Question about winning streaks

"Wonging" in to a game or leaving during negative counts is a dead givaway for most pit bosses. There are only two decent casinos in my area, and I can't afford to lose playing rights.
I try, with mixed success, to follow the count and add a chip or two when the remaining decks go very positive, but the progression is my primary betting method.
Thanks for your suggestions.

I respect what you have to say about not getting heat while playing. After having given it some thought, maybe this variation might help:

Don't start to climb the ladder during a negative EV. When your expectation is a long-term loss as a result of the count, don't up your bet after your previous win. Instead, flat bet until the count goes up and then start your progression. This will help to lower your average bet during low-counts and to raise your average bet during positive counts. Not to mention that you will have less money on the table during a double-down when the count is low. I see a lot of positive progressions wiped out by a failed double in low counts.

If the people there know you're a progressionist and you are worried they might question your change in bet strategy, don't be. Most casinos know that progressions dont work, and therefore expect that, after a few losing sessions, you are likely to be chagrined about your progression. Just tell them things haven't been going so well and you are starting to get disappointed with your strategy, and your "...thinking of just flat betting from now on, maybe a move up here and there". Casinos bar counters they are afraid of, not the occasional move up. As your previous post shows, your progression with a $10 open stops ramping up at $25. This is a 1:2.5 bet spread, far lower than what any convention count suggests, and therefore unlikely to attract any heat.

I just ask for the real thing:
are the progressionist winning in the real world???

i ask for real experiences in the real world.
In the theoretic world, is obvious that progression don�t work. don't said a word about that.
In the same theoretic world, the edge for the player that are counting card if positive.
I suppose that all in this forum know the numbers

But....
1 - what are realy "long Run"??. The counters do the simulation on millons of rounds. This is usefull to calculate the real numbers.
but in real casinos, us just play only 5 or 6 hours/day (this is the real word).

I ask for real and empiric experiences, cos i think that in "short run", maybe we can win. And there are some guys in this post that claims that are winning.

I am not asking for your systems (but if you want...), i ask for :
1= Hours/round per day
2= limits in the progression
3= Final balance: qty day win and days lost

And the final question: If the progression work, are you gambling in the ON-LINE casinos????

thks a lot and sorry my inglish

I appreciate your concern and your suggestions, but I firmly believe that �If it ain�t broke, don�t fix it.�
I have a good friend, a competent card counter, who joins me on most of my local gambling trips. We generally set side- by- side, and it�s normal for him to observe that many of my winning streaks occur when the count is neutral or negative. Since card counting doesn�t appreciably effect the overall win/loss order, the 1% to 4% edge that a counter occasionally enjoys doesn�t seem to have a major effect on my consecutive win occurrences. In other words, it�s almost as likely for me to have a winning streak during a neutral or negative count as it is to have a winning streak during a positive count.
If you (as a counter) think about it, how many times have you flat-betted during neutral or negative counts and won every hand, only to lose several large bets when the count became positive?
Also, flat betting bores the hell out of me! I enjoy the excitement of reaching the top bet in my progression, and flat betting reduces the frequency of this occurrence.
But your suggestions are sound for those who are less aggressive than I am, and I appreciate you taking the time to offer them to me.

>If you have the probability of any single occurance then you can calculate the probability of a streak of N simply by raising the single occurance probability to the power of N.<

First, let's assume a more accurate win rate of 47.5% (pushes excluded) and a loss rate of 52.5%.

Now go to your spreadsheet program and get the sum of all numbers from 0.475^1 thru 0.475^100 (not infinity, but close enough for demonstration purposes). Also get the sum of all numbers from 0.525^1 thru 0.525^100. Add the two sums.

Now ponder why the total is not even CLOSE to 1.0!

Now search for the error in your logic.

2-3 hours per day per round. Maybe 2 rounds, mostly one though.
Limits: Loss 120 units, Win 50-60 units.
I finally lost after 23 trips. Started again and am at 2 wins in a row.

If I am way down and recover, I will leave at +1 unit, although my goal is 50-60 units. Not all trips had same loss/win goal though, so I am not claiming 23 wins in a row with above limits.

First, your reference to 'more accurate' win rate shows that you didn't read the message to which DD' replied. The original question had to do with consecutive winning sessions, not hands.

Second, I'm not sure why you feel the need to sum the powers as described. Of course they don't sum to 1.0. For one thing, if I win three in a row, I must have won two in a row, so there's overlap between all of these.

To summarize DD's accurate point:

Given an event E's probability p, and assuming no correlation from one trial to the next, what is the probability that the next n trials will result in all 'E' results? p^n

His statement was to the effect that if the win prob for one event was 0.48, then the prob of 5 consecutive events would be 0.48^5.

The difference here is between the "probability" of occurence and the "frequency" of occurence.

From any given starting point, the FREQENCY of occurence of 5 consecutive wins would be approximately 0.0138; NOT 0.48^5 = 0.02548.

The probability of occurence involves considering all 2^5 possible sequences of 5 events, while *frequency* of occurence only looks at how often, from any starting point, you will win EXACTLY 5 events.

Thus the sum of all the probs I mentioned WOULD have to total 1.0; for there cannot be any overlaps. I.e., either you win 5 in a row or you don't; and winning exactly 4 in a row has a different, and entirely separate frequency of occurence; and either could be followed by anywhere from 1 to infinity consecutive losses.

I believe the original post clearly implied the contemplation of some kind of money management system; and if that is the case, the *frequency* of occurence is FAR more relevant than the *probability* of occurence.

I should have made that clear in my original post; for his was not a *mathematical* error, but merely one of using what is, IMHO, the wrong yardstick.

I therefore retract and apologize for the allegation of error, and restate my difference of opinion solely on the basis that I think he's using the wrong "yardstick."