Blackjack

Hi,

I am Potgam and I am new to this site.

I have been in contact with the wizard about a BJ system I have developed but he obviously doesn't believe that systems work.

I don't think he realises that counting, which he uses, is a system. If there is one system why shouldn't there be more?

I wrote a report on my system and sent it to him but it was blocked by his assistant.

If anyone out there is interested in the report and taking this further please do not hesitate to contact me.

I would be interested in hearing from you. I live in the UK but can travel if things develop.

Hi potgam, and welcome to the forums.

If you'd care to post your system, we can more/less tell you why it will (or probably won't) work. The Wizard is a smart guy, and if he doesn't believe in your "system" then more than likely it isn't mathematically sound. Feel free to describe your system to the best of your ability and we can help explain the why.

Hello Romes,

The Wizard hasn't seen my system it was blocked by his assistant. If I posted it on the forum wouldn't that be giving it away?

So what do you want? A person to play your system? If your system is so wonderful why not keep the info to yourself and clean up?

Hello Gabes22,

I would like some computer checking first. I live in Newcastle in the UK and there are no serious bj players. If you think LV is in a desert you haven't been to Newcastle.
Then ultimately a team of people to work with. Again in the UK there aren't the people.

The report consists of an excel spread sheet and a MS word file. Is it possible to upload these to the forum so people can check it out?

Welcome - 've been to Newcastle a few times; it used to have three small casinos but the last time I went there were the Grosvenor/G, Stanleys/Genting and Aspers.

You can logically upload a small spreadsheet. You may not yet be aware that you can create tables with values (see "Click here for formatting codes"), the picture shows an example I did last week using the CONCATENATE feature and then use drag and drop.


You should find people are helpful but awfully suspicions of systems that claim to beat baccarat or similar games. There are various counting systems for Blackjack [and some other games/sidebets] and people who have run simulations to show how much practical value these counts have.

Hi everyone,

OK here we go.

All binary games are zero sum. This is because whatever happens there will always be an equal and opposite result somewhere down the line. Roulette wheels would be like this without the zeros. However, casino owners put in the greens to pay for their costs and houses in Bermuda. Roulette cannot be beaten.

Now, BJ is fundamentally binary. Discounting the pushes, which can be thought of as nulls as nobody wins/loses, you either win or you lose. But BJ has certain characteristics which although binary make it a little different to just winning or losing. There is no negative equivalent of a blackjack and there are more double down wins than there are double down losses.

It is these two features of the game that if used correctly can make BJ beatable. It is an artificial form of what counters look for in the progress of a manual shoe. There are areas of play where there are more wins than there are losses.

I will try to get my stuff up onto the forum

Quote: potgam

I don't think he realises that counting, which he uses, is a system. If there is one system why shouldn't there be more?

Card counting is not a betting system. Card counting is a method to identify when the next hand is favorable for the player (which happens with regularity in blackjack). If you identify those favorable hands and only bet on those hands, you have the edge over the casino. There is a significant amount of literature on card counting.

Betting systems are not card counting. Betting systems are either based on the premise that prior hand outcomes are correlated with future hand outcomes, or are based on the premise that wins and losses must somehow balance out. For blackjack, neither is true.

If you are somehow identifying favorable betting opportunities, then you are card counting (whether you know it or not). If you are not identifying favorable betting opportunities, then your system will not be able to generate a positive edge for the player.

Hi MathExtremist,

Many thanks for your observation but card counting is a system. Anything that isn't random is a system. In counting the player is tracking cards to identify when suitable territory exists to bet higher. The player has a plan and having a plan is systematic and therefore is a system.

I do not look for favourable opportunities with my method I manufacture them. I originally developed my method for autoshufflers where there is no depletion of the decks. It works with both auto shufflers and manual decks.

Quote: potgam

Hi everyone,

OK here we go.

Here we go indeed.

Quote:

All binary games are zero sum.

There's no such thing as a "binary game." Perhaps you mean "binomial trial" or "Bernoulli trial" -- that is, a random event with exactly two outcomes?

