Doubling Bet everytime you lose...??

[Baseball John]

what if you are at three units and you lose 6 in a row, win 1, then lose 2 more? I think it goes this way according to the system:

bet1 w1 cumw/l...1
bet2 w2 cumw/l...1+2=3
bet3 l3 cumw/l....3+(-3)=0
bet3 l3 cumw/l... 0+(-3)=-3
bet3 l3 cumw/l....(-3)+(-3)=-6
bet3 l3 cumw/l....(-6)+(-3)=-9
bet3 l3 cumw/l....(-9)+(-3)=-12
bet3 l3 cumw/l....(-12)(-3)=-15
bet3 w3 cumw/l...(-15)+3=-12
bet4 l4 cumw/l....(-12)+(-4)=-16
bet4 l4 cumw/l....(-16)+(-4)=-20 :yikes:

Your 4 th bet is wrong. After you reach zero or 1 unit the goal is to begin sequence again and try to win 1 unit.
This progression will lose if stop losses are implemented. The above progression should be:


bet1 w1 cumw/l ...1
bet2 w2 cumw/l ...1+2=3
bet3 l3 cumw/l ....3+(-3)=0
bet1 l1 cumw/l ... 0+(-1)=-1
bet1 l1 cumw/l ....(-1)+(-1)=-2
bet1 l1 cumw/l ....(-2)+(-1)=-3
bet1 l1 cumw/l ....(-3)+(-1)=-4
bet1 l1 cumw/l ....(-4)(-1)=-5
bet1 w1 cumw/l ...(-5)+1=-4
bet2 l2 cumw/l ....(-4)+(-2)=-6
bet2 l2 cumw/l ....(-6)+(-2)=-8

 

[blace]

Yes, that's right.
It's a W L W L W L streak which makes you fail as Thunder said.

Obviously this is not so frequent (1:500, i think i read one time) so it's not a very bad strategy if you go to the casino 4 or 5 times a year.

 

[aslan]

Oscar's grind only works when you have lots of streaks. All it takes is a few W L W L W L and you'll be hurting though since it has you raise your bets when you are in a losing streak and win a hand.

Right. Your alternating equal number of wins and losses loses three units, while flatbetting would leave you dead even.

Oscar
W 1 Up 1
L 2 Down 1
W 2 Up 1
L 3 Down 2
W 3 Up 1
L 4 Down 3

Flatbetting
W 1 Up 1
L 1 Even
W 1 Up 1
L 1 Even
W 1 Up 1
L 1 Even

 

[Baseball John]

Oscars grind betting sequence

Right. Your alternating equal number of wins and losses loses three units, while flatbetting would leave you dead even.

Oscar
W 1 Up 1
L 2 Down 1
W 2 Up 1
L 3 Down 2
W 3 Up 1
L 4 Down 3

Flatbetting
W 1 Up 1
L 1 Even
W 1 Up 1
L 1 Even
W 1 Up 1
L 1 Even

Aslan, I dont mean to keep correcting you. I consider you in the top 5 of quality posters on this site. I know you don't believe in this Oscar's Grind Progression but the correct betting sequence would be :
W1 ..... UP 1
L1 ....DOWN 1
W1 ... EVEN
L1 ...DOWN 1
W1 ...EVEN
L1 ..DOWN 1
W1 ...EVEN

 

[aslan]

Your 4 th bet is wrong. After you reach zero or 1 unit the goal is to begin sequence again and try to win 1 unit.
This progression will lose if stop losses are implemented. The above progression should be:


bet1 w1 cumw/l ...1
bet2 w2 cumw/l ...1+2=3
bet3 l3 cumw/l ....3+(-3)=0
bet1 l1 cumw/l ... 0+(-1)=-1
bet1 l1 cumw/l ....(-1)+(-1)=-2
bet1 l1 cumw/l ....(-2)+(-1)=-3
bet1 l1 cumw/l ....(-3)+(-1)=-4
bet1 l1 cumw/l ....(-4)(-1)=-5
bet1 w1 cumw/l ...(-5)+1=-4
bet2 l2 cumw/l ....(-4)+(-2)=-6
bet2 l2 cumw/l ....(-6)+(-2)=-8

