:flame: Is it a bad idea to just leave the same base bet down and maybe bump it up randomly. ie leave $25 bucks down and throw a $75 bet down when it "feels right". could someone recommend a good betting strategy for a newcomer. this will be my 2nd time playing in vegas. first time i played for about 7.5-8 hrs and lost $60 with no betting strategy at all, just playing solid basic strat. thanks. :whip:
Is this a Poor Betting Strategy?
- Thread starter dunpal
- Start date
Continue betting flat...
In my opinion (and I am quite sure you will get a lot of people that disagree), you are probably better off betting flat and playing playing perfect betting strategy. The casino will have a slight edge over you (less than 1%) depending on the rules of the game and the number of decks played. In the short run, you will notice fluctuations both positive and negative in your bankroll. If you have the discipline to set a limit on how much to win and lose, you will most likely enjoy your time in Vegas.
There is another camp that believes in betting progressions. For example, someone posted 1-3-2-4 betting progression. He went through a whole list of reasons why he thought it might have been worthwhile (which I won't go into). Mathematically, the house has the advantage so these betting progressions can be dangerous, but like I said there are many people on this website that have succeeded using their betting progressions. (I am sure they will chime in
!!!)
Anyway, best of luck...just my 2 cents...
In my opinion (and I am quite sure you will get a lot of people that disagree), you are probably better off betting flat and playing playing perfect betting strategy. The casino will have a slight edge over you (less than 1%) depending on the rules of the game and the number of decks played. In the short run, you will notice fluctuations both positive and negative in your bankroll. If you have the discipline to set a limit on how much to win and lose, you will most likely enjoy your time in Vegas.
There is another camp that believes in betting progressions. For example, someone posted 1-3-2-4 betting progression. He went through a whole list of reasons why he thought it might have been worthwhile (which I won't go into). Mathematically, the house has the advantage so these betting progressions can be dangerous, but like I said there are many people on this website that have succeeded using their betting progressions. (I am sure they will chime in
!!!)Anyway, best of luck...just my 2 cents...
I do play progressions; but I also understand the math behind the arguement that the progression doesn't change the house advantage. Based on my own experience, however, I can't play as long nor have even a decent chance of walking away ahead if I simply flat bet. But keep in mind that progressions, especially negative ones (where you increase your bet as you lose) can carry a big risk. You can win like crazy for a good while, and then crash really fast.
The basic idea of the negative progression is to re-coup your loses with each win. So, for example, if you bet $5 and lose, then bet $10 and lose, then bet $20 and lose (doubling your bet wth each loss), after those three hands, you'd have a total loss of $35. So on the fourth hand, if you bet $40 and win, you're back to where you started plus $5.
The basic idea of positive progression is to "parlay" your winnings into winnings of a greater magnitude. So, for example, if you were to bet $10 and win, then bet $15 and win, then bet $20 and win, you'd have a three-hand total win of $45, instead of the $30 you'd have from flat betting. In theory, it is less risky to bet this way because your bigger bets are with "the casino's money" in the form of prior winnings.
Then, there are hybrid systems that combine some elements of both types of progressions. Between the hybrids and all of the individual modifications that can be made to both the positive and negative progressions, there is an almost infinite number of different "systems".
Negative progressions are risky, with the danger being that you can lose a lot very fast with a long losing streak (or a not-so-long streak if you have a couple of double-down losses or start at a high minimum.) The positive progression doesn't risk losing so fast; but it can mute the effect of your winning, since it really requires a nice streak of wins to be really effective. With no streak or very short streaks, the positive progression doesn't perform as wel as flat betting.
One good system I have used is as follows (assume a $5 table): Bet $10. If you lose, go to $20. If you lose again, go to $30. If you lose again, drop back to $5 until you get a win. Any win, anywhere in the series, is followed up with a $5 bet. If that follow-up bet loses, go back to $10 and start over. If the follow-up bet wins, press it with a $7 bet. Continue to press, $10 - $12 - $15 - $17 - $20 - $25 - $30 etc until you lose. At that point, drop back to $10 and start over.
