too many words to describe an object. Negative progression? Unless you are claiming there is a positive progression system?

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

One of the things that bother me the most about this forum is when some of you "experts" see the word "progression" you can only think Martingale
The quote above is true but it ONLY applies to a specific negative progression system.

I don't take it personally when people insist on success using progression systems like other posters here sometimes do, but you're really persistent about making vague statements regarding this subject, and I'm really quite curious about the details of your system. However, there's no shortage of information that shows that the absolute only ways to beat blackjack in the long run are by altering your betting according to the composition of the deck—progression betting alters the bet based on win/loss results, which are irrelevant)—or by using additional obtained information about the cards that will be dealt or that have just been dealt.

This isn't close-mindedness or a failure to "think outside of the box" on my part: it's simple statistics. As much as I—and I suspect, everyone—would love to be proven wrong with a working progression-based system that would eliminate the need for more advanced strategies, limiting exposure, and employing cover, I have to admit that I'd bet my entire bankroll against that happening.

 

[johndoe]

One of the things that bother me the most about this forum is when some of you "experts" see the word "progression" you can only think Martingale
The quote above is true but it ONLY applies to a specific negative progression system.

Incorrect, it does apply to every progression system, Martingale or not. As long as your bets are uncorrelated with your advantage, you will eventually lose all of your money, at a rate approaching the house edge. Progressions only change the path to zero, and, in fact, always hasten it.

We've been through this. If you can refute the above with evidence, please do so. If you can't, then stop making claims you cannot support.

 

[fredperson]

One of the things that bothers me is when people use too many words to describe an object. Negative progression? Unless you are claiming there is a positive progression system?

Mr. Black,
I'm sorry. When I refer to negative progression, I mean systems that increase the bet while losing (like Martingale). Positive progression, on the other hand, means increasing the bet while winning. These are my definitions, and I stand corrected if they are not generally used by others.

 

[fredperson]

I don't take it personally when people insist on success using progression systems like other posters here sometimes do, but you're really persistent about making vague statements regarding this subject, and I'm really quite curious about the details of your system.

Mr Gambler,
Maybe you should reread my post. The only thing I commented on was Mr. Black's remarks about progression systems. I made no statement (vague or otherwise) regarding any system.

 

[Lonesome Gambler]

Mr Gambler,
Maybe you should reread my post. The only thing I commented on was Mr. Black's remarks about progression systems. I made no statement (vague or otherwise) regarding any system.

I agree, you didn't make such a statement in that post. What you did was repeatedly make vague statements in the past alluding to a winning, progression-based system that you've either developed or become privvy to. You've implied that various posters who are thinking a little too hard about voodoo systems are now "on to something," and you've more than once made reference to the claim that the known AP skills dicussed on this forum aren't the "only ways" to gain a legitimate edge in blackjack (quotes are paraphrased). Again, I don't take offense with your claims, since no one can try your mysterious system and actually lose money themselves with it due to its unknown nature, but I'd like to at least see an explanation of how any system that does not include known AP skills could grant the player a long-term, mathematically-sound edge in blackjack.

 

[Deathangl13]

any system that does not include known AP skills could grant the player a long-term, mathematically-sound edge in blackjack.

I have this system called LUCK... F*ckin' works every time.... When I lose I call it BAD LUCK... When I win I call it GOOD LUCK :grin: