Please help destroy this strategey

[newyorkbear]

I've been fooling around with this and it seems quite successful. I've only used it for about 1500 rounds on computers and about two hours of real casino play.
I'm sure I'm overlooking a fatal flaw,so feel free to destroy it before I drop a bundle using it in a casino.
Its a modified version of Oscars Grind.
I divide my total session into sub-sessions that call innings.
The goal of each inning is to either quickly win one unit,or to pay for a tie.
It works like this;
1st bet-1 unit.a win ends the inning and the unit win is banked,never to come into play that session.A loss prompts....
2nd bet- 2 units. A win again causes a 1 unit win which is banked.A loss causes....
3rd bet-2 units. A win now causes me to be down one unit for the inning leaving either...
4th bet(A)one unit,a win ends the inning in a tie,and the next inning begins.A loss and you revert back to bet #2 and continue from there.

Or if you lose bet #3,you continue betting two units until you have a win.You raise your bet 1 unit after a win,unless that raise will end up giving you a positive result for the sequence.

If you don't experiance a win in the first three rounds,you now play only for a tie.
I believe this will result in a lesser toll on your bankroll and cause the individual innings to be concluded faster.So what am I missing?

[Mikeaber]

Hmm, a Martingale on tranquilizers

In this money management strategy, you are counting on the fact that you are not going to lose more than 3 in a row. I believe that with your progression, if you lose three in a row, you will be down 5 units and will be down 6 units after a 4-hand loss.

Your odds on not losing 3 in a row are something like 1 in 8 I believe. Not bad. But not uncommon either. You are really counting on a choppy game where you win one, lose one, win one etc. In that case, you are nulifying your lose and gaining 1 chip on each win. You are breaking even on a win on the hand after two loses in a row (third hand). But if you have to go to a fourth or fifth hand, you are losing 5 or 6 units with nothing to recover with other than a streak that doesn't see you have to play a third hand in the sequence.

As with any progression, there are circumstances wich will see the progression pay off for you. Many times this one will. But it will eat your lunch if the play doesn't come out pretty regular in your wins versus the dealer's wins. I mean, if there happens to be a lot of 4 win/lose streaks, you are not going to last long!

It's a very conservative progression in my opinion and following that characteristic, you are "banking" or "ratholeing" your wins. This, along with your loses on the negative streaks, would deplete your bankroll and get you away from the game if it were really going south on you. I hope that you would religiously maintain discipline and stick with your session bankroll and NOT expect to come away from the table a big winner.

I say that because even though you are cautious in doing it, you are chasing your loses a little with the progression but never pressing your winnings.

[Mikeaber]

I do have a money management strategy that has nothing to do with progressions that I use....especially after I've suffered couple of bad sessions. It has a similarity to your modified Oscar in that I rathole wins.

Basically, I start out with a specified amount of money (maybe $100). When I accumulate $25 in wins, I rathole it but continue playing. When I lose $25, I break from the table and either find another table after walking around for a while or maybe play video poker for a bit. That $25 loss represents a "session". After I've cooled off a bit, I'll return with my $75 and play another $25 session. I repeat this until my original $100 BR is depleted. At that time, I have to decide whether to call it quits or dip into the ratholed green chips.

I acknowledge that this method bites me sometimes. It doesn't take long to lose $25 with $5 bets when you split pairs 3 or 4 times and then double a couple of them...and lose!

More than anything else, this money management strategy just underscores to me what my current trend is for the day or session. The thing is, it gives you a red flag that at least makes you think before blowing your entire day's Bankroll in one bad run at a table.

[aussiecounter]

I smell a Martingale as well. This seems to just be a conservative Martingale system.

A negative progression (such as Martingale) system's main problem is that it fails when you have a long losing streak, unless you have a neverending bankroll and open table limits.
If you have a losing streak of 4 hands, you'll be down 6 units. A 4 hand losing streak is not that uncommon. A four hand winning streak gives you 4 units.

I personally have come to the conclusion that there is no 'system' that will actually work, except for a basic Martingale with the unlikely circumstances of the above-mentioned neverending bankroll and open table limits.

[newyorkbear]

I guess I didn't explain it correctly,as it is far from a martingale.
let me show you the results of en extended losing streak.first bet is one unit.Second bet is two units. Others remain flat after a loss,increase 1 after a win.
1st bet-loss,-1 unit
2nd bet-loss -3 units
3rd bet-loss -5 units(Unlike a martingale,you are not doubling your losses)
4th bet-loss -7 units
5th bet-loss -9 units
6th bet-win -7 units Now we raise to 3 units after a win
7th bet-loss -10 units
8th bet-loss -13 units
9th bet-win -9units We raise to 4 units after the win.
10th bet-loss -13 units
11th bet-loss -17 units
12th bet-win -14 units. We raise to 5 units.
13th bet-loss -19 units
14th bet loss -24 units.

