Oscars Grind? Considering givin it a shot
- Thread starter eatenbyalgae
- Start date
I know what you are saying and I'm not saying you can't adapt something similar to OG for BJ, I'm just saying it won't be "OG".
It's not like it's my "theory" or anything that it is predicated on even-money pay-offs.
It has 5 betting rules. I didn't make them up. If you can exactly follow those 5 betting rules for BJ, then I agree that would be OG for BJ.
So, insist on a one unit payoff with an initial BJ because the rules say all series' end with a 1 unit win. Obviously that would be nuts lol.
OG says bet what you lost on the previous trial - if for BJ does that mean your initial 1 unit bet on the last round or the 8 units you lost after splitting 4 times and doubling and losing all?
There are no ties in OG. You can't push an Odd-even bet. OG has no rule what to do when a tie occurs.
That 1 unit gain is the stated explicit goal of the system.
However you are choosing to bet a BJ game, I'm sure it has it's own set of rules as to when a "sequence" has achieved a stated goal or not. Hopefully, it also includes rules as to what to do when a unit roll is running out and how to bet then.
Like you said, an 8800 unit roll, however you are betting, will likely achieve that goal more often than if you played with a 500 unit roll.
And then of course there's the fact that however you are betting with however many units with whatever stated goal of that betting system, that betting system would give different success results in games with different rules and probably even same game with different pen levels.
As to whether your betting system should or does work "better" with BJ, or whether whatever you are doing in BJ would be "better" than OG with the same unit roll, I doubt that the same unit roll would achieve the stated goal of your betting system as often as OG achieves its' stated goal. But that's neither nor there lol.
Like it almost sounds like you and Shad and Thunder are all playing OG with BJ, yet, dollars to donuts, I'll bet none of you are betting exactly the same way or if I gave you the W/L/T results of 10000 hands of BJ and which hands were doubled or split, that any of you would come up with the same results.
If I gave an OG player 10000 spins, they all would end up in exactly the same place.
It's really a small point lol because there's nothing wrong with developing an Oscar-like betting system to BJ if you want.
Even voodoo betting systems require applying the same robotic discipline as an AP betting a game to determine what to expect from it
It's not like it's my "theory" or anything that it is predicated on even-money pay-offs.
It has 5 betting rules. I didn't make them up. If you can exactly follow those 5 betting rules for BJ, then I agree that would be OG for BJ.
So, insist on a one unit payoff with an initial BJ because the rules say all series' end with a 1 unit win. Obviously that would be nuts lol.
OG says bet what you lost on the previous trial - if for BJ does that mean your initial 1 unit bet on the last round or the 8 units you lost after splitting 4 times and doubling and losing all?
There are no ties in OG. You can't push an Odd-even bet. OG has no rule what to do when a tie occurs.
That 1 unit gain is the stated explicit goal of the system.
However you are choosing to bet a BJ game, I'm sure it has it's own set of rules as to when a "sequence" has achieved a stated goal or not. Hopefully, it also includes rules as to what to do when a unit roll is running out and how to bet then.
Like you said, an 8800 unit roll, however you are betting, will likely achieve that goal more often than if you played with a 500 unit roll.
And then of course there's the fact that however you are betting with however many units with whatever stated goal of that betting system, that betting system would give different success results in games with different rules and probably even same game with different pen levels.
As to whether your betting system should or does work "better" with BJ, or whether whatever you are doing in BJ would be "better" than OG with the same unit roll, I doubt that the same unit roll would achieve the stated goal of your betting system as often as OG achieves its' stated goal. But that's neither nor there lol.
Like it almost sounds like you and Shad and Thunder are all playing OG with BJ, yet, dollars to donuts, I'll bet none of you are betting exactly the same way or if I gave you the W/L/T results of 10000 hands of BJ and which hands were doubled or split, that any of you would come up with the same results.
If I gave an OG player 10000 spins, they all would end up in exactly the same place.
It's really a small point lol because there's nothing wrong with developing an Oscar-like betting system to BJ if you want.
Even voodoo betting systems require applying the same robotic discipline as an AP betting a game to determine what to expect from it
Just the rolls of the dice and their results would be cool. Like 6,6,8,2,11,12, etc. I guess. I don'y see why I'd need to know whether it's a 3,1 or a 2,2?
