single, then double, then double again, back to original bet

Hello everyone,

I've been trying the stragety of what's in the title for sometime now. I actually read about it on this site and have been practising on this simulator and on yahoo games. It seems to be a break even. With maybe a very slight edge to the player. Has anyone tried this? example: at a 25 dollar table; 1st bet 25, lose, then bet 50, lose, then bet 100; win or lose go back to 25. After any win go back to 25. So if you're not into counting try this, and can any math guy tell me why this works so well.

No, it does not give you any advantage. You will still lose money on the long run. This is just a mild Martingale system. Please read the sticky thread called "Welcome to the Voodoo Board" for more information on this, and other, progression systems.

-Sonny-

For a recreational player like me who might not play 50,000 hands in my lifetime this is the best system I found that I feel comfortable with. Not betting too high and all the practise I've been doing I never lost more than 500 of my original bankroll and always made that back plus up a couple thousand dollars a few times. I have practised some of those other systems and always lost my ass, so I never tried it in real life. But this one, I don't know!!! I guess my question is: Is it really a progression system? Since it's very limited, to 2 losses. Thanks for your reply.

Technically it is a progression system because you are changing your bets based on the outcome of the previous hands. The fact that you are doubling your bets makes it a Martingale system. This type of progression will give you many small wins but occasional big losses that wipe out your previous profits (and then some). It does give you a good chance of winning for a short time, but you never know when a losing session is going to happen so you should not expect any reliable results. Just have fun and enjoy the winning sessions while you can.

-Sonny-

Yes, that's what I'll do and hopefully get some good comps at the same time.

Cisco:

When you get tired of your current strategy, you may want to try this one, as it has worked better for me than any up when you lose or up when you win strategy. You can also use a lesser bankroll for this level bet strategy. Simply quit the table after four CONSECUTIVE losses with level bets only. If you are ahead at the time, you can call that a completed session. If you are losing at the time of four consecutive losses, then buyin at a new table. The first buyin at the table is $200 for $10 level bets when you start your session. After the four consecutive losses if you are losing, then buyin at a new table for another $200 for $10 level bets. Win or lose on the second table, that is a completed session so the session bankroll is $400. Sometimes I do play multiple sessions per trip. Many times I will play only at one table per session, as I have a net win after the four consecutive losses on the first table played. On a decent table you can play for about an hour before the quit table rule. Works very well after many sessions for me and I have had frequent $100-300 wins and occasional losses about 25% number of losing sessions compared to 75% winning sessions overall, but overall net win in many sessions played and even on losses only a partial loss results most of the time per the two table buyins and quit table rule. This way you know when to quit playing at the table, AFTER the four consecutive losses. Net win last night was $150 which is a typical win. And this has worked better overall than my recent double bet when ahead in shoe strategy.

In general, Cisco's method will win more often and get more comps but David's method will lose less money overall. It all depends on what your goal is.

-Sonny-

Sonny,

Could you combine the two? Just stop playing and head to another table or wait for the next shoe after 4 losses?

Sure. You would lose less money because you are playing less hands, but you are still losing more money that David's system because you are raising your bets so often. Your average bet is still going to be higher than his. Also, you might get less comps if the pit boss can't keep track of you because you are moving around too much.

-Sonny-

I actually used this system and another one close to it, both using basic strategy alone. The latter was bet 25, lose, bet 50, lose, bet 75, then back to zero. I won with both, but when I returned from Vegas I tested them on the computer. I tested them by setting up a series of bets in which the "house" had a 0.5% edge. I created a series of 10,000 random wins and losses (0.5% house edge). True, I did not simulate actual BJ because I didn't figure in double downs, splits, etc., but the overall idea was to see if the system worked against a small house edge. What I found was that I "always" lost in the long run, and sometimes I lost substantially. I concluded I had been lucky and I haven't used the systems since!

So, while on the one hand all betting systems are equally worthless in that one will lose the same percent of total dollars wagers over time (ignoring average initial bet for a second), yet u say one system will be more likely to win a certain amount compared to another system over an identical period of time.

With a goal of winning X amount over the same period of time with the same bankroll, are these systems equally "voo-doo" or not?

I think I think u think they r not. If so, I agree with u lol.

It just seems to me that too often any proposed betting system is dismissed with the same simplistic brush of "u'll lose in the long run".

Not at all. Certain systems definitely have a higher probability of winning N hands than others. This is more obvious when N is a small number of hands since as N becomes larger they will all tend to converge. If your goal is to be ahead after playing N hands (and then quit playing forever) then a progression system might be your answer.

And why shouldn’t they be? A progression system may increase the probability of winning a small number of hands, but it also increases the amount of money you will expect to lose if you fail. In either case you will expect to lose money because you do not have an advantage. Even with a good chance of “beating the odds” you are still expecting to lose. That is why most people simply dismiss all progression systems. The expectation is always the same. In almost all cases it is worse than not using a progression system.

-Sonny-

I'm glad we agree that all systems are not equally "voo-doo".

As an aside, I don't think any system has "a higher probability of winning N hands than others". Units or dollars, yes. Hands, no.


Because the underlying assumption is, it seems to me, one has to play, perhaps millions of hands, perhaps only a few hundred thousand, to assure such an outcome.

Because no one ever states something like "you'll have a 50% chance of beating HA betting a certain way after the next 200,000 hands with such-and such a bankroll."

Because all such systems seem to be equally, and too easily, by too many, dismissed with the same brush of "eventually u'll lose". DUH - I don't think anyone disputes that.

On the other hand, not to mention that proposed systems are, generally speaking, at least to me, woefully inadequate in detail.

I blame equally those who propose a system without specifying a winning goal over how long a time playing what game how as those who blithely dismiss any such system with the ubiquitous "u'll lose eventually".

Not to mention that I seriously doubt if anyone actually employs the same system they propose over that many hands, rendering any analysis all but impossible.

But, for anyone out there who may want to experiment with a goal of winning x betting a certain way over a defined period of time, for comps or otherwise, at least consider a "voo-doo" betting system.

But at least try to have a clue of how long u might last and compare it to how long u actually expect to play.

So what are you saying Kasi, you think it's ok to use my system, atleast for a while.

You’re absolutely right. I should have said “has a higher probability of winning after N hands than others.” The number of hands won/lost will not change, only the results. Good catch!

I guess I just don’t see the point. If you know that you’re going to lose, why does it matter how you lose? I don’t see how one way of losing money is more optimal than another way of losing the same money. When the end result is the same, how do you measure success? If your goal is to lose as little money as possible then you should never use a progression system. In that case flat betting the minimum is one of the best ways to play, short of not betting at all. I think most people assume that the goal is to lose less money (or even win money) so they immediately dismiss progression systems.

That’s just the point – you always expect to lose! You are playing against the house edge. Every bet you make should be considered a small loss. Just because it is unlikely that you will lose before N hands doesn’t mean that you won’t go broke right from the start.

A better way to know how long you expect to last is by knowing what kind of variance to expect:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Blackjack_Basic_Strategy_Betting_And_Risk.htm

At least that way you will know, on an hour-by-hour basis, what the chances of losing X dollars are. Instead of wishing for a win you should be preparing for the inevitable loss.

-Sonny-

I know we're basically on the same page.

I just feel in general that a "betting system" is often under-estimated as to it's liklihood of finishing ahead, or perhaps merely beating the HA expectation, after a certain number of hands.

If u agree with me that playing 1000 hands, flat-betting $1/hand with a 4000 unit bankroll, in a BJ game with a .41% HA, has a 1 in 215 chance of finishing down 100 units or more ($100 or more) after those 1000 hands (say about -2.6 standard deviations), would u really give me 215-1 odds that I couldn't finish better than $100 down if I could bet any way I wanted for the same 1000 hands with a $1 starting unit and the same 4000 unit bankroll?

We just do it once though lol.

U may even convince me to do it 10 times

Without saying for how long u will be playing or how much u want to win or what ur bankroll is, I'm saying u may very well have a better chance of finishing more dollars ahead using ur system than if u played the same number of hands flat-betting the same minimum unit.

So, basically, yes.

Just not for "too long"