Then Why Count?

D

Deathangl13

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
"Progressive betting cannot overcome the house edge. If the house has a 1% edge, it doesn't matter if you bet $1,$2,$4,$8,$16,or $1000000000000000000, they will take 1% of that bet in the long run."

Found this quote and wondered... If that is true, than it has to be true for a counter using a bet spread. Think about it. A basic strategy player has the "advantage" at the same time as the counter in a given shoe, even if he's unaware. But say he's raising his bets at different intervals, maybe as a progressive player, he could be at any part of his bet spread when that advantage comes. If he's betting big at the right moment, he's got the advantage AND has a big bet out there. He might catch a blackjack, etc... If he's betting small when the advantage comes, he probably doesn't really lose anymore than the counter that has a big bet out and loses, which seems to be the norm these days. How many times have you run into a high count and lost 2 out of 3 big bets before it went south. Then right when you lower your bet to the minimum bet, bang... a blackjack.... Happens every night, many times over.... The advantage doesn't come from counting, it comes from the card composition on the table for a given hand and the composition of the remaining cards in the shoe. And if a progressive bettor can't overcome the house edge, than neither can a counter. They are essentially doing the same thing, it's just that one of them has foreknowledge of that composition. Either way though, the counter can lose big bets during the high count, and the progressive bettor can win big bets during a low count, just as the counter can win low bets during a low count and the progressive bettor can lose big bets during a high count. The truth is... we are gambling. We are progressively betting, like it or not. If that is not true, than a counter should have the advantage while flat betting....
 
Jack_Black

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
what are you doing up at this ungodly hour Ms. Deviant? also, what combination of cards are you holding up in your avatar?

Death, are you making a statement, or wanting the question to be answered?
 
iCountNTrack

iCountNTrack

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
Deathangl13 said:
"Progressive betting cannot overcome the house edge. If the house has a 1% edge, it doesn't matter if you bet $1,$2,$4,$8,$16,or $1000000000000000000, they will take 1% of that bet in the long run."

Found this quote and wondered... If that is true, than it has to be true for a counter using a bet spread. Think about it. A basic strategy player has the "advantage" at the same time as the counter in a given shoe, even if he's unaware. But say he's raising his bets at different intervals, maybe as a progressive player, he could be at any part of his bet spread when that advantage comes. If he's betting big at the right moment, he's got the advantage AND has a big bet out there. He might catch a blackjack, etc... If he's betting small when the advantage comes, he probably doesn't really lose anymore than the counter that has a big bet out and loses, which seems to be the norm these days. How many times have you run into a high count and lost 2 out of 3 big bets before it went south. Then right when you lower your bet to the minimum bet, bang... a blackjack.... Happens every night, many times over.... The advantage doesn't come from counting, it comes from the card composition on the table for a given hand and the composition of the remaining cards in the shoe. And if a progressive bettor can't overcome the house edge, than neither can a counter. They are essentially doing the same thing, it's just that one of them has foreknowledge of that composition. Either way though, the counter can lose big bets during the high count, and the progressive bettor can win big bets during a low count, just as the counter can win low bets during a low count and the progressive bettor can lose big bets during a high count. The truth is... we are gambling. We are progressively betting, like it or not. If that is not true, than a counter should have the advantage while flat betting....
Click to expand...
Seems to me that statistics is a lose notion in here :).
A) A card counter raises his bets when knows that the remaining shoe composition gives him an advantage, not based on a random sequences of winning or losing streaks.
B) When we say you have an advantage at positive True Counts, that means you have an AVERAGE advantage, so for instance at TC=+4 your advantage is about 2%, that does not necessarily mean that each time the TC=+4 you will have a 2% but on average you will.
C) Two strategies derive from card counting, a playing strategy and a betting strategy, if you are flat betting you basically have no betting strategy. While in a deeply dealt pitch game, the gains from playing strategy variations could be enormous (~20% ev), gains from playing strategy are minimal when compared to betting strategies in show games.
 
Lonesome Gambler

Lonesome Gambler

Well-Known Member
#6
#6
The answer is simple: counters make big bets in a fashion that has a direct coorelation to the remaining card composition. While a progression bettor may theoretically gain the same advantage as a counter by randomly placing the right bets at the right times, it's a statistical near-impossibility, just like a long term gambler overcoming odds. There is an obvious difference there, no?

