I prefer progressions

I learned to count cards over 20 years ago but have rarely done so. The few times I did, I won some but lost a little more. I have gone more than 10 years without stepping foot in a casino but I've been developing, testing and retesting progressions, it's got to be sort of a hobby.

Now I am aware there is no mathematical basis for a progression, but I am not convinced a progression can't be devised to show a profit in the long run. The problem with most, is you either run out of money, or the casino puts a limit on the amount you can bet, so you run out of bets to make. If there was no limit, you could win every time, provided you had sufficient bankroll. The reason why casinos are always profitable is because they have a bigger bankroll than the player.

I have been testing the following progression and am very pleased with the results:

I play basic strategy and use the Oscar's Grind bet method. I start with a $5 unit and have a goal to win 40 units ( $200 ) for a session. I will quit the progression at any time where I am 40 units behind my previous high. For example, if I have won 30 units toward my goal of 40 units, then drop 40 units, I terminate the session with a result of minus 10 units. Thus, winning sessions are always 40 units or a little more, while losing sessions can be and usually are, much lower.

At any point where I lose three consecutive sessions, the next session is played with a $10 unit with a win goal of $400. If I win this session, I revert back to the $5 unit. If I lose the $10 session, I play again at that level and if I lose again, my next session is played with a $15 unit and a win goal of $600. If I win the $15 session, I revert back to $5. If I lose two consecutive sessions at $15 my next session is $25. You continue with this sequence, with the next levels being $35, $50, $75 and $100. You only move to the next highest level after losing two consecutive sessions at the level just below it. ( or 3 consecutive sessions at the $5 level.) When you win a session, you drop two levels. Ex: you win a session with a $25 unit, you revert back to a $10 unit.

My testing has been done at Sage Blackjack and blackjackinfo.com. Thus far,I have completed 107 sessions, or about 19,000 hands. I am up 825 units, or $4,125. The majority of the sessions have been played at the $5 level. Here is the breakdown, 90 sessions at $5.00, 14 sessions at $10.00 and 3 sessions at $15.00. I have yet to go beyond the $15 bet level in the entire test.

My plan is to play 200 sessions and if I'm still going strong, I may start playing for real.

Any comments?

Interesting concept. It is sort of a Martingale by-the-session, rather than individual bets. The Martingale concept is feasible, its real limitation is the table max bet. You've gotten around that (somewhat) by changing tables after you've lost a few. I agree that in order to use this method, the bankroll necessary is tremendous.

Where I disagree is that this is a long term winning system. It is statistically possible for you to lose 3 sessions at the $5 level then lose 3 sessions at the $10 level and then lose 3 sessions at the $15 level. There is no guarantee that you will recoup your losses. The only viable methods that yield a player advantage and thus a long term winning expectation, are card counting, tracking methods, as well as various hole card techniques.

Please read.

and have tested them to one extent or another. I agree that eventually, they all end up losing, some right away, others after a time. It was from the results of systems like these that I designed the one I am using now. As I mentioned, you haven't lost until you quit. And with the system I'm testing, you never have to quit provided you still have a bankroll. I'll report again after I have completed 200 sessions.

200 sessions is nowhere near the "long run." Let me know how your system pans out after 10 millions hands.

Oscar's system is doomed to the same tautology as all other progression systems; it cannot alter the house edge, which will eventually eat you up. Why would you abandon counting, which can give you the advantage, in favor of a system which condemns you to being a loser? Too much work?

> And with the system I'm testing, you never have to quit provided
> you still have a bankroll

With all due respect, isn't that the progression players lament .. if I just had a BR left to place one more bet?

You haven't lost as long as you still have a bankroll? So that means you have to go completely bankrupt to give it up. I suggest you visit Gamblers Anonymous.

Hey, you asked for comments.

If there was no limit, you could win every time, provided you had sufficient bankroll. The reason why casinos are always profitable is because they have a bigger bankroll than the player.

Wrong. The reason they are profitable is they have the edge. In order to win "every time" you need a bankroll infinitely larger than the house, unless you can reverse that edge.

