MarkCoveny
New Member
If your interested in the full article you can see it at MarkCoveny.com. I think you guys will be able to figure it out with just the image though.
Let me know whatcha think.
Mark
My Negative Progression System
- Thread starter MarkCoveny
- Start date
If your interested in the full article you can see it at MarkCoveny.com. I think you guys will be able to figure it out with just the image though.
Let me know whatcha think.
Mark
iCountNTrack
Well-Known Member
I think it is great. I am going to drop everything i learned over the years and use this great system.
Honestly, i think it is garbage
Honestly, i think it is garbage
Mark, sorry but your progression scheme will get you killed sooner or later when you have a cold shoe. Just losing 8 in a row which will happen about once every 4 hours of playing or so, will cost you $360. And let's say after your 7th loss, (you're down !0+20+30+40+50+60+70=$260) you get a 3 way split with two double downs ($80x5). You're now going to be down $400+$260. =$660.
I know farily often I go many shoes without having a winning shoe so using your system, you'd get killed because your system assumes that you'll win about 44% or so of your hands which in reality isn't going to happen. Your system relies on you essentially getting blackjacks and winning splits and double downs when you're in the hole. If the count is bad while you're in the hole, you're in trouble as you're less likely to get blackjacks and win your double downs and splits.
At least with card counting, you know when it is FAVORABLE to bet more rather than relying on luck. Come back in 6 months and tell us how you've done.
I know farily often I go many shoes without having a winning shoe so using your system, you'd get killed because your system assumes that you'll win about 44% or so of your hands which in reality isn't going to happen. Your system relies on you essentially getting blackjacks and winning splits and double downs when you're in the hole. If the count is bad while you're in the hole, you're in trouble as you're less likely to get blackjacks and win your double downs and splits.
At least with card counting, you know when it is FAVORABLE to bet more rather than relying on luck. Come back in 6 months and tell us how you've done.
MarkCoveny
New Member
Over the course of 4 hours worth of play the system will produce much more than $360.Thunder said:
Bad losing streaks are tough for any system to handle including card counting. With basic strategy the house edge isn't 12%. (win 44%) It's my understanding it's under 3% if basic strategy is used. (Although I don't know the exact number) You guys prolly have the actual numbers better than I do. I'm familiar with the hold which is normally between the numbers you stated at 12% and 16%. But this includes all the players rather than just those playing well.Thunder said:
My system relies on winning and the game not having a large house edge. My system fuctions best in a back and forth shoe without any large runs in either direction.Thunder said:
I've been playing this system for about 4 years, and overall I'm up about $400. (I don't enjoy playing that much though) Of course I leave when I reach triple, or loose my bankroll. So I only have to maintain 1 win for 2 losses to come out even. I've done better than even with this system though.Thunder said:
MarkCoveny
New Member
You missed the $40 bet on the top line.QFIT said:
MarkCoveny
New Member
For the record I don't always win with the system.Canceler said:
Mark, When debunkers try to explain why betting progressions, be they positive or negative won't work, they always mention that in blackjack you will win only 43% or 44% of your bets, which is true -- but it's not the reason why progressions don't work! Some will also mention the house limit and that's not the reason either. The reason progressions don't work is that they don't change the math, they only rearrange it! Pointing to the 43% or 44% and mentioning the house limit only clouds the issue.MarkCoveny said:
If your interested in the full article you can see it at MarkCoveny.com. I think you guys will be able to figure it out with just the image though.
Let me know whatcha think.
Mark
The fatal shortcoming of progressions can best be seen by assuming that you will win exactly 50% of all your bets, which with even money payoffs is a break even game if you use flat bets. So let's use your schematic of progressing thru 5 bets. Below is every possible outcome of wins and losses for a sequence of 5 bets.
