Wizard
Administrator
Wizard 
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1388
  • Posts: 23330
May 17th, 2012 at 7:50:23 PM permalink
Quote: DorothyGale

Walter Thomason wrote an entire book "21-st Century Blackjack" based on a few thousand hands he dealt himself at his kitchen table ... maybe you've got a book here ... keep going ...



Sadly, I bet that book sold at least 100x more copies than mine.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
DorothyGale
DorothyGale
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
May 17th, 2012 at 8:01:56 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Sadly, I bet that book sold at least 100x more copies than mine.

No doubt, it was in every Barnes & Noble and Borders in the country for many years ... I love this review from Roger Harris:
Quote: Roger Harris

The most important thing you need to know about this book is that Thomason's system simply does NOT work. Despite Thomason's claims, there is no logical reason to think it should work; there is no convincing (that is, statistically significant) evidence that it does work; and there is CONSIDERABLE evidence, from both math and computer simulations, that it does NOT work. I have simulated this system using CVSim (a popular commercial simulator), with my own simulator, and with a modified version of a "freeware" simulator. All together, I have the results from many billions of hands. All three simulators gave precisely the same result: This progression produces slightly worse results, in terms of amount lost per dollar bet, than flat betting. My own simulator also accumulated results by "sessions" ranging from 100 hands (about an hour of playing time) up to 50,000 hands, and it also compared flat betting to the progression on the same hands, as Thomason does in the book. In ALL cases, the progression had fewer winning sessions than flat betting, and flat betting beat the progression in more than half the sessions. It seems likely that Thomason was merely self-deluded at the time he wrote the book (as a result of the insignificant number of blackjack hands that he used for testing), but he now knows about these results, after lengthy debate with myself and others on Stanford Wong's [...] forum. It's hard now for me to avoid the conclusion that Thomason simply doesn't care that a lot of people will lose a lot of money playing this system. You don't need to be one of them. Do NOT fall for the idiotic "reasoning" that since card counting is hard, you should play a progression. This is really just an example of Thomason's inability to deal with ordinary logic.

--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
guido111
guido111
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 707
May 17th, 2012 at 8:48:07 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Quote: DorothyGale

Walter Thomason wrote an entire book "21-st Century Blackjack" based on a few thousand hands he dealt himself at his kitchen table ... maybe you've got a book here ... keep going ...



Sadly, I bet that book sold at least 100x more copies than mine.

Since Frank Scoblete, the best-selling author of casino gaming books in the United States, wrote the introduction for that book, it was guaranteed to sell many copies.

Frank just suggests to everyone to read the book with an open mind.
Does not matter that the content is really useless, it offers simple ideas for the simple minded.
That sells books these days.

KISS
(keep it simple shack!)

added:
Walter Thomason is still quite active on BJ forums.
His claim is that computer simulation results radically differ from actual played shoe results in the win/lose streak area.
And HIS short term results show what can be expected in the long run.

Again, simple minded people follow simple paths.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard 
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1388
  • Posts: 23330
May 17th, 2012 at 9:59:05 PM permalink
Yup, Scoblete did indeed write a flattering forward to the book. In response, I would like to say that Frank Scoblete is a very nice man, and the majority of his advice, especially in later years, is to the benefit of recreational players. However...I don't agree with everything he says.

Regarding 21st Century Blackjack I can not come up with one positive thing to say. The only difference between that book and a bucket of s**t is a bucket.

If there is one thing I've learned from the book business it is that people DO judge a book by its cover. They are more likely to buy a book that promises an easy way to win lots of money than a hard way to win a little money -- regardless of what is between the covers.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
guido111
guido111
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 707
May 17th, 2012 at 10:22:31 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

If there is one thing I've learned from the book business it is that people DO judge a book by its cover. They are more likely to buy a book that promises an easy way to win lots of money than a hard way to win a little money -- regardless of what is between the covers.

There you go.
Take the cute redhead (Angela) from your Craps video and yourself on the cover of your new book.
She has to be dressed like she is in the videos.

Promise easy ways to play and win at every casino game.

You need many photos of both of you and her or other models in the book.
It will sell.
Start it as an e-book.

