your worst losing streaks

[blackjacksquirrel]

acually it wasn't so much the the fact that I lost that bothers me. it is the fact that I lost after getting 21 on my double down. by the time I have gotten 21 one I have already started to count my money. I didn't only lose my money I lose MY winnings aswell. Well i understand that stuff like that happens sometimes but I really hope it is not to offen

 

[davidmcclung]

New Revised 4 Loss System

I revised my previous posted strategy which I think is an improvement and does make more sense without the negative progression. And it does NOT involve counting. Anyway, it worked today with $100 plus win in 5 hr session and here it is: Played it with $500 session bankroll which is plenty. Start with table minimum, whether it is $5 or $10. Today started with $10 minimum. Level bets continue until four losses in a row. Then evaluate to determine if you are plus or negative. If negative, then start again or change tables at the $10. However, if you show a win, increase your base at $15 and continue level bets until lose 4 hands in row(double down or splits count as one hand). Then again evaluate to determine if you are plus or minus in this $15 series. If plus start another 4 loss sequence series with $20 level bets. If it shows a negative, return to the minimum $10. Evaluate each series plus or minus after 4 losses, increasing your next series by $5 on a win, return to minimum bets on a loss series. Optimistic thusfar, conservative to start which is the proper thing to do, then gets more aggressive on wins. Played on 6 deck, using 2 sets of 6 decks, machine shuffled which is a fast moving game. Also, keep changing tables until you get that first net win on minimum bets, and hope it stays good for awhile. Dont stay on a bad losing table after the initial four loss series, you will know when a table has potential.

 

[supercoolmancool]

I don't think that is as good as card counting.

 

[EasyRhino]

That's cool and everything david, but you're still bumping into two things:

1) The system will not change the house edge per hand, or over the long run.
2) Over the long run the system will either increase or decrease your losses, depending on whether it tends to increase or decrease your average bet compared to flat betting.
3) It will somewhat redistribute your percentage of winning and losing sessions. Since what you just described sounds like a positive progression, you'd probably expect fewer, larger wins, and more, smaller, losses.

And hey, if you're cool with that, knock yourself out.

 

[shadroch]

That system is not nearly a good as Max Rubins system for Comp counting.

 

[ihate17]

The losing streak and the steamer act

I am at a casino where on a quiet night it turns very cold, some snow hits and most of the roads available to me are either closed or very dangerous.
So the casino is nearly empty, I can get a decent heads up game but the pit and eye have little else to do but evaluate my play.

I sit down at a 6 deck table to play heads up. Dealer cuts away about 1.25 decks and we start. For the first 25 hands or so (about 3 decks), I win two hands, think I pushed two and lose the rest. Nice pretty dealer looks at me sadly and tells me that perhaps this is the wrong table and there are plenty of others. I lie and tell her that I think this shoe will turn around and anyone I have better luck at the end of shoes. Meanwhile the count which earlier had stayed around 0 had been slowly rising and with it I start raising my bets, looking like I want to get it back in fewer hands than it took to lose it.

With 2.5 decks left, the TC is now +5 and I go to two hands. On the next 4 rounds I win 6 of 8 but that includes 2 blackjacks and a split. One the next hand, count still at +4, I see the cut card is the second card in the shoe and spread to three hands to get the most cards I can before the shuffle. Land up winning 3 of 4 with a blackjack and a split of aces winning and a bust on my losing hand to a dealer 18.

Point is on one shoe, I played first only winning 2 of 25 hands (with a couple of pushes), then winning 8 of the final 11, and finished the shoe with a nice profit.
Of course it did not have to work out this way but in my opinion, way too many players and progression system lovers give too much significance to both winning and losing streaks. At the moment where you happen to be in one it certainly seems to be significant but over a period of time I think they are completely meaningless and the problem is that period of time could be months or could be a single shoe.

ihate17

 

[bluewhale]

I am at a casino where on a quiet night it turns very cold, some snow hits and most of the roads available to me are either closed or very dangerous.
So the casino is nearly empty, I can get a decent heads up game but the pit and eye have little else to do but evaluate my play.

I sit down at a 6 deck table to play heads up. Dealer cuts away about 1.25 decks and we start. For the first 25 hands or so (about 3 decks), I win two hands, think I pushed two and lose the rest. Nice pretty dealer looks at me sadly and tells me that perhaps this is the wrong table and there are plenty of others. I lie and tell her that I think this shoe will turn around and anyone I have better luck at the end of shoes. Meanwhile the count which earlier had stayed around 0 had been slowly rising and with it I start raising my bets, looking like I want to get it back in fewer hands than it took to lose it.

