you counters be nice and join the conversation

[RS]

Mr. Buffet's system, if I may say so myself, is a variation of the Martingale system.

The Martingale system is when you double your previous bet if it lost, if it won, you bet your minimum bet. The general idea, is, that most of the time the Martingale player will win -- yes, MOST OF THE TIME, HE WILL COME OUT AHEAD. Given enough time, though, he will have a giant loss and will wipe him out {or if he doesn't get wiped out, the big loss will be, on average, just enough to put him in the red from his previous session profits}. If the Martingale player ends up ahead, at any point (well, generally something like 5 or 10 units), then he cashes out and is happy with his small win.

Likewise, Buffet did essentially the same thing, on a different scale. He would flat bet day #1 with $25 a hand. If day #1 was a loser, he would bet $50/hand on day #2. If day #2 was also a loser, then he'd bet $75/hand on day #3 [a "martingale" user would bet $100/hand, btw]. However, if he ever came out a winner, likely by $100 or $200, then he'd walk away, be happy with his small win, just like the martingale player.

Instead of increasing his bet after a HAND loss, he would increase his bet for a SESSION loss -- in the end, it's all the same thing, and will, end up losers.

There are 3 ways to beat casinos, none of which are certain:
1] Count cards or use some sort of "advantage" play.
2] Play until you're up any amount at all. Walk away. Never return.
3] Never walk into one -- although this isn't really 'winning' -- if you don't play, you can't lose. You know what they say, "A push is a win in my book!".

[Three]

4) Play the promos.

[hardin county boy]

[QUOTE=Norm;108422] As I said, and you have admitted, you haven't read much. You are just posting absurd assumptions without any evidence. I have spent decades, literally, posting about such voodoo. To refuse to read, and then claim that I refuse to write and claim Biblical authority is seriously bad form. The I'Net word for this is "trolling".

norm, my apologies. i understand who you are and i respect your expertise, experience and understanding of the math. i am LOVING the forum and have barely scratched the surface and WILL take your advice, read more and try to post less. to clarify, i have read 40-60 books on blackjack, many of them on counting, did a respectable job of home practice and counting in the casinos and i meant neither disrespect nor "trolling". there is a frustration with a concept i will work on articulating better and floating your way some day as i meant what i said, that i think the orthodox insistence that only advantage players (primarily counters) have good prospects of lifetime winnings is simplistic and false----i am aware saying this may inflame some but it is not intended to---my thanks to you and also, i think rollingstoned gave a patient, thoughtful response that i appreciate.

is there anywhere on the site that is something between counter-orthodoxy and nutty voodoo?--somewhere that smart, experienced people can have the conversation without being hooted down by an army of counters? it would have seemed a willingness to post in the rather humble spot of "disadvantaged play" would not bring accusations of trolling or not thinking or not reading but it could be that after i posted an initial, thoughtful post, your immediate accusations and recitation of orthodoxy without conversation threw me off my game--i will try to be more restrained in the future---i wonder if more guys like me having a forum for discussion would broaden the base of the forum? thanks again.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

hardin county boy lays claim to an

"advanced science degree."

That statement also applies to me.

Here is some unsolicited advice, on

the off-chance that you have genuine

interest in the game of Blackjack, as

it is played in America's casinos.

READ "The Theory of Blackjack" 6th ed. (1999)

The author, P. Griffin, Ph.D., devoted his

academic career to the study of the game.

It will cost you very nearly nothing.

GO TO . . .

http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ1117262

Post your reactions - after you have extracted

the exquisitely delightful pleasures of a "great read."

Some of us will be waiting to see if you have the

humility to admit that you were utterly mistaken.

[hitthat16]

By the way, in theory there are no such things as "sessions".

We take breaks to eat, sleep, and live our lives. However, blackjack is one long game.

The first hand after a good night's sleep is the same as the first hand after a shuffle.

[Norm]

By the way, in theory there are no such things as "sessions".

We take breaks to eat, sleep, and live our lives. However, blackjack is one long game.

The first hand after a good night's sleep is the same as the first hand after a shuffle.

Well put.

