Spam Man: Doubling strategy

[Spam Man]

Ok, I'm starting to convince myself that a doubling strategy (doubling the bet whenever you lose - I guess some call it a progressive strategy) actually gives you an advantage on the house without counting. I need somebody to talk me out of it.

Here is the way I see if. If you're playing at a $10 table, and you double whenever you lose, you'll eventually win $10. Now, the problem comes if you lose so many times that the next bet is beyond your bankroll.

Let's assume that you have 50/50 odds against the house if you play skillfully (I know it's worse than that, but let's assume that now for the sake of easy calculation). I think I've calculated that the odds are that, at the same time you are likely to reach the "disaster scenario" and lose a bet you can't double, you will have won that same amount $10 at a time.

The reason I think you might have an advantage on the house is this: some of the things that even up your odds are extra payoffs on some wins: blackjacks, double downs, and splits. If you play with this strategy, those things are more likely to happen when you have more money out there (since your winning hands are more likely to be over the $10 minimum than your losing hands).

I'm no mathemitician - in fact I totally stink at math. So, can someone explain in laymans' terms why I'm wrong about this?

[Parker]

Betting progressions have been around as long as gambling, and it has been thoroughly proven that they don't work, by a whole lot of people who most certainly don't "totally stink at math." Quite simply, a betting progression has no effect on the house advantage.

In fact, it has been so thoroughly proven that we normally do not even waste bandwidth here discussing progressions.

The link below should put your mind to rest.

Progression Systems

[Coug Fan]

I think I see the error in your logic.

> Here is the way I see if. If you're playing at a $10
> table, and you double whenever you lose, you'll
> eventually win $10. Now, the problem comes if you lose
> so many times that the next bet is beyond your
> bankroll.

> Let's assume that you have 50/50 odds against the
> house if you play skillfully (I know it's worse than
> that, but let's assume that now for the sake of easy
> calculation). I think I've calculated that the odds
> are that, at the same time you are likely to reach the
> "disaster scenario" and lose a bet you can't
> double, you will have won that same amount $10 at a
> time.

> The reason I think you might have an advantage on the
> house is this: some of the things that even up your
> odds are extra payoffs on some wins: blackjacks,
> double downs, and splits. If you play with this
> strategy, those things are more likely to happen when
> you have more money out there (since your winning
> hands are more likely to be over the $10 minimum than
> your losing hands).

You are starting with an assumption that you have an advantage. You have a 50/50 chance of winning a hand, and have an advantage due to the BJ bonus and the ability to double, split, etc. If you can actually find this game, then any betting pattern will be profitable, even a progression. Over the long run, you would make the same amount by flat betting (assuming that you had the same average bet amount).

The problem is that in a real BJ game, you are at a disadvantage (if you are not using some form of avdantage play). Your average loss over the long run will be equal to the total amount wagered X your disadvantage. This is true regardless of your betting pattern.

I'm not sure how you did your calculation, but assuming that you used Excel, or something similar, re-run your analysis using the following assumptions:

Player wins 44% of the hands
Dealer wins 48% of the hands
Push on 8% of hands
Player gets a BJ once every 21 hands (4.8%)
Dealer gets a BJ 4.8% of the time that a player has a BJ (resulting in a push).

Plug that into your model and see if your plan shows a profit. You can also factor in the effect of splits and doubles if you are adventurous. If you don't want to take the time to do this, then just listen to the folks who have done similar math many times before.

[superdupont]

1 - for that you must play 500 hours or more in very good conditions. Do you think it is possible to loose 19 FOLLOWING HANDS?

Don't use excel, just learn from the old foxes coming on this forum, you will save time and money because it will happen a day

2 - in BS some splits are defensive split that means you loose less when you splits but you loose some $$$$$

3 - the other way to get money with BJ without counting cards is to buy a casino

But I could be wrong

Salutations from the "Old Europe" et merci aux intervenants et animateurs de ce site exceptionnel

[Victoria]

Early on in my blackjack life, I read that it is not statistically abnormal after playing a total of 20+ hours of blackjack, to have one losing streak of at least 10 straight hands. What happens with your progression will be many small winning sessions to eventually be followed by a devisating loss. Are you willing to bet over $5,000 to make a profit of $10? That is what you will be doing in one of those streaks and in some casinos the table limit might not let you even try it.

