Tell me what you think

[GoodEye]

Im not an experienced blackjack player or card counter...but I have learned a lot from practicing and web sites like these.

I was wondering if anyone uses a strategy like this because it makes sense to me....

Lets say you start out playing/counting. When the count is low or (-) you bet the minimum of course. You will win some hands and lose some hands. When you win, you've bet one unit. When you lose, why not double your units on the next hand? The probability is better that you will win a hand after losing a hand, right? And if you do happen to lose two hands in a row, then why not bet 3 units. Because if you win that hand you get you money back. And after you win that 3 unit hand you should start again with one unit. With this strategy, you really shouldn't lose money since its highly unlikely that you get continuous losing hands especially playing with perfect basic strategy. Once the count gets high, then raise your bets.

 

[kewljason]

Im not an experienced blackjack player or card counter...but I have learned a lot from practicing and web sites like these.

I was wondering if anyone uses a strategy like this because it makes sense to me....

Lets say you start out playing/counting. When the count is low or (-) you bet the minimum of course. You will win some hands and lose some hands. When you win, you've bet one unit. When you lose, why not double your units on the next hand? The probability is better that you will win a hand after losing a hand, right? And if you do happen to lose two hands in a row, then why not bet 3 units. Because if you win that hand you get you money back. And after you win that 3 unit hand you should start again with one unit. With this strategy, you really shouldn't lose money since its highly unlikely that you get continuous losing hands especially playing with perfect basic strategy. Once the count gets high, then raise your bets.

what you are discribing is a progressive betting system. They don't work over the long run. As for you assumption that it's highly unlikely to get continuous losing hands while playing perfect basic strategy. Wrong. I don't really keep track of losing hands as by the time I realize I've lost a number in a row, its well into the streak, but I know I've lost a dozen hands or more numerous times. Other member here claim to have lost 20 or more hands in a row.

 

[Sonny]

The probability is better that you will win a hand after losing a hand, right?

No, the odds are pretty much always against you. You are almost always more likely to lose the next hand than to win it. That's where progression systems break down. You end up raising your bets when the house still has the edge, so you are just losing more money.

-Sonny-

 

[GoodEye]

ok, I see what yall mean. It doesn't work

 

[bj bob]

Im not an experienced blackjack player or card counter...but I have learned a lot from practicing and web sites like these.

I was wondering if anyone uses a strategy like this because it makes sense to me....

Lets say you start out playing/counting. When the count is low or (-) you bet the minimum of course. You will win some hands and lose some hands. When you win, you've bet one unit. When you lose, why not double your units on the next hand? The probability is better that you will win a hand after losing a hand, right? And if you do happen to lose two hands in a row, then why not bet 3 units. Because if you win that hand you get you money back. And after you win that 3 unit hand you should start again with one unit. With this strategy, you really shouldn't lose money since its highly unlikely that you get continuous losing hands especially playing with perfect basic strategy. Once the count gets high, then raise your bets.

First, I think this thread would be better suited for the Voodoo Forum; that being said, you are ignoring the fact that the TC is the sole criterion on which to base any bet changes, now past W/L hands. It is true that you stand a slightly better chance of winning the next hand after a loss, but let's further examine that concept a little deeper. It's not that you have lost the last hand by itself, but rather how you lost it. Let's take a single deck game, heads up and fresh a deck. You're dealt a 9,10 for a total of 19 so you naturally stand, now the dealer has a ten up and flip a ten and beats you with a 20. In my world the deck now stands at -2 TC and provides a rather negative expectation for the rest of the deck, at least for a short while. Conversely, if you happen to beat the dealer with a 6 card hand and after the dealer drew several low cards herself, the current TC at that point would probably be favorable for a max bet if you could get away with it.
In any event progressions such as you have described above turn out, in the end, to be futile.Just buckle down and learn your BS and then you'll be ready to tackle anyone of the proven counting systems.

 

[sagefr0g]

Im not an experienced blackjack player or card counter...but I have learned a lot from practicing and web sites like these.

I was wondering if anyone uses a strategy like this because it makes sense to me....

Lets say you start out playing/counting. When the count is low or (-) you bet the minimum of course. You will win some hands and lose some hands. When you win, you've bet one unit. When you lose, why not double your units on the next hand? The probability is better that you will win a hand after losing a hand, right? And if you do happen to lose two hands in a row, then why not bet 3 units. Because if you win that hand you get you money back. And after you win that 3 unit hand you should start again with one unit. With this strategy, you really shouldn't lose money since its highly unlikely that you get continuous losing hands especially playing with perfect basic strategy. Once the count gets high, then raise your bets.

it's not like your totally off base in your thinking here. just, realize though that you could have loads of losing hands all in a row. so, it seems your betting scheme would be like a progression which could spell trouble.

still part of your reasoning does fall in line with what's known as situational betting. but situational betting has only a very weak advantage and from what i can understand of it would have you often betting up into situations that in reality have no advantage.
here are some links on that sort of stuff:
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm
and
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=134835&postcount=44

one thing to realize is that over the long haul your always more likely to lose the next hand than you are to win the next hand.
the point is what you really want to do is know when the best money making hands such as snappers, successful double downs, successful splits and successful insurance bets are likely to present.
knowing that, you know when the best time to bet up is. that way you can overcome the fact that your going to lose more hands than you win.
counting cards is the way to know when the best money making hands such as snappers, successful double downs, successful splits and successful insurance bets are likely to present.

