The fools club

F

fredperson

Active Member
A quote of JOHNDOE from another thread:

"Anyone who uses a progression system and expects to win is a fool. And anyone who doesn't think that math and simulations can prove it, is either ignorant or completely deluded."

I would like to be the charter member in a new BJ forum club.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
johndoe said:
Silly. Mere MATH can't be used to prove anything! :laugh:
Click to expand...
my question is, does betting stuff get a bit dicey?

like ok, i don't fully understand this stuff : http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/mandk.htm (Archive copy), and well, the previous link of Reid's i just take on faith being to lazy too do the math.

i mean ok, i don't even really know what utility math stuff is, but i think i do understand that utility of a bet is different for different people, so what i think that means is that utility math must have a subjective function involved, especially if psychology is at all involved.

further more i question the capability of a human to function like a computer for the long run, but i don't mean billions of hands, but more i mean consistent human performance on a par with a computer for 'extended' periods of time.
this is why i find ExhibitCAA's problem interesting : http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=15314

like ok, isn't an imperfect human trying to perform like a computer for 'extended' periods of time similar to the guy who uses his best guess in ExhibitCAA's OCP game?

lol, i'll freely admit i don't fully understand the OCP game, how it's properly played or even a full understanding that the guy using his best guess in the OCP game has a lot of ground to make up compared to the agnostic friend's betting methodology. but, again i believe that is the case.

whatever, i believe the salient point is the question of knowing that you don't know compared to 'thinking' you might know, sort of thing and what the ramifications of that scenario might be.

so ok, lets forget OG and just take a flat betting basic strategy player and say a card counter for comparison. like, i know Jacobson explains in "The Blackjack Zone" how mistakes a'int all that much, sort of thing.
thing is i think that's sort of short term mistakes, maybe not a lot of consistent mistakes with a lot of max bets out sort of thing.
just i'll guess maybe a screwing up card counter may be worse off than a flat betting basic strategy player in the short term and maybe the long term.
kind of how like it is for the best guessing player and the agnostic friend in ExhibittCAA's OCP example.

point being, maybe betting stuff and comparing different ways and all is a bit dicey, lol. like maybe especially if one is not a pro playing loads of hands with near perfection, sort of thing. :rolleyes::whip:
 
J

johndoe

Well-Known Member
Anyone can learn to play like a computer, as long as the computer was programmed to play in a reasonably simple way. And you can test your skills pretty easily with QFIT's software. You can even program a sim to make mistakes at some rate, if you wanted to mimic what an imperfect human would do.

But absolutely: if you're making too many mistakes in counting or playing, it's FAR better to stick with BS and table minimums. The less you bet, the better.
 
S

shadroch

Well-Known Member
I'm still waiting for someone to show how an Oscars Grind with a stop limit won't work. The only simulation I've ever seen shows that with an unlimited payroll that once every 5,000 series,you'll lose your entire BR.
If it is so set in stone that OG is a sure fire loser,why can't anyone simply produce sim to show it?
My real life experiance is that with a 5 unit win stop,and a 20 unit loss stop, I'm way ahead. My winning sessions outnumber my losing ones by almost 9 to 1.
The bottom line is that there are times when counting is not possible- machines that shuffle after every hand,machines where you can't be certain where the shuffle is( and these seem to be growing in popularity) and places that use CSMs.
It would be great if one could count or hole card these machines, but one can't. Yet by using OG, I've been able to eeeak out small profits and also earn some pretty decent comps and cashback bonuses.
I've read repeatedly that anything that puts more money on the table will cause you to lose more money. What I would say to that is that the more money one puts on the table, the more and better comps one earns.
 
C

Canceler

Well-Known Member
Absolutely no disrespect intended, but...

shadroch said:
My winning sessions outnumber my losing ones by almost 9 to 1.
Click to expand...
It is well-known that some progression systems will give you many winning sessions, balanced out by the occasional horrendous loss. Do you see why a statement like this tells far less than the full story?
 
daddybo

daddybo

Well-Known Member
Canceler said:
Absolutely no disrespect intended, but...


It is well-known that some progression systems will give you many winning sessions, balanced out by the occasional horrendous loss. Do you see why a statement like this tells far less than the full story?
Click to expand...

Okay... somebody needs to make a flow chart or a matrix or something....
1. Not a clue how to play/ having fun.
2. Plays hunches/gut feelings
3. Sorta knows BS
4. Perfect BS
5. Card Counting
6. Sorta knows BS/Bets Martigale
7. Perfect BS/Bets Martingale
8. Counts/Bets Martingale
9. Psyhcic/ bets max on winners/min on losers ...etc etc..

You get the idea..

And add my surefire way.. I bang my fingers on the table. If the longest one tingles.. I hit... If the next one tingles.. I stand... if more that one tingles.. I double down. If I lose a hand... I Triple Up on the next one.. :laugh:
 
F

fredperson

Active Member
sagefr0g said:
some thing to read and understand before joining the club:
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm (Archive copy)
Click to expand...
There is absolutely NO question, mathemetically or logically, that any pure progression system can overcome a game that has a negative expectation.

However, that doesn't prove that a system that happens to employ a progression technique as a part of it's overall strategy is not valid.

This is especially appropriate with BJ when used with a positive progression because of the possibility of doubles/spits, and naturals when large bets are made. By the way, it's probable that this same characteristic makes counting systems profitable.
 
S

shadroch

Well-Known Member
Canceler said:
Absolutely no disrespect intended, but...


