Blackjack betting system interest thread

First of all, I anticipate a lot of flak coming from you guys, but take it easy on me! I promise you this thread isn't like any other "oh hey look I got a betting system that makes $$..."

If you're gonna rip on me at least read the the "properties of this betting system" section first.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How should I start? Any intelligent member of this forums should automatically be hostile towards me after reading the title. I'll start by saying I don't even have a system yet and this is just the interest thread for it. I'll reveal some properties of this betting system and I'm curious to as to what everyone else thinks of it. I GUARANTEE you the system I have in mind is significantly different than any other system. I know that's what they all say, which is why I'll list some properties of this system so you can see for yourself.

I've always had a problem with the consensus-like attitude that all betting systems are worthless. Yes, I 100% understand where you're coming from if you think that. I consider myself an AP, a mathematician, and someone who takes numbers seriously. I completely agree with you can't change the EV of the game with any betting system (except this one). But that doesn't make them completely worthless in my opinion. This is a topic for another day, but for now I'll just list some uses for betting systems other than changing EV: Reduce variance, impress friends/women, take advantage of promotions, reduce heat (by looking like a ploppie), etc.

As the previous paragraph hinted, this system WILL BE ABLE TO INCREASE THE EV. I'll admit, one of the things that I think might ultimately render my system useless is that the increase in EV from the system may or may not be enough to overcome the inherent house edge. Especially with more brutal rule sets, and I'm not even considering 6:5 blackjack at the moment. My intuitions says it should be doable for all common rule sets, but to be conservative I'll just limit it to liberal strip rules <0.3% HE for now.

I KNOW WHAT EV IS. For god's sake if you're going to insult me at least say "I don't think your system can increase EV" instead of "I don't think you know what EV is."

So currently, I have the system in conceptual mode. I have not determined the exact procedure, bet amounts, and EV gain. I have the thought that I am quite confident with that I expect to gain EV. To bring the thought into an actual system won't be an easy task, could take weeks, or even months. I would test it with blackjack simulation programs with a statistically significant enough sample size to make sure my system is indeed +EV. Unfortunately, a big part of the problem is that I have no clue how to use any of the blackjack simulation software, let alone how to program a betting system into it. I would have to learn all that, which would make designing the betting system take even longer. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes more than a year.

I've only been gambling for 4 months and I know literally everyone on this forums has been doing it much longer. I hope my mathematical abilities and instinct can carry me through this tough project. I do believe I have a very good understanding of blackjack, which is the game I played the most in this 4 months, to be able to make this system. Once again, this is an "interest thread", to see how realistic you guys think this is. Please let me know your thoughts. I know I'm not revealing the most important question "Just why do you think this is +EV?", but in time, I will reveal it. Not now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without futher ado,

The properties of my system


1: This system is not for sale and will never be for sale.

This system is for my academic interest in the subject. In fact, this system ultimately isn't about making money. A +5% EV and a +0.5% EV means almost the same to me. All I care about is this system poses an academic challenge to the current consensus thought of no betting system can change the EV of any game. As long as the overall EV is positive, that's all that matters to me. I'm sure some of you who think you have a good system is probably saying right now, "Pfft, my system guarantees $50 an hour and yours makes like $2 an hour." well, fk you.


2: This system is for blackjack, and will not work for any other game.

Each game is different and hence most systems will not work across games due to individual game peculiarities. Ever tried martingale on pai gow poker or baccarat banker? You know it won't work. Blackjack is the game I'm most comfortable with. Don't ask me about any other games. This is all I have planned for now. I also have no plans for blackjack variants for the same reason. This system is for standard, 3:2 blackjack.

3: There will be NO HIDDEN -EV BRANCH in my system.

Yeah, you read it right. 100% of the betting systems you see claimed as "money printer" has this problem. "Ooo, look at me, I found a way to make you gain $1 99.9% of the time and lose $1000 0.1% of the time. I have a winning system"

My system does not deceive you by secretly hiding an extreme -EV case that you're not likely to encounter. Such as running out of money to double in martingale. My system will be +EV, and it even may not work well in the short run! How's that for a change! But in the long run, +EV will pull through.

Once again my system does not tend to your short term gain, it's purly EV based, and in the long run it will become clear. IMO the long run wouldn't need to be very long either.


