Can Money Management Beat the House?

Sorry this post is so long, but I hope you enjoy it, as my results are phenomenal:

According to the tagline for this forum: "All betting systems are worthless. However, for the mathematically challenged, here is a forum of your own.", I MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY CHALLENGED!

I don't have a "betting system", but rather a "money management" system. I have tracked my actual casino playing data (starting bet, time played, maximum profit level attained, and final net win/loss) for EVERY table I have played since September of 2008:
693 hours of play,
833 tables (my average time at a table is 50 minutes),
62,414 hands (approximately---usually starting with 2 hands, and as my win/loss changes I reduce to 1 hand, thus an average of 1.5 hands),
I have a lifetime (since 2008) table winning % of 43.22 (but 47% since "perfecting" my money management system in 2012).
Because of my self-imposed limited loss parameters, I only have small losses, but have significant big wins, my bankroll has greatly increased over this eight year period!

Since "perfecting" my money management system, I have won 26 of the last 29 blackjack gambling trips (usually about 16 hours per trip), , winning over $33K in the process. My average "starting bet" has increase from $40 in the early years (2009-10) to my current average level of over $132, as I have gained confidence in my system, and now usually start my betting at the beginning of a trip at $200 to $300, which is more than enough to get me room comps at any casino in Vegas.

..........After winning a significant amount to start my bankroll in 2008 through dumb luck, I embarked upon a journey to figure out why I usually ended almost every gambling trip with more money than I came with. Then, as "odds" would dictate, I lost money over the course of the next 3 years, but in so doing, I developed tight win/loss parameters for each table I played, plugging in these new "parameters" into the spreadsheet data I had recorded over the previous gambling trips, and began to recognize that HAD I USED THESE NEW TIGHTER "PARAMETERS", I would have WON money over that three year period, rather than lost. Thus, by the end of 2012, I had established very tight parameters by which I would stay at or leave a given table (I have since "tightened" those parameters further).

My system assumes that blackjack hands are random, but not evenly distributed, thus tending to run in streaks, both winning and losing, and thus the goal is to increase the betting level during winning streaks, and decrease the betting level during losing streaks. My system also assumes (although this may or may not be true) that losing tables tend to stay losing tables longer than you can "wait them out", and thus it is better to leave before depleting your bank roll----likewise, winning tables tend to stay winning tables, but at high betting levels resulting from progressive betting styles, your bank roll can be significantly reduced if you stay too long and the winning streak turns against you.

Originally, I was a "progressive" bettor, usually starting my bet at or near the table minimum and increasing my betting level as my bankroll increased. However, over time, I realized that I needed to start at a much higher level than table minimum, so that if I entered the table during a "losing streak", I could pull my bet back until the streak changed. Thus, I am not only a "progressive" bettor, but I am also a "regressive" bettor. (Starting at the table minimum is a major reason why most blackjack players, I believe, end their session(s) losing---hence the house's actual take is over 10% rather than the mere .5% that the odds dictate.)

And yes, I will admit that there is no exact science or "math" that can predict when the streaks begin or end, but changing your betting level each time you win or lose, will help identify the streaks.

So, here are my STRICT parameters----I am an extremely disciplined gambler, and I will not play outside these parameters for any reason:

First, I determine my starting bet.

I NEVER bring more than 5x my starting bet to the table----I don't even dig into my wallet to bring out more money if my last hand (before running out of money) is a double down or a split----I violate the blackjack rules, and just take a card! Money management discipline trumps blackjack rules! I actually prefer to play and lose no more than 4x, but I bring 5x, and many times quit at only a 4x loss.

I prefer to play at at least a $25 min table----the $10 tables tend to have inexperienced players coming in and out and playing incorrectly (although theoretically that makes no difference, it is difficult to maintain a good mental attitude when this is constantly occurring). I prefer to only play a multi-deck shoe, usually six or eight decks.

My starting bet will be at least 5x the table minimum (I like to start at an even higher multiple, as I have more room to adjust downward if the table is not productive in the first few bets)

I usually begin with 2 hands (although there is no real need to play 2 hands), so that each hand actually may be only 2.5x the table minimum for a total combined bet of 5x the table minimum. (Again, I prefer to start at a much higher multiple of the table minimum, but you have to become comfortable with higher bets and the potential loss in order to do that.)
I increase/decrease my bet approximately 25% each hand: But, if I lose the first 3 hands at a table, I generally drop to table minimum, and then struggle to get my bet back up when the table changes. If I lose the next 2 bets (that's 5 bets in a row, I take my losses and leave the table. If I have dropped my bet to table minimum, and then begin winning, I increase my bet after a win at a more rapid rate, until I am back up to my original starting bet (e.g. a 30-40% bet increase at the bottom betting range).

