A question about system play

[leatherguyray]

I know I shouldn't even post this, but the more I read the more I am compelled to do so. I hope I can pose my real question in a way that may be understood and not be confused to create only the age old debate and well-used arguments.

To begin, I am a very long time player, and I have used system play of various kinds for years. I play flawless basic strategy and my money management is perfect in applying it to the play I use. I have never kept strict records. I have always kept a win-loss record, and throughout the years I have played and since I begain keeping those written win-loss records I have never ... not once ... been in the losing bracket. It is very close at times, but I have stayed a winner for years.

I do conceed that counting is a much, much better way to play and will certainally have a far greater expectation of making some money, and to that end I am presently undertaking to become a proficient counter. I am just about ready to take the count to the store and put my money on the table. In fact, I'm very anxious to do so, but I want to be properly prepared before I do. I go now and stand and count and mentally play a hand in the casinos to practice in that environment without risking my bucks.

Here is the question(s)? I am not even going to try and lay out the precise system I use because I know that won't matter to anyone, but in-short it involves both a positive and a negative progression. Whether a positive progression gains one any advantage over flat betting long-term is highly debated and usually debunked, but I think all might agree that it does liven up your play and it does capture whatever positive win streaks may come along. I think, though, that the good results I've had are basically due to the negative side of the progression system.
what my idea attempts here is to re-coupe losses to make all play a winning situation. One would hope that it will work well enough to have wins remain ahead of losses thus effectively overcoming some or all of the inherient house advantage.

The negative progression is simple and short. Long negative progressions will kill you. Even I know that. I Martingale a loss for three bets and if I win one of those three hands I re-coupe my entire loss plus a one unit profit.

How well that works depends upon luck just as so many things in this game do depend upon luck - devation, variance, whatever we choose to call it. But, I only play a $5 base unit and if I do lose the three in a row I have ventured a total of $40.00 and lost it. If one does not lose three in a row terribly often, he can remain ahead of the losing curve. IF he does lose three in a row enough times over a short haul, enough to cut into his buy in, then he walks. But, he walks always with some winning. I never, never, ever leave the casino without a win if I have ever been ahead any at all. I have left with as little as fifty cents win, but I have never left a loser if I was ever ahead any at all to begin with. Never.

Do I make much money? Nope. It is far too close for that and that is the reason I am beginning to count. Want to supplement my income in my old age, which has all of a sudden arrived. But, a winner is a winner and can not be made a loser just by talking. Winning is winning and losing is losing.

Everyone talks about "the long run" and I do realize what they are sayig and have to believe it is true, but if you assume I am telling the absolute truth and have remained a winner for years, then when does the long-term apply? By the way, I play several times per week and I usually play marathon amounts of time. I have on a couple of occasions played 24 hours non stop except a quick meal break. I have played thousands of thousands hours.

This is far too wordy, so I'll let it go. Just wanted to know if, in practical terms, if anyone can tell me why what I have been doing won't "work." Remember, I said it works. I did not say I make a lot of money with it.

 

[daddybo]

Positive Progressions!

Forms of Postive Progressions work in positive ev games. Some people call it a bet spread.

 

[rrwoods]

Just wanted to know if, in practical terms, if anyone can tell me why what I have been doing won't "work."

The simple fact is that your bets are not correlated with your advantage using a progression alone. If you use a "short" Martingale, then yes, if you win one out of those three hands, you're ahead. But only by five dollars. If you lose, you're down 40.

Look at the following:

W(WW) +5

W(WL) +5
W(LW) +5
LW(W) +5

W(LL) +5
LW(L) +5
LLW +5

LLL -40

(idea gratuitously stolen from earlier in the thread)

This is all the possible combinations of winning and losing three hands. Note that I'm marking anything after the first win in parentheses, and I'm not counting it towards your total -- your progression "resets" when you win.

If blackjack were a coin flip (and it's not -- it's worse), then your expected return would be -$5/8. So even though you win much more often than not, the $40 loss more than counteracts any positive benefit you might get from your wins.

 

[leatherguyray]

Yes, RRWoods, I do understand that and appreciate your input. I have lost that $40 bet many times. Specifically, though, the question is is you play and you win 17 hands or more without losing the three in a row then you have adequate added br to offset the $40 loss when it does happen. If it does not happen at all then you are, of course, very much ahead in a short time. If it does happen pretty quickly after you have won those 17 or more hands, or even if it happens on the 18th hand, and you quit, you still quit a winner. If you are lucky and losing three in a row only occurs once in a while, it SEEMS it keeps you in the winner bracket. Will you lose bigger when you lose? Certainally. But, it sure seems to me that the only times I have ever walked away a loser are the seldom times I sit down and don't get far enough ahead to begin with BEFORE that $40 loss occurs. I don't have records on that and could be kidding myself, I guess, but good choppy play seems to always make this a winner. Streaks kill you, but I only tolerate one or two negative streaks (depending upon remaining chips) before I walk.