4: You must play basic strategy solidly.

Errors will cost you but that's not my system's fault. Playing perfect basic is not much to ask for, right?

However I might ask you to take even money all the time, and insurance some of the time. Yes I know they're the same damn thing. This *may* be the only exception to deviating from basic strategy. Otherwise I expect you to play basic strategy perfectly.


5: You do not need to count cards.

This is not a card counting system. This is a betting system. You will not be counting cards. There is no wong in/out. I would, however, need you to either mentally or on paper mark down your wins and losses. My system, like any other betting system bases your decisions on the results on previous hands. However mine is much more complicated so a pen and a paper might be necessary if you can't handle it all in your head.


6: Peculiarities within the game will be treated as different things.

Obviously it would be stupid for any betting system to treat a natural blackjack, a regular win, and a double win the same. They don't even pay the same! So for peculiarities of the game such as win, lose, double win, double lose, split win, split lose, split + double and all the things with that, blackjack, blackjack vs blackjack (even money), and many more, these will be treated differently for obvious reasons.

7: A bet spread will be required.

Name me a single betting system that does not have bet spread. However, I'm not asking for ridiculous 1-100,000 bet spread. The standard 1-500 to 1-2500 you see in typical casinos is more than sufficient. Obviously, with any functional betting system (which there is none right now), the higher the bet spread the better the system will work. While we're on it, my system is designed for real casinos so do consider things like promotions, comps etc. I will ask you not to tip, however. This system really can't afford you tipping away your already low EV to begin with.

8: You can use this system to make money, but if you do that you're on your own.

Once again, my system is designed as an academic challenge to the consensus that betting systems are useless and can not change the EV of a game. I did not design this game for money making, although you certainly can do that if you want. But if you do that, let me ask you one question, why don't you just count cards instead? Even after I design this system, I'll still count cards when I'm in the casino instead of using this system. Ok, perhaps your answer is "Because you don't get heat for using a betting system but you do for counting cards." True, you have a point there. Most likely if you go into a casino right now and show the pitboss that you're simply marking down your win/loss, and you will STRICTLY follow your system, they'll allow you to do it like they do with baccarat and roulette. You can do it all the way until my system becomes popular (which I don't intend it to be), receive absolutely no heat in the duration, but how long will that last? If my system functions well enough for you to use it regularly to make money, it will absolutely get popularity fast, and once the pit bosses realize that for whatever reason this system is working, you'll start to get heat again. Sure you don't get heat right now because in the current gaming environment no betting system wins, but when that changes, don't come to me. I'll tell you "I never intended this to be for money making to begin with."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's all for now. Do you think I'm crazy? or do you think I have a chance of all the properties I said about my system is true? Let me know. And if you didn't read this far I hope you won't be commenting.

Everyone knows betting systems can be +EV. Card counting has been mathematically proven independently dozens of times.

Quote: geoff

Everyone knows betting systems can be +EV. Card counting has been mathematically proven independently dozens of times.

Quote: neutrino

5: You do not need to count cards.

Quote: neutrino

And if you didn't read this far I hope you won't be commenting

It's ok, I expect people to comment without reading at least 10 more times in this thread.

Is there a reason for posting a wall of preamble that no one is going to bother reading instead of just the system? How long is the system?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Is there a reason for posting a wall of preamble that no one is going to bother reading instead of just the system? How long is the system?

Quote: Neutrino

So currently, I have the system in conceptual mode. I have not determined the exact procedure, bet amounts, and EV gain. I have the thought that I am quite confident with that I expect to gain EV. To bring the thought into an actual system won't be an easy task, could take weeks, or even months. I would test it with blackjack simulation programs with a statistically significant enough sample size to make sure my system is indeed +EV. Unfortunately, a big part of the problem is that I have no clue how to use any of the blackjack simulation software, let alone how to program a betting system into it. I would have to learn all that, which would make designing the betting system take even longer. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes more than a year.

It's ok, I expect people to comment without reading at least 9 more times in this thread.

Quote: Neutrino

It's ok, I expect people to comment without reading at least 9 more times in this thread.

Of course no one is going to read the whole thing. It's several screens full of nonsense.

Here is my suggestion.

If you feel like you are on to something, develop it as far as you can go. If you are stuck with some mathematical calculations or simulations then there are a myriad of guys on here who can help you plug your info into a model that can run down all the stuff you need.

