Your figures are off. Way off. In real life, your winning sessions will greatly outnumber your extremely rare losing session so that the overall chances of you ending up ahead are quite high. If you win $10 99 times and lose $100 once, you are well ahead. Can you lose your $100 two, three or even four times in a row? Absolutely, but the chances are about the same as hitting a serious lotto prize.
Oscars Grind? Considering givin it a shot
- Thread starter eatenbyalgae
- Start date
here is something from bjmath about it. me i know nothin about it, lol.
Oscar's Grind
Oscar's Grind may be the ultimate in maximizing the number of small wins in relation to the large losses. The originator, only known as Oscar was a craps player who told reporters he gambled a lot and had never had a losing trip. This is not inconceivable. According to Tom Ainsley (and much of this discussion has come from Mr. Ainslie's "How to Gamble in a Casino") Julian Braun's computer studies showed the prababilites a house limit when the limit was 500 times the smallest allowable bet would only be once in 4,250 sessions. Braun's calculations also showed that bucking a $1.00 to $500.00 house limit, the average loss (because the progression would reach the house limit) would be over $13,000.00.
So here is Oscar:
Rule 1: The goal is to win one unit at the end of each progression and, whatever larger bet might be dictated by the other betting rules, will be dropped to a bet just large enough to gain one unit. This rule overrides.
Rule 2: Bet 1 is one unit.
Rule 3: If Bet 1 is lost, Bet 2 is one unit.
Rule 4. After a loss, the bet is the same as the bet just lost.
Rule 5 After a win, the bet is one more than the bet just won.
Example: First four bets are lost, player is down 4.
Next Bet (1 because it is the same as the bet just lost, Rule 4) won.
Next bet 2, Rule 5. Player down 3. Lose. Player down 5.
Next bet 2, Rule 4. Win. Player down 3.
Next bet 3, Rule 5. Win. Player even.
Next bet 1, Rule 1 overiding Rule 5 which would say bet 4.
Oscar's Grind
Oscar's Grind may be the ultimate in maximizing the number of small wins in relation to the large losses. The originator, only known as Oscar was a craps player who told reporters he gambled a lot and had never had a losing trip. This is not inconceivable. According to Tom Ainsley (and much of this discussion has come from Mr. Ainslie's "How to Gamble in a Casino") Julian Braun's computer studies showed the prababilites a house limit when the limit was 500 times the smallest allowable bet would only be once in 4,250 sessions. Braun's calculations also showed that bucking a $1.00 to $500.00 house limit, the average loss (because the progression would reach the house limit) would be over $13,000.00.
So here is Oscar:
Rule 1: The goal is to win one unit at the end of each progression and, whatever larger bet might be dictated by the other betting rules, will be dropped to a bet just large enough to gain one unit. This rule overrides.
Rule 2: Bet 1 is one unit.
Rule 3: If Bet 1 is lost, Bet 2 is one unit.
Rule 4. After a loss, the bet is the same as the bet just lost.
Rule 5 After a win, the bet is one more than the bet just won.
Example: First four bets are lost, player is down 4.
Next Bet (1 because it is the same as the bet just lost, Rule 4) won.
Next bet 2, Rule 5. Player down 3. Lose. Player down 5.
Next bet 2, Rule 4. Win. Player down 3.
Next bet 3, Rule 5. Win. Player even.
Next bet 1, Rule 1 overiding Rule 5 which would say bet 4.
The original Oscars goal was to win $100 a weekend, hence his session was $100.
My sessions are $25. Back when my goal was $10 on a $1 bet, I took to calling each $1 win an inning, ten innings being a session.
That story is wrong. The original Oscar never talked to reporters. He talked to one gambling expert and told of how he'd come to vegas for the weekend and grind out $100. Back in the early 60s, that went a long way. He claimed he had never had a losing session.
I also don't see how an occasional extra payoff affects the grinds ability to be used in BJ. I treat double downs and splits just as they are. It ain't rocket science.
My sessions are $25. Back when my goal was $10 on a $1 bet, I took to calling each $1 win an inning, ten innings being a session.[/QUOTE]
A "session" would be a series of bets resulting in either a 1 unit gain or a bankroll loss.
If Oscar's unit was $1, $100 is 100 sessions. If his unit was $10, it's just 10 sessions.
The Wise One posted the rules of Oscar's Grind.
Another set of rules makes it something other than Oscar's Grind.
Would you call it a Martingdale system if every once in a while you didn't double your bet after a loss?
You can run a sim based on the rules of Oscar's Grind but the underlying assumption is even-money payoffs.
There's only one set of rules for a betting system.
What's so hard to understand about that?
You could run a sim/program on Shadroch's Grind too if all the rules are defined and followed every time.
A "session" would be a series of bets resulting in either a 1 unit gain or a bankroll loss.