Then I just always assume a 1 unit pass-line bet on the first roll and at the top of each series.
I guess.
Like it seemed like you were doing.
Since you don't have them, don't even worry about it It was just a thought.
Like I'm doing OG for the fun of it with single-zero roulette based on the results of 30000, allegedly random lol, spins that the WiZ posted on his site.
Saves me from having to spin the wheel lol.
I chose to always bet on "Odd" because I already knew that "odd" would finish below expectation after 30000 spins and even and zero would create a loss on odd above expectation and I thought it might be a slighly sterner test of the system lol.
Perhaps surprisingly, and probably luckily, I've won my 1 unit 216 times in a row over 1128 spins and a 100 unit roll at the start of each sequence would still suffice to achieve that result.
I say luckily becasue, even though "odd"will finish below EV, it's still like 45 over expected over these 1128 spins. So, stormy weather ahead
And of course it's quite possible I made a mistake in applying the system somwhere. Like it just so happened when I hit an 8-losing streak I was only betting 2 units just because right before it happened I won 3 in a row with like 9,10 and 11 unit bets but that last 11 unit bet got me within 2 of my goal so I only bet 2 units lol. No doubt disaster may have occurred if I hit that streak betting 10 units lol.
Probably like you, we only get "lucky" when playing with matchsticks :grin:
Then I just always assume a 1 unit pass-line bet on the first roll and at the top of each series.
I guess.
Like it seemed like you were doing.
Since you don't have them, don't even worry about it
It was just a thought.Like I'm doing OG for the fun of it with single-zero roulette based on the results of 30000, allegedly random lol, spins that the WiZ posted on his site.
Saves me from having to spin the wheel lol.
I chose to always bet on "Odd" because I already knew that "odd" would finish below expectation after 30000 spins and even and zero would create a loss on odd above expectation and I thought it might be a slighly sterner test of the system lol.
Perhaps surprisingly, and probably luckily, I've won my 1 unit 216 times in a row over 1128 spins and a 100 unit roll at the start of each sequence would still suffice to achieve that result.
I say luckily becasue, even though "odd"will finish below EV, it's still like 45 over expected over these 1128 spins. So, stormy weather ahead
And of course it's quite possible I made a mistake in applying the system somwhere. Like it just so happened when I hit an 8-losing streak I was only betting 2 units just because right before it happened I won 3 in a row with like 9,10 and 11 unit bets but that last 11 unit bet got me within 2 of my goal so I only bet 2 units lol. No doubt disaster may have occurred if I hit that streak betting 10 units lol.
Probably like you, we only get "lucky" when playing with matchsticks :grin:
i was wondering the same thing. i've never used it in a casino.
when i've been trying it on the wizard of odds crap game i've mostly just been gauging a sequence by my starting bankroll. if i get one unit above that the sequence is done. then start another sequence, if i get up one unit again then start another from that point, ect. ect.
when i've been trying it on the wizard of odds crap game i've mostly just been gauging a sequence by my starting bankroll. if i get one unit above that the sequence is done. then start another sequence, if i get up one unit again then start another from that point, ect. ect.
Start with the same roll on every series.
Remember your previous bet and whether you won it or not.
Be able to count your current roll easily so you know what to bet after a win in case it's close to not being obvious that the called for bet is OK.
At a full roulette table, hopefully, 2 minutes would be enough time.
And, if you just can't, then don't.
Remember your previous bet and whether you won it or not.
Be able to count your current roll easily so you know what to bet after a win in case it's close to not being obvious that the called for bet is OK.
At a full roulette table, hopefully, 2 minutes would be enough time.
And, if you just can't, then don't.
Down 6, betting 2. down 8 betting 2, down 6 betting 3, down 3 betting 4, down 7 betting 4, down 11 betting 4, down 7 betting 5, down 2 betting 2, down 4 betting 2, down 6 betting 2, down 4 betting 3, down 1,betting 1. Even, betting 1. Betting 1.
You think that for a particular hand. All you need remember is what you are down, your bet is on the table for you to see.It's easier than KISS rookie.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll wager that given the results of any1,000 hands, my results will be consistant. just make the wager worth my time and I'm in.