If I realize a 50% gain in my original stake at the table, I strive to never leave the table a loser----thus, I set aside at lease a small portion of my winnings.

If I realize a 100% gain (doubling my original buy-in), I strive to leave the table with at least 50% of the gain, and thus I set aside that amount. (At this point, I may be close to doubling my original starting bet, and at this point I become conservative and reduce my progression percentage.) Also, if I have more than doubled my money, I will typically start a new shoe at my original starting bet, and begin a new progression.

If I realize a 150% gain, I will set aside 2/3 of this amount, so that I will leave the table with at least 100% gain, then as I win more, I continue to set aside 50% of the increased winnings, and continue to play until I lose back to the point where I have only my "set aside" money left.

Because my system is a "money management" system, once I have achieved the 150% gain, I pull my bet back to the original starting bet level, and "enjoy the ride". I admit, by pulling back my bet, I may be "leaving the opportunity to earn even more money at the table", but I am content to conserve my existing winnings and keep slowly adding to them until the table turns against me. The risk of losing a split/double down opportunity at a high betting level, can erode a significant portion of the winnings in a single hand, thus the rationale for becoming conservative after a significant amount has been won and set aside.

My trip goal is to win at least 10x my starting bet ($200 starting bet = $2,000 goal)
Once this goal is achieved, I continue to play, increasing this goal by 50% of my continued table wins, but NEVER losing more than 50% of my original goal that I achieved (thus in this example, I would always leave town with at least $1,000). I usually end the trip if I have won 20x-25x my starting bet, or at that point, I drastically cut back on my betting level, and "enjoy" playing blackjack again!

Likewise, I have a maximum that I am willing to lose on any given trip: 15x my starting bet. However, if I continue to lose several tables, I will reduce my starting bet to conserve my total bankroll, and I also tighten my parameters to 4x. Also, if I start the trip with losses in excess of 10x, I am happy to end the trip once I have my bankroll back into positive territory....thus, some of my trips have had only small gains.

In summary, I am typically betting 20-25% of my table's bankroll (which starts at least 5x the table minimum)....as that bankroll goes up, I increase my bet, but it is still about the same % of the current bankroll, until I have doubled my original starting bet. Likewise, as I lose, and my table's bankroll goes down I am still betting about the same % of the current bankroll.

Unfortunately, it is somewhat difficult to "enjoy" the blackjack game, as this system requires you to constantly count your money (in direct opposition to the line in Glen Campbell's song...."never count your money while your sittin' at the table"!) But the satisfaction of continually beating the house makes it well worth the effort!

CAUTION: Never let the pursuit of room comps dictate your betting level---let your allotted bankroll for the given table determine your betting level.

Good Luck! And I welcome comments to this post---I seriously doubt that anyone can "mathematically" prove this system to work, although I have proven it does work after 60,000+ played hands.....maybe the naysayers can run it for a million hands and prove me wrong....but I don't think I will live long enough to play that many hands!......and by posting this, I hope I am not jinxing myself to three years of losing blackjack trips! But, I think I am on to something here!

I love threads like this, makes me miss
the good old days on GG.. Sniff.

Continue doing what you are doing. What's the difference what anyone says. You've obviously figured out a way to magically beat a negative expectation game over the long term. Congrats.



ZCore13

Don't quit your day job.

Quote:

I have a lifetime (since 2008) table winning % of 43.22 (but 47% since "perfecting" my money management system in 2012).

Welcome. Not mathematically challenged at all. It's simply a perfectly normal run of luck. I too am a lucky blackjack player. i urge you to read a few of my recent posts and my blog post ( click my user ID)

I have a rule of thumb which ignores house edge:-

Probability of hitting a target profit = (Starting bankroll)/(Starting bankroll + Target profit)

Setting your target after the event...

Probability of reaching this 47% profit = (x)/(1.47x) = about 68%

Your money management is not harming that and may help, but basically you are well within the normal range of 'slightly lucky'

Of course, there was extra luck beating the house edge, but probably not fantastic luck.
If like me you got some bonuses on the way, that would help too.

Your system won't win over the 'long term', but it looks like you are some way off having played that long term.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Quote: Zcore13

You've obviously figured out a way to magically beat a negative expectation game over the long term. Congrats.
ZCore13

Hey, you don't know it's magic, he could be
on to something. I've heard if you play really
fast and quit when you're ahead, you can leave
before the house edge knows you're there.

Quote: EvenBob

...he could be
on to something...

Sure, sure...