Edit: beat me to the punch!
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
Deathangl13 said:
.. The truth is... we are gambling. We are progressively betting, like it or not. .....
Click to expand...
this part is imho factual, especially in the short term.
thing is, which is the most attractive gamble? a gamble for which one is clueless or a gamble upon which the decision is knowledge based?
 
Jack_Black

Jack_Black

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
the truth is.....we are gambling.

Very true. We are gambling, but we are gambling with an edge. If you were to plot our progress on a graph, the swings would be wild. If y=bankroll and x=hands. you would see incredible swings in both positive and negative y. But the further you go down the chart on x, you will see there is a slight progression up the y axis. assuming of course, you have mastered your game.

The progression bettor will see the same wild swings and a small upward trend, but statistically, there will always be a point that the +/- swing will go off the chart. And practically speaking, it is possible to make money with a progression bet, IF!!!!! you have an unlimited bankroll, and/or a table with no limit. Even if you were allowed to start your progression at $1, at some point in your progression betting career, you will have to make a $1,000,000 bet to have the system work.


btw, do you know of any famous professional progression bettors? Ones that make their living off of playing BJ this way, and not from the worthless books that they sell? No? I wonder why.
 
2

21gunsalute

Well-Known Member
#9
#9
Deathangl13 said:
How many times have you run into a high count and lost 2 out of 3 big bets before it went south.
Click to expand...
2 out of 3? I'd be thrilled if it were only 2 out 3. With me it's been 10 out of 10 or 12 out of 12. Every time the count gets high and I have max bets out I lose. Every single stinking time! I've dropped $1600 in the last week and half playing a $5-$60 spread.

Progression betting is stupid, but I used to make money flat betting against CSMs. Why the hell did I take up counting?
 
M

Martin Gayle

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
Deathangl13 said:
"Progressive betting cannot overcome the house edge. If the house has a 1% edge, it doesn't matter if you bet $1,$2,$4,$8,$16,or $1000000000000000000, they will take 1% of that bet in the long run."

Found this quote and wondered... If that is true, than it has to be true for a counter using a bet spread. Think about it. A basic strategy player has the "advantage" at the same time as the counter in a given shoe, even if he's unaware. But say he's raising his bets at different intervals, maybe as a progressive player, he could be at any part of his bet spread when that advantage comes. If he's betting big at the right moment, he's got the advantage AND has a big bet out there. He might catch a blackjack, etc... If he's betting small when the advantage comes, he probably doesn't really lose anymore than the counter that has a big bet out and loses, which seems to be the norm these days. How many times have you run into a high count and lost 2 out of 3 big bets before it went south. Then right when you lower your bet to the minimum bet, bang... a blackjack.... Happens every night, many times over.... The advantage doesn't come from counting, it comes from the card composition on the table for a given hand and the composition of the remaining cards in the shoe. And if a progressive bettor can't overcome the house edge, than neither can a counter. They are essentially doing the same thing, it's just that one of them has foreknowledge of that composition. Either way though, the counter can lose big bets during the high count, and the progressive bettor can win big bets during a low count, just as the counter can win low bets during a low count and the progressive bettor can lose big bets during a high count. The truth is... we are gambling. We are progressively betting, like it or not. If that is not true, than a counter should have the advantage while flat betting....
Click to expand...
I agree totally with the above logic.
In theory if a player only jumps his bet when the count is good then that player could be a playing with an advantage.

However, the theory falls short and the logic in the above is drastically flawed if one were to think that someone who randomly and progressivley increased their bet were to only do so when the composition was in the players favour.
 
D

Deathangl13

Well-Known Member
#12
#12
Lonesome Gambler said:
it's a statistical near-impossibility...
Click to expand...
That used to be my favorite saying... then I got humbled, now I realize in blackjack statistical near-impossibilities don't exist... Last night I watched a dealer levitate... :grin:
 
D

Deathangl13

Well-Known Member
#13
#13
iCountNTrack said:
Seems to me that statistics is a lose notion in here :).
A) A card counter raises his bets when knows that the remaining shoe composition gives him an advantage, not based on a random sequences of winning or losing streaks.
B) When we say you have an advantage at positive True Counts, that means you have an AVERAGE advantage, so for instance at TC=+4 your advantage is about 2%, that does not necessarily mean that each time the TC=+4 you will have a 2% but on average you will.
C) Two strategies derive from card counting, a playing strategy and a betting strategy, if you are flat betting you basically have no betting strategy. While in a deeply dealt pitch game, the gains from playing strategy variations could be enormous (~20% ev), gains from playing strategy are minimal when compared to betting strategies in show games.
Click to expand...
Right, I get that, but at TC= +4 the basic strategy player has that same 2% advantage, they just don't know it. And if a counter's betting strategy is the reason for the gains compared to a playing strategy... then his bets, as well as the flat bettor's AND the progressive bettor's, are still subject to the house edge in the long run... If, of course, that above statement is even true...
 
