Why wont this work

betting progression

2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 10 10 20 20

if u lose after 2 wins u will be +1

after 3 wins +4

after 4 wins +6

after 5 wins +10

after 6 wins +12

after 7 wins +17

after 8 wins +20

after 9 wins +30

after 10 wins +40

after 11 wins +60

and so on.

everytime u double and win or split and win or get a blackjack you skip to the next progression. so u dont have to win 11 in a row to get to the top level.

so if u go on a bad streak and lose 11 in a row at 2 units u would be down -22 units whereas u can make that up in a 9 row win streak or a couple smaller streaks.

why wont this work. please try to give detailed reasons. please dont just say that progressions dont work. show me the light. isnt this progression better than flat betting. card counting isnt for everyone isnt this a viable alternative.

why wont this work. please try to give detailed reasons. please dont just say that progressions dont work. show me the light. isnt this progression better than flat betting.

What will happen here is that at the end of most of your sessions you will be losing a small amount. Occassionally you will have a big win, but it won't be enough to wipe out the cumulative loss of the many smaller losing sessions.
Systems like this one can increase your chance of a big win at the expense of an increased chance of a small loss, while martingale systems can increase your chance of a small win at the expense of an increased chance of a big loss. But all these systems ultimately end up losing the same amount of money, which is determined by the house edge.
This progression isn't better than flat betting. If the house edge is 0.5%, ie the house takes half a dollar from you on average every 100 hands, then the house will take that half a dollar from the progression player and the flat bettor every 100 hands.

card counting isnt for everyone isnt this a viable alternative.

I'm really sorry, but you are not going to get the answer you want here. The whole concept of progressions is a complete end. It doesn't matter which one you use.
If you want to use a simple system, maybe try the ace-five counting system, which will allow you to break even with the house using less brainpower as this progression requires.

I understand that when you are trying progressions out, it seems like the responses you get are just unhelpful, and you can get frustrated. For the same reasons that you can't make a square circle, the sad truth is that people are not being unhelpful, it is just that the answer is boring and simple.

thanks for the honest reply.

but wouldnt the progressive bettor be ahead. say both the flat and progressive player played the same. hand they both lost 60 and both won 40. at this point the progressive player would have lost less or possibly be slightly ahead.

i live in state with no gambling and i only go to vegas about once a year. my only other form of gambling would be online which makes card counting useless. it would be a waste of time for me to master card counting with so few oppurtunities to use it. so i just wanted to know if there are any glaring faults in the system. doesnt the fact that if both players won and lost the same amount of hands yet have different outcomes indicate that the progressive bettor has a slightly better ev.

thanks again

but wouldnt the progressive bettor be ahead. say both the flat and progressive player played the same. hand they both lost 60 and both won 40. at this point the progressive player would have lost less or possibly be slightly ahead.

That is the seduction of progressive systems. If you know what happened in the past, you can design a progression system which will win against that sample of hands. The trouble is, you don't know what is going to happen in the future.
Several blackjack writers who are keen on progressions have tried to do this. They all have failed to produce winning systems. I wish some of them had come here and asked questions like you have before selling bad advice.

i live in state with no gambling and i only go to vegas about once a year. my only other form of gambling would be online which makes card counting useless. it would be a waste of time for me to master card counting with so few oppurtunities to use it. so i just wanted to know if there are any glaring faults in the system. doesnt the fact that if both players won and lost the same amount of hands yet have different outcomes indicate that the progressive bettor has a slightly better ev.

I'm afraid not. Hands lost and won have almost nothing to do with EV.

EV by definition cannot be changed by any progressive system in a game of independent trials, which is what blackjack is for these purposes. You can refine the system endlessly, the mere fact it is a progressive system means it cannot work.

By all means try your system and have fun with it, as long as you don't bet money which really matters to you. If you play basic strategy you won't lose that much, you might even get lucky and win. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

If you do want to make money from online gambling, then why dont you make use of online casino sign up and monthly bonuses? You can make some pretty decent money playing for bonuses and all in your spare time. Ive made $30,000 in 2 years playing a few hours a week. There are lots of sites that explain how to do it (e.g. rpoints.com, their casino crazy forum).

