No winners ever?

standard toaster · May 28, 2009

fredperson said:

You are not helping anyone out here by not posting anything... explain your system just a bit we do not need to know the entire thing. If you have all these computer simulations can you post some data? That is not giving your secret system away it is just showing some results.

Counting is not a disservice to anyone on this forum it is a true way of gaining an advantage and until you prove your way is better i dont know what else to say other than stop telling people to explore progression systems.

k_c · May 28, 2009

fredperson said:

Assuming your system works, do you have any theory of why it can overcome a house edge or is it something that just seems to work but you don't know why?

If it can overcome the small house edge in blackjack, could it overcome house edge in other games or does it seem to be restricted to blackjack for some known or unknown reason?

QFIT · May 29, 2009

Good Grief! A progression is a progression is a progression. Labouchere, Martingale, D'Alembert, Fibonacci, these systems have been around for centuries. That's why casinos make so much money.

1357111317 · May 29, 2009

fredperson said:

Guys I think you should read his post more carefully. The reason why this guy makes money is because he knows when he is going to lose and bets the minimum. Anyone who can predict when they are going to lose is obviously going to make money. Will you guys quit being so hard headed and accept that this guy's progression system works already? Lets ignore the fact that his system centers on the fact that he knows when he is going to lose and just accept the fact that he says he is a winner.

itakeyourmoney · May 29, 2009

1357111317 said:

Guys I think you should read his post more carefully. The reason why this guy makes money is because he knows when he is going to lose and bets the minimum. Anyone who can predict when they are going to lose is obviously going to make money. Will you guys quit being so hard headed and accept that this guy's progression system works already? Lets ignore the fact that his system centers on the fact that he knows when he is going to lose and just accept the fact that he says he is a winner.

What I can't understand is why someone who knows the future doesn't go out and buy a Powerball ticket?

Katweezel · May 29, 2009

Fred the Brave

1357111317 said:

Good points, 1357. I have an open mind about Fred's system. If someone is smart enough to figure a way, where popular belief says not possible for hundreds of years, then I say good for you Fred; it's about time! Most counters are only concerned with their own box. But, in the bigger picture, if one focuses on the history of the dealer hand's long-term results, (for example) it becomes apparent to the initiated that 'knowing when he (the player) is going to lose' is not so far-fetched after all. Either is 'predicting dealer busts' or 'steering a dealer bust'. After all, the dealer is expected to bust 28.20% of the time. Now isn't that a wonderfully high figure, because they must buy on 16 or less? The player's expected bust rate is only around a bit over 15%. This massive difference can most certainly be exploited.

fredperson · May 29, 2009

The sarcasm is literally dripping from some of these posts.

Now, listen carefully.
No one is predicting anything here.
Rule 1-When ever you lose, your next bet is the minimum.
Rule 2-Continue to bet the minimum until you win three hands in row, or win a doubled bet (double down or split).
Rule 3-At that point, begin to increase your bet based on the modified Fibonacci sequence until you lose (see rule 1)

My simulation statistics show that lose strings and win strings will occur with a predictable frequency. This system simply takes advantage of that fact.
Think about it minute....your betting minimum during lose streaks, and increasing your bet during win strings. But best of all, the dynamics of blackjack (unlike other casino games) allow one to increase their bet with favorable hands which is especially profitable when they occur during a win streak.

I am both amazed and amused by some of the posts made on this topic by the esteemed senior, and executive members of this forum. It's been fun guys.:grin:

rrwoods · May 29, 2009

Hey look, we actually have a description of the system! Can CVData or CVCX simulate progressions?

sagefr0g · May 29, 2009

no sarcasm here, or not more than normal, lol

fredperson said:

there is some legitimacy to at least some pertinent points of your system as you've outlined them. but really nothing far as any progression approach as far as i know. it's really whats known as 'situational' betting and strategy, which actually relies on a history of the cards sort of thing that lends any advantage.
like the stuff in rule 1 & 2, the parts relating to loss and win (i'm not aware of any significance of the streak part [ie. winning three hands in a row] though). also the part about double downs and splits has significance (but again i'm not sure the significance of the winning a double part )
for example there have been computer studies for single deck blackjack regarding the above that i summarized in this link: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=134835&postcount=44
so but that's one of the things that surprised me when i asked you about if your system worked for multiple deck. i would have expected this stuff to work best for single deck, maybe double deck and not so well for higher numbers of decks. at least that's what Dubey claimed in his book No Need to Count which was the source of the data summarized in the link above. apparently your findings were just the opposite.

so but anyway i haven't a clue as to what rule 3 and the modified Fibonacci sequence has to do with anything. simply i don't understand that stuff, but the link you provided was very interesting.

iCountNTrack · May 29, 2009

fredperson said:

The sarcasm is literally dripping from some of these posts.