Pretend a tie is the same as a no roll. It has no effect on the game, other than getting you credit for a hand played.
You think that for a particular hand. All you need remember is what you are down, your bet is on the table for you to see.It's easier than KISS rookie.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll wager that given the results of any1,000 hands, my results will be consistant. just make the wager worth my time and I'm in.
Pretend a tie is the same as a no roll. It has no effect on the game, other than getting you credit for a hand played.
Oscar's Grind
Kasi
All any of us really know about OG are the published rules we've read.
1. The goal is to win 1 unit.
2. Bet the same when a loss occurs.
3. Increase bet by 1 unit when in winning streak until 1 unit goal is achieved.
These are the three "guidelines" I've seen.
Pushes or ties don't affect anything.
What's wrong with winning more than 1 unit on a sequence?
The biggest advantages a BJ player has are the payouts for a blackjack (1.5)
and the fact "more doubles and splits are won than lost".
If you bet the same way 100% of the time the results will be the same 100% of the time.
The sample I described in earlier posts, 110K hands, followed the EXACT betting guidelines above.
The results at the end was a house advantage of -.35%, It ranged from -.75% to a high of +.25%. The overall profit after 110K hands was 1.52%.
The average win rate as I've said before was 1 win for about every 5 hands played excluding pushes. I believe the results you described on your roulette test yesterday were very similar. 100 wins in 516 spins.
Obviously if you play with stop losses or change the betting progression results will change. My only point in communicating this info is to inform those interested in this progression of the facts and statistics. In order to win 100% of the sequences I played 8,800 units were required. That was the largest loss in over 15,000 sequences.
Again, 110K hands yielded a profit of 1.52% or 22,000 units. If the betting guidelines change then the results will change.
Kasi
All any of us really know about OG are the published rules we've read.
1. The goal is to win 1 unit.
2. Bet the same when a loss occurs.
3. Increase bet by 1 unit when in winning streak until 1 unit goal is achieved.
These are the three "guidelines" I've seen.
Pushes or ties don't affect anything.
What's wrong with winning more than 1 unit on a sequence?
The biggest advantages a BJ player has are the payouts for a blackjack (1.5)
and the fact "more doubles and splits are won than lost".
If you bet the same way 100% of the time the results will be the same 100% of the time.
The sample I described in earlier posts, 110K hands, followed the EXACT betting guidelines above.
The results at the end was a house advantage of -.35%, It ranged from -.75% to a high of +.25%. The overall profit after 110K hands was 1.52%.
The average win rate as I've said before was 1 win for about every 5 hands played excluding pushes. I believe the results you described on your roulette test yesterday were very similar. 100 wins in 516 spins.
Obviously if you play with stop losses or change the betting progression results will change. My only point in communicating this info is to inform those interested in this progression of the facts and statistics. In order to win 100% of the sequences I played 8,800 units were required. That was the largest loss in over 15,000 sequences.
Again, 110K hands yielded a profit of 1.52% or 22,000 units. If the betting guidelines change then the results will change.
Not sure exactly what you are saying.
Any betting system, voodoo or AP, should have the same consistent results over 1000 hands or 1000000 hands?
What's your time worth?
How will you determine who wins?
My rules are OG. Simple. Clear. A third-party can rule on any questions, although any moron can apply the rules because they are that clear.
Great - now I know a tie in SG is a non-event. Except that it will occur every so often effecting how often one may succeed every 100 trials. I really don't give a rat's ass how the house may view it from a comp point of view. Unless of course the SG includes that in some way as to when a new series may begin.
Let me guess- you are down 1 net unit at some point and get a BJ. You are now a half-unit ahead from where you started. Do you begin a new series then, being a half-unit ahead, or do the rules of SG say one must be at least 1 unit or more ahead before a new series begins?
Like above when "down 11 betting 4, down 7 betting 5, down 2 betting 2",
like why wouldn't you be betting 3 when down 2? You just won a 5-unit bet to get to down only 2 units, I assume a net 2 units from when the series started, so while OG would call for a 6 unit bet, why would you not bet 3 units at that point since that is all you needed to bet to finish 1 unit ahead?
