Progression Betting Strategy

[nightfoxx]

i know these are meant to be losers in the long run but i just had a thought...

the basis of card counting says that the player has the advantage and in the long run will win more hands when there is a disproportionate number of high cards to low cards in the deck and lose more when it is the other way round.

therefore if you were to remember your wins versus you losses, in the long run when you noticed that you had more wins than losses and since more wins means more high cards (in the long run) then you'd know that there must be slightly less high cards than low cards due to the higher number of wins and visa versa for more losses.

so based on keeping track of you wins vs you losses for that shoe wouldn't you be able to determine a betting strategy that means you bet more after a more losses than wins cos in the long run this means more high cards and visa versa for more wins than losses

it would seem to me that the advantage (if there were one) would only be very small but in the "long run" (theres those words again), wouldn't it lead to a winning expectation and hence making this proggresive betting strategy a winner or maybe just a break evener rather than a loser

i am assuming that you would call this a progressive betting system as you bet based on your previous wins and losses and there is no couting etc, however it could fall into another category which i am un aware of.

i would love to hear peoples thoughts on this

thanks

nightfoxx

[aussiecounter]

Its true (basically speaking) that you have a higher chance of winning when there are more high cards left in the shoe. That does not necessarily mean that if you've had a higher percentage of wins than loses in a shoe that you will have gone through more high cards than low cards.


Why not just count?

[Midnite]

Fox- I wouldn't do it.
Your losses may or may not mean there are more big cards in the deck.
If the dealer is making 5,6, or 7 card 21's, then there may be.
But what about the times you lose with 10-2 / J (D) Q-K, Q-4 / 10 (D) 10-J and Q-4 / Q (D) K-K. You have now lost three hands and (if it is off the top of the deck) the count is - 9 and now you want to raise your bets ?

I think even just tracking Aces and Fives, would do better.....

[nightfoxx]

don't worry, i was never going to do it myself, i just had a thought and was wondering if it would work... like maybe i could disprove what everyone says about progressive betting lol.

just tell where my 'logic' is flawed...
i know that more wins wont necessarily always mean that there are less high cards but the crux of my idea is that IN THE LONG RUN won't there be more occasions when this is the case than not?

ie. if you did this through every shoe for a long time... lets say 10 000 shoes, and then recorded the progressive win/loss ratio throughout the shoe and each time a win/loss occured you recorded the ratio of high cards to low cards in the deck at that time, wouldn't you find that in the long run out of all the millions of times you checked the ratio of high cards to low cards after a a win/loss then compared it each one to the the ratio of win/losses so far in that shoe wouldnt you see some sort of relationship in terms of more wins than losses means more low cards than high and more losses than wins means more high cards than low. i hope that makes sense

i suppose that the other major assumption ive made is that if more high cards in the deck means advantage to player which means more wins, then more wins means advantage to player (in the long run) which means more high cards than low

so... if no. high card > no. low cards (in shoe) = + player adv. = wins > losses ( in the long run)

which logically makes me think....

wins > losses = + player adv. = no. high cards > no. low cards (in the long run)

could someone please tell me...
A) I am on to something
B) I am not on to something

If (A) say... "i would like to buy your knowledge for a million dollars"
If (B) say... "you logic is flawed... here..here... and here" (ie. tell me where i have gone wrong)

thankyou

nightfoxx

[nightfoxx]

put it another way...

it is known that while card counting, a higher count will mean that you have the advantage but it doesn't mean that you will win every hand, just that you will win more than you lose in the long run

so...

higher count = more wins than losses (in the long run)

therefore...

more wins than losses (in the long run) = higher count

and a higher count means a player advantage .... in the long run


nightfoxx

[KenSmith]

The correlation between wins and losses and the current deck composition is very weak, and is not nearly strong enough to overcome the inherent house edge. That is, you'll be raising your bets into poor deck compositions often just because you were unlucky. Similarly, you'll be still betting small into good deck compositions just because you were lucky on previous hands. These ideas have been tested before with no success.

Also, it may be important to note that only in very high counts do you have more than 50% chance of winning the next hand. Most of the time that you have an edge, you're still under 50% to win the hand, but make up the difference with blackjack, doubles and splits.

[nightfoxx]

ok thanks ken,
but what about with vegas single deck, i'v heard that with the best rules at vegas single deck the house has no edge if you play perfect basic strategy,
so the times when you got unlucky or lucky would cancel out and in the long run the very weak correlation would have and effect?

thanks

nightfoxx