So this guy says to me.................

rogue1

Well-Known Member
#1
that he read a book by Donald Dahl. The book he says exposes the myth of card counting. The jist of it is he says that with perfect Basic Strategy play and positive progression betting the player is at least as well off as any card counter. He said you also need a much smaller bankroll and the casinos heat is useless against you. He said the anti progression betting camp always comes up with "oh that's Matingale and it's a loser". But he says that is bunk-he says that Martingale is a whole other deal.
Is there anyone among you who agree with this idea?
 

person1125

Well-Known Member
#2
I think to do the any type of progressive system you need a larger bankroll. You do alright as long as you win, but hit a streak of say 10 loses in a row and you will be asking for trouble.
 

rogue1

Well-Known Member
#3
hi Person

he says to me that if he loses a hand he immediately goes back to a single unit bet-so again he stressed that it's not Martingale where you increase after a loss. Did you think he meant increase after losses?
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#4
Not all progressive systems require huge bankrolls. Oscars Grind is a progression that calls for a BR of 100 units,but you'll rarely be betting more than 7 or 8 units at a time.
Not all progressions are terrible,some are almost benificial to a novice bettor.
 

rogue1

Well-Known Member
#5
ok then

ok then,does anyone agree with this guy that a strict Basic Strategy player is just about as likely to be a winner as a card counter? In fact he claims that your BR can be considerably smaller that that of a card counter. Anyone find that agreeable?
What is Oscars Grind?
 

Mimosine

Well-Known Member
#6
rogue1 said:
ok then,does anyone agree with this guy that a strict Basic Strategy player is just about as likely to be a winner as a card counter? In fact he claims that your BR can be considerably smaller that that of a card counter. Anyone find that agreeable?
What is Oscars Grind?
no.

and no. the only way to overcome the house edge is to bet more when called for, counters do that, how does a BS players overcome the house edge and his/her eventual bankruptcy? A smaller bankroll will lead to a higher ROR. Of course there are different needs for a BS player vs. a counter, but in general no i don't find that agreeable!

ask him for a sim!
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#7
rogue1 said:
ok then,does anyone agree with this guy that a strict Basic Strategy player is just about as likely to be a winner as a card counter? In fact he claims that your BR can be considerably smaller that that of a card counter. Anyone find that agreeable?
What is Oscars Grind?
BS is a losing game. All you have done is reduce the house edge,but the house still has an edge.
Obviously,a BS player that is only flat-betting can get by on a smaller BR than a counter who is spreading his bets 1-10.But it doesn't make the game profitable. A BS player who flat bets would have to be extremely lucky to be ahead after 100,000 hands. A competant card counter would need extremely bad luck not to be ahead after the same amount of hands.

Now,an extremely good comp counter may end up ahead after 100,000 hands in that his comps might well be worth more than his losses,but thats a whole other situation.
 

person1125

Well-Known Member
#8
rogue1 said:
that he read a book by Donald Dahl. The book he says exposes the myth of card counting. The jist of it is he says that with perfect Basic Strategy play and positive progression betting the player is at least as well off as any card counter. He said you also need a much smaller bankroll and the casinos heat is useless against you. He said the anti progression betting camp always comes up with "oh that's Matingale and it's a loser". But he says that is bunk-he says that Martingale is a whole other deal.
Is there anyone among you who agree with this idea?

One easy way to test this would be try it at home. Get 6 decks, play typical rules you find at your local casino and give a progessive system a try. Play perfect BS and see where you end up after 1 shoe, after 2, etc.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#9
person1125 said:
One easy way to test this would be try it at home. Get 6 decks, play typical rules you find at your local casino and give a progessive system a try. Play perfect BS and see where you end up after 1 shoe, after 2, etc.
No offense,but thats exactly how people come to believe in systems like the Martingale.Using that,you'd be hard pressed not to be ahead at the end of of one or two or even four shoes.
 

sabre

Well-Known Member
#10
shadroch said:
Not all progressive systems require huge bankrolls. Oscars Grind is a progression that calls for a BR of 100 units,but you'll rarely be betting more than 7 or 8 units at a time.
Not all progressions are terrible,some are almost benificial to a novice bettor.
Progressions cause people to bet more money than they would if they were flat betting the table minimum.The more you wager at a game with a house advantage, the more you lose in the long run. I fail to see how this is "almost beneficial" to a novice bettor.
 

supercoolmancool

Well-Known Member
#11
sabre said:
Progressions cause people to bet more money than they would if they were flat betting the table minimum.The more you wager at a game with a house advantage, the more you lose in the long run. I fail to see how this is "almost beneficial" to a novice bettor.
It might be beneficial to a novice bettor because I think Oscar used it for many years before he finally lost. Maybe it's not beneficial, but you can last a long time.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#12
If Oscars story is true,he never lost.Not in over thirty years.
Using Oscars Grind correctly,the vast majority of weekend warriors that hit Vegas for a few days will end their trip up a few bucks. An unlucky few will get creamed.Eventually,if they play long enough,the house edge will catch up to them,but in the short run,using Oscars Grind is better than flat-betting,imho.
 

