Designated Driver: Getting rated, a progressive system?

[Designated Driver]

I was originally going to write this as two seperate posts, but after a little thought I have changed my mind and am now going to post it as one single post, however with two parts.

Sorry, I want to write a short aisde(or something) here. I am watching a program(Cheats and Scams 2, or something like that) on the Travel Channel about Vegas and gambling and the final segment concerned card counters. A few BJ "celebrities" like Arnold Snyder, James Grosjean, Rick "Night Train" Blaine were featured in interviews. Bill Zender and some other security agents and consultants were also featured. But anyway...

Basically, what I was concerned with was that the program said that surveillance has become very high-tech and savvy that any cheating or advantage play, namely card counting would be immediately spotted and prohibited. The program made it sound like it was virtually impossible to count cards successfully due to increased casino knowledge and scrutiny. Is this the case, and how concerned should I be with this, considering that I am planning to use this technique when I play having the desire to win?

As it has been told to me by some others(skeptics) before, when I proposed that I could win at blackjack by counting cards: "The casinos can read the books too". And when the casinos are privy to the methods which can be used to "beat the game", then if/when it can spot them, it will of course take the necessary steps to stop that from happening.

Okay, how can I ask this question, get a serious answer and still retain my respect as someone who views the game from the perspective of a traditional card counter? For me the answer is that although I am(will be, hopefully) a (successful) card counter, I consider myself to be first and foremost an advantage player: someone who looks to beat the game through skill by any and all legal means, whatever they may be.

I have just read(re-read) a book titled "Twenty-first Century Blackjack: A Strategy for a New Millennium" by Walter Thomason, with an introduction by Frank Scoblete. Now, I want to state clearly and upfront that this book is about a betting system(positive progressive) that the author attempts to justify through analysis and simulation as useful for winning play and to which I must admit that while I was, and still am skeptical, was at least thought provoking, if not completely persuasive. The results of his analyses(carried out in collaboration with Fred Renzy and Bootlegger among others) is that the progressive betting system which the author had created and proposed was found to be more financially lucrative in that it either made more money, or lost less, than either flat betting or card counting. The comparison of the betting methods, "systems" was based on the simulated play of a limited number of hands(5,000) for which ground rules were established. The most important of these rules in my view is that three different betting systems(flat betting, progressive betting and card counting) would be used with the provision that they would be used strictly with no deviation from that dictated by the system, that only one hand would be dealt(for all three betting types) and would by played by a specified set of basic strategy rules having the results recorded so that if the hand won, than all three bets won and likewise for a hand lost which made the only variation the style and amount of money bet on the hand by the three respective systems.

Basically, the study controlled every variable except for the betting style and amount, which would be dictated by the three respective betting systems. If more specific information were required, I could provide this, the betting prodecure of the progressive system(when to raise, when to drop, to what level and with what limits, etc.), along with the prodcedures of the card counting system.

In the end, the bottom line is that the progressive betting system was found to be "better" than the others, flat betting and card counting after multiple simulations and analyses. He then goes on to explain both logically and empirically(based upon the analysis) why this is the case.

After saying all of this, and with great difficulty, I offer my profuse apologies and recommend that you read the book if you are interested and so inclined. And no, I am not selling the book, nor do I endorse it(beyond what was mentioned above) in any way. :-)

My fundamental question is: How can this be true?

And my secondary question is: If a positive progressive betting system is not better than card counting, then is it at least better than flat betting? And if I were to use a progressive betting procedure, then while I may not win, I will/should not lose more than I would by using a flat betting scheme, however having the chance of winning big with a "hot" streak. Correct?

Now, part two.

My question is about getting rated. I have heard/read two different views on this, one being that you should(even as a card counter/advantage player), and another that you should not. I again want to say that I have never played before and it will be very much a new and learning experience for me, but that being said I also plan to play to win. By most views I will probably be playing for small stakes(nickles or red chips I believe) as that is all my bankroll will allow, but given my playing experience, there is a very real possibility that I may lose and think it wise to take advantage of comps although they will likey be of little value(drinks, or maybe a cheap meal) and have relatively little value to me as I greatly prefer cash.

