Acedj
• Posts: 1
Joined: Jul 16, 2014
July 18th, 2014 at 10:58:15 PM permalink
So I am putting myself this out for any criticism anyone wants to levy. I will describe my system basically, then give a background, and then report how it has worked for me.

The system:
Keep track of #hands won/lost as a net value (either +x wins or -x losses). Count split hands as a single hand either net win or net loss. Bet table minimum amount. Play strict basic strategy without variation. Only increase the bet if doubling down or splitting. Play basic strategy without varying the minimum bet (initial bet). When you are down -11 hands increase bet to 4-5x minimum (ie. if \$5 min increase bet to \$20-25). Return to minimum bet when hand won'lost count is -5. Restart the hand/loss count again.

Assuming one in 21 hands is a Blackjack and 1 in 25 hands gain a double down or split (will lose some splits and double downs but should net one 2x gain in 25 hands) you will lose 9x minimum bet on the way down to -11 for a loss of \$45 and will gain 7x high bet on the way up for a gain of \$175 netting a total profit of \$120.

If won/lost count goes to -22, increase bet to 8-10x minimum, or increment bet by 10-20% for each two hands lost past -22 (ie. at -24 and -26). if your bet is at 10X minimum, quit when you reach -10 or you have gained 50% of your initial bankroll. You must have sufficient bankroll to go to -33. (if minimum is \$5, then you need \$40 to get to -11, \$225 on the way down to -22, and \$450 on the way to -33 for a total bankroll of \$720. I believe there is less than 0.01% chance of exceeding -33.

Why it works:
Playing perfect basic strategy will cause you to lose 52-53 hands out of 100 (not counting ties). In the long run (say more than a thousand hands) this will be true whether you play it all in one straight shot, or spread it out over several sessions or many days weeks or months. You will keep that percentage by playing a strict basic strategy. But over the course of your play you will vary from the plus side to the minus side like a rolling wave. What this strategy does is track the wave to a very low side while playing the minimum bet. Once on the very low side you will bet high on the upswing towards the long term average.

This is based on the probability of a series of events and not on a particular hand. Question: What is the probability of getting heads on a single coin toss? 50%. What is the probability of tossing 10 heads in a row? 0.50 to the 10th power. After nine heads tossed in a row what is the probability of the next toss landing heads? 50%. In a blackjack scenario, each hand dealt has the established probability and that remains unchanged whether you have lost 5 hands in a row or a hundred hands in a row. If you have a hard 16, you will bust 77% of the time. However, the probability of the series of hands played will keep returning to the same 52-53 hands per hundred.

When betting the minimum you enjoy a lost hand as it just moves you closer to the low end where you can increase your bet. You shift focus from specific hands to the series of hands you have played. You *KNOW* that you will return to the average when you have been below average. Also you can split sessions and play. The series average continues from one table to another, from one casino to another, from one day/week/month to another.

It can take a lot of hands played to get to minus 11. Usually 250+ hands. It can take even longer to get back to minus 5. The longer it takes adjustments for the deviation from the average will need to be made. For instance I started at \$10 minimum and got to -11 after 2.5 hours of play at a rate of 180 hands per hour (online game with 1-4 players--real people not real money). I raised my bet to \$50 and then fell to -22 in short order. I hovered between -23 and -18 for 2 hours. At one point I was -13 and was up about \$700 which was due to leaping forward with Blackjacks and Double Downs. I should have realized that the long time of play was making it less likely that I would get to -10. I got down to -30 (lowest I have recorded for myself) and had been raising the bet incrementally to where I was betting \$90. When I got to -16 I was up \$1150 after a total of eight hours of play. This play was spread over 2 days and several different sessions each day.

The history behind this:
I played a lot in Wendover NV, Las Vegas, and Lauglin NV. I learned how to count but could not keep the discipline and would lose count all the time. I was always very impatient. Usually I would be up modestly after several hours or a couple of days of play (say a few hundred to a thousand dollars) only to blow it rashly at the end of my visit. I moved to Oregon where casinos are few and far away. Work travel would allow me to stop for only an hour or so at a couple of Indian casinos I would pass on occasion. I started to always leave with a positive balance but never a lot (say \$60 to \$100). But after a couple of years of gains from visits once every month or so I started realizing that I kept getting on the right side of the average. Minimum bets on the way down and increased bets on the way up.

I found a site online to play against others and the play would progress fairly fast. Free entertainment. I started tracking my hands/won and lost very carefully. I have played 20,000 hands at this site. I am in my fifth round of this system without a loss. I will try to proof it further until I put it to the real money test. I intend to test the real money with Bovada. I then will test at the nearest casino after that.