On a personal basis, I know I lost 19 or 20 hands in a row once and exactly 16 in a row another time. The first time came on several different tables, lose a few, wong out, go to another table and lose a bunch more and just kept repeating the self inflicted torture. The second long streak was mid streak when the count jumped, my bets jumped and my stack disappeared. The beauty of not playing a progression but counting instead, I got it all back and more less than an hour later in a similar situation. Dealer killing everyone with 5 and 6 card 21's, everyone leaves but me, the big bets come out but this time instead of losing nearly $4,000 on a streak, I make almost $6,000 and exuse myself from the casino.

To me, playing a progression is a form of instant gratification, you will win many times but you will pay for that gratification whenever you hit the streak from hell and everybody does.

Victoria

[Spam Man]

All very true. However, in my personal experience I've hit the ceiling many times, and just backed off. But, I'd made enough money playing it previously that I was still well ahead even after having backed off. I've come back a winner every time since doing this, even though I've hit that ceiling several times, sometimes a couple times a day.

Of course, one person's personal experience doesn't prove it's good policy, but I do think that I can say that the fact that you'll hit the ceiling sometimes doesn't mean that this doesn't work.

[Parker]

> All very true. However, in my personal experience I've
> hit the ceiling many times, and just backed off. But,
> I'd made enough money playing it previously that I was
> still well ahead even after having backed off. I've
> come back a winner every time since doing this, even
> though I've hit that ceiling several times, sometimes
> a couple times a day.

> Of course, one person's personal experience doesn't
> prove it's good policy, but I do think that I can say
> that the fact that you'll hit the ceiling sometimes
> doesn't mean that this doesn't work.

No, one person's personal experience actually means absolutely nothing. It doesn't work because it is mathematically unsound. Your sample size is so small that it is dwarfed by varience. In other words, you have simply experienced a bit of good luck, no different than any other gambler. To believe that you have come up with some sort of winning system based on your personal results is the the height of silliness.

Keep playing this way long enough and eventually you will lose your entire bankroll. That, my friend, is a mathematic certainty.

[Spam Man]

> To believe that you
> have come up with some sort of winning system based on
> your personal results is the the height of silliness.

I don't. I was merely responding to Victoria's statements regarding her personal experience.

[Victoria]

Casino personell make tons of mistakes but, with a few exceptions, casinos have hired math experts and understand the math behind their games. They know the house edge is only .18% or quite a bit higher on their blackjack games, but they also understand that because of poor play, they will make 2-3% on these same games.
That said, I must ask any pure progression player, why do casinos toss out cardcounters and at the same time comp progression players very well?

At the same time, I think if one is not a counter and plays a form of progression, it has been proven that they will lose in the long run the same amount of money that they would have lost if they flat betted. So doing a progression might be much more fun than just flat betting. A better ride but you land up in the same place.

Victoria

[Coug Fan]

I must take some exception to your statement

> Casino personell make tons of mistakes but, with a few
> exceptions, casinos have hired math experts and
> understand the math behind their games.

Casino's do not seem to be extremely demanding with their hiring standards. Management routinely puts out highly negative EV promotions, like the local place near me that was giving out 2 $25 match plays per day when their typical patron only bet $5-$10 per hand for an hour per visit. In other words, they were giving up almost $25 in EV to get a return of $6-$12 (assuming a 2% advantage vs the ploppies). This promo ran for a full 3 months (and the place is right on my drive to/from work = Happy days).

I do agree that BJ is not beatable without AP or some type of promotion. I just find that it is never a good idea to assume casino management has a clue regarding math.

[kurt]

In my early days, i was number 1 clever. I stood behind the players and was only backbetting on a spot, which has just lost the previous hand. So this was not a progression in my opinion. Also I was arguing, that I must have an advantage, because I saved all the money, lost on the previous hand by the sitting player.