Why would you only bet 2 units?
Whatever, I've already succeeded 216 times in a row at a single-zero roulette game using the real "OG", God bless him, winning 216 units with a starting 100 unit roll at the beginning of each series. That would be over 1128spins of a single-zero roulette wheel.
My results are transparent - anyone can do the same thing. They are based on random results the WIZ posted on his site. If I bet according to OG in those 1128 spins, anyone would achieve the same results. If I didn't, then, OK, eventually the world will agree how those 1128 spins should have been betted.
Does SG have a 100% success rate over 1128 BJ rounds with an initial 100 unit starting roll at the top of each "SEQUENCE"?
Does SG finish with 316 units in 1128 rounds with BJ beginning each series with 100 units?
My time ain't worth much - I have lots of time. Unfortunately.
Bring it on.
OG will kick SG from here to Honolulu, play golf for a couple weeks, and then come back again. From a "success" rate point of view. Probably from almost any point of view you choose to specify.
If you and I are both betting OG system, me to single-zero roulette and you to some BJ game, what could possibly account for extremely different success rates with the same initial roll, should that happen?
No big deal. It's apples to oranges anyway.
Any betting system, voodoo or AP, should have the same consistent results over 1000 hands or 1000000 hands?
What's your time worth?
How will you determine who wins?
My rules are OG. Simple. Clear. A third-party can rule on any questions, although any moron can apply the rules because they are that clear.
Great - now I know a tie in SG is a non-event. Except that it will occur every so often effecting how often one may succeed every 100 trials. I really don't give a rat's ass how the house may view it from a comp point of view. Unless of course the SG includes that in some way as to when a new series may begin.
Let me guess- you are down 1 net unit at some point and get a BJ. You are now a half-unit ahead from where you started. Do you begin a new series then, being a half-unit ahead, or do the rules of SG say one must be at least 1 unit or more ahead before a new series begins?
Like above when "down 11 betting 4, down 7 betting 5, down 2 betting 2",
like why wouldn't you be betting 3 when down 2? You just won a 5-unit bet to get to down only 2 units, I assume a net 2 units from when the series started, so while OG would call for a 6 unit bet, why would you not bet 3 units at that point since that is all you needed to bet to finish 1 unit ahead?
Why would you only bet 2 units?
Whatever, I've already succeeded 216 times in a row at a single-zero roulette game using the real "OG", God bless him, winning 216 units with a starting 100 unit roll at the beginning of each series. That would be over 1128spins of a single-zero roulette wheel.
My results are transparent - anyone can do the same thing. They are based on random results the WIZ posted on his site. If I bet according to OG in those 1128 spins, anyone would achieve the same results. If I didn't, then, OK, eventually the world will agree how those 1128 spins should have been betted.
Does SG have a 100% success rate over 1128 BJ rounds with an initial 100 unit starting roll at the top of each "SEQUENCE"?
Does SG finish with 316 units in 1128 rounds with BJ beginning each series with 100 units?
My time ain't worth much - I have lots of time. Unfortunately.
Bring it on.
OG will kick SG from here to Honolulu, play golf for a couple weeks, and then come back again. From a "success" rate point of view. Probably from almost any point of view you choose to specify.
If you and I are both betting OG system, me to single-zero roulette and you to some BJ game, what could possibly account for extremely different success rates with the same initial roll, should that happen?
No big deal. It's apples to oranges anyway.
There's absolutely nothing at all wrong with winning more than 1 unit on a sequence. Or even less than 1 unit on a sequence. It's just that, if you are playing the OG betting system, allowing that to happen, then you are not playing the OG betting system, are you? You are playing some different progressive system with its own set of rules, aren't you?
Pushes or ties cannot happen in OG. The rules of OG do not address what to do in the event of a push or a tie. The rules of OG only say what to do after a win or a loss.
You may choose to infer that if OG addressed the issue, the system would choose to call it a non-event and revert to the previous event to decide what to do next, but, it just isn't there, is it? If an even-money bet in roulette or craps allowed for a tie, don't you think OG would have addressed it?
Bet any way you want. Define the rules of your betting system so any moron can follow them. So a computer programmer could program them, if you will. All good. Just don't steal the name of some other betting system and call it what you are doing when it ain't. Might be similar, to varying degress, etc, but it's not the same is it?
