Newbie Question

[noshoes]

With regards to Oscars grind...
So am I correct in assuming that Oscars grind requires that when you lose, you bet the same amount you lost? IE. lost 2 units, the next bet is 2 units.

If so then isn't Oscars Grind more susceptible to large bankroll fluctuations because of this? You may not run into a table limit that often (1 out of 4999) but you can dig pretty deep into your bankroll to the point of ruin.

If this is the case, then why don't you catch a losing streak just as you are trying to catch a winning streak with Oscars Grind? For instance, the progression is requiring me to bet up. For examples sake, lets say 5 units. I make this bet and I lose it. Why not regress immediately to a 1 unit bet, not knowing if this is a losing streak or not since these trials (assuming roulette) are independant of each other. The detriment is obvious because if you won that 1 unit bet you are still down 4 units from the previous 5. But then you could try to "catch" the winning streak by applying the up as you win motion. You could do this a number of ways, you could bet the remaining 4, or you can bet the original 5 and try to get ahead of the previous loss. You could even bet 6 units as would have been the next logical step in the original series.

Now I realize that this betting pattern would have you going nowhere for a long time but I ask, how is that different from Oscars Grind anyway, except for the fact that Oscars Grind has the potential to give you wild bankroll fluctuations that would scare away any recreational player. And just like Oscars Grind, this would give you the possibility to play for a while and generate some action towards comps.

Of course all of this is moot if I misinterpreted how to play with Oscars Grind. Not that I advise playing this way, or that I even play this way. Just trying to throw something out there for the people that want money for nothing and chicks for free.

[bosco4300]

I am drunk when posting this but it sounds like the Martingale method where you keep doubling your bet or mathcing your loss so if you ever did win it owuld put you ahead one bet. Not a good way to play.

[noshoes]

gotta love drunk replies. I agree it does sound somewhat like a martignale. Maybe I created a "disguised" martignale. Another method could be just to slowly regress the big bets. For instance, 5 unit bet, lose, then 4 unit bet. It is my understanding that Oscars Grind is simply designed to "ride" a winning streak so the thinking is, why not "ride" the losing streak as well. In the end it becomes a system that goes nowhere, for the most part. Any rebutts?

[newyorkbear]

The idea of Oscars Grind is to win a specfic amount each sequence. For example-you bet $10(1 unit). If you win,you pocket the money and start again.
If you lose,you bet the same amount. If you lose several hands in a row and win one,you raise your bet 1 unit,and follow this progression until you are 1 unit ahead for the sequence. Ex.- You start by losing 5 hands in a row,then win.You are down 4 units for the sequence(5L-1W). Now you bet 2. A win means you are down 2 and betting 3. Another win means you are up 1 for the sequence and it is over.
Suppose you find yourself down 8,betting 5. A win means you are down only 3,so instead of raising your bet after a win,you lower it to 4 so a win results in winning 1 for the sequence.
.

[Midnite]

Yes, you repeat the last bet when playing Oscar's Grind. You only raise your bet on a win and it is always ONE unit. If you drop down to a one unit bet, there will be times that it will help, but it also takes away the quick recovery of Oscar.

As for hitting the table limits :
Lets say you have a $1,000 trip bankroll.
Why risk it all in one session ?
You could use a 20 or 40 unit session, for example. ($100/$200 for a $5 unit)
Using 40 units you, would have five sessions.
Any chips won are not bet........
Any time you do not have enough left to repeat the last bet, you stop. (end session)

[noshoes]

In a negative EV game of independant trials, a long enough losing streak can occur that will bust out any player, flat bet or otherwise. The method I am proposing isn't designed to overcome that, just to be able to withstand it longer. I agree that it does forfeit the strength of quick recovery so I suggest this compromise, using the same example as before...
I am to the point in the system where I am placing a 5 unit bet. I lose this bet so ordinarily I would place another 5 unit bet but instead, I regress to a 4 unit bet. If I catch the win then I am still down 1 unit. If I lose, I am down 9 instead of the normal 10. After the loss I would then place 3 unit bet etc.
I discussed earlier how to handle wins in this situation. Personally I would treat a win as a potential streak (in the same manner as the original oscars grind) and bet one more unit than my biggest loss. example series. Each first number is the unit bet.