Now, listen carefully.
No one is predicting anything here.
Rule 1-When ever you lose, your next bet is the minimum.
Rule 2-Continue to bet the minimum until you win three hands in row, or win a doubled bet (double down or split).
Rule 3-At that point, begin to increase your bet based on the modified Fibonacci sequence until you lose (see rule 1)

My simulation statistics show that lose strings and win strings will occur with a predictable frequency. This system simply takes advantage of that fact.
Think about it minute....your betting minimum during lose streaks, and increasing your bet during win strings. But best of all, the dynamics of blackjack (unlike other casino games) allow one to increase their bet with favorable hands which is especially profitable when they occur during a win streak.

I am both amazed and amused by some of the posts made on this topic by the esteemed senior, and executive members of this forum. It's been fun guys.:grin:

Hmmm the frequency of winning three hands in a row is 2.5%, not too frequent don't you think?

Sonny · May 29, 2009

fredperson said:

So are you predicting things or not? You seem to be confused on that point. Do you actually think that you can predict streaks? And is this the same simulation program that miscalculated the proper basic strategy?

fredperson said:

That’s a perfect description of a progression system. You are adjusting your bets based on the results of the past few hands. That is exactly what every other progression system does and it is exactly why they all fail. It doesn’t matter if you use a positive or negative progression, or if you use a Fibonacci sequence or if you wait until three losses or whatever, they all make the same error. They all assume that the past few results will somehow affect the next hand. Think about why that doesn’t work for Roulette or Craps. The same is true in this case.

fredperson said:

No you’re not, you’re just betting randomly. Your system does not recognize or predict any streaks at all. You are just as likely to raise your bet into a losing streak. Every article in the Welcome thread explains exactly where your mistake is. You've even had several members explain your mistakes to you in very specific detail. If you aren't willing to learn from your mistakes, I don't see why I should allow you to keep spreading false information.

This forum would be so much simpler if people understood the Gambler’s Fallacy.

-Sonny-

QFIT · May 29, 2009

This is a classic progression system. It has been known for over a century that all such systems fail.

johndoe · May 29, 2009

Perhaps he is still using his TRS-80 Model III to perform the simulations. Or maybe the IBM 705.

sagefr0g · May 29, 2009

Sonny said:

there is a point, or question that makes me wonder on the perfectness of fredperson's system being a progression system. the Fibonacci sequence stuff, yeah but the element where specific situations are monitored, i'm not so sure.
i'm totally confused on the issue of degree's of disadvantage and advantage as it regards true counts when they are unknown, but when situational stuff such as double downs and splits are known. thing is on double downs and splits there is apparently asymmetry as to how they present over time. sort of how these graphs show, but they weren't i don't think designed to represent frequency of double downs and splits or double downs after splits per se. i think it's more how they relate to true counts. the actual frequency of how double downs and splits present may be a whole nuther matter.

http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount6.htm
well regardless of all that confusion i just spouted, i think we do know that regardless of the count basic strategy tells us that there is some advantage to doubling and splitting even if it does end up a losing game.

also it doesn't seem to be a matter of contention regarding Dubey's findings. : http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=134835&postcount=44
the point being, at least for single deck there can be a advantage just by knowing the previous hand history and no other hands and logically even more of an advantage if you know the history of a few more past hands, sort of thing. makes one wonder, how do the frequencies of double downs, splits and splits with double downs present? could they present in such a way so as the true count would tend to be positive on the next hand over the long run?

then too, i wonder about the degree's of disadvantage and advantage for hands after a double down, split and split with a double down as it relates to how you might be betting. i mean in a negative count where you have some disadvantage at some point, but the count goes less negative, that would represent less of a disadvantage. so wouldn't there be some advantage in that even if it's a negative one?

:whip:

QFIT · May 29, 2009

sagefr0g said:

there is a point, or question that makes me wonder on the perfectness of fredperson's system being a progression system. the Fibonacci sequence stuff, yeah but the element where specific situations are monitored, i'm not so sure.
i'm totally confused on the issue of degree's of disadvantage and advantage as it regards true counts when they are unknown, but when situational stuff such as double downs and splits are known. thing is on double downs and splits there is apparently asymmetry as to how they present over time. sort of how these graphs show, but they weren't i don't think designed to represent frequency of double downs and splits or double downs after splits per se. i think it's more how they relate to true counts. the actual frequency of how double downs and splits present may be a whole nuther matter.

http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount6.htm
well regardless of all that confusion i just spouted, i think we do know that regardless of the count basic strategy tells us that there is some advantage to doubling and splitting even if it does end up a losing game.

also it doesn't seem to be a matter of contention regarding Dubey's findings. : http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=134835&postcount=44
the point being, at least for single deck there can be a advantage just by knowing the previous hand history and no other hands and logically even more of an advantage if you know the history of a few more past hands, sort of thing. makes one wonder, how do the frequencies of double downs, splits and splits with double downs present? could they present in such a way so as the true count would tend to be positive on the next hand over the long run?

then too, i wonder about the degree's of disadvantage and advantage for hands after a double down, split and split with a double down as it relates to how you might be betting. i mean in a negative count where you have some disadvantage at some point, but the count goes less negative, that would represent less of a disadvantage. so wouldn't there be some advantage in that even if it's a negative one?