Thanks Zcore13 ----hopefully the "magic" will continue!

Good advice ibeatyouraces----I've been "lucky" at that one too!

OnceDear----good info---maybe I can remain "slightly lucky"! :)

Ummm yeah ok. So you want us to believe that you average 50 minutes at a table over the course of 8 years yet you will only bring 5x your first bet and play 2 hands. So if your first bet is 100 then you only have 500 as your session bankroll and 200 of it is at stake. No way in hell you are average 50 min with being that agressive unless you only play eve 20th hand.

Quote: wildman

Sorry this post is so long,

you are not sorry
start telling the truth

Quote: wildman

but I hope you enjoy it,

cant enjoy it
too much reading
too long and long

is there a video version ?
as YouTube Rules!

Quote: wildman

as my results are phenomenal:

so why you here
story telling
i due like stories

so thank you for sharing your story
(even i did not read most of it)

Hmmm
do you know Vic Choo?
He has over $50 million in US bankroll i hear

Okay so, I define "Table Winning %" as the amount of times I leave the table with more money than I started. As some of those remember over on BJTF, my winning % is nearly 90%, as in, nearly 9 times out of every 10 times I leave the table, I'm ahead of where I started. Even so, they are generally comprised of small winnings offset by larger losses, as any card counter is used to. So when I see someone post a table win % lower than 50%, and talking about having a "winnings" after x or y years, I have to say I'm a little bit skeptic. The byproduct of playing a break even game, -EV game, or a marginally +EV game is that you'll have your winnings which equate to 11-15 average bet units (not to be confused with a simple "unit") but take losses that generally account for 18-25 average bet units. So when I read this as a 43% arbitrary win rate over 8 years, that means there's like another ~5% push (as in I walked out of the casino only losing time and energy, not money) and 52% loss.

So then in my head I'm thinking, okay, if he pushed 5% of his visits, and nailed 43% wins with an upper average of 15 ABU's, and a lower average loss of only 18 ABU's, you're still losing.

If we had 100 trips to the casino and they look like this

5 trips Push
43 trips win 15 ABU's
52 trips lose 18 ABU's

ABU= $24.17, then all total you won $15,589.65, and you lost $22,623.12, or a net loss of $7,033.47.


Also, the OP's "method" seems really, really interesting because it seems like the variables and risk change every few hands, to a point that the game itself changes with each hand dealt, which is really hard to "manage" a bankroll on.

you should plan on retiring in and around lutz fl.

Quote: GWAE

Ummm yeah ok. So you want us to believe that you average 50 minutes at a table over the course of 8 years yet you will only bring 5x your first bet and play 2 hands. So if your first bet is 100 then you only have 500 as your session bankroll and 200 of it is at stake. No way in hell you are average 50 min with being that agressive unless you only play eve 20th hand.

I know my post was rather long, but you missed 2 key points: In your example, of $100 bet on 2 hands at a time, my starting bank roll would be $1,000, and theoretically, I am reducing my bet each time, so that I am only betting 20% of my table bankroll after each play. Thus, if I were to lose both hands on the first bet, my next bet would be 20% of the remaining $800, or $160 ($80 each hand). Another loss, and I would be betting 20% of $640, or $128 (Note, I never bet in exact % increments, but typically rounded to the nearest $25.) If I lose the 3rd bet, I typically drop to table minimum or somewhere near that to avoid a disaster, and if I lose my next hand, I will drop to one hand at table minimum.....thus my maximum loss after 5 straight losing plays is $563, and thus I walk away from the table with $437 still in my bankroll for that table. I will move to another table and start the process over again with $1,000. You indicated that I could not stay at the table for an average of 50 minutes....and yes that is an average....some tables are 10 minutes, some are 3 hours. In the example of play above, playing 2 hands, it is rare that I would lose both hands 4 consecutive times, but even so, doing the math and betting 20% of my remaining payroll each time, I could withstand 16 consecutive losses before my bankroll would be reduced to less than $25. Obviously, I would never stay at a losing table that long.

Quote: mustangsally

you are not sorry
start telling the truth
cant enjoy it
too much reading
too long and long

is there a video version ?
as YouTube Rules!
so why you here
story telling
i due like stories

so thank you for sharing your story
(even i did not read most of it)

Hmmm
do you know Vic Choo?
He has over $50 million in US bankroll i hear

Ok....I will see if I can work on a video version....will have to use my wife though....she's much better looking!

Quote: ontariodealer

you should plan on retiring in and around lutz fl.

Wonder how many really got that, appi!

