A new twist on an old system?

#1
Hey guys/gals

This is my first post so I thought I'd give everyone something to think about.

I love the game but I get more kicks trying to figure out different strategies and what not. I guess you can say I'm a numbers guru. Anyhow, I've read and tried a lot on different strategies and have kind of tweaked a progression system to my own advantage.

I thought I'd share and let you guys pick it apart before I try it out for real. Even though through thousand's of hands at home It has worked every time for me.

It's basically pretty simple. My goal is to win $100 per "session".

I start off with $10 bets and double my bet every time I lose. If I win, I keep the same $10 bet.

If you have a bankroll of $10,240 you would never lose as long as (and here's the kicker) you don't lose 10 hands in a row. I know people are saying it will eventually happen but please read on. The most I've been down is $1280 which means I've lost 7 times in a row. And that's only happened a handful of times. Although it may eventually happen, I can't say I've ever WON 8,9, or 10 times in row. (Can someone please explain that logic?)

Another part of this method is to never double down. Although you may "lose out" on opportunities, you decrease the chance of losing 10 times in a row.

Also, splitting. I havn't figured out all the math yet, but splitting is not necessary either, unless say you have A,A.

Example:

1st bet: $10, W (up $10)
2nd bet: $10, L (even)
3rd bet: $20, L (down $20)
4th bet: $40, L (down $60)
5th bet: $80, W (up $20)

I'm sure you get the gist. But it seems like this is a "semi" fool proof method. As long as you stop at the $100 goal.

I would say the average number of hands to get to the $100 goal is 25 hands. When playing this short number of hands, chances of losing 10 in a row are very slim. Not to mention, you're up most of the time unless you hit a losing streak. (however, your losing streak WILL eventually end) And when it does end, you double your money which usually gives you more than what you were up in the first place (see example).

One hiccup to this method would be the max bet allowed. But I'm sure another numbers junkie could help tweak this to our benefit.

I'm not sure if this method would work out in the "long run" or not. I'm not a greedy person nor am I trying to get rich playing BJ. But if I could make a couple hundred extra bucks a month playing part time without the risk of losing my @$$, I think I may be on to something.

I may have left something out and feel free ask questions and/or play devil's advocate (but you don't have to be d!ck about it :grin:)

Thanks in advance
 

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#3
I’m afraid I don’t understand the logic behind this system. Let me see if I understand you correctly: You avoid doubles and splits, which increases the house edge from 0.5% to about 2.5%. Then you use a progression system to raise your bets into this higher house edge. How does betting more money at a much bigger disadvantage benefit you?

-Sonny-
 
#4
Sonny,

I understand what you are saying. By not doubling down or splitting, you may give the house an extra 2% advantage, but you decrease your risk of losing 10x in a row (and thus your whole bankroll). I would gladly give up a 2% advantage if it meant I would never go broke. (and when I say never, obviously there is a chance; albeit a slim one it could happen).

You double your money to get back what you lost. Simple enough right? As I said, I have no idea "who's favor" this works out for in the long run. All I can say is to try it. Try it, and try it again. If you lose 10x in a row, then come back and tell me I'm an idiot. Also, I don't know how much money you make or are trying to make playing BJ. I'm not a high roller by any means, but like I said before if I'm up $100 after each session, how can you go wrong?
 

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#5
pvtcarter said:
By not doubling down or splitting, you may give the house an extra 2% advantage, but you decrease your risk of losing 10x in a row (and thus your whole bankroll).
Not really. Using normal basic strategy you will win about 43% of the hands, lose 49% and push 8%. If you never split or double you will still only win about 43% of your hands (wins and pushes increase only slightly), but now you are winning less money when you win. You are only slightly more likely to win the hand but you are giving up more money by trying to win more often.

pvtcarter said:
All I can say is to try it. Try it, and try it again. If you lose 10x in a row, then come back and tell me I'm an idiot.
You will lose ten hands in a row about 0.17% of the time, which is about once every 600 hands. At 100 hands per hour you will go broke every 6 hours on average. At 65 hands per hour (more realistic for a crowded casino) that's about once every 10 hours. There’s no need to test this to see that it won’t work in the lung run. I would not recommend using this system for real money.