Who knows, you may invent a system that has an extremely high success rate with a relatively small roll, etc that will someday be as famous as Martingdale or OG is for even-money games as your system will be for BJ etc.
When that happens, aren't you really gonna be pissed that everyone calls it OG when really it's BJG for BJ and Oscar had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it, did he?
You'll be rolling in your grave as people struggle to apply the BJG to craps and wonder what to do with half-unit wins, and when to double a bet or not and what to bet after splitting to 4 hands, doubling 3 of them, but winning 2 of the 4 while still finishing net down for that round.
Go for the glory - it's a chance to have a star in the universe named after you. But 2 stars in the universe just cannot have the same name, can they?
Pushes or ties cannot happen in OG. The rules of OG do not address what to do in the event of a push or a tie. The rules of OG only say what to do after a win or a loss.
You may choose to infer that if OG addressed the issue, the system would choose to call it a non-event and revert to the previous event to decide what to do next, but, it just isn't there, is it? If an even-money bet in roulette or craps allowed for a tie, don't you think OG would have addressed it?
Bet any way you want. Define the rules of your betting system so any moron can follow them. So a computer programmer could program them, if you will. All good. Just don't steal the name of some other betting system and call it what you are doing when it ain't. Might be similar, to varying degress, etc, but it's not the same is it?
Who knows, you may invent a system that has an extremely high success rate with a relatively small roll, etc that will someday be as famous as Martingdale or OG is for even-money games as your system will be for BJ etc.
When that happens, aren't you really gonna be pissed that everyone calls it OG when really it's BJG for BJ and Oscar had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it, did he?
You'll be rolling in your grave as people struggle to apply the BJG to craps and wonder what to do with half-unit wins, and when to double a bet or not and what to bet after splitting to 4 hands, doubling 3 of them, but winning 2 of the 4 while still finishing net down for that round.
Go for the glory - it's a chance to have a star in the universe named after you. But 2 stars in the universe just cannot have the same name, can they?
lol, not really shad. the point is just that one know what one is doing.
edit: like who of us who have a number of years under our belts fail to realize how hopelessy confusing and complicated what appears the most simple things, can become.
then if any of us wants to examine say OG from a mathematical perspective having all our ducks in a row, having apples be apples so to speak becomes a most relevant point.
edit: like who of us who have a number of years under our belts fail to realize how hopelessy confusing and complicated what appears the most simple things, can become.
then if any of us wants to examine say OG from a mathematical perspective having all our ducks in a row, having apples be apples so to speak becomes a most relevant point.
The Nitty gritty of using OG with BJ or "Thunder's BJ progression"
I can't speak for others who use OG or whatever you want to call it ( "Thunder's progression" has a nice ring to it :laugh: ) but here is the nitty gritty on how I do it. If I push on a hand, I keep the same bet out. If say I was betting in $10 increments so my sequence was something like this,
-10 L
-10 L
-10 L
+10 W
-20 L
-20 (split. Lost one hand, pushed the other)
+20 W
--------
I'm down $40 at this point. Next bet is $30. Say I got BJ or won a DD or had a good split where I won both hands. I would be done with the sequence since I got back to even or in this case, made a profit in the sequence.
As for using a stop loss, what I do is this. I make my stop loss 40x my initial bet which in this case would be -$400. If you were betting $90/hand in the sequence and you lost the last hand, so now you're down -$390 in the sequence, I would bet $90 again. If I lost, I'm done and I start over at $10. If I win, I continue the sequence. So in actuality, I would probably lose more than 40x my initial bet if I got stopped out. You're going to need a bankroll of a minimum 80x your initial bet so in this case $800.
The best way to keep track of how you're doing is to buy in for whatever your stop loss is going to be so in this case, it's $400. Make 4 piles of $100.
When you're in a sequence, always use money from this pile. This way you can see how much you're down and see when you've made a profit in the sequence. Put any profits somewhere else so that you won't get that mixed up with your pile. Your piles should never have more than $400 in it combined and in reality it'll be $390, since you'll be betting $10.