Are we to assume that you've already clicked on the red "Progressions" hypertext, above, but simply don't believe it, or were the explanations not sufficient for you?

In any event, I agree with GBV; by all means, you should play your system. Then, report back to us relating your results.

Don

To figure how much you are going to lose over time you take your bets and total them all together then divide by number of hands then mutiply that total by .005. That will give you your net loss.

For example:
50
100
200
50
50
50
200
100
200
100
-----
Total 1100

1100 X .005 = $5.50 Net Loss

That is given that %.5 is the casino edge. Most people give 2 percent or more to the house by less than perfect play. So for a 2 percent player you multiply by .02 instead of .005

1100 X .02 = $22 Net Loss

This is the absolute proof that any system won't work if you're given a negative expectancy. You are expecting, with a system, that it will work one specific way, and it MAY work for a short time, but all it takes is just one big loss with a loss progression, and with a win progression you have to climb an uphill battle just to get to that 5th win in a row or whatever goal you are choosing. By the time you get there you will lose more than you win to make up for the loss.

Playing progressions are games you are playing with your mind. It sounds good because you only think about 20 hands in advance, when in fact you get in about 100 hands per hour. It won't take too long to get enough hands in to be considered long term.

I would say, though, in conclusion, if you only go to the casino once or twice a year, and only play a couple hours it may be to your advantage to play a progression or your favorite system. They CAN work for a short amount of time and you can make a quick buck doing it. However, you must not play too long and set a do-able goal, and
absolutely quit when and if you get there. But if you're looking to "beat" the game then use the formula above for any progression theories.

My favorite site for playing for bonuses is http://www.bonuswhores.com This is for poker but is very easy to clear your bonuses. I have just started collectiing bonuses and have made nearly $1000 this year in bonuses alone.

hashi92,

The data given below are for a flat-betting B.S. player playing 250,000,000 rounds of a 6D shoe heads-up. As you can see, for all streaks longer than 1, the "Losing" streaks outnumber the "Winning" streaks.

I applied the progression system you specified, and came up with a net loss of nearly 50,000,000 units, but I may have erred in my application.

Dog Hand

Flat Betting B.S.

Saturday, May 07, 2005, 09:29 PM

Player #1: Streaks - Hands in a Row

I explained it last time you asked it. Here was my response:

"no one actually answered this person post. his question was which progression would be the best. i find it funny that no one answered him."

WTF?!?!?! We ALL answered it, by explaining that progressions don't work. None are best; stay away from the voodoo -- that's the answer. I don't know why you keep insisting your voodoo nonsense works, but please don't ask for answers when you just ignore us when we explain the truth.

To deconstruct your argument, please recall that the EV of each hand is the bet amount times the player advantage. Also, recall that the odds of losing a hand are the same whether the preceding hand was a win or a loss. Therefore, total EV is the sum all bets times the player advantage. Since the player advantage in this case is negative, EV is negative. It doesn't matter when the bet is made, because the preceding hand result doesn't impact the next hand (for a noncounter). Randomly distributed wins and losses appear to occur in streaks by definition -- this isn't some magic of the cards that can be foreseen. Coin tosses occur in streaks as well. Too bad the streaks cannot be foreseen. I assume you aren't clamimg you could win long-term betting on coin tosses, are you?

If you wish to go around betting progressions, more power to you. I like you progression-betting ploppies just fine, as your foolish play helps mask my profitable play. However, we don't advocate voodoo or other such nonsense on this board. We play for money, not to gamble. As I said, more power to you.

Hashi - in case you didn't see my earlier response on Martingale, here's my take:

The pros here are giving you sound advice. If casinos could be beaten with progressions, they'd be out of business by now (one can simply change tables to get higher limits -- most would run out of cash before running out of table limits in Vegas). You really didn't discover something new, you know.