What makes this a difficult question, for me at least, is that I do wish to play successfully for higher stakes at some point(if it is a possibility for me) and do wish to remain anonymous for this reason. Also, I know that you should not play for extended periods of time, win excessive amounts of money, etc., which are the general card counters rules that I plan to adhere to.

With these considerations taken into mind, what would you say about getting rated? It is a complicated question, is it not?

And lastly, to tie this whole post all together, the reason why I wrote this as one post rather than two seperate as I was going to originally, is that I was thinking that maybe I would use a progressive betting system initially while being rated for both camoflauge purposes and to get off a flat bet, thus increasing my average hourly wager.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. And thanks,
Desi. D.

P.S. For those of you who are familiar with me and some of my other posts, I want to say that no, I am not about to play like my uncle(not after ridiculing him), but it is just that this book which I have read is very thought provoking for any open-minded and serious BJ player, to say the least.

And finally. Yes Bettie, I do consider myself to be an AP, even though I will probably play the slots. :-)

[ShoelessD]

Short answers:

Get rated. The pluses far outweight the minuses.

Avoid progression systems, and trust the math from those who you respect. The math is often far beyond the average players understanding, so we have to trust, AND QUESTION, those who have the ability to come to the correct conclusions.

Such authors as Thomasson, Dahl, and even Scoblete are sometimes interesting and provocative. At best they make us think, at worst they cost us money because their conclusions are not mathematically sound.

[Parker]

> Basically, what I was concerned with was that the
> program said that surveillance has become very
> high-tech and savvy that any cheating or advantage
> play, namely card counting would be immediately
> spotted and prohibited. The program made it sound like
> it was virtually impossible to count cards
> successfully due to increased casino knowledge and
> scrutiny. Is this the case, and how concerned should I
> be with this, considering that I am planning to use
> this technique when I play having the desire to win?

Obviously, the casinos would like you to believe that card counting is extremely difficult or impossible in today's casinos. Who do you think bankrolls these shows?

> My fundamental question is: How can this be true?

Fundamental answer: It can't and it isn't. Thomason's book is worthless, and a 5,000 hand "sim" is equally worthless. You could run such a sim ten times and get 10 different sets of results. For a real sim (a billion hands) of Thomason's system, see the link below.

> And my secondary question is: If a positive
> progressive betting system is not better than card
> counting, then is it at least better than flat
> betting? And if I were to use a progressive betting
> procedure, then while I may not win, I will/should not
> lose more than I would by using a flat betting scheme,
> however having the chance of winning big with a
> "hot" streak. Correct?

No. Look at the sim in the link. While the amount lost per 100 hands wagered is the same as the flat bettor, the progressionist loses more because he/she is putting more money on the table.

> With these considerations taken into mind, what would
> you say about getting rated? It is a complicated
> question, is it not?

Sure - and one endlessly debated on sites such as this. Use the search function and you will find many threads. There is no straight yes/no answer.

> And lastly, to tie this whole post all together, the
> reason why I wrote this as one post rather than two
> seperate as I was going to originally, is that I was
> thinking that maybe I would use a progressive betting
> system initially while being rated for both camoflauge
> purposes and to get off a flat bet, thus increasing my
> average hourly wager.

"Only increase your bet after a win" is a common technique used by counters to make their play resemble a progression. Of course, the bet is only increased when the count calls for it, the bet always drops after the shuffle, and there is a cost in EV for using this sort of cover.

Betting progressions have been around as long as gambling, It has been proven beyond any possible doubt that they do not work, and thus there is no point in wasting bandwidth in disussing them further. I expect this part of the thread to end here. Please read "Parker's Policies" (link in left frame above forum list).

Please limit your posts to a single topic. It makes responding easier and provides for cleaner threads. In addition, many people simply do not bother to read all the way through lengthy posts.

Progressions

[Sun Runner]

> As it has been told to me by some others (skeptics) ..