Once that is done you can go into an actual casino (if you want to) and do some trial runs. I'm sure there would even be some guys on here that would volunteer their time to try and help you test it out? All in the name of gaming science?

The problem how I see it is that the people on this site are very sceptical and you cannot really blame them. If they cannot see a physical system which they themselves can run and analyze, then it would be very hard to give you any type of information or an well formed opinion.

However, because you have made at least some sense in the past I would be willing to give you a shot and see what you come up with.

Develop this thing and then present a more fnished product. Currently you don't have much for the math guys to sink their teeth into.

You gotta give a little love to take a little love bud!

I wish you everything of the best!

I read it. I had an idea from it and I'm selling it! Thanks sucker! Just kidding. Pens and paper at black jack won't fly though, so you have to get past that. If the system doesn't need black jack counting, then it's probably counting in another translation. Don't forget all these counters still struggle with losing sometimes for long lengths of time and I'm not sure how you can get past it if you think you're inventing an ATM machine.

This is a solved problem.

It's known that wins are negatively correlated with future wins in the same shoe. The problem is that this correlation is tiny. In any game that you would actually find in a casino, and looking only at previous wins and losses, you never have a positive expectation for the next hand. Therefore, you can't beat the game without looking at more information than this. Hence, counting cards.

It will fail miserably.

Quote: geoff

Everyone knows betting systems can be +EV. Card counting has been mathematically proven independently dozens of times.

Counting cards should be called a method and not a system.

Betting doesn't make a game +EV. Information does.

I have no idea what hes talking about unless it's what everyone is suspecting. Where it is just a lame form of unintentional counting. I just knew there was something up with this guy, it just took him longer then most.

Well since at least 4 of you hit the issue, I'm going to reveal it now.

Exactly as axiom and nickle said, I plan to use the correlation of wins/losses to the win/loss impact of future hands in the shoe. It functions in the same way as card counting, which is what happened before DOES impact what happens in the future (unlike roulette etc). But it does not actually require you to keep track of the cards as in the case of card counting.

Axiom said the correlation is too tiny to make a -EV game +EV. How tiny is too tiny, even with the super liberal 0.2% HE rules it's too tiny? with a 1-2500 bet spread, are you sure that can't be overcome? You can't get away with 1-2500 bet spread as a card counter. But if you're a betting system user and you show the pitboss your system, you'll be warmly welcomed actually.

I would count things like blackjacks separately not only because they pay different. It's because 2 big cards are out and that impacts the composition of the remainder of the shoe.

Anyway, now that you guys know what I plan to do. Is this doable with a 1-2500 spread to overcome the house edge?



Here's a different topic that needs to be addressed.

I firmly believe although this system uses the principles of card counting, it's not card counting. It does not keep track of the cards so how is it card counting? Every single blackjack betting system uses information of previous hands to influence how future hands should be played. This one is no different. It's just this one is based on logic while who knows what makes the creators of other systems think they can beat the game.

reminds me of the professor from the simpsons

Quote: AxelWolf

I have no idea what hes talking about unless it's what everyone is suspecting. Where it is just a lame form of unintentional counting. I just knew there was something up with this guy, it just took him longer then most.

If I think you think what I think is what it is, you're saying everyone knew this already? And furthermore you're saying I am slow because of just realizing it?

Well If I think what you think what I think what it is is true, I'll admit I have a lot to learn and you guys taught me a nice lesson here.

But in my defense did you realize this in your first 4 months of gambling? (3.6 months for me as of this point). Even if you did, at least I deserve credit for making this thread to double check instead of just posting the system thinking I have something nobody else had thought about.

Quote: Neutrino

Anyway, now that you guys know what I plan to do. Is this doable with a 1-2500 spread to overcome the house edge?

Bet spread is useless if you never have a +EV situation.

Private businesses remember don't need a reason and don't have to prove it's counting cards to toss you. If you could design a system good enough to play, they would say bye bye too for using the Neutrino system. You're done before you start.

Quote: Neutrino

If I think you think what I think is what it is, you're saying everyone knew this already?