Quote: Exoter175

Okay so, I define "Table Winning %" as the amount of times I leave the table with more money than I started. As some of those remember over on BJTF, my winning % is nearly 90%, as in, nearly 9 times out of every 10 times I leave the table, I'm ahead of where I started. Even so, they are generally comprised of small winnings offset by larger losses, as any card counter is used to. So when I see someone post a table win % lower than 50%, and talking about having a "winnings" after x or y years, I have to say I'm a little bit skeptic. The byproduct of playing a break even game, -EV game, or a marginally +EV game is that you'll have your winnings which equate to 11-15 average bet units (not to be confused with a simple "unit") but take losses that generally account for 18-25 average bet units. So when I read this as a 43% arbitrary win rate over 8 years, that means there's like another ~5% push (as in I walked out of the casino only losing time and energy, not money) and 52% loss.

So then in my head I'm thinking, okay, if he pushed 5% of his visits, and nailed 43% wins with an upper average of 15 ABU's, and a lower average loss of only 18 ABU's, you're still losing.

If we had 100 trips to the casino and they look like this

5 trips Push
43 trips win 15 ABU's
52 trips lose 18 ABU's

ABU= $24.17, then all total you won $15,589.65, and you lost $22,623.12, or a net loss of $7,033.47.


Also, the OP's "method" seems really, really interesting because it seems like the variables and risk change every few hands, to a point that the game itself changes with each hand dealt, which is really hard to "manage" a bankroll on.

Well, I'm not up to 100 trips to the casino yet, so maybe by then I will lose more than I win, but I don't think so----of course I'm not yet ready to bet my life's fortune on it either!.....hence the reason for this post....to see what other seasoned players think of the concepts I have been using. I certainly don't win 90% of the tables I play (and I'm not a card counter---just a money counter), but my money management keeps me from having large losses, yet allows me to take advantage of win streaks, and thus I have enough large wins (sometimes as much as 15x) to offset many smaller losses which are never greater than 4x or 5x----and sometimes much lower losses. I will never have a "push" on a gambling trip, either a net win or a net loss.

In reality it is very simple to manage the bankroll, as theoretically, I am always betting 20% of the available bankroll, at least until I have doubled the bankroll, and begin betting more conservatively.

Quote: wildman

Well, I'm not up to 100 trips to the casino yet, so maybe by then I will lose more than I win, but I don't think so----of course I'm not yet ready to bet my life's fortune on it either!.....hence the reason for this post....to see what other seasoned players think of the concepts I have been using. I certainly don't win 90% of the tables I play (and I'm not a card counter---just a money counter), but my money management keeps me from having large losses, yet allows me to take advantage of win streaks, and thus I have enough large wins (sometimes as much as 15x) to offset many smaller losses which are never greater than 4x or 5x----and sometimes much lower losses. I will never have a "push" on a gambling trip, either a net win or a net loss.

In reality it is very simple to manage the bankroll, as theoretically, I am always betting 20% of the available bankroll, at least until I have doubled the bankroll, and begin betting more conservatively.

But what do you qualify as a "win" towards your win%? Because if you win only 43% of the time, to me, that sounds like a loss.

Quote:

CAN MONEY MANAGEMENT BEAT THE HOUSE?

No.

Quote: Exoter175

But what do you qualify as a "win" towards your win%? Because if you win only 43% of the time, to me, that sounds like a loss.

A winning trip is any trip that I win more $ than I lose...yes, I only win 47% of the tables I play, but I win significantly more $ per table at the tables I win than $ that I lose at the losing tables. On most trips, if I win at least 40% of the tables, I will have a positive $ outcome at the end of the trip.

All they have is math on their side, you
have actual real time playing proof.

Quote: EvenBob

...you
have actual real time playing proof.

He does? How do you know? Were you there?

Quote: DeMango

Wonder how many really got that, appi!

maybe we could have a pool????

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

He does? How do you know? Were you there?

I've studied his method and it can't lose.
It's destined to do nothing but win. The
house edge never saw this coming, it's
gotten fat and lazy and over confident.
While it's snoozing with it's eyes half
closed, the chip racks empty as if
by magic..

Methamphetamine ?

Quote:

CAN MONEY MANAGEMENT BEAT THE HOUSE?

Quote: Wizard

No.

But it can help.

Quote: wildman

A winning trip is any trip that I win more $ than I lose...yes, I only win 47% of the tables I play, but I win significantly more $ per table at the tables I win than $ that I lose at the losing tables. On most trips, if I win at least 40% of the tables, I will have a positive $ outcome at the end of the trip.

