Please help destroy this strategey

[newyorkbear]

I've been fooling around with this and it seems quite successful. I've only used it for about 1500 rounds on computers and about two hours of real casino play.
I'm sure I'm overlooking a fatal flaw,so feel free to destroy it before I drop a bundle using it in a casino.
Its a modified version of Oscars Grind.
I divide my total session into sub-sessions that call innings.
The goal of each inning is to either quickly win one unit,or to pay for a tie.
It works like this;
1st bet-1 unit.a win ends the inning and the unit win is banked,never to come into play that session.A loss prompts....
2nd bet- 2 units. A win again causes a 1 unit win which is banked.A loss causes....
3rd bet-2 units. A win now causes me to be down one unit for the inning leaving either...
4th bet(A)one unit,a win ends the inning in a tie,and the next inning begins.A loss and you revert back to bet #2 and continue from there.

Or if you lose bet #3,you continue betting two units until you have a win.You raise your bet 1 unit after a win,unless that raise will end up giving you a positive result for the sequence.

If you don't experiance a win in the first three rounds,you now play only for a tie.
I believe this will result in a lesser toll on your bankroll and cause the individual innings to be concluded faster.So what am I missing?

 

[Mikeaber]

Hmm, a Martingale on tranquilizers

In this money management strategy, you are counting on the fact that you are not going to lose more than 3 in a row. I believe that with your progression, if you lose three in a row, you will be down 5 units and will be down 6 units after a 4-hand loss.

Your odds on not losing 3 in a row are something like 1 in 8 I believe. Not bad. But not uncommon either. You are really counting on a choppy game where you win one, lose one, win one etc. In that case, you are nulifying your lose and gaining 1 chip on each win. You are breaking even on a win on the hand after two loses in a row (third hand). But if you have to go to a fourth or fifth hand, you are losing 5 or 6 units with nothing to recover with other than a streak that doesn't see you have to play a third hand in the sequence.

As with any progression, there are circumstances wich will see the progression pay off for you. Many times this one will. But it will eat your lunch if the play doesn't come out pretty regular in your wins versus the dealer's wins. I mean, if there happens to be a lot of 4 win/lose streaks, you are not going to last long!

It's a very conservative progression in my opinion and following that characteristic, you are "banking" or "ratholeing" your wins. This, along with your loses on the negative streaks, would deplete your bankroll and get you away from the game if it were really going south on you. I hope that you would religiously maintain discipline and stick with your session bankroll and NOT expect to come away from the table a big winner.

I say that because even though you are cautious in doing it, you are chasing your loses a little with the progression but never pressing your winnings.

 

[Mikeaber]

I do have a money management strategy that has nothing to do with progressions that I use....especially after I've suffered couple of bad sessions. It has a similarity to your modified Oscar in that I rathole wins.

Basically, I start out with a specified amount of money (maybe $100). When I accumulate $25 in wins, I rathole it but continue playing. When I lose $25, I break from the table and either find another table after walking around for a while or maybe play video poker for a bit. That $25 loss represents a "session". After I've cooled off a bit, I'll return with my $75 and play another $25 session. I repeat this until my original $100 BR is depleted. At that time, I have to decide whether to call it quits or dip into the ratholed green chips.

I acknowledge that this method bites me sometimes. It doesn't take long to lose $25 with $5 bets when you split pairs 3 or 4 times and then double a couple of them...and lose!

More than anything else, this money management strategy just underscores to me what my current trend is for the day or session. The thing is, it gives you a red flag that at least makes you think before blowing your entire day's Bankroll in one bad run at a table.

 

[aussiecounter]

I smell a Martingale as well. This seems to just be a conservative Martingale system.

A negative progression (such as Martingale) system's main problem is that it fails when you have a long losing streak, unless you have a neverending bankroll and open table limits.
If you have a losing streak of 4 hands, you'll be down 6 units. A 4 hand losing streak is not that uncommon. A four hand winning streak gives you 4 units.