[hardin county boy]

zen, it is one of the 40-60 books i have read and i agree it is a great read. also, please understand many of us DO understand counting and i am of the opinion it is the best of approaches that give an actual, small advantage over the casino. the FACT that such is true does not effect whether an entirely different subject is true or not--not related--no bearing. also, please be aware that many people also understand there is no "system" that would guarantee long term success. ROLLINGSTONED made the observation blackjack is a funny game. i agree. blackjack has "artsy" characteristics that might suggest, not a "system", but rather an "approach" that might protect a bankroll while occasionally offering large opportunities for bigger wins that might or might not happen.

i recall losing 16 in a row once, can imagine 32 in a row but i will live my life NEVER expecting to lose 100 in a row--it will not happen. does this "characteristic" of blackjack have ANY exploitable value? i dont know but it is an intelligent question worth bright folks batting around rather than just quickly dismissing.---these type conversations might suggest how those who post of blowing more of their bankroll than makes sense because the count was good might make more money--like baseball, blackjack has certain characteristics, a certain ebb and flow that, while not perfectly predictable and not a good target for some "magic system" might none the less be exploitable in ways not yet written and embraced with the easy-to-embrace orthodoxy of counting. i am hoping some of the brightest will lend their brains to attend to this fabulous game but outside the comfortable playground that IS counting.

[metronome]

Then why appear with the attitude....off the top as they say..
And where the heck is Hardin County ?
And I, have an advanced degree in BBQ...well not really, but i be pretty good.

[hardin county boy]

hardin county tennessee---pretty good bbq country. did not mean to come with the attitude at first---think i am responding to the maddening dominance of counters insisting the only way of looking at the world is their way---such is littered into every post that dares stray from counting. i think if i posted that i thought the redskins will take the superbowl, some counter would answer back that it is all voodoo----not even a bad example of what i am talkin about--making bar b que, fishing, sports betting and BLACKJACK all have in common some first rate math and science to make the practitioner better but in my view, ignoring the ART involved in all of them will make the participant less of what they could be. i can already hear the counters pointing out that blackjack is far more pure math than the others and this will come with some kinda slam like they were the first to ever think of that and I certainly wouldnt know that because i have not read enough books--all the while, such folks, gifted with good brains, do not really add to the conversation---pitty, my loss.

[Norm]

is there anywhere on the site that is something between counter-orthodoxy and nutty voodoo?

I repeat that you have not read this site. Card counting is a small part of AP. You continue to declare a dichotomy that has never existed. BUT, what you are spouting is utter nonsense (id est, nutty voodoo). And, utter nonsense will be treated as utter nonsense. We all have a right to be wrong. We do not have a right to say stupid things and not have people point out the stupidity.

[Norm]

think i am responding to the maddening dominance of counters

Say this one more time and you're gone. This is NOT about counters vs. non-counters. AGAIN, you have not read this site. Everyone here knows that counting is not the only way. This has been pointed out to you several times, and yet you continue this fallacy. We have no time for trolling.

[RS]

To play "smartly", you would either have to count or use some other form of advantage play (tracking, sequencing, counting, etc.). Another way to play "smartly", which is not necessarily +EV, but you could find a low HE game that is dealt slowly -- Maybe a 6 deck shoe with 2 decks cut off, with good rules - flat betting some certain amount and by playing 100% perfect basic strategy -- the idea is not necessarily to win money, but to get free food, drinks, and have a good time, costing you less than 1/2 unit per hour (expectation).

I'm not going to say the following is a SMART way to play, but.....well you'll see. You could, indeed, play using a martingale system, doubling your bets after a loss, and reverting to 1 unit after a win. Although I'd play something else than craps, like black/red or even/odd on roulette. The idea would be to last long enough before that major downswing occurs. Of course, this isn't the smartest way to play, by any means, BUT, if you are aware of the risks involved, it can be an (easy?) way to win in the short run. If you play often, I wouldn't go with this approach, BUT, if you play a few times a year and enjoy the gambling/"rush" you get -- this wouldn't be the worst system to use.

In all honesty, any system can work in the short run, due to the "funnyness" of the game.

[bigplayer]

Losing 100 in a row does happen, it's incredibly unlikely that any of us will ever experience it but if you multiply 47% x 47% a hundred times the answer will still be a very tiny number. Last time I checked someone won the Powerball.

Even so, how would you plan to exploit 99 losses in a row without knowing beforehand that the 100th hand was going to be a winner? If you were doubling up after each loss you would have reached the table max or would have busted out 80 hands earlier. All using streaks to adjust your bet based on wins or losses does is change the distribution of session results (many small wins with a few big losses or many small losses with a few big wins). If you add up all of the results from either pattern of distributions the house wins exactly what it's supposed to win over the long haul.