ScottH

Well-Known Member
#13
shadroch said:
but in the short run,using Oscars Grind is better than flat-betting,imho.
I always think that if it's not better in the long run then it's not better in the short run either... but it really depends on what you're trying to accomplish gambling.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#14
ScottH said:
I always think that if it's not better in the long run then it's not better in the short run either... but it really depends on what you're trying to accomplish gambling.

As a gambler,I agree with you. But many people who gamble are not really gamblers. They are people who go to Vegas or AC for a convention or whatever and hit the casinos for a few hours,once or twice a year.
For those type of people,playing using Oscars Grind for a few hours will end up with better results than flat betting.At least thats the impression I get from reading Arnold Snyders take on it. If I recall correctly,he says with a proper BR,you'd win 4999 times out of 5,000.
 
#15
shadroch said:
As a gambler,I agree with you. But many people who gamble are not really gamblers. They are people who go to Vegas or AC for a convention or whatever and hit the casinos for a few hours,once or twice a year.
For those type of people,playing using Oscars Grind for a few hours will end up with better results than flat betting.At least thats the impression I get from reading Arnold Snyders take on it. If I recall correctly,he says with a proper BR,you'd win 4999 times out of 5,000.
Right, but if you are Sucker #5000 you are in for a lot of pain. I'd rather see 1000 gamblers lose $100 than one person lose his house.
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#16
Automatic Monkey said:
Right, but if you are Sucker #5000 you are in for a lot of pain. I'd rather see 1000 gamblers lose $100 than one person lose his house.

You very well might,but the 4,999 who don't lose will disagree with you.
Besides,there is nothing that says you need to keep going after you lose X amount. There is no reason to play until you are broke.When I use it on roulette,I play $1 or $2 chips,play until I win 20 units or lose 100.As long as you win 5 out of 6 or more sessions,you are ahead.
Is it profitable? Not really. But it gets me logged in on something besides a BJ table,which is not a bad deal,and roulette tends to be a much more social game than BJ.
 

ScottH

Well-Known Member
#18
shadroch said:
As a gambler,I agree with you. But many people who gamble are not really gamblers. They are people who go to Vegas or AC for a convention or whatever and hit the casinos for a few hours,once or twice a year.
For those type of people,playing using Oscars Grind for a few hours will end up with better results than flat betting.At least thats the impression I get from reading Arnold Snyders take on it. If I recall correctly,he says with a proper BR,you'd win 4999 times out of 5,000.
I guarantee you that the casual gamblers that just hit the casinos for a few hours once or twice a year DO NOT bring the bankroll needed to win 4,999 times out of 5,000.

I thought I remember that in this situation, with a 1 dollar unit, you would lose over 13 thousand dollars every 5000 tries. What casual gambler brings 13,000 dollars to make sure they win a few dollars?

They would win 4999 out of 5000 WITH THE PROPER BANKROLL, but what does the casual gambler who only gambles once or twice a year know about bankroll management? I have a feeling anyone playing the oscars grind is underfunded and will definitely not win 4999 out of 5000 tries.

4999 times you win 1 dollar, and you lose 13k once. OUCH, that's gotta hurt! :laugh:
 

halcyon1234

Well-Known Member
#19
rogue1 said:
that he read a book by Donald Dahl. The book he says exposes the myth of card counting. The jist of it is he says that with perfect Basic Strategy play and positive progression betting the player is at least as well off as any card counter. He said you also need a much smaller bankroll and the casinos heat is useless against you. He said the anti progression betting camp always comes up with "oh that's Matingale and it's a loser". But he says that is bunk-he says that Martingale is a whole other deal.
Is there anyone among you who agree with this idea?

If the pitboss is listening, then hell yeah! I agree. Vocally, with words like "that's what I'm doing right now, and the house is paying my kid's college funds-- and I have two kids to go!"
 

bluewhale

Well-Known Member
#20
you have to first take the weekend bankroll of your average weekend warrior and THEN show that 4999 out of 5000 will win an amount they consider significant using oscars grind. this is not possible.
if we take a typical situation: weekend roll, $100, target for happiness, $200 (doubling roll).
the best way to tackle this is to bet half the roll continuosly until you get to the min or you hit ur 200. if at the min, you can bet it all on baccarat.

using a betting system just gives people a false sense of security. my brothers girlfiriend just told me that her friend who works at the casino knows where all the good slot machines are and would hook me up (she knows i'm an avid gambler). even knowing where good machines are, or knowing that playing all coins on a slot machine improves your chances, doesn't take away the fact that YOU'RE STILL PLAYING A LOSING GAME!
when ppl say using oscar or martingale is better, it gives ploppies a sense that they can make money doing these things, and IMHO sets up a very dangerous scenario
 
Top