Quote:

This is because whatever happens there will always be an equal and opposite result somewhere down the line. Roulette wheels would be like this without the zeros.

False. You don't appear to know what "zero sum" means. All casino games are zero sum -- there is never a situation in which the participants' total amount of money (including the casino) either increases or decreases. If I lose $5 to the casino, the casino gets all $5. Perhaps you are confusing "zero sum" with "no house edge," but those are entirely different concepts. If we flip coins where heads I win $1 and tails you win $1, that's both zero edge and a zero sum game. If we flip coins where heads I win $20 and tails you win $1, that's a strong edge in my favor and still a zero sum game.

The house edge of no-zero roulette is zero, but that's not because "there will always be an equal and opposite result somewhere down the line." What happens down the line is independent of the last spin.

Quote:

Now, BJ is fundamentally binary. Discounting the pushes, which can be thought of as nulls as nobody wins/loses, you either win or you lose. But BJ has certain characteristics which although binary make it a little different to just winning or losing. There is no negative equivalent of a blackjack and there are more double down wins than there are double down losses. It is these two features of the game that if used correctly can make BJ beatable. It is an artificial form of what counters look for in the progress of a manual shoe. There are areas of play where there are more wins than there are losses.

There are many more outcomes in blackjack than two, if that's what you mean by binary. Ignoring most of them doesn't make the game a simple win/loss proposition.

However, you appear to be chasing down the path that certain hand outcomes (blackjacks, doubling hands, etc.) are predictive of wins or losses in future hands. That's not true, and it has rigorously been studied, though it was previously explored in a book called (naturally) "Winning Blackjack Without Counting Cards" by David Popik.

Quote: potgam

Hi MathExtremist,

Many thanks for your observation but card counting is a system. Anything that isn't random is a system. In counting the player is tracking cards to identify when suitable territory exists to bet higher. The player has a plan and having a plan is systematic and therefore is a system.

I do not look for favourable opportunities with my method I manufacture them. I originally developed my method for autoshufflers where there is no depletion of the decks. It works with both auto shufflers and manual decks.

The premise of this subforum is to discuss betting systems which involve the manipulation of bet amounts based on past wins or losses.

If you want to call card counting a system, be my guest. I don't. I also don't consider flat betting the same amount each time "a system" because the next bet is not based on a prior win or loss. Under your definition, however, flat betting is a system because the bet amount isn't random. I find that definition wanting.

Having a plan is "strategic", not "systematic "

Flat betting is a system because there is a mind behind it. However, it is a system that doesn't work and will only return the expectation of the game.

Hi Ibeatyour races,

Isn't that just semantics - give me a break.

Quote: potgam

Hi MathExtremist,

Many thanks for your observation but card counting is a system. Anything that isn't random is a system. In counting the player is tracking cards to identify when suitable territory exists to bet higher. The player has a plan and having a plan is systematic and therefore is a system.

The remaining cards cease to be randomized because one is counting them? That's new. A fresh deck must not be random, either, I know the exact ranks of every single card remaining in a fresh deck!

I don't necessarily disagree that card counting is a system, depending on how one wishes to define, "System," you are certainly altering your betting to achieve a desired result. I don't think that the fact that it actually mathematically works precludes it from being a system. You could pay me 51:49 on a coin toss and I could Martingale, Martingale would then be a long-term winning system under these conditions, but still a system, nonetheless.

Quote:

I do not look for favourable opportunities with my method I manufacture them. I originally developed my method for autoshufflers where there is no depletion of the decks. It works with both auto shufflers and manual decks.

Ever smell a farm first thing in the morning?

Hello Administrator,

The dictionary defines system as an organised scheme or method. So if you have a method you have a system, even if your method is flat betting.

I recognise what you are saying about the farm but you are a little premature. I am still trying to find my way around the forum and get my report up on if possible

Nobody cares the definition of a system or a method or anything else. Call card-counting a system, don't call it a system, whatever. Card counting actually works. Betting systems that go off of how much you're up or down currently, how the last hand or few hands have gone, any streaks or whatever....those do not work.