 

[insomniac392]

Im not an experienced blackjack player or card counter...but I have learned a lot from practicing and web sites like these.

I was wondering if anyone uses a strategy like this because it makes sense to me....

Lets say you start out playing/counting. When the count is low or (-) you bet the minimum of course. You will win some hands and lose some hands. When you win, you've bet one unit. When you lose, why not double your units on the next hand? The probability is better that you will win a hand after losing a hand, right? And if you do happen to lose two hands in a row, then why not bet 3 units. Because if you win that hand you get you money back. And after you win that 3 unit hand you should start again with one unit. With this strategy, you really shouldn't lose money since its highly unlikely that you get continuous losing hands especially playing with perfect basic strategy. Once the count gets high, then raise your bets.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Martingale system yet... maybe I overlooked it. In any case, you should read up on it and *why* it doesn't work.

Best Wishes,
Kyle

 

[kewljason]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Martingale system yet... maybe I overlooked it. In any case, you should read up on it and *why* it doesn't work.
Best Wishes,
Kyle

Martingale is a progressive betting system, which I believe someone did mention. (post #2)

 

[MoneyPlays]

Ouch!

Im not an experienced blackjack player or card counter...but I have learned a lot from practicing and web sites like these.

I was wondering if anyone uses a strategy like this because it makes sense to me....

Lets say you start out playing/counting. When the count is low or (-) you bet the minimum of course. You will win some hands and lose some hands. When you win, you've bet one unit. When you lose, why not double your units on the next hand? The probability is better that you will win a hand after losing a hand, right? And if you do happen to lose two hands in a row, then why not bet 3 units. Because if you win that hand you get you money back. And after you win that 3 unit hand you should start again with one unit. With this strategy, you really shouldn't lose money since its highly unlikely that you get continuous losing hands especially playing with perfect basic strategy. Once the count gets high, then raise your bets.

And here's the real kicker: Even when the TC is high + count, you can STILL lose several hands in a row. Just like you sometimes win at negative counts. Crazy game, this blackjack.

 

[standard toaster]

Here is the beginning of a book I began to write in my free time. In the second section labeled VooDoo it will explain all about why these types of systems will eventually fail. Although I am not a professional writer I believe it will be able to help you understand exactly why this system fails

(Dead link: http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=988174&da=y)

 

[Kasi]

Here is the beginning of a book I began to write in my free time. In the second section labeled VooDoo it will explain all about why these types of systems will eventually fail. Although I am not a professional writer I believe it will be able to help you understand exactly why this system fails..

Nice job stan toast.

Here's what struck me lol.

Probably it's just a typo when you say roll of $24480 vs perhaps roll of $20480 to cover 12 consecutive losses.

I wish you'd specify whether it was a single or double 0 roulette game.

Anyway, you point out one went from $20K to $60+K in 9000 spins or so and call it "lucky". How lucky was it?

Does going from $20K to $60K mean I won 4000 "series", winning 1 unit of $10 on each series betting Martingdale? Maybe some might like that high perecentage of winning a series?

Then you say shortly after you lost 12 in a row losing "everything" when your roll dropped from $60K back to original $20K. Sounds like one still hasn't lost a damn thing since one has only lost one's winnings.

It looks like, even after 10,000 spins, the Martingdale guy still has more roll than the flat-bet guy. This could represent close to 300 hours of play at a full table.

Not to mention that 12 consecutive losses would represent a $20K loss so what was going on to realize the $40K loss at 9000 spins? You lost 12, went down to $40K and kept Martingindaling anyway? Why did you even stop there anyway since one still hasn''t lost orig $20K roll?

It looks like one may have lost $20K even earlier than that if one wishes to estimate chances of losing $20K before losing all if one assumes each series begins wth the same $20K roll.

I'd rather you focused more on the offset of the higher %age of winning a series and gaining 1 unit in that series, beginning each series with the $20K roll.

After all, it's only that higher $age of winning a series and one unit that makes voodoo worthwhile to a player who actually may only play a few thousand spins on a trip while still being subjected to the constant HA.

Equal rights to higher % of winning a unit vs losing whole roll while voodooing vs lower % of winning a unit while flat-betting over the same number of spins.