If you play at a single-deck or double-deck game, you won't have many streaks either way longer than just a few hands. So by setting a cut-off point on the negative progression, you somewhat mitigate the chances of losing huge sums quickly. And it is very possible to get into a situation where the table is chopping back and forth, and you can have something like win $10 - lose $5 - win $10 - Lose $5 - win $10 - lose $5, etc. That way, your stack grows, even as you lose as many or more hands than you win.
If you want to take on a bit higher degree of risk in the negative progression, you can make the third bet $40 instead of $30. Then, as you win a bit more, make the second and third bets $25 and $50 instead of $20 and $40. Then add a fourth bet at $100, etc, as you feel comfortable. But be careful that you don't bet more than you'd be willing to double or triple on one hand, because you never know when you'll need to split and/or double-down.
If you want to be more aggressive on the positive progression, that is fine too. Jump from $5 to $10 and then add 50% on each win. I actually prefer to get more conservative on the positive progression, going back to $5 after each couple of wins.
The point is that you can work it any way you feel comfortable. And, although the math is against you overcoming the house edge in the long term, it is certainly possible to turn a nice profit in the short term; and the short term can last a nice little while.
My other advice would be to practice whatever you're going to do on the smulator on this site, or on some other software. You wantt o get the feel for it yourself, not take anyone else' word for it.
The basic idea of the negative progression is to re-coup your loses with each win. So, for example, if you bet $5 and lose, then bet $10 and lose, then bet $20 and lose (doubling your bet wth each loss), after those three hands, you'd have a total loss of $35. So on the fourth hand, if you bet $40 and win, you're back to where you started plus $5.
The basic idea of positive progression is to "parlay" your winnings into winnings of a greater magnitude. So, for example, if you were to bet $10 and win, then bet $15 and win, then bet $20 and win, you'd have a three-hand total win of $45, instead of the $30 you'd have from flat betting. In theory, it is less risky to bet this way because your bigger bets are with "the casino's money" in the form of prior winnings.
Then, there are hybrid systems that combine some elements of both types of progressions. Between the hybrids and all of the individual modifications that can be made to both the positive and negative progressions, there is an almost infinite number of different "systems".
Negative progressions are risky, with the danger being that you can lose a lot very fast with a long losing streak (or a not-so-long streak if you have a couple of double-down losses or start at a high minimum.) The positive progression doesn't risk losing so fast; but it can mute the effect of your winning, since it really requires a nice streak of wins to be really effective. With no streak or very short streaks, the positive progression doesn't perform as wel as flat betting.
One good system I have used is as follows (assume a $5 table): Bet $10. If you lose, go to $20. If you lose again, go to $30. If you lose again, drop back to $5 until you get a win. Any win, anywhere in the series, is followed up with a $5 bet. If that follow-up bet loses, go back to $10 and start over. If the follow-up bet wins, press it with a $7 bet. Continue to press, $10 - $12 - $15 - $17 - $20 - $25 - $30 etc until you lose. At that point, drop back to $10 and start over.
If you play at a single-deck or double-deck game, you won't have many streaks either way longer than just a few hands. So by setting a cut-off point on the negative progression, you somewhat mitigate the chances of losing huge sums quickly. And it is very possible to get into a situation where the table is chopping back and forth, and you can have something like win $10 - lose $5 - win $10 - Lose $5 - win $10 - lose $5, etc. That way, your stack grows, even as you lose as many or more hands than you win.
If you want to take on a bit higher degree of risk in the negative progression, you can make the third bet $40 instead of $30. Then, as you win a bit more, make the second and third bets $25 and $50 instead of $20 and $40. Then add a fourth bet at $100, etc, as you feel comfortable. But be careful that you don't bet more than you'd be willing to double or triple on one hand, because you never know when you'll need to split and/or double-down.
If you want to be more aggressive on the positive progression, that is fine too. Jump from $5 to $10 and then add 50% on each win. I actually prefer to get more conservative on the positive progression, going back to $5 after each couple of wins.
The point is that you can work it any way you feel comfortable. And, although the math is against you overcoming the house edge in the long term, it is certainly possible to turn a nice profit in the short term; and the short term can last a nice little while.