-Sonny-
 

ihate17

Well-Known Member
#6
Try to understand this

pvtcarter said:
Sonny,

I understand what you are saying. By not doubling down or splitting, you may give the house an extra 2% advantage, but you decrease your risk of losing 10x in a row (and thus your whole bankroll). I would gladly give up a 2% advantage if it meant I would never go broke. (and when I say never, obviously there is a chance; albeit a slim one it could happen).

You double your money to get back what you lost. Simple enough right? As I said, I have no idea "who's favor" this works out for in the long run. All I can say is to try it. Try it, and try it again. If you lose 10x in a row, then come back and tell me I'm an idiot. Also, I don't know how much money you make or are trying to make playing BJ. I'm not a high roller by any means, but like I said before if I'm up $100 after each session, how can you go wrong?

Statistically, it can be proven that in 20+ hours of playing blackjack you should have one 10 hand losing streak. Factually, in over 30 years of playing 300-550 hours of blackjack per year, I can not count how many 10 or more hand losing streaks I have had. I can state with a certainty that I have had 4 streaks of over 20 hands lost in a row and if I wish to count doubles and splits as 2 or more hands one of those streaks had to reach at least 30 hands in a row. The variance of blackjack is not understandable till you have experienced both the good and the bad.
Based upon your quiting after winning $100, there comes another question. You are using a system that limits the amount you win but you are willing to lose your whole bankroll in a bad streak. Why?
Let us say you play 20 one hour sessions and win exactly $100 per session for a total win of $2,000. You are now statistically overdue for a 10 hand losing streak. It could have already come or it might come after another bunch of sessions but it HAS to come. Does it make sense to bet $10,230 just to land up a net $10 winner and what if you lose?
Simply, you could land up giving back that $2,000 plus another 8.

Your system is just a martingale but with your win limitation and no loss limition, it may actually be much worse.

Not trying to really pick on you here. I think many players who do not have much experience at the game do think that 10 in a row is highly unlikely, just want to point out that it will happen.

ihate17
 
#7
When you say you will lose 10 hands in a row .17% of the time, does that include doubling as two losses, splitting as two loses, splitting and doubling on both hands as four losses? Then yes, losing 10 times in a row would not be that all uncommon seeing how you could reach 40% of the mark with 1 deal.

Also, according to the numbers, the dealer bust approx 1 out of 3 hands. If you have 9 hands, numbers say he will bust 3 times. Common sense tells us this doesn't happen, however, i'm curious as to the numbers of the dealer NOT busting at least once in 10 hands.

Also, if you count cards, it is possible to increase these odds by throwing a bust card his way.

One other thing, on those instances you hit BJ at 3:2 you put even more money in your pocket. If you have a $160 bet on the table, that gives you a win of $240, which is almost the goal of $100 in just one hand. The "session" is simply complete once you get to the $100 goal.

I understand by not doubling or splitting, you give up less money when you win. But you also give up less money when you lose. Using the martingale system (or any other progression system) You will go broke really fast with your losses from doubling and splitting and splitting and doubling. Which is why they say it's not a good system for blackjack.
 

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#8
pvtcarter said:
When you say you will lose 10 hands in a row .17% of the time, does that include doubling as two losses, splitting as two loses, splitting and doubling on both hands as four losses?
No, that is for not doubling or splitting. If you double and split then you could lose 10 bets much more often since it could happen sooner than 10 hands.

pvtcarter said:
Also, if you count cards, it is possible to increase these odds by throwing a bust card his way.
Not unless you know what the dealer’s hole card is and what the next card in the shoe is. That is not information that a card counter would have.

pvtcarter said:
I understand by not doubling or splitting, you give up less money when you win. But you also give up less money when you lose.
But the reason you double is because you will win more often than you lose. If you don’t double then you will lose money the majority of the time.

pvtcarter said:
Using the martingale system (or any other progression system) You will go broke really fast with your losses from doubling and splitting and splitting and doubling. Which is why they say it's not a good system for blackjack.
It has nothing to do with doubles and splits. The Martingale system doesn't work on Roulette or Craps either, and those games don't allow doubles or splits. The reason the Martingale system is not good for blackjack (or any casino game) is because the house has the advantage. It doesn’t matter what system you use, you will always lose more hands than you win. That means you are always more likely to lose the next hand. It doesn’t make sense to bet more money when you are most likely going to lose it.