Even if you just want a 50% chance of winning "every time" for, say, 100 sessions, you'd need a casino that lets you spread from something like 1 to 5,000, and a bankroll of at least 20k to make a few hundred units at the end of the day. But of course, that's only if you fall into the lucky 50%.

If you want better than 50%, you need a more and more ludicrous wad to leverage smaller and smaller profits. If you don't have an edge, you're relying on luck, and luck is quantifiably fickle in the long run.

ETF

If I unterstand you correctly you are risking 25400(your loss after 2 loosing sessions at the 100 level) in an effort to win 200. With that ratio of bankroll to win goal many systems can be made that show good results for a while - BUT the good results are small compared to the ONE GIGANTIC LOSS that you most likely will run into after a while.
Let me give an example(I hope you agree that the martingale system doesn't give the player an edge)
If you are willing to risk 25400 to win 200 using the martingale you can start with a bet of 200 and continue with 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400,12800. 7 steps and if all looses the total comes to 25400(same as your system!
To make the calculasions easy I play this progression on an imaginary game that pays even mony with a 49.5% chanse of a win and a 50.5% chanse of a loss giving the house an edge fo 1%(comparable to BJ)
For every 1 losing session you can expect to have 119 winning sessions. 119 wins of 200 = 23800 - 1 loss of 25400 for a total loss of 1600. You have had 107 winning sessions so far....I could get that and more using the Martingale..... By the way the martingale is the system that gives you the biggest chanse of reaching your win goal of 200 and as you can see it doesn't give the player an edge either.

Try to look at it this way.... You are playing a game where you loose more bets than you win.. In the long run, you will loose more of your 5$ bets than you win, you will loose more of your 10$ bets than you win, you will loose more of your 15$ bets than you win, you will loose more of your 20$ bets than you win, you will loose more of your 25$ bets than you win, and so on - how can you win money like that ? I'm sorry but you CAN NOT.

kind regards

rasmus

Take your huge bankroll and buy some corporate paper, or a nice bond, that pays good interest quarterly.

Gamble away your coupon payment every 3 months.

The principle bankroll will remain untouched and intact.

Yes I believe progressions work about 95% of the time in the short run, probably about about 47% in the medium run and about 0% in the long run. Ya'll have a great time with it now, ya hear! ;-0
Stealth Bomber

Still half baked & almost half right, SOGGY. The tax free bond fund does not require coupon clipping, and income is tax free.

Novice gambler- you have the right idea but the wrong key- e-mail me.

N.G.,
If you have a big bankroll and don't want to count you might want to try simply betting flat. If you have a big bankroll you can get some good comps and stay relaxed. And, in the end, you wont lose as much. AND the casino will be happy to have you around! -LOL!
N.P.

Learn to track slugs of Aces and or Faces. Bet black into these slugs without counting if you normally play green for comps. Vary your play for the 0 and +1 plays. If you know it is really rich you can make +X plays without counting. Watch for exposed hole cards, pull a quadruple down on an A once per session if you can. There are a lot of ways to get ahead without counting.

If you must go progo, do so for as short a period as possible. Say you flat bet green 4 hours for comps and you are up $100. Great. Walk to the buffet and fat out, soak in the hot tub, take a dip in the pool, heat out in the sauna, then go make love to your wife til she begs you to stop. Next time out you end up down $100 coming into the end of the 4th hour. Oscar is mild. Finish up with it and walk to the buffet and fat out, soak in the hot tub, take a dip in the pool, heat out in the sauna, then go make love to your wife til she begs you to stop.

It's all good. You are playing the best game in the house. They still have the edge but that edge is now so small it will not hurt you. Go back to work on Monday, tell the guys about your weekend sans the wife thingie (ya right) and deposit some cash into your playing BR if need be. I get a deluxe room, take the wife and two kids with me. They tell me they love that more than a week at a rented cottage which cost me $600 a week. Freebie buffet. But I go at it with Hi Opt II, tracking, Carlson's S.W.A.T., and some of my own S.W.A.T. like doubling and splitting others players hands. See you after Church this Sunday at Rama! ;>