I was wondering if anyone has a spreadsheet of BJ hands (hopefully, thousands) that shows win/loss for card counting (e.g., hi/lo with 1:8 betting) compared to flat betting. I wanted to use the spreadsheet to compare those results, i.e., card counting and flat betting, to positive progressive betting, e.g., Walter Thomason's betting. I think it would be interesting to compare all three results for a short session, e.g., 200-500 hands.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Freightman - because I need to see why I have been successful at blackjack using progressive betting. All the math tells me that any type of progressive betting should be same as flat betting (with higher bet average), but it appears to me that this is not what I am experiencing. I need to convince myself that I am just experiencing variance (luck).
How many hands have you played in total? Have to try playing 34 hours non-stop using progressive betting? You might get lucky from time to time but if you play long enough your EV will be negative because betting cannot overcome the house edge.Originally Posted by BJ_WIN
It is a fact that the expected value of a series of bets is equal to the sum of the series. If you do nothing to change your expected value (say -.50%) in this case and you bet $10, $20, $40, $80, $160 as high as you want to go, your EV is equal to: $10(-.50%)+$20(-.50%)+$40(-.50%) .....+$160(-.50%). As you can see, every bet is a losing bet and the sum of the outcome of this series will always be a loss.
Anything can happen in the short term and if you have been winning it is because of variance. In the long term, if you bet this way, your EV will equal -.50% X The total amount bet. The only way to change this formula is to change the overall negative EV into a positive EV. You are not doing this by raising your bet. Any simulation you run will have these figures in the long term.
Take a fair coin. The EV is zero, however if you and someone flip 1,000 times, one of you will be a winner and one will be a loser but if you flip for a very long time, the outcome will get closer and closer to zero. This is what you are experiencing right now, short term variance.
Last edited by Bodarc; 10-20-2015 at 02:29 PM.
Play within your bankroll, pick your games with care and learn everything you can about the game. The winning will come. It has to. It's in the cards. -- Bryce Carlson
Here Is a link of some people toying with this and publishing results:
http://www.hitorstand.net/forum/disc...progression/p1
As expected real close to expectation in these insignificant samplings.
seriousplayer - I recorded about 120 hours for 1 1/2 years. Anyway, if anyone has a spreadsheet of dealt hands, I would appreciate it. I believe Walter Thomason used 5,000 dealt hands for his book. If anyone has a copy of those dealt hands, that would work as well.
5,000 hands is nothing but noise when trying to validate a blackjack playing system. The variance associated with these small sample may make you "think you found something" but you are to be sorely disappointed as the math does not lie. When the people on this forum tell you no progression will win in the long term, you would be well advised to heed their guidance.
If a progression did work, then we would all be doing it for large amounts.
Speaking of betting large amounts, if you are really enthused by your concept then I will bet you $10,000 that you can not mathematically validate its long term advantage. Let me know if you want the bet and we can talk and detail out the terms and conditions. Mine are that Schlesinger or someone of equal mathematical stature serve as the judge. You are welcome to present your person as a judge we just need to agree on one.
Sure would like to do this before Christmas as I have six grand kids with two in college. LOL
Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!
A set of 5,000 hands is completely useless -- as is his book. The guy that wrote the forward to the book even told the author the strategy didn't work.
Last edited by Norm; 10-01-2015 at 10:56 AM.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Let me put it this way. You record 5,000 hands. That’s an immense effort, assuming you do it correctly. So, you simulate a strategy against those 5,000 hands. It doesn’t work. You try another – it doesn’t work. You try another – it works. Hallelujah, you have discovered a strategy that works against that particular 5,000 hands. All you need now is a time machine.
So, you write a book. Because you have discovered one of the millions of strategies that would work against that particular 5,000 hands. And, you claim that, somehow, it will magically work against a different set of 5,000 hands.
Books that push this have cost gambling addicts billions.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks