ace/ten front count strategy
  • in the past i was an enthusiastic user of the ace/ten front count. i learned about it while reading Fred Renzey's Blackjack Bluebook II . i've since moved on to primarily use the hi/lo count. it's been my experience that one of the difficulties with trying to get an advantage as a card counter is that the frequency of encountering shoes with advantageous counts are relatively few and far between. wonging in is a solution but it is not allways a wise move because of casino heat. playing all is not so great because you end up playing through negative counts that eat away at the meager profits you are able to grind out. wonging out helps but you can still end up playing disadvantageous rounds before you are able to wong out.
    well with all of the above in mind i remmembered some passages that were written in Blackjack Bluebook II (fourth printing 2004 edition) concerning the ace/ten front count that makes me wonder if there might be at least a marginal solution to the above scenerio and problem. the passages i'm referring to are in chapter 7 which is about the ace/ten front count. in particular i'm referring to pages 123 through 124. therein Mr Renzey puts forth the methodology for attacking the shoe with the ace/ten front count. Mr Renzey decribes how one should take one shot at back counting a shoe looking for a favorable count but that four out of five times you won't find one. if you do find a favorable count of course you sit down and play. and if you don't find that this one shot gives you a favorable count you should go to another table and sit right down and play from the beginning of a fresh shoe. it is further explained that 45% of the time one will find the shoe is 1/4% disadvantageous, 35% of the time one will find the shoe is 1% disadvantageous or worse and 20% of the time the shoe will pan out with an advantage. Mr Renzey goes on to give a procedure for either playing a shoe or not according to the ace/ten front count derived either by back counting or sitting at a fresh shoe and then either wonging out or playing all. in summary one would expect that for every 20 shoes encountered 10 will be play all , 5 will be wonged out of after two decks played, one will be wonged in on after counting down two decks and 4 will be passed over after backcounting two decks.
    i like this methodology of attacking shoes and it seems logical that it could be adapted to the hi/lo count. the reason that i like it is that it could be a way of getting the advantage of wonging but doing so in such a way that wonging is less frequent and varied between the wong in and wong out variety hence less detectable by the pit. there is however something with respect to this attack that i'm a bit skeptical about. while Mr Renzey doesn't directly state that the use of play all in this method is done so at an advantage it seems to be inferred or so it seems to me. i would think that the decision to play all would be a gamble as the shuffling of the shoes is an independent event even though we know the percent of times that we are likely to get a favorable shoe. but the play all aspect of the attack would seem a good camo aspect of the overall attack. i guess what i'm asking after all of this would be isn't it true that in this methodology the play all part is the greatest gamble of the above described methodology?

    best regards,
    sagefr0g
  • sagefr0g said:
    in the past i was an enthusiastic user of the ace/ten front count. i learned about it while reading Fred Renzey's Blackjack Bluebook II . i've since moved on to primarily use the hi/lo count. it's been my experience that one of the difficulties with trying to get an advantage as a card counter is that the frequency of encountering shoes with advantageous counts are relatively few and far between. wonging in is a solution but it is not allways a wise move because of casino heat. playing all is not so great because you end up playing through negative counts that eat away at the meager profits you are able to grind out. wonging out helps but you can still end up playing disadvantageous rounds before you are able to wong out.
    well with all of the above in mind i remmembered some passages that were written in Blackjack Bluebook II (fourth printing 2004 edition) concerning the ace/ten front count that makes me wonder if there might be at least a marginal solution to the above scenerio and problem. the passages i'm referring to are in chapter 7 which is about the ace/ten front count. in particular i'm referring to pages 123 through 124. therein Mr Renzey puts forth the methodology for attacking the shoe with the ace/ten front count. Mr Renzey decribes how one should take one shot at back counting a shoe looking for a favorable count but that four out of five times you won't find one. if you do find a favorable count of course you sit down and play. and if you don't find that this one shot gives you a favorable count you should go to another table and sit right down and play from the beginning of a fresh shoe. it is further explained that 45% of the time one will find the shoe is 1/4% disadvantageous, 35% of the time one will find the shoe is 1% disadvantageous or worse and 20% of the time the shoe will pan out with an advantage. Mr Renzey goes on to give a procedure for either playing a shoe or not according to the ace/ten front count derived either by back counting or sitting at a fresh shoe and then either wonging out or playing all. in summary one would expect that for every 20 shoes encountered 10 will be play all , 5 will be wonged out of after two decks played, one will be wonged in on after counting down two decks and 4 will be passed over after backcounting two decks.
    i like this methodology of attacking shoes and it seems logical that it could be adapted to the hi/lo count. the reason that i like it is that it could be a way of getting the advantage of wonging but doing so in such a way that wonging is less frequent and varied between the wong in and wong out variety hence less detectable by the pit. there is however something with respect to this attack that i'm a bit skeptical about. while Mr Renzey doesn't directly state that the use of play all in this method is done so at an advantage it seems to be inferred or so it seems to me. i would think that the decision to play all would be a gamble as the shuffling of the shoes is an independent event even though we know the percent of times that we are likely to get a favorable shoe. but the play all aspect of the attack would seem a good camo aspect of the overall attack. i guess what i'm asking after all of this would be isn't it true that in this methodology the play all part is the greatest gamble of the above described methodology?

