Optimum playing strategy for progressive bettign schemes

[Ferretnparrot]

I was on yahoo answers, answering a wuestion about a progressive bettign scheme and blackjack. And a curious thought occurred.

We all know progressive systems fail, and we know why. but for the people that are using them, i beleive there is a potential to manipulate their ROR by optimising basic playign strategy. I dont think im too ouside the box on this one because risk averase index plays are not much different.

The thought is in refference to net win/net loss probibilities, which for a progressive betting system, are most important. This is not the amount of money you are expecting to win or lose each hand, as most gambler focus on, but simply, weather or not you win or lose that hand period.

Using basic stratagy, you attempt to make the most money by doubling and splitting, when it will offer the highest ev after you have effectively doubled your bet, however, many times while doing so you actually increase your chance of losing that hand, since you can no longer draw additional cards.

I beleive, that a player using a progressive bettign system, may be able to have a lower ROR if they dimply did not double at all, and possibly if they split more often on certain hands.

I am curious as to how far off from the standard win/loss rate using basic strategy you coudl get by modifiing basics strategy in this way. Obviously, you coudl never get above 50%, but to my knowledge, the odds fo a win in contract to a loss are 47.49% and 52.51 respectfully, so there is some room for play.

This without a doubt would increase the players expected dollar loss, but this is no different than a card counter reducing expected dollar win, for a lower ror by using risk averse indexes, and less agressive betting schemes. If players are already using this kind of system, im sure they have already accepted the fact that they have expected follar loss. In my opinion, money thrown out the window is the same as additional money lost.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by Ferretnparrot

I beleive, that a player using a progressive bettign system, may be able to have a lower ROR if they simply did not double at all, and possibly if they split more often on certain hands.

The RoR won't change. Any game with a negative EV will have a RoR of 100% no matter how you play it. It may be possible to increase the overall probability of winning a hand very slightly by deviating from basic strategy but it will not change the end result. The player will still go broke if he plays long enough.

-Sonny-

[picasso]

Originally Posted by Ferretnparrot

(...) I beleive, that a player using a progressive bettign system, may be able to have a lower ROR if they dimply did not double at all, and possibly if they split more often on certain hands. (...)

Split according to the «no double after split» rule, but the player should still double 10, 11 or A6 against dealers up card of 4, 5 or 6. You will only draw one card here, you might as well double.

[KOLAN]

Originally Posted by Ferretnparrot

I was on yahoo answers, answering a wuestion about a progressive bettign scheme and blackjack. And a curious thought occurred.

We all know progressive systems fail, and we know why. but for the people that are using them, i beleive there is a potential to manipulate their ROR by optimising basic playign strategy. I dont think im too ouside the box on this one because risk averase index plays are not much different.

The thought is in refference to net win/net loss probibilities, which for a progressive betting system, are most important. This is not the amount of money you are expecting to win or lose each hand, as most gambler focus on, but simply, weather or not you win or lose that hand period.

Using basic stratagy, you attempt to make the most money by doubling and splitting, when it will offer the highest ev after you have effectively doubled your bet, however, many times while doing so you actually increase your chance of losing that hand, since you can no longer draw additional cards.

I beleive, that a player using a progressive bettign system, may be able to have a lower ROR if they dimply did not double at all, and possibly if they split more often on certain hands.

I am curious as to how far off from the standard win/loss rate using basic strategy you coudl get by modifiing basics strategy in this way. Obviously, you coudl never get above 50%, but to my knowledge, the odds fo a win in contract to a loss are 47.49% and 52.51 respectfully, so there is some room for play.

This without a doubt would increase the players expected dollar loss, but this is no different than a card counter reducing expected dollar win, for a lower ror by using risk averse indexes, and less agressive betting schemes. If players are already using this kind of system, im sure they have already accepted the fact that they have expected follar loss. In my opinion, money thrown out the window is the same as additional money lost.

lol i agree 100%

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by Ferretnparrot

This without a doubt would increase the players expected dollar loss, but this is no different than a card counter reducing expected dollar win, for a lower ror by using risk averse indexes

Risk-averse indexes increase expected win rate, not decrease. The idea is to increase the betting unit without an increase in risk.

[stophon]

They increase your expected win over time. If you only wanted to maximize EV on the next hand you would just bet your whole bankroll.

But i think it does make mathematical sense if a martingale player were to not double when he is on a big losing streak.

[FLASH1296]

Ferretnparrot,

Where did you get the figures of 47.49% and 52.51% ?

My figures are: Player wins 43.2%, loses 47.9% and ties 8.9%

If I split the "pushes" and add them to the W and L numbers
I would have 47.65% and 52.35%
Certainly very close but not identical.

The differences between the W - L figures produce the flat bet
expectation - when splits, doubles, and blackjacks are ignored.

Yours = 5.02% ..... Mine = 4.70%

[FLASH1296]

I have always thought that BJ would be a poor choice of a game to use with a
progressive betting strategy, since you will win a distinct minority of the hands played.

Needless to say, all progressive schemes are foolhardy.

If I was obliged to select a casino game with which to play a progression,
Id select the "don't pass" bet at craps; but my first choice would be the "bank" bet at Baccarat.

That bet is the only one that I know of that wins more than 50% of the resolved bets.
The accumulated "commissions" paid equate to 5%of the winning wagers.
As such, there would be a tradeoff that would decrease profits - while also
decreasing the jeopardy derived from having to play long strings of losing bets.

[chichow]

Originally Posted by FLASH1296

Ferretnparrot,

Where did you get the figures of 47.49% and 52.51% ?

My figures are: Player wins 43.2%, loses 47.9% and ties 8.9%

If I split the "pushes" and add them to the W and L numbers
I would have 47.65% and 52.35%
Certainly very close but not identical.

The differences between the W - L figures produce the flat bet
expectation - when splits, doubles, and blackjacks are ignored.

Yours = 5.02% ..... Mine = 4.70%

Does it REALLY make sense to go to .x or .xx in terms of precision when you haven't explicitly defined the rules of the game you are attempting to describe?

[itakeyourmoney]

Originally Posted by KOLAN

lol i agree 100%

Uh oh. If KOLAN agrees with you then you must be in trouble...