Negative Progression - SD or Shoe Better?

First, let me say that I realize that a negative-progession system is going to fail in the long run because of table maximums. That being said, I would like to know if there is any mathematical advantage to playing a single deck versus a shoe game when betting negative progression. Specifically, I would like to know if there is any way to calculate whether a player is more likely to lose six hands in a row given the choice of SD or shoe, or is that even quantifiable?

In single deck the house has a smaller edge, so you are better off playing single deck in the long run (you will lose less). Also, with respect to betting progressions, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) it has been shown that positive/negative progressions or flat bettng still gives you the same expectation over time. It just happens that with progressions you will experience wilder swings (winning and losing swings) than flat betting. Hope that helps.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement that SD has a lower edge than a shoe since there are other factors such as H/S17 and BJ payout that contribute to the edge. While I understand that H/S17 is important, I'm not sure that BJ payout factors into what I'm trying to calculate.

Maybe this is a better way to put this: Is there a way to calculate the probably of a prolonged losing streak (six hands specifically) on SD vs. 6D given the exact same table rules?

miketestmike,

According to Norm's Blackjack Data Repository (see link below), for SD (with 22 cards cutoff, 1-4 spread, no cover, S17, DAS, using High-Low), you'll win six or more hands in a row (pushes don't count) 4.393% of the time, and lose six or more in a row 6.285% of the time.

On the other hand, if you change the options to 6 Decks (with 75% penetration, 1-8 spread, no cover, S17, DAS, using High-Low), you'll see that you will win six or more in a row 4.261% of the time, and lose six or more in a row 6.714% of the time.

From these typical numbers, you can see clearly that the SD game is better than the 6D game. Of course, the actual percentages will depend upon the actual rules, penetration, count system, etc., but for any reasonable combination, you'll do better at SD than at 6D.

One final comment. You wrote "and BJ payout that contribute to the edge". You need to understand that for regular blackjack, any natural payout of less than 3:2 is an unbeatable game: avoid them!

Dog Hand

Yes, I was also assuming you were playing real (3:2) blackjack. Can't say it often enough: Avoid 6:5 blackjack at all costs.

But it is well known that in BJ a negative progression decreases the overall house edge. That is because losing hands are associated with the removal of low cards.

The effect is very slight, and with today�s games you can usually not get a positive EV by just using a Martingale, with no card-counting.

However the effect is much greater in SD. The effect is almost negligible in 6 decks.
.

"First, let me say that I realize that a negative-progession system is going to fail in the long run because of table maximums"

The essential reason why there are table maximums is to ensure that the casino can handle your wager, that is, if it were too big, they could go bust due to variance, just like us. Your bank and their bank is finite. There is no such thing as an infinite bank, and why
would you play if one existed? You don't win or lose anything. If you were allowed to continue to bet higher by the pit boss you'd still not take any real advantage. You'd take no advantage if the house edge was fixed, like in roulette, and in a shoe game it's probably the same. There are far better ways to utlize such money. It's just another larger bet that should be welcomed to the casino with no to weak advantage with it. I understand that there are other reasons for table maxes, like chip tray payoff convenience for the dealers and to segregate the high rollers for several reasons, and what not.

but I think it compliments your post.

Thanks Dog Hand, that website has the exact data I was looking for. When playing negative progression, I tend to play very short sessions (usually no more than an hour) and spread $25-1000. In my experience I've only lost six in a row playing SD a handful of times, while it has happened probably twice as often playing shoe games. The data you provided now also supports this.

I'll be in Vegas again next month and will try my luck at this approach again then. I'm hoping my success from a few months back will continue!

Today I just went into the Klondike days casino in
Edmonton Alberta Canada with $250. I decided to play
the minimum $25 4D tables that are not getting any action,
at least for the first 2 days of the 10 day K-days event.
I lost yesterday, ending with by losing 14 of 18 hands
after a shuffle to open the $25 tables.
But today I saw something amazing. The lone $25 table
of many as I approched had one player, seemingly with
only about $30 dollars on the table. He lost, complained
about his luck and left. The blondish late 30's early
40's dealers then shuffled after I lost 1 hand at the
$25 minimum. When I cut the cards I noticed the pip
was a Queen of clubs, that was moved to the back of the
shoe. A second queen of clubs also the first card dealt
followed by a third 2 cards later so two were together
but one was two cards removed.
But what followed was one of the worst runs I have seen
in thousands of hours of BJ. I bet the $25 minimum on all
hands except for 2, my only win at $50, followed by a $50
loss. So I lost 11 of 12 hands this shoe. Not so unusual
but the dealer had a face card showing on 10 of 12 hands.
She also had 8 20's and 2 BJ's (also a BJ against the
previous victim.
Interesting but: she had six hard face card (no tens)
twenties in a row.

I think that the probability of this in a fairly shuffled
game, (and there have been studies saying that clumping
has almost no effect) is somewhat lower than drawing 12
consecutive face cards from a four deck shoe:

Drawing one face cards 20( no tens) off of the top of
a 4 deck shoe is:

1/(48/207)*(47/206) or about 19.085 to 1.

Am I right is saying that the odds of this sequence is
remember all of these 6 consecutive twenties had no tens)
about:

19.085 to the 5th power or 1 in 2,531,983

I know that this (confimed in my eyes) run is weird
but I can only think of one worse: losing 22 of 24 hands
in Nanmimo, BC 5 years ago.