    best regards,
    sagefr0g


    One of the difficulties with trying to get an advantage as a card counter is that you will lose money trying. During shoes with advantageous counts the frequency of winning or losing hands is exactly the same like during negative counts. The casino wins the same percentages. The player’s “advantage”, if you want to call it that way, is that during positive true counts of +3 or more you suppose to get about one extra BJ per one hundred times when the count is at that level. Those situations are relatively few and far between.

    If you bet solely by the count you should expect to lose money due to standard deviation. In theory you should win a little but in reality you will lose whatever you have because the SD. If you happen to win for the night is because of SD too. Don’t you ever dream that if you end the session a winner is because you counted cards.

    Cards counting gives you a theoretical small advantage for the price of losing your entire bankroll when you hit a losing streak on positive counts. There is not such a thing as a smooth ride using card counting. Eventually the standard deviation will wipe you out and you will be out of business.
  • One of the difficulties with trying to get an advantage as a card counter is that you will lose money trying. During shoes with advantageous counts the frequency of winning or losing hands is exactly the same like during negative counts

    No, it isn't.

    The player’s “advantage”, if you want to call it that way, is that during positive true counts of +3 or more you suppose to get about one extra BJ per one hundred times when the count is at that level

    There's much more to it than "hey, the count it +8 I'll bet more and maybe snag a bj!"

    Granted, I use a stronger count than a imple hi/lo count but you're making it sound like counting is worthless.

    Stick
  • Wow, thats some pretty negative input on counting AlexD30. I'm curious do you currently play blackjack? If you do, what type of system do you play with? Have you tried counting and it didn't work for you? Have you ever tried any of the various advanced techniques such as shuffletracking, using counting as a tool to do so? A lot of questions I know, but I'm wondering if you are just a frustrated counter who gave up, or did you find something you deem better in getting winning results? It sounds like you something about the game left a sour taste in your mouth.
  • Bojack1 said:
    Wow, thats some pretty negative input on counting AlexD30. I'm curious do you currently play blackjack? If you do, what type of system do you play with? Have you tried counting and it didn't work for you? Have you ever tried any of the various advanced techniques such as shuffletracking, using counting as a tool to do so? A lot of questions I know, but I'm wondering if you are just a frustrated counter who gave up, or did you find something you deem better in getting winning results? It sounds like you something about the game left a sour taste in your mouth.



    Well, I’m playing BJ using card counting off course. But my bankroll is huge.

    In the beginning I lost a lot of small banks trying to build upon but didn’t worked. I had to start over and over many times but keep losing the original stake. In order to live you have to be willing to die. I’ve been many times during my early years in -$50,000 holes to +$50,000 profits playing in the best games. I‘ve lost a $10,000 starting stakes many times over and over in Vegas. One year in particular, I had the ride from hell. Starting from $20,000 I reached over $150,000 by the end of that year and lost half of it in the next two months.

    At this point my bankroll is huge, over 5,000 black chips due the fact that I had couple great runs where I pile up over and over the previous winnings. At this time if I get a bad standard deviation of –1,000 black chips I keep playing like nothing happened.

    Play mostly Single and Double deck gams. I use Hi-Lo with I18 index for playing the cards. I bet by the count but I bet way above the standard card counting betting method if I’m on a winning streak. I cut it down if I ride a losing streak. By losing streak I mean that I’m not getting the normal percentage of BJs during positive counts and I get clobbered by the dealer during positive when I double or split. I cut the bet down regardless of the count. I’m not getting trapped with big bets anymore on losing streaks during positive counts. But I have big bets out there if keep winning over and over regardless how the count is. Makes no difference for me now. If I win, I bet big, if I lose, I cut the bet down. If I lose on positive my bet goes down to 2 units. So, I try to bet a little more during positive but the big bets are correlated with winning or losing. Any bet over two units is because the count is positive and I’ve won some before.

