Oscars Grind vs Card Counting

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
I've used the red 7 counting system on several occasions with below avg. results. I've lost money when the count was positive and won money when the count was negative. I believe this is called negative fluctuation. I understand that the card counter isn't going to win all the time. I also understand that in the long run the card counter should come out ahead. However, i've won far more money using oscars grind than I ever did counting cards. I do admit that i've used OG many more times than I have card counting. Currently i'm using OG but card counting as well. However, im not betting based on the count. Im using the card counting to help with my decision to leave a table before I get my butt handed to me on a silver platter.

My questions:

How does a card counter have anymore advantage over a player using oscars grind? The player can stop the grind and leave the table when things get bad just like a card counter leaving a table when the count goes big time negative.

Oscars grind can win during positive and negative counts just like card counting. Oscars grind can win even though the house wins more hands, which is a very powerful weapon. If you really look at the betting of oscars grind it kind of mimics the betting of a card counter. What I mean by that is the card counter makes his money by betting low when the count is negative and betting bigger when the count is positive. The card counter wins bigger bets which cancel out many smaller bets that lost. This is similar to oscars grind. Oscars Grind works by winning bigger bets and losing smaller bets which allows the player to win money even though he's lost more hands than the house.

Card counting does work. I personally feel that using oscars grind with win and stop loss limits is just as powerful as card counting.


I do feel that OG is the only betting system that actually works. Most of the other systems are losers. Now a player that counts cards while using OG can be a very dangerous player for the casinos.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#2
Your last statement seems to indicate a lack of knowledge about both card counting and the grind.
A Card Counter changes his bet acording to the count. He bets big in some situations,small in others based only on the count,regardless of what happened the hand before.
A Grinder bets according to the outcome of the last hand, regardless of the count.
Never the two will meet.
 
#3
Only a handful!!

chitown

only a very small handful of people..with very..VERY large bankrolls..win at card counting!!

Like the dudes at MIT found out..you can't win consistantly!! "They" ..say you can? but I've meant only 3-4 of "They" in my lifetime that do! And "they" have very large bankrolls to back it up!!

Very frustrating!! with very large swings in the bankrolls

RISJR
 
#4
RISJR said:
chitown

only a very small handful of people..with very..VERY large bankrolls..win at card counting!!

Like the dudes at MIT found out..you can't win consistantly!! "They" ..say you can? but I've meant only 3-4 of "They" in my lifetime that do! And "they" have very large bankrolls to back it up!!

Very frustrating!! with very large swings in the bankrolls

RISJR
Exactly! I've lost money card counting when the shoes was positive. I've won money card counting when the count was negative. I've won more money using OG than I have counting cards.

Just like you said above "they can't win consistently" which is true. I don't understand why some don't believe that OG can win more than it loses. Computer sim of OG has shown it to be a pretty powerful system.
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#5
OG is NOT a powerful system, nor is it any better than any other progression system. In fact, it's a good deal worse than just flat betting table minimums.

You got lucky. Good for you! But your argument that it makes OG a "powerful system" is equal to claiming that stroking my lucky rabbits foot before the deal is also a powerful system.

I'll even go so far to argue that my rabbit-foot system is BETTER, because it keeps your bets at table minimum. The less you bet, the less you'll lose. I guarantee any accurate simulation will prove the superiority of my rabbit-foot system over ANY progression system!

I hope no newbies reading this are suckered into believing this OG crap.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#6
johndoe said:
OG is NOT a powerful system, nor is it any better than any other progression system. In fact, it's a good deal worse than just flat betting table minimums.
Of course,you have proof of this,right? I, for one, would love to see it.
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#7
shadroch said:
Of course,you have proof of this,right? I, for one, would love to see it.
Do I really need to run a sim to convince you? You know better than that.

If you are playing with a disadvantage, your bet level doesn't matter; you're going to lose, eventually. Your bet relative to advantage is ultimately all that matters. If your bet is uncorrelated with advantage (as it is with OG), having the minimum bet out will minimize losses.
 

daddybo

Well-Known Member
#8
johndoe said:
Do I really need to run a sim to convince you? You know better than that.