WWWWW
WWWWL
WWWLW
WWLWW
WLWWW
LWWWW
WWWLL
WWLWL
WWLLW
WLWWL
WLWLW
WLLWW
LWWWL
LWWLW
LWLWW
LLWWW
LLLWW
LLWLW
LLWWL
LWLLW
LWLWL
LWWLL
WLLLW
WLLWL
WLWLL
WWLLL
LLLLW
LLLWL
LLWLL
LWLLL
WLLLL
LLLLL
There are 32 ways that 5 bets can come out. Now, realizing this next statement is very important: In a 50-50 game, all 32 sequences are equally likely to occur, and over the fullness of time will occur as often as each other.
I haven't done the arithmetic for your progression -- I'll leave that up to you. But I've done many others and in every case, when you calculate your gain/loss status from each individual sequence, then add all the gains together from the positive sequences, and compare that nember to the total losses accrued thru the negative sequences, they are both the same number. You can't get away from it! Trying to do so is trying to bend the laws of mathematics.
Okay, so that's how it works out for 5 bets. The next thing to realize is that whenever you play, you'll play for a certain number of bets. If it's for 5 bets, you can get 32 possible different results. If you play for 10 bets, you can get 1024. And with 100 bets, the answer is a 31 digit number. But with any number of bets, there are just exactly a certain number of possible W/L sequences. And if you laid them all out on paper and calculated the results from each, the positives will always cancel out the negatives -- exactly! That makes any betting progression a break even system in a break even game! -- and a losing system in a losing game.
That's the reason why progressions don't workl
MarkCoveny
New Member
WWWWW = +50
WWWWL = +30
WWWLW = +40
WWLWW = +40
WLWWW = +40
LWWWW = +40
WWWLL = 0
WWLWL = +20
WWLLW = +30
WLWWL = +20
WLWLW = +30
WLLWW = +30
LWWWL = +20
LWWLW = +30
LWLWW = +30
LLWWW = +30
LLLWW = +10
LLWLW = +10
LLWWL = +10
LWLLW = +10
LWLWL = +10
LWWLL = -10
WLLLW = -10
WLLWL = -10
WLWLL = -10
WWLLL = -40
LLLLW = -50
LLLWL = -50
LLWLL = -50
LWLLL = -50
WLLLL = -90
LLLLL = -150
I get 530 - 520 = +10 (but check my math for me please, as that was a lot.)
I don't think this 5 block system you've requested I do, is a good indicator when it's applied to blackjack. Realisticly in the 16 years I've been dealing I've never seen anyone lose more than 12 hands in a row, and It's missing several varibles. I'd much rather use the billion hands program. I would have expected someone to have the program and be able to plug it in. I guess that's not the case though. Personally I'd like the program to fiddle around with it.
If you use 44% then you need to take into account blackjacks, splits, and double downs. In all those cases I have edge on the house and my wins are much greater than the losses I took to get there. That's the reason the wizard states the house edge at only .28% instead of 16%. Even if I use 6% house edge I still make it out ahead. (47 wins cancel out 47 loses with 47 units as profit, and 6 loses over the top costing me 21 units for a total profit of 26 units) *assuming perfect probabilities of course.
As far as bending the laws of mathematics: It's not that hard to make numbers show what you want them to show. Your block just shows all the possible outcomes it doesn't take into account the main advantages for the players: Blackjacks, double downs or splits.
I'm really not trying to start a fight, or make a million dollars off of scaming someone into buying my system. It was offered freely for your .... ridicule I guess. hehe
WWWWL = +30
WWWLW = +40
WWLWW = +40
WLWWW = +40
LWWWW = +40
WWWLL = 0
WWLWL = +20
WWLLW = +30
WLWWL = +20
WLWLW = +30
WLLWW = +30
LWWWL = +20
LWWLW = +30
LWLWW = +30
LLWWW = +30
LLLWW = +10
LLWLW = +10
LLWWL = +10
LWLLW = +10
LWLWL = +10
LWWLL = -10
WLLLW = -10
WLLWL = -10
WLWLL = -10
WWLLL = -40
LLLLW = -50
LLLWL = -50
LLWLL = -50
LWLLL = -50
WLLLL = -90
LLLLL = -150
I get 530 - 520 = +10 (but check my math for me please, as that was a lot.)
