A new twist on an old system?

[pvtcarter]

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 )

Thanks in advance

[johndoe]

No matter how you dress up a Martingale system, it won't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

[Sonny]

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-

[pvtcarter]

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]

Originally Posted by pvtcarter

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.

Originally Posted by pvtcarter

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]

Originally Posted by pvtcarter

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

[pvtcarter]

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]

Originally Posted by pvtcarter

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.

Originally Posted by pvtcarter

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.

Originally Posted by pvtcarter

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.

Originally Posted by pvtcarter

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-

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by pvtcarter

Which is why they say it's not a good system for blackjack.

The reason it's not a good system for BJ, is because it's not a good system for anything.

[pvtcarter]

Originally Posted by ihate17

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.