The formula is simple. Expected win = average bet X player advantage X # hands played. As you can see, since your advantage is negative (-0.5%), your expectation is negative. For the Martingale progression, take the simple example of betting on a coin toss (win on heads, lose on tails). On average, you'd go quite a while before losing eight in a row. However, that one occurence would wipe out your winnings and then some ($255 times your starting bet). And that's a game without a house advantage. The probability of eight tails in a row is 0.5^8 = 1/256. That's why you haven't seen it yet. The probability is low, but the expectation is a killer. Unfortunately, you will see it with ANY play regularity.

Don't believe it? Well, just construct a simple Excel spreadsheet, using the random number function [=RAND()] and populate a column down a few thousand rows. Make a second column with an IF statement that returns one value for random numbers from 0 to less than .5 and another value for the rest. See how many times you get eight or more "tails" in a row. Next, make a profit/loss colums and graph it -- see what happens. Finally, add in a house advantage and see what happens. It won't be pretty!

Now for the worst part: If your starting bet is $10, you'll run through your available bankroll with eleven losses in a row (not including insurance, splits, or double-downs). For a $1 min bet, you can take 14 losses in a row. The probability of 11 "tails" in a row is 1/2048. Those odds may sound okay, but you can play that many hands in only 20 hours or so. 20 hours to ruin, vs limited win potential? Doesn't sound good to me. I'd rather bet it all on one hand myself.

So, there you go. Best of luck with it, but cannot make money by chasing losses or wins.

whoa why so much negative vibe. im not saying this is the most optimal strategy im just saying for my situation its optimal. i do bonus hunt and im currently up 3000 dolllars. i also do the bonus hunting for poker. this is something im trying out. card counting will not be very viable for me. i dont understand all the negativety. your just as likely to win 11 in a row as you are to lose 11 in a row. thats just a fact. all you long time players know this for a fact. blackjack can be streaky in times. i understand in the long run u will lose with this system but you will still win more than the flat bettor. this is not a martingale system. did u guys look at my numbers. when u lose its the minimum bet when u win its always a plus. the most u lose is your intial unit. how can that be worst than card counting. in card counting even though the count is in your favor u could still lose 11 in row basically busting u. bought card counting and this system is a progression. only thing is in card counting u can lose the maximum bet while in this the most u lose is the min. ive done this 4 times so far online and im basically even about now. ive gotten streaks of 11 or more twice. ive been down 30 units and have been pulled up to positive. ive also busted out twice but im still even. everyone who plays blackjack knows how steaky it can be. this system takes advantage of that steakiness. im not saying its optimal but for u guys do be so negative about it its like saying basic stategy is a losing system. i know basic strategy is a losing system but it gives the non card counter the best chance to win. im just saying add this to basic strategy and the non card counter has more of an advantage. this system wins way more than the flat bettor and random bettor. do the math. i just wanted constructive critism. im not attacking any other system saying its wrong im just saying heres a system heres my situation whats the major flaws. this system will definetly make more money for the online
bonus hunter than flat betting the minimum will.

THIS IS NOT A MARTINGALE SYSTEM. i would never use a matingale system because if i had the bank to do this i wouldnt be gambling because it would be no fun because i would always win or it wouldnt matter because i would have all the money in the world. your answer only applies if u flat bet? did u guys look at my progression. the only way you lose is if u lose 50 in a row which is what it would be with my 2 unit exmample. how likely would it be to lose 50 in a row. its just as likely as winning 50 in a row.

What you have posted is the Dahl progression, touted in his book. You enumerated it as 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 10 10 20 20. You don't have to lose 50 in a row to lose in this progression. Suppose you win two in a row and you bet the third bet of the progression. You are now down a whole unit from where you would have been had you been flat-betting. You start the progression over and lose another hand. Now you are a unit down over the four hands, where you would have been even with flat-betting.

Suppose you make it through the fourth step of the progression. You are now up 10 units. Then you lose the next bet of 4 units. You have just wiped out 40% of the gain you made in the first four bets you made. If that is followed by three 2-unit losses, you have wiped out all of your gain, when you would have been ahead 2 units with flat-betting.

Those types of win-loss combinations will happen far more often than winning all the bets in your progression. It will happen often enough to wipe out any short-term wins from reaching the higher steps of the progression.

... your just as likely to win 11 in a row as you are to lose 11 in a row. thats just a fact.

That is dead wrong. You have about a 48% chance of winning a hand (discounting ties) and a 52% chance of losing. An 11-hand winning streak has a probability of 0.000312. An 11-hand losing streak has a probability of 0.000752. In other words, you are more than twice as likely to encounter an 11-hand losing streak than you are an 11-hand winning streak.

As for the rest of the points you made in your post, they have already been refuted elsewhere in this thread.

The percieved negativity is due to the fact that we keep addressing this for you, yet you choose to ask the same questions over and over. We're not the missionaries of AP, you know (although we do have a bishop). Rather, we are a group of APs who exchange information on this site. We do welcome people looking for help, but please don't assume we're out trying to turn everyone into APs. We're not. People who WANT to do this will find a home here, regardless of their skill level (i.e., a pure beginner with desire will find a lot of support here). However, we'll not try to change a "nonbeliever's" mind. We will refute the voodoo to keep the posts on our site mathematically correct.

As to your assertations, you cannot change the probability of winning and losing by simply reordering your bets. It's funny that you come here demanding an analysis of your progression without even asking nicely, as if we are the official progression debunkers. Again, I couldn't be happier that ploppies bet progressions. I like the pit to think I'm betting a progression, and I LOVE it when a progression bettor is sitting at my table.

Fortunately, your progression is easy to debunk. If one wins two hands then loses the next hand, the player wins only one unit rather than two (neglecting blackjacks, double-downs, etc -- let's just use the fair coin toss for this exercise; that's biased toward your argument, as there is no house advantage included). This will happen .5^3 times (1/8), so it's reasonably common. If one wins two hands then lose two hands, he'll lose one unit rather than break even -- this will happen .5^4 times (1/16). If you sum all the probabilies, you'll find that it works out EXACTLY the same as flat betting the same average bet. Basically, the scheme just redistributes wins and losses, but doesn't alter the sum.

Finally, blackjack isn't predictably "streaky", relative to any other random event. Plot out some random numbers on Excel -- your mind will see patterns that are merely a function of the normal distribution function. Keep in mind that random doesn't mean win-lose-win-lose, etc. Rather, it means you'll win two in a row 25% of the time (for the fair coin example), three in a row 12% of the time, four times in a row 6% of the time, etc. In short, one can expect several wins in a row, as well as several losses in a row. This is normal (no pun intended). Now, you don't think the previous coin toss had any effect on the next one, do you? Because, if you're chasing wins under the assumption that you have a greater probability because of the previous win, you are a playing on supersitiion and voodoo. Again, I wish you the best with it. Hopefully, you're just doing this to make the game more interesting. If you think you figured out the magic way to beat the casinos, you're about number 1,000,000,000 in that line. It's really not that easy, you know.

Finally, card counting isn't that hard. So many people assume it's hard without trying. Did you try and fail, or are you simply assuming that it's too hard?

I (independently) arrived at the same conclusion in a post below. His response should be interesting. I hope he simply thanks us for the analysis.

i dont understand all the negativety. your just as likely to win 11 in a row as you are to lose 11 in a row. thats just a fact. all you long time players know this for a fact.

hashi92,

This statement is simply wrong. If you check my post earlier in this thread (linked below), you'll see that in that sample of 250,000,000 simulated hands, using B.S. you'll win 11 in a row 21,323 times, but lose 11 in a row 87,493 times: thus, you're four times as likely to lose 11 in a row as to win 11 in a row. In fact, as shown before, you'll spend nearly 1% of the time in losing streaks of at least 11 hands, but less than 0.2% of the time in winning streaks of at least 11 hands.

Did you take my earlier challenge of applying your system to the data I posted?

Dog Hand