You'll find most true skeptics find it easier to sit in the easy chair and poke holes in others ideas so as to alleviate themselves from having to actually get up and do anything .. other than continue to sit in that chair and do nothing. Avoid them at all cost.

> I have just read(re-read) a book titled
> "Twenty-first Century Blackjack: A Strategy for a
> New Millennium" by Walter Thomason .. the results
> of his analyses(carried out in collaboration with Fred
> Renzy and Bootlegger among others)

I must have mis-understood, I have not read the book. Could someone explain what exactly Fred Renzy and Bootlegger contributed to this book?

[Bettie]

> My question is about getting rated. I have heard/read
> two different views on this, one being that you
> should(even as a card counter/advantage player), and
> another that you should not. I again want to say that
> I have never played before and it will be very much a
> new and learning experience for me, but that being
> said I also plan to play to win. By most views I will
> probably be playing for small stakes(nickles or red
> chips I believe) as that is all my bankroll will
> allow, but given my playing experience, there is a
> very real possibility that I may lose and think it
> wise to take advantage of comps although they will
> likey be of little value(drinks, or maybe a cheap
> meal) and have relatively little value to me as I
> greatly prefer cash.

You will not get any cash from a casino playing the tables (unless you are playing through tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars under special promotions available only occasionally and only to certain extremely high rollers). Any casino that does offer cashback will do so only on the basis of your VP/slot play (see our casino cashback chart in the Viva Las Vegas section of this site). In general, you get comps for playing table games and cashback/freeplay/bounceback for playing the machines. Playing tables with red for less than an hour will get you nothing, anyway.

Bettie

[Brick]

After reading your post I find this hard to believe.

[V-man]

[Designated Driver]

I did realize that I would not get cashback from the table games and meant that I would prefer to win "cash/chips" from my bets made in gameplay. And as for the comps, I was thinking that the low value comps which I would earn by playing may not be worth the attention I would receive if I were trying to remain anonymous.

Desi. D.

> You will not get any cash from a casino playing the
> tables (unless you are playing through tens or
> hundreds of thousands of dollars under special
> promotions available only occasionally and only to
> certain extremely high rollers). Any casino that does
> offer cashback will do so only on the basis of your
> VP/slot play (see our casino cashback chart in the
> Viva Las Vegas section of this site). In general, you
> get comps for playing table games and
> cashback/freeplay/bounceback for playing the machines.
> Playing tables with red for less than an hour will get
> you nothing, anyway.

> Bettie

[Designated Driver]

Okay, I will amend my statement. I am an aspiring AP.

>> After reading your post I find this hard to believe.

You may turn out to be right about this. :-)

Desi. D.

[Designated Driver]

Please see bottom for response as I wish to keep the post as something for readers to reference.

> Obviously, the casinos would like you to believe that
> card counting is extremely difficult or impossible in
> today's casinos. Who do you think bankrolls these
> shows?

Actually, I thought it was independent.

> Fundamental answer: It can't and it isn't. Thomason's
> book is worthless, and a 5,000 hand "sim" is
> equally worthless. You could run such a sim ten times
> and get 10 different sets of results. For a real sim
> (a billion hands) of Thomason's system, see the link
> below.

I will take a look, but you sound pretty certain and convincing. :-)

> No. Look at the sim in the link. While the amount lost
> per 100 hands wagered is the same as the flat bettor,
> the progressionist loses more because he/she is
> putting more money on the table.

> Sure - and one endlessly debated on sites such as
> this. Use the search function and you will find many
> threads. There is no straight yes/no answer.

> "Only increase your bet after a win" is a
> common technique used by counters to make their play
> resemble a progression. Of course, the bet is only
> increased when the count calls for it, the bet always
> drops after the shuffle, and there is a cost in EV for
> using this sort of cover.

> Betting progressions have been around as long as
> gambling, It has been proven beyond any possible doubt
> that they do not work, and thus there is no point in
> wasting bandwidth in disussing them further. I expect
> this part of the thread to end here. Please read
> "Parker's Policies" (link in left frame
> above forum list).

I have read them previously and was reluctant to post my questions here earlier, but believed them to be legitimate questions worthy of consideration by all serious BJ players.

