Joined: Jan 4, 2011
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 2
January 4th, 2011 at 11:56:12 AM permalink
Here are the Two methods, ( The first is from a member on this Forum " Thunk" ). I like both methods and am wondering for a beginner as myself, which of the Two should I focus on and attempt at the Casinos. I know the Basic Strategy Hand over Foot and can repeat what to do with every hand I'm dealt and what the dealers Up card is in my sleep. I am also quiet proficient in card Counting. I just need to narrow it down to one particular Method/System of which i should be spending my time on perfecting. Thanks for the help and Input - Mike ........................................... 1. First off, the Martingale system does not work. I intend to prove to you however, that by tweaking the strategy a bit, the "optimum martingale" as I call it can be used to mask card-counting detectors employed by the casinos.

The Martingale Betting System- A failure by itself. It requires the player to double his/her bet every time she looses, covering previous loses incurred on the losing streak and returning to the player an amount equal to their lowest common bet. It is not efficient because when you inevitable hit a major loosing streak, you risk running your bankroll dry or reaching the maximum bet and not being able to double anymore, all for one measly lowest bet in return.

I documented over 1,000 hands using this technique, taking into consideration every variable, playing with basic strategy, shuffling after each hand, and purposely leaving out the variable of card counting to ensure there was only one variable. I ran the losing streaks out until I had either won, or ran my bankroll dry. Then, I went back and calculated what would have happened had I decided to cut my loses, reset my bet to the original, and continued playing after loosing 8 hands in a row, 7 hands in a row, 6 hands in a row, and so on until I was theoretically flat betting every hand. Most losing streaks did not exceed beyond 8 hands, but if they did, I calculated for that too.

I found that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, reseting your bet to the original low was most effective when you reset after a three-hand losing streak. Whereas reseting after any other number of lost hands either lost money in the scenario, or gained very little for the amount of time it took, reseting at three consistently wielded a positive average of roughly $41 per 70 hands played, using a $1 lowest common bet. At the same time, my bankroll never went more than $23 below it's original value, and steadily increased after that. After testing over 1,000 hands, this is quite definitely the optimum time to reset your bet using the martingale system.

This is a major bonus to Card-Counters, because it fools computer technology commonly employed to catch counters, and it also masks your efforts to the dealer (the most direct link between you and the pit-boss). Most card counters will flat-bet a small amount when the count is low, and then slam their bets up high when the count is in their favor. This is easily noticed by dealers and by computers, which use RFID sensors to keep track of the bets on the table, and another technology to keep count in the game using almost every count system imaginable. If your bet or cardplay matches what the computer has analyzed as close enough to consider counting, you got a one-way ticket to the next casino. If you employ the optimum martingale system instead of flat-betting when the count is low, it will mask your efforts to the dealer especially, and to an extent with the computers. It allows the counter to not risk much money, while also making the swings in his bets not as noticeable. I find it most effective to use the Optimum Martingale, even as the count climbs, but instead of reseting my bet at three, I will continue to climb my bets up, win or loose, until the count begins to decline. By sticking to the style of doubling your bets when the count is high, even if you win or lose, you stray from the average card counter which the computers are looking for while also retaining the ability to place large bets when the count is high and decrease them as it recedes.

I did this all by hand, using ledger paper, taking into consideration these variables: L.C.D. bet, starting bankroll, ending bankroll, starting time, ending time, Bank Roll amount, Hand number, Players Cards, Dealers Up Card, Suggested strategy action, actual action, win/loss/push/bust/dealer busts. If you have a computer to simulate this, with special attention to when to reset your bets on a losing streak, and would like to add on, please do! Otherwise, try it out! Even if you can't count cards it is a fun system and is slightly more effective than it's predecessor. However, I wouldn't play it for money if you intend on using it by itself. After all, betting strategies are not useless, but they're not reccomended by themselves.

HERE'S THE SECOND METHOD.........................................
Simulation # 1:
Six decks, dealer hits soft 17, double on any first two cards, double after split, no surrender. Basic strategy variations are used to play the hand. Never leave the table ("Play all"). The bet schedule: $10 at a True Count (TC) of 1 or lower; $20 at 2; $40 at 3; $120 at 4 and $160 at 5 or higher.
Overall Advantage: 0.89%. Average Bet: $19.00.

