many players play with an advantage without counting or even playing BJ for that mater. Most casino games can be beaten. You need a method of actually gaining an advantage to be an advantage player. So far you haven't described anything that changes the house edge at all.Originally Posted by dsticks
Most games can be beaten? This is news to me. Unless youre talking about dealer mispays and scavenging around like a bum offering to bet on people's spots when you notice what a terrible player they are (hoping they dont screw you over), matchplay coupons, and tricking the pit boss into over-comping you. Aside from blackjack and select video poker, what can you get an actual statistical edge on? Don't say poker and sports betting.
Read some of the forum. There are ways of advantage play in BJ that don't involve counting. There are advantage techniques for slot machine experts, Mississippi Stud, Three card Poker, Spanish 21, Craps, Baccarat, the Big Wheel etc. Pretty much every game in the casino. BJ counting is the only one totally outed so it is discussed openly. The others are generally discussed privately or in very broad and basic strokes.
Tables with winning characteristics? Like one where the dealer is on a losing streak and you can safely bet everything you own on the next hand because you came right in the MIDDLE of the streak?You win just over 40% of the time? You should try the 'mimic the dealer' strategy. I think those people win at over 47% of the tables they play at.
Craps is precision shooting, which is kind of a shifty idea. I don't believe one way or the other on the subject, I just know it's never gonna be my thing. There is nothing you could do in Three card poker except holecarding--making it two card poker--which is only possible if you have an idiotic or colluding dealer. Call these AP techniques if you want, but they haven't been outed because they are not viable. What I'm wondering is--are there any 'wowable' techniques.
Hullo Rainmaker - Thanks for the derision. No idea of the "mimic the dealer" strategy but I can guess what it is, and at 47% of winning tables I wonder what their money management strategy is. If they adopted strategies that I use I'd expect they are doing better than me. As I said I get over 40% winning tables and have been in increasing profit now into my 4th year of my strategy.
I disagree however that having found winning characteristics at a table I suggested betting everything I own on the next hand - that's just dumb and insulting - I never said to do that if you have read my email properly. And if the table begins losing I only lose 6 units - hardly everything I own.
My self-styled advantage comes from betting into the next few hands and if winning locking up the wins, betting higher as they come and returning to minimum bet size on a loss and starting again. You never know, I may have just bet into the high part of the positive count and hence am unknowingly betting with counters.
As the originators of casinobusters.com.au acknowledge their experience is that every shoe or so has a hot spot of several winning hands in a row- I am looking for evidence of that by the play of others at the table already. So really my play is similar to theirs - ie to bet higher when winning and lower when losing - not everything I own at all!!
And hence I agree with Tthree above - I don't know I have a statistical advantage over the casinos. However does my betting with higher bets into winning streaks when multiplied out constitute any advantage? I think you will say no but it leads to me winning over 1500 tables so I say some sort of yes. I agree it isn't by your implicit definition of what gives a statistical advantage.
My understanding of the casinobusters theory was that when a run of 5 or more wins came, which can be determined how often these occur statistically (not frequent), their strategy was to bet up with adding extra units after the first win, then almost double that on winning the second bet then stay around that level for 2 more wins, then scale down locking up dollars after further consecutive wins. They return to minimum unit size on any loss. When consecutive losses occur apart from the first one, their betting size is the minimum bet thus fulfilling the bet high when winning and bet low when losing. They also alter Basic Strategy to a more conservative one than in blackjackinfo.com as referred to earlier. They claim substantial wins with buy-ins of 120 units and win-goals of 40 units. They don't advocate counting.
It seems to me that counting increases the odds of winning the next bet(s) while the True Count is favourable, but it also isn't a guarantee of doing so. In fact a few counters I have spoken to have told me of their frustration when getting high TCs and betting their higher bets (like 8 or 10:1) they have caught rogue low cards amidst their tens and busted! And they have also experienced long streaks of losses challenging their bankrolls. Given the counters need to carry very high BRs they also aren't betting "everything they own" on their apparent evidence of a very positive count, but betting within their strategic levels just as I am.
All grist for the mill of trying to find ways of winnning which is why I started this thread regarding CSMs.
Dear Norm, My apologies - I did not know when I joined and made my first post that I had landed on a card-counting forum.