So basically, you're telling me I"m doing things wrong? In all of my years of card counting where my big bets are made when I have the ADVANTAGE, and my small wagers when I have the DISADVANTAGE, you're telling me that despite my near 90% win rate from trip to trip, that my historical figures showing average losses greater than my average wins, are somehow reverse of your "system? That even though you lose wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more frequently than I do, by a margin of about 7 times greater, you somehow show greater wins than your losses, despite losing more?

Please, elaborate further, especially so on how you say "I will have a positive % outcome at the end of my trip", when you're likely wagering heavily into a DISADVANTAGE, because my empirical data shows that there's no possible way you could display the complete inverse of my winnings/losses on a trip to trip basis by means of win/loss averages.

Quote: Exoter175

..Please, elaborate further...

Contact EvenBob. His earlier post says he's studied it.

Quote: ontariodealer

you should plan on retiring in and around lutz fl.

Yes, but wait til your mom croaks so you inherit enough money to bankroll your move to alligator alley.

Hopefully your kid(s) will be nearby to feed you physically, emotionally, and financially.

Seek a sycophant from Austin who wants follow you around and perch on your shoulder as you administer the Kool-Aid to the faithful.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Methamphetamine ?

TL;DR

Heck of a first post

Quote: wildman

In reality it is very simple to manage the bankroll, as theoretically, I am always betting 20% of the available bankroll, at least until I have doubled the bankroll, and begin betting more conservatively.

The very fact that you have tended to increase your bets as your bankroll grew, and reduced your bets when you lose, would make your winning periods richer and your losing periods more comfortable. But you actually increase your chances of going broke as you do so ( and increase your potential profit if you don't bust )
If you are ahead, good on you. You are just as likely to start losing today. But now you will be losing with bigger bets. You know what that means.

Hi, wildman. Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum. My welcome is sincere and void of insult, condescension, sarcasm, superiority or baiting.

As you can see it's a tough crowd here when it comes to betting systems. Even though you posted in the proper forum, talk of any system seems to make some people nervous. We have a few excellent math minds here and a whole bunch of others who ride their coattails. I include myself in the latter. Both groups know although short term success is possible that ultimately what you are doing will not work. In fact if one were to write a book on what not to do when playing blackjack, I think you've nailed it.

I've read and enjoyed all of your posts and I hope you will continue to participate here. It's fun to see people get riled up. One tip if I may. As sure as the sun will rise, someone will try to bait you, try to get you to lose your cool and post something that will cause you to be suspended. Don't fall for it. Don't give them the satisfaction.

Quote: wildman

A winning trip is any trip that I win more $ than I lose...yes, I only win 47% of the tables I play, but I win significantly more $ per table at the tables I win than $ that I lose at the losing tables. On most trips, if I win at least 40% of the tables, I will have a positive $ outcome at the end of the trip.

Even the "Pros" had their doubters.

After he published "Beat the Dealer", Edward O. Thorp became so popular, that John Scarne, with Sands backing challenged Thorp to play Blackjack with himself as the dealer.

Thorp refused, allegedly 'knowing' Scarne was a master card trickster.

In 1962, casino executive Mike Goodman published "How to Win", where he offered this challenge in bold letters on the back cover:

"Somewhere in their pitch they will tell you that they're not multi-millionaires because they are not allowed in casinos."

"Bunk!. Don't believe it"

I challenge any one of them to use his system at my casino. If they haven't go the guts to back up their system with hard cash, I challenge them to meet me face to face in public to debate any phase of gambling on which they claim to be an authority.

"I specifically challenge such "experts" as Edward O. Thorp, PhD., John Scarne, Mike McDougall and Edward Barron."

"How about it?" "Any Takers?"

There is no record that any of them accepted Goodman's challenge.

What are the terms of your challenge?

Wildman: the "Lutz, Fl." thing had nothing to do with you: it's an inside joke about an author who advocates playing tightly to minimize losses.

I for one enjoy reading systems threads; welcome to the board.

Quote: cwwbjr

What are the terms of your challenge?

That last line should have been in quotes.

"How about it? Any takers?" was Goodman's challenge.

Quote: SanchoPanza

But it can help.

No, it can't.

Quote: Exoter175

So basically, you're telling me I"m doing things wrong? In all of my years of card counting where my big bets are made when I have the ADVANTAGE, and my small wagers when I have the DISADVANTAGE, you're telling me that despite my near 90% win rate from trip to trip, that my historical figures showing average losses greater than my average wins, are somehow reverse of your "system? That even though you lose wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more frequently than I do, by a margin of about 7 times greater, you somehow show greater wins than your losses, despite losing more?

