Saliu's System

[Licentia]

There is no reason this thread should be deleted. Here I will present Ion Saliu's strategy for BlackJack. Please state your opinions. As you can see it is not in the least similar to the typical strategies that have been presented here in the past.

Here it is in his own words:

My count always starts at: 0 / 0. I say mentally zero – zero.
~ The first number represents my consecutive losses;
~ The second number represents my consecutive skips without two or more consecutive wins. This parameter is trickier to grasp. I still have difficulties keeping accurate track of it mentally. It is very easy on paper.

If I lose my first hand, the count becomes 1 / 0. If I lose also the second hand, the count becomes 2 / 0. I say mentally two – zero.

If I win my first hand, the count becomes 0 / 0 and a half. I say mentally zero – zero and a half. The half simply indicates that the parameter is still running. If I lose the following hand, the count becomes 1 / 1. I say mentally one – one. That means I lost one consecutive hand; I also have a streak of one without winning two hands in a row.

If I win my first hand, the count becomes 0 / 0 and a half. I say mentally zero – zero and a half. If I win also the following hand, the count becomes 0 / 0. I say mentally zero – zero. That means I have no consecutive losses; I also won two hands in a row.

If I win my first hand, the count becomes 0 / 0 and a half. I say mentally zero – zero and a half. If I lose the following hand, the count becomes 1 / 1. I say mentally one – one. That means I lost one consecutive hand; I also have a streak of one without winning two hands in a row. I lose also the following hand. The count becomes 2 / 1. I say mentally two – one. I win the following hand. The count becomes 0 / 1 and a half. I say mentally zero – one and a half. I lose the following hand. The count becomes 1 / 2. I say mentally one – two. It means I lost one consecutive hand; I also have a streak of two without winning two hands in a row. That is, in two consecutive situations, my win was not followed immediately by another win.

I noticed that the second count is less streaky than the first one. That is, I win more regularly two (or more) hands in a row. I keep that in mind when I martingale my streaks. The Fundamental Formula of Gambling tells me that I win at least once in 7 hands with a degree of certainty of 99%. I martingale more aggressively at the beginning of the game. I martingale the first count when it reaches 4. Since the second parameter is more consistent, I martingale it after it reaches 3. I go up to 7 in both cases (2-4-8 and 2-4-8-18). I stop at 7. I become more cautious after 100 hands or so. I martingale the first count after it reaches 6 (or 5 earlier in the game) and the second count after it reaches 5 (or 4 earlier in the game). I go as much as I can or allowed. If I sense that the streak is real bad, especially inside the same shoe, I stop the Martingale after 7, and start another one with 3 units.

As you can see, this is far more advanced thinking then increasing your bets after a loss. Ideas this complex have not been found in the Voodoo forum up until now. Duh, obviously increasing your bet after a loss or after a win is not going to work, Casinos aren't that stupid! You have to dig deeper.

Clearly as well, there is a limit to any losing streak. Run over billions of simulated hands you would see a definite maximum point to any streak. A possible example is maybe 14 losses in a row. That is just a possibility, I don't know. Just an example. That 14 losses would occur very rarely. Even if your Martingale failed a few times, the number of successful times would outweigh the number of losses, if you know the correct point at which to begin the Martingale.

Licentia

[QFIT]

Saliu is a severely mathematically challenged individual that was laughed off the forums a decade ago. He is one of those folk that believes that mathematics is whatever you feel would work for you. He never met a gambling fallacy he didn't like. Casinos love people like this.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Licentia

There is no reason this thread should be deleted.

Why would a fallacy thread be deleted from VOODOO? Thats what its for! zg

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Licentia

As you can see, this is far more advanced thinking then increasing your bets after a loss. Ideas this complex have not been found in the Voodoo forum up until now. Duh, obviously increasing your bet after a loss or after a win is not going to work, Casinos aren't that stupid! You have to dig deeper.

Are we there yet? zg

[Sonny]

His system is garbage. It is identical to many other systems that have been posted here. The only thing “advanced” about it is the fact that it is needlessly difficult to use. If you’re going to go through all the trouble of counting something, why not count something that will give you an advantage? He is just counting wins/losses. It is a progression system. All progression systems will fail. End of story.

As far as his software goes, if it shows this system to be a winner then it is obviously flawed. I’m sure this systems would show a loss if it were simulated on an accurate simulator.

Originally Posted by Licentia

Clearly as well, there is a limit to any losing streak. Run over billions of simulated hands you would see a definite maximum point to any streak.…Even if your Martingale failed a few times, the number of successful times would outweigh the number of losses, if you know the correct point at which to begin the Martingale.

The simulations have been done decades ago. There is no such point. There is no magic number of losses that can occur where another loss is impossible. In fact, in blackjack you are always more likely to lose the next hand no matter how many losses you have just experienced. That is why the wins will never outweigh the losses. That is just common sense.

-Sonny-

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Sonny

His system is garbage. It is identical to many other systems that have been posted here. The only thing “advanced” about it is the fact that it is needlessly difficult to use. If you’re going to go through all the trouble of counting something, why not count something that will give you an advantage? He is just counting wins/losses. It is a progression system. All progression systems will fail. End of story.

As far as his software goes, if it shows this system to be a winner then it is obviously flawed. I’m sure this systems would show a loss if it were simulated on an accurate simulator.

The simulations have been done decades ago. There is no such point. There is no magic number of losses that can occur where another loss is impossible. In fact, in blackjack you are always more likely to lose the next hand no matter how many losses you have just experienced. That is why the wins will never outweigh the losses. That is just common sense.

It defies conventional non-statistical logic that if I flip 10-heads in a row on a
purely random basis that the next flip is not more likely to be tails! zg

[jack,jackson]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Are we there yet? zg

Deeper Zen, Deeeeppeeeer.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by Sonny

That is just common sense.

Given how frequently it needs to be explained, I'd challenge how common it is.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by callipygian

Given how frequently it needs to be explained, I'd challenge how common it is.

It does NOT make common sense, even to moi, that if I flip 30 heads in a row by sheer random chance over eons of time - zillions of flips - on the next flip after the 30 heads in a row, that TAILS ISN'T FAVORED??? Of course its favored - how many people would bet on heads after 30x in a row for heads? The bets would all be on tails, and tails would be the most likely event. zg

[Harman]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Are we there yet? zg

Wow, where is this place? And why is there a little floating red arrow? Can you spot it?