Greetings Folks!
I am looking for some good progression betting schemes to use during idle counts (-1 to +1) in shoe games. My bet during these idle counts usually matches the table minimum. Though I understand that any progression betting I use will raise the average, I would still like to keep the increase as low as possible.
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance.
To keep the increase as low as possible, use my 1-1-1 progression.
1)Bet 1 unit.
2)If you win, bet 1 unit on the next hand.
3)If you lose, bet 1 unit on the next hand.
For best results, make your unit size as close to the table minimum as possible.
If you're a green chip+ player, play at a $10 min. table and use a $20/30/40/50/50/ect "up as you win" progression. Your average bet will be about $31 per hand. I know several counters who use this plan, and progressive winnings often exceed counting winnings.
I am looking for some good progression betting schemes to use during idle counts (-1 to +1) in shoe games. My bet during these idle counts usually matches the table minimum. Though I understand that any progression betting I use will raise the average, I would still like to keep the increase as low as possible.
I'd strongly advise against this because you fall into great danger of playing a progression in your own mind. A progression that is cut short every time the count turns extreme is not a progression, it is Some high stakes counters use systems such as the D'alembert or a means of raising variance and reducing win rate without any tangible cover benefit.
pyramid progression in neutral counts as part of an overall "opposition betting" approach (see Snyder's "Blackbelt in Blackjack", but if you are going to try this be sure you know what you are doing. Anything more agressive than the D'alemebert would be very unwise.
Logically, I would say that a conservative "up as you lose" progression would provide the best cover. Like 1,2,3,3...
The reason is that you are more likely to start losing while low cards are coming out and the count is going up. When you are losing and the count goes up, your bet spread will appear to be a part of the progression.
Figure out some factor X table minimum you want to win, let's say 16, then parley all winnings until you have hit that number.
1st bet X
parley winnings, 2nd bet 2X
palery winnings, 3rd bet 4X
parley winnings, 4th bet 8X
winnings now = 16X - take winnings off table
go back to table minimum
If you have any double downs or splits or BJs let all those winnings ride.
Steve the Progression Post Buster Buster
Thanks JoeBJ! This is exactly what I was looking for. But I haven't read anything up on progressions (cos they don't work). Can you please elaborate a little as to how yours goes (when to raise/reduce bets, etc.) with a few examples if possible? Tx.
A progression can be quite useful a la opposition betting at neutral counts, as long as your "real bets" are significantly higher.
One possibility of a semi-progression, assuming your maximum bet is $300 (table assumes all true counts are truncated, not rounded, note that pushes should always result in the same bet):
bet 1-2 green at top of shoe.
Bet on Previous hand
1g --- if lose, 1g (1 green) unless count >= 2, then 1b (1black)/ If win, 2g if count >=0, otherwise 1g
2g --- if lose, if count < 1 then 1g, else if count >=1 then 2g.
if win, 3g if count >=1 otherwise 2g
3g --- if lose, if count < 2 then 1g, else if count >=2 then 3g
if win, 4g if count >= 2, 6g if count >=3.
1b (or 4g) --- if lose, 1b if count >=2, otherwise, 1g.
if win, 2b if count >=3, else 1b if count >=2.
6g --- if lose, 2b if count >=3, else 1b if count >=2, else 3g if count >=1, else 2g.
if win, 12g if count >=4, else 8g if count >=3, else 6g.
2b --- if lose, 3b if count >=4, else 2b if count >=3, else 1b if count >=2, else 2g.
if win, 3b if count >=4, else 2b.
4b --- use your imagination.
I have in the past suggested similar things in some archived material but I now think there is no good reason for doing that.
1. Not just the average bet but variance is raised.
2. Using some kind of mild progression in close to neutral ranges will not camouflage bets five to ten times as big to any extent IMHO.
3. Perhaps it will break some monotony which might be worth the cost.