Let the criticism begin!
OnceDear
• Posts: 7481
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
July 19th, 2014 at 1:34:32 AM permalink
Quote: Acedj

Return to minimum bet when hand won'lost count is -5

Why would the number of hands lost 'excess' count return towards 5 when it had been 11. What if it doesn't? You are misunderstanding the concept of reversion to the mean in the same way every Martingale better does.

Quote:

... will gain 7x high bet on the way up for a gain of \$175

Again, you are assuming that there will be an 'excess' of games won to follow an excess of games lost, because you believe that reversion to the mean will have this sort of cancelling out process. You are wrong.
Quote:

I believe there is less than 0.01% chance of exceeding -33.

You are SO WRONG. The probability of a ROLLING count of 33 more losses than wins approaches 100% the more you play. Quite quickly too.

Quote:

Why it works: ...But over the course of your play you will vary from the plus side to the minus side like a rolling wave

Absolutely at the heart of where you are wrong. Whether it's coin tosses or blackjack, the plus or minus count of excess losses over wins can easily go to and stay positive forever and indeed get bigger and bigger forever while still comfortably approaching the percentage expected almost exactly. See this post for explanation of that. https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/math/2709-roulette-question/2/#post376699
Quote:

You *KNOW* that you will return to the average when you have been below average.

You will return towards the average percentage. BUT There is no reason to believe that you will return to the expected COUNT of wins compared to losses.

Quote:

It can take a lot of hands played to get to minus 11. Usually 250+ hands. It can take even longer to get back to minus 5.

There's only a roughly 50/50 chance that you will EVER get back to -5. You are just as likely to get to -5000 if you keep playing with that expectation.
Quote:

This play was spread over 2 days and several different sessions each day.

OMG. You believed in it enough to play it. Stop now. It WILL end in tears.
Quote:

I intend to test the real money with Bovada. I then will test at the nearest casino after that.

You will win some and lose some. If you are lucky and wise you will lose a small fortune in time to realise the absurdity of your plan.

AN EXCESS OF PREVIOUS LOST GAMES DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO AN INCREASE IN THE LIKELYHOOD OF AN EXTRA NUMBER OF WINNING HANDS IN FUTURE.
Psalm 25:16 Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted. Proverbs 18:2 A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
ThatDonGuy
• Posts: 6405
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
July 19th, 2014 at 11:07:24 AM permalink
Quote: Acedj

So I am putting myself this out for any criticism anyone wants to levy. I will describe my system basically, then give a background, and then report how it has worked for me.

Why it works:
Playing perfect basic strategy will cause you to lose 52-53 hands out of 100 (not counting ties). In the long run (say more than a thousand hands) this will be true whether you play it all in one straight shot, or spread it out over several sessions or many days weeks or months. You will keep that percentage by playing a strict basic strategy.

There's the flaw in a nutshell. 1000 hands is nowhere near "the long run". I have generated runs in the tens of millions where this wasn't true. Rare, perhaps, but your strategy depends on "always."

Besides - if the "1000 hands rule" was true, then I have a strategy that works 100, count them, 1, 2, 3, look over there - isn't that That Don Guy getting out of a red Ford Focus in the parking lot at Railroad Pass? - 99, 100 percent of the time:
(a) Wait until there is a run of 1000 non-push hands consisting of 470 wins and 530 losses.
(b) Find a point where there were more wins than losses (for example, the first 25 hands had 15 wins and 10 losses).
(c) Treat the hands after these as the start of a separate run (in the example, it is a run of 975 hands, of which 530-15 = 515 losses).
(d) The number of losses in the remainder of this 1000-hand run cannot exceed 530, so it cannot be more than the number of losses in the segment noted in (b) (i.e. there can't be more than 15 losses in the next 25 hands).
(e) This means there will be at least 15 wins in the next 25 hands. Profit!
Buzzard
• Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
July 19th, 2014 at 12:40:45 PM permalink
Will this work on Tuesdays if I wear orange socks?
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
OnceDear
• Posts: 7481
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
July 19th, 2014 at 12:54:19 PM permalink
Quote: Buzzard

Will this work on Tuesdays if I wear orange socks?

Not a snowball's chance in hell, unless you wear your lucky underwear.
Psalm 25:16 Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted. Proverbs 18:2 A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
Buzzard
• Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
July 19th, 2014 at 4:11:51 PM permalink
Quick Josie. Stop that Goodwill truck. I still need that holey underwear.
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
Buzzard
• Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
July 19th, 2014 at 4:11:57 PM permalink
DELETED BY BABS
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
djatc