Does your system work? Post it up.

Hello RS,

As I indicated my system works on both manual shoes and auto shuffle machines. As indicated I am trying to post it on the forum.

Quote: MathExtremist

The premise of this subforum is to discuss betting systems which involve the manipulation of bet amounts based on past wins or losses.

If you want to call card counting a system, be my guest. I don't. I also don't consider flat betting the same amount each time "a system" because the next bet is not based on a prior win or loss. Under your definition, however, flat betting is a system because the bet amount isn't random. I find that definition wanting.

If a "system" is defined slightly more broadly as systematic bet adjustments (not flat betting) based on previous indications, be it previous bet's win or lose result, - or the count, - then card counting is not only a system, but one of the few that effectively work, proving it is (well...) a mathematically proven system to win money via bet adjustments.

This was Ed Thorpe's premise: "Here's my system, and it provably works. Watch it go ape sh--, here's the book and its blueprints." And it is used to death.

Ed Thorpe was one of the few to say "Here's a proven system, people" - and to actually supply us with a concrete, verifiable proof, which we tested and saw viable.

in a strange way, he was a freak by giving us or selling us a system (via his book) that actually did work,- and where he was not lying for his own gain only.

Ed Thorpe's system is NOT considered a system in many ways because it does indeed work, it is not a bill of goods, he was not lying about it, and this is so rare that we feel it should not be lumped under a "systems" moniker - because of the connotation.

Potgam:

RE: System

I may not have conveyed myself as a wanted to, what I was saying is that I think card-counting could fairly be called a system or fairly not be called a system. It's really an issue of semantics. I would say it is unusual to call it a, 'System,' but not incorrect.

Hello Paigowdan,

The reason I mentioned systems is because the Wizard states that they are all worthless, and yet he uses one himself, counting. the point I was making is that if one system can work why could there not be others.

MOST systems are worthless, not all.

System means "concrete method" - to which we add bad-experience connotations because of general usage and implication.

Quote: potgam

Hello Paigowdan,

The reason I mentioned systems is because the Wizard states that they are all worthless, and yet he uses one himself, counting. the point I was making is that if one system can work why could there not be others.

Yes he says this, but ONLY on -EV games. Not games where you have an edge.

Quote: potgam

Hello Paigowdan,

The reason I mentioned systems is because the Wizard states that they are all worthless, and yet he uses one himself, counting. the point I was making is that if one system can work why could there not be others.

That's not what the Wizard or I mean when we say "betting system." When you redefine a common industry term to mean something other than what it means, and then try to argue from the basis of that redefinition, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody understands why you're arguing. Betting systems are indeed worthless -- as that term is understood. Card counting is not a betting system.

Further, if the point you're making is based only on semantic definitions -- rather than mathematics related to the game -- then it won't get you very far.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Yes he says this, but ONLY on -EV games. Not games where you have an edge.

No, betting systems are worthless regardless of what type of game you're playing. A betting system can't change the EV of a game, regardless of whether it's negative or positive to start with.

Quote: Paigowdan

If a "system" is defined slightly more broadly

It doesn't matter how you define anything. If the OP's "system" is nothing more than a way to evaluate the size of the next wager based on the size and results of previous wagers, it's not going to do anything to identify the profitable betting opportunities that arise in blackjack which are readily identified by counting cards. Debating definitions won't help here.

Quote: MathExtremist

No, betting systems are worthless regardless of what type of game you're playing. A betting system can't change the EV of a game, regardless of whether it's negative or positive to start with.

Right, we know it will never change the EV. But a betting system, whether flat betting, etc., WILL beat a +EV game. Can't beat it if you don't bet it.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Right, we know it will never change the EV. But a betting system, whether flat betting, etc., WILL beat a +EV game. Can't beat it if you don't bet it.

If you're playing a +EV game, it's not the system you use that's responsible for beating anything. Simply making the bet is +EV.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's not what the Wizard or I mean when we say "betting system." When you redefine a common industry term to mean something other than what it means, and then try to argue from the basis of that redefinition, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody understands why you're arguing. Betting systems are indeed worthless -- as that term is understood. Card counting is not a betting system.