D

Deathangl13

Well-Known Member
#14
#14
Lonesome Gambler said:
There is an obvious difference there, no?
Click to expand...
No, if it is true that no matter what you bet, it is still subject to the house edge, why would it matter at what point the bet was placed? I was playing some months back and as I was positively progressing, After my 4th straight win I threw a $45 bet out there and caught a blackjack on the 5th win. Maybe it was a positive TC, I don't know, back then I didn't count, but whether the count was positive or negative I won "that hand" with a bigger bet. Now that I count, I've seen plenty of negative shoes that have thrown out blackjacks, and poitive shoes that didn't. What if a counter has big bets out in pos. TC and loses, then catches blackjacks at neg. TC with small bets out. Did I overcome the house on my $45 blackjack? Did the counter succumb to the house on his $10 blackjack?
 
D

Deathangl13

Well-Known Member
#15
#15
sagefr0g said:
this part is imho factual, especially in the short term.
thing is, which is the most attractive gamble? a gamble for which one is clueless or a gamble upon which the decision is knowledge based?
Click to expand...
No, you're right on the money, but in the long run, does it matter when we eventually succumb to the house edge?
 
D

Deathangl13

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
Jack_Black said:
btw, do you know of any famous professional progression bettors? Ones that make their living off of playing BJ this way, and not from the worthless books that they sell? No? I wonder why.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, there are counters making a living off of books as well... Ken Uston was down $35,000 after a 22 day period of playing positive shoes, and single deck games, betting with the TC and proper bankroll.... Now that's not the 'long run', but even in the long run he would theoretically be playing with a 1% advantage for example. Win $1,000, lose $900? $100 profit... Let's say he picked a date on which to produce the $100 profit, and you had to at least match it. You could go in the night before and win $100 progressive playing in probably less than an hour, without winning the $1,000 or losing the $900 first....
 
D

Deathangl13

Well-Known Member
#17
#17
21gunsalute said:
Progression betting is stupid, but I used to make money flat betting against CSMs.
Click to expand...
I've lost $900 with a combo of flat, and progressive betting, and I've won closer to $1,400 with it. At that point in time, I was $500 ahead. There have been smaller win and losses, but I've never "given it all back"... Now I count, and I've been doing well, but one night I won $5...

My brother won close to $8,000 in a 5 week period after our father passed away. Then one night, lost $800, came back the next day and got the $800 back plus $180. Lost $1,000, came back a few days later got the $1,000 back + $1,300. Won $1,450 clear the next day, then lost $2,000.... He stayed until noon the next day, all night and got his $2,000 back, but only broke even.... It's called a BANKROLL... He did nothing special, but he has the money to play.... He's a SGT. with the sheriff's office, and he no longer works details... He plays blackjack, and when he leaves for the casino, he says... "I'll be back, I'm going to work..."




21gunsalute said:
Every time the count gets high and I have max bets out I lose. Every single stinking time! I've dropped $1600 in the last week and half playing a $5-$60 spread.
Click to expand...
Just think, at some point... in the future, maybe... the 'long run'... if you're at a 1% advantage, you'll recoup the $1,600 plus $160 profit...
 
D

Deathangl13

Well-Known Member
#18
#18
Martin Gayle said:
I agree totally with the above logic.
In theory if a player only jumps his bet when the count is good then that player could be a playing with an advantage.
Click to expand...
But do they really have an advantage? Isn't that akin to "leaving when you're up"? What if you're wonging tables, and losing all the +TC hands as 21gunsalute said? What if you play during -TC and catch winning hands or good double downs and have your smallest bets out there? Seems like an awful lot of bankroll swinging, and variance for a 1% profit/advantage. My buddy has a business selling atv products, he makes about 20% profit when it's all said and done... and I thought THAT was low....
 
N

nsandford

New Member
#19
#19
Deathangl13 said:
What if you're wonging tables, and losing all the +TC hands as 21gunsalute said? What if you play during -TC and catch winning hands or good double downs and have your smallest bets out there?
Click to expand...
What if none of us exist and we're really the figment of someone else's imagination?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top