A progression without any voodoo.

[falling star]

Non-Counters, unless they are seeing the hole card or using some other advantage play technique, will not overcome the 1/2% disadvantage via betting progressions. Bet progressions simply change the shape of the normal distributions of session results from a bell shaped one to one that is skewed such that you will have many losing sessions of small magnitude and a few large wins (positive progression) OR many winning sessions of small magnitude and a few large losses (negative progression).

I will admit, that if you only play a very small handful of hours each year, like 8-12 hours a year on one annual trip to Vegas, then I find nothing wrong with a mild positive progression...it keeps money off the table during long losing streaks but gives a casual player a chance to run a series of wins into a large session win. Hit one or two big wins and you'll be ahead of the game for several years if you can keep a level head and don't suddenly get visions of grandeur and up your stakes. Just don't deceive yourself into thinking that it somehow changes the odds of the game. Sweaty casino pit bosses confuse positive flux with advantage play all the time. Progression advocates do the same thing. If you want to use a progression to try and hit a big score vs the casino feel free, it's your money...but please don't try to surround your own personal utility with some sort of mathematical nonsense. Posters to sites like this aren't easily baffled by bull****.

I would expect every player to experience the sessions you mention. Skewed results...I think you're trying baffle me with bull**** or mathematical nonsense.
Lose two hands at 1 unit and win one hand at 4 units demonstrates overcoming the odds while still accomodating the odds. They win 2 hands I win one hand, eeverybody's happy.

[Three]

I would expect every player to experience the sessions you mention. Skewed results...I think you're trying baffle me with bull**** or mathematical nonsense.
Lose two hands at 1 unit and win one hand at 4 units demonstrates overcoming the odds while still accomodating the odds. They win 2 hands I win one hand, eeverybody's happy.

So you lose two hands in a row and 42% of the time you win the third and are ahead 2 units the majority of the time you lose that third hand and are behind 6 units. How is that winning in the long run.

[falling star]

So you lose two hands in a row and 42% of the time you win the third and are ahead 2 units the majority of the time you lose that third hand and are behind 6 units. How is that winning in the long run.

I didn't say they had to be in a row. It was just to demonstrate how to both accomodate and overcome the odds.
I'm curious! Why are counters so worried about progressions players? Your time would be better spent
working on improving counting.
1. Come up with a better value for the cards behind the cut card.
2. Figure out why so many hands are won during negative counts, besides "it happens".
3.Maybe you should continue the count from the previous shoe to see how the suffle affets the new shoe, or take an average of the two shoes.

Why attack progressions. The casinos are our common enemy. If we can use some of your techniques, we will and vice versa.

[jaygruden]

3.Maybe you should continue the count from the previous shoe to see how the suffle affets the new shoe, or take an average of the two shoes.

You may be onto something. This makes at least as much sense as using a progression system.

[falling star]

You may be onto something. This makes at least as much sense as using a progression system.

They were just suggestion that I spent 10 seconds on. I sure you can come with better ones. My focus is on improving progression.

[jaygruden]

I thought the emoticon would confirm that my statement was in jest but apparently not.

Norm.....can we add a "sarcasm" emoticon to the menu? That's the one that seems to get lost in translation without being able to hear tone of voice in the written word.

[falling star]

As long as your sword is still in its sheath I don't get too worried.

[falling star]

Maybe you should count hands like 55, 56,73,74,82,83, 92, differently. Card positioning should play a bigger role in the count. I would think a 55 hand would lessen the chance of a future stiff. Whereas a 10-5 would increase the chance of a future stiff but is given a count of zerro.