    Sometimes I even reach the table limit if I'm on winning streak. Just last night in Vegas, I was into theirs Double Deck S17 game when I got involved in a winning streak from hell. I stop when I lost the first table limit bet. At that point I was up over $50,000 already. At the begging of the night I was bouncing back and forth with bets from $100 to $300. I couldn’t get over because keep losing on positive when betting over $200. Then, I had a small winning run that let me pile up the bets to about $1,000 each and then back down to $200 after a loss. Finally by the end of 3 hours I got hit by a great huge winning streak during positive as well negative counts when I make my score. I placed the table limit bet three times during the same deck and lost once and ended the session.

    I know, the scientists don’t believe in winning streaks or rushes but that’s why they only make $1,500 a month.
  • You said it, you basically play hunches sometimes concerning your betting patters (to me it seems like you have no real betting pattern at all according to the count, you ride the rush, or don't ride it even if the count is in your favor) Can't be pissed @ card counting and its uses when you abuse it.

    Blackjack is strictly math ... get your money in when you have the best of it and you will win over time. [simplified of course] End of story, so quit your bitching =)

    You're a gambler, you like the action, you can hear it in your choice of words, that's the difference between a professional and a gambler, the professional takes all the gamble out of the game he can.

    Stick
  • AlexD30- I figure you must have lost your way between Cal. and LV or
    retired on your 25% of the hole winnings. I guess it is possible that you
    have a new plan and will tell us about it......Lay it out there pard........
  • Stick said:
    You said it, you basically play hunches sometimes concerning your betting patters (to me it seems like you have no real betting pattern at all according to the count, you ride the rush, or don't ride it even if the count is in your favor) Can't be pissed @ card counting and its uses when you abuse it.

    Blackjack is strictly math ... get your money in when you have the best of it and you will win over time. [simplified of course] End of story, so quit your bitching =)

    You're a gambler, you like the action, you can hear it in your choice of words, that's the difference between a professional and a gambler, the professional takes all the gamble out of the game he can.

    Stick


    Doesn’t matter what I do as long as I win. My average winning bet is bigger than average losing bet. And that’s the only thing that counts.

    I'm actually somewhat concerned about you calling me a gambler. I think there are several major points that you are missing, and I find the post in direct contrast to my view of playing BJ very seriously for profit.

    I think the way to explain this is to look at my history. From 1982 to 1987 I was working as a design engineer for the Northrop Corporation. I had a terrific job and was doing well in the company. My pay in 1986 was right at $50,000 a year which was a lot for that time frame, and I had been told that very soon the company would be moving me into management. But the next year I quit my job to play BJ professionaly even though my superiors encouraged me to stay on.

    Much of my motivation for leaving was not that I would make more money playing blackjack. In fact, my original plan was to play small and move to Las Vegas where the cost of living was about half of Los Angeles. But there was one other thing that would be very different. I would now enjoy my life and have the freedom that I wanted. Yes there was risk involved in what I planned. But it was a risk I wanted to take, and if things didn't work out, I would face that fact that when the time came.

    I suspect that many people who try to turn pro have similar motivations. They are simply looking for a better life, one they might enjoy. If it means they make less money, drive an old car, and don't live in a fancy house, then that's fine. This is exactly what happened to me and I wouldn't have traded it for anything.

    Now, get this:
    "I do not believe card counters can beat the game of blackjack, despite the fact they might be using valid systems." - Arnold Snyder from sworn depositions in the New Jersey Campione case

    "..I have this model based on card counting that says I should be able to make money, the model is very logical, but I’m not going to believe in that model until I go out and PROVE by winning real money consistently in the casinos that the model works." - Stanford Wong from sworn depositions in the New Jersey Campione case


    You go out there and place your large bets because the count says so and see if you survive to see the long run. I’m just telling you how it is out there in real world.
  • lol@"You go out there and place your large bets because the count says so and see if you survive to see the long run. I’m just telling you how it is out there in real world"

    I don't feel like getting into a pissing contest right now, but I play poker and have always played poker for a living. I'm not a come lately texas hold 'em just out of college saying I play poker for a living ... I file my taxes it is from poker & backgammon earnings only. I'm very well how the real world esp. dealing w/gambling runs & works.