It is well-known that some progression systems will give you many winning sessions, balanced out by the occasional horrendous loss. Do you see why a statement like this tells far less than the full story?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
However, if you read my full statement,I said how my sessions were either 5 wins or 20 losses. Please explain how I'm going to have a horrible loss when the losses are capped at 20 units? I could possibly have five or more sessions where I lost 20 units each time, but even that would give me a 100 unit loss. Nowhere near what I've already won.
I'm not arguing or saying that OG is better than card counting, but the way I use it,I truly believe it is better than simply flat betting, if only because I get more money on the table and therefore more comps off a machine that you can't count on.
At this particular casino ,you can play DD H17,D10/11 no DAS but you need to play $25 a hand to be rated or I can play a 6D machine with H17, DOA,DAS surrender,at $1 a hand minimum and earn comps and free rooms for my play.
I also happen to enjoy this casino for both it's food, it's entertainment and it's central location.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
johndoe said:
Anyone can learn to play like a computer, as long as the computer was programmed to play in a reasonably simple way. And you can test your skills pretty easily with QFIT's software. You can even program a sim to make mistakes at some rate, if you wanted to mimic what an imperfect human would do.
Click to expand...
yes, yes & yes, lol.
But absolutely: if you're making too many mistakes in counting or playing, it's FAR better to stick with BS and table minimums. The less you bet, the better.
Click to expand...
well ok, and i think the salient point is does one really know what one thinks one knows. like Bojack tests his team mates to make sure they are up to snuff.
but who tests Bojack and if someone does, then who tests the tester?
doesn't really matter i guess, heck if your good your good.:)

so anyway, we can't all be Bojack, or if we could at least maybe we are not and maybe probably won't be.
so that doesn't mean we can't play blackjack as best we can if we want to and hope to make some money.

this is where i believe utility plays a part.
and yes, ok, flat betting is negative expectation.
below is an image of flat betting about two shoes (26 hands) and an image of counting about two shoes (26 hands). the flat bet guy expects to lose $0.00 and the counter expects to make $2.00 .
also the flat bet guy might if he hits one standard deviation lose $30 and the counter might if he hits one standard deviation lose $93 .

so from a utility perspective if say your only gonna play maybe about two shoes ( i guess it depends on who you are, ect.) how does one decide which to do, count and risk losing $93 for a chance of winning $2 or, flat bet and risk losing $30 for a chance of making nothing?
couldn't either player get lucky and make some amount more than expectation? so would the question of luck in that sense be a factor in the decision?

does your decision on what to do above on some day have any relevance for what might happen another day and the decision you make on that other day? i think not, wouldn't to think otherwise be the gambler's fallacy?

i guess the point is, can't ones decision on how to play have to do with one's goals and hopes, not just goals?
i mean if it can be goals and hopes then i really can't see the harm in dabbling with counting, flat betting, or OG for that matter.
 

Attachments

creeping panther

creeping panther

Banned
Fools club

fredperson said:
A quote of JOHNDOE from another thread:

"Anyone who uses a progression system and expects to win is a fool. And anyone who doesn't think that math and simulations can prove it, is either ignorant or completely deluded."

I would like to be the charter member in a new BJ forum club.
Click to expand...
Check this scenario.

6D, das, doa, ls, ddosa, 1.5 to 1.8, split to 4, s-17, go from 1 to 2 at will and back again.

You count the deck and use that and indice plays to rule your play decisions.
You always play 2 spots. When you win you add to your betting stack by 25% on the winning hand, when you lose you drop to the base bet and start the pos progression again. You play perfect according to the count. When you get to the 3 deck mark you then bet strickly by the count using a defined spread but under all circumstances use the pos. progression unless the 3 deck mark is better.

I will say this, in the last 10 years when I employed this strategy I have emptied the chip trays where this game is offered on 4 occasions by the end of the night, when the tables closed. I have found this strategy to be extremely powerfull when used at this game as described. And in the last 10 years I have played DD 80% of the time. Playing in this way can be very confusing to the eye.

CP
 
C

chitown

New Member
shadroch said:
I'm still waiting for someone to show how an Oscars Grind with a stop limit won't work. The only simulation I've ever seen shows that with an unlimited payroll that once every 5,000 series,you'll lose your entire BR.
If it is so set in stone that OG is a sure fire loser,why can't anyone simply produce sim to show it?
My real life experiance is that with a 5 unit win stop,and a 20 unit loss stop, I'm way ahead. My winning sessions outnumber my losing ones by almost 9 to 1.
The bottom line is that there are times when counting is not possible- machines that shuffle after every hand,machines where you can't be certain where the shuffle is( and these seem to be growing in popularity) and places that use CSMs.
It would be great if one could count or hole card these machines, but one can't. Yet by using OG, I've been able to eeeak out small profits and also earn some pretty decent comps and cashback bonuses.
I've read repeatedly that anything that puts more money on the table will cause you to lose more money. What I would say to that is that the more money one puts on the table, the more and better comps one earns.
Click to expand...
Im finding that OG with win and stop loss limits is working great for me. Some people can go ahead and not believe it if they want but its working for me and until it stops working im going to continue to use it.
 
S

shadroch

Well-Known Member
You do realize that as long as you continue to use Oscars Grind, at some point something horrible will happen and you will die. Seriously, using OG will not prevent you from dying a natural death. If you don't believe me,just run a few sims.
It also doesn't prevent lice nor is it very effective at preventing male pattern baldness. You've been warned.
 
S

shadroch

Well-Known Member
nottooshabby said:
Double down on split aces
Click to expand...
Meaning you split aces and can use each as an eleven, or you hit the ace,get a six and can double dow on the A/6.
I've never seen this offered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top