Thanks...I never play it myself...You're right...hence the term grind. You still lose, but painstakingly slow. :joker::whip:

 

[aslan]

Aslan, I dont mean to keep correcting you. I consider you in the top 5 of quality posters on this site. I know you don't believe in this Oscar's Grind Progression but the correct betting sequence would be :
W1 ..... UP 1
L1 ....DOWN 1
W1 ... EVEN
L1 ...DOWN 1
W1 ...EVEN
L1 ..DOWN 1
W1 ...EVEN

I'm under the impression that when you win in Oscar's grind, you raise your bet 1 unit What's the rule? I haven't done OG since the 1960's and there are many variations of it.

 

[aslan]

Never mind, I looked it up. When you win one it completes the cycle, so you start over at one. It's even more painstakingly slow than I remembered.

 

[Baseball John]

Slow and dangerous at higher levels

Never mind, I looked it up. When you win one it completes the cycle, so you start over at one. It's even more painstakingly slow than I remembered.

It will work but to carry out all the sequences requires a bankroll of about 100K units. Once you stop a sequence at a specific stop loss and start over most if not all your winnings are lost.

 

[blace]

I think if you have lost half of your trip bankroll in a cycle you should stop and start over.

Besides that, I think what really makes it a losing method is the limit of the table. Anyway, if the limit of the table is 500$ and your min bet is 1$, the bet progression is so slow that you would reach that limit only once in 5000 times. Obviously, that limit is too high for such a small min bet so the end would be nearer in reality.

Blace

 

[aslan]

It will work but to carry out all the sequences requires a bankroll of about 100K units. Once you stop a sequence at a specific stop loss and start over most if not all your winnings are lost.

You say it will work? I think not. It has to go your way. Flat-betting coin flips with no system will work, too, if it goes your way.

 

[Baseball John]

Believe it or not?

You say it will work? I think not. It has to go your way. Flat-betting coin flips with no system will work, too, if it goes your way.

Flat betting will result in exactly the same return/loss as the HA the game you are playing. I play with -.36% HA.
In my records this progression gets the one unit win for every sequence. The problem is the total units necessary to stay in the progression goes as high as 10K units on a rare occassion. My sample is about 250K hands played by perfect BS.

 

[aslan]

Flat betting will result in exactly the same return/loss as the HA the game you are playing. I play with -.36% HA.
In my records this progression gets the one unit win for every sequence. The problem is the total units necessary to stay in the progression goes as high as 10K units on a rare occassion. My sample is about 250K hands played by perfect BS.

So you're saying that if I run a billion sims, your method will always win so long as the progression does not go as high as 10K units? Are you talking about Blackjack? What game can you bet 10K units? You are still subject to the HA playing the progression, so how do you estimate when you will exceed the house limit--in hours, days, years or centuries? I'm not being funny. For a given number of hands, are you saying that flat betting BS will never win, but that your method will? There is something cockeyed about how you are looking at this. I think it's in assuming you will always get be able to complete so many sequences.

 

[Baseball John]

So you're saying that if I run a billion sims, your method will always win so long as the progression does not go as high as 10K units? Are you talking about Blackjack? What game can you bet 10K units? You are still subject to the HA playing the progression, so how do you estimate when you will exceed the house limit--in hours, days, years or centuries? I'm not being funny. For a given number of hands, are you saying that flat betting BS will never win, but that your method will? There is something cockeyed about how you are looking at this. I think it's in assuming you will always get be able to complete so many sequences.

