Semi progressive

I witnessed a player that would play a semi progressive strategy and I knew he was counting.

He would play 1 spot at 100, if he lost he would move to 1 spot at 200, then lost again 2 spots at 200, then again 3 spots at 200. as soon as he won he would move down to 1 spot at 100 again. But he would only play at TC of 0 or above.

When the count got above TC +2 he would play the 3 spots of 200 continuously until the count once again fell below +2 and go back to the prior paragraph strategy.

Could we get some discussion and math on this topic. I understand that they say progressive will kill you sooner or later but what about semiprogressive only at positive counts. I understand risk of ruin would be higher than kelly betting but I think this might be a profitable strategy with a higher varience.

The dealers tell me he makes alot of money every month

I think the key to what you said is that he only plays in positive counts. If thats truly the case then this is just his bet sizing, it's not progressive per se. In fact, it might be detrimental because you can lose hands but still be in a positive count even higher than what you started with. But according to what you said he would actually *reduce* his bet in this scenario. That's probably the hardest part of counting - to keep pushing out stacks because the count justifies it but you're getting beat up in the process. His system avoids that and that's not good.

Yosh,

I ran a 400-million-round CVData sim for a 6D, S17, DA2, DAS game with 75% pen. The game has two players: the player using the strategy you specified (assuming HiLo), and another who plays all.

The CC sits out on ALL negative counts. On all TC>=+3, he bets 3 hands of $200, regardless of the previous bet or result. For TC's of 0 to +2, he uses a negative progression, going from 1x$100 to 1x$200 to 2x$200 to 3x$200 on losses, while dropping back to 1x$100 on wins.

Using this method, I find the CC has an IBA of 0.281% and a win rate of $51.70 per hour (actually, per 100 rounds seen). This method has a SCORE of 3.55, and an N0 of 281,985, so bring PLENTY of bankroll ;-)

If the player modifies his betting, so that he ALWAYS bets just 1x$100 on TC=0, his results are significantly better: an IBA of 0.671%, a WR of $70.12, a SCORE of 14.62, and an N0 of 68,395. I know this, because on my FIRST sim I misread your betting style ;-)

The main advantage to this latter betting style is that the player plays MANY fewer TC=0 hands (which are the only ones that are -EV): 170,842,000 vs. 261,165,800, and NONE of these hands is at a wager above $100.

Of course, different rules and conditions will have a SIGNIFICANT impact on the results, so these results need to be modified for the actual game in question.

In closing, though, I doubt that this style of play will in fact be tolerated for long... but I could be wrong!

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Why would you want to play a suboptimal system?
Your plan to increase your bet after losing raises the suspicion that you haven't grasped the fact that losing one hand doen't make you more likely to win the next hand.Nor is it more likely that you will lose after a win. So your strategy to come back to level 1 after a win is counterproductive.
The statement that your progression is limited to positive territory is not quite correct since it includes neutral counts where you have a disadvantage of 0.4%.So when you bet 3*200 in such a situation you might as will give 2.4$ to the dealer.
But your missed opportunities will cost you even more. When you go back to 100$ with a TC of say 2.8 (e.g. RC+14 after one deck)which means an advantage of 1% you just win 1$ instead of the possible 6.
So apart from creating unnecessary variance you will have a poor winrate.
And,Yosh,how about admitting that the player you described doesn't really exist? Isn't he just a product of your imagination?

Francis Salmon

sorry there is a correction the 3 bets stand at +2 or higher and not higher than +2 as previously stated.

as for the bets at neutral counts,

bet 1 = .4%
loss
bet 2 = .16%
loss
bet 3 = .064%
loss
bet 4 = .025%

Now I understand that at neutral counts he is using what should be a long run losing strategy. but this is offset by playing 3 hands at 200 at any positive EV. With the higher varience there is a possiblity he could be on the topside and making alot more money than you and I.

I am not condoning his playing style only trying to understand it.

The player does exist and I sat down for dinner with him last night. It is very interesting to hear stories about the lives of professional gamblers.

The dealers tell me he makes alot of money every month.

Dealers are often inaccurate in their statements. Do not take dealers' statements at face value.

In this casino it is against my rights for them to back me off, they all know I count and many of the dealers are my friends, I get better penetration sometimes up to 90%. They want me to make alot of money here its not a privatly owned casino, its owned by the city. They track wins and losses using a club points card, so when they tell me he makes money I will believe them.

Sounds like he's using a sub-optimal betting ramp made to look like a ploppy progression system, as a means to getting the big bucks out there during the high counts. Such a thing *can* work, but has very high variance and will marginalize your win rate. You need to use big units, and hence have a very large bankroll to pull it off.

This is not based on any sims, just general knowledge. Sounds a little like Andersen's "Ultimate Gambit."

The disadvantage in a neutral deck doesn't get smaller after a loss. Your strange calculation makes me doubt that you have fully understood the concept of expected value which is the central element in advantage play.The same applies to your alleged hero.
The progression part casts a big shadow on his credibility.

Francis Salmon

My calculation doesn't even make sense to me. Truth is in the long run he will lose money at neutral counts and make money at EV+ counts, what I really wanted to know was if his bets at ev+ would cover his losing bets at neutral.

I believe he is at least break even with his strategy and he is beating the odds on his neutral bets to give hime these large wins.

Betting heavily into negative ev simply doesn't make sense.
An important principle is to bet in proportion to your advantage (this produces the best ratio between winrate and variance).You could bet maximum in any advantage situation but neither your bankroll nor your nerves will probably stand the test.
A second principle,just as important, is to bet minimum in negative situations or not at all.
Your stranger in the dark violates both of these principles.

Francis Salmon