-Sonny-
 
#10
ihate17 said:
Based upon your quiting after winning $100, there comes another question. You are using a system that limits the amount you win but you are willing to lose your whole bankroll in a bad streak. Why?

ihate17
As far as the $100 goes; The average annual salary in the united states is about $30,000 a year. Working 5 days a week for 52 weeks is 260 working days a year, equating to about $115 a day the average person makes. For just a nice round number, I made it $100. This is close to my salary so just messing with the numbers, I was trying to figure out a way to make $100 a day playing BJ. Once you get to the goal of $100, you simply quit (you just made a days pay in 20-25 hands) I know, I know, sounds ridiculous, but it was my logic at the time.

Not to mention, if you stop at $100 (IMO you won, because that is the goal). Most gamblers I've seen get greedy and that's how they lose their money. Does anyone else stop when they're ahead? I'm sure some do, or do they get greedy to eventually give all their money back to the casino. Also, at what do you proven players say "ok, I'm up, I'm calling it a day" or do you just rely on gut feeling, or when the count starts to go down?

I don't doubt that it's possible you will eventually lose 10 hands in a row. I was just testing this method at home and it has worked EVERY SINGLE TIME. As stated in my original post, I said I may be on to something. Maybe there's someone out there that can help me dial in this system so there's isn't a no loss limitation.

Just to reiterate, I'm not trying to get rich playing BJ, this is simply "fun" for me to crunch numbers and if I can make money doing it or help someone else make money doing it, then it's an added bonus.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#11
pvtcarter said:
Most gamblers I've seen get greedy and that's how they lose their money.
The reason that most gamblers lose, is that they are gamblers. The correct time to quit when you have a negative EV, is before you start. If you want the odds on your side, you have to play with a positive expectation. Martingale is negative expectation.
 

ihate17

Well-Known Member
#12
It's not the $100 it's the $10,000!!!

pvtcarter said:
As far as the $100 goes; The average annual salary in the united states is about $30,000 a year. Working 5 days a week for 52 weeks is 260 working days a year, equating to about $115 a day the average person makes. For just a nice round number, I made it $100. This is close to my salary so just messing with the numbers, I was trying to figure out a way to make $100 a day playing BJ. Once you get to the goal of $100, you simply quit (you just made a days pay in 20-25 hands) I know, I know, sounds ridiculous, but it was my logic at the time.

Not to mention, if you stop at $100 (IMO you won, because that is the goal). Most gamblers I've seen get greedy and that's how they lose their money. Does anyone else stop when they're ahead? I'm sure some do, or do they get greedy to eventually give all their money back to the casino. Also, at what do you proven players say "ok, I'm up, I'm calling it a day" or do you just rely on gut feeling, or when the count starts to go down?

I don't doubt that it's possible you will eventually lose 10 hands in a row. I was just testing this method at home and it has worked EVERY SINGLE TIME. As stated in my original post, I said I may be on to something. Maybe there's someone out there that can help me dial in this system so there's isn't a no loss limitation.

Just to reiterate, I'm not trying to get rich playing BJ, this is simply "fun" for me to crunch numbers and if I can make money doing it or help someone else make money doing it, then it's an added bonus.

When to stop playing is different for different players. Someone like yourself, who is playing with a disadvantage, then quitting when ahead is not a bad idea because eventually the house will get that win plus some of your money.
For advantage players. the time to leave has nothing to do most often with win or loss. Do you need to be somewhere else, are you tired, are you getting heat from the casino or has your session been too long? These are the kind of things to consider because you are playing a winning game

The fact that you already know that you are playing a losing game and have set a quit mark should also tell you that overtime your method will lose money to the house.

My question about why set $100 as a win had much more to do with your setting $10,000+ as your loss limit than the $100. Just a comparision of the two numbers should be enough to convince you never to play your progression.

ihate17
 

ihate17

Well-Known Member
#13
Just walked in the door

This kind of reminds me of my trip to a local casino this past week.
First table I sit at, neutral count, landed up flat betting and losing 18 of the first 20 hands I played. Count was slightly negative so I did not bother to buy more chips and moved on to another table. Since I know I was down to 2 chips before winning a hand, I know I lost 12 in a row before making my seat warm.

Point is, I was flat betting into a neutral or slightly negative shoe and lost 16 minimum units, not tens of thousands of dollars and within the next several shoes I was on my way to a nice size win for the day. Had I been a martingale player I would have played less than 15 minutes and had my whole bankroll taken.

If you want to make money playing blackjack, first learn basic strategy, then learn to count, then learn indices to basic strategy and then you might look at advanced things like shuffle-tracking or hole carding pitch games. Otherwise, you can not possibly expect to overcome the house edge but you can do things that make it worse for you.

ihate17
 
#14
ihate17,

Thank you for your comments. The comparison of the two numbers ($100 vs. $10,000) is not that far off of slight edge you gain on the casino's by counting cards. In other words, a card counter can gain, what 1%-2% on the house? At a 1% advantage, to make $100, you would have had to bet $10,000.

I didn't set $10,000 as my loss limit. I thought 10 would be a fair number to say, you're probably not going to lose 10 hands in a row. Plus, max bet at most tables is $10,000.

Just for the record, I do know basic strategy, know how to count cards (although I still need a bit more practice before I try it with real money), and still learning the adjustments for BS based on the count.

In the meantime, I'm just messing around with other ideas in hopes I can come across something.

So is it fair to say the NOTHING (legally of course) other than counting cards works in the long run?

Also, is it safe to say that the method above cannot work with some fine tuning? (because eventually it all comes down to losing 10 hands in a row which will eventually happen)

On another note, is the 1%-2% you're gaining on the house by counting cards really all that much of an advantage? Maybe am mislead by the whole, you will win in the end thing. So you have a bad night, then you get hit by a bus and die. Did you really win in the end? Also, Say you have multiple nights where you are on the losing end. Are you just waiting it out to have multiple nights on the winning end? Can you please give me an example of how often you play, how much you expect to win, just so I can get an idea. (if it's not taboo to ask) You can fib the numbers or break it down in units or whatever. I would just like some kind of example. I mean players that play for a living have to have some sort of goal or income level they expect to earn. And how do they go about doing that. Thanks in advance.
 

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#15
pvtcarter said:
At a 1% advantage, to make $100, you would have had to bet $10,000.
That's not hard to do. If you can play 100 hands per hour with an average bet of $25, you'll get there in 4 hours.

pvtcarter said:
So is it fair to say the NOTHING (legally of course) other than counting cards works in the long run?
No, not at all. There are dozens of other ways to beat the game. Techniques like shuffle tracking, cutting/steering, sequencing, hole carding, comp counting, scavenger plays, exploiting dealer errors, beating side bets, backlining, team play and lots of other techniques can all give you an advantage. Most of those techniques are very advanced though so you'll need to learn the basics before you start thinking about them.

pvtcarter said:
Also, is it safe to say that the method above cannot work with some fine tuning?
Right. No matter how you tweak a progression system, it will never give you an advantage. The sticky thread at the top of this forum gives more details about exactly why.

-Sonny-
 

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
#16
pvtcarter said:
On another note, is the 1%-2% you're gaining on the house by counting cards really all that much of an advantage?
Its advantage enough. With an average bet of X, 1% advantage, playing 100 hands an hour, you are expecting to make $X/hour. Sounds pretty good to me.

pvtcarter said:
Maybe am mislead by the whole, you will win in the end thing. So you have a bad night, then you get hit by a bus and die. Did you really win in the end?
Who said you will win in the end? It is not a guaruntee that you will win. Better phrased: A card counter will <b>expect</b> to win in the <b>long run</b>

pvtcarter said:
Also, Say you have multiple nights where you are on the losing end. Are you just waiting it out to have multiple nights on the winning end?</QUOTE>

Thats the gambler's fallacy. Past sessions are not indicative of the future (in blackjack). After flipping a coin 10 times and getting 10 heads in a row, whats the chance of a tail in the next flip? Because this is still a game of chance, there will be card counters that lose their bankroll even with perfect play and good BR management. Its an investment, not a gauruntee.