With 2.5 decks left, the TC is now +5 and I go to two hands. On the next 4 rounds I win 6 of 8 but that includes 2 blackjacks and a split. One the next hand, count still at +4, I see the cut card is the second card in the shoe and spread to three hands to get the most cards I can before the shuffle. Land up winning 3 of 4 with a blackjack and a split of aces winning and a bust on my losing hand to a dealer 18.

Point is on one shoe, I played first only winning 2 of 25 hands (with a couple of pushes), then winning 8 of the final 11, and finished the shoe with a nice profit.
Of course it did not have to work out this way but in my opinion, way too many players and progression system lovers give too much significance to both winning and losing streaks. At the moment where you happen to be in one it certainly seems to be significant but over a period of time I think they are completely meaningless and the problem is that period of time could be months or could be a single shoe.

ihate17

VERY nice post!

 

[ScottH]

I revised my previous posted strategy which I think is an improvement and does make more sense without the negative progression. And it does NOT involve counting. Anyway, it worked today with $100 plus win in 5 hr session and here it is: Played it with $500 session bankroll which is plenty. Start with table minimum, whether it is $5 or $10. Today started with $10 minimum. Level bets continue until four losses in a row. Then evaluate to determine if you are plus or negative. If negative, then start again or change tables at the $10. However, if you show a win, increase your base at $15 and continue level bets until lose 4 hands in row(double down or splits count as one hand). Then again evaluate to determine if you are plus or minus in this $15 series. If plus start another 4 loss sequence series with $20 level bets. If it shows a negative, return to the minimum $10. Evaluate each series plus or minus after 4 losses, increasing your next series by $5 on a win, return to minimum bets on a loss series. Optimistic thusfar, conservative to start which is the proper thing to do, then gets more aggressive on wins. Played on 6 deck, using 2 sets of 6 decks, machine shuffled which is a fast moving game. Also, keep changing tables until you get that first net win on minimum bets, and hope it stays good for awhile. Dont stay on a bad losing table after the initial four loss series, you will know when a table has potential.

It's always good to tweak your game to try to do better, but you're still playing at a disadvantage here, sorry!

 

[sagefr0g]

I........
.................

I sit down at a 6 deck table to play heads up. Dealer cuts away about 1.25 decks and we start. For the first 25 hands or so (about 3 decks), I win two hands, think I pushed two and lose the rest. Nice pretty dealer looks at me sadly and tells me that perhaps this is the wrong table and there are plenty of others. I lie and tell her that I think this shoe will turn around and anyone I have better luck at the end of shoes. Meanwhile the count which earlier had stayed around 0 had been slowly rising and with it I start raising my bets, looking like I want to get it back in fewer hands than it took to lose it.

With 2.5 decks left, the TC is now +5 and I go to two hands. On the next 4 rounds I win 6 of 8 but that includes 2 blackjacks and a split. One the next hand, count still at +4, I see the cut card is the second card in the shoe and spread to three hands to get the most cards I can before the shuffle. Land up winning 3 of 4 with a blackjack and a split of aces winning and a bust on my losing hand to a dealer 18.

................

ihate17

just curious sir... i understand why you went to three hands to get past the cut card but why did you initially go to two hands? reason i ask is that in Professional Blackjack (page 209) according to Wong it is better to play one hand if you are one on one with the dealer and your optimal bet size is less than the table max. supposedly this is true for either advantage or disadvantage situations.

 

[ihate17]

Just as Wong says

just curious sir... i understand why you went to three hands to get past the cut card but why did you initially go to two hands? reason i ask is that in Professional Blackjack (page 209) according to Wong it is better to play one hand if you are one on one with the dealer and your optimal bet size is less than the table max. supposedly this is true for either advantage or disadvantage situations.

I agree with Wong but the table max at this table was $500 and my max bet is in fact higher. The place does have tables that cover my max bet but I got the heads up game at a $10 table and their $10 tables only have the $500 max bet.

Add in another thing:
In a situation where the better game (good dealer penetration and heads up or perhaps one other player) is available on a $10 table and my usual minimum bet is $50, I will take the game on that $10 table for another reason. Should the shoe go negative, especially near the end, I do not have to think about wonging out, I can just move my bet down to $10 till the shuffle. With a max bet of around $750, I have done this often, getting for very limited periods of time a 75-1 spread.

ihate17

 

[Cardcounter]

Biggest losing streaks...

At boomtown I lost $300 in one session betting $5-$30 a hand. I usually do the best their when they let me play but I have been barred for counting cards at boomtown twice my best win was under a $100!
At the peppermill I gambled all night and lost close to a $1,000 there.
At the Tahoe Biltmore I lost $400 there in one night. I have also gotten barred from the biltmore because other sessions there where more positive but I have never won $400 in one night there.
I consider these loses to be hefty because I play blackjack for realitively small stakes usually $5-$30 a hand.

 

[sagefr0g]

worst losing streak...