This is not my method . I copied it from the articles I've read over the years from the famous craps player.
I don't know what will happen if you run a billion sims. I don't think there is a software that can run this progression hence the reason I kept tally of 250K hands.
I am talking about Blackjack.
I said that the total losses in one sequence never exceeded 10K units. The largest bet was 2,554 units before gaining the one unit which was the original goal.
I know that by flat betting in my sample of 250K hands my losses were about 10,000 units and that by using this progression my wins were about 36,500 units.
Every sequence was completed about 33,000 of them. I know you and many others don't believe this and to tell the truth when I began this test I seriously doubted the results would be this positive.
The HA after 250K hands was -.039%

 

[aslan]

This is not my method . I copied it from the articles I've read over the years from the famous craps player.
I don't know what will happen if you run a billion sims. I don't think there is a software that can run this progression hence the reason I kept tally of 250K hands.
I am talking about Blackjack.
I said that the total losses in one sequence never exceeded 10K units. The largest bet was 2,554 units before gaining the one unit which was the original goal.
I know that by flat betting in my sample of 250K hands my losses were about 10,000 units and that by using this progression my wins were about 36,500 units.
Every sequence was completed about 33,000 of them. I know you and many others don't believe this and to tell the truth when I began this test I seriously doubted the results would be this positive.
The HA after 250K hands was -.039%

I believe it, but I also believe that 250K hands is not enough to draw any conclusion.

Maybe another sample would have veered off in another direction, or maybe your analysis is faulty--I'm not saying so, but it's possible.

What do you mean the house advantage was -.039% after 250K hands? Do you mean you started with an assumed HA that was greater, say, 0.50%, and you believe the progression overcame the HA and turned it .039% in the player's favor?

If you keep going, it will turn the other way. Sooner or later the original HA will prevail. Some of those who use this system will start off on a losing trend and continue to 250K hands with the house exceeding it expected advantage. You were lucky to go the other way.

Your data, if correct, does not seem to support using the progression as a practical way to win money. 250K hands to a near break even position is not a moneymaker, and we don't the percentage of times it can be duplicated--certainly not all the time, being that it's based on random occurrences.

 

[Baseball John]

Believe it or not?

I believe it, but I also believe that 250K hands is not enough to draw any conclusion.

Maybe another sample would have veered off in another direction, or maybe your analysis is faulty--I'm not saying so, but it's possible.

What do you mean the house advantage was -.039% after 250K hands? Do you mean you started with an assumed HA that was greater, say, 0.50%, and you believe the progression overcame the HA and turned it .039% in the player's favor?

If you keep going, it will turn the other way. Sooner or later the original HA will prevail. Some of those who use this system will start off on a losing trend and continue to 250K hands with the house exceeding it expected advantage. You were lucky to go the other way.

Your data, if correct, does not seem to support using the progression as a practical way to win money. 250K hands to a near break even position is not a moneymaker, and we don't the percentage of times it can be duplicated--certainly not all the time, being that it's based on random occurrences.

I am not saying 250K hands is a large enough sample to be conclusive. All i am doing is honestly explaining the results I have. I wish I had ability to test this using billions of hands; but as far as i know the software is not in existance.

My analysis is not faulty. I know exactly how many units were won or lost, how many BJ i got, how often I surrendered, how many sequences were involved in 250K hands and the fact perfect BS was followed.

The HA was decided quite simply. I added and subtracted every hand's win/loss and divided that total number by 250K (the number of hands).

-.39% is very close to the much published -.036% for the game played.

This has worked. It has generated a 30+ K unit win in a sample where I played at a -.039% disadvantage.

I am not stating emphatically this will happen every time but it has happen the one and only time I ran a 250K hand test. (good size sample)

I give these results not to convince anyone to play Oscar's Grind but rather to inform them of the very real DOCUMENTED DANGERS and PROOF they will lose their money with this progression and a stop loss. Many many members of this site have talked of using it. I only hope they understand the Danger.

Several years ago when I started this test; everyone was adament it would fail but unlike many other "systems" I could not find proof. I will continue to record results and maybe someday the results will dramatically change. Either way I will write back and inform anyone interested.

