The D'Alembert revisited

[Sonny]

So far, for me, it's generating money. Can you demonstrate the negative EV?

From the links you gave above:

"Many gamblers labor under the same mistaken belief, that a streak of losses must be counterbalanced by a streak of wins..."

"...the gambler usually wins a small net reward, thus appearing to have a sound strategy. However, the gambler's expected value does indeed remain zero (or less than zero) because the small probability that he will suffer a catastrophic loss exactly balances with his expected gain. (In a casino, the expected value is negative, due to the house's edge.)"

-Sonny-

[Picasso]

My approach with blackjack is a bit different. I don’t have the interest nor the means to reason with it using a pure math model, not exactly Cartesian. In that perspective, I can never claim to having found blackjack’s philosophers stone.

That being said, a qualitative experience with the game, like an anthropologist studying a tribe, a phenomenological understanding of the outcomes, that’s how I approach the game. Jungian.

Typically, by experience, there are 3 kinds of shoes:

- The one where almost all the players at the table are happy (a no brainer, larger bets are needed here)

- The one when almost all the people are unhappy or quit (you should either flat bet here or pass)

- The one where some lose, some win, the more «balanced» shoe (here, you need to raise on a lost, decrease on a win if you wish to come out on top)

Of course, blackjack is just one long shoe when you’re not counting, but these patterns are predominate. The Hybrid-D’Alembert addresses all these three situations well, it’ a very adaptive progression, built for the long haul. In that respect, it is better suited to play online; over the table play is slow, not enough hands per hour. Online offers better odds if you’re not counting.

Some will kill me with one sentence, all I suggest is that you try it, experience it, construct it or let it construct you.


corner_zpsaa06f311.jpg

[Norm]

Utterly ridiculous.

[Three]

Some will kill me with one sentence, all I suggest is that you try it, experience it, construct it or let it construct you.

I surveyed Shrodinger about this cat. He checked the box for the cat is dead.

[mofungoo]

The less a person knows the more possible the impossible seems.

[Aslan]

After fiddling with the D’Alembert I guess I have improved on it (so I think), here it is (I call it the Hybrid-D'Alembert):

Increase bet by one unit on a loss
Increase bet by one unit on losing a double
Splits are treated like an individual hand (lose two splits, increase bet by 2, etc)

Decrease bet by one unit on a win
Decrease bet by two units on winning a blackjack
Decrease bet by two units when winning a double (by 3 if winning a triple, etc)

Ignore pushes
Winning one and losing the other on a split is a push
Winning a double on a split and losing a single on the other, decrease bet by one unit

Start the game with a minimum bet (1) until you lose
Increase your bet by one unit (2); if you win start over
If you lose, flat bet (1) until you win, then
Bet (3) units, if you lose, bet (4) units, if you lose, flat bet (1) until you win
Bet (5) units, if you lose, bet 6 units, if you lose, flat bet (1) until you win (you get the idea)

Now if you win 6 units, bet 5 units, if you lose, flat bet (1) until you win
Bet 6 units, win; bet 5 units, win; bet 4 units lose, flat bet (1) until you win
Bet 5 units etc

Here is a typical sequence

1W, 1W, 1W, 1L, 2W, 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1W, 3L, 4L, 1L, 1W, 5BJ, 3L, 1L, 1L, 1W, 4DW, 2DL, 1L, 1L, 1W, 3W, 2W, START FROM 1

DL= DOUBLE LOSE
DW= DOUBLE WIN

It may look a bit complicated, but it isn’t. You’re actually playing two «games», the D’Alembert and flat betting. Losing 10-15-20 hands in a row will not kill you because almost all of those hands will be minimum bet and if you win say 5-8-10 hands in a row, you will most likely be winning large amounts! It’s a weird progression because sometime:

You’re increasing your bet on a win
You’re decreasing your bet on a win
You’re increasing your bet on a lost
You’re decreasing your bet on a lost

Give it a try on your blackjack software before putting it to a table or online casino. Let me know.