> Please limit your posts to a single topic. It makes
> responding easier and provides for cleaner threads. In
> addition, many people simply do not bother to read all
> the way through lengthy posts.

First off, I want to stress that this is not a retaliatory post but a geniune question which had occured to me last night as I was getting ready to go to sleep, honest.

If I recall correctly, a while ago I had written about winning at "Megabucks" and other slot machines, to which you had responded something like "some people say they have been abducted by aliens" but I don't believe them either. ( That was not a quote, and I apologize for any misrepresentation.)

I agree(for the most part) that people do not get abducted by aliens, although I probably do not dismiss it as readily as yourself. Having no personal experience of this myself, I hold this belief due to the lack of evidence of such an uncommon and unorthodox occurance as I suspect is the case with you.

The proof is in the pudding as they say, and in this case there is none(at least nothing concrete enough to convince me).

I want to say this with all due respect, but there is no proof what-so-ever offered by those who claim to be successful at gambling(advantage play) by those who post on this board. I mean all you have here is a person's word, sometimes boasting of great accomplishments, but of course with no evidence.

Given that most, virtually all gamblers(including APs) lose to the casino, how am I to believe such grandiose claims? Can anyone provide any "concrete" proof to justify their success at blackjack and other advantage play? And if they really are "in the money", then why are they here on this board and not out partying or something?

Just a few friendly questions Parker. :-)
Desi. D.

[Francis Salmon]

> I want to say this with all due respect, but there is
> no proof what-so-ever offered by those who claim to be
> successful at gambling(advantage play) by those who
> post on this board. I mean all you have here is a
> person's word, sometimes boasting of great
> accomplishments, but of course with no evidence.

Now,after having read all these books about BJ,after having learnt a counting system, after having examined sim results on internet you still doubt it's possible to make money at Blackjack?This is contrastinging with your complaint that everybody here is trying to discourage you from becoming pro.If you're not absolutely convinced that card counting works, you will never become an AP.

> Given that most, virtually all gamblers(including APs)
> lose to the casino, how am I to believe such grandiose
> claims? Can anyone provide any "concrete"
> proof to justify their success at blackjack and other
> advantage play? And if they really are "in the
> money", then why are they here on this board and
> not out partying or something?

First of all, APs are winning players by definition.You don't really expect us to post extracts of our bank accounts. If we hang around here, it's because we enjoy discussing with like-minded.An AP doesn't get any recognition at the tables other than occasional barrings because he has to hide his talents.Here is a place where he can talk freely.Some pros feel that their activity doesn't contribute anything to the community so they want to make up for this lack by helping others here.

Francis Salmon

[Sun Runner]

> Given that most, virtually all gamblers (including APs) lose to the casino ..

As Mr. Salmon said, an APer does not lose to the casino a matter of course; it would be a contradiction in terms. Most gamblers do.

> how am I to believe such grandiose claims?

Grandiose claims? What is grandiose about a 1% advantage applied hand after hand after mind numbing hand? It does pay off, but it's far from grandiose. You seem to be the one trying to impose on Blackjack the burden of turning a man into an instant lottery winner; it does not.

> And if they really are "in the money", then why are they
> here on this board and not out partying or something?

I'm no pro but I'm way in the money .. and I'll tell you why I do .. because others here took the time to bear with me just like they are trying to bear with you.



There is a post in Don's Domain where someone at the BJ Ball pontificated there may be only a dozen folks in Las Vegas, and maybe 30 more nation wide that extract the kinda money from BJ play you have been dreaming about.

A pretty sobering thought.

Those guys started at the bottom, trusting the math, counting cards, and grinding. Add'lly, those same guys probably are not posting much here or anywhere else. I agree with you; why should they.

But you are not them and it takes some doing to get there.
You haven't even played your first game with Uncle yet.

So my advice is to give the skeptic act a rest and start applying some of what you are learning. It won't make you rich tomorrow, but if you are as capable as you seem to think you are, it will put you on the path.

Or don't. It is up to you.

Good luck.

[pm]