Chances of Consecutive Winning Hands in a Row = Do NOT Increase Bet AFTER a WIN 1 = 47.50% 2 = 22.56% 3 = 10.71% 4 = 5.09% 5 = 2.41% 6 = 1.14% 7 = 0.54% 8 = 0.25% 9 = 0.12% 10 =0.05%
Chances of Consecutive Losing Hands in a Row = DO Increase Bet AFTER a LOSS 1 = 52.50% 2 = 27.56% 3 = 14.47% 4 = 7.59% 5 = 3.98% 6 = 2.09% 7 = 1.09% 8 = 0.57% 9 = 0.30% 10 =0.15%
Quote from Arnold Snyder in Blackbelt In Blackjack Book/2005 Edition, "computer simulations show that without counting cards, per se, certain playing conditions will indicate that the house advantage will be higher or lower on the next hand to be dealt.
In fact, there is a truth to this claim. As far back as 1978, Dr. John Gwynn and Professor Armand Seri (both of California State University in Sacramento) published a paper that first described valid situational betting techniques - and Gwynn and Seri based their findings on extensive computer simulations...
What Gwynn and Seri determined beyond any doubt were these facts :
1. If a player loses a hand, he will be more likely to win the next one - i.e., losing one hand is a positive indicator that the player has a better expectation on the next...
2. If a player wins a hand, he will be more likely to lose the next one - i.e., winning one hand is an indicator that the player's expectation on the next has dropped...
All of this can be proven by computer simulation"(pages 98-99).
Quote from Ian Andersen in Burning The Tables In Las Vegas Book/2003 Edition with Foreward by Stanford Wong...
He writes of a person "operating under the false notion that increasing a bet after a win improves a player's chances. In fact, as simulations have now proven, players who don't count will do marginally better by increasing their bets after a loss than after a win"(page85).
That's very interesting -- thanks for posting. But you aren't advocating increasing your bet based on past hands, are you? If you play five hands and win them all, the chance of winning the next hand is not 1.14%. If you could go back in time and bet on whether you would win six hands in a row, then the chance would be that (assuming your figures are right), but that's a different story.
Add TIES to the win fraction, as a "do not lose, therefore do not increase" bet and mysteriously its over 50%. In fact for the game at hand in CT its 51.15%. You would outright lose 48.85%.
Ties happen in blackjack, and your scheme is inaccurate. Figure 43 W's 49 L's and 8 T's per 100 rounds.
To your last question, I would usually answer "yes, if the count went up." At a small-stakes place (say Laughlin NV) I might not do this to avoid being too obvious. But in Vegas, where my $25-$50 bets are small potatos, I usually play exactly by the count and just keep playing sessions under one hour.
I have a much better betting progression strategy. I didn't want to reveal it until now, but I think the casinos are starting to catch on. You may be able to find some casinos that still aren't watching for it, though:
Bet 1: Bet the minimum If you lose the first bet, bet the minimum; if you win the first bet, bet 1.5*your first bet. If you lose the second bet and the first bet, bet 2.5*your first bet. If you win the second bet and lose the first bet, bet the minimum. If you won both bets, bet 1.0* your first bet.
For all subsequent bets, bet the average of the prior three bets divided by the times you won minus the times you lost. However, if you lose three in a row, multiple this again by 1.5. If, however, you win three in a row, then multiply your last bet by 2.0, but divide it by your next to last bet. If at any time you win four bets in a row, immediately bet the minimum, but do not start over the betting progression. Instead, double each of the bets above on the odd hands. On the even hands, alternate betting the minimum and the average of the three subsequent bets.
This is guaranteed to work as well as Surfteq's betting progression and is based on my own special math.
I like your betting system but you are not the first to use it as I have been using it for years...... I use it mostly on the $100.00 minimum tables.... "UncleNorm"
unclenorm -- you say that now after I have let the cat out of the bag and publicized my secret for everyone. But this system is purely pseudo-mathematical, so its not surprising that two like-minded brilliant individuals came up with the same system. Maybe you'd like to collaborate on a book with me?