If you are playing with a disadvantage, your bet level doesn't matter; you're going to lose, eventually. Your bet relative to advantage is ultimately all that matters. If your bet is uncorrelated with advantage (as it is with OG), having the minimum bet out will minimize losses.
Actually that's not quite true... Your advantage is just a measurement of your expected success... You can play in mathmatically advantageous situations and and lose your fannie beacuse of time and physical limits. It's just unlikely. Same/opposite is true for disadvantage. Of course counting gives you a way to measure your numeric advantage. And it works.

Theoretically... the MOST important thing is to bet large on the hands your are going to win and minimally on the ones you are going to lose... regardless of your advantage or disadvantage. (Wish I could figure out how to do that.)

I don't think OG can tell you when that will happen...but you can still get lucky in +/- situations where it could help you in both directions... until your luck runs out.

ok.. I'm through rambling. :laugh:
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#9
johndoe said:
Do I really need to run a sim to convince you? You know better than that.

If you are playing with a disadvantage, your bet level doesn't matter; you're going to lose, eventually. Your bet relative to advantage is ultimately all that matters. If your bet is uncorrelated with advantage (as it is with OG), having the minimum bet out will minimize losses.


So you have no proof that using OG is much worse than flat betting?
 
#10
johndoe said:
Do I really need to run a sim to convince you? You know better than that.

If you are playing with a disadvantage, your bet level doesn't matter; you're going to lose, eventually. Your bet relative to advantage is ultimately all that matters. If your bet is uncorrelated with advantage (as it is with OG), having the minimum bet out will minimize losses.
Just because a player is using OG doesn't mean hes not playing on an advantage shoe.

Yes, card counting wins in the long run and we know that because of players like Ken Uston. However, to say that any player that uses OG is going to lose is crap. If thats the case then why have I been winning using it? Let me guess im on one hell of a lucky streak?

What about the computer sim that OG had 1 losing session out of 5000? To me that sounds pretty powerful.

Another thing I keep reading on this site is the words "long term" What do you guys consider long term? Is it 1000 hands, 10,000 hands, 100,000 hands ect....
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#11
shadroch said:
So you have no proof that using OG is much worse than flat betting?
Yes I do. And I don't even need to run a sim.

1) For a typical blackjack game, call the house edge of any hand "HE". (If it's 0.26%, 0.40%, whatever.)

2) Play a bunch of these hands. Expected loss is "Loss=(average bet)*HE*(hands played)"

3) Increasing the average bet increases expected loss, per the formula above.

4) OG has a higher average bet than flat-betting table minimums.

5) The expected loss from OG is therefore higher than the expected loss from flat betting.

Yes, of course people get lucky sometimes. But OG does not improve anything, and will always increase your expected loss. The math should make this quite clear.
 

UncrownedKing

Well-Known Member
#12
How much are you willing to bet?

shadroch said:
So you have no proof that using OG is much worse than flat betting?
shadroch,

I really hope you are joking. Everyone who is part of this community knows that the only way to play a profitable BJ is to bet according the the Player's Advantage. Every other "Voodoo Strategy" has a long-term negative EV. I will bet as much money you are willing to put up (even if its your entire bankroll) that FLAT BETTING TABLE MINIMUMS WILL LOSE YOU LESS MONEY THAN ANY PROGRESSION/VOODOO STRATEGY ( THIS INCLUDES OSCAR'S GRIND).

PS: This bet goes for anyone else who believes progression systems are profitable or allows you to lose less than flat betting.
 
#13
UncrownedKing said:
shadroch,

I really hope you are joking. Everyone who is part of this community knows that the only way to play a profitable BJ is to bet according the the Player's Advantage. Every other "Voodoo Strategy" has a long-term negative EV. I will bet as much money you are willing to put up (even if its your entire bankroll) that FLAT BETTING TABLE MINIMUMS WILL LOSE YOU LESS MONEY THAN ANY PROGRESSION/VOODOO STRATEGY ( THIS INCLUDES OSCAR'S GRIND).