:whip:

The effect of the last hand is very small -- extremely small in shoes. The effect does not accumulate in multiple hands. That is, losing a hand has a tiny impact on the next hand, assuming no intervening shuffle. Losing four hands in a row has about the same effect -- it does not multiply. None of these effects are large enough to matter.

iCountNTrack · May 30, 2009

sagefr0g said:

there is a point, or question that makes me wonder on the perfectness of fredperson's system being a progression system. the Fibonacci sequence stuff, yeah but the element where specific situations are monitored, i'm not so sure.
i'm totally confused on the issue of degree's of disadvantage and advantage as it regards true counts when they are unknown, but when situational stuff such as double downs and splits are known. thing is on double downs and splits there is apparently asymmetry as to how they present over time. sort of how these graphs show, but they weren't i don't think designed to represent frequency of double downs and splits or double downs after splits per se. i think it's more how they relate to true counts. the actual frequency of how double downs and splits present may be a whole nuther matter.

http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount6.htm
well regardless of all that confusion i just spouted, i think we do know that regardless of the count basic strategy tells us that there is some advantage to doubling and splitting even if it does end up a losing game.

also it doesn't seem to be a matter of contention regarding Dubey's findings. : http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=134835&postcount=44
the point being, at least for single deck there can be a advantage just by knowing the previous hand history and no other hands and logically even more of an advantage if you know the history of a few more past hands, sort of thing. makes one wonder, how do the frequencies of double downs, splits and splits with double downs present? could they present in such a way so as the true count would tend to be positive on the next hand over the long run?

then too, i wonder about the degree's of disadvantage and advantage for hands after a double down, split and split with a double down as it relates to how you might be betting. i mean in a negative count where you have some disadvantage at some point, but the count goes less negative, that would represent less of a disadvantage. so wouldn't there be some advantage in that even if it's a negative one?

:whip:

At very negative true counts with the right indices you could actually be playing with an an advantage

. Basic strategy is the optimum mathematical playing strategy that maximizes your expectation value. So for instance while hitting a hard 15 against the dealers 10 is a losing hand (negative expectation) the expectation is still less negative than standing, so basically losing less money is winning some in a way

. Same concept applies to double down and splits, even though the first are significantly more profitable (higher frequency and advantage).

sagefr0g · Jun 3, 2009

fredperson said:

it's interesting how your points 1 & 2 are similar to Dubey's where he zero's in on raising bets after greater than six card winning hands, double downs, splits and splits with double downs. but i already said that, lol.
also you like Dubey have this concept of 'min max betting'. the idea where one wants to put less money out when losing and to the max when winning. just me maybe, but imho it's an attractive element if you can be just mainly raising you bet after a win since at least if you lose that bet it's buttressed to some extent by the previous win money. and the bet min part is almost always an attractive element cause your losing most of the time, lol. might as well bet min then.
but what ever, i was just thinking about that Fibonacci sequence stuff and it is interesting. i mean i don't really understand the point or what's going on with that stuff but it's fascinating kind of like in the sense of conspiracy theories, lol. i mean you got this guy Fibonacci way back in the day, figures out this sequence and then there is all these complex relationships to pi, mandelbrot and golden ratio's and all, then nature seems to fall into the plot, with stems and leaves and shells and stuff like galaxies and all. then what we got living stuff wild and planted by man and the cycles of climate and weather, series or sequences if you will that either do or don't offer advantage to life, sort of thing. and does life and process's trying to exist in entropy benefit in some mysterious way that is reflected by Fibonacci sequence's? who knows?

anyway it's interesting but beyond understanding far as i can see or how would anyone apply such stuff to blackjacks series and sequences of wins, loss's and payoffs?

:whip:

Howie · Jun 6, 2009

fredperson said:

Spoken like a true progression player..

standard toaster · Jun 6, 2009

Howie said:

:laugh:

Although not every progression player is blind to the fact that the system is fataly flawed. Many progression players know the outcome but still do it for the short term win.

fredperson · Jun 7, 2009

Howie said:

Talk about a quote taken totally out of context......wow a classic

No winners ever?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member