Oscar's Grind

In my continued look at FREE betting systems, my next one shall be Oscar's Grind. Please click the link for an introduction and the rules, for now.

At this point I'd like to throw it open for general comments on Oscar's Grind, like reason one might use it, user experience, pros & cons, and any comments on my page.

I also put together this simple and temporary video showing an example.


Direct: ttps://youtu.be/4x53TDah4NY

The question for the poll is what do you think of Oscar's Grind?

I used a modified Oscars Grind for several years on low stakes BJ. Playing mostly at the El Cortez, I'd make a few dollars per hour. What it got me was three free nights a month and a prime rib lunch every day I played. I'd come out every two months, come in on the 27th-28th, and use my offers back to back. I'd play for about six hours a day, mixing O.G. with some card counting. I'd play OG and when the pit was comfortable and not paying attention I'd switch to KISS for one or two shoes of Double Deck.
I also used it on electronic roulette when the main goal was to funnel enough money to get a premium.
Never won big and very rarely would end a session down anything.
Once I moved to Vegas and didn't need free rooms, OG lost its lure and I was lucky to met Axel and a bunch of former posters here who were kind enough to show me a few of their moves.

It's nice to be off suspension (I never noticed you were gone, Wiz). While I was in WoV jail, I finished up my page on Oscar's Grind and shot a video, which I need to edit.

In my modified version, after a few bets I would no longer look to win a unit, only to break even. Once I was even for the series, I'd start a new one. I called a series an inning, and would play 7-9 innings per session. Playing for the tie instead of trying to win each series was much more manageable. My goal wasn't really to win, it was to get in enough hours each day to get a food comp and get free room mailings.
Oscar wouldn't help you win big, but it can improve your chances of your money lasting longer which generally will improve your comps.
I'd alternate Oscar with card counting a few shoes( Double deck) when the pit was satisfied I wasn't a threat.

Quote: billryan

My goal wasn't really to win, it was to get in enough hours each day to get a food comp and get free room mailings.

That is a good goal. In that case, I would recommend starting with a few big bets after buying in and when the supervisor is watching. Also, take lots of breaks. Otherwise, bet small. Granted, sometimes the supervisor comes along mid-hand, so its not perfect.

Here is version 1.0 of my Oscar's Grind video. It in in "private" mode, so I can still redo it. That said, I welcome all comments. I know the audio sounds like I'm talking through a long piece of pipe. I do not know why or a way to correct for that.


Direct: ttps://youtu.be/4x53TDah4NY

Staying hydrated means more bathroom trips. I was a smoker who made a point of not bothering my fellow players so I'd get up for my two smokes an hour. I figured I missed about a quarter of the hands dealt.
Since this is about Oscars Grind, maybe you can clear something up for me.
I believe it was Arnold Snyder who first threw water on this method, pointing out that eventually one would hit a long losing streak, or even a choppy game and you'd wipe out your theoretical $5000 bankroll.

As I mentioned, playing to break even in a long series will get you back to your initial bet more often. I think in this game, sessions actually do play a factor. If I had a $5,000 bankroll, I'd divide it into ten " sessions" of $500. Only one session BR is ever at risk.
Say my initial bet was $5 and I'm down 400, betting eight units. I win so I raise my bet to nine units. I lose three hands in a row so I've reached my session limit of $500. I'm done and will start again tomorrow. Normally that wouldn't change a thing as life is all one big session.
However, in this case my bet has been lowered from nine units back to my initial one unit bet.
To my math impaired way of thinking, this lowers my chances of losing my entire $5,000 BR by about 90%.
Had I kept going in my original session, I'd be down $500 and betting $40 a hand.
By starting over in a new session, I'm still down $500, but am betting $5. The $500 I lost would be replaced by winning sessions.
As long as I don't lose $500 more than once in ten sessions, it is a slightly winning game. I can't imagine having ten straight $500 losing sessions. I'd think my chance to double my $5000 before losing it all are pretty high.
I strongly suspect my thoughts on some this are incorrect, but if they are can you explain why?

Bill, what is your winning goal per session?

Quote: Wizard

Bill, what is your winning goal per session?

To be clear, what you call a session I call a game, and each sequence is an inning. An inning ends when you are up one unit.

My aspirational goal was ten units. In reality, I'd usually get bored after 7-9 innings and quit after I won the last inning.

After some tinkering, I decided to put the extra winnings from a double, split and blackjack in a side bank, almost as a side bet so that each inning resulted in winning one unit.

