madmes89: Power Blackjack

[madmes89]

After deciding to use KO for playing strategies and betting, I got this book called Power Blackjack by Roger L. Ford, Silverthorne Publications the other day. It prescribes the a progressive system for betting. 5000 hands producing $5664 bets with tradional counting and thsi progressive system and also leaving a table after 4 consecutive losing hands yielded the following:

counter=$1400 win,
PBJSystem=$1890,
flat bettor=$1060 win.

This system of betting used $5 min spread to max of $40 with a $200 buy in. You raise bet by 1 unit after every loss, and if you lose the max ($40) you leave table.

The concept says $154/hour is average using this system and spread with a $200 buy in.

So after all this talk we do about counting cards being the best mathematically sound (superiror) way to play, what's the deal, and is there any credit to this. It must be working for someone? Comments? What is one to do?

[Parker]

> So after all this talk we do about counting
> cards being the best mathematically sound
> (superiror) way to play, what's the deal,
> and is there any credit to this?

None at all, not one iota. The author is a scam artist and you have wasted your money on his worthless book. 5000 hands is absolutely meaningless. Of course, this assumes that the author actually played or simulated 5000 rounds. More likely, he simply pulled some nice-sounding numbers out of the air.

Use your head. If someone could actually average $154/hour with $200 buy-ins using a simple betting progression, how long do you think the casinos would continue to offer blackjack?

Betting progressions have absolutely no effect on the house advantage.

> It must be
> working for someone?

Sure. It works for Roger L. Ford, who makes a few bucks every time some poor sucker buys his garbage book. Likewise, it works for Silverthorne Publications, whomever they are.

And most of all, it works for the casinos, who love and welcome progressionists.

> Comments? What is one
> to do?

Stick with KO and forget about worthless betting progressions.

[Geoff Hall]

> Sure. It works for Roger L. Ford, who makes
> a few bucks every time some poor sucker buys
> his garbage book. Likewise, it works for
> Silverthorne Publications, whomever they
> are.

I've read a lot of complaints from those who have purchased from this company but have not heard anything as soon as they ask for a refund.

STAY WELL AWAY !

Best regards

Geoff

Blackjack Switch

[Saboteur]

I assume this progression goes $5-$10-$20-$40 because you mentioned both that you leave when you lose four straight hands and that you leave when you lose $40.

The chance of losing any one hand is more than 50%. (I'm excluding pushes here, because I'm assuming that your progression does, too.) The chance of losing any four consecutive hands is therefore going to be more than 6.25% (.5^4). Suppose you sit down at a BJ table and play just 19 hands (again, I'm not counting pushes). There are 16 streaks that are four hands in length within those 19 hands. Your chance of losing four hands in a row in 19 hands is (technically) more than 100%!

Suppose you made it all the way to that 19th hand before you'd lost four-in-a-row. That means the losing streak started on the 16th hand. You played 15 hands before that, presumably with mixed results, but even if you'd won all of those first 15 hands before your losing streak started on the 16th hand, you would have only won $75 dollars ($5 * 15). Your losing streak would have cost you $75 in losses ($5 + $10 + $20 + $40). You would have had an incredibly rare win-streak of 15 hands, but you still would have only broken even when you left the table. A far more likely outcome would be that you'd lose one or more of those first 15 hands, in which case you're going to lose money overall. Only one scenario breaks even; the rest all lose.

The "beauty" of this progression is that you feel comfortable knowing that every time you win a hand you'll come out $5 ahead. The problem is that you'll encounter your limit (in this case, $40) far more often than you think. Even if you raised the "exit point" to a higher figure (say, $80), it's a near-certainty that you'll crap out with a FIVE-hand losing streak within the first 35 hands.

I'm not surprised that you asked about progressions; the topic comes up all the time. However, I do have to admit that I'm baffled that you'd gone to the trouble of learning a counting system before this discussion of progressions came up. Most of your advantage when using a counting system comes from knowing when to increase or decrease your bet. I don't understand why anyone would learn how to do that and then replace all that newfound knowledge and skill with a system that requires virtually no thought at all! Apparently, you're under the impression that the use of a counting system such as KO increases the amount of hands you will win to over 50%. No counting system can do that over the long run. You have to know how and when to make your biggest wagers on those rare occasions when the deck is to your advantage. That's the only way you can make up the ground you've lost while playing those hands that put you at a disadvantage. That's why the concept of Wonging is so valuable (if you can get away with it). You reduce the number of hands you play at a disadvantage so that the hands you play at an advantage are so much more valuable. No progression can provide that information, but a counting system can and THAT'S how you gain an advantage.

[Don Schlesinger]

> The chance of losing any one hand is more
> than 50%. (I'm excluding pushes here,
> because I'm assuming that your progression
> does, too.) The chance of losing any four
> consecutive hands is therefore going to be
> more than 6.25% (.5^4). Suppose you sit down
> at a BJ table and play just 19 hands (again,
> I'm not counting pushes). There are 16
> streaks that are four hands in length within
> those 19 hands. Your chance of losing four
> hands in a row in 19 hands is (technically)
> more than 100%!