I'm not sure if everyone knew it, but it's been known for decades. It follows from how card counting works. It's a horribly weak second order effect though.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Private businesses remember don't need a reason and don't have to prove it's counting cards to toss you. If you could design a system good enough to play, they would say bye bye too for using the Neutrino system. You're done before you start.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said about this system is not designed to make money because of that ^

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Bet spread is useless if you never have a +EV situation.

I keep track of BJs and if i don't see a single BJ in an entire 8 deck shoe and I'm at 1.5 decks left, i'm pretty sure w/o counting I can say i'm probably +EV (with liberal rules) and I can safely bet 2500x min

Anyone able to test this for me? since I don't know how to :(

Quote: Neutrino

If I think you think what I think is what it is, you're saying everyone knew this already? And furthermore you're saying I am slow because of just realizing it?

Well If I think what you think what I think what it is is true, I'll admit I have a lot to learn and you guys taught me a nice lesson here.

But in my defense did you realize this in your first 4 months of gambling? (3.6 months for me as of this point). Even if you did, at least I deserve credit for making this thread to double check instead of just posting the system thinking I have something nobody else had thought about.

It's natural to have this and the Martingale come up in the thought process. Nothing wrong with thinking unless you play black jack and you're not slow. Other people have just been there before.

Just another strange, not well thought out, basically nonsense thread from Nuetrino. You post thread after thread that all seem to combine to deliver one specific clear message... And that message is that " I Nuetrino have zero concept of reality in this world. I dont have any idea what's offensive and what's not, I don't know right from wrong or left from right. And I want everyone to prove to me that these things are all true"

3.6 months? Who on earth even thinks like that?

Oh, wait. Guys that think they've found the secret to beating a game that is centuries old might think like that.

[rolleyes]

Quote: Neutrino

I keep track of BJs and if i don't see a single BJ in an entire 8 deck shoe and I'm at 1.5 decks left, i'm pretty sure w/o counting I can say i'm probably +EV (with liberal rules) and I can safely bet 2500x min

Anyone able to test this for me? since I don't know how to :(

K i'm going to use math to try to do it instead of simulation.

8 decks = 52*8=416 cards.

Each hand in blackjack let's say averages 3 cards, including splits. (Need verification on this later, this is just my guess)

blackjack is supposed to happen 5% of the time (for got the actual number, it was somewhere between 4-5%)

416/3 * 5%= 7 natural blackjacks that are supposed to happen over the course of 8 shoes.

6 since you've only been through 6.5 decks.

that's a owed +12 RC that is somewhere along the remaining 1.5 decks.

But ofc you can't do 12/1.5, has to be 12/8 because you missed out on information by not counting cards.

so effectively 1.5TC, more than enough to make it +EV if rules are liberal enough.

Go ahead and bring on the 2500x bet then.

Quote: michael99000

Just another strange, not well thought out, basically nonsense thread from Nuetrino. You post thread after thread that all seem to combine to deliver one specific clear message... And that message is that " I Nuetrino have zero concept of reality in this world. I dont have any idea what's offensive and what's not, I don't know right from wrong or left from right. And I want everyone to prove to me that these things are all true"

Woulda just ignored you after the first sentence but the rest of it is just personal insult.

Quote: TerribleTom

3.6 months? Who on earth even thinks like that?

Oh, wait. Guys that think they've found the secret to beating a game that is centuries old might think like that.

[rolleyes]

I did say just count cards at the end of the post. Game has always been beat.

Quote: Neutrino

K i'm going to use math to try to do it instead of simulation.

8 decks = 52*8=416 cards.

Each hand in blackjack let's say averages 3 cards, including splits. (Need verification on this later, this is just my guess)

blackjack is supposed to happen 5% of the time (for got the actual number, it was somewhere between 4-5%)

416/3 * 5%= 7 natural blackjacks that are supposed to happen over the course of 8 shoes.

6 since you've only been through 6.5 decks.

that's a owed +12 RC that is somewhere along the remaining 1.5 decks.

But ofc you can't do 12/1.5, has to be 12/8 because you missed out on information by not counting cards.

so effectively 1.5TC, more than enough to make it +EV if rules are liberal enough.

Go ahead and bring on the 2500x bet then.

I'm no mathematician but according to me, the fact that no or few blackjacks have beend rawn out of a 6 or 8 deck shoe means very little unless you know what exactly the card composition is that remains. I mean in my mind aces could have been paired up with 2's, 3's, 4's and so on which means that there weren't any blackjacks out but there also isn't anymore ACES left to give you a potential blackjack?
Same with 10 cards......