Also, make sure you have plenty of time as in hours to gamble. You could be up $100, then get stopped out (assuming you use a stop loss) and then be faced with having to play for a few more hours to catch up to where you were. I find that at a normal table with other players there, I typically will average about $80-$100/hr using this system with basic strategy. Sometimes I will count cards too but I find it can be hard to keep the count and keep track of how much you need to bet on the next hand especially when you have a 4 hand split. The last time I played, I played for about 6 hours, got stopped out 2 or 3 times and still came out ahead over $400.
Also in no way do I expect this to in the long term, beat my results when counting cards, but it's a lot easier and more fun vs waiting for that one good shoe when the count actually gets high enough for you to be placing nice sized bets.
I can't speak for others who use OG or whatever you want to call it ( "Thunder's progression" has a nice ring to it :laugh: ) but here is the nitty gritty on how I do it. If I push on a hand, I keep the same bet out. If say I was betting in $10 increments so my sequence was something like this,
-10 L
-10 L
-10 L
+10 W
-20 L
-20 (split. Lost one hand, pushed the other)
+20 W
--------
I'm down $40 at this point. Next bet is $30. Say I got BJ or won a DD or had a good split where I won both hands. I would be done with the sequence since I got back to even or in this case, made a profit in the sequence.
As for using a stop loss, what I do is this. I make my stop loss 40x my initial bet which in this case would be -$400. If you were betting $90/hand in the sequence and you lost the last hand, so now you're down -$390 in the sequence, I would bet $90 again. If I lost, I'm done and I start over at $10. If I win, I continue the sequence. So in actuality, I would probably lose more than 40x my initial bet if I got stopped out. You're going to need a bankroll of a minimum 80x your initial bet so in this case $800.
The best way to keep track of how you're doing is to buy in for whatever your stop loss is going to be so in this case, it's $400. Make 4 piles of $100.
When you're in a sequence, always use money from this pile. This way you can see how much you're down and see when you've made a profit in the sequence. Put any profits somewhere else so that you won't get that mixed up with your pile. Your piles should never have more than $400 in it combined and in reality it'll be $390, since you'll be betting $10.
Also, make sure you have plenty of time as in hours to gamble. You could be up $100, then get stopped out (assuming you use a stop loss) and then be faced with having to play for a few more hours to catch up to where you were. I find that at a normal table with other players there, I typically will average about $80-$100/hr using this system with basic strategy. Sometimes I will count cards too but I find it can be hard to keep the count and keep track of how much you need to bet on the next hand especially when you have a 4 hand split. The last time I played, I played for about 6 hours, got stopped out 2 or 3 times and still came out ahead over $400.
Also in no way do I expect this to in the long term, beat my results when counting cards, but it's a lot easier and more fun vs waiting for that one good shoe when the count actually gets high enough for you to be placing nice sized bets.
Thx for pointing that out. I hope I have not offended Baseball, Thunder, you, whoever.
It's not like I'm even making an argument. It's just a widely accepted fact.
Actually, I'm a little surprised you don't get it. Was only trying to make you understand the point.
I have failed misrably. Onve again. lmao.
BJ is a game particularly unsuited for progressions systems.
If you are going to use them, you're better off using them in another game.
An even-money game.
You just never see much analysis of using these systems in BJ, do you?
Can't imagine why that may be.
"Successful progressive betting schemes require roughly similar amounts of wins and losses, making blackjack particularly unsuited for progressions"
"Since progressions depend on some uniformity of bet and some uniformity of wins and loses blackjack just does not fit progressive betting."
"And a gauge to determine these numbers is to look at an even game with the knowledge the real game against the casino will be slightly worse."
"Blackjack offers good odds with proper strategy, but to use the Martingale with blackjack you need a bankroll that's four times as large as normal".
Tell the guys who wrote that what argumentative lil bitches they are.
It's not like I'm even making an argument. It's just a widely accepted fact.
Actually, I'm a little surprised you don't get it. Was only trying to make you understand the point.
I have failed misrably. Onve again. lmao.
BJ is a game particularly unsuited for progressions systems.
If you are going to use them, you're better off using them in another game.
An even-money game.
You just never see much analysis of using these systems in BJ, do you?
Can't imagine why that may be.