If Oscar's unit was $1, $100 is 100 sessions. If his unit was $10, it's just 10 sessions.
The Wise One posted the rules of Oscar's Grind.
Another set of rules makes it something other than Oscar's Grind.
Would you call it a Martingdale system if every once in a while you didn't double your bet after a loss?
You can run a sim based on the rules of Oscar's Grind but the underlying assumption is even-money payoffs.
There's only one set of rules for a betting system.
What's so hard to understand about that?
You could run a sim/program on Shadroch's Grind too if all the rules are defined and followed every time.
so like the pass line bet in craps, i think you mean, kind of game.
so i guess taking free odds isn't part of OG? or maybe it could be if you did it the same way each time? but then i guess rolling a 7 on the come out roll would sort of mess up the idea of taking free odds?
edit: and ok another question, just to see if i'm understanding how to do OG. like ok we start out with some bankroll, so in essence is it gonna be that anytime that we are one unit to the good on our beginning bankroll that we would be betting only one unit ( essentially because of rule 1 that over rides all the other rules)?
but if we are below our starting bank we could be betting more than one unit after a win sort of thing?
so i guess taking free odds isn't part of OG? or maybe it could be if you did it the same way each time? but then i guess rolling a 7 on the come out roll would sort of mess up the idea of taking free odds?
edit: and ok another question, just to see if i'm understanding how to do OG. like ok we start out with some bankroll, so in essence is it gonna be that anytime that we are one unit to the good on our beginning bankroll that we would be betting only one unit ( essentially because of rule 1 that over rides all the other rules)?
but if we are below our starting bank we could be betting more than one unit after a win sort of thing?
sagefr0g said:
so like the pass line bet in craps, i think you mean, kind of game.
so i guess taking free odds isn't part of OG? or maybe it could be if you did it the same way each time? but then i guess rolling a 7 on the come out roll would sort of mess up the idea of taking free odds?
edit: and ok another question, just to see if i'm understanding how to do OG. like ok we start out with some bankroll, so in essence is it gonna be that anytime that we are one unit to the good on our beginning bankroll that we would be betting only one unit ( essentially because of rule 1 that over rides all the other rules)?
but if we are below our starting bank we could be betting more than one unit after a win sort of thing?
so i guess taking free odds isn't part of OG? or maybe it could be if you did it the same way each time? but then i guess rolling a 7 on the come out roll would sort of mess up the idea of taking free odds?
edit: and ok another question, just to see if i'm understanding how to do OG. like ok we start out with some bankroll, so in essence is it gonna be that anytime that we are one unit to the good on our beginning bankroll that we would be betting only one unit ( essentially because of rule 1 that over rides all the other rules)?
but if we are below our starting bank we could be betting more than one unit after a win sort of thing?
I have no idea of course but I suppose it would change the units in your roll along with the HA.
In OG, it is assumed (the way I think of it anyway) you start each session with the same bankroll. If you have $5000 and win 1 $1 unit 500 times you have $5500 but the $500 is yours to keep. With 5000 units and chance of losing that 5000 unit roll once every 2000 "sessions", maybe more, it's quite possible you could win 1 unit 5000 times and, have another 5000 unit roll when you lose the first one. How many times could a lucky guy like you go without picking a black ball when there are only 3 to 5 of them along with 9996 white balls?
Unless you choose to use $5500 to have 5500 units and lower your risk of losing the $5500.
The only way you will be below your starting bank is when you lose it all because you either win that unit or you lose it all.
Rule 1 applies to a "session" or "progression" as maybe it's called, not your starting roll.
Then once you won that 1 unit in that series of rolls following those rules, you begin another "session".
Sometimes a session might be a lot longer, more rolls of the dice, than others.
I forget the avg number of rolls to settle a pass line bet. Along with how many rolls of the dice per hour might occur at a full table. But you can see it how it could add up to alot of time at the table.
I have no idea the average number of pass-line decisions that might occur with an x unit roll or the avg bet.
And, like you brought up, the table max would play a part in that you might hit the table max before you ran out of roll. I don't worry about silly real- world stuff like that lol.