As I said before my motivation was to see if there are any strategies that "beat CSMs" - the clear indication is that they aren't able to be beaten by counting.
I won't bother your forum again - I have actually found the discussion helpful in clarifying information and making me again rethink the "I am not a counter" stance I have had. I know some counters in Melbourne but we have only one casino in this state and to be barred or restricted as some of them are, would be very unhelpful to me being able to continue playing BJ.
At 65, nearly 66, and working 60+ hours a week still, I am not sure I have the time available to learn how to count given I have found a strategy, albeit one your forum members don't hold as viable, that does turn a regular profit.
I accept that in your terms, my posts should be listed in the disadvantage forum.
Regards Dsticks
This is not a "card counting forum". It is a Blackjack, etc forum. However, posts should go in the correct sub-forums. Your "strategy" has been popular for centuries, is one of the reasons casinos have raked in billions, and would be misleading to newcomers. Therefore, such posts belong in the Disadvantage Forum.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
You could be right but long winning and losing runs are far more likely at negative counts where you are at a big disadvantage. If the dealer lost several rounds in a row you likely have just seen lots of good cards go into the discard pile. I this because there are a ton more or is this the depletion that makes for a big disadvantage? These 2 opposing forces on your play at best even out. With no other info it most likely indicates a disadvantage. You might want to observe what cards make up this winning run. Sometimes they aren't the aces and tens but mostly lower cards. If you altered your not counting strategy to include this small bit of info there would be a tiny bit of correlation to the advantage of the shoe. You would still most likely play at a disadvantage but would trim the house edge some.
You describe a combination of proven losing money management strategies that can cause a better chance to win but also cause a faster rate of lose overall. The first one looking for a winning run doesn't change the likelihood of winning but does have you waiting in the wings and not betting so it will save you money in that you aren't making negative EV bets. Basically if you you eliminate the wait and compare the same amount of playing time you will lose the same amount over the same number of bets as if you just played all. Your bet variation strategy combines a positive progression with up and pull betting. If you reach the pull part more than expected you are doing great if you reach it less you get crushed. The result of the last bet has little to do with advantage. In blackjack losing a bet generally slightly increases your chance of winning and winning a bet slightly decreases your chances of winning. This has nothing to do with the results of the last hand but with the cards that are more likely played to get these results. Sometimes you lose when lots of good cards are played and losing is followed by an increase in house advantage but generally the tendency ever so slightly favors a losing table increasing the house edge. Every counter can tell you stories of the huge losing run for the players that cleared the table just in time to play a monster count head to head with the dealer. Important to you the reverse is true. A winning run for the players is slightly more likely to indicate an increase in house edge due to eating more good cards than low cards. The trick is to discern between the 2 situations and play the losing runs that ate bad cards and the winning runs that ate bad cards. Then your bets would have a small correlation to advantage. You would still be playing at a disadvantage but at least you have trimmed the house edge a hair.
You never change the chances of winning the next hand much by counting. Pushes increase and losses decrease by a tiny bit. The advantage is gained by having larger bets out when you get BJ and doubles and splits are done more frequently and at a higher profit percentage mostly through strategy modification due to the deck composition but to some degree just an increase in the opportunities and their profitability in general.
Tthree, thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts - I understand your points and will try to incorporate them in my future play in shoe games. I also accept that I am not playing to any advantage over the house edge.
In general I accept the value of playing strict basic strategy, and follow this pretty closely, even to getting heat from players who don't like to hit 16 vs 10, nor split 9's ever, nor split 4's vs 5 and 6, nor hit 12 vs 2 and 3.
What I don't understand then is why I have had such a consistently profitable run for over 3 years given the way I play and as I say at over 1500 tables (of shoe games) in that time. What Target 21 (from Jerry Patterson) and Casinobusters (an Australian website) strategies of table selection in the former and money management in both, were about included finding tables with good or choppy "winning" characteristics and betting higher following wins and low when losing. And when the losing starts to get off the table with about a 6 unit stop loss. If these processes are so bad, or ignorant or as indicative in why casinos have ripped millions off players for years, as implied or stated by several correspondents in this thread, why do I have such profitable results?
And to those who said take this to the disadvantage forum - I am now here - and I now understand the forum's general definition of advantage playing is to have an advantage over the house edge.
Cheers
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks