OK, here's my voodoo system

[gaucho]

The progression system I want to share below has worked really well for me. First, I'd like to explain a little about how I came upon this. I'm not a gambler, I'm turning 50 next month and have spent less than 50 hours in my life at a casino. However, I've spent thousands of hours testing systems of all kinds, including some of the more popular card counting methods. It becam a habit of mine over 20 years ago when a friend first intoduced me to counting cards in 1983.

I misunderstood what card counting was. I initially thought it was a foolproof method to win at the Casino on every trip. It didn't help matters when on our first trip to Laughlin, I won about $200 counting cards with a $2 unit. So naturally, I wanted to go back as soon and as often as possible. On my next trip, I lost $300, then lost again the next time. I thought maybe I was doing something wrong, or even thought the casino was somehow cheating. Maybe they identified me as a counter and knew how to beat me at my own game.

So I went home and read some more on card counting and learned it only provided a very small advantage that would show profits in the very long run. I calculated that at a $2 or even $5 table ( a lot for me at the time) I would be earning about minimum wage. I soon lost interest in counting but began to explore other, quicker ways to make a Blackjack buck. I soon figured out the martingale system and practiced that for some time. I was excited about the quick, easy profits but was concerned about the length and frequency of losing streaks. It wasn't uncommon to lose 10 in a row and I questioned if I would have the guts to keep sliding out real money at a real Casino. I finally determined I would never really do that.

So I began to brainstorm to come up with other methods that would work without mortgaging the house. Some were systems I read about, some were those I made up. Some seemed to work well for a long time only to inevitably come across just the right, or wrong sequence to lose it all back. I went through periods where I completly lost interest in finding the perfect system, but then something would bring me back.

The one system that showed to have potential is an old favorite: Oscar's Grind. If you don't know the strategy, do a google search and you will find it. I tested this for several years, off and on. I was impressed that regardless of how far you got down, the system would always pull itself out eventually. The key word is eventually because at times it can take a lot of bankroll and a very long time to work. I soon realized if I was in a real Casino with real money, I would never push this to the limit.

So I began experiencing with Oscar's Grind and created points of cutting my losses, as well as saving wins. I also realized the long understood truth that a progression can't change the odds of a negative expectation game. It doesn't matter how many times you vary your bet, at each bet level, you will eventualy lose slightly more times than you win.

However, I also realized, you can never really lose as long as you have another level to go to. For instance, why can't a martingale work? There are two reasons, really. One, you don't have enough money to double your bet 20 or 30 times if needed and two, even if you did, the Casino won't let you. So, take away those equations, and the Martingale is a winner. It proves one thing. You can create a progression that will win in a negative expectation game. Why does the Casino place a table limit? It is because they know the Martingale method would beat them without it.

So, with this knowledge, I set out to create a system that would always have another bet level to go to and one that could be done with a reasonable amount of funds. Below is what I came up with somewhere around 1999. I tested it off and on at home for about 4 years with very good results. I eventually lost interest because of work demands. I also briefly discussed this with my wife who was very much opposed to any type of gambling, so I never played for real money. Had I snuck off and played anyway, it wouldn't have mattered whether I won or lost, she would have seen that as a betayal in our relationship. Anyway, here is the method:

Use basic strategy for playing decisions and play the basic Oscar's Grind progression. Your session goal is to win 40 units. In my testing, $5 was my base unit, so I was looking for a $200 profit. Once you reach that goal, you start a new session. You also stop the session if at any time, you are left with 40 units less than any previous gains. For example, you are up 20 units on the way to your goal of 40 but drop 40 units from there. The session ends and your net result is a negative 20 units. With this method, you will lose more sessions than you win in the long run, but your average losing session will be substantially less than your aveage winning session. The average time to win a session was about 100-120 hands. A losing session could come much sooner. If you are playing for real in a Casino, shoot for 5 sessions per day. For example, here were the results of my first 5 sessions:

+40.5, -2, -13, +40.5, -35.5.