1 unit loss = -1
1 unit loss = -2
1 unit win = -1
2 unit loss = -3
1 unit loss = -4
1 unit win = -3
3 unit win = 0
1 unit win = 1 end of series

As you can see, at any loss over 1 unit, I would regress to one unit less (to ride the losing streak) and at any win (regardless of units bet) I would bet up one more than the largest unit bet lost. In this case the largest unit bet lost was 2 so when I experienced a win I jumped my bet up to 3.

The obvious detriment to this method is that a series of alternating wins and losses make you a loser in the end but does nothing to the traditional oscars player. But then the traditional Oscars player has to worry about if they brought enough money with them to handle a long losing streak when they are deep in the series.

The question that would quantify this for the roulette player (I'll get to blackjack in a minute) is which is statiscally more likely at any given point in the series...
W-L-W-L-W-L-W-L-W (which would kill my bankroll, though slowly) or
L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-W (which would kill traditional oscars players bankroll quickly)

As for the value of my system to the blackjack player, it would again be just a good cover for the counter. Even more so than traditional oscars since most gambler drop their bets down when losing a multiple unit bet. Imagine how much better you would blend in and only at the risk of 1 unit per round. Of course if you don't complete the series then you lose much more but it's slightly less than the traditional Oscars player.

Thank you everyone for your comments. Keep em coming.

[MadMax]

I've given this some consideration (using a progressive system as cover). And I've tried it out with CVBJ. The only time that it is at all feasible is when the count on a shoe is so low that it has no possiblitity of returning to the positive, but this leads to a major complication. My "magic" number has been -40 for a running count; this trigger the time for "cover through Oscar". Now the problem that I've run into is that there are times that the shoe will be over and I'm down 20-30u (using Oscar's Grind). Now I have to continue until I'm back to +1 so that I'm at least back to where I start plus a little, because if not then that was some very expensive cover. I might finally go positive during a high count shoe and I'm not getting to take advantage of knowing the count and betting according to my advantage instead of betting according to some losing strategy. I guess the solution is to keep your Oscar count as well as the running count for a new shoe, but let's be practical: who's going to do that?

My verdict: this type of cover is just too expensive, when acting like a lucky novice only costs your ego.

Max

[noshoes]

Thank you for humoring a new guy...with that said, here we go.

Originally Posted by MadMax

The only time that it is at all feasible is when the count on a shoe is so low that it has no possiblitity of returning to the positive

why is that? Since an advantage doesn't exsist of the top of a shoe then you would immediately start making waiting bets. It's your choice whether those waiting bets are flat or Oscars.

Originally Posted by MadMax

Now the problem that I've run into is that there are times that the shoe will be over and I'm down 20-30u (using Oscar's Grind). Now I have to continue until I'm back to +1 so that I'm at least back to where I start plus a little, because if not then that was some very expensive cover.

Continuing Oscars Grind (either one) is not a big deal off the top of the shoe since an advantage in shoe doesn't exsist off the top and you have to play the waiting game once again.

Originally Posted by MadMax

I guess the solution is to keep your Oscar count as well as the running count for a new shoe, but let's be practical: who's going to do that?

That is precisely the solution. I have only been playing seriously (ie card counting) for 2 months after an initial month of learning to count and memorizing BS and the illustrious 18. Keeping a traditional Oscars count while keeping a running count is pretty easy to me. Keeping track of where I am at in my own version of Oscars is a little bit more difficult cause I have remember how far I am down (in units) and what the last big bet I lost (in units) but practice would make that disappear.

Personally, I would abandon the grind as soon as the count went good. It's not a bad play if your only a little into the series (not too many units down). However, if your deep into the series with a lot of units down, playing by the count is only helping you dig out of your hole. In that respect, either Oscars system will not look very attractive. However mine will look less so (depending on how you look at it) since it forfeits a certain amount of recovery strength in favor of controlling bankroll a little more. I appreciate your work on this. I am looking forward to your response.