I would buy it even if it is the same as your first book!
Think of your kids. I know you do. (Mine are grown, thank goodness, yours are still growing)
just saying...

added: this should be in it's own thread!
Girls Gone Gamblin'
with
the Wizard of Odds


BTW, where is your wedding ring?
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 14626
May 17th, 2012 at 10:34:33 PM permalink
IN ORDER:

TheCessPit,

My system is not a Reverse Labouchere, it is a modified version of the Standard Labouchere. It is basically just a Labouchere System that enables the player to cross more than two numbers off of the list with the result of one play.

What you go on to describe is not the Labouchere System in anyway whatsoever. You would not bet $2 on the Line with a starting Labouchere Line of 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, you would bet $4 on the Line regardless. It is an intriguing system, mind you, but strictly it is not the Labouchere.

The main problem you would run into is Line losses without odds losses, unless you just automatically add Line losses (as they are going to be smaller than Edge losses) to the front of your Labouchere line as opposed to the back and try to work your way to the middle. Once again, that's an interesting way to do it, but results-wise, you're basically just playing Labouchere on both seperately when you do it that way. You're essentially trying to have a betting line for the Line and a betting line for your Edge bets.

That's still an interesting system, though. It'd be cool to see that one run through a program a few million times.

The AIM with my system is, very simply, to reduce the necessary winning percentage to profit to something more favorable to the player.

I'm just interested in whether or not it works. I make no claims other than theoretical ones. It could be a complete and total abject failure that is significantly worse than flat-betting. I personally think it will prove better than flat-betting, but will not be proven to beat the house edge in the long run.
MustangSally

I unfortunately have to agree with you that a simulation of 10,000 hands will probably be fairly worthless. It is not because you cannot win enough in that situation, but because it is quite possible that you will, very simply, not LOSE as much as you are supposed to.

I am currently averaging a profit of $1.02985 per hand played. At that rate, it will take me 486 played hands to reach $500, which is the maximum allowable loss for the system. Based on the Realistic House Edge of .42622%, per the Wizard, 10,000 hands at $10/hand average (not sure what my average is at the moment) results in a return of $99,573.78 on $100,000 bet.

Basically, if my system fails to complete a Line three LESS times than it rightfully should, it is going to appear to be an unbeatable system based on the very limited sample size.

In short, you are absolutely right that extensive simulated trial is the only possible way to determine the worthiness (or lack thereof) of the system compared to flat betting. Continued experimentation is, unfortunately, pointless. I must admit, though, that those are some fine-looking tables and were pretty fun to make.

Thank you for kindly taking the time to comment on my post, Sally.

By the way, you can trust on-line Blackjack at Bovada.

guido111

I do not know what you think it is that is coming.

I have no angle, here. I like mathematics and gambling theory. I have fully detailed the reasons for the multiple accounts and have specifically stated to JB that the second account can be deleted, if it suits him, because I have copied the information in quotes.

I would suggest that the Wizard and JB have decided that I am useful enough that I should be allowed to post more, because that Forum setting was changed. (Thank you, by the way, Wizard and JB) I basically just wanted to maintain the thread and respond to people promptly, that's all.

SOOPOO

Thank you for the support.

I agree with the majority of your post. I remain convinced that my Modified Labouchere is probably, at a minimum, superior to flat betting. If there was a way to beat the casino with a betting progression, however, somebody before me would in all liklihood have already figured it out.

I was mainly just interested because I have never heard of the Labouchere being applied in such a fashion.

DorothyGale

I would not write a book if I were inclined to continue this experiment, which I am not. I would post the information here for free.

Wizard

I will purchase your book. Do you prefer that I buy it new, or is it all the same to you if I try to get it used from Amazon?

I just looked, I can get it new for $13.00 (after shipping) on Amazon.com. Is there a way to purchase it directly from you, or will that be fine?

I made the mistake of purchasing 21st Century Blackjack at Barnes & Noble back when I used to live in Kansas City. I keep it in the bathroom in case I run out of toilet paper and get desperate...Seriously, I'm not a professional by any means whatsoever and I recognized that book as garbage on its face.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard 
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1388
  • Posts: 23330
May 17th, 2012 at 10:51:07 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I will purchase your book. Do you prefer that I buy it new, or is it all the same to you if I try to get it used from Amazon?