I don't think this 5 block system you've requested I do, is a good indicator when it's applied to blackjack. Realisticly in the 16 years I've been dealing I've never seen anyone lose more than 12 hands in a row, and It's missing several varibles. I'd much rather use the billion hands program. I would have expected someone to have the program and be able to plug it in. I guess that's not the case though. Personally I'd like the program to fiddle around with it.
If you use 44% then you need to take into account blackjacks, splits, and double downs. In all those cases I have edge on the house and my wins are much greater than the losses I took to get there. That's the reason the wizard states the house edge at only .28% instead of 16%. Even if I use 6% house edge I still make it out ahead. (47 wins cancel out 47 loses with 47 units as profit, and 6 loses over the top costing me 21 units for a total profit of 26 units) *assuming perfect probabilities of course.
As far as bending the laws of mathematics: It's not that hard to make numbers show what you want them to show. Your block just shows all the possible outcomes it doesn't take into account the main advantages for the players: Blackjacks, double downs or splits.
I'm really not trying to start a fight, or make a million dollars off of scaming someone into buying my system. It was offered freely for your .... ridicule I guess. hehe
Deathclutch
Well-Known Member
Here's some software I ran across http://www.qfit.com/blackjack-progression-tester.htm
MarkCoveny
New Member
I laughed when I read this. Thanks!Sharky said:
I guess I should say, just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not marketing this system in any way.
leatherguyray
Active Member
Mr. Renzey explains so well - Picasso is dead on
I am an old, old system player and have not done terribly as a recreational player. I am, at present, working to become a counter. Almost there. I was going to reply to this post by saying Picasso said it exactly. Just like D'Alembert. Then reading Mr Rezney I fully understood what I've always known, but didn't have explained so precisely. By the way. Just got "Blackjack Bluebook" out of my mail box. Can't wait to crack it open.
I am an old, old system player and have not done terribly as a recreational player. I am, at present, working to become a counter. Almost there. I was going to reply to this post by saying Picasso said it exactly. Just like D'Alembert. Then reading Mr Rezney I fully understood what I've always known, but didn't have explained so precisely. By the way. Just got "Blackjack Bluebook" out of my mail box. Can't wait to crack it open.
MarkCoveny said:
Mark,
Positively, without any doubt, either you have made a $10 error in your addition/subtraction, or I have printed a small error in the 32 combinations. If you really want to understand this stuff, re-check your math first. If it doesn't cancel out to zero, I'll take a second look at the combinations. Bear in mind, I have done this exercise many, many times with many progressions over several different numbers of bets, and they have always canceled out.
So what would that prove? It proves that you can't beat a 50-50 coin flip game with a betting progression. The next step is understanding that in a 50-50 even money game, making 20 bets and winning 12 while losing 8 will occur just as often as winning 8 and losing 12, etc, etc.
But if the game is 49.75-to-50.25 as blackjack is (after adjusting for the extra net gains from blackjacks, double downs and splits), then winning 8 and losing 12 will occur more often than winning 12 and losing 8! That is, your sequences overall will contain more "L's" than "W's".
The bottom line is that your net results will be a loss in the amount of whatever the house advantage is in that game. And that's because your blackjacks and winning double downs will come just as often on a $10 bet as on a $50 bet, since with regard to your chances of winning your next bet, you're sizing them randomly (based upon the last result rather than upon the current content of the cards in the shoe).
Think about these things in a logical light, rather than in a gambler's light. The fact that you've been dealing the game for 16 years is a handicap for you. Over time, your brain has selectively decided to remember things that impress it, without recording them statistically -- thereby leading to many false beliefs.
Bluebook II has a 6 page layman's analysis of betting progressions beginning on page 43. It might help.
Seaclusion
Active Member
MarkCoveny said:
It has happened to me many times over the 30 odd years I've been playing. This past Monday I lost 13 in a row. Thank god it was only a one dollar table.