Stacy, I've been in the casino pit as a worker for a very long time in "this industry." They do indeed say things like, "Is he using a betting system or some sort of AP or counting system here? - Call surveillance.

I'm really not lying to you, and I am telling you this from experience.

My point is exactly that this is not "what Mike or I meant." - and neither you or Mike ever worked in a casino pit for years.

I'm telling you that the usage of the word "system" for card counting is not unreasonable, because:
1. It's said in the pit, even though they often just say "card counting" along with "some card-counting system." they have and do indeed say that. And this in in the industry, in fact in the core of the industry, the casino pit. Don't quibble or split hairs here.
2. A betting system is simply using "a mathematical basis to adjust betting amounts to obtain increased profits." In this regard, card counting is not only a system, but a system that works.
3. If it weren't a mathematical system, then it wouldn't be detected as a system, where you'd never get backed off. Because it is a system, its use is detectable as a system being used by a player, by surveillance, - where you get backed off when using a disallowed system that was indeed noticed by the casino. The deliberate use of a system is how they may getcha.
4. All systems get noticed. Martingale is allowed, card counting is not. You get noticed precisely because you are using a system. If you flat-betted or made random raises, or used an allowed system (like Martingale), you're fine.
5. The negative connotation that is wished to be applied here, that "a system = a system that doesn't work" is not true, If I were to say that "Stacy and Mike are intelligent people who handle things in a very systematic manner, you guys would take it as a well-deserved compliment. Now, I'm using it here to describe "a systematic [mathematical] method that is deliberate and discernable," - which is an accurate definition. It may or may be valid, or not work.

I assure you, that in the pit or in the surveillance room, they often may say "He's using some system to defeat our game, we have to find out what it is" which may or may not be effective or allowable, but it is some sort of a system based on some sort of mathematical basis that they are going to examine.

Also note that all systems that may defeat a casino will use a mathematical basis to do, (to include those that don't), and as such, may be called a system of use of some sort. There are card-marking systems (daub cards of rank x and y), edge sorting system (turn cards of rank x and y), and the like. In fact, they may call in a systems' analyst who can do a systems analysis report, - to find out why the house lost its @ss.

Quote: potgam

Hi,

I am Potgam and I am new to this site.

I have been in contact with the wizard about a BJ system I have developed but he obviously doesn't believe that systems work.

I don't think he realises that counting, which he uses, is a system. If there is one system why shouldn't there be more?

I wrote a report on my system and sent it to him but it was blocked by his assistant.

If anyone out there is interested in the report and taking this further please do not hesitate to contact me.

I would be interested in hearing from you. I live in the UK but can travel if things develop.

OK Potgam,
I'm in the UK, so we speak the same language. I'm extremely fluent in Excel and I'm very familiar with blackjack, and card counting. PM me if you wish and I promise not to tussle with you about the meaning of 'system.'
If what you have is of any value, I'll discuss exploiting it. If it's not, I'll try to explain why. simple as!
PM me if you wish. If you can't do that, wellll. nuff said.

Quote: potgam

Hello RS,

As I indicated my system works on both manual shoes and auto shuffle machines. As indicated I am trying to post it on the forum.

Hello potgam,

As I indicated, you should post your system.

Hi OnceDear,

I am not familiar with "PM me". I would like to let you have my report but am unsure how to get it to you. It does not tell the reader how to operate the system but is a mathematical appraisal of BJ data. It demonstrates that some areas of play can be made positive in the players favour.

Quote: potgam

Hi OnceDear,

I am not familiar with "PM me". I would like to let you have my report but am unsure how to get it to you. It does not tell the reader how to operate the system but is a mathematical appraisal of BJ data. It demonstrates that some areas of play can be made positive in the players favour.

potgam,

PM is private messaging. It is accessed by either clicking on the envelope on the top black menu bar, or (more easily) click on OnceDear's name. His profile will come up, along with a blue button that says "new message". Click that button, and a message slip will appear, which should be pre-addressed to him (but sometimes isn't). If his name isn't there, just type it into the To: box.