I personally have come to the conclusion that there is no 'system' that will actually work, except for a basic Martingale with the unlikely circumstances of the above-mentioned neverending bankroll and open table limits.

 

[newyorkbear]

Further explanation.

I guess I didn't explain it correctly,as it is far from a martingale.
let me show you the results of en extended losing streak.first bet is one unit.Second bet is two units. Others remain flat after a loss,increase 1 after a win.
1st bet-loss,-1 unit
2nd bet-loss -3 units
3rd bet-loss -5 units(Unlike a martingale,you are not doubling your losses)
4th bet-loss -7 units
5th bet-loss -9 units
6th bet-win -7 units Now we raise to 3 units after a win
7th bet-loss -10 units
8th bet-loss -13 units
9th bet-win -9units We raise to 4 units after the win.
10th bet-loss -13 units
11th bet-loss -17 units
12th bet-win -14 units. We raise to 5 units.
13th bet-loss -19 units
14th bet loss -24 units.

Now we approaching a losing streak of epic proportions. One you will rarely encounter.So lets examine what we have going on.
If we are on a $5 table,we have lost $120 and are betting $25 a hand. Dangerous,but nowhere near the table limits or approaching the dread gamblers ruin,as I started with a bankroll of 100 units.
if I had been flat betting 2 units a hand,I'd be down $80 and still betting $10 a hand.
Which is a more recoverable postion?
Being down $120 with a $25 bet(less than 5 total units)
or being down $80 with a $10 bet( 8 units)



15th bet-loss -29 units
16th bet loss -34 units
17th bet loss -39 units
18th bet win -34 units We increase to 6 units
19th bet loss -40 units 20th bet loss- -44 units
21st bet win -38 units increase to 7 units
22nd bet win -31 units increase to 8 units
23rd bet win -23 units
24th bet loss -31 units
25th bet loss -39 units
26th bet loss -47 units.

Now we are truly are an epic losing streak, but look where we really are.Down $235 and betting $40 a hand,we are still only six winning bets removed from breaking even.
Had we continued flat betting,we'd be down $120 but more importantly ,we'd be down 12 bets from breaking even.
Lets assume the next six hands are choppy,as we would expect a normal game to be.
27th bet loss -55 units
28th bet win -47 units,and raise to nine units
29th bet loss -56 units
30th bet win -45 units,and raise to 10 units
31st bet loss -55 units
32nd bet win -45 units

Now we assume a very modest winning streak(6 out of 10 hands)
33rd bet win -35 units and raise bet to 11
34th bet loss -46 units
35th bet win -35 units and raise to 12
36th bet win -23 units and raise to 13
37th bet loss-36 units
38th bet win -23 units and raise to 14
39th bet loss -37 units
40th bet loss -51 units
41st bet win -37 units,and raise to 15 units.
42nd bet win -22 units

We have now won only 16 of 42 bets,yet we are only 1 1/2 winning bets away from breaking even for the session.
And after 42 hands,we should have encountered at least one players BJ,although I didn't factor that in anywhere.
Should we win bet 43,we are now down only 7 units for the session,so we reduce our bet for bet 44 to 7 units.
Should we win bet 44,we start over. Should we lose either bet 43 or 44,we simply proceed with the established betting pattern.


Is this a heck of a lot of play to simply break even? Yes,but how often will you encounter a run like this. More than 80% of my innings have resolved themselves in 7 hands or less.Plus you can laugh about it over that porterhouse steak the pitboss comped you for your extensive $50 plus betting.

 

[newyorkbear]

A few rounds played as we spreak.

bet- 1 chip Win 1 chip banked
bet -1 chip win 1 chip banked
bet -1 " " lose
bet -2 " " win 1 chip banked
bet -1 lose
bet -2 lose(down 3)
bet -2 win(down 1)
bet -1 win(even)
bet -1 lose
bet -2 BJ,win 2,bank 2
bet -1 win,bank 1

 

[Quinc]

5% element of ruin

any of you ever use somthing like this?

 

[Midnite]

The Grind

Bear, you are playing it differently than I do, when I play it.