:cry: well i'm in it right now....
down 271 units in eleven sessions.
all since i went from 1:8 spread to 1:10.
i don't blame the spread.
my play just hasn't been up to snuff plus just bad fluctuation.
was playing tired a lot. fuzzy headed as a result.
so i've put myself on a sabbatical from blackjack for a while.
studying, thinking, practicing. one thing i've discovered is that my original 1:8 spread was really correct and was a fragment of what should be a correct 1:10 spread for me just that i'd be putting out the ten units at a higher tc.

edit...... also i believe i've come pretty close to my NO. guestimating around 40,000 or so hands have went by. my theory is that i had so much luck for most of the ride (circa $37/hr average) and as my actual expected winrate is circa $12/hr that as i approach my NO i'm likely to find my average winrate approach my expected which would logically mean i'm gonna experience some loss's.

 

[davidmcclung]

Four losses and off strategy update

Played again my four straight losses and off strategy and here is how it went. Started with $10 flat bets and was at a good table, after the four consecutive losses I was plus $100. Since I was positive $, started a new series at the same table increasing my flat bet to $15 and immediately lost another 4 hands in a row for a total of 8 hands in a row. So my conclusion is that it is better to stay with the premise of my original strategy, i.e. get off that table after 4 straight losses. Just keep at level bets with about a 50 bet bankroll for an extended session-or overnight trip. It has worked well thusfar in about 10 hrs of playing, of course need more time on the tables with this new non-counting strategy to predict its chance of long success. It gets you off the bad tables fast, and keeps you at the good tables for an hour or longer before the four straight losses with a nice net win.

 

[ihate17]

Guess you did not read my last post

Played again my four straight losses and off strategy and here is how it went. Started with $10 flat bets and was at a good table, after the four consecutive losses I was plus $100. Since I was positive $, started a new series at the same table increasing my flat bet to $15 and immediately lost another 4 hands in a row for a total of 8 hands in a row. So my conclusion is that it is better to stay with the premise of my original strategy, i.e. get off that table after 4 straight losses. Just keep at level bets with about a 50 bet bankroll for an extended session-or overnight trip. It has worked well thusfar in about 10 hrs of playing, of course need more time on the tables with this new non-counting strategy to predict its chance of long success. It gets you off the bad tables fast, and keeps you at the good tables for an hour or longer before the four straight losses with a nice net win.

There is no such thing as a bad table! There is no such thing as a good table either.

ihate17

 

[shadroch]

But there are happy tables:devil:

 

[Preston]

I burned $1000 last night. Just couldn't get started. Fortunately in the past two weeks I had made $2000 so I'm still up but pissed at myself for not sitting on the win for a bit.

Especially since the wife just lost her job.

 

[davidmcclung]

Like many of you are finding out now and will ultimately find out, most counters will have my results, that is counting will NOT result in long term net profits. I wish my analysis was different, all the aggravation and mental gymnastics of counting is simply in vain for most counters. One more thing as to my four loss and quit the table strategy. $500 total session bankroll and if you are playing at $10 base and get behind $200(20 units), then play the remainder of the session bankroll($300) at $20 base which allows quicker recovery and allows you to still lose more total hands in the session and still result in a session profit. I have gotten behind the 20 units once in 6 sessions to date, and did recover with the double in the base bet. Forget about the various martingales also, short or long, they do not work, takes too many wins to recover from a bad run even on a short martingale. Play the 6 decks with my strategy, more table selection and lower minimums, and really the double decks offer no significant advantage and way too slow.

 

[supercoolmancool]

As I have said before, blackjack indeed does give longterm advantage. The key is to reach the longrun. Most people probably can't do that fast enough to make card counting worth it. I mean if you don't play 40 hours per week, then in my opinion, card counting isn't worth the risk. But if you can somehow play as much blackjack as you want, then the 1% advantage is a pretty good deal.

 

[mdlbj]

My worst loosing session was not a loss of BR but a loss of two hot chicks sitting at the table.. I was winning yet, I could not win with the chicks.. Sad.. I felt devastated.

 

[ScottH]

Like many of you are finding out now and will ultimately find out, most counters will have my results, that is counting will NOT result in long term net profits. I wish my analysis was different, all the aggravation and mental gymnastics of counting is simply in vain for most counters. One more thing as to my four loss and quit the table strategy. $500 total session bankroll and if you are playing at $10 base and get behind $200(20 units), then play the remainder of the session bankroll($300) at $20 base which allows quicker recovery and allows you to still lose more total hands in the session and still result in a session profit. I have gotten behind the 20 units once in 6 sessions to date, and did recover with the double in the base bet. Forget about the various martingales also, short or long, they do not work, takes too many wins to recover from a bad run even on a short martingale. Play the 6 decks with my strategy, more table selection and lower minimums, and really the double decks offer no significant advantage and way too slow.

You're crazy...