Also, what's up with SP21 having an 8% HA :grin:

If you see what I mean lol.

 

[standard toaster]

Nice job stan toast.

Here's what struck me lol.

Probably it's just a typo when you say roll of $24480 vs perhaps roll of $20480 to cover 12 consecutive losses.

I wish you'd specify whether it was a single or double 0 roulette game.

Anyway, you point out one went from $20K to $60+K in 9000 spins or so and call it "lucky". How lucky was it?

Does going from $20K to $60K mean I won 4000 "series", winning 1 unit of $10 on each series betting Martingdale? Maybe some might like that high perecentage of winning a series?

Then you say shortly after you lost 12 in a row losing "everything" when your roll dropped from $60K back to original $20K. Sounds like one still hasn't lost a damn thing since one has only lost one's winnings.

It looks like, even after 10,000 spins, the Martingdale guy still has more roll than the flat-bet guy. This could represent close to 300 hours of play at a full table.

Not to mention that 12 consecutive losses would represent a $20K loss so what was going on to realize the $40K loss at 9000 spins? You lost 12, went down to $40K and kept Martingindaling anyway? Why did you even stop there anyway since one still hasn''t lost orig $20K roll?

It looks like one may have lost $20K even earlier than that if one wishes to estimate chances of losing $20K before losing all if one assumes each series begins wth the same $20K roll.

I'd rather you focused more on the offset of the higher %age of winning a series and gaining 1 unit in that series, beginning each series with the $20K roll.

After all, it's only that higher $age of winning a series and one unit that makes voodoo worthwhile to a player who actually may only play a few thousand spins on a trip while still being subjected to the constant HA.

Equal rights to higher % of winning a unit vs losing whole roll while voodooing vs lower % of winning a unit while flat-betting over the same number of spins.

Also, what's up with SP21 having an 8% HA :grin:

If you see what I mean lol.

Now that I look back at that that is the old unedited version of the article.

The 8% ha for spanish 21 was later found and changed to .78%:laugh:

Now with the simulation of the martingale system I did not put togther that simulation or run the results. That was taken from from (Dead link: http://www.okthen.com) and I claim no rights to owning this material in anyway.
The real graph that I want Voodoo players to examine is the final one of the 1,000,000 iterations of the martingale system.
I do not have time to work out the other questions and comments right now but ill get back to you on that kasi

 

[Kasi]

The real graph that I want Voodoo players to examine is the final one of the 1,000,000 iterations of the martingale system...

That's kool ST - guess the SP21 game was one of the versions that suck lol.

No big deal on the other stuff either - personally I don't know why everyone seems to assume any person using "voodoo" is a complete idiot and would actually assume he can overcome the HA.

Except for the fact a bunch actually state they seem to think so from time to time lmao.

I enjoy betting systems in -EV games yet I know I cannot overcome the HA. Proving so is trivial to me.

Now I know how the caveman in GEICO ads feels when they say it's so simple a caveman can do it. He is capable of doing and understanding much more but nobody knows it.

As a voodoo person, all I care about is the higher chance of achieving a goal betting in some way with some roll vs flat-betting over the same amount of time.

So, yes, get back to me on all that other stuff so maybe if I go to Vegas, and have so much money and can only play for 5000 spins on a trip what my chances of being ahead may be vs losing all.

To be fair to both sides perhaps, I just thought your paper should explore that other side of the question - how a betting system exchanges higher probability of achieving a goal vs losing more money while trying to.

 

[standard toaster]

That's kool ST - guess the SP21 game was one of the versions that suck lol.

No big deal on the other stuff either - personally I don't know why everyone seems to assume any person using "voodoo" is a complete idiot and would actually assume he can overcome the HA.

Except for the fact a bunch actually state they seem to think so from time to time lmao.

I enjoy betting systems in -EV games yet I know I cannot overcome the HA. Proving so is trivial to me.

Now I know how the caveman in GEICO ads feels when they say it's so simple a caveman can do it. He is capable of doing and understanding much more but nobody knows it.

As a voodoo person, all I care about is the higher chance of achieving a goal betting in some way with some roll vs flat-betting over the same amount of time.

So, yes, get back to me on all that other stuff so maybe if I go to Vegas, and have so much money and can only play for 5000 spins on a trip what my chances of being ahead may be vs losing all.

To be fair to both sides perhaps, I just thought your paper should explore that other side of the question - how a betting system exchanges higher probability of achieving a goal vs losing more money while trying to.

I do not think people assume someone that uses VooDoo is a complete idiot.

Seriously how many of us thought we found the perfect betting system at one point... many the martingale.

Without advanced knowledge of gambling and computer simulations one would think it is fool proof.

I would be willing to be the best the counters at one time played a progression system.