Plus, in addition to the negative progression there is the positive side. One gains a little here and there from those and if you combine modest gains from positive progression with recouping most losses with the negative, the only way to lose ... it seems ... is to play long enough to allow a loss. My intent has always been to play and gain $100.00. I never venture more than a $100 buy in. I never lose that. I quit.

Please understand that I do not dispute the math. The world turns on math and though I am a math dunce, I can read what others develop. I don't doubt it. My question is where is that long-term? Why have I stayed a little ahead with a system of play that won't work? Again, I belive it won't work and that is why I am becoming a counter but with the progression or the counting, where is the long-term. I've sure played systems for a long long, hand after hand time. According to the math I have to be a loser and I believe that. When?

 

[Sonny]

My question is where is that long-term? Why have I stayed a little ahead with a system of play that won't work?

As you said, a progression system doesn’t turn the odds in your favor, all it does is prolong the inevitable losses. For how long? Who knows. Maybe the next session you play will be the start of the streak that bankrupts you, or maybe it will never happen in your lifetime. Some progression systems do a very good job of avoiding the losses but you will always have that sword hanging over your head and you never know when it will fall. Maybe you will be broke tomorrow. Will it have been worth it?

The big difference is that you need to change your mindset. Using a progression system is just gambling. The house still has the edge and you should expect to lose eventually. Maybe you will get lucky and never lose it all back, but that is not what you should strive for. You don’t want to be praying for wins, you want to be expecting wins. The only way to do that is to get an advantage over the casino. Unless you don’t care about the money in your bankroll you should not feel comfortable betting on a game that you are expecting to lose.

Another nice thing about having an advantage over the house is that you don’t have to worry about the swings the way a gambler does. A gambler never knows what could happen in his next session. He never knows how much risk his bankroll is subject to. He never knows how long he will be able to go before that losing streak wipes him out. He knows that once that streak happens there is no undoing it. He just has to pray that he will quit before that big losing streak but not before the next winning streak. He is driving completely blind. On the other hand, an Advantage Player will already know what range his results will be in and how much risk he is taking with each bet. He will also know how long it will take to get the money and about how long the streaks will affect him. Arnold Snyder’s website has a good article on how to find the range of results for any session, and the Frequently Asked Questions thread here has some good information about the long run:

Q: What is the “long run” that I keep hearing people talk about?
A: The long run is the point where you overcome the variance (luck) of the game and can be assured of reaching your EV. It is the point where your results are no longer affected by luck and only your skill remains. Here are some threads about the long run:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=5913
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4891

-Sonny-

 

[leatherguyray]

Sonny, thanks so much for your well-put, polite and informative reply. As I tried to make clear, I don't doubt the math, I just haven't exactly experienced it. I have read many books and my favorite book, author and probably person, were I to meet him, is Black Belt in Blackjack by Arnold. Because he is my written word mentor I decided to begin my counting undertaking with Simple Red Sevens combined with the bet spread he recommends for the recreatonal player. I am reading hard, practicing hard and asorbing as much useful info as possible because when I put my money on the flet I want to be properly prepared. I am having difficulty not going to the store and playing a little with my old style of play, but I have resolved to never do it again. I'll count and improve at counting and hopefully make a few bucks throughout my old-coger years.
Only when I decided to become a counter did I begin reading these forums. I read this one and snyder's both. I have gleened a great deal here and there. I confess I get irritated at some of the snide, answers to people's questions that have the effect of attempting to pump one's self up while degading another. But, that's life and such people exist. I live with it here and in the real world. Thanks again for your excellent reply.

 

[21gunsalute]

Please understand that I do not dispute the math. The world turns on math and though I am a math dunce, I can read what others develop. I don't doubt it. My question is where is that long-term? Why have I stayed a little ahead with a system of play that won't work? Again, I belive it won't work and that is why I am becoming a counter but with the progression or the counting, where is the long-term. I've sure played systems for a long long, hand after hand time. According to the math I have to be a loser and I believe that. When?

Well here's my take on it. Advantage is, for lack of a better term, theoretical and not an absolute. I'm beginning to realize that whether you count cards and have a 1-2% "advantage" or play basic strategy and leave the house with a .5% "advantage", it doesn't make much difference if it indeed makes any difference at all. If the advantage were real there would be absolutely no way I could have had 13 consecutive losing sessions and lost approximately 90% of the hands when I had the "advantage", but that did indeed happen.