You will not be able to attach documents there, though; I suggest you exchange email addresses with him and do it that way.

I'm also willing to vouch for him as a harsh but fair critic and math guy, FWIW; he'll give you a fair hearing. As would Math Extremist, and several others who've responded in the thread. Good luck.

PM=Private Message. I just sent you one, so you should get a pop-up to which you can easily reply. I gave you my email address. All options are open to you.
I'll remain open minded. If you want your system evaluated to any extent, then you need to trust someone. I'm your guy :)

Administrator, Many thanks for that info.

I will argue with anyone that betting systems can work and that card counting is also a system. What almost all of us here can agree upon is that a betting system that relies on nothing other than varying bets will not work in a -EV game.

Card counting encapsulates a betting system that works very well against some -EV games.

Those of us that work in the gaming industry tend to lump all systems together with variations of Martingale but in fact some systems work. Varying bets based on hole card information is definitely a system and we can all probably name many more systems that use bet variance to establish an advantage.

Have received 'something' by email. Reserving comments till read in daytime......

Quote: DRich

I will argue with anyone that betting systems can work and that card counting is also a system. What almost all of us here can agree upon is that a betting system that relies on nothing other than varying bets will not work in a -EV game.

Card counting encapsulates a betting system that works very well against some -EV games.

Those of us that work in the gaming industry tend to lump all systems together with variations of Martingale but in fact some systems work. Varying bets based on hole card information is definitely a system and we can all probably name many more systems that use bet variance to establish an advantage.

"systems" don't stipulate using -EV games or +EV games.

systems don't guarantee that they work or not.

systems stipulate that you use an ongoing mathematical history in the game being played.

Some systems work, some do not. Systems based on card counting and hole carding do indeed work. And this is because they are reliable, proven systems.

Some systems are allowed, some are not.

All systems, as methods - and since they are mathematically based - can be discerned or detectable.

Here's a new defense when getting expelled, flat-betted, or 86-ed: "I technically wasn't using a 'system.' Now let me present it to you with my argument that I got from the forum..." Try this at the El Cortez, and please report back to us on its efficacy

As for betting systems based simply on the previous bets wins and loses without counting, they are all based on the gambler's fallacy, and just don't work. They are, however, systems. Systems based on reliable methods, like hole carding and card counting, do work.

Lose your denial about using a system WHEN using a system, especially when it works. Drich got it.

Card counting is a method of varying bets based on the remaining composition of the deck. That "works" because you're weighting more of your wager toward scenarios where you have the edge. What I call a "betting system" is a method like the Martingale or D'Alembert that dictates how to vary bets based only on whether prior bets won or lost. As I understand it, this is how the Wizard means the phrase "betting system" as well and is why he says what he says about them. In blackjack, card counting is effective but betting systems aren't. In that vein, the OP's logic (that if at least one system works, another system might also work) is fallacious.

Varying one's bets solely based on whether prior bets won or lost -- regardless of whether you call that a "system" or something else -- is never going to yield an advantage because there is not a meaningful correlation between those prior wins and losses and future win probability in the same way that there is a correlation between remaining deck composition and future win probability.

If the OP has discovered a factor other than remaining deck composition that has a significant correlation with future win probability, that's worthy of a research paper or book. But I'm not sure what that factor would be.

Waiting for someone to call it a "basic system" card.

Please send ME the system.
I needs me a new system ;-)

<edit> How's that Speed Count thing work?

Quote: OnceDear

Have received 'something' by email. Reserving comments till read in daytime......

Eagerly awaiting this... He already said that blackjacks and double downs are advantageous for the player. We already know this. That's why they exist in basic strategy. That's why you split 99 v 5, but don't split 99 v 10. We know when they are a better option than the others. He then said there's a way to "manufacturer" these situations. No... there isn't. Either you manipulate the game (cheating) to get double downs, or you take them generically as they come. If you split/double more when basic strategy tells you not to, then there's SIMPLE math that proves this is a BAD and -EV thing to do. It's posted already on the Wizards Odds site.