I don't want any pity purchases. However, if you do want a copy, it won't benefit me if you buy it resale. Hopefully it won't end up in the bathroom, once you use up 21st Century.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
98Clubs
98Clubs
Joined: Jun 3, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1728
May 17th, 2012 at 10:54:50 PM permalink
This is a proggression variant. EPIC FAIL... no Counting = no Player Advantage.

Had to Edit. Walt used to Post over at H or S, when I was rather active there. About the only thing I advised him to do was use Ace-Five, and bet THAT when +1 or better, and fall back on Progression at neutral count or maybe -1 or -2.

IIRC his optimum, negotiated ramp was 1, 1, 1.5, 2 then return to beginning. This when winning: a loss starts again, and remains 1 unit until the double-win.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
May 17th, 2012 at 11:10:23 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

IN ORDER:

TheCessPit,

My system is not a Reverse Labouchere, it is a modified version of the Standard Labouchere. It is basically just a Labouchere System that enables the player to cross more than two numbers off of the list with the result of one play.



Apologies, I have no idea why I added the word Reverse in there.

Quote:


What you go on to describe is not the Labouchere System in anyway whatsoever. You would not bet $2 on the Line with a starting Labouchere Line of 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, you would bet $4 on the Line regardless. It is an intriguing system, mind you, but strictly it is not the Labouchere.



I disagree that it is "not the Labouchere System in anyway". It is a modification.

Quote:


The AIM with my system is, very simply, to reduce the necessary winning percentage to profit to something more favorable to the player.



I still don't understand what you mean, I'm afraid. Which winning percentage, which percentage? What's more favourable?

Quote:


I'm just interested in whether or not it works. I make no claims other than theoretical ones. It could be a complete and total abject failure that is significantly worse than flat-betting. I personally think it will prove better than flat-betting, but will not be proven to beat the house edge in the long run. I maintain that it is possible, however, mostly due to Naturals knocking out numbers on the line. You're getting numbers knocked out with no additional bet being made.



I don't think it will do any better than flat betting over the long term. The amount bet versus the amount won in both cases will be the same. What you will change is the number and amount of wins after a "session" in one direction or another.

Run multiple simulations, plot the curve of frequency of result, and you'll see what I mean. It's a useful exercise.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 14626
May 17th, 2012 at 11:39:05 PM permalink
IN ORDER:

Wizard,

It's not a pity purchase by any stretch of the imagination. God knows you don't need any money from me. I have read any number of articles that you have on your WizardofOdds website for free, and you write very well. I've learned a lot just from reading those. I've also played your Blackjack game, extensively (even before these tests) that you provide for free. It'll be a nice change of pace to read a gambling book written by an honest author.

Where should I go to purchase it directly from you? I can pay either with MasterCard or MyPayLinQ, but I doubt if you take MyPayLinQ. I don't care for Paypal very much.

98Clubs,

I don't think my system could be used in the physical casino, not unless you had the memory necessary to keep your line memorized and make the count. I could pretty much do one or the other, but if I tried to do both, I'd eventually forget what my line looks like. Counting is not a possibility on-line when the deck is reshuffed after every hand.

CessPit,

No need to apologize.

I would call it something else and claim credit for it as a new system. In the Labouchere, you add the front of your line to the back of your line and such is your base bet. You are deliberately not doing that. Further, the low end of your line, taken individually, would need a winning percentage of 50% (or more) to complete successfully, but you're using your high end in hopes of cancelling out your low end.

The percentage of Rounds that you need to win in order to achieve a profit. If you peruse the first set of results, you will see that a flat betting series of $10 per pet would have resulted in a loss for every line except one.

I was getting absolutely killed in that first session, but the Modified Labouchere made money. That's what I mean. The percentage of the time that you must win is pretty low. I lost at least 50% of the time, every time, and my Lost + Push rate was never under 60%. That's a horrible run of cards, but the Modified Labouchere prevailed.

I don't think I want to pay a programmer just to find out if it is better than flat betting, though. That's not the way I would play Blackjack at the physical casino, even if I could. I'd probably try it on-line, though.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219

  • Jump to: