Things that don't make sense

[MightyOne]

Card counters all say that progressions don't work because with a negative expectation you will lose X% of your small and big bets based on that expectation.
So why, may I ask, does basic strategy have you double down in negative counts? By doubling down you put up 2x more money in a negative count and if there is double after split you are feeding the house even more money.
I understand why you split; you are pitting the bust rate of each card against the dealers bust rate.

For Negative expectations I use this strategy to keep my losses low:

5-13: HIT
14: Stand VS 4-6
15 & 16: Stand VS 2-6 |SR vs 8-A|
17-21: Stand |SR 17 vs A|
A/2-6: HIT
A/7: Stand VS 2-8
A/8-9: Stand
2/2-3/3: Split VS 4-6
4/4-5/5: HIT
6/6: Split VS 4-6
7/7: Split VS 2-7
8/8: Split VS 2-8 |SR vs 9-A|
9/9: Split VS 2-9, Stand VS 7, 10, A.
10/10: Stand
A/A: Split

Naturally, when I am favored to win, I will add double down.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this strategy to control variance.

 

[shadroch]

Basic strategy is based on a neutral count,as it doesn't take the count into
effect. If you are counting cards,you should deviate from BS when the count is either very hi or very lo.

 

[Sonny]

So why, may I ask, does basic strategy have you double down in negative counts?

Because basic strategy does not take the count into consideration. It is the correct decision when you don’t know what the count is. If you are counting cards then there will be a specific point where many basic strategy plays should be changed. For example, in high counts you will stand, surrender and double down more often. In low counts you will hit more often and double down less. Basic strategy is meant to tell you how to play on average, not in specific circumstances.

I understand why you split; you are pitting the bust rate of each card against the dealers bust rate.

Most of the time you are splitting as a defensive move. With a pair of eights you want to do anything you can to get rid of a dreaded 16. Holding 2 eights gives you a better chance of reaching a strong hand. There are some splits that you make in order to get more money on the table and/or to get a better chance of having a good double down hand, but for the most part splitting cards is a form of damage control.

In general I think that your strategy will increase the house edge quite a bit because many of those plays will be done at the wrong time. If you are counting cards then you really should learn the proper time to make all of those plays instead of just making them when you feel like the count is right. You might be surprised how negative the count has to be to make them correct. Also you seem to be surrendering too often. Better yet, just avoid playing negative counts entirely.

-Sonny-

 

[MightyOne]

I'm not a card counter, I'm the guy you love to hate :whip:...

I am a trend follower...

My goal is not just to attack the dealer when he is "weak," but to
attack him when he is weak AND when the cards are running my way.

My "counting" involves grouping WIN vs LOSS in Red and Black groups.
A group equals 5 hands/decisions and do not include: extra hands from splits, extra bets from double down, or surrender.

If RED I play the strategy in the above post to control loss and bet 1 unit.
If BLACK I add double down and more correct plays and bet 5x - 10x+
If BLACK and 3 out of 5 is RED I play RED until 3 out of 5 in the next group
changes the color back to BLACK unless I get 2 RED.

3 out of 5 WINS vs LOSS = BLACK
3 out of 5 LOSS vs WINS = RED

From the start of the shoe until 2 BLACK is RED
2 RED is RED until 2 BLACK

BLACK + RED = temporary RED
GREEN + RED + GREEN = GREEN

*listens to the laughter in the background*

 

[callipygian]

So why, may I ask, does basic strategy have you double down in negative counts?

Because even if your count is negative, you're still expecting to win money by doubling down on that particular hand.

Even when the true count is -5, the EV of doubling hard 11 vs. dealer 2 is +0.30, compared with +0.16 for hitting and -0.35 for standing.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this strategy to control variance.

I think you're definitely controlling variance, but with a big loss in expected value. Instead of being a toss up between winning and losing a bigger amount, you're almost certain to lose a smaller amount.

 

[Sonny]

My "counting" involves grouping WIN vs LOSS in Red and Black groups.

It’s already been done. It doesn’t work. Check it out:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9093

In fact, your system will perform even worse because you are making both playing and betting decisions based on your win/loss ratio. Your win/loss ratio will not give you any information about your advantage or the status of the shoe so you are just making wild guesses for both betting and playing.

-Sonny-

 

[QFIT]

I'm not a card counter, I'm the guy you love to hate

No 'hate' at all. Trend followers fund the casinos. Without them, advantage play would not be possible.

Blackjack-Scams.com​

 

[MightyOne]

Ok then, TY for your time!

I think it is a little different than what was said in the link provided as it
doesn't track individual wins and losses but groups.
If the powers of chance and the laws of uneven distribution bless me with 3 out of 5 wins vs losses for several groups I think it is a little more than a wild guess
that betting more and attacking the dealer would yield results until this is not so.

I am not pig headed though...

If you truly believe that there is no merit to this strategy then I yield to your knowledge.

I only created it because the trend strategy of using red and black candles works so well when trading that I thought the "trend" in Blackjack might also be "tradeable."

 

[Sonny]

I think it is a little different than what was said in the link provided as it doesn't track individual wins and losses but groups.

In this case it doesn’t matter. Wins and losses, whether individually or in groups, do not give you any information about the results of the next hand or group of hands, your advantage, the composition of the shoe, the probability of winning or losing in the future, or anything else. I know that you’re excited about your previous wins using this method at blackjack and stock trading, but I can assure you that it was simply short-term luck. You should not expect your long term results (in both cases) to be profitable.

If the powers of chance and the laws of uneven distribution bless me with 3 out of 5 wins vs losses for several groups I think it is a little more than a wild guess…

I am not aware of any “law of uneven distribution” in mathematics. If you have won 3 out of 5 hands then you have definitely been very lucky. You should expect to win 43% of the hands you play and lose $49% of them (with the other 9% being pushes). I have a feeling that your system will do very poorly when you start to experience more realistic results. Although anecdotal evidence may suggest that your system is working, I can assure you that once your luck ruins out you should expect to lose your money back. It might be a fun way to play but it is not a profitable strategy. In any case, I wish you the best. Feel free to look around the website and read some other people’s experiences. Here’s an interesting place to start:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=7821

-Sonny-

 

[MightyOne]

Since I made it to the Voodoo board I might as well post my complete Voodoo
strategy so that all Voodoo practitioners can have some fun at the casino before we all go home broke :cry:

Strategy for Trend Following

RED (Single Unit)

5-13: HIT
14: Stand VS 4-6
15 & 16: Stand VS 2-6 |SR vs 8-A|
17-21: Stand |SR 17 vs A|
A/2-6: HIT
A/7: Stand VS 2-8
A/8-9: Stand
2/2-3/3: Split VS 4-6
4/4-5/5: HIT
6/6: Split VS 4-6
7/7: Split VS 2-7
8/8: Split VS 2-8 |SR vs 9-A|
9/9: Split VS 2-9, Stand VS 7, 10, A.
10/10: Stand
A/A: Split

BLACK (5x - 10x+) Additional Rules

9 |D|D| vs 3-6
10 & 11 |D|D| vs 2-8
A/2&3 |D|D| vs 5 & 6
A/4&5 |D|D| vs 4 - 6
A/6&7 |D|D| vs 3 - 6
2/2-3/3: Split vs 2 & 3 If |D|D| after Split
4/4: Split vs 5 & 6 If |D|D| after Split
5/5: |D|D| vs 2-8

Even if 3 out of 5 makes BLACK or RED you must wait until
the end of the group to count the next.

First hand until 2 BLACK is RED
2 RED is RED until 2 BLACK.

BLACK (when in trend) + RED = temporary RED
BLACK (when in trend) + RED + BLACK = BLACK

BLACK = 3 ouf of 5 WIN vs LOSS
RED = 3 out of 5 LOSS vs WIN

 

[callipygian]

Wins and losses, whether individually or in groups, do not give you any information about the results of the next hand or group of hands, your advantage, the composition of the shoe, the probability of winning or losing in the future, or anything else.

Actually, they do, but just not enough to make a difference.

For example, if you won, there's a better chance than average that the dealer busted. If the dealer busted, there's a better chance than average that the dealer pulled a 10. If the dealer pulled a 10, there's a better chance than average that the count is now negative.

It's just such weak correlation that you can't make a legitimate betting strategy out of it, but I'm sure that you could make really, really weak blackjack strategies by:

- lowering your bet when the dealer gets a blackjack
- lowering your bet when the player gets a blackjack
- raising your bet when the dealer draws to a pat hand
- raising your bet if you doubled the last hand

All of these are really, really weak predictors of the true count, which, eventually, is what actually drives the win/loss ratio.

