So this guy says to me.................

[rogue1]

that he read a book by Donald Dahl. The book he says exposes the myth of card counting. The jist of it is he says that with perfect Basic Strategy play and positive progression betting the player is at least as well off as any card counter. He said you also need a much smaller bankroll and the casinos heat is useless against you. He said the anti progression betting camp always comes up with "oh that's Matingale and it's a loser". But he says that is bunk-he says that Martingale is a whole other deal.
Is there anyone among you who agree with this idea?

[person1125]

I think to do the any type of progressive system you need a larger bankroll. You do alright as long as you win, but hit a streak of say 10 loses in a row and you will be asking for trouble.

[rogue1]

he says to me that if he loses a hand he immediately goes back to a single unit bet-so again he stressed that it's not Martingale where you increase after a loss. Did you think he meant increase after losses?

[shadroch]

Not all progressive systems require huge bankrolls. Oscars Grind is a progression that calls for a BR of 100 units,but you'll rarely be betting more than 7 or 8 units at a time.
Not all progressions are terrible,some are almost benificial to a novice bettor.

[rogue1]

ok then,does anyone agree with this guy that a strict Basic Strategy player is just about as likely to be a winner as a card counter? In fact he claims that your BR can be considerably smaller that that of a card counter. Anyone find that agreeable?
What is Oscars Grind?

[Mimosine]

Originally Posted by rogue1

ok then,does anyone agree with this guy that a strict Basic Strategy player is just about as likely to be a winner as a card counter? In fact he claims that your BR can be considerably smaller that that of a card counter. Anyone find that agreeable?
What is Oscars Grind?

no.

and no. the only way to overcome the house edge is to bet more when called for, counters do that, how does a BS players overcome the house edge and his/her eventual bankruptcy? A smaller bankroll will lead to a higher ROR. Of course there are different needs for a BS player vs. a counter, but in general no i don't find that agreeable!

ask him for a sim!

[shadroch]

Originally Posted by rogue1

ok then,does anyone agree with this guy that a strict Basic Strategy player is just about as likely to be a winner as a card counter? In fact he claims that your BR can be considerably smaller that that of a card counter. Anyone find that agreeable?
What is Oscars Grind?

BS is a losing game. All you have done is reduce the house edge,but the house still has an edge.
Obviously,a BS player that is only flat-betting can get by on a smaller BR than a counter who is spreading his bets 1-10.But it doesn't make the game profitable. A BS player who flat bets would have to be extremely lucky to be ahead after 100,000 hands. A competant card counter would need extremely bad luck not to be ahead after the same amount of hands.

Now,an extremely good comp counter may end up ahead after 100,000 hands in that his comps might well be worth more than his losses,but thats a whole other situation.

[person1125]

Originally Posted by rogue1

that he read a book by Donald Dahl. The book he says exposes the myth of card counting. The jist of it is he says that with perfect Basic Strategy play and positive progression betting the player is at least as well off as any card counter. He said you also need a much smaller bankroll and the casinos heat is useless against you. He said the anti progression betting camp always comes up with "oh that's Matingale and it's a loser". But he says that is bunk-he says that Martingale is a whole other deal.
Is there anyone among you who agree with this idea?

One easy way to test this would be try it at home. Get 6 decks, play typical rules you find at your local casino and give a progessive system a try. Play perfect BS and see where you end up after 1 shoe, after 2, etc.

[shadroch]

Originally Posted by person1125

One easy way to test this would be try it at home. Get 6 decks, play typical rules you find at your local casino and give a progessive system a try. Play perfect BS and see where you end up after 1 shoe, after 2, etc.

No offense,but thats exactly how people come to believe in systems like the Martingale.Using that,you'd be hard pressed not to be ahead at the end of of one or two or even four shoes.

[sabre]

Originally Posted by shadroch

Not all progressive systems require huge bankrolls. Oscars Grind is a progression that calls for a BR of 100 units,but you'll rarely be betting more than 7 or 8 units at a time.
Not all progressions are terrible,some are almost benificial to a novice bettor.

Progressions cause people to bet more money than they would if they were flat betting the table minimum.The more you wager at a game with a house advantage, the more you lose in the long run. I fail to see how this is "almost beneficial" to a novice bettor.