My other advice would be to practice whatever you're going to do on the smulator on this site, or on some other software. You wantt o get the feel for it yourself, not take anyone else' word for it.
Dunpal,
Mathematically, you are expected to loose between .60% and maybe .14% of the TOTAL amount of the money that you wager in blackjack using just Basic Strategy. With that in mine, increasing your bets will according to probabilities, just increase the amount you are going to loose. Of course "variance" comes into play and you will experience swings that will see you loosing a LOT more than that, or winning a lot more than that .60% (under 1%).
Betting by "when it *feels right*" or betting by progressions with no other factors considered (just Basic Strategy) is not going to be particularly in your favor in the long run. "In the Long Run"....I wish there was a better way to state that because it is beginning to become a cliche. In other words, playing at a table where the rules give the house a .60% edge and playing Basic Strategy, you will loose .60% of what you've wagered if you play long enough.
What WILL help you is knowing when you are more likely to win a hand and get more money out at that time rather than just getting a "gut feel" about it and increasing your wager. You can do that empherically by counting the cards as they are played, thus knowing when the deck is favorable. It does take practice to develop that skill.
To my knowledge, there is no substitute for card-counting. There has been a lot of talk about "card observation" rather than card counting. I've attempted it in practice sessions and have done pretty well by it. But it is so inexact and does not build a strong sense of confidence...at least not in THIS blackjack player.
What it amounts to is sort of estimating what the count is. You watch the cards and try to balance the low cards played versus the high cards played. If you see several hands dealt where the low cards dominate, then you might expect the deck to be heavy in high cards and you would want to get more money out on the table. The problem with this is that in 6-deck shoe games, there are a LOT of cards in the deck! You might notice that there have been three hands dealt to each player at the table and that low cards dominated the high cards for those three rounds. What you do NOT know is how many hands before that were high cards dominating! Your count could in reality still be astronomically LOW and that would not be a good time to put money out.
Also, you do have to concentrate and practice on this "skill" even though it is a rough one. If you are going to go to all that trouble, why not just go ahead and work on a simple counting system....something like KO or Red-7?
Mathematically, you are expected to loose between .60% and maybe .14% of the TOTAL amount of the money that you wager in blackjack using just Basic Strategy. With that in mine, increasing your bets will according to probabilities, just increase the amount you are going to loose. Of course "variance" comes into play and you will experience swings that will see you loosing a LOT more than that, or winning a lot more than that .60% (under 1%).
Betting by "when it *feels right*" or betting by progressions with no other factors considered (just Basic Strategy) is not going to be particularly in your favor in the long run. "In the Long Run"....I wish there was a better way to state that because it is beginning to become a cliche. In other words, playing at a table where the rules give the house a .60% edge and playing Basic Strategy, you will loose .60% of what you've wagered if you play long enough.
What WILL help you is knowing when you are more likely to win a hand and get more money out at that time rather than just getting a "gut feel" about it and increasing your wager. You can do that empherically by counting the cards as they are played, thus knowing when the deck is favorable. It does take practice to develop that skill.
To my knowledge, there is no substitute for card-counting. There has been a lot of talk about "card observation" rather than card counting. I've attempted it in practice sessions and have done pretty well by it. But it is so inexact and does not build a strong sense of confidence...at least not in THIS blackjack player.
What it amounts to is sort of estimating what the count is. You watch the cards and try to balance the low cards played versus the high cards played. If you see several hands dealt where the low cards dominate, then you might expect the deck to be heavy in high cards and you would want to get more money out on the table. The problem with this is that in 6-deck shoe games, there are a LOT of cards in the deck! You might notice that there have been three hands dealt to each player at the table and that low cards dominated the high cards for those three rounds. What you do NOT know is how many hands before that were high cards dominating! Your count could in reality still be astronomically LOW and that would not be a good time to put money out.
Also, you do have to concentrate and practice on this "skill" even though it is a rough one. If you are going to go to all that trouble, why not just go ahead and work on a simple counting system....something like KO or Red-7?
streaks in single and double deck
If you play at a single-deck or double-deck game, you won't have many streaks either way longer than just a few hands. I do not agree.