"Successful progressive betting schemes require roughly similar amounts of wins and losses, making blackjack particularly unsuited for progressions"
"Since progressions depend on some uniformity of bet and some uniformity of wins and loses blackjack just does not fit progressive betting."
"And a gauge to determine these numbers is to look at an even game with the knowledge the real game against the casino will be slightly worse."
"Blackjack offers good odds with proper strategy, but to use the Martingale with blackjack you need a bankroll that's four times as large as normal".
Tell the guys who wrote that what argumentative lil bitches they are.
Thunder said:
I can't speak for others who use OG or whatever you want to call it ( "Thunder's progression" has a nice ring to it :laugh: ) but here is the nitty gritty on how I do it. .. QUOTE]
I like it - "Thunder's progression."
Made my day. Maybe all was not in vain after all
See, now what you say is the beginning of a betting system
Might have a few more rules than Oscar, but thta's
I like it - "Thunder's progression."
Made my day. Maybe all was not in vain after all
See, now what you say is the beginning of a betting system
Might have a few more rules than Oscar, but thta's
What the fig does the statement about the Martingale have to do with this? Blackjack isn't particulary suited for using nuclear weapons, as well. big deal.
When you eliminate the pushs, BJ is just about the same as roulette.
Why do you harp so much on pushs somehow changing the equation? They do nothing but help the player. I love getting five or six pushs in a row, with a big bet out and the pitboss hoovering nearby. This is a negative to you how?
Lets say you invented a gambling progression and after many years it became widely known as yours. Some unknown comes along, takes your foundation, fine tunes it slightly and proclaims it to be his own. How would you feel? I don't play Oskars Grind exactly the way he did, but the only reason I play this way at all is because of the hours and months he put into it.
Therefore, I honor and acknowledge his pioneering work by saying I play a modified version of Oscars Grind. I'm sorry that gets your panties all bunched up, but thats the way it is.
Having never used Oscar's Grind nor even practiced it I just got back from winning 50 units today with OG. It was won in 2 sessions... one for 15 units and the second for 35 units, in about 2 hours of play. Never had to put out more than a 5 unit bet.
I probably won't use it as my primary strategy but I think it may have a place in the arsenal, especially as cover. I can see switching to OG maybe every third shoe or since I play mostly double deck I could move to a shoe game occasionally for a couple of shoes of OG and then back to the DD.
I also should say though this was the first time I've noticed a pit boss watching my play. I was being observed fairly intently especially since I needed to color up because I was accumulating chips much more than anyone else at the table. All in all very pleased with the results.
I probably won't use it as my primary strategy but I think it may have a place in the arsenal, especially as cover. I can see switching to OG maybe every third shoe or since I play mostly double deck I could move to a shoe game occasionally for a couple of shoes of OG and then back to the DD.
I also should say though this was the first time I've noticed a pit boss watching my play. I was being observed fairly intently especially since I needed to color up because I was accumulating chips much more than anyone else at the table. All in all very pleased with the results.
the last 2 days i played OG on BJ
Night 1: played 5 dollar units, won 45 dollars in 40 minutes. deepest count was -3
Night 2: played 5 dollar units, won 60 dollars in an hour. deepest count was -7. a double down dug me out
i use shadrochs approach of getting back to even. It seems to save me a bit, and i have a sequence stop loss of -20. so safety is important. i also will use full unit blackjack bonuses to drop my count.(a 2 unit bet, will give me 1 extra bonus unit, i apply it to the count.
any half unit bonuses from blackjacks, i put in a separate pile for a rainy day to lower my count.
my stop gain is +20 units... but time constraints held me lower.
Night 1: played 5 dollar units, won 45 dollars in 40 minutes. deepest count was -3
Night 2: played 5 dollar units, won 60 dollars in an hour. deepest count was -7. a double down dug me out
i use shadrochs approach of getting back to even. It seems to save me a bit, and i have a sequence stop loss of -20. so safety is important. i also will use full unit blackjack bonuses to drop my count.(a 2 unit bet, will give me 1 extra bonus unit, i apply it to the count.
any half unit bonuses from blackjacks, i put in a separate pile for a rainy day to lower my count.
my stop gain is +20 units... but time constraints held me lower.