It is well known there is a hand-to-hand correlation. It is mentioned in Theory of Blackjack. But it is not a complicated progression - it is a very simple, extremely weak counting system. The basis of counting is that your advantage is better when the count is higher. Therefore when you lose a hand, the count goes up on average since poor cards were likely dealt leaving more good cards. When you win a hand, the count goes down on average. So, if you lose all the hands in a shuffle, the count is probably a tiny bit up along with your EV for the last hand. You are counting - just in a very weak manner. I simmed this years ago and found that it overcame the house edge only on deeply dealt single deck with an enormous spread. But, this game doesn't exist anymore and if it did they wouldn't let you use an enormous spread.
When does a system become legit?
- Thread starter cbrown
- Start date
A little clearer.
Just because he uses big numbers (20 billion hand sim)it doesn't mean anything. He conveniently leaves out the highs and lows hidden in the sim.
If that sim represented a players session, we don't know if the player went through 50 bankruptcies before showing a positive result. In other words an infinite bankroll.
Not all progressions increase or decrease the bet immediately after a loss or win in order to overcome the house advantage. That's why a custom simulator may be needed. The goal of a progression is the same as the counters( to overcome the house advantage.) Some do it better than others.
Just because he uses big numbers (20 billion hand sim)it doesn't mean anything. He conveniently leaves out the highs and lows hidden in the sim.
If that sim represented a players session, we don't know if the player went through 50 bankruptcies before showing a positive result. In other words an infinite bankroll.
Not all progressions increase or decrease the bet immediately after a loss or win in order to overcome the house advantage. That's why a custom simulator may be needed. The goal of a progression is the same as the counters( to overcome the house advantage.) Some do it better than others.
We are talking about sims produced for Blackjack Attack. Enormous effort was made to provide realistic information in BJA. More hands were simmed than have been played in every casino in the world in all of history. An entire chapter is devoted to risk for which I supplied numerous sims. To suggest that we would hide information related to risk is absurd. I have made numerous post over the years warning of the risks of card counting. In fact I posted a series of sims at http://www.advantageplayer.com on 'why counters lose.' Why on Earth would we hide information?
CVData was designed for Blackjack; not any specific system. For example, hole-carding has nothing to do with counting. Progression simulations do not show negative EV because of some conspiracy. They show negative EV because they have negative EV. If a positive EV were possible; what would be my motivation for hiding this? I would have tens of thousands of clients supporting progression systems. I don't because it would be dishonest - not because there is some conspiracy against progression players.
CVData was designed for Blackjack; not any specific system. For example, hole-carding has nothing to do with counting. Progression simulations do not show negative EV because of some conspiracy. They show negative EV because they have negative EV. If a positive EV were possible; what would be my motivation for hiding this? I would have tens of thousands of clients supporting progression systems. I don't because it would be dishonest - not because there is some conspiracy against progression players.
Simulators are great tools.
CVData was designed for Blackjack; not any specific system. For example, hole-carding has nothing to do with counting. Progression simulations do not show negative EV because of some conspiracy. They show negative EV because they have negative EV. If a positive EV were possible; what would be my motivation for hiding this? I would have tens of thousands of clients supporting progression systems. I don't because it would be dishonest - not because there is some conspiracy against progression players.[/QUOTE]
Until simulators are made available for the non-counters we have to rely on logic and actual play in a casino. It would be a lot cheaper to be able to sim our systems and get the probable results. I've learnt a great deal from the simulator I have even though I can't sim my system. A simulator can give you important information besides the result. Any player who hasn't seen a simulator in operation is missing out. Although a simulator is an important tool, it doesn't replace thinking.
Producing software for non-counters isn't supporting progressions. It is supporting experimentation and what-if situations. My bj simulator has also taught me things that have nothing to do with bj.
CVData was designed for Blackjack; not any specific system. For example, hole-carding has nothing to do with counting. Progression simulations do not show negative EV because of some conspiracy. They show negative EV because they have negative EV. If a positive EV were possible; what would be my motivation for hiding this? I would have tens of thousands of clients supporting progression systems. I don't because it would be dishonest - not because there is some conspiracy against progression players.[/QUOTE]
Until simulators are made available for the non-counters we have to rely on logic and actual play in a casino. It would be a lot cheaper to be able to sim our systems and get the probable results. I've learnt a great deal from the simulator I have even though I can't sim my system. A simulator can give you important information besides the result. Any player who hasn't seen a simulator in operation is missing out. Although a simulator is an important tool, it doesn't replace thinking.
Producing software for non-counters isn't supporting progressions. It is supporting experimentation and what-if situations. My bj simulator has also taught me things that have nothing to do with bj.
Why don't you just tell use the system. Many people here including me can code and we can simulate billions of hands and in many cases actually do mathematical exact calculations.
Pretty much ANY progression system is proved mathematically 100% not to work. So a working system would have to be something specific that can only work in a shoe game.
Pretty much ANY progression system is proved mathematically 100% not to work. So a working system would have to be something specific that can only work in a shoe game.