Comment: You can easily see this is marginal at best. Were you to play 80 hands per hour, your bets would total 80 x $19.00 = $1520. If your overall advantage is 0.89%, your expectation would be to make 0.0089 x $1520 = $13.53 per hour and that's not $20. Sure, it beats losing, but your edge is so small that you could play for several hundred hours and still show a loss, due to variance ("luck") alone! We can do better.


Simulation # 2:
Six decks, dealer hits soft 17, double on any first two cards, double after split, no surrender. Basic strategy variations are used to play the hand. Leave the table when the True Count drops to -2 or lower. Same bet schedule. Overall Advantage: 1.10%. Average Bet: $25.00.

Comment: Now we're getting somewhere. While an overall edge of 1.10% isn't great, it's above the minimum I believe you need, plus the average bet is increased to $25. This happens because you're not making all of those $10 "waiting" bets in shoes where the True Count goes below minus 2. If you were to play 80 hands per hour, your total bets would be $2000 and, with a 1.10% average advantage your expectation would be to make (drumroll, please) $22 an hour! As I always say about simulations, they are far more accurate than we humans, so you should subtract about 10% to arrive at a realistic result. Do that here and we've just about attained our goal of $20 an hour.

This is a fairly simple plan to take an enjoyable "hobby" like playing Blackjack and turn it into a (modestly) profitable venture. If the average casino patron plays Blackjack 300 hours a year (six hours a week), bets $25 a hand and does not count the cards, then s/he has an expectation of losing 0.64% of all the $$$ bet. That's because the casino using the rules listed above has a 0.64% edge over the player who uses perfect Basic Strategy (and most don't.) The losses for a year amount to 300 hours, times 80 hands, times $25, times 0.0064 = $3840 or about $75 a week, minimum. On the other hand, a player who follows my advice can expect to make about $20 times 300 hours or $6000, which is nearly a $10,000 swing!

Can you do better? Sure, just play more hands per hour, leave the table sooner when the count drops or find a better game. For example, here's a simulation for a game where the dealer stands on soft 17:


Simulation # 3:
Six decks, dealer stands on soft 17, double on any first two cards, double after split, no surrender. Basic strategy variations are used to play the hand. Leave the table when the True Count drops to -2 or lower. Same bet schedule. Overall Advantage: 1.26%. Average Bet: $25.06.

Comment: If nothing else changes, the expectation is to make 80 times $25.06, times 0.0126 = $25.26 per hour. Throw in late surrender and you could easily make $22-23 an hour, even after deducting 10% for the sim's accuracy that you won't have.

A quick word on bankroll requirements, then I'm outta here. Because recreational players have the means to replace their losses (through what's called a job), they only need to bring a "session" bankroll with them on each visit to the casino. For the bet schedule I've recommended here, I'd feel comfortable carrying 12 top bets of $160, which is about $2000 for five or six hours of play. About one trip in 25 (twice a year if you go once a week), you'll lose all your $$$ and have to go home early. Hopefully that won't happen your first two weeks in a row, but it's possible. However, if you're playing with an honest-to-goodness edge, a total commitment of no more than $6000 should see you end a year's play with some sort of profit, maybe as much as $5000 or $6000, which is a nice return on your investment. As we say here in Missouri: "It sure beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

I'll see you here next time.
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2596
January 5th, 2011 at 1:29:42 AM permalink
Well thought out post with no comments from the regulars? I guess more of an explanation of bet to true count is called for, when does the "M" kick in etc.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
January 5th, 2011 at 5:12:10 AM permalink

The bet schedule: $10 at a True Count (TC) of 1 or lower; $20 at 2; $40 at 3; $120 at 4 and $160 at 5 or higher.

There is a theoretical result, called Kelly Criterion, that is the solution to exactly the problem you are trying to solve. You should bet about the fraction of your total bankroll equal to the advantage you have. Each TC unit is about 0.5% of advantage to you, starting at about -0.5% at 0. So, when TC is 2, you should bet about 0.5% of your bankroll, and further increase that amount by 0.5% with each TC. This is a linear "progression", no doubling or tripling of bets. If you brought $2000 with you, it's 10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80 ... etc.

This has been mathematically proven to be the optimal strategy.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Joined: Jan 4, 2011
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 2
January 5th, 2011 at 12:36:33 PM permalink
Thank you weaselman. I just liked the 2 systems , but each had slight variances to them and wasn't sure which one in the long run I had the best chanceof coming up in the Positive as well as keep from being detected as to counting cards.

  • Jump to: