Betting systems

Frank Stanton?

that casinos let all progression players play it would be logical that if progressions were the key to beating the casino they would have to close in short order (since betting a progression requires no education or special skills except a basic strategy card).

Of course you are winning most of your sessions...progressions are designed to manipulate session results. Eventually you'll have a session where you will give up everything you've previously won (and then some).

Rick, according to your logic, he would have a positive expectation because barring all else, he will make money (1.5 times) on blackjack, meaning everytime he hits a blackjack, he will increase his profit by .5 times whatever his blackjack bet was. Granted, we were all taught that going against the Kelly Criterion on betting will eventually lead us to ruin, I haven't seen any concrete proof that Kelly applies here: conversely, I haven't seen concrete proof that Kelly DOESN'T apply here, so I've just been taking for granted that it does apply. Did you guys consider how the Standard Deviations and the bell curve will apply to winning/losing streaks specifically(which is what most betting systems and Kelly are based on) and apply a function that measures Kelly to the curve itself (playing short term fluctuations) instead of the "long run"?

Mr J, I'd like to hear all the details of your system. If you can possibly email me so I can run some simulations, that would be great. disclaimer: I'm not for or against this system. I just want to see how it performs "in the long run" and what my chance of ruin is, say, compared to comparable bankroll using the AOII with a similar betting structure.

the guideline of assuring that these pages not be littered with progression nonsense would be the one.

I think its interesting how people choose to look to internal reasons of why the "real" world should be special to them and to them alone.

Mr J's comment of "so dont tell betting strategies are worthless....they are to most, but given the RIGHT attributes, a smart player CAN use it to make a very attractive profit" is interesting in that he states that even though betting systems don't work for most - he is special and therefore some "magic" applies to him. Mr J, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to insult you are being sarcastic, I just see this alot, the feeling that there must be some "magic" that I can tap into.

There's no magic in the world! ( Unless you want to get metaphysical and say that mathmatics is the magic of the universe, but that's a whole different topic... )

Now, I am certainly no expert but from what I hear Mr J has played for about 8500 hands ( 85 sessions at about 100 hands per sessions ). I'm been modifying some software recently and when testing it I'll run short 20,000 hand runs. These runs are not near enough to get into the long run and often show flat betting basic strategy players having a positive return. Of course when run over 2-20 million hands these returns go away and the expectation starts to center on what would be expected for the game and strategy. My point is that ( as everyone probably knows ) Mr J is not into the long run yet and seeing a short term fluctuation.

I have wondered in the past about what would happen if you always leave when you are ahead - how does that affect your expectation. But then when I thought of simulating it, I realized the fundamental flaw - that total number of hands are what really matter. We, as people, look at sessions and such; however, in reality no matter how long we play it is one continous session and EV will rule in the long run.

Ross

BTW, I don't think Kelly criteria applies here as the game has a negative expectation - actually it does apply - Kelly criteria would show that you bet 0 when your expectation is 0 or negative.

Ross

I generally compose my longer posts with a word processor and save them in one directory set aside for BJ21 with an appropriate name (e.g. progression). I then cut and paste to make the post. If I want to retrieve an old post, I just open that directory with my word processor and look at the titles.

Dr 21

You're right, Ross, Kelly would say you shouldn't bet in negative expectation games AND if you flip a coin a hundred times and it comes out tails 99 times in a row, the next flip still has a 50% chance it will come out heads or tails. but, what are the chances that you will get a string of 100 flips of tails? Do you see that the near impossibility of that even in a long-run scenerio can somehow generate a situation where it MIGHT (I do stress might) be somewhat profitable if you don't hit that near-miracle 100 tails? Kelly implies as the bankroll approaches infinity and you bet ANY amount long enough, the chances of you going bankrupt approaches zero, but never actually hits zero unless you don't bet. How do you think there's still a chance? Because of the near-miracle monster fluctuation that will wipe out the bankroll. Though I'm not ready to accept any betting systems over counting systems, I am willing to look at it a little closer, which is all I'm trying to say.

Mr J,

"Rarely get past the 6th unit bet" means you rarely have losing streaks of 6 hands in a row? That's a little surprising to me since I see it quite frequently. By the way, your math is a little off "even if i only win 2/3rds of them time, id still make 1k/session." I came up with 1k/3 sessions. With your betting strategy, I think your bankroll doesn't quite justify your fluctuations. I haven't simulated this, but I am amazed you don't have more losing sessions (hence negating your EV).

Regards.

Remember, the quarter has no memory, only you do. Therefore, the chances of another tails ( unless the quarter is rigged ) is still 50% no matter what it has done the other 99 times.

No memory in a quarter...

Ross

That you and other like minded individuals write a I WAS WRONG POST and keep it aside, because it will probably come in handy someday.
It would be interesting to see a post with all the handles attached who absolutely agree that a progression cannot mathematically/possibly win long term. So don't be shy, put your reputations on the line. It would also be nice if you all added your degrees to the handles. In fairness, there should also be a list of those believing progressions can be mathematically sound and viable. Both these lists would hopefully be archived.

"there should also be a list of those believing progressions can be mathematically sound and viable."

Please send me this list as soon as it is compiled, sounds like the perfect prospect list -- I still have a little bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell.

Truth is not a democratic proposition. Certain things are just true about the universe, and no number of people who say otherwise are going to change this fact.

I beg bj21 to consider actively busting threads dealing with progressions, otherwise the entire site will become the old "progression" page.

-Eliot

It's sad. Since the first week of September, (start of regular NFL season) I've lurked in on this page 5-6 times. Everytime, like again today, I quickly exit because of the Scamdijackers (Progressionists). Even when Stanford gave them a free forum, they wouldn't stay on it. They remind me of some members of my own family-who believe it's a sin not to spread the only true gospel(theirs).

unexplored.
If you think you're wasting time, please hop right on through. Be sure to put your name on the list. There is enough tar and feathers to go around.

Al, time to check this one out 8-)

People know my name. The Pro has my email address.

I have a degree in math.

I state unequivocally progressions cannot win at blackjack (or at an even game) in the long term.

Now, a challange for you. Point out one error of fact or math in my progression series on bjmath. Point out one error of math in Richard Reid's proof in the same section.

Gary will, I think, state that while I have consistently disagreed with the theories of progressionists I have never flamed progressionists. The claims simply cannot be logically or mathematically supported.

Thanks for the points made. The articles you mentioned are great pieces of work.

I also have a series of essays on progressions on my website, www.cardcounter.com, under the mythology section.

--Eliot