Find a higher limit table if you still have roll.
ok forget the free odds stuff, lol.
and for some reason i think i read it was about 8 rolls average to make a point or crap out.
lemme paraphrase OG, see if i'm close to getting it, this is hard to understand.
heck with the bankroll, lets just talk a session.
for any given session if you are up a unit then the session is over.
you start a session by betting one unit.
within any given session if you lose a bet you just continue betting what you bet the time before.
and
within any given session if you win a bet the yield of which does not put you up at least one unit for the session then your next bet is the same as the winning bet plus one unit.
once a bet puts you one unit up or more for the session then the session is complete.
lol, if this is wrong i'll go back and study the original rules again.
am i even close?
and for some reason i think i read it was about 8 rolls average to make a point or crap out.
lemme paraphrase OG, see if i'm close to getting it, this is hard to understand.
heck with the bankroll, lets just talk a session.
for any given session if you are up a unit then the session is over.
you start a session by betting one unit.
within any given session if you lose a bet you just continue betting what you bet the time before.
and
within any given session if you win a bet the yield of which does not put you up at least one unit for the session then your next bet is the same as the winning bet plus one unit.
once a bet puts you one unit up or more for the session then the session is complete.
lol, if this is wrong i'll go back and study the original rules again.
am i even close?
Who exactly is this Wise One?
I have no idea why people are trying to make this more complicated then it is.
Oscars sessions were as long as it took for him to win $100. Not $1, not $5.
$100. Each sequence was however long it took to win one unit.
Over time, folks seem to using the term sessions when they mean sequences.
You should set a SESSION goal, which you achieve by winning numereous SEQUENCES.
What has been lost in time is what his starting unit was. What is known is that his goal was to win $100. Any conjecture about his bankroll is just that- conjecture.
It is said he was either a house painter or a landscaper, so it's doubtful he had all that large a bankroll.
I have no idea why people are trying to make this more complicated then it is.
Oscars sessions were as long as it took for him to win $100. Not $1, not $5.
$100. Each sequence was however long it took to win one unit.
Over time, folks seem to using the term sessions when they mean sequences.
You should set a SESSION goal, which you achieve by winning numereous SEQUENCES.
What has been lost in time is what his starting unit was. What is known is that his goal was to win $100. Any conjecture about his bankroll is just that- conjecture.
It is said he was either a house painter or a landscaper, so it's doubtful he had all that large a bankroll.
i'm just me.
come to the next bj bash and find out. i'm sure a lot of the others who show won't disappoint you.
ok then how about this?
for any given sequence if you are up a unit then the sequence is over.
you start a sequence by betting one unit.
within any given sequence if you lose a bet you just continue betting what you bet the time before.
and
within any given sequence if you win a bet the yield of which does not put you up at least one unit for the sequence then your next bet is the same as the winning bet plus one unit.
once a bet puts you one unit up or more for the sequence then the sequence is complete.
come to the next bj bash and find out. i'm sure a lot of the others who show won't disappoint you.
ok then how about this?
for any given sequence if you are up a unit then the sequence is over.
you start a sequence by betting one unit.
within any given sequence if you lose a bet you just continue betting what you bet the time before.
and
within any given sequence if you win a bet the yield of which does not put you up at least one unit for the sequence then your next bet is the same as the winning bet plus one unit.
once a bet puts you one unit up or more for the sequence then the sequence is complete.
sagefr0g said:
i'm just me.
come to the next bj bash and find out. i'm sure a lot of the others who show won't disappoint you.
ok then how about this?
for any given sequence if you are up a unit then the sequence is over.
you start a sequence by betting one unit.
within any given sequence if you lose a bet you just continue betting what you bet the time before.
and
within any given sequence if you win a bet the yield of which does not put you up at least one unit for the sequence then your next bet is the same as the winning bet plus one unit.
once a bet puts you one unit up or more for the sequence then the sequence is complete.
come to the next bj bash and find out. i'm sure a lot of the others who show won't disappoint you.
ok then how about this?
for any given sequence if you are up a unit then the sequence is over.
you start a sequence by betting one unit.
within any given sequence if you lose a bet you just continue betting what you bet the time before.
and
within any given sequence if you win a bet the yield of which does not put you up at least one unit for the sequence then your next bet is the same as the winning bet plus one unit.
once a bet puts you one unit up or more for the sequence then the sequence is complete.
I'm actually trying to track down the original Oscar. Or at least track down the first time he was discussed. Proving to be a lot harder than one would think. I'm not even sure his name was Oscar, some have it as Oskar. Some say he played Vegas, some say he played Reno.
I just call sagefrog The Wise One lol. I'd call him The Wise Frog but how smart can a frog be :grin:
There's no point in setting a "SESSION" $goal. It's not effected in any way by a "SEQUENCE".
Over time, it's how many "SEQUENCES" you win.
It's how many times will a "SEQUENCE" win.
A "SEQUENCE" will succeed so many times out of so many times with so many units of roll.
If you're going to have 9997 successful "SEQUENCES" out of 10000 "SEQUENCES", you can figure out your "SESSION" chances after you define "SESSION".
If you set a "SESSION" goal of 50 winning "SEQUENCES", what are you going to do when you run out of time becasue you're plane is leaving?
Does just because you ran out of time mean the "SEQUENCES" will succeed less often or should count as a failure of the betting system because you spent less time at the table or ran out of time?
