Looking for a betting strategy simulator

[fredperson]

Oh well.....

I hesitate to post in this thread because I know in advance that I am going to get verbally abused and ridiculed, and maybe even banned by virtue of what I am about to say. I have posted about this before, so I have experience about the ramifications.

30 years ago, I developed a BJ simulator, the primary focus being to evaluate
progressive betting schemes, specifically betting sequences based on the Fibonacci series. The simulator also allowed basic strategy variations based on the level of bets. It was slow, running on an 8 bit Z80 processor at 1.5 MH so it took approximately one week to simulate 100,000 hands, but I was in no hurry.

After a couple of years, a betting strategy was developed that consistently yielded a positive EV, so in 1982, I begin using the system during occasional trips to Vegas, and a few trips to Atlantic City. Over the next TWENTY YEARS, I won tens of thousands of dollars, and had a great time playing BJ for fun and profit.

The purpose of this post is:
!-NOT to promote or sell any system
2-NOT to explain or encourage anyone to use this system:
but to let Garygo and others know that there is a potential way to win other than card counting.

 

[QFIT]

There are many ways to win. Progression systems are not one. They do not work.

 

[fredperson]

There are many ways to win. Progression systems are not one. They do not work.

I respectfully disagree, Mr. Qfit

For example, a negative progression Martingale system will win except one will eventually, and inevitably run into the table maximum bet, which will result in a disasterous loss. But given no table limits, and an infinte bankroll, Martingale is an example of a progression system that could work.

Mathematically, we can prove that other progression system will not work with a negative expectation game such as roulette, or baccarat. However, this analysis ignores the dynamics of the game of blackjack.
Given the ability to increase ones bet (doubling and splitting) when large bets are in play, plus the ever changing composition of the deck tends to make normal math analysis impossible.
Hence the need for computer simulation.

Twenty years of playing a progressive type system provides a empirical
conclusion that the good results come from winning doubles, splits, and naturals when larger bets are in play. I suspect that successful card counter results come from the same dynamic.

 

[QFIT]

First, please realize that you just said that a Martingtalke can win under circumstances that are impossible. What does that mean? ANY system can win under circumstances that are impossible. I can fly under circumstances that are impossible.

Second, doubling and splitting make no difference. EV includes that and progression systems are a series of bets all of which are at negative EV. A series of bad bets does not make a good bet.

 

[psyduck]

Twenty years of playing a progressive type system provides a empirical
conclusion that the good results come from winning doubles, splits, and naturals when larger bets are in play. I suspect that successful card counter results come from the same dynamic.

How do you know you will have a double or split opportunity coming out so you will make a big bet? Can your progression predict this?

 

[fredperson]

How do you know you will have a double or split opportunity coming out so you will make a big bet? Can your progression predict this?

Of course you can't predict it. Doubles and splits occur whether you have small or larger bets out. Bets are increased based on a progression algorithm, and no other reason. Mr Duck, I don't think you understand my post.

 

[QFIT]

Of course you can't predict it. Doubles and splits occur whether you have small or larger bets out. Bets are increased based on a progression algorithm, and no other reason. Mr Duck, I don't think you understand my post.

And that algorithm in no manner predicts anything. That's his point.

 

[fredperson]

First, please realize that you just said that a Martingtalke can win under circumstances that are impossible. What does that mean? ANY system can win under circumstances that are impossible. I can fly under circumstances that are impossible.

That's not what I said, Mr Fit. Please reread my post.
The reason that casinos have table limits that are related to minumum bet size is that Martingale progression can work.

 

[QFIT]

That's not what I said, Mr Fit. Please reread my post.
The reason that casinos have table limits that are related to minumum bet size is that Martingale progression can work.

Sorry, but that is a myth. Casnos welcome Martingale players. See http://www.qfit.com/book/ModernBlackjackPage17.htm

 

[KenSmith]

The reason that casinos have table limits that are related to minumum bet size is that Martingale progression can work.

Putting aside the Martingale red herring, your claim is that you have a progression based system that shows a profit, both in your simulations and at the live tables. Care to share the system so we can sim it ourselves?

I'll wager a (very) large sum that an accurate sim will not show a profit.

 

[QFIT]

And if the system wins, not only do you get Ken's money, but the Nobel Prize pays about 10,000,000 SEK.

 

[psyduck]

Bets are increased based on a progression algorithm, and no other reason. Mr Duck, I don't think you understand my post.

Anyone can create a progression, but progressing to higher bets only for the sake of progression will only lose you more money. Can your progression predict when you are likely to win?

Mr. Duck certainly does not understand you. Chances are you do not either!