    I've played yahtzee for $$$, I've played gin for $$$, I've played pool for $$$, you'd be amazed out how much of the gamble can be taken out of even these games, and how much math is involved in them. Backgammon is especially so, even though there's the luck of the dice play the odds, make the right moves accordingly, risk vs. reward, over time you will be rewarded though some days the dice gods will frown upon you, you have to know that overall things will work out.

    I still don't get where or how you think your deviating from BJ strategy on nothing other than "I'm in a hot streak!" is rational. Like some woman playing poker "I just knew the 3 was coming!" Trust me, I love these women at my table and I'm happy the 1 out of 11 times they hit their 3 whether it be against me or not, it keeps them playing...

    Stick
  • AlexD30 said:
    One of the difficulties with trying to get an advantage as a card counter is that you will lose money trying. During shoes with advantageous counts the frequency of winning or losing hands is exactly the same like during negative counts. The casino wins the same percentages. The player’s “advantage”, if you want to call it that way, is that during positive true counts of +3 or more you suppose to get about one extra BJ per one hundred times when the count is at that level. Those situations are relatively few and far between.

    If you bet solely by the count you should expect to lose money due to standard deviation. In theory you should win a little but in reality you will lose whatever you have because the SD. If you happen to win for the night is because of SD too. Don’t you ever dream that if you end the session a winner is because you counted cards.

    Cards counting gives you a theoretical small advantage for the price of losing your entire bankroll when you hit a losing streak on positive counts. There is not such a thing as a smooth ride using card counting. Eventually the standard deviation will wipe you out and you will be out of business.



    well thank you for your repy Alex. but it doesn't really get to the heart of what i'm asking. it would be most interesting to me if Mr Renzy would give his take on my post. i'm very curious to have a fuller understanding of his attack on the shoe as i outlined it.
    best regards,
    mr fr0g
  • AlexD30 -- It sounds as if you're doing well, for now. It also sounds like with your playing history you might not be for long. The fact that your bankroll fluctuates so much after all these years tells me your system of playing is based more on luck than anything else. With your style of play there's almost no way of tracking what you're doing. It really sounds like to me that you were fortunate enough to start with a sufficient bankroll, and than overbet on it, and had to add to it many times until you reached what you deem now as a success strategy. Please do not consider yourself an advantage player. You do not follow any of the true fundamentals of counting. Even if you do count, you're betting is so erratic why bother to count. You said yourself, you bet on streaks. I will admit that counting can be very frustrating sometimes, thats why I incorporate other techniques in with my counting. With shuffletracking, cut card placement, ace sequencing, and team play, there is no more small margin of advantage. It can easily be between 5% and 100% depending on the game you play. Whats even better is its incredibely consistent and very trackable for me to see whats working and whats not. It sounds like to me you got a basic grasp on counting, it didn't work for you so you abandoned that, and invested a lot of money into what you're doing now. I wish no ill will on anyone, best of luck to you, but I fear it won't be too long before you're starting over again, and you have no data to state otherwise. Like I said before, all you have is your playing history to fall back on, that should be enough to tell you what direction you'll soon be heading. By the way what I believe you should take out of the testimonies of Arnold Snyder, and Stanford Wong is, yes they said their systems haven't or wont work in the real world of blackjack. But realize this, if they testify to the true advantage of it than counting in a casino is deemed cheating thus becoming illegal. Their life's work becomes irrelevant and they no longer can make a lucrative living selling the idea to others. As a matter of fact they would be opening themselves up to lawsuits from casinos, and from any individual who gets caught using their methods. At any rate good luck with what you're doing, I feel you're going to need it.
  • sagefr0g- Just in case Renzey don't see your post: Much of the A/10
    strategy is to avoid as much time as possible where you are at a disadvantage.
    I think he has some updates to the strategy that may allow the player more options.
    Shoe games are very difficult to beat if you attempt to play all hands and I think that is the crux of your question. Right off the top you are at a disadvantage and will remain that way for long periods as your observations of the numbers suggest. In those circumstances you are
    playing basic strategy at least 90% of the time and losing one unit at a time over and over. During the 20% where you have an advantage, your bets must overcome all that negative EV time and that is not easy to do.