No it isn't. Suppose the chance of getting heads on a coin flip is 50%. Does that mean if I flip it twice, it's 100% certain that I'll get at least one head? Of course not. These 16 streaks of four can't simply be added to come to the conclusion that, with 1/16 probability each, if we do this 16 times, it's 100% certain that we'll have one four-hand losing streak. That isn't the way the probability works.

Rather, it's closer to saying that any four-hand streak has 15/16 probability of not producing four straight losers, and you have 16 such strings of 15/16. (15/16)^16 = 35.6%. So, the chances of having one such losing streak, in 19 hands, are approximately 1 -.356, or 64.4%. This isn't the correct answer, either, however, because you don't have 16 discrete blocks of four hands each. Rather, the hands overlap, and the same winning hand that appears once now is present in four such blocks. The correct answer is a bit more complicated to derive.

Don

[oldnewbie]

OK, I just got back from Biloxi...1 session last Monday morning at 4:00, (it was too smoky Sunday night), and another last night, (Saturday), at around 9:00. I'm studying KO, but I'm not proficient enough yet to be able to do it surreptitiously, (sp?), and besides, the pen was about 60%, so why bother. I played BS with an occasional positive progression, i.e., when I won 2 hands in a row I would raise my bet by 50%, until I lost a hand, then back to the minimum.

The first session, I bought in for $100, and won $140. The second session, I lost it all. I look at it as a couple of hours of entertainment, and I came out even for the week.

It's like everybody here says, progressions don't work in the long term. I know that 2 sessions hardly constitute a long term, but I consider myself lucky that it cost me so little to get a quick reality check. The progressions are fun, but too erratic. If you get lousy cards, you will lose, no matter what system you use. That's why all the counting systems factor in variances.

If you want to make a living at blackjack, learn to count. Otherwise. just play for fun, and don't bet more than you can afford to lose.

[Sonny]

> 5000 hands producing $5664 bets
> with tradional counting and thsi progressive
> system and also leaving a table after 4
> consecutive losing hands yielded the
> following:
>
> counter=$1400 win,
> PBJSystem=$1890,
> flat bettor=$1060 win.

Wait just a second here...the FLAT BETTOR won $1060?! Does it seem strange to anyone else that a flat betting basic strategy player has over a 3.74% advantage over the house? Something is not right here. Either this game has VERY VERY VERY liberal rules or...

As the folks above said, 5000 rounds in nowhere near enough to accurately test a system. You could run 5000 round simulations all day long and never get the same results twice. Just pick the one with the highest win rate and use it as "proof" that you have an amazing new system.

On a side note, I ran a simulation for a progression system I invented several years ago. After only ONE HAND of play my system had already doubled my money! My system had a potential 100% EV! This is why it is important to have a large enough sample size to insure accurate results. His results are no more accurate then mine were.

It is also funny that he doesn't include the standard error of his results like Don does. That is a big warning that he's trying to hide something here.

> This system of betting used $5 min spread to
> max of $40 with a $200 buy in. You raise bet
> by 1 unit after every loss, and if you lose
> the max ($40) you leave table.

What does it say to do when you lose ALL your money? Let me guess, then you have to buy his "advanced" system and pay for his "seminars" held at local casinos. It's the old John Patrick marketing campaign at work!

> The concept says $154/hour is average using
> this system and spread with a $200 buy in.

Wow, $154/hour betting red chips. That sounds wonderful! Of course, since you are walking away from the table after four consecutive losses it could actually take you five hours to get in one hour's worth of play. That sounds like more walking than a Wonger! That brings the win rate down to around $30 per ACTUAL hour assuming his results above are correct, which we know they are not.

> What is one to do?

The answer is simple: Find a casino that offers a game with an 3.74% player edge and use your progression system until you are rich.

-Sonny-

P.S.-When you find that game with a 3.74% player edge, let me know.

[Parker]

. . . which is one of the reasons I suggested that the numbers may have been simply fabricated.

I mean, why let reality get in the way of a good sales pitch?

[Saboteur]

I just knew I should have taken Statistics when I had the chance! I'd love to be able to blame it all on the beer, but I don't drink. Maybe now's a good time to start.

I especially appreciate your point about overlapping four-hand sets. If we have just a 42% chance of winning the fourth-hand, then it follows that we would have (at the highest) a 42% chance of a four-hand losing streak within the first seven hands. (Or did I get that wrong, too?)

Thanks again for the enlightenment. I should have stuck to the standard rebuff concerning progressions.

[Saboteur]

"If we have just a 42% chance of winning the fourth-hand, then it follows that we would have (at the highest) a 42% chance of a four-hand losing streak within the first seven hands. (Or did I get that wrong, too?)"

I should have said that we have, at the highest, a 58% chance of a four-hand losing streak in the first seven hands.

I should have stopped while I was behind.

[Dog Hand]