Flat, negative, positive
  • Very good article on Casino City Times by Al Krigman. Has some good, interesting figures resulting from each method.

    I particularly like the third paragraph, where he makes an interesting comment about "the long run". I hadn't looked at it this way before, and tend to agree with him.

    Anyway, the link:

    http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/articles/5442.html
  • Quite an old article... since 1999?!?!?!?!??

    Wow........ anyway, do you guys know where WT and Renzey's been? Haven't been here in ages!
  • I found this article to be interesting because of his determination of the
    average bets for progressions, which under nomal circumstances, I would
    view as being impossible. By nomal, I mean not having the data from
    some trial run that produced a given result. I've often wondered how does
    a progression player determine his session stake? Forty times table limit
    does not sound reasonable nor does 50-60 times an average bet which
    I think is impossible to determine. I'm not a great fan of progressions,
    so I may be all wet with this line of reasoning.

    Ray
  • Ray - You can't use that article for determination of average bets for the typical progression player. Those tests show a Martingale and an Anti-Martingale (full parlay), and those average bets will be higher than the bets for the average progression player on this forum.

    I have often wondereded why the question of bankroll size keeps coming up here. IMHO, a blackjack player should have thoroughly tested a method (either progression or counting) before he ever walks into a casino.....He/She should already know their average bet, and then you just add SD for "x" hands and you have your session bankroll. (e.g. Midnite and I will be playing for a week later this month. We are trying something a little different so we already have about 14,000 test hands with what we will play. We know average bet, ER, swings, bankroll, etc. before we set foot in the casinos).

    As a point of reference for your question.....Walter's progression is what I would call a very safe progression, and the average bet is about 1.5 times the starting bet of the progression; thus 50-60 times for a session bankroll works fine.

    Grifter
  • Grifter, Yes I guess your right, and at least to some extent it is a matter
    of trial on an individual bases to arrive at some comfort level and go from
    there. I didn't mean to beat a dead horse to death, just wondering.....
  • Sorry, Ray.....I wasn't implying that you were beatin' a dead hoss. Mine was more or less a question too. Why people don't seem to test very much, or at least they don't mention it.
  • Grifter, going a little further with this conversation, I'm currently working
    with a 40 x 40 and I know this is too short. You could say I'm in the process of determining that I should be at 50 x 40 min. and this is based
    on determinations over the last 4-5 months. It's on my mind, but I should
    keep it to myself I guess.

    Ray
  • Ray - Guess we'll have to disagree. I guess I'm not "communicating" too well today (watched Cool Hand Luke again yesterday) :wink:..... I think you should be bringing up how you are deriving your bankroll for your game (from experience, not from somebody's book or other outside advice).

    That was really the point of my first post.....Books and advice from here are a great "jumping off" point, but a player should fine tune everything to his/her game......And I wonder how many folks are doing that?

    IMHO, I think questions/statements about how you are "tweaking" your bankroll requirements would be great.

    Grifter
  • Grifter, Your clear, just fine, I'm not taking you the wrong way.

    I record every session and everything about that session that I
    think is practical. It's a holdover from my work experience were
    information and observations were almost always the key. What's
    changed is always my first question in any problem analysis.

    - Ive changed my base unit(requires a simple proportional change)

    - I've changed my playing style(data and observations is the only
    way to attack this question and I'm just about there, but it's different
    from what I've been doing for the last 10 yrs., or more)

    This second change alters my actual playing time, but does not change
    the overall session time that much.
  • Grifter said:

    That was really the point of my first post.....Books and advice from here are a great "jumping off" point, but a player should fine tune everything to his/her game......And I wonder how many folks are doing that?

    IMHO, I think questions/statements about how you are "tweaking" your bankroll requirements would be great.


    A very good point Grifter. Since August I have gone through probably about two dozen variations of my original method. I started with Bruce Irwin's progression, then changed to Walter's, and I've been tinkering with that, as far as wager amounts and minimum bankroll requirements.

    I know I was a little naive back in August, when my original bankroll would have been $5000, for a desired gain of $500 a session. Too much risk for too little gain. With various changes since then, I've narrowed it down to a $400 bankroll, for the same gain. Yes, it takes a LOT longer to get there, but seems to have the same end results. Right now I'm sort of using Walter's progression, $400 bankroll, and a sequence of $10 - $30 - $40, back to start after a loss or a $40 win. Also $25 - $30 - $40 works well. With Walter's method my smaller bankroll is much more protected against deep losing streaks. It also draws less attention than $100 and $50 bets, and there's less of a spread between them.

    What I want to say is that I feel the same. Books and advice are a great starting point, but nothing should be written in stone. The information should be molded to the players style and needs. I do that, and I'm curious too about how many others "tweak" the various methods.

    What I found interesting about Krigman's article was his comment about "the long run". I know, in the end a progression will even out, or go in favor of the house. But how many players actually reach that statistic "end"?

    Sorry about the long post. I just want to say that this board is terrific. I've learned more here than from any book I've read (no offense Walt
    :lol: ). It's the first place I turn to each day, (actually my default home page) and I know it's made me a better player. Thanks all!
  • ok.....................so anyone know where renzey and wt've been?!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!