I won 2 sessions and lost 3 sessions but finished the day with a 30.5 unit profit. The half units, of course come from blackjack's with an odd number bet. The session where I finished at a negative 2 means I was plus 38 at one point in the session....So close to a win but no cigar.

Now, we ge to the part where you always have a new level to go to. if you have a run of bad luck and lose 3 consecutive sessions, your next session is played at double the base unit. In my example, I was playing with a $5 unit, so after losing 3 consecutive sessions, my next session started out at $10. The goal is to win 40 units again, but because I have a $10 unit, if I reach my goal, I win $400 as compared to $200. Once I win the session, I revert back to my $5 bet level until I lose three sessions in a row again. If I lose the first $10 session, I start a new session at $10 and revert back to a $5 when I win. If I lose 3 consecutive sessions at the $10 level, which would mean I have now lost 6 consecutive sessions, my next session is $15 and a 40 unit win would equal $600. Once I win this session, I revert all the way back to a $5 betting unit. If for any chance I lose three consecutive $15 sessions, which would mean I have lost 9 sessions in a row, my next bet level would be $25. In my testing of about 670 sessions, or 60,000 hands, I only reached the $25 unit bet level twice and promply won both times. When you win at the $25 level, you drop two levels to the $10 level. If for any chance you lose three in a row at the $25 level, which has yet to happen to me in 60,000 hands, you would go to $35, then $50, $75, $100. When you win at any of these sessions, you drop 2 levels for your next session.

This method always gives you another level to go to so you don't have to accept defeat. But unlike the Martingale, it is something many can afford to play. In my testing, I lost 16 consecutive hands on three different occasions. Had I been playing a martingale, I would have needed about $750,000 cash on me to win that 17th hand. With Oscar's Grind, you don't increase bets after a loss so when I lost 16 in a row, it was all at the same bet amount. Additionally, I have the higher beting levels to move to for a time.

In the 670 sessions I tested, 546 were played at the $5 level, 90 were played with a $10 unit, 32 played with a $15 unit and 2 at a $25 unit.

Total profit is 4,628 units....all based on a $5 unit, or $23,140.00. As I mentioned, it was about 60,000 hands dealt. if you figure under normal casino conditions of 80 hands per hour, that would be 750 hours played, or 6.17 units profit per hour, or $30.85 per hour profit.

Let me know what you think. Please don't make any comments about how progressions don't and can't work. It's been noted many times in the past and is not necessarily true. I know mathematically, this system will not be proven to be awinner but real action shows otherwise. You may think if I played 2 billion hands, I would get different results. I disagree. I feel 60,000 hands included just about every variable out there. I already noted above how a martingale would work every time provided you had the necessary funds. The key is to always have another level you can take the bet to, without bankrupting yourself.

Cheers.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by gaucho

The one system that showed to have potential is an old favorite: Oscar's Grind.

Oscar’s Grind is one of the safest progression systems to use. It raises your bets slowly, drops back quickly and doesn’t let your bets get too big. It is the least “progressiony” of the progression systems, which is why it is so safe. The closer you get to flat betting, the safer you are. You will never get the advantage but it can make the losses more fun.

Originally Posted by gaucho

For instance, why can't a martingale work? There are two reasons, really. One, you don't have enough money to double your bet 20 or 30 times if needed and two, even if you did, the Casino won't let you. So, take away those equations, and the Martingale is a winner.

You forgot reason #3: The house still has the edge. It doesn’t matter how much money you have, you will lose it all if you use the Martingale. The only reason it works in theory is because you can give the player an infinite bankroll. In the real world nobody has infinite money. As soon as you give the bankroll a finite number it fails. It doesn’t matter if the bankroll is a million dollars, a billion dollars, or a million billion googlagilian dollars, the Martingale will still fail. In the real world the Martingale will always fail to get an advantage.

Originally Posted by gaucho

It proves one thing. You can create a progression that will win in a negative expectation game.