Over 90% of my play is single and double deck. I do play a positive progression system. In the last 3 months I have had three 18 hand winning streaks. Two of the three times I cashed in $12,500 after buying in for only $500.00; the other time ONLY :laugh: $10,000. 2 of the streaks were in single deck and the other was in double deck. My longest streak in a 6 deck shoe was 12 hands, also very good. Maybe I have just been extremely lucky, but I have had more streaks in single and double decks than shoes. I have also had the extremes of a 24 hand losing streak also in single deck. In fact I have had more long losing streaks than long winning streaks. I would never even consider a negative progression. I used to be a counter, but age has caught up with me and I had to quit. I live 30 miles from the Tunica casinos and go every weekend. I keep very meticulous records of each trip. Over the last 3 years I have averaged making $50,000 per year by playing single and double deck with a positive progression. I receive no heat and actually have the pit bosses rooting for me when I go on a long run. They say it is good advertising to have a local person win.
If you play at a single-deck or double-deck game, you won't have many streaks either way longer than just a few hands. I do not agree.
Over 90% of my play is single and double deck. I do play a positive progression system. In the last 3 months I have had three 18 hand winning streaks. Two of the three times I cashed in $12,500 after buying in for only $500.00; the other time ONLY :laugh: $10,000. 2 of the streaks were in single deck and the other was in double deck. My longest streak in a 6 deck shoe was 12 hands, also very good. Maybe I have just been extremely lucky, but I have had more streaks in single and double decks than shoes. I have also had the extremes of a 24 hand losing streak also in single deck. In fact I have had more long losing streaks than long winning streaks. I would never even consider a negative progression. I used to be a counter, but age has caught up with me and I had to quit. I live 30 miles from the Tunica casinos and go every weekend. I keep very meticulous records of each trip. Over the last 3 years I have averaged making $50,000 per year by playing single and double deck with a positive progression. I receive no heat and actually have the pit bosses rooting for me when I go on a long run. They say it is good advertising to have a local person win.
Deltaduke, first of all, congratulations on the wins. I had my start playing blackjack in the Tunica casinos. I lived in Memphis about ten years ago.
I did not say that you can't have streaks in single-deck games; and maybe I should clarify what I meant by "not many". I think that your experience may even bear this out. Single-deck games, and to a certain extent, double-deck games are not as prone to losing streaks (and to a certain extent, winning streaks) as shoe games. It is, at least in my experience, qwuite possible to play for hours at a time without ever winning or losing more than four or five hands in a row.
Certainly, if you're going every weekend, getting an average of one really long winning streak per month wouldn't qualify as being "many" streaks. What I am really talking about here is that you don't have the same frequency of losing streaks with single-deck that you do with a shoe. Mathematically, you might be a bit more likely to have winning streaks with fewer decks, everything else being equal.
Then there are other factors too, like how many other people are at the table, how many rounds you get from a deck, etc.
I know that positive progressions work when you do have winning streaks; and perhaps, if I may suggest it, the reason you were able to hang around in those single-deck games to take advantage of the eventual winning streak is precicely because the losing streaks are shorter, as a rule.
I did not say that you can't have streaks in single-deck games; and maybe I should clarify what I meant by "not many". I think that your experience may even bear this out. Single-deck games, and to a certain extent, double-deck games are not as prone to losing streaks (and to a certain extent, winning streaks) as shoe games. It is, at least in my experience, qwuite possible to play for hours at a time without ever winning or losing more than four or five hands in a row.
Certainly, if you're going every weekend, getting an average of one really long winning streak per month wouldn't qualify as being "many" streaks. What I am really talking about here is that you don't have the same frequency of losing streaks with single-deck that you do with a shoe. Mathematically, you might be a bit more likely to have winning streaks with fewer decks, everything else being equal.
Then there are other factors too, like how many other people are at the table, how many rounds you get from a deck, etc.
I know that positive progressions work when you do have winning streaks; and perhaps, if I may suggest it, the reason you were able to hang around in those single-deck games to take advantage of the eventual winning streak is precicely because the losing streaks are shorter, as a rule.