Happy Halloween everyone

However your slice it, progressions do not change the HA.

[Picasso]

Also, the system can easily be adapted to Oscar’s Grind, a Hybrid Oscar’s Grind.
Flat bet until you lose; start Oscar until you lose (or reach 1 unit more in profits). If you lose in the grind flat bet until you win, then resume the grind where you left off and play it until you lose or reach 1 unit in profit. Easy.

1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1W, 3L, 1W, 4W, 5W = 1 unit profit, start over.

[seriousplayer]

Also, the system can easily be adapted to Oscar’s Grind, a Hybrid Oscar’s Grind.
Flat bet until you lose; start Oscar until you lose (or reach 1 unit more in profits). If you lose in the grind flat bet until you win, then resume the grind where you left off and play it until you lose or reach 1 unit in profit. Easy.

1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1W, 3L, 1W, 4W, 5W = 1 unit profit, start over.

Really? How much does your Hybrid Oscar Grid lose on one unlucky session? Better watch out for that one losing session. It will wipe out all your winnings plus more. The Oscar Grid betting progression system still lose in the long run.

[Picasso]

Ok, say you encounter a 15 hand losing streak with a classical Oscar, pretend you were at 10 units:

Classical Oscar

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L = 150 units in the hole

Hybrid-Oscar

10L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L = 24 units in the hole

Yes, I’m certain the hybrid will eventually crash straight into the Berlin wall smiley-bangheadonwall.gif (max bet) but it’s certainly an improvement over the classical Oscar. Not all progressions are equal in resiliency; the infamous martingale should crash much, much sooner. So, if you don’t count and you have to choose: don’t play, flat bet or adopt a progression that is sturdy, one that minimizes you’re losses and maximizes your winnings; the Hybrid-Oscar’s-Grind does address these two situations well.

If you will not count and had to choose...

[Norm]

There is ONLY one way to minimize your losses with a progression. This is guaranteed to reduce losses over ANY other progression system, other than not playing:

Bet one unit.
If you win, bet one unit.
If you lose, bet one unit.

[Aslan]

Ok, say you encounter a 15 hand losing streak with a classical Oscar, pretend you were at 10 units:

Classical Oscar

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L = 150 units in the hole

Hybrid-Oscar

10L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L = 24 units in the hole

Yes, I’m certain the hybrid will eventually crash straight into the Berlin wall smiley-bangheadonwall.gif (max bet) but it’s certainly an improvement over the classical Oscar. Not all progressions are equal in resiliency; the infamous martingale should crash much, much sooner. So, if you don’t count and you have to choose: don’t play, flat bet or adopt a progression that is sturdy, one that minimizes you’re losses and maximizes your winnings; the Hybrid-Oscar’s-Grind does address these two situations well.

If you will not count and had to choose...

The answer is simple-- don't play.
By the fact that this is an advantage play forum, it is illogical to play at a disadvantage, even for the sake entertainment, although you might rationalize that entertainment has its value/cost. I simply don't see losing as entertaining, forgive me for being so uncompromising.

[Picasso]

No disrespect intended, but this is the «Disadvantage Forum» tab, and I don’t doubt that (the disadvantage). The advantage play forum, I suspect, is where the people can rattle their jewelry.

[seriousplayer]

So, if you don’t count and you have to choose: don’t play, flat bet or adopt a progression that is sturdy, one that minimizes you’re losses and maximizes your winnings; the Hybrid-Oscar’s-Grind does address these two situations well.

If you will not count and had to choose...

If I don't count and have to choose I will do the following:

1. I won't play.
2. Play prefect basic strategy with flat betting which is the only way to minimize your loses and possible to give you a win over the short run.
3. Practice and use other forms of advantage play other than card counting that will give you an advantage.

No the Hybrid Oscar's Grind does not minimize your losses and maximize your winning.