This is just me spitballing. I don't know too much about this game.

Quote: Neutrino

K i'm going to use math to try to do it instead of simulation.

8 decks = 52*8=416 cards.

Each hand in blackjack let's say averages 3 cards, including splits. (Need verification on this later, this is just my guess)

blackjack is supposed to happen 5% of the time (for got the actual number, it was somewhere between 4-5%)

416/3 * 5%= 7 natural blackjacks that are supposed to happen over the course of 8 shoes.

6 since you've only been through 6.5 decks.

that's a owed +12 RC that is somewhere along the remaining 1.5 decks.

But ofc you can't do 12/1.5, has to be 12/8 because you missed out on information by not counting cards.

so effectively 1.5TC, more than enough to make it +EV if rules are liberal enough.

Go ahead and bring on the 2500x bet then.

This seems to be based on the premise that if you have seen no blackjacks, that all the aces and 10s haven't been dealt. While that is one (unlikely) possibility, there is another (far, far, far more likely) possibility that some of those cards have been dealt, but never paired up for a blackjack.

I'd just like to ask right now. If this system does become successful can we stop saying all betting systems are worthless?

Quote: Neutrino

I'd just like to ask right now. If this system does become successful can we stop saying all betting systems are worthless?

If 4 + 7 = 148,453, can we stop saying that all unicorns are blue?

You have lost it. 2 more months and you will be playing baccarat with a gr8 betting progression. Seek help now.

Quote: Neutrino

I'd just like to ask right now. If this system does become successful can we stop saying all betting systems are worthless?

NO we wont because SYSTEMS are worthless. Methods have some merit. This is a method if it works not a system. The word system is used by people who don't know any better and to sell books. Formula may be a good word, I don't know. If you consider yourself an AP, you should also consider the word system a bad word.

Your "system" may be +EV in certain situations, This is just a super duper speed count and a lame way to count.



Your thinking is nothing new, I would bet you can find something like this posted on the many BJ forms. Not sure what you being new has to do with anything.I'm sure you are way better at math then I am but when it comes to logic, I think not. The first time I heard about Martingale I needed no math or a second thought to know it wouldn't work. I dont think Martingale is worthless I just know you cant make money playing a random table game with it.

Read this

Quote: AxelWolf

NO we wont because SYSTEMS are worthless. Methods have some merit. This is a method if it works not a system. The word system is used by people who don't know any better and to sell books. Formula may be a good word, I don't know. If you consider yourself an AP, you should also consider the word system a bad word.

Your "system" may be +EV in certain situations, This is just a super duper speed count and a lame way to count.



Your thinking is nothing new, I would bet you can find something like this posted on the many BJ forms. Not sure what you being new has to do with anything.I'm sure you are way better at math then I am but when it comes to logic, I think not. The first time I heard about Martingale I needed no math or a second thought to know it wouldn't work. I dont think Martingale is worthless I just know you cant make money playing a random table game with it.

Now you're sounding like what i think you think what i think is not what i think you think what i think.

nothing to do with martingale.

Was about trying to establish a count-like number that predicts the EV of the rest of a shoe from previous win/loss. Axiom think it's too weak but I have my doubts.

Quote: miplet

Read this

Aha! With good rules and a bet spread of 1-20 it wins 0.2-0.4 min bet per hour.

I rest my case. It's +EV.

axiom looks like 4+7 = 148453 now. can we stop saying betting systems are useless?

Quote: Neutrino

I keep track of BJs and if i don't see a single BJ in an entire 8 deck shoe and I'm at 1.5 decks left, i'm pretty sure w/o counting I can say i'm probably +EV (with liberal rules) and I can safely bet 2500x min

Anyone able to test this for me? since I don't know how to :(

You need a sim to test if under this condtions, there will +EV.
BUT do you know how often you will see this position?
Very rough estimate.
Possibility of BJ in 8 decks = 4,745%
Probability of No BJ = 1 - 4,745% = 95,255%
Averrage number of cards per hand is 2,3
So in 6,5 decks. 338 cards / 2,3 = 147 Hands
No BJ in 147 Hands is 95,255^147 = 0,79% OR 1 in 1.269
Ie, You will see this position Once in 1.269 Shoes
Say playing (or just watching) 3 shoes per hour, that means once every 423 hours
(the above is just rough aproximation but the number are in those levels)

The whole thing with AP is not just to find +EV plays BUT +EV plays that happen often enough that is worthwhile.
For example, in Baccarat Linear Counting 'works'. Works in the sense that there are situations with linear counting that are +EV.
They are so rare though that its is not worth it.