Quote: billryan

To be clear, what you call a session I call a game, and each sequence is an inning. An inning ends when you are up one unit.

Confusing to me. I would never refer to a new come-out roll as a start of an inning and would not use the amount of my bet for any such determination. I have observed even system bettors to be quite erratic. For instance at baccarat, I am often addressed as Mister Banker, but am on Player and Tie quite often.

It is clear that computer simulations are always 100% loyal to a system, but real world bettors seem to be less committed. Drinks, music, distractions and worry tend to erode any "system player's" label.

A session is a stint at the table, nothing more. I favor the concept of USING winnings as either tips or bet increases, rather than "chasing losses" by dipping into the bankroll on losses.

The bet increase will bring you money IF it wins, but the tip will bring you a positive return of SOME sort, because, even if the bet loses, crew members will perk up and pay attention and other players will be 'shamed' into tipping.

I fully realize that any comparison or discussion of systems should focus on "pure" systems, not erratic ones. Results can always be erratic but system adherence should be purely by the book, however gamblers are always real world gamblers and real world gamblers rarely follow systems religiously even if they think they do.




.

Thanks, good video, short and sweet. Some lip-sync problems in the beginning, if hard to fix not a big deal

I totally feel that increasing bets when you are winning is more fun than increasing them when losing.

After many hours of playing the grind, I'd say fun isn't a word you will associate with it.

The bet size may grow more slowly than Labouchere or Fibonacci, but the end result is the same. The bet size will eventually grow to bust any bankroll.

The graph says you all you need to know about OG.

Hi,
Is there a way to use Oscar's gring system to play six numbers instead?
Odds switch from 2/1 to 6/1

Any idea?

Ybot

Quote: billryan

I used a modified Oscars Grind for several years on low stakes BJ. Playing mostly at the El Cortez, I'd make a few dollars per hour. What it got me was three free nights a month and a prime rib lunch every day I played. I'd come out every two months, come in on the 27th-28th, and use my offers back to back. I'd play for about six hours a day, mixing O.G. with some card counting. I'd play OG and when the pit was comfortable and not paying attention I'd switch to KISS for one or two shoes of Double Deck.
I also used it on electronic roulette when the main goal was to funnel enough money to get a premium.
Never won big and very rarely would end a session down anything.
Once I moved to Vegas and didn't need free rooms, OG lost its lure and I was lucky to met Axel and a bunch of former posters here who were kind enough to show me a few of their moves.

I’m out of my league. y’all took this to another level. But I dont have time to do this full time. I’m surprised you left Vegas. My memories there are mostly happy. The roller coaster of variance was the only hard part.

Better opportunities elsewhere. I suspect I'll go back to Vegas in a few years if I am still alive and healthy.

Quote: billryan

Better opportunities elsewhere. I suspect I'll go back to Vegas in a few years if I am still alive and healthy.

Actually, Businesses make more money than card counting. I just dont like dealing with clients and franchizors. Maybe ill be a semi absentee franchiZee after my parents die. Actually Ill be too Busy maintaining and selling empty lots.

Owning hvac business is good.

I was trying to discover if there's an easy way to determine a formula for a given probability of winning and bankroll, but the closest I get is somewhere around N^2/4 equations in N^2/4 unknowns, which, while it can be solved to an exact value, doesn't seem to have a general solution (any more than quintic equations do).
Oscar's Grind is mentioned in Ethier, but he also doesn't have a general solution for it.

I did calculations on single-zero roulette for bankrolls of 10 and 25, and got numbers that match the Wizard's "simulation" numbers.

For 10, I get the probabilty of winning as
9,376,913,891,861,150,682,822,063,236,156,502 / 10,489,136,361,003,137,029,896,300,759,975,019

For 25, I get
21,311,358,572,717,105,981,113,818,435,445,933,328,649,697,099,207,691,177,852,086,080,830,726,254,754,603,634,461,880,981,249,296,672,130,528,863,273,473,225,389,459,691,765,331,935,192,528,510,462,664,062,193,898 /
22,407,492,044,043,867,319,390,521,605,881,575,494,019,057,916,580,855,571,484,383,066,242,644,805,730,137,200,705,566,050,338,765,417,724,371,731,549,894,606,461,570,289,394,566,210,345,282,778,745,050,690,233,973
Note that the numerator and denominator each have 161 digits.

How Could you play Oscar's grind way playing less numbers but 18?

"I can't imagine having ten straight $500 losing"

In any casino game, a 10 session losing streak is very possible,... Even if each session is one month apart.