Basically, without hearing his system, just his thoughts behind it, there's about .9999999999999% chance it doesn't work.

Also:
1) Roulette can be beaten, but not by a betting system.
2) Blackjack is not a binary game. You can have blackjacks, which pays 150%, double downs, splits, etc, that is not a "1 for 1" exchange of the original wager. This is the case for both wins and losses of these scenarios. Again, we already know these things are good for the player as laid out in basic strategy.
3) Card counting can be called a system. But that doesn't mean you can use it to compare apples to oranges. Just because 1 system works doesn't mean there for sure exists another system that works. Either you find a system that can track the house edge (i.e. counting) or your system is flawed. Saying "but card counting works so my system must work" is a completely invalid statement with zero proof. They're 100% independent from one another.

EDIT: Not sure how this double posted but I guess it did =/.

Quote: beachbumbabs

potgam,

I'm also willing to vouch for him as a harsh but fair critic and math guy, FWIW; he'll give you a fair hearing.

Aw Cheers for that.
I've exchanged emails and have indeed promised him a fair assessment. I've agreed with him that I won't discuss him or his system here for at least 30 days. Please suspend me if I do.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Please send ME the system.
I needs me a new system ;-)

<edit> How's that Speed Count thing work?

Henry Tamburin is offering his class in Vegas soon. From the bjinsider newsletter preview...

"*Speed Count Class - Early Bird Special

*This class will be held in Las Vegas on *Friday, June 24th*. This is
a *hands-on class* that will teach you how to get the edge with Speed
Count. Taught by Blackjack Master Dr. Henry Tamburin, who has 47
years' experience as a skilled card counter. Early Bird Special: *$100
off tuition* if you register by April 24 ($597 instead of $697). Plus
each student receives a copy of the *Golden Touch Blackjack DVD*
($139), one set of the *OBS strategy cards* ($15), and the *Golden
Touch Blackjack Revolution* e-book ($20). Limited class size; sign-up
now to get your $100 discount! To register call Henry Tamburin at
*1-251-648-2471*."

ONLY $597!!!!

P.S. I am NOT endorsing this!!

So you are reading his system but we won't know the results or anything about it for a month?

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Henry Tamburin is offering his class in Vegas soon. From the bjinsider newsletter preview...

"*Speed Count Class - Early Bird Special

*This class will be held in Las Vegas on *Friday, June 24th*. This is
a *hands-on class* that will teach you how to get the edge with Speed
Count. Taught by Blackjack Master Dr. Henry Tamburin, who has 47
years' experience as a skilled card counter. Early Bird Special: *$100
off tuition* if you register by April 24 ($597 instead of $697). Plus
each student receives a copy of the *Golden Touch Blackjack DVD*
($139), one set of the *OBS strategy cards* ($15), and the *Golden
Touch Blackjack Revolution* e-book ($20). Limited class size; sign-up
now to get your $100 discount! To register call Henry Tamburin at
*1-251-648-2471*."

ONLY $597!!!!

P.S. I am NOT endorsing this!!

1st, thank you for NOT endorsing this. I would hate to have to ban you here, I did not actually type that did I? I am not a secret administrator, I believe the compensation to be below my pay grade. And yes, I am delusional ;-)

I betcha using Trump tactics I could get another 50% off the offer. I would save half my money, almost sounds enticing. Are there dancing girls included? Just 2F

Quote: Wizardofnothing

So you are reading his system but we won't know the results or anything about it for a month?

6minutes 30seconds in

Quote: Romes

Basically, without hearing his system, just his thoughts behind it, there's about .9999999999999% chance it doesn't work.

Doh! Romes, your estimated 1% chance that it doesn't work seems a bit squiffy: Without knowing the basis of that estimate.

As I said earlier, I'm not discussing him or his system for 30 days. Can barely wait.
May I say that I've had some interesting and amusing emails this month.
Unrelated, I'm retiring soon to a life of lazy luxury.

$:o)

It was .0000000000001%, but perhaps you're right =P. Looking forward to the analysis.