Even if you find say a +EV game of only +0,1% because of very good rules (say dealt via a CSM) it is not worth playing such game.
AP means playing games that are worthhile. With a good bankroll playing 0,1% game with Full kelly might mean in $, $5 an Hour (or even less).
It is not worth an AP to play such games.

And any way what you are proposing is just another form of counting, just a very weak form of counting.
There are other more powerfull, but still weak forms of counting which you also might not think as counting.
For example counting how many cards have been dealt only and compared to how many rounds have been played (assuming a fixed number of players).
This is more powerfull than count how many BJ came out.
Because in BJ subsequent hands are nor indepedent from the previous, you can find lots of different ways to correlate subsequent hands with previous hands. The correletion in most cases will be very small and of no practical use (find 1 +Ev opportunity in 100.000 hands is not considered of practical use)

By betting systems, we mean games that in games where each subsequent event is independent (say roulette, 3 card poker etc) where people claim that that past independent events influence future events.
In games where each event is dependent on the previous ones (Blackjack, baccarat), of course any 'system' will differentiate the subsequent event EV.
But except of BJ and Counting, all other 'systems' in games with dependent events the change in EV is trivial.

Quote: Neutrino

Now you're sounding like what i think you think what i think is not what i think you think what i think.

nothing to do with martingale.

Was about trying to establish a count-like number that predicts the EV of the rest of a shoe from previous win/loss. Axiom think it's too weak but I have my doubts.

I didn't think it had anything to do with Marty system, I know exactly what you are thinking.(see where I said this is a super duper speed count) I was giving you that as an example of how someone with far less math skill and 0 experience gaming could use some logic(no autistic skill needed). Your short time spent gambling is meaningless towards the props you seek for thinking of this. 0 experience while using Logic should tell you your wasting time with this.

Quote: Neutrino

Quote: miplet

Read this

Aha! With good rules and a bet spread of 1-20 it wins 0.2-0.4 min bet per hour.

I rest my case. It's +EV.

axiom looks like 4+7 = 148453 now. can we stop saying betting systems are useless?

I said, in a game that you can find in a casino.

This is talking about a deeply dealt single-deck game, S17, 3:2... good luck. 3:2 S17 SD games are +EV off the top unless they have restrictive doubling rules. The "system" is not doing anything.

There was never a doubt that this could raise EV slightly. So, yeah, if you find a game that has a 0.000001% house edge off the top, you can beat it with this. Good luck finding it.

Quote: AxelWolf

I didn't think it had anything to do with Marty system, I know what you are thinking. I was giving you that as an example of how someone with far less math skill and 0 experience gaming could use some logic(no autistic skill needed). Your short time spent gambling is meaningless towards the props you seek for thinking of this. 0 experience while using Logic should tell you your wasting time with this.

But I was just proven right?

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm

Sure I found out someone beat me to this by 2 decades but nonetheless my intuition on there can be a +EV betting system that purely bases its decisions on previous win/loss (like any other betting system).

Perhaps you're telling me I'm wasting my time because I'm better off counting than this. I said at the end of my first post that I do not intend this to be a money making system, and I will be counting even if this system works. This is Only an academical challenge to the consensus that all betting systems are worthless. My intuition tells me it could be +EV, and now I found out it's true. I accomplished my goal so how am I wasting time?

Now as an autistic I just need to figure out why people love commenting on my threads without reading everything first. urgh I hate psychology...

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

There was never a doubt that this could raise EV slightly.

So can we stop saying all betting systems are worthless now? That was my entire goal. Previously I stated many reasons why a betting system can benefit you even without changing the game's EV. Impress friends, reduce variance, reduce heat, sell books, bankroll management...

Now I tackled the core issue of why everyone on this forums hate betting systems - The fact that it could not even dent the house edge.

But now I proved the house edge could be dent.