I’m afraid that’s not true. Read some of the articles at the top of this forum for more information.

-Sonny-

[shadroch]

While I agree with Sonny and the laws of math that you can not create a progression that will win outright in a negative game,combining Oscars Grind and a good Comp Counting method will make many casino games worth playing.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by gaucho

Let me know what you think.

Sounds like a system that might last between a long time and a very long time.

How are you "testing" in those sessions? Were these real games or internet games or computer sims and with what rules and assumptions? Do you have individual results of those 60,000 hands? Do you know how much money you would have won or lost betting 1$/hand or actual number of wins,losses ties, etc? Total dollars bet?

Anyway, results, I guess, most card counters would be happy to have over the same number of hands.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by shadroch

...combining Oscars Grind and a good Comp Counting method will make many casino games worth playing.

That's a good point. Even though you can't beat the game you can still beat the casino.

-Sonny-

[gaucho]

Originally Posted by Kasi

Sounds like a system that might last between a long time and a very long time.

How are you "testing" in those sessions? Were these real games or internet games or computer sims and with what rules and assumptions? Do you have individual results of those 60,000 hands? Do you know how much money you would have won or lost betting 1$/hand or actual number of wins,losses ties, etc? Total dollars bet?

I tested the system on a few different internet sites, one of them being right here on blackjackinfo.com. I also hand dealt quite a few hands at my kitchen table. I tried to get a variety of sources. Unfortunately, I didn't compare it to flat betting, nor do I have individual results. i didn't keep track of total hands won vs. lost etc. I just recorded the result of each session.

[TheProdigy]

Originally Posted by Sonny

That's a good point. Even though you can't beat the game you can still beat the casino.

-Sonny-

Maybe. You're getting some free food and stay, maybe a plain ticket out of them. The only downside to that is, you're not really getting any richer through comp hustling.

[shadroch]

Originally Posted by TheProdigy

Maybe. You're getting some free food and stay, maybe a plain ticket out of them. The only downside to that is, you're not really getting any richer through comp hustling.

Depends on the extent you want to comp hustle.
Suppose you get a host to agree to comp your airfare. You buy a first class ticket from NY for $1500 on US West. And a $300 ticket on Jet Blue. You use the JB ticket,but show your host the US West one. He gives you $1500
and you turn in the fully refundable first class ticket when you return.
How about asking your hosts for four tickets to the Mayweather fight,or The Stones? Then you sell them on Craigs List or just to a scalper.
Just two of many ways you can exploit the casinos.

.

[k_c]

Originally Posted by gaucho

However, I also realized, you can never really lose as long as you have another level to go to. For instance, why can't a martingale work? There are two reasons, really. One, you don't have enough money to double your bet 20 or 30 times if needed and two, even if you did, the Casino won't let you. So, take away those equations, and the Martingale is a winner. It proves one thing. You can create a progression that will win in a negative expectation game. Why does the Casino place a table limit? It is because they know the Martingale method would beat them without it.

I think that theoretically, in a negative expectation game, assuming a martingale player had an infinite bankroll, an infinite amount of time, and there were no wagering limits, the player still would expect to lose the bankroll (an infinite amount.) It would seem the player would eventually have to win once, but it is not guaranteed!

Please be careful with that infinite bankroll

k_c

[SPX]

Originally Posted by Sonny

It doesn’t matter if the bankroll is a million dollars, a billion dollars, or a million billion googlagilian dollars, the Martingale will still fail. In the real world the Martingale will always fail to get an advantage.

Sonny. . .

So you're saying that if you have a million billion googlagilian dollars then you can't win forever at a $5 table? Consider this: Has it EVER . . . in the history of the game . . . been recorded that a player has lost, say, 50 hands in a row? I would just about be willing to bet the salvation of my eternal soul that no one has ever lost that many hands in a row. It's just a fact that you eventually have to win one. . .

Hell, that's the math. . .


P.S. That's my goal in gambling . . . to win "a million billion googlagilian dollars."