further explanation of my progression....

system. I enjoy the dialogue that has taken place and do not wish anyone any ill feelings. I simply think that my progression system is more solid than card counters could ever admit.

I challenge all of you card counters to buy six decks (of course you already have them) and spend some time dealing out six or so hands, yourself being the dealer. Play dealer rules and keep track of the losses each hand has by playing a penny or chip or something in front of the cards of the player who loses. Deal, deal and deal. It will be an exceptionally rare occaision that any of the 4 or 6 hands you're dealing to will experience 6 losses through the single 6 deck shuffle. Don't believe me, try it.

Now that you've tried it, you see I am correct. A poster wrote of a 1.2% chance of 6 straight losses? I'll take those odds because unlike the card counter I AM A GAMBLER. That's the major difference. I like to gamble, I like the risk. I like knowing that at any minute I can lose 6 and bust myself off the table. It's exhilirating for me. Of course I don't recommend the strategy unless you are truly playing with money you could care less about. Scared money tends to lose irregardless of progressions or card counting.

I am, however, beginning to adopt some of the information you guys and gals are spewing about. Perhaps I'll be even MORE lethal if I learned to count cards AND use my progression system. Now that has my curiousity up. However, I'm not sure it's necessary.

Can you lose 6 or 7 in a row? Absolutely. Is it rare? Absolutely. So, a little luck is still involved, what's wrong with that? I don't have to sit worried that I'm going to get booted at any minute or who's watching me.

I admire you counters and kudos to you. Would bore me to death counting cards.

Yes, my system still maintains a level or increased risk and true gambling. However, the reward is just as awesome as the risk. Objective:? small bites at a time. win small bites at a time. I don't want to play thousands of hands. I don't want to depend on hours and hours of play. I like to play for 20 or 30 minutes and then get a cocktail at a lounge with my wife. Perhaps a snack. Sitting and smelling the nasty cig smoke for hours is not my gig.

If you're even in the wynn and see a handsomely attired gentleman of 40 years of age, playing ONE shoe on the black table drining corona who has a beautiful blonde stride up and take him from the table when his Dos XX's arrives....that'll be me.

cheers and good luck counters, may you all have the perfect "act" and play unopposed for hours. Anything that sticks it to the casinos is alright by me.

Cheers,
Mark

Dealing yourself cards on the kitchentable is a very inefficient way to test a system.We live in the computer age for quite a while now and it shouldn't be a problem to program your martingale.
Actually, in my early years I also had problems understanding why progressions cannot work. So I wrote a program for every system I heard of.In the simulation they all took a similar path.First, they seemed to work pretty well but the longer the simulation lasted the deeper they got into the red figures and finally ended up in total ruin.In the case of the martingale, the end came pretty abruptly out of the blue. On the other hand, the reverse systems suffered a creeping slow death. But all of these systems without exception were doomed.
This should serve you as a warning.

Francis Salmon

however, I don't use bj to "make a living" just to have fun while in vegas. Couldn't imagine playing hand after hand after hand for a living. Good luck to all you guys who do.
cheers

What more can you expect from these types?

A poster wrote of a 1.2% chance of 6 straight losses?

This is the probability of the next hand starting a streak of 6 straight losses. Therefore, if you play 100 hands per hour, the probability of starting a 6 loss streak = 1-(1-1.2%)^100 = 70.1% per hour.

I'll take those odds because unlike the card counter I AM A GAMBLER.

I can't argue with that.

"This is the probability of the next hand starting a streak of 6 straight losses. Therefore, if you play 100 hands per hour, the probability of starting a 6 loss streak = 1-(1-1.2%)^100 = 70.1% per hour."

Not unless you allow the 100th hand to spill over into the next hour, to complete the six consecutive losses. If you stop, religiously, at the 100-hand mark, then you get only 95 chances to start the 6-hand losing streak, as 95-100 is the last chance you get. :-)

Don

"This is the probability of the next hand starting a streak of 6 straight losses. Therefore, if you play 100 hands per hour, the probability of starting a 6 loss streak = 1-(1-1.2%)^100 = 70.1% per hour."

Not unless you allow the 100th hand to spill over into the next hour, to complete the six consecutive losses. If you stop, religiously, at the 100-hand mark, then you get only 95 chances to start the 6-hand losing streak, as 95-100 is the last chance you get. :-)

I said, "the probability of starting a 6 loss streak ...." Nowhere did I limit play to one hour or 100 hands. Also, since the progressionist would stop only after 6 straight losses or a win, I don't think boundary conditions apply here.

... if I corrected every spelling and grammar mistake, here and on other boards, I'd have a full-time job, all day long.

Truth be told, I find the level of knowledge of the English language, as displayed on the Internet, to be frightening, beyond belief.

Don

You're a better man than I am, Don...or maybe you just have better things to do with your time :-)

You're a progressions player. Take a look back. You believe in basic strategy. Why do you believe in basic strategy? What justifies your playing decisions? You acknowledge that basic strategy is warranted on the best average return. It's not based on streaks. It is based on an average.

Take any dealer up card vs. your any two card hand. Replay this condition as many times as possible. If your progression holds any merit, it should rewrite the basic strategy expectation for the hand.

Right?