Can the hatred towards betting systems stop now? Can we redirect this hatred towards people who claim they can make $500/h guaranteed off betting systems? Can we redirect this hatred towards the book sellers of these betting systems?

They're the culprit. Not betting systems.

Quote: AceTwo

You need a sim to test if under this condtions, there will +EV.
BUT do you know how often you will see this position?
Very rough estimate.
Possibility of BJ in 8 decks = 4,745%
Probability of No BJ = 1 - 4,745% = 95,255%
Averrage number of cards per hand is 2,3
So in 6,5 decks. 338 cards / 2,3 = 147 Hands
No BJ in 147 Hands is 95,255^147 = 0,79% OR 1 in 1.269
Ie, You will see this position Once in 1.269 Shoes
Say playing (or just watching) 3 shoes per hour, that means once every 423 hours
(the above is just rough aproximation but the number are in those levels)

The whole thing with AP is not just to find +EV plays BUT +EV plays that happen often enough that is worthwhile.
For example, in Baccarat Linear Counting 'works'. Works in the sense that there are situations with linear counting that are +EV.
They are so rare though that its is not worth it.

Even if you find say a +EV game of only +0,1% because of very good rules (say dealt via a CSM) it is not worth playing such game.
AP means playing games that are worthhile. With a good bankroll playing 0,1% game with Full kelly might mean in $, $5 an Hour (or even less).
It is not worth an AP to play such games.

And any way what you are proposing is just another form of counting, just a very weak form of counting.
There are other more powerfull, but still weak forms of counting which you also might not think as counting.
For example counting how many cards have been dealt only and compared to how many rounds have been played (assuming a fixed number of players).
This is more powerfull than count how many BJ came out.
Because in BJ subsequent hands are nor indepedent from the previous, you can find lots of different ways to correlate subsequent hands with previous hands. The correletion in most cases will be very small and of no practical use (find 1 +Ev opportunity in 100.000 hands is not considered of practical use)

By betting systems, we mean games that in games where each subsequent event is independent (say roulette, 3 card poker etc) where people claim that that past independent events influence future events.
In games where each event is dependent on the previous ones (Blackjack, baccarat), of course any 'system' will differentiate the subsequent event EV.
But except of BJ and Counting, all other 'systems' in games with dependent events the change in EV is trivial.

I really like your answer but unfortunately I can't get people to read the part in my post where I said I have no intention on using this system. It's for purely academic purposes.

Quote: Neutrino

But I was just proven right?

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/betting_systems_no_need_to_count_system.htm

Sure I found out someone beat me to this by 2 decades but nonetheless my intuition on there can be a +EV betting system that purely bases its decisions on previous win/loss (like any other betting system).

Perhaps you're telling me I'm wasting my time because I'm better off counting than this. I said at the end of my first post that I do not intend this to be a money making system, and I will be counting even if this system works. This is Only an academical challenge to the consensus that all betting systems are worthless. My intuition tells me it could be +EV, and now I found out it's true. I accomplished my goal so how am I wasting time?

Now as an autistic I just need to figure out why people love commenting on my threads without reading everything first. urgh I hate psychology...

Read My post carefully I never said this this was not possible, I believe I indicated possible. I just said you were not the first to think about it and this is nothing new or even rare,other then it sucks so no one talks about it.

I said its not a" system its a method and a bad one at that. LOTS of people have thought about things like this, including me.

People even think of things as simple as, no Aces have came out, I should bet more now.

If you could find a game this would be worthy of, you would be a fool to not use something better. Your bet spreads you were talking about on a table game would get you more heat then a regular counter.

If this was simply a MATH type problem you should have avoided yapping about a SYSTEM and adding it to betting systems. You failed your main goals 1) to disprove all SYSTEMS are worthless because they still are and always will be. 2) Props and recognition for finding something unique or new.

Quote: Neutrino

But now I proved the house edge could be dent.

You proved nothing. You suggested something that wouldn't work, then somebody else pointed towards some 30-year-old literature that showed something different would make a slight difference.

It's no secret that there is a negative correlation between winning one hand and winning the next. That follows from how card counting works. This is not the same as a betting system.

Quote: AxelWolf

People even think of things as simple as, no Aces have came out, I should bet more now. .

I see a reg who plays this way all the time. He bets table minimum when there are 4 or less Aces left per decks remaining in the shoe, and bets more when its 5 and higher.