PS: This bet goes for anyone else who believes progression systems are profitable or allows you to lose less than flat betting.
Would that include one weekend worth of play? Lets say 200 hands? I mean get real! If thats the case then how is that I won a good amount of cash last week using OG?

I totally agree that card counting wins in the long term because its been proven. However, to say that some one cant win using OG is just not true.
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#14
chitown said:
Just because a player is using OG doesn't mean hes not playing on an advantage shoe.
True, but whether the shoe is advantageous or not is unknown and irrelevant to the OG player. You must still expect to lose.

If thats the case then why have I been winning using it? Let me guess im on one hell of a lucky streak?
That's exactly right. You got lucky.

What about the computer sim that OG had 1 losing session out of 5000? To me that sounds pretty powerful.
And just how big was that losing session, compared to the wins? I'll bet it was pretty big!

Another thing I keep reading on this site is the words "long term" What do you guys consider long term? Is it 1000 hands, 10,000 hands, 100,000 hands ect....
It doesn't matter; "long term" is your whole life. Since you have no idea what the luck will bring you, all you can go by is "expectation". And by using OG, you must "expect" to lose. Anything else is delusional.

If you must define "long term", it really depends on how much confidence you need in the analysis results. But 20k hands or so is usually (but not always) sufficient to damp out variance in BJ.
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#15
chitown said:
Would that include one weekend worth of play? Lets say 200 hands? I mean get real! If thats the case then how is that I won a good amount of cash last week using OG?

I totally agree that card counting wins in the long term because its been proven. However, to say that some one cant win using OG is just not true.
I saw someone win tons of money that stood on everything above 11. Does that make it a good system?
 
#16
johndoe said:
True, but whether the shoe is advantageous or not is unknown and irrelevant to the OG player. You must still expect to lose.



That's exactly right. You got lucky.



And just how big was that losing session, compared to the wins? I'll bet it was pretty big!



It doesn't matter; "long term" is your whole life. Since you have no idea what the luck will bring you, all you can go by is "expectation". And by using OG, you must "expect" to lose. Anything else is delusional.

If you must define "long term", it really depends on how much confidence you need in the analysis results. But 20k hands or so is usually (but not always) sufficient to damp out variance in BJ.
So the card counter can expect to win in the long term. So it may take him his entire life to show some kind of profit? lol

Like I have said before I will continue to use OG as long as it wins. I have stop loss limits to protect me from a long losing session. If I can't make a profit then I will stop using it but, so far ive won more money using OG than I have counting cards.
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#17
chitown said:
So the card counter can expect to win in the long term. So it may take him his entire life to show some kind of profit? lol
You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Like I have said before I will continue to use OG as long as it wins. I have stop loss limits to protect me from a long losing session. If I can't make a profit then I will stop using it but, so far ive won more money using OG than I have counting cards.
OK, have it your way, and good luck to you.

But it's important to keep any newbies on the board that progression systems like OG are NOT effective, and they shouldn't ever use them.
 

UncrownedKing

Well-Known Member
#18
chitown said:
Would that include one weekend worth of play? Lets say 200 hands? I mean get real! If thats the case then how is that I won a good amount of cash last week using OG?

I totally agree that card counting wins in the long term because its been proven. However, to say that some one cant win using OG is just not true.
Show me results from a sim that uses Oscar's betting system after say 1 billion hands? Then show me a sim that bets according to advantage after 1 billion hands(you find one on this site). Then tell me that using OG is a winning game.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#19
UncrownedKing said:
Show me results from a sim that uses Oscar's betting system after say 1 billion hands? Then show me a sim that bets according to advantage after 1 billion hands(you find one on this site). Then tell me that using OG is a winning game.

That isn't the issue. The issue is OG vs flat betting. Show me the sims for that.
 

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#20
shadroch said:
That isn't the issue. The issue is OG vs flat betting. Show me the sims for that.
Can you find any faults in the mathematical analysis I provided above?

The sims will both show losses, but OG will be at a steeper rate, per the equations I wrote.

Of course, I expect people will say a billion rounds is invalid because it's "too many", and "not representative of a weekend" or whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top