 

[iCountNTrack]

I am not saying 250K hands is a large enough sample to be conclusive. All i am doing is honestly explaining the results I have. I wish I had ability to test this using billions of hands; but as far as i know the software is not in existance.

My analysis is not faulty. I know exactly how many units were won or lost, how many BJ i got, how often I surrendered, how many sequences were involved in 250K hands and the fact perfect BS was followed.

The HA was decided quite simply. I added and subtracted every hand's win/loss and divided that total number by 250K (the number of hands).

-.39% is very close to the much published -.036% for the game played.

This has worked. It has generated a 30+ K unit win in a sample where I played at a -.039% disadvantage.

I am not stating emphatically this will happen every time but it has happen the one and only time I ran a 250K hand test. (good size sample)

I give these results not to convince anyone to play Oscar's Grind but rather to inform them of the very real DOCUMENTED DANGERS and PROOF they will lose their money with this progression and a stop loss. Many many members of this site have talked of using it. I only hope they understand the Danger.

Several years ago when I started this test; everyone was adament it would fail but unlike many other "systems" I could not find proof. I will continue to record results and maybe someday the results will dramatically change. Either way I will write back and inform anyone interested.

I am not saying 250K hands is a large enough sample to be conclusive. All i am doing is honestly explaining the results I have. I wish I had ability to test this using billions of hands; but as far as i know the software is not in existance.

Honestly reporting numbers does not necessarily make them accurate or good numbers. If i flip a coin 10 times and honestly record 7 tails and 3 heads, and come up with the conclusion that there is a 70% chance of getting tails. Is that a good conclusion? No it is not, because my sample size (number of coin tosses) was statistically insignificant. For a case with a high variance like Blackjack at least a sample size of 100 million hands is required to obtain meaningful results

My analysis is not faulty. I know exactly how many units were won or lost, how many BJ i got, how often I surrendered, how many sequences were involved in 250K hands and the fact perfect BS was followed.

The HA was decided quite simply. I added and subtracted every hand's win/loss and divided that total number by 250K (the number of hands).

-.39% is very close to the much published -.036% for the game played.

I am sorry but your analysis is faulty for the following reasons:

A) It is not up to you to decide how to calculate the house edge. And your method of calculating the net loss/win and then dividing it by the total number of hands is incorrect especially since you are using a progression. The advantage also known as EV is your net/(total amount of money bet). What you are calculating is your average unit rate

B) -0.39% and -0.036% ARE NOT VERY CLOSE, in fact 0.39 is over 10 times bigger than 0.036.

C) You keep on confusing the reader with faulty algebraic sign assignment. Meaning when you are at a disadvantage the house edge is a positive number
and the player's advantage is a negative number. So when you are saying that the house edge is -0.39% is it actually +0.39%

[/Quote]

This has worked. It has generated a 30+ K unit win in a sample where I played at a -.039% disadvantage.

Okay so you calculated your advantage to be -0.039%, yet your net (the numerator in the equation) is positive. Paradox anyone?

I am not stating emphatically this will happen every time but it has happen the one and only time I ran a 250K hand test. (good size sample)

There is still hope for you

I give these results not to convince anyone to play Oscar's Grind but rather to inform them of the very real DOCUMENTED DANGERS and PROOF they will lose their money with this progression and a stop loss. Many many members of this site have talked of using it. I only hope they understand the Danger.

The most sensible thing you say in this post by far

Several years ago when I started this test; everyone was adament it would fail but unlike many other "systems" I could not find proof. I will continue to record results and maybe someday the results will dramatically change. Either way I will write back and inform anyone interested.

Why waste your time recording results, while you can run a simulation, or when you have a theorem that states,

You cannot change the expectation value by altering your bet sizes based on previous streaks of wins or losses.

