Advanced Point Count Strategy

[JCollegeGuy]

I'm pretty new to card counting and have looked over many different strategies and one I like in particular is Revere's advanced point count strategy. I like his because he really did his homework and gives specific percentages behind plays that a lot of counters haven't done. I've read mixed reviews in that some say that his Advanced Point Count strategy is outdated and others say that it is a very powerful system if implement correctly. Does anyone have any advice on this system compared to others? Also, I've only been able to find info on the one deck system, which is useless unless playing 6:5. Does anyone know the conversion to 6 deck? I've thought about making the conversion myself, but I'm also aware that the slightest miscalculation could destroy any percentage of advantage given by the system.

One other thing I have trouble understanding, that has somewhat to do with the Martingale system and Law of Independent Trials.

Okay, I remember reading a player about a player at a Roulette table where the table had hit red 9/10 times before he arrived. He continued to bet red and won but eventually broke even. He stated another gambler telling him he was dumb for continuing to bet red, to which he replied that his odds for hitting black were 50/50 no matter what the previous outcomes were. (Law of independent trials) While I understand that, wouldn't you expect red and black to even out.....For example, if the game hit red 9 out of the last 10 times, wouldnt the odds be incredibly slim to hit red 16-18 out of 20? (.5 not red * .5 not red * .5 not red etc etc.) Wouldnt the odds be better for the game to even out somewhat?

Which leads me to the question about the martingale. (I know the Martingale doesn't work in the long run, however, I'm looking for someone to explain more specifically how it doesn't)
Let's say you lose 12 or so hands in a row, which will happen say approx. 3 or so times out of every 8 hours of session. This means that losing 12 or so hands in a row is less than half a percent assuming the player wins 39-41% of all hands dealt. Therefore, wouldn't you expect that as you continually lose hands, that the odds (based on averages) would say that the chances of you losing the upcoming hand become increasingly smaller and smaller. And every time I read the negatives about the Martingale progressives, it uses the 12-16 hand losing streak example (16 and beyond im assuming getting into the 4 and 5 Standard Deviation range), so it would seem that the negatives are using the exception as the example. I hope I was clear and anyone with any advice who can clarify this for me is greatly appreciated.

Thanks and good playing everyone!
CollegeDude

[aussiecounter]

First up, this was posted in the wrong section. There is a Card Counting section below the Blackjack General one.
I'll hold back on the because its your first post, but in the future, try to get your posts into the correct section. You'll get better responses too.

I'll ignore your first question about counting systems, except to say that I use the Hi-Lo system and I find it easy and it seems to work well.

About the Martingale and roulette.
First up, roulette is not 50:50, black:red. There are one or two others, usually green I think, that give the house their edge for the game. So the ratio is more like 17:17:1, or something like that, with the one being the green 0. I'm unsure about the numbers I used as an example, but just be certain, its definitely not 50:50.

Each spin at roulette is totally uninfluenced by anything that happened before! So if you've had 5 reds in a row, the chances for getting another red are still about 47% or whatever. And if you do get another red, the chances for yet another will still be 47%.

The Martingale does not work for one simple reason, there is no guarantee that you will EVER get the win to get you out of your losing streak. This usually kills you when your bet gets bigger than the table limits.
Those twelve losses you mentioned, look here: $1,$2,$4,$8,$16,$32,$64,$128,$256,$512,$1024,$2048 .
Now, how many $1 tables do you know with $2k+ limits? Or if you use $10 as your bet at a $10 table, how many have $20k limits? None I'm thinking.
There is no way to get around it. Sure, when your bet is at the limit of your $10 table, you take your next bet, say, $1024, to a higher limit table. But then you have 3 more losses and you are over the higher limit. Admittedly this wont happen often, but if you are playing long enough it probably will(15 losses in a row), and then you are ruined.

You say the chances of losing 12 in a row is about 0.5%? Well, say you've just played 199 'series' of Martingale, to win 199 units, or $1990, or maybe a bit more with a few opportune blackjacks(at $10 table), then you hit the almost inevitable losing streak and are down $20k. You cant win.

[JCollegeGuy]

I appreciate the response, although I couldn't help but feel there was a large amount of sarcasm attached to your response.

I'll be a little more clear as to what I'm asking. (Please remember all the percentages I gave are approximations)

Sorry about the red/black/green confusion, although your pointing out that the odds aren't truly 50/50 did nothing to answer my question. (And thanks for your introduction to Independent Trials)

Going back to the Martingale system, I'll use a variation as an example. Assuming once again that the odds are APROX. 60/40. Lets say you bet $10 mixed with a Hi/Lo count, and you've lost 9 consecutive hands at 10 a hand, with the current shoe at a true count of +2. On the next hand you bet 100$ (which from what I've seen, is a very common thing for a gambler to do.). Wouldn't your odds based on statistics (.6 ^10) say that the odds of you losing the next hand were very slim. Now, if you were to take up all of these theoritical "10th hands," I would expect the winning percentage for all of these hands to be true to the 49.2-49.7% as you would expect from playing Basic Strategy, I'm asking someone to basically explain how your "continually losing hands" are getting into the .01%th percentile, yet at the same time, remain true to the 60/40 averages expected. Because to me this seems like a paradox.