[newyorkbear]

When I grind,I use a Bankroll of 100 units
A losing sequence of L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-W would result in me being down 9 units and betting 3 on my next bet. I'm into my BR roughly 10%.It takes a much worse sequence before a grinder would be getting deep into the BR.

[noshoes]

I see your point but I think you are missing mine. Indeed, any person who decides to use any gambling system (counting or some "crazy" bet progression) should be smart enough to know what effect it has on bankroll. Imagine the sequence at some future point in the series rather than at the front and what % of your bankroll is being used. For instance, if that L-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-W occurs when you are betting 3 units. for this example I will use a W/L series that will get us there quickly.

Bet 1 = L = -1
Bet 1 = L = -2
Bet 1 = W = -1
Bet 2 = L = -3
Bet 2 = L = -5
Bet 2 = W = -3
Bet 3 = L = -6
Bet 3 = L = -9
Bet 3 = L = -12
Bet 3 = L = -15
Bet 3 = W = -12
Bet 4 = L = -16
Bet 4 = L = -20
Bet 4 = L = -24
Bet 4 = L = -28
Bet 4 = W = -24

So as you can see, if this long loss series with a win thrown in every now and again will get down 24% of your 100 unit bankroll. Let examine the same for my first proposed change to Oscars. The regression to 1 unit after a loss.

Bet 1 = L = -1
Bet 1 = L = -2
Bet 1 = W = -1
Bet 2 = L = -3
Bet 1 = L = -4
Bet 1 = W = -3
Bet 3 = L = -6
Bet 1 = L = -7
Bet 1 = L = -8
Bet 1 = L = -9
Bet 1 = W = -8
Bet 4 = L = -12
Bet 1 = L = -13
Bet 1 = L = -14
Bet 1 = L = -15
Bet 1 = W = -14

As you can see, 14% of your 100 unit bankroll lost is not too shabby and by keeping track of your last big bet and betting 1 more than that after a win, you retain the recovery power. It's not as quick as traditional oscars but it's still there. For those that desire something a little quicker then try the second variation with the regression of 1 unit on a loss.

Bet 1 = L = -1
Bet 1 = L = -2
Bet 1 = W = -1
Bet 2 = L = -3
Bet 1 = L = -4
Bet 1 = W = -3
Bet 3 = L = -6
Bet 2 = L = -8
Bet 1 = L = -9
Bet 1 = L = -10
Bet 1 = W = -9
Bet 4 = L = -13
Bet 3 = L = -16
Bet 2 = L = -18
Bet 1 = L = -19
Bet 1 = W = -18

And here we see 18% compare again with the original 24%. A difference of 6 units but look at it this way:
A smart Oscars player should know the deadly sequence that will kill him quickest
L-L-W-L-L-W-L-L-W (x forvever). Knowing that, we should try to avoid it. No one can predict when this will happen other than the knowledge that it's possible in a game of independant trials. And this applies to any permutation of this. Any amount of more than 2 losses and 1 win will deplete your bankroll. This will happen to my system too, but when it finally turns around (for both players) my system will have a much smaller hole to dig out of. Mathmatically it doesn't mean anything because the same amount of wins will finish all of these series. Psychologically it can have a huge difference on the gambler. I mean, honestly, have any of you out there ever experienced the "killer" series and felt your stomach tying itself in knots as you plowed deeper and deeper into your bankroll. You know that the quick recovery power of the system will bring you back (unless your that unlucky 1 in 5000) but it still sucks to know that you are 24% into your bankroll just for the purpose of a a lousy 1% gain.

On a side note, these system changes were devised by me for the purpose of satiating my wife. She likes to play blackjack with me and knows BS (for the most part but I coach her) but she doesn't know how to count and doesn't desire to learn. I taught her how to play with oscars grind and she immediately complained that it was really bothering her that when she lost a big bet she couldn't pull back. She hates having her session bankrolls go quickly, even if she knows it will come back with the quick recovery. So I devised these changes for her. She plays with the first variation (immediate regression to 1 unit) The funny thing is, now she doesn't like keeping track of her losses, plus her last mutiple unit bet. I can't win...