 

[aslan]

I am not saying 250K hands is a large enough sample to be conclusive. All i am doing is honestly explaining the results I have. I wish I had ability to test this using billions of hands; but as far as i know the software is not in existance.

My analysis is not faulty. I know exactly how many units were won or lost, how many BJ i got, how often I surrendered, how many sequences were involved in 250K hands and the fact perfect BS was followed.

The HA was decided quite simply. I added and subtracted every hand's win/loss and divided that total number by 250K (the number of hands).

-.39% is very close to the much published -.036% for the game played.

This has worked. It has generated a 30+ K unit win in a sample where I played at a -.039% disadvantage.

I am not stating emphatically this will happen every time but it has happen the one and only time I ran a 250K hand test. (good size sample)

I give these results not to convince anyone to play Oscar's Grind but rather to inform them of the very real DOCUMENTED DANGERS and PROOF they will lose their money with this progression and a stop loss. Many many members of this site have talked of using it. I only hope they understand the Danger.

Several years ago when I started this test; everyone was adament it would fail but unlike many other "systems" I could not find proof. I will continue to record results and maybe someday the results will dramatically change. Either way I will write back and inform anyone interested.

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

This article will explain your apparent success better than I can, and also alert you to the danger of believing you can duplicate your success indefinitely. I am a $2,500 lifetime winner at roulette, and I intend to keep it that way--you see, I've quit playing roulette for all time. I suggest you do the same, unless you just like the grueling grind and want to ride it to its foredrawn conclusion. It would be a bit masochistic for me, but then, I'm not a believer and I have to call the cards the way I see them.

 

[Baseball John]

iCountNTrack

I don't believe the results of a sample of 10 means there is a 70% chance of anything.

A. In calculating the H/A I did not calculate the unit rate. Unit Bet Amount is ignored.
I have taken only the results of each hand played, (w1 L2 bj surr. w2 L1 ect...) added and subtracted the total results and divided that # by the total # of hands played. That should give Advantage/Disadvantage.

B. Perhaps I stated wrong but the results were a .039% advantage to the house. I did not calculate my advantage to be .039%. Just the opposite. The H/A was +.039%

C. My apologies for the above. You are correct. I did put in the wrong alg. sign. The hands played were a .039% disadvantage to the player and a .039% advantage to the house.

Is there another way to test this system other than recording the results?
I understand you don't believe this works. I am not sure myself ... even after all the work tallying this info.

I have stated several times I am not aware of any software capable of running a sim for this progression. Do You ? Does Anyone?

Again I am not saying 250K hands are enough to draw any conclusuions as to where this progression will end up. I am only giving results for the 250K hands.

 

[Baseball John]

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

This article will explain your apparent success better than I can, and also alert you to the danger of believing you can duplicate your success indefinitely. I am a $2,500 lifetime winner at roulette, and I intend to keep it that way--you see, I've quit playing roulette for all time. I suggest you do the same, unless you just like the grueling grind and want to ride it to its foredrawn conclusion. It would be a bit masochistic for me, but then, I'm not a believer and I have to call the cards the way I see them.

Thanks, I had read that article. While it is certainly probable this will lose in the end I wanted to test it. Noone has ever published a sim as far as I know.
The results are what they are .... for 250K hands
Hope you had fun spending the $2,500. roulette money.

 

[aslan]

Thanks, I had read that article. While it is certainly probable this will lose in the end I wanted to test it. Noone has ever published a sim as far as I know.
The results are what they are .... for 250K hands
Hope you had fun spending the $2,500. roulette money.

Actually, the $2,500 came on two separate occasions when I was bemoaning losses and said what the heck (steaming behavior), maybe I can get it back quickly---which I did. Dumb! That's all I can say. I could have just as easily wound up $2,500 more in the hole!!

I read somewhere that someone did sim Oscar's grind, to the tune of billions of hands I believe. there were no new startling revelations. In the end, all progressions wind up serving the HA, although as we have seen, some sooner than others. If I run across that reference to a sim, I'll send it to you.