Now taking it even a step further., taking the +2 count into account (I don't know the percentages of advantage based on per number per true count, also I realize the true odds would depend on burn cards, penetration, 5's and A's, but all those calculations are beyond the scope of what I'm asking) Assuming that you're at an advantage with a +2 true count, would it be safe in the long run to make bets such as this?

Thanks for any response. Although I'm new to posting, I do have a good general understanding of blackjack, card counting, statistics, calculus, and other things that go into blackjack.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by JCollegeGuy

I've read mixed reviews in that some say that his Advanced Point Count strategy is outdated and others say that it is a very powerful system if implement correctly.

It IS out-moded, and its NOT worth the effort. The Revere Point Count that comes in the Revere book is better but will require an updated betting scheme. zg

[aussiecounter]

Sorry if you got the impression I wa being sarcastic, but I wasnt. I was just trying to impress upon you the uselessness of the Martingale system.

You are very confusing, are you sure you have a good understanding of blackjack, stats, math, and counting etc?
Do you know what the Martingale involves? You bet 1 "unit", and if you win, you always bet one unit again. If you lose, you just keep doubling your bets until you get a win. This way you always win only 1 unit every "series" of bets.
You say you bet 9 bets at $10 each and lost 9. How is this related to a Martingale? If you lost 9 bets starting at $10, you would bet $5120, not $100.

Your musings on the theoretical 10th hand are very, hmmm, i don't know? You state that you believe a basic principle, and then say "that shouldn't work". Just face it, seeminly incredible runs of wins/loses do happen, and if you have just won say, 619 hands in a row, the chances of winning the next one would still be 40/60 or whatever odds are the norm.

If you have a +2 count and that puts you at an advantage for the game, then yes, you should make the bet, but this has no relation to use in a Martingale system. Counting while playing a Martingale is pointless because the Martingale System dictates what you are to bet, and count dependant bet sizing is the main attraction of a counting system.

And please don't go getting snappy with established members of the forum, your post could have been torn to pieces by any number of members, but this forum is not like that and I hope it stays like that. I held back, believe me.

[Canceler]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused!

I was going to attempt an answer here, but I think I'll just sit back and let you handle it, aussiecounter.

[aussiecounter]

Awww, I think we may have scared him off.

[JCollegeGuy]

You scared me off?

Your initial response started off by saying since it was my first post, you would be so gracious as to spare me the " ".
Then you proceed to explain things that I had said I completely understood in my first post (Law of Independent Trials...flipping a coin, rolling a di)
And in my initial post, I stated in BIG BOLD LETTERS, so I wouldnt get the response that you gave...that I knew the martingale didn't work in the long run and I asked someone to explain more specifically how it doesn't work. (in a mathematical sense) You gave the typical "get rich playing blackjack" book response.
And in my second post, you get onto me about the martingale system i used as an example...when I clearly said was a variation, I used a player losing 10x in a row, and on his 10th bet making a 100 dollar bet to recoup his losses from the previous 9 hands. And I said immediately following the sentence that I have seen players at tables do this many times.

It wasn't scared off, but what is the point of replying to someone who
1. Put words in my mouth...You quoted me as saying "That shouldn't work," although I never said that.
2. Obviously didn't even read my post, because you posed questions that were already answered.
3. Takes a holier than thou, show off attitude with a first time poster.
4. Ices the cake with, "Awww, I think we may have scared him off"

I paid no mind to 1-3 until you came out with the last post.

[KenSmith]

Back on topic here... Let's flip a coin instead of playing blackjack or roulette.
If it's come up heads 10 times in a row, do you really think that affects the possibility of the next toss being either heads or tails? Of course not.

Yes, 11 heads in a row is a rarity. (Once in 2048 trials on average.) However, that's not the question. After we've had 10 heads in a row, we're asking about the next toss. Once you have 10 heads in a row, getting to 11 is a 50/50 proposition.

As for the concept of using a Martingale in positive counts, there are a few issues. First, the count must be quite high before you'll actually have a better than 50% chance of winning the next hand. You get an edge with modest plus counts because of blackjacks, doubles and splits, not by winning more than half your hands.

Would the idea work, if you only made your Martingale wagers in really high plus counts? Yes, if you had an unlimited bankroll. For the rest of us, the Martingale would quickly have you overbetting your edge compared to your bankroll. Eventually, you'll find that losing streak that will bankrupt you.

The usual advice of betting larger but limited amounts of your bankroll when you have an edge is safer, and more profitable.

[zengrifter]

... was the relevant question. RAPC underperforms some easier systems and at best is equal to others, like ZEN and RPC which do not require level-3 and Ace-sidecount complexity, or in the case of UBZEN not even a TC-adjustment is required to obtain virtually all of RAPC's power... thus RAPC is an antiquated relic. zg

Originally Posted by zengrifter

RAPC IS out-moded, and its NOT worth the effort. The Revere Point Count that comes in the Revere book is better but will require an updated betting scheme. zg