Although my days of progression are over for a rec player that is thinking only about the short run for making it big or going home broke the progression is the way to go.

 

[Kasi]

I do not think people assume someone that uses VooDoo is a complete idiot.
Without advanced knowledge of gambling and computer simulations one would think it is fool proof.

Sorry stan toast. I did not mean I thought you thought that.

Perhaps I just spoke to my general frustration of what I consider to be the pejorative nature of entitling this thread "Voodoo whatever it is".

Nobody thinks a voodoo witch doctor knows his ass from third base.

It's a prejudiced term to me that has, an underlying assumption, "one is an idiot if one thinks one can overcome a HA with a betting system".

Sure, just because it would take advanced knowledge of gambling and computer simulations to analyze how much roll it would take to be ahead over how long betting some "system", let's just not bother with that at all due to it's difficulty.

Let's just stick to the easy crap of the AP world that has been analyzed to death and then some just because it's so easy to do.

"Voodoo" and AP ain't that much different in methodology when you get down to it, if u ask me. They both might want to know chances of being ahead over how long with so much betting some particular way.

Using betting systems does not make one a second-class citizen in some way. It probably covers 99% of the people who gamble. If you ask me, if anybody deserves the title of "voodoo", it's AP's who work their black magic on a -EV game and turn it into gold.

Guess I'd prefer a more neutral, a more politically correct, title of "Betting Systems" or something so I don't feel like I'm participating in some kind of "hate" crime when I post here merely becasue people like to use a betting system for their entertainment.

 

[rrwoods]

We call them "voodoo" because they don't work. Advantage play "turns a negative EV game into a positive one" because it works. Math and statistics are at work in advantage play; wishful thinking is at work in progression systems. Clear distinction.

 

[Kasi]

We call them "voodoo" because they don't work. Advantage play "turns a negative EV game into a positive one" because it works. Math and statistics are at work in advantage play; wishful thinking is at work in progression systems. Clear distinction.

Voodoo (think betting systems) does not work in the sense it overcomes a -HA. It blindly bets according to the rules of the "betting system" without regard to count.

It's goal is not to win money forever. It's goal is to win some amount using some betting system with some roll in some fixed period of time and take advantage of the fact the chances of winning a goal will have a higher probability of success. Trading many small wins for fewer large losses in effect.

More for the guy with $100 or $1000 or $5000 bucks wanting to increase his chances of coming out a little ahead over a weekends play and who doesn't care that much about the small probability of losing it all in that amount of time. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

Math is equally at work in both voodoo (think betting systems) and AP. Neither can change the laws of probability.

Wishful thinking is at work for an AP guy too who, in effect, while using a progesssion system except one based on advantage at each count, can yet guarantee his ruin by using the wrong progression overbetting his advantage.

I still prefer a more neutral term like "betting systems" with the caveat it is understood any betting system will not overcome HA.

Maybe it would lead to more analysis of how likely much roll it would take to win so much in some period of time using some defined betting system.

More stuff like, what I consider to be anyway, Miplet's great work on Oscar's grind that, I think, could be adapted to any even-money bet. I love that stuff.

Maybe stuff could be extended to weird stuff like using Martingdale with BJ, a concept I don't actually immediately grasp since noone ever defines the winning goal of a series of bets using Martingdale. Is one's playing strategy designed to only win or lose 1 bet etc. What constitutes a "winning series"? etc.

But, I would like to say, at least here one can actually discuss betting systems, even if it may be called "voodoo", which is more than it can be at other sites who refuse to even broach the subject. And, for that, I am grateful. Elsewhere "voodoo" is "taboo" lol.

 

[rrwoods]

Neither can change the laws of probability.

True -- but legitimate forms of advantage play take advantage of those laws to produce favorable outcomes. Betting systems do not.

But, I would like to say, at least here one can actually discuss betting systems, even if it may be called "voodoo", which is more than it can be at other sites who refuse to even broach the subject. And, for that, I am grateful. Elsewhere "voodoo" is "taboo" lol.

I agree completely It's one of the things that drew me to this forum.

 

[fredperson]

But, I would like to say, at least here one can actually discuss betting systems, even if it may be called "voodoo", which is more than it can be at other sites who refuse to even broach the subject. And, for that, I am grateful. Elsewhere "voodoo" is "taboo" lol.

Really....It wasn't too long ago that Sonny threatened to ban me if I continued to explain and defend a non-counting system. Interesting ?

 

[johndoe]

Really....It wasn't too long ago that Sonny threatened to ban me if I continued to explain and defend a non-counting system. Interesting ?

If you keep it on the "Voodoo" section it should be fine. And please remember that the issue is not "counting vs non-counting". It's "things that can possibly work, vs those that cannot."

But everyone is pretty tired of hearing about "new" betting strategies that can beat the house. It's been done to death.