Another way to look at progression vs. counting

I know all the numbers. I understand the concepts of EV, ROR.... I know card-counting works while progression doesn't, and why.

But, let's look at it from a new angle.

A typical card-counter would have 1% edge over the house, and would accept ROR of 5%. For every $10 he bets, there's a 10 cents positive expectation of profit. Among every 20 players like him, one would go broke before doubling up his bankroll. Mathematically, he's winning slowly while taking a seemingly remote risk of going broke.

A progression player would have .5% negative expectation for all the money he bets. Mathematically, he's loing slowing while taking a seemingly remote chance of winning big.

If that's the whole case, it will all come down to personal choices. If you want to play a game of hard to lose, take card-counting. If winning means a lot to you and you see your bankroll pretty much as dead money anyway, give yourself a chance to win big, take progression.

In reality, most card-counters don't have a bankroll of more than $3,000 to $5000, thus have to accept a much higher ROR; most of them can't always find the best rules and penetrations; most of them have to spend a lot of time traveling from casino to casino, wonging from table to table, and still worry about getting heat; cover plays, human errors and tipping also eat away that 1% edge, not to mention the cost of books, softwares, CBJN (joking)....

I estimate that more than 50% wannabe counters get wiped out or totally discouraged before they get to see that illusional long run.
As for the 50% who survived all these difficulties, after a year full-time playing, how much can they expect to win? In today's casinos, $10,000-$20,000 would be a decent range for the lucky 20% . The rest would have to settle somewhere near they started.

All the efforts and stress of card-counting will give you a 20% chance to make the salary of flipping burgers part-time. Card-counting is, in a way, still gambling. You gamble on if you are among the lucky 20%. The bright side is, if you are not among the top 20%, you won't feel too bad, because you know (or think) you are making a mathematically profitable investment.

In a short term, progression gives you a chance to win big. The sad thing is, if you play long enough to see the long run, you will lose your bankroll for sure.

If you play to win, the upper side of counting doesn't look that great, considering that much time you have to put in; while the down side of progression (losing the whole bank roll) is not that bad, considering you'd have a decent chance to lose it anyway if you count cards.

I'm not endorsing progression over counting. But if I really need some extra money in a week, I'd rather take progression, even I'm a pretty good counter. Otherwise, I won't even play Blackjack. It's gambling anyway, why give fate a chance to screw you when it's unnecessary. I can always find a better use of my brain, my discipline, and most importantly, my time.

"Just something to think about--I know I will."
---Phoebe from "Friends"

by counting? You can always trade some EV for a different shape of the bell curve. If you're in the casino to make money this shouldn't be a consideration...if you're trying to avoid big losses, perhaps you should re-evaluate why you play blackjack.

If a progression player is playing a negative EV game. He is doomed sooner or later. For example Martingale betting system will give you 1 unit winning every so often. But the inevitable occurrence of the long losing streak (like a tsunami or earthquake) to wipe out your backroll will occur sooner than you expect because this is a negative EV game. If this tsunami occurs right at the beginning of the game, that's the end. This is not better than betting your entire bankroll in one bet. Also if you play enough number of bets you are guarantteed to lose. That means your loss of the entire bankroll is certain if you play long enough.
The card counter is playing a positive EV game. Although there is a chance of losing the entire bankroll (ROR), the longer you play the more likely you are going to win. That's the difference.
In terms of how much you can win, it depends on your betting unit, betting strategy, bankroll and others. Certainly you have to bet big enough (hundreds or thousands per bet) to make a living if you want to be a full time professional gambler.

In reality, most card-counters don't have a bankroll of more than $3,000 to $5000, thus have to accept a much higher ROR; most of them can't always find the best rules and penetrations; most of them have to spend a lot of time traveling from casino to casino ...

Why would someone with a "bankroll" of only $5000 have to spend a lot of time traveling from casino to casino? With such a tiny "bankroll" they can only play a few red chips, or try a hail mary strategy to build a real bankroll. They will not get heat for the few red chips except at the worst dumps/sweatshops.

But if I really need some extra money in a week, I'd rather take progression, even I'm a pretty good counter.

If you have goals other than winning money, then yes, card counting may not be for you. You may think I am trying to be funny, I am not.
There are *some* reasons why you might not be trying to win money over the long haul.

The classic example is that you owe the mob quadruple your bankroll by tomorrow or you get a concrete overcoat. In this case card counting and Kelly bets won't cut it. You need to make some aggessive bets fast and counting won't help you much. Similar strategies apply to tournament blackjack.

Now, in your example, you are right, if you want to maximize your chances of winning money in a week, use a progression. Bet the minimum. Double your bet every time you lose. Unless you have a very small bank, it will take longer than a week to be ruined, and you will make a small profit. But, eventually you will run out of money. I don't think that is an attractive option for any one really. With a more gradual progression it will take longer for you to be ruined, at the expense of smaller wins prior to wipeout. That sucks.

As for the 50% who survived all these difficulties, after a year full-time playing, how much can they expect to win? In today's casinos, $10,000-$20,000 would be a decent range for the lucky 20% . The rest would have to settle somewhere near they started.

What you are missing is that for players who can minimize expenses and grow their bankrolls, will eventually end up earning more and more. In fact, on average, every hand you play will increase your average earnings.
MickeyD's doesn't let you parlay your earnings up to the hundreds of thousands.

I just ran a quick sim on BJRM. I set a six-deck S17, DAS, 75% penetration game, using a 1-12 spread, Wonging in and out at +1 or greater. A person with a $1000 bankroll has a nearly even shot at either losing it all or doubling it in 20 hours of play, with the odds of complete ruin being 56.69% and doubling being 56.25%. I am sure there are more optimal ways to play, but I doubt if you will find another game where you have an even shot at doubling your money, using conventional playing methods. Perhaps a one-shot Hail Mary, putting the whole BR on one banker bet. Of course, if you win, you'd pay the commission, so you wouldn't exactly double your money, but you'd be close, and your investment of time would be a lot less.

Either way, I'd bet the above approaches would beat a progression.