I only raise AFTER a win.
You are raising your second bet, after a loss.
I am not saying this is better or worse, just different.
It always tries for a one unit win......
Yes, you would scale back your bets, but would still bet enough for a one unit win.

Lets say I sit down at the $5 table and lose 8 hands in a row.
They are all minimium bets of $5 and I am down $40.
Now lets say I win 4 hands in a row.
1/8 = -$40
(9) 5 win 5 (raise ONE unit on a win)
(10) bet 10 win 10 (raise ONE unit on a win)
(11) bet 15 win 15
(12) bet is again 15 as a win here gives you, your one unit win. win 15

Total: lost 12 hands and won 4 hands 12/4= win percent of 33.33% and yet you won one unit.

I am NOT saying to play it, just trying to explain how I play it, when I use it.

 

[LeonShuffle]

NYBear,

Since you're starting with a $5 bet in your example, that's what you should be using if you're comparing your system to flat betting. If I'm reading your post correctly, where you left off, you'd be down $110 and betting $80 on your next hand. Win that next hand and you're down $30; lose it and you're down $190.

However, if you'd been flat betting 1 unit ($5), you'd be down $45. Win your next hand and be down $40 (as compared to $30 with your system); lose it and be down $50 (as compared to $190).

Let me know if I've compared this incorrectly.

 

[newyorkbear]

Leon,
If you wanted to bet $5 flat bet,you would be correct with your numbers.I used $10 because on an average inning,I average around two units per bet.
However,if you were flatbetting any amount,at the point I left off in the sequence,a flat better would be many BETS away from breaking even. If I won the next bet,I am in position to break even with my next bet,even though it will be greatly reduced in size.
In this scenerio,flatbetting would have dug you a huge deficit that only a rare win streak would rescue.
In the same sequence of bets,I'm 1 1/2 wins from being even.
I'm nowhere near the table limits,which is the chief problem of Martingale,and I still am only in for about half my bankroll(which I'd guess should be at least 100 units for this type of play.)

 

[newyorkbear]

Midnite,
Yes I am aware I am using a variation of the grind. What I'm trying to determine is if it is a better variation.
Your version means that if you lose the first bet,the 2nd can only get you even,in mine,a win on either of the first two bets puts me ahead,and ends the inning.
You always play to win 1 unit. I play to break even if I don't win in the first two hands. I think that playing only to get even will reduce the length of my innings,thus giving me more chances to win.
I must say that I've only used this system once in a casino and only for about 2 hours. I've been experimenting with Oscars Grind for a few weeks and came up with this version.
On simulations,at BJ,craps,roulette and sic-bo,I've never approached the levels I used as a bad losing streak in this thread. I believe my largest unit bet was 11 and I was once down 27 units(also 27% of my 100 unit bankroll) It seems to work better at Roulette and Si-bo than BJ.

 

[LeonShuffle]

But here's the thing: The only way to know when to raise or lower your bets is to keep track of the cards that have already been dealt. Any other time you do it would just be arbitrary. Let's say that you WERE betting flat $10 on your sequence BUT you were also keeping track of where you'd be had you been using your system. Where you left off, you'd be down $90. Using your system at this point, you'd make an $80 bet. Win that and you'd only be down $10, instead of $30 had you been using your system all along. Of course if you lost it, you'd be down $170 instead of $190. It's very close and it's all the same in the long run.

I may not be explaining myself perfectly but you can kind of see that it makes no difference if you just raise and lower your bets according to how you did on the last hand (arbitrarily).

 

[newyorkbear]

I'm sorry,Leon, but I'm not following you at all. My bets have nothing to do with what cards are out. Only that I flatbet after a loss,raise after a win.
I'd love to continue this conversation,but I'm off and won't be back until tonite.

 

[Mikeaber]

But here's the thing: The only way to know when to raise or lower your bets is to keep track of the cards that have already been dealt.

Leon, You are describing advantage play. Streak betting, or progression betting, is not based in any way other than coincidence, on the current composition of the deck. At best, it is based on the long term hand win/loose averages.