Now we approaching a losing streak of epic proportions. One you will rarely encounter.So lets examine what we have going on.
If we are on a $5 table,we have lost $120 and are betting $25 a hand. Dangerous,but nowhere near the table limits or approaching the dread gamblers ruin,as I started with a bankroll of 100 units.
if I had been flat betting 2 units a hand,I'd be down $80 and still betting $10 a hand.
Which is a more recoverable postion?
Being down $120 with a $25 bet(less than 5 total units)
or being down $80 with a $10 bet( 8 units)



15th bet-loss -29 units
16th bet loss -34 units
17th bet loss -39 units
18th bet win -34 units We increase to 6 units
19th bet loss -40 units 20th bet loss- -44 units
21st bet win -38 units increase to 7 units
22nd bet win -31 units increase to 8 units
23rd bet win -23 units
24th bet loss -31 units
25th bet loss -39 units
26th bet loss -47 units.

Now we are truly are an epic losing streak, but look where we really are.Down $235 and betting $40 a hand,we are still only six winning bets removed from breaking even.
Had we continued flat betting,we'd be down $120 but more importantly ,we'd be down 12 bets from breaking even.
Lets assume the next six hands are choppy,as we would expect a normal game to be.
27th bet loss -55 units
28th bet win -47 units,and raise to nine units
29th bet loss -56 units
30th bet win -45 units,and raise to 10 units
31st bet loss -55 units
32nd bet win -45 units

Now we assume a very modest winning streak(6 out of 10 hands)
33rd bet win -35 units and raise bet to 11
34th bet loss -46 units
35th bet win -35 units and raise to 12
36th bet win -23 units and raise to 13
37th bet loss-36 units
38th bet win -23 units and raise to 14
39th bet loss -37 units
40th bet loss -51 units
41st bet win -37 units,and raise to 15 units.
42nd bet win -22 units

We have now won only 16 of 42 bets,yet we are only 1 1/2 winning bets away from breaking even for the session.
And after 42 hands,we should have encountered at least one players BJ,although I didn't factor that in anywhere.
Should we win bet 43,we are now down only 7 units for the session,so we reduce our bet for bet 44 to 7 units.
Should we win bet 44,we start over. Should we lose either bet 43 or 44,we simply proceed with the established betting pattern.


Is this a heck of a lot of play to simply break even? Yes,but how often will you encounter a run like this. More than 80% of my innings have resolved themselves in 7 hands or less.Plus you can laugh about it over that porterhouse steak the pitboss comped you for your extensive $50 plus betting.

[newyorkbear]

bet- 1 chip Win 1 chip banked
bet -1 chip win 1 chip banked
bet -1 " " lose
bet -2 " " win 1 chip banked
bet -1 lose
bet -2 lose(down 3)
bet -2 win(down 1)
bet -1 win(even)
bet -1 lose
bet -2 BJ,win 2,bank 2
bet -1 win,bank 1

[Quinc]

any of you ever use somthing like this?

[Midnite]

Bear, you are playing it differently than I do, when I play it.

I only raise AFTER a win.
You are raising your second bet, after a loss.
I am not saying this is better or worse, just different.
It always tries for a one unit win......
Yes, you would scale back your bets, but would still bet enough for a one unit win.

Lets say I sit down at the $5 table and lose 8 hands in a row.
They are all minimium bets of $5 and I am down $40.
Now lets say I win 4 hands in a row.
1/8 = -$40
(9) 5 win 5 (raise ONE unit on a win)
(10) bet 10 win 10 (raise ONE unit on a win)
(11) bet 15 win 15
(12) bet is again 15 as a win here gives you, your one unit win. win 15

Total: lost 12 hands and won 4 hands 12/4= win percent of 33.33% and yet you won one unit.

I am NOT saying to play it, just trying to explain how I play it, when I use it.

[LeonShuffle]

NYBear,

Since you're starting with a $5 bet in your example, that's what you should be using if you're comparing your system to flat betting. If I'm reading your post correctly, where you left off, you'd be down $110 and betting $80 on your next hand. Win that next hand and you're down $30; lose it and you're down $190.

However, if you'd been flat betting 1 unit ($5), you'd be down $45. Win your next hand and be down $40 (as compared to $30 with your system); lose it and be down $50 (as compared to $190).

Let me know if I've compared this incorrectly.

[newyorkbear]

Leon,
If you wanted to bet $5 flat bet,you would be correct with your numbers.I used $10 because on an average inning,I average around two units per bet.
However,if you were flatbetting any amount,at the point I left off in the sequence,a flat better would be many BETS away from breaking even. If I won the next bet,I am in position to break even with my next bet,even though it will be greatly reduced in size.
In this scenerio,flatbetting would have dug you a huge deficit that only a rare win streak would rescue.
In the same sequence of bets,I'm 1 1/2 wins from being even.
I'm nowhere near the table limits,which is the chief problem of Martingale,and I still am only in for about half my bankroll(which I'd guess should be at least 100 units for this type of play.)