Please, elaborate further, especially so on how you say "I will have a positive % outcome at the end of my trip", when you're likely wagering heavily into a DISADVANTAGE, because my empirical data shows that there's no possible way you could display the complete inverse of my winnings/losses on a trip to trip basis by means of win/loss averages.

Wow....I had no intent on "ruffling anyone's feathers"! .....having said that, and since I am new on these posts, it is a little difficult to distinguish the sarcasm from the genuine comments. But certainly, I am not telling anyone they are "doing things wrong". I have a method, that appears to have some merit with proven success through 833 tables (all recorded from actual live playing data/results). If you have a system that works for you, kudos! Possibly, the reason your margin of wins is so much higher than mine, yet you still have net $ losses, is most likely because my system prevents large losses, yet leaves the upside potential unlimited---although the potential for large gains using my system is much more restricted than a card counter's system, as my approach tends to become conservative once significant gains have been earned.

My intent in publishing the original post, was to (hopefully) get positive feedback from experienced players about the tendency for blackjack to run in streaks, and the success/failure in betting those streaks (without counting cards). As the subheading of this forum warned, most posters lean toward the math (understandably).......maybe I was under the false impression that there were successful blackjack players out there and I could "join their club" :)

Quote: 1BB

Hi, wildman. Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum. My welcome is sincere and void of insult, condescension, sarcasm, superiority or baiting.

As you can see it's a tough crowd here when it comes to betting systems. Even though you posted in the proper forum, talk of any system seems to make some people nervous. We have a few excellent math minds here and a whole bunch of others who ride their coattails. I include myself in the latter. Both groups know although short term success is possible that ultimately what you are doing will not work. In fact if one were to write a book on what not to do when playing blackjack, I think you've nailed it.

I've read and enjoyed all of your posts and I hope you will continue to participate here. It's fun to see people get riled up. One tip if I may. As sure as the sun will rise, someone will try to bait you, try to get you to lose your cool and post something that will cause you to be suspended. Don't fall for it. Don't give them the satisfaction.

Thanks for the advice and "heads up". You won't see me losing my cool and posting something to get suspended.....not my MOA! In fact, in my "real job", I have experienced much ridicule, choosing to be an organic farmer among my many non-organic neighboring conventional farmers that don't understand how to be successful at it.........but, as it is much more profitable than conventional and gmo farming, I just laugh at them all the way to the bank! Hopefully with my money management blackjack system, I can continue to carry money to the bank (my home safe). And at some point, I may have to give in to the mathematicians and say, "yeah you were right". But, until that time, I will enjoy my current success.

Actually, I have enjoyed the comments on this site, and in the future will have a better feel for what is sarcastic and what is genuine. My only disappointment so far: That I have only one vote for "genius"! :)

Quote: wildman

... As the subheading of this forum warned, most posters lean toward the math (understandably).......maybe I was under the false impression that there were successful blackjack players out there and I could "join their club" :)

Welcome to the 'Lucky Winners Club' Where players defy the maths with luck and occasionally have better returns than the unlucky but skilled advantage players.
That wasn't sarcasm: It happens. That reality ruffles feathers on its own because having good, skilled play stymied by bad luck hurts a lot, especially when the ploppies are winning.

There are other corner clubs: The 'Skilled and Deserving Winners Club', 'The Skilled and Unlucky Losers Club', and the 'Unskilled and Doomed Losers Club'. We affectionately throw rocks at each-other and occasionally find ourselves in the wrong club :o)

Successful through unskilled luck is where some of us find ourselves. It's not so popular to the others.

But don't anticipate your luck holding. Your system doesn't scare the casinos, because it is worthless.

Quote: wildman

My only disappointment so far: That I have only one vote for "genius"! :)

Yeah. That one was sarcasm :o)

MrV, thanks for the insider info (even though my system does somewhat the same as the "author")! I was somewhat confused about "Lutz, Fl".......maybe if my system continues to be successful, I can move there some day! :)

Yes if you manage to keep your money in your wallet

Quote: wildman

...Hopefully with my money management blackjack system, I can continue to carry money to the bank (my home safe). And at some point, I may have to give in to the mathematicians and say, "yeah you were right". But, until that time, I will enjoy my current success.

Actually, I have enjoyed the comments on this site, and in the future will have a better feel for what is sarcastic and what is genuine. My only disappointment so far: That I have only one vote for "genius"! :)

Hello wildman, I'd also like to welcome you to the forums.