That is why it has not impact on the "edge" which is always the same no matter what you do with strategies involving streak betting. But, sometimes those averages will work in favor of the player in short term excursions sometimes even to the point of seeming to be bullet proof. That's the chance that the progression bettor is playing for....short term gain with hopes of not hitting that scenario that the progression cannot cover.

 

[LeonShuffle]

The ONLY way to know when to raise or lower your bets is by counting cards. I understand progressions and I also understand why they don't work any better than flat betting.

Use the same sequence that NYBear derived and flat bet it. At ANY point, bet what you would have had you been using his progression. Win or lose (and it is spelled LOSE by the way) and you'll be very close to where you would have been had you been using the progression all along.

Progression bettors like to say the long term doesn't matter to them, but it's a lot of short terms that add up to the long term. In other words, what's good for the short term is good for the long term. I know quite a few professional blackjack players and they ALL count cards as their basis for winning. Show me a pro who raises or lowers his bet simply because he won or lost his previous hand and I'll change my mind.

There's been a lot of research over the last few decades from some mathematical geniuses on how to win at various games of chance, yet people tend to ignore it. For anyone who wants to make money with progressions, I suggest that you write a book detailing your system, find a publisher and get it on the market. Just make sure there's a disclaimer in it so you're not held liable when someone gets burned.

Oh and one more thing: If flat betting is too boring for you and you just need to use a progression, take my advice and use a positive one. It won't win you anymore than flat betting but it won't force you to make huge bets just to recoup your losses.

 

[Quinc]

Bear, you are playing it differently than I do, when I play it.

I only raise AFTER a win.
You are raising your second bet, after a loss.
I am not saying this is better or worse, just different.
It always tries for a one unit win......
Yes, you would scale back your bets, but would still bet enough for a one unit win.

Lets say I sit down at the $5 table and lose 8 hands in a row.
They are all minimium bets of $5 and I am down $40.
Now lets say I win 4 hands in a row.
1/8 = -$40
(9) 5 win 5 (raise ONE unit on a win)
(10) bet 10 win 10 (raise ONE unit on a win)
(11) bet 15 win 15
(12) bet is again 15 as a win here gives you, your one unit win. win 15

Total: lost 12 hands and won 4 hands 12/4= win percent of 33.33% and yet you won one unit.

I am NOT saying to play it, just trying to explain how I play it, when I use it.

do you flat bet untill you lose, and then start adding 1 unit after each win untill your back to even? say your first 4 hands are winning hands do you still add 1 unit to each bet while you are winning?

 

[LeonShuffle]

As a follow up to my last post and to illustrate the whole short term/long term thing, imagine this scenario:

A man named Adam devises his own betting progression; perhaps some form of Oscar's Grind. This progression appears unbeatable to him for short term play. He goes to the casino and begins betting with a $10 unit. His goal is to win $100 and then he'll go home and do it again the next week. He does this for a couple months and then comes to the realization that he could make a lot more money if he did it every day instead. So every day after work he goes back to the casino and wins another $100. He's now making $500 a week. After a few weeks he thinks to himself, "Hell, if I did this twice a day, I could quit my job" and that's what he does. He's now making $1,000 a week and living comfortably. A few more weeks go by and he thinks, "Screw it, I'm just going to stay at the casino all day and keep doing this over and over again and become fabulously wealthy". He does this and never gets kicked out because it's obvious that he's only using a betting progression and not counting cards. Adam is now rich and can live happily ever after.

The End


We all know the above scenario would never happen, but the question is: Why not?

