oscar's grind_________(-:/

__________

oscar's grind was first documented by a mathematician named Allan Wilson in a book from 1965

he named it that because of a story about some guy named Oscar who legend had it seemed to win every time he played at roulette

Wilson, did some sims and verified that a person using this system would usually win a tremendous number of times before having a terrible run and getting wiped out

I tried it on the Wiz's bacc sim - I would bet on whichever came last - player or bank - and I would only tank if there was a long alternating run

the game starts you with $10,000 and I was aiming to win just $100 before starting over - but because the banker wins pay less I would actually start over if my net win was greater than $50

well, I have just kept winning and winning and winning - something that has never before happened to me when playing a sim

I think by now I have won $100 or slightly less than $100 probably 120 times_______________(-:/___________the lowest my bank ever got was down to $6500

note: I do not consider the money won as part of my bank - the $10K bank is separate - and I'm waiting to see when it gets wiped out

of course, I am not trying to say that this is a winning system - surely at some time I will have a terrible run and my $10K bank will be wiped out

but I am astonished by my experience___________I really didn't expect it to be this much fun_________winning, even in a sim can be fun for me

this is an example of the betting in oscar's grind - again - the aim being to win just one unit:

.



.

I've used the O.G. with decent success. It's just ridiculously boring. The good thing about it is it allows you to play at a higher bet level with some confidence you will break even or be slightly ahead.

Such progressives can be fun, and there is a certain joy to constantly ( being able to boast about ) winning.

For perspective the most that you have put at risk seems to have been 3500. If you have made 12,000 profit, then You had a rough probability of 3,500/(3,500+12,000) = 22%. Or you roughly hit a 5 to one shot. Nice, but not at all unusual.
Each mini 100 win goal session, with at risk BR of 10,000 would have nearly 99% probability of success.

E&OE in interpreting your description

I used it for comps. An hour or two of $25 BJ got me on to many casinos' radar for free rooms.

oscar's grind is a variation of the martingale.
you will run into a situation where you run out of $ or hit the table max.

I prefer the Fibonacci press.
everytime you lose, you start back at 1.
it's safer because lower variance

If you are going to Vegas for an annual conference and want to play a few hours without much chance of a big loss, Oscars Grind is ideal. If you are looking to beat the casinos on a regular basis, you need to look elsewhere.

_______________


according to the Wizard's blog, (linked), with an oscar, if your bank is 100 times your goal - you will achieve your goal 98.77% of the time

and even with just a bank of 25 times your goal you would achieve your goal 95.65% of the time

and this is based on betting Player - which carries a HA of 1.24%

even though it's not a winning system - that's pretty amazing to me - I never really looked at it before - and I wouldn't have guessed anything like that


.
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/oscars-grind/


.

Quote: lilredrooster

_______________


according to the Wizard's blog, (linked), with an oscar, if your bank is 100 times your goal - you will achieve your goal 98.77% of the time

even though it's not a winning system - that's pretty amazing to me - I never really looked at it before - and I wouldn't have guessed anything like that


.
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/oscars-grind/


.


.
link to original post

It might be counter intuitive, but for a low edge game, your probability of success will be broadly the same if you martingale, reverse martingale, or even flat bet. With pretty much any money management scheme where you are wagering 100 to profit 1 or lose 100, then you have approaching a 99% chance of success. BUT you must not place a wager that gives you a chance of exceeding the win goal, or you pay a price for that.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: lilredrooster

_______________


according to the Wizard's blog, (linked), with an oscar, if your bank is 100 times your goal - you will achieve your goal 98.77% of the time

even though it's not a winning system - that's pretty amazing to me - I never really looked at it before - and I wouldn't have guessed anything like that


.
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/oscars-grind/


.


.
link to original post

It might be counter intuitive, but for a low edge game, your probability of success will be broadly the same if you martingale, reverse martingale, or even flat bet. With pretty much any money management scheme where you are wagering 100 to profit 1 or lose 100, then you have approaching a 99% chance of success. BUT you must not place a wager that gives you a chance of exceeding the win goal, or you pay a price for that.
link to original post

it might be great for sports betting if you felt you had only a tiny edge - say 2% - and flat betting seems hardly worth it

you would have to make some adjustments because sports bets don't usually payout even money but that's no big deal

it seems to me that it would be a lot more fun than flat betting


.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: lilredrooster

_______________


according to the Wizard's blog, (linked), with an oscar, if your bank is 100 times your goal - you will achieve your goal 98.77% of the time

even though it's not a winning system - that's pretty amazing to me - I never really looked at it before - and I wouldn't have guessed anything like that


.
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/oscars-grind/


.


.
link to original post

It might be counter intuitive, but for a low edge game, your probability of success will be broadly the same if you martingale, reverse martingale, or even flat bet. With pretty much any money management scheme where you are wagering 100 to profit 1 or lose 100, then you have approaching a 99% chance of success. BUT you must not place a wager that gives you a chance of exceeding the win goal, or you pay a price for that.
link to original post

it might be great for sports betting if you felt you had only a tiny edge - say 2% - and flat betting seems hardly worth it

you would have to make some adjustments because sports bets don't usually payout even money but that's no big deal

it seems to me that it would be a lot more fun than flat betting


.
link to original post

If you have an edge there is what is called ‘Kelly criterion’ betting which helps you know how much of your bankroll you should bet. Google it.

Quote: SOOPOO

If you have an edge there is what is called ‘Kelly criterion’ betting which helps you know how much of your bankroll you should bet. Google it.

I've known about that for about 35 years

you're referring to playing with maximum efficiency

if you have only a 2% edge kelly criterion is not going to do much for you unless you're playing a game like blackjack where you can make thousands of bets in just one week

my post was about sports betting

after you've bet $10K you will have made a whopping $200

I'm referring to having fun - not playing with maximum efficiency


.