I'm not going to tell you not to count, but I'm not sure why you would want to change if you have a system that works this well. I'm still counting even after this horrendous streak. I believe you can gain valuable information from counting such as when to buy insurance, etc, but I would recommend playing conservatively and cautiously. Others will tell you you need a large spread to beat the game. That's how I got into trouble. If I had even just flat betted I would have come out ahead in a vast majority of those 13 consecutive losing sessions. My advice would be to keep the spread small until you get up by a certain amount (maybe 1:5 or so) and then you can increase your spread as your winnings increase. You'll last longer this way if you're not winning too. I think big spreads can reap big rewards but they can also set you up for an even bigger fall.

 

[leatherguyray]

Thanks, 21 gunsalute, your reply made great sense and I do appreciate it. I intend to do precisely as you suggested. Be very conservative, especially in the beginning. I am beginning with the simple red sevens and a conservative 8-1 spread recommended for recreational players by Arnold Snider in his book BBIBJ. He, as you probably know, invented red sevens and the system and the spread I am going to begin with are his. He even says the spread may seem too conservative to many, but to trust him and begin there.
I want to count because I just can't believe all the information available is wrong. My system is about as good as one can get playing basic strategy and using any system at all, and it is true I remain a small winner ... large at times, but always falling back to less.

My thought is that if I count I'll reap whatever rewards come along with that and I can't hurt a thing. If I count conservatively and it seems to work for me earning me even a few megar dollars along the way, then I may be encouraged to upgrade my count, use more of devices available to enhance my play and gain those precious percentages of edge, etc. Who knows? I don't. But, by counting with any competent system and remaining conservative I don't think I can help but improve my game over the system type play I have been using. Like I siad, it is about as good as one can get with a system ... but it remains basic strategy and a system. A great deal of luck (call it by whatever name) is always involved as as one reply told me, I always have that sword hanging over my head ready to fall.

The thing that concrns me most at present concerning counting is the large fluxations that can, and will, occur. But, as I think about it, I experience those in my current play as well. If I did not I'd be way ahead always. It is just with my current play I do not have as much money invested or risk at any time.

Again, I appreciate your reply and the insight you display with it. So very many on a site such as this simply discredit any sort of system play out of hand without even conceeding that for whatever reason one might actually work to an extent good enough to keep one even or ahead of the game. How long? Who knows? But I do know that it has served me well in just being a small winner and certainally allowing me to play free for entertainment value.

Some will say you don't need luck when you count, but even if that is true, I want to wish you all the best of luck with your play. It can't hurt.

 

[QFIT]

Well here's my take on it. Advantage is, for lack of a better term, theoretical and not an absolute. I'm beginning to realize that whether you count cards and have a 1-2% "advantage" or play basic strategy and leave the house with a .5% "advantage", it doesn't make much difference if it indeed makes any difference at all. If the advantage were real there would be absolutely no way I could have had 13 consecutive losing sessions and lost approximately 90% of the hands when I had the "advantage", but that did indeed happen.

Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. You can smoke your entire life and live to 90 or never smoke and get cancer. That does not mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Advantage does not mean guarantee. It just means the odds are in your favor. If advantage didn't mean anything, the casinos would all be broke.

 

[21gunsalute]

Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. You can smoke your entire life and live to 90 or never smoke and get cancer. That does not mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Advantage does not mean guarantee. It just means the odds are in your favor. If advantage didn't mean anything, the casinos would all be broke.

That's a good analogy, but I think you missed an important point or 2. Smoking doesn't cause cancer in every individual, and I'd venture to guess that most individuals who smoke won't get cancer. At any rate, smoking would seem to me to be a negative progression and should be avoided. It would be much better to play conservatively and not smoke. The odds may be more favorable to get cancer if you do smoke, yet most individuals who do smoke probably won't get cancer. The same can be said for counting and playing big spreads. It may slightly tilt the odds in our favor but that doesn't mean that everyone who counts and uses a big spread is going to profit, and that big spread could obviously lead to an individuals ultimate demise.

In either scenario the over-riding factor is that luck/variance far outweighs any perceived, miniscule mathematical advantage. Spreading big is like buying penny stocks: You can easily make a killing and you can easily get killed. It would be much better to invest in conservative stocks and look for small, steady gains.

 

[QFIT]

Spreading isn't anything at all like buying penny stocks. It is betting more on good stocks than bad stocks. It is a necessary part of counting. And it does NOT ultimately lead to your demise if you manage your risk. OTOH, if by playing conservatively, you mean not substantially increasing the amount bet when the odds are in your favor in a game where the edge would otherwise be against you, then you are just one of the millions of gamblers giving their money to casinos.

 

[21gunsalute]

Spreading isn't anything at all like buying penny stocks. It is betting more on good stocks than bad stocks. It is a necessary part of counting. And it does NOT ultimately lead to your demise if you manage your risk. OTOH, if by playing conservatively, you mean not substantially increasing the amount bet when the odds are in your favor in a game where the edge would otherwise be against you, then you are just one of the millions of gamblers giving their money to casinos.

I disagree. How does one justify a perceived advantage increase of 1-2% with a corresponding 10 to 16 fold increase of the bet wagered? That's extremely risky business, and while I'm not an expert on penny stocks I would think most of them would not be as risky as such a huge spread with such a minimal advantage gained.

 

[QFIT]

Well, if you disagree, you are on the right board (voodoo.) The math has been presented 1,000 times. This is important. You are NOT increasing your bet 16 fold when the advantage is in your favor. You are DECREASING the bet to one 16th when it is against you. The higher the spread the better. When you are wonging, you have an infinite spread.

 

[21gunsalute]

Well, if you disagree, you are on the right board (voodoo.) The math has been presented 1,000 times. This is important. You are NOT increasing your bet 16 fold when the advantage is in your favor. You are DECREASING the bet to one 16th when it is against you. The higher the spread the better. When you are wonging, you have an infinite spread.

Well maybe that works where you play, but around here wonging (in anyway) is just about impossible. Most stores don't allow mid-shoe entry or limit you to table minimum for the remainder of the shoe. And they're so busy you'd never be able to get a spot at a table if you're wonging in and out. But had I been able to wong in during my losing streak I would have lost even more money or at least lost the same amount even faster (all other factors being equal that is, since obviously the compositions of the hands would change). In almost every circumstance I was up a fairly good margin making small bets at low and negative counts and when the count got high and I put more money on the table, I either lost every single hand or nearly every single hand.

You can cite all the mathematical statistics you want but it doesn't change anything. I'm not arguing the math, I'm arguing the application of it. I and several others here have lost significant amounts of money because we spread too much when we had the "advantage". Had I been playing lower spreads I would have significantly reduced the amount of money I lost or may have even made small gains. If I had simply flat betted I'm 100% certain I would have made a small profit during this period.

It simply makes no sense to be up a fairly significant amount after a few hours and then lose it all and then some on a few hands when the count and odds are finally in your "favor". And yet that is what happened time and time again because I followed the advice here. Stats are fine, but they are just that-very static! They leave out the all important caveat: Your results may vary!

 

[QFIT]

What you saw in a particular set of hands is completely meaningless. Give me any set of hands, and I can invent a strategy that would work perfectly for that set. But that set won't happen again.

 

[21gunsalute]

What you saw in a particular set of hands is completely meaningless. Give me any set of hands, and I can invent a strategy that would work perfectly for that set. But that set won't happen again.

I have no idea where you're trying to go with this post or how it relates to what we're discussing. If you're saying the set of hands I received during my losing streak are meaningless in the overall statistical scheme of things I would agree. But it isn't meaningless to me. It's my money I risked and lost. The same thing that happened to me can happen to anyone and does happen from time to time as evidenced by several other posters here who have encountered similar fates. All I'm saying is to exercise caution and don't spread too high or you can lose a boatload in a hurry. Even during high counts you're only going to win about 43% of the hands played.

 

[QFIT]

You state a truism, but then draw an incorrect conclusion. Yes you will often lose when you have an advantage. Destroying your advantage is not the answer.

 

[21gunsalute]

You state a truism, but then draw an incorrect conclusion. Yes you will often lose when you have an advantage. Destroying your advantage is not the answer.

Once again, the advantage is not real, it's perceived. My perceived advantage did not result in a real advantage. My perceived advantage became a detrimental disadvantage to my bankroll. Overbetting a conceptual advantage by 10 to 20 fold is foolhardy in my book, at least when you're starting out, based on my own experiences and those that others have posted here. If you build the bankroll higher then you might consider spreading more with your extra winnings, but I don't see any reason to rush into it.

 

[QFIT]

Overbetting and spread are two entirely different subjects. You must have a bankroll that fits your betting ramp. BUT, reducing the spread is the wrong answer. If your bankroll is small, reduce all bets, not the spread. If you can't do that, wong. If you can't do that, stop playing. Your bankroll is just going to get smaller.

 

[psyduck]

21gun,

I think you are missing a very important factor: BR.

If you have the BR, spreading is the optimal way to make money. If losing your big bets hurts you, that means you are overbetting.

The players have a very small advantage at high TC. That means you still have a good chance of losing. Losing large bets at high TC is part of the game. It just happens. Think about it. The odd of winning lottery is very small. But people win it all the time. The chance of losing at high TC in BJ is much higher than the chance of winning a lottery.