While I can't say I'm a believer in your "system" I can say that either way I still enjoyed reading about it. Not that I ever thought it would work, but it's this kind of out of the box thinking that often leads to other "ah ha" moments or ideas. You clearly have shown that you're willing to do some work, keep some statistics, and that you're a rigid follower of "the rules" set before you... These are some of the core principals behind Advantage Players. So I do admire your attempt to find an advantage, unfortunately I can guarantee after reviewing your "system" that it will mathematically fail. Without taking the deep dive, running sims, etc (it's simply not necessary in this situation) I'll just provide basic math, nothing special. Calculating the Expected Value (EV) of a bet, session, etc, in blackjack is really simple:

EV(of any 1 bet) = BetAmount * HouseEdge... so say you play 1 hand for $75at a .5% house edge game. EV = (75) * (-.005) = -$0.38

EV(of 50,000 bets) = AverageBet * NumHands * HouseEdge.

So you've played around 60,000 hands, and let's say over the whole course of those hands your average bet was $75. I know you bet more now, but you said you used to bet a lot less previously for years... so just stay with me and call it $75 on average. So what's your expected value at an average .5% BJ game? Note: whether it's .3% or .6% it doesn't change these numbers very much...

EV(60,000 bets) = (75) * (60,000) * (-.005) = -$22,500

So you're thinking, but I'm no where near -$22k!! I must be doing something different or something that works! Well, unfortunately your Expected Value is only truly realized over millions and millions of hands. So for any snapshot before then you're going to also have to deal with Variance (short term luck), and yes, even at 60k hands you are very much in the short term still. So, you need to know what your Standard Deviations are. Standard Deviations are the + and - numbers associated with a given EV that encompass your range of results, taking in to account variance. So what's your Standard Deviations? Again, simple math can do this:

SD(1 hand) = AvgBet * 1.1

1.1 is a well established mathematical number related to the variance of blackjack and I invite you to look it up if you need the proof. So given your average bet is $75, what is your standard deviation of 1 hand?

SD(1 hand) = (75) * (1.1) = $82.50

This means for any given 1 hand, you bet $75, and you can expect to lose your $0.38 (shown above) PLUS or MINUS $82.50. The reason this is not $75 is because you could split or double (winning or losing them) or get a blackjack for a 150% payout. Thus, when you play one hand, you don't expect to win/lose exactly your $75 bet given all these other things that could happen.

So now that we know your SD for 1 hand of blackjack, how about 60,000 hands of blackjack so we can see where your personal results fall within the math?

SD(any # of hands) = SD(1 hand) * Sqrt(NumHands)

SD(60,000 hands) = (82.50) * Sqrt(60,000) = $20,208.29

With Standard Deviations, which you can wikipedia, but I assure you, 1SD comes with 68% confidence, 2SD comes with 95% confidence, and 3SD comes with 99% confidence. What this means is you have your EV... -22,000. When we apply the Standard Deviation to this we're creating a realm of possibility in which GIVEN VARIANCE, your actual results could fall. The bigger the realm (3SD) the more confident we are your results will fall within that realm. So we want to be at least 99% sure we capture your realm of possibility (given luck/variance in the short run essentially). This means we take your SD and multiply it by 3, to get 3SD.

3SD = 20,200 * 3 = 60,600

So what does this mean? Well, this means that over 60,000 hands playing with your average bet of $75 at a .5% blackjack game you can expect to lose $22,500 PLUS or MINUS (due to luck/variance of short term) $60,600.

So if you were the luckiest guy on Earth, you could be UP $38,100! ...on the flip side if you were the unluckiest guy on Earth, you could be DOWN $83,100! Yikes!

So I hope you see for the number of hands you've played and your average bet how your results fall. You SHOULD be down $22,500 dollars, but due to luck you're up something like $13k if I recall correctly? Long OP =D... I hope you see how your results fall completely within the realm of possibility, but that doesn't mean you have a winning system. That means as you play more, you'll gravitate towards your actual EV because as you play more hands your variance/luck will go down.

I'm telling you this and giving you this long winded answer so that you may focus your "outside of the box" thinking and efforts elsewhere, where you might have a potential to actually make some money. This system you laid out WILL lose, mathematically guaranteed. Notice how at NO POINT creating a "stop loss" or having a hunch about being on a "streak" (which are unpredictable) affected the results. This is pure simple math designed to show you these hunches, how other players play, stop losses, win goals, etc, do NOT affect the long term outcome of you playing a game... and the more you play it the more you get closer to that long term.

So please, stop playing this "System" and be grateful that you're lucky and up, instead of down $83,100 =).

Quote: Romes

So please, stop playing this "System" and be grateful that you're lucky and up, instead of down $83,100 =).

What he said.

Use your self discipline. Accept that you have just been bit lucky so far and apply your profit to date along with your discipline to learn to apply some winning techniques. There are some great opportunities. Your system isn't one of them. It's an illusion which the simplest maths can debunk.