Quote: EdgeLooker

I see a reg who plays this way all the time. He bets table minimum when there are 4 or less Aces left per decks remaining in the shoe, and bets more when its 5 and higher.

Yeah, that's card counting.

Quote: EdgeLooker

I see a reg who plays this way all the time. He bets table minimum when there are 4 or less Aces left per decks remaining in the shoe, and bets more when its 5 and higher.

OK I am inventing a system where you keep track of Ace's and 5's too.

Oh NO, Wizard beat me to it!

First off, I read your 5,000 word essay in the OP and posts on page 1. Didn't read posts on pages 2-5. Probably will read the other posts later or tomorrow when I have more time.

Anyway, I do not believe any betting system can change the EV of the game (counting cards isn't a betting system). However, I've always been curious as to whether or not it'd be possible to use some betting system (without information, like counting cards, HC, ST, etc.) to be positive in the long run (+EV). I don't think it can be done, but alas, am curious.

How do you plan on creating such a system? Like, in which situations are you going to raise your bet or decrease your bet? Is it based off of the most previous hand win/loss? Does it have to deal with current win or loss amount in a current shoe? Is it based off of wins/losses overall (ie: net outcome since day 1)? Or does it not have to do with previous wins and losses, but would have a totally different "driving force" behind raising/decreasing bets? Would it deal with streaks, ie: betting with or against a streak?

Quote: Neutrino

So can we stop saying all betting systems are worthless now?

No.

You don't have a betting system, you have a counting system.

Counting cards is not a betting system, no matter how you count them. A good card counter can recognize when their chances are better than usual and attempt to take advantage of it. There are no guarantees - it is still possible to lose when the count is in your favor. Your simplified system is probably not as good as more advanced counting methods, though it may be slightly easier to learn & use. That alone may be worthy of praise but not when you insist on pitching it as a betting system instead of what it really is - a simplified counting system.

A betting system is, as the name implies, a system for betting in such a way as to never lose. A betting system will not rely on any other strategy aside from betting according to the system. Theoretically, the only betting system that works is the Martingale but between casino table limits and practical limits on personal bankrolls even the Martingale is doomed to fail eventually. Therefore, there is no practically functional betting system. If there were, everybody would use it and Vegas would dry up and blow away.

Quote: RS

First off, I read your 5,000 word essay in the OP and posts on page 1. Didn't read posts on pages 2-5. Probably will read the other posts later or tomorrow when I have more time.

Anyway, I do not believe any betting system can change the EV of the game (counting cards isn't a betting system). However, I've always been curious as to whether or not it'd be possible to use some betting system (without information, like counting cards, HC, ST, etc.) to be positive in the long run (+EV). I don't think it can be done, but alas, am curious.

How do you plan on creating such a system? Like, in which situations are you going to raise your bet or decrease your bet? Is it based off of the most previous hand win/loss? Does it have to deal with current win or loss amount in a current shoe? Is it based off of wins/losses overall (ie: net outcome since day 1)? Or does it not have to do with previous wins and losses, but would have a totally different "driving force" behind raising/decreasing bets? Would it deal with streaks, ie: betting with or against a streak?

Thank you for being one of the rare people who mentioned they actually read something that I took an hour to write.

This system I had in mind would use the principle of card counting without actually counting cards. It would follow the definition of a betting system strictly, which is, using ONLY information of previous win/loss and not the actual cards to influence future betting amounts. This is the definition of a betting system is it not?

Well, it just so happens that in blackjack, wins are negatively correlated with future wins. Winning hands tend to have more high cards hence negative RC (if you're counting). Losing hands tend to have more small cards hence positive RC. This is a weak correlation compared to counting cards with hi-lo. Nonetheless as pointed out in a link to an article earlier, if done with good set of rules it could make the game +EV.

However people on this forums do not seem to have the same definition of betting system. From what they said their definition of betting system just simply sounds like "Betting system is something that's a losing system. Betting system sucks. Any losing system is a betting system, any winning system is not a betting system. If you found a system that bases its decisions on win/loss and it's not a losing system, then it's not a betting system"

Such irrational hatred for betting systems makes impossible for me to continue this conversation.

Quote: Neutrino

Such irrational hatred for betting systems makes impossible for me to continue this conversation.

So, then, it's win/win...