pvtcarter said:
Can you please give me an example of how often you play, how much you expect to win, just so I can get an idea. (if it's not taboo to ask) You can fib the numbers or break it down in units or whatever. I would just like some kind of example. I mean players that play for a living have to have some sort of goal or income level they expect to earn. And how do they go about doing that. Thanks in advance.
I don't go to casinos very often. I am a somewhat recreational player and play about 5 hours a month (although after learning counting I have become a lot more interested and plan to go more :grin:). My expectation from the games vary due to different rules. I expect to make about 2 units an hour from my home game. This can be calculated with CVCX (program that QFIT made).
 

ihate17

Well-Known Member
#17
pvtcarter said:
ihate17,


On another note, is the 1%-2% you're gaining on the house by counting cards really all that much of an advantage? Maybe am mislead by the whole, you will win in the end thing. So you have a bad night, then you get hit by a bus and die. Did you really win in the end? Also, Say you have multiple nights where you are on the losing end. Are you just waiting it out to have multiple nights on the winning end? Can you please give me an example of how often you play, how much you expect to win, just so I can get an idea. (if it's not taboo to ask) You can fib the numbers or break it down in units or whatever. I would just like some kind of example. I mean players that play for a living have to have some sort of goal or income level they expect to earn. And how do they go about doing that. Thanks in advance.
I do not play full time but I play heavily for someone who has another occupation. I average between 30 and 40 hours per month and have so for about the past 20 years. Though my average bet is above $100, $100 is a good number to use as an example of what a 1% edge is worth in blackjack. Since I play quite a bit of heads up, perhaps I average 80 hands per hour betting $100 equals $8,000 put into action. A 1% edge yields a profit of $80 per hour. Actual results will vary but in my opinion, in over 30 years of counting, I hit the long run long ago and my records prove out my edge.
In actuality, because I do more than just count, my overall edge is over that 1-2%, as I still find opportunities where I hold an edge of 5-8% for periods of time.

ihate17
 
#18
Would anyone care to try this method out on a simulator. My OCD won't allow me to let go of it seeing as how it have never failed me.

I mean, at what point do you stop with the numbers and go with real world logic?

Math says a golf player has a 1:5,000 chance of hitting a hole in one. Many players go a whole lifetime without hitting one.

Sonny, you stated that a lost of 10 in a row has .17% chance of happening or happens out of every 600 hands. Can you please reiterate how you come to those numbers.

Thanks in advance
 

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
#19
pvtcarter said:
I mean, at what point do you stop with the numbers and go with real world logic?

Math says a golf player has a 1:5,000 chance of hitting a hole in one. Many players go a whole lifetime without hitting one.
Lets say your 1:5000 is true, although Im sure there are plenty of things wrong with that number. Consider that every hole in a course is not "hole-in-one-able". On average, lets say 3 holes are par 3 in any given course. Since people in general don't play more than a round in a day, thats 3 chances in a day of golf. Most people also don't play every day. Lets say 2 rounds a week for a player? Thats only 312 chances a year. Why would you not be surprised not everyone gets at least 1 hole in one in a lifetime?

pvtcarter said:
Sonny, you stated that a lost of 10 in a row has .17% chance of happening or happens out of every 600 hands. Can you please reiterate how you come to those numbers.

Thanks in advance
QFIT has a nice bit here on streaks. It was conducted using 10 billion trials.
 
#20
SleightOfHand said:
Lets say your 1:5000 is true, although Im sure there are plenty of things wrong with that number. Consider that every hole in a course is not "hole-in-one-able". On average, lets say 3 holes are par 3 in any given course. Since people in general don't play more than a round in a day, thats 3 chances in a day of golf. Most people also don't play every day. Lets say 2 rounds a week for a player? Thats only 312 chances a year. Why would you not be surprised not everyone gets at least 1 hole in one in a lifetime?
Good point, that does make sense; however at 312 chances a year. Most avid golfers can play well into theirs 70's. You would think every 15 years a hole in one would happen. If you start playing golf at 25 and stop at 70, your odds say you should hit 3 whole-in-ones in your life. Again, not very likely. I'm just trying to find a way against this method. Sure I'm hard headed and slowly but surely you guys are convincing against it.

Sorry to be a burden, but two last questions. Ok, EVENTUALLY, this method will not work. Would you recommend it short term to build up a decent BR. At $10 unit, it's recommended to have at least $5,000.

Second, what is considered "the long run"?

Thanks again for your patience guys.
 
Top