I know what it's like to feel that you just cannot lose. It's that feeling you get when you are ahead and about to lose.

Quote: Romes

Hello wildman, I'd also like to welcome you to the forums.


So please, stop playing this "System" and be grateful that you're lucky and up, instead of down $83,100 =).

Thanks for doing the math for me! Seriously, it is great to know how the SDs, etc are calculated. It will help keep me humble....as I am going to need all the help I can get, as I have almost (I'm up $33K) mathematically achieved the status of "luckiest guy on earth"!

Quote: wildman

Possibly, the reason your margin of wins is so much higher than mine, yet you still have net $ losses, is most likely because my system prevents large losses, yet leaves the upside potential unlimited---although the potential for large gains using my system is much more restricted than a card counter's system, as my approach tends to become conservative once significant gains have been earned.

I don't think you read what i wrote, fully.

My win % is near 90%. My wins (the times that I win, on average) are smaller than my losses (the few times I lose, on average, are greater than the amount than my average wins). Nowhere did I suggest that I was at a net loss. In my time as a card counter, I've put over 6 figures into the bank.

What I was getting at, is simply the idea that your average win is greater than your average loss, which has to be absolute rubbish. What happens when you walk to a table, lose 5 bets in a row, walk to the next, lose 5 more bets in a row, ad nauseum? You lose, heavily, and with the sheer amount of accrued time I have on the tables compared to you, trust me, it happens alllllllllllllll the time. Further, my point was that my big bets only go out when I have the advantage in the game. Your big bets go out on streaks. Which do you think is more probable? You winning 6 hands in a row, or me winning a hand when the TC is +4? I'll answer that for you, me winning in TC+4. The probability of you winning 6 hands in a row is astronomical, and by accounts of sheer numbers, produces wayyyyyyyyyyyy less potential earnings than I bring to the table.

Basically what I'm saying is, your system cannot work. Take whatever "winnings" you might actually have, and put them in the bank or invest them in the market, because eventually you're going to lose some or all of it with this silly "system".

Not trying to be rude here, just trying to be honest, and to correct your assertion that I have a net loss, lol.

Quote: Exoter175

I don't think you read what i wrote, fully.

My win % is near 90%. My wins (the times that I win, on average) are smaller than my losses (the few times I lose, on average, are greater than the amount than my average wins). Nowhere did I suggest that I was at a net loss. In my time as a card counter, I've put over 6 figures into the bank.

What I was getting at, is simply the idea that your average win is greater than your average loss, which has to be absolute rubbish. What happens when you walk to a table, lose 5 bets in a row, walk to the next, lose 5 more bets in a row, ad nauseum? You lose, heavily, and with the sheer amount of accrued time I have on the tables compared to you, trust me, it happens alllllllllllllll the time. Further, my point was that my big bets only go out when I have the advantage in the game. Your big bets go out on streaks. Which do you think is more probable? You winning 6 hands in a row, or me winning a hand when the TC is +4? I'll answer that for you, me winning in TC+4. The probability of you winning 6 hands in a row is astronomical, and by accounts of sheer numbers, produces wayyyyyyyyyyyy less potential earnings than I bring to the table.

Basically what I'm saying is, your system cannot work. Take whatever "winnings" you might actually have, and put them in the bank or invest them in the market, because eventually you're going to lose some or all of it with this silly "system".

Not trying to be rude here, just trying to be honest, and to correct your assertion that I have a net loss, lol.

Apologies for misreading your post----and again, kudos for your success.

Exoter175, you, and others, claim (and prove mathematically) that my system cannot work. However, I find it "odd" no pun intended) that you and others would recommend that I put my current winnings in the bank! Why? Since I have only been risking money that I could afford to lose, and now have a gain of $33K, I think it makes more sense to continue to gamble with my "silly" system, and enjoy how it plays out. In my remaining lifetime (30+ more years or so), I don't think I will reach that "million(s) hand" point where the odds and standard deviations guarantee that I have zero chance of being a winner----so for all the fun that Vegas and playing blackjack have to offer, that seems like a smarter investment of my accumulated winnings---not to mention, that my wife and I have picked up over $30K of room, meal and show comps along the way (yes, I track that too), and will continue to pick up a significant amount of those before my $33K in accumulated winnings is expended due to "the math". Who knows, maybe I'll decide to become a card counter at some point, and parlay my current winnings into millions---probably not.

At any rate, I will keep the group posted on my trek toward my inevitable downfall, as long as some interest in that remains......maybe I should create another poll, and let everyone guess (or bet) on when my downfall finally consumes my current winnings.