 

[Quinc]

As a follow up to my last post and to illustrate the whole short term/long term thing, imagine this scenario:

A man named Adam devises his own betting progression; perhaps some form of Oscar's Grind. This progression appears unbeatable to him for short term play. He goes to the casino and begins betting with a $10 unit. His goal is to win $100 and then he'll go home and do it again the next week. He does this for a couple months and then comes to the realization that he could make a lot more money if he did it every day instead. So every day after work he goes back to the casino and wins another $100. He's now making $500 a week. After a few weeks he thinks to himself, "Hell, if I did this twice a day, I could quit my job" and that's what he does. He's now making $1,000 a week and living comfortably. A few more weeks go by and he thinks, "Screw it, I'm just going to stay at the casino all day and keep doing this over and over again and become fabulously wealthy". He does this and never gets kicked out because it's obvious that he's only using a betting progression and not counting cards. Adam is now rich and can live happily ever after.

The End


We all know the above scenario would never happen, but the question is: Why not?

you had my hopes all up that you where going to tell us his progression.. :cry:

 

[deltaduke]

Progression pro

I know quite a few professional blackjack players and they ALL count cards as their basis for winning. Show me a pro who raises or lowers his bet simply because he won or lost his previous hand and I'll change my mind.

I used to be a counter and was relatively successful. As I got older I found that I had drank too many beers and my brain was getting fuzzy and I would make mistakes in counting which was worse than not counting at all. I now use a positive progression system. and still achieve the same results as when I was counting good. I play 8 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. I log all my trips on the computer, and know exactly how I stand. I started playing progressively in 2002. For the year I ended up + $45,000. In 2003 , relatively the same +$48,000. 2004 was a bad year and I only made $23,000. This year to date I am up $56,000. Is 4 years a long term or short term? Does making roughly $50,000 a year make me a pro? Stop by the high limit pit at the Tunica Horseshoe any weekend and ask any dealer or pit boss where the old man that plays progressively is. They all know me and will point me out. I don't win all the time by any means. Some trips I lose $2000.00 (which is my daily playing stake) in as little as 15 minutes. Other times I will play 5 or 6 hours and make $10,000. I never cash my chips unless I want to buy something, I just save them and use them for my playing. For the last 8 years,(4 counting & 4 progressing) I have not taken any cash to the casino, so I know I am playing on the casino's money. There is no mathematical formula to determine when streaks will occur, but from practice I know that they DO occur. This is hard for a counter to accept, because he has worked hard to learn what is considered the only way to win and cannot conceive of an easier way to get the same results. I am not interested in writing a book. If the average player would play a positive progression, he would occasionally have as good a day as his wife when she hits a jackpot on the slots. However by flat betting he will never achieve this. :cool2:

 

[Quinc]

I know quite a few professional blackjack players and they ALL count cards as their basis for winning. Show me a pro who raises or lowers his bet simply because he won or lost his previous hand and I'll change my mind.

I used to be a counter and was relatively successful. As I got older I found that I had drank too many beers and my brain was getting fuzzy and I would make mistakes in counting which was worse than not counting at all. I now use a positive progression system. and still achieve the same results as when I was counting good. I play 8 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. I log all my trips on the computer, and know exactly how I stand. I started playing progressively in 2002. For the year I ended up + $45,000. In 2003 , relatively the same +$48,000. 2004 was a bad year and I only made $23,000. This year to date I am up $56,000. Is 4 years a long term or short term? Does making roughly $50,000 a year make me a pro? Stop by the high limit pit at the Tunica Horseshoe any weekend and ask any dealer or pit boss where the old man that plays progressively is. They all know me and will point me out. I don't win all the time by any means. Some trips I lose $2000.00 (which is my daily playing stake) in as little as 15 minutes. Other times I will play 5 or 6 hours and make $10,000. I never cash my chips unless I want to buy something, I just save them and use them for my playing. For the last 8 years,(4 counting & 4 progressing) I have not taken any cash to the casino, so I know I am playing on the casino's money. There is no mathematical formula to determine when streaks will occur, but from practice I know that they DO occur. This is hard for a counter to accept, because he has worked hard to learn what is considered the only way to win and cannot conceive of an easier way to get the same results. I am not interested in writing a book. If the average player would play a positive progression, he would occasionally have as good a day as his wife when she hits a jackpot on the slots. However by flat betting he will never achieve this. :cool2:

you going to tell us what it is?