Would setting a "SESSION" goal of 1000 "SEQUENCES" over a weekend and failing to achieve your "SESSION" goal 100 times in a row mean a falure of the system?
So, if you have a "SESSION" $goal bring as many units as you want to to balance the risk of achieving 1 winning "SEQUENCE" or 100 winning "SEQUENCES". Make sure you have enough time to do either.
Set a "SESSION" goal of 100,000 "SEQUENCES", you might call it a failure even though you might have 9999 successfukl "SEQUENCES" of every 10,000 "SEQUENCES". You will seldom achieve your "SESSION" goal.
I thought all the guy claimed was "he never lost" on a weekend's play. I thought rumor had it he did show up with a large wad.
Everybody thought such an outrageous claim was crazy. Eventually, his betting system got analyzed and it was determined that it was quite possible he was not lying.
Does it matter what he did, what his "SESSION" goal was? It's now a defined betting system that will achieve so many winning "SEQUENCES" with so many units of roll.
Not counting bumping up against the table max
The beauty of Oscar is even a couple hundred units might produce 993 winning "SEQUENCES" out of every 1000 "SEQUENCES".
You know me - I'm a digital guy. Do it. Or don't do it.
Like my wife says she's been on a diet for 17 days. Man does she get pissed when I say, and she agrees, she "cheated" yesterday and I say she's been on her diet for one day.
And quickly add "just as beautiful" :grin:
What is the "Shadroch Grind" "SEQUENCE" goal? I don't care how many innings it is. When does your set of rules call for a new "SEQUENCE"?
If you want to call 10 innings a "SESSION", I'd call it a "SEQUENCE" because that's when you would begin to bet the same way again.
I got a kick out of whoever said it succeeds 100% of the time over so many trials but the only drawback was you needed 8800 units.
Nothing wrong with that if you want to risk 8800 units. Might last a lifetime, you never know.
Dice are easy. Bj is harder with all its variables. The "Shadroch Grind" would give different results depending on the usual suspects.
Whatever. Voodoo ain't easy :grin:
There's no point in setting a "SESSION" $goal. It's not effected in any way by a "SEQUENCE".
Over time, it's how many "SEQUENCES" you win.
It's how many times will a "SEQUENCE" win.
A "SEQUENCE" will succeed so many times out of so many times with so many units of roll.
If you're going to have 9997 successful "SEQUENCES" out of 10000 "SEQUENCES", you can figure out your "SESSION" chances after you define "SESSION".
If you set a "SESSION" goal of 50 winning "SEQUENCES", what are you going to do when you run out of time becasue you're plane is leaving?
Does just because you ran out of time mean the "SEQUENCES" will succeed less often or should count as a failure of the betting system because you spent less time at the table or ran out of time?
Would setting a "SESSION" goal of 1000 "SEQUENCES" over a weekend and failing to achieve your "SESSION" goal 100 times in a row mean a falure of the system?
So, if you have a "SESSION" $goal bring as many units as you want to to balance the risk of achieving 1 winning "SEQUENCE" or 100 winning "SEQUENCES". Make sure you have enough time to do either.
Set a "SESSION" goal of 100,000 "SEQUENCES", you might call it a failure even though you might have 9999 successfukl "SEQUENCES" of every 10,000 "SEQUENCES". You will seldom achieve your "SESSION" goal.
I thought all the guy claimed was "he never lost" on a weekend's play. I thought rumor had it he did show up with a large wad.
Everybody thought such an outrageous claim was crazy. Eventually, his betting system got analyzed and it was determined that it was quite possible he was not lying.
Does it matter what he did, what his "SESSION" goal was? It's now a defined betting system that will achieve so many winning "SEQUENCES" with so many units of roll.
Not counting bumping up against the table max
The beauty of Oscar is even a couple hundred units might produce 993 winning "SEQUENCES" out of every 1000 "SEQUENCES".
You know me - I'm a digital guy. Do it. Or don't do it.
Like my wife says she's been on a diet for 17 days. Man does she get pissed when I say, and she agrees, she "cheated" yesterday and I say she's been on her diet for one day.
And quickly add "just as beautiful" :grin:
What is the "Shadroch Grind" "SEQUENCE" goal? I don't care how many innings it is. When does your set of rules call for a new "SEQUENCE"?
If you want to call 10 innings a "SESSION", I'd call it a "SEQUENCE" because that's when you would begin to bet the same way again.
I got a kick out of whoever said it succeeds 100% of the time over so many trials but the only drawback was you needed 8800 units.
Nothing wrong with that if you want to risk 8800 units. Might last a lifetime, you never know.
Dice are easy. Bj is harder with all its variables. The "Shadroch Grind" would give different results depending on the usual suspects.
Whatever. Voodoo ain't easy :grin: