Betting Progressions? Worth the Gamble?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Just in case anyone needs reminding, no betting system can change a negative edge game into a positive edge game. Despite any claims to the contrary, all progressions lose money in the long run, equivalent to the house edge times the total money wagered.

In many cases, the progressions do worse, because they may put you in a situation where you don't have enough bankroll left to double and split appropriately. For example, imagine little john gets dealt a pair of 8s with his $1000 bet working. Does he have the bankroll left to put $8000 in play if he makes four hands that should each be doubled?

Progressions may be fun, and they may cause you to be a winner on many of your sessions. But, at the end of many sessions, you'll still lose roughly the same amount as a flat-betting basic strategy player whose bets total the same as yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The above was posted by Ken Smith in another topic here on this forum. No one who knows the math behind blackjack will have the audacity to challenge this wisdom!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But, with that stated and accepted, who out there sees any benefit to betting strategies even with the above accepted? I'm not talking about a generic "money management" methodology but rather the practice of betting progressions both negative, positive and hybrids.

There seem to be two very distinct categories of Blackjack players....those who hit the casinos with the sole purpose of making their killing and getting the hell out of Dogde and the other being those who play it for the entertainment value.

Okay, that first category, that's one that if the player is smart, he will not even attempt unless he is very proficient at advantage play. To these players, progressions have no validity for their bets are dictated by the count of the cards....the true condition of the deck. To think that you are going to consistantly beat the house without the discipline of learning advantage play is pure folly.

The other group is the one I'm interested in. Are you content to sit at a table, mechanically putting out the same bet hand after hand and then depend on the advantage being recovered by making doubles and splits on favorable hands?

Or do you seek adrenalin rushes by playing progressions that will get more money out on the table based on whether you won or lost the previous hand?

I am more of the grinder who bets pretty much flat. However, I have been using a progression just for the fun of it on very low limit tables. In units, it goes 2,1,2,3,3,4,5 and then start back over at the first 2-unit bet after you've reached the 5-unit bet or when you loose. It's a conservative progression. If you are in a really choppy 6-deck game, it works out pretty good. Of course, on those predominately dealer wins 2/3's of the hands, you are going to go down a lot faster than with 1-unit flat betting.

I will go on to state that in my software simulations, I have lost more with the progression than with flat betting. In actual casino play, I come out about the same. It is sort of fun though to watch the Pit Criters eye-balling me when I progress from the minimum $3 bet up to a $15 or $20 bet!!

Just curious.

Mike, without getting into a discussion of the math, I do play progressions; and I have a pretty good track record in actual casino play, as well as in computer simulations. I may lose my shirt one day when the "variance" I have been enjoying turns into "variance" that I won't enjoy. And I don't like the feeling of dropping $1000 in just a few minutes when the thing goes south. But so far, my biggest problem has been my own greed in situations where I should be more disciplined.

First of all, I play a variable hybrid progression. By that I mean that I use both positive and negative progressions; and I vary the actual formula according to conditions. For example, I'll push a negative progression further in a single-deck game than I will in a shoe game.

I also try to "front-load" the negative progression a little. By that I mean that I would be more likely to do $5 - $10 - $25 or $5 - $15 - $25 instead of the old $5 - $10 - $20 double-up. I'll also, if I take it high enough, make jumps from $200 to $500, for example. I'll also make adjustments in single-deck games according to my loose observation of the count. The idea is that I'd like a progression series that takes a few hands to play out to actually pay me more than one unit. So if I use the $5 - $15 - $25 example above, I would "profit" a bit more if the win is on the second hand. Or I might do something like $5 - $15 - $50, so that the deeper I go into the progression, the more I "profit" for each hand that is dealt.

I also like to play at tables where surrender is allowed. At the lower levels of the progression, I treat a surrendered hand as a loss, thereby building in more "profit" to the eventual win. At the higher levels, however, I treat the surrender as a "half loss" and raise my bet by 50%, which helps keep the maximum bet lower. So I might elect to go from $100 to $150 if I surrender at $100. For this to be an effective part of the strategy, I find that I need to surrender a bit more often than Basic Strategy would suggest. In other words, I'd rather surrender something like 14 against a 9, especially if I have a big bet out there, and get a chance to draw a better hand without having to double up the bet.

Since my strategy is based more on hands won than on the expected value of individual hands, I find that I can do well at games like SuperFun 21 that pay only even money on naturals, but offer multi-card surrender and lotys of nice options on doubling down. It is nice to have the $100 bet out there when you get the 11 Vs 6 opportunity. And because I have more hands at higher bets, I get more chances to double with the higher bets. Consequently, I try to be a bit more conservative about doubling and splitting than regular Basic Strategy.

My objective with doubling and splitting is that I win more than I lose of those situations. As such, I try to treat that money seperately from my progression. In other words, if I have $25 bet on a hand, double down, then lose, I go next to $50, not to $100. (I occasionally will go to $75 in that situation.) This, however, is where the mention of greed came in earlier. I fight the temptation to be impatient and chase all of the losses. I find that the more I win too, the tougher it gets to just let that $25 go for the time being. Most of the big progression losses I have ever had trace back to me raising my progression bet to compensate for a double or split that went the wrong way.

Another thing that works for me is to play a capped progression, sometimes with a very small cap. So I'd do something like $5 - $10 - $15, and then start over at $5 if I lose the $15. This sort of thing works nicely with a really choppy table and the opportunity to move to another table if you start to lose too many of those short series.

I have proven to myself many times that I can walk into a casino, play a short session, and win a decent return more often than not. By that I mean that I can buy $100 in chips, play for a few minutes, and quit while I'm up $50 to $100. I have also learned the hard way that I can buy $100, lose it all, buy another $200, and lose all that in fifteen minutes too. But at least so far, the first happens enough more often than the last that I come out ahead in the long run. And if I am fortunate enough to get into a lengthy session where I stay up and continue to avoid the long losing streak, I just keep going and squirl araw some of the winnings as I go.

I am convinced that, if I stay disciplined within the confines of the system that I define for myself going in, I can win more than I lose.

So, Bama21, why do you play the progression rather than just flat betting? Is it an attempt to profit...or is it because it adds excitement to your time at the table?

I've heard it said that it has been mathematically proven that no matter what progression you are using, that in the long run, your chances of winning or loosing is not effected by the progression. Your win/loose margin is dictated by the amount you bet and not how you bet it. Being a programmer who deals with long term projections, I subscribe to this.

Take my progression...2.1.2.3.3.4.5....in the long run, I might as well be betting the 2-unit bet all the time and my practice and simulation runs prove this out. What this progression does is it takes away 1-unit of win every time you win two in a row. This is the more common occurance. If you are chopping, then you will insure a one-unit win over flat betting. But at the cost of that more than likely event of loosing that one-unit, it gives you the advantage of capitalizing on streaks that are rare but that do happen. It all evens out, but you do get some adrenalin flowing and it does add a bit of excitement or at least a change of pace to Flat betting.

So, with that said, I am not using the progression to become a millionaire <LOL>. I use it to bust up a 12 hour session with something less mechanical than flat betting. I still will fall back on flat betting however if things go south with the progression.

Simply put, I think the progression gives me a better shot at winning on any given session than does flat betting. I have rarely managed to win more hands than I lose for any length of time; and losing more than you win is a sure-fire way to have a losing session flat betting. On the other hand, it is very common for me to avoid that killer wipe-out losing streak long enough for the progression to get me a nice profit

I'm not going to get rich with my play either; but for a limited bankroll and occasional play, it works pretty well.