 

[Sonny]

All of these are really, really weak predictors of the true count, which, eventually, is what actually drives the win/loss ratio.

That’s true. I believe it was John Gwynn who first published results to that effect back in 1986. He found that the house edge increases by 0.10% after a win, 0.15% after a push and decreases by 0.12% after a loss. These effects are true on average but the actual results will vary greatly so they are not very reliable indicators. As you mentioned, these effects are very small as well. To make things worse, the effects are not cumulative. For example, the house edge does not decrease by 0.12 + 0.12 = 0.24% after two losses. The effects slowly decrease to the point that they are not useful in the games available today. Perhaps in a single-deck game dealt to the bottom you might find a slight advantage (with huge variance and risk), but this would be the least profitable way to attack such a game even if you could find it and would probably leave you broke despite your tiny advantage. This method is completely useless in multi-deck games. While I agree with your points, I feel it is important to show people like MightyOne that these techniques are not a worthwhile path to pursue if looking for an advantage.

Here is an old discussion about a similar system that was proposed:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=2847&highlight=gwynn

-Sonny-

 

[blackjack avenger]

Very Well Written Sonny!

Once again with knowledge and clarity!

 

[callipygian]

While I agree with your points, I feel it is important to show people like MightyOne that these techniques are not a worthwhile path to pursue if looking for an advantage.

Uh, yeah, I should make that clear too. If your strategy is based on what I posted above, you're NEVER playing with an advantage over the house, although you gain a small advantage over basic strategy.

 

[MightyOne]

It is not my intention to keep talking about the system but since we are all still talking about it...why not.

The idea was not be come out ahead after billions or trillions of hands in a computer simulation.

The idea was to control variance when in losing groups so that my stake is preserved (keep losses low).
By keeping my losses low in losing streaks I have a really good chance of making up the difference by aggressively attacking the casino on winning
streaks (letting profits run) so that I can come out ahead on the majority of
my sessions.

In my opinion, if you are not trying to play Black Jack for a living, then the above method gives the player the best chance to win on any individual trip using a stake that they will realistically have to spend.

 

[Sonny]

By keeping my losses low in losing streaks I have a really good chance of making up the difference by aggressively attacking the casino on winning streaks (letting profits run) so that I can come out ahead on the majority of my sessions.

I agree with you on that. In fact, that is the basis of card counting. You bet as little as possible (or not at all) when the odds are against you and bet as much as possible when you have the advantage. Unfortunately, the system that you described does not accomplish this. As I said, tracking wins and losses does not give you any useful information about current or future “streaks”.

If your only concern is maximizing the probability that you will win a certain session or trip then you should use the most aggressive negative progression system you can. That will give you a very large probability of winning a small amount of money with only a small chance of losing everything you have. Again, this type of strategy may be fun but is not necessarily wise since you will expect to go broke very quickly at any given time.

-Sonny-

 

[callipygian]

The idea was to control variance when in losing groups so that my stake is preserved (keep losses low).

I think you're mixing up two different ideas here.

The first is expected winnings, or expected value (EV). This is a measure of, in the long run, whether you will win or lose money. When you play basic strategy at blackjack, you have an EV of about -0.005, or you expect to lose 0.5 cents for every dollar you wager. In the long run.

The second idea is variance. This is a measure of, in the short run, how likely it is that your actual win will be close to your EV. You can be a winner and have high variance, or you can be a loser and have high variance.

Take a simplified example. You have $10 and you flip a coin. Heads you win $1, tails you lose $1 - EV is 0, because it's an even game. Now take a second game - heads you win $11, tails you lose $10. EV is now +0.05, but the variance is much higher. You actually have a larger probability of going broke with the second (higher EV) game than the first.

Your strategy will reduce variance, but it will also reduce EV. You are more likely to lose in the long run, but you're less likely to go broke. If you do not play with an advantage (EV > 0), then no matter what you do, the more you play, the more you will inevitably lose.

I have a really good chance of making up the difference by aggressively attacking the casino on winning streaks (letting profits run) so that I can come out ahead on the majority of my sessions

Doing this will erase everything you did in part 1. If you play aggressively on winning streaks, you increase your variance again without changing your EV. Now you will have reduced EV and increased variance - a sub-optimal combination.

 

[MightyOne]

Guess I better pull Blackjack BlueBook 2 and Blackjack for Blood off my book shelf and study that

Again I thank you for taking the time to respond to me.