    The ideal situation is not to play where you don't have an advantage, but most want adapt to the situation where on average you're playing 16-30hands an hour. As you might imagine,most of your time is scouting rather than playing and casino conditions determine if you can play that style. No mid shoe/mid deck entry and full tables don't help. Some have suggested that you may need some additional advantage plays to win and I can't argue with that. There are alternatives to backcounting but even those are impacted by casino conditions.

    Also, I think Renzey intended for the A/10 to be more of a simple system for casual players who don't make it to casinos that often.
  • Bojack1 said:
    AlexD30 -- It sounds as if you're doing well, for now. It also sounds like with your playing history you might not be for long. The fact that your bankroll fluctuates so much after all these years tells me your system of playing is based more on luck than anything else. With your style of play there's almost no way of tracking what you're doing. It really sounds like to me that you were fortunate enough to start with a sufficient bankroll, and than overbet on it, and had to add to it many times until you reached what you deem now as a success strategy. Please do not consider yourself an advantage player. You do not follow any of the true fundamentals of counting. Even if you do count, you're betting is so erratic why bother to count. You said yourself, you bet on streaks. I will admit that counting can be very frustrating sometimes, thats why I incorporate other techniques in with my counting. With shuffletracking, cut card placement, ace sequencing, and team play, there is no more small margin of advantage. It can easily be between 5% and 100% depending on the game you play. Whats even better is its incredibely consistent and very trackable for me to see whats working and whats not. It sounds like to me you got a basic grasp on counting, it didn't work for you so you abandoned that, and invested a lot of money into what you're doing now. I wish no ill will on anyone, best of luck to you, but I fear it won't be too long before you're starting over again, and you have no data to state otherwise. Like I said before, all you have is your playing history to fall back on, that should be enough to tell you what direction you'll soon be heading. By the way what I believe you should take out of the testimonies of Arnold Snyder, and Stanford Wong is, yes they said their systems haven't or wont work in the real world of blackjack. But realize this, if they testify to the true advantage of it than counting in a casino is deemed cheating thus becoming illegal. Their life's work becomes irrelevant and they no longer can make a lucrative living selling the idea to others. As a matter of fact they would be opening themselves up to lawsuits from casinos, and from any individual who gets caught using their methods. At any rate good luck with what you're doing, I feel you're going to need it.


    No one doubts the fact that blackjack, in theory, is beatable. The computer model tells us that over the long run the program will beat the house setup. We know that. But you have to be aware of the fact that you have a real edge only after you won a hand. If you lost a hand but the count is still positive you may have a theoretical edge because of blackjacks but the risk has increased if you keep betting by the count. The increase of risk/reward ratio do not justify big bets because the count say so. Instead you should tie your future bets to your most recent performance if you want to survive to see the long run. To my greatest surprise I still find players who insist that you keep betting by the count even when you losing since that is just a natural random expectation. It is nothing normal to lose 10 hands in a row on positive counts. You have to be aware of that if you bet by the count. In that scenario it can be "fatal" to your bankroll. Also, you have to be aware that the positive counts do not generate more winning hands. The most gain of any positive count is from getting blackjacks. If you don't get the normal ratio of BJs like 4.5 % you will not win in this game. Moreover, if you get only 3% blackjacks instead of 4.5% per hour you will lose. Matter of fact getting only 3% blackjacks is the equivalent of playing 6:5 game instead 3:2 game and we all know that the 6:5 game is a losing proposition even for a card counter specialist.

    You see, for card counting to take effect and to sow a profit is requires that all the big bets posted during positive counts to get into the long run. You will have to post big bets in such a great number so that you reach the long run. To overcome the house edge and to get an edge over the house you have to bet big during positive counts many times over and over until the big bets reach the long run. The simulation reveals that if you bet by the count you will be posting max bets about 5-6% of the time. So, in an hour you will bet posting max bets 5-6 times. That number of 5 or 6 max bets per 100 hands is far from the long run. You need hundreds of thousands or even millions of big bets to be in the long run, and you have to survive that long else you are out of business. That is card counting.

    Interesting enough is the fact that if you run a simulation that reflects a full time play for a year, let’s say 200K hands, betting by the count and betting by the streak and compare the results over the same hands, you will find out that if the counter wins so the streak bettor wins and the other way around. But, when both players lose, the card counter lose the MOST and when both win the streak player wins the MOST. Get a simulator that records every hand played and go over and bet both ways and see the results for yourself. This is not my invention, just the FACTS.

    You see, they say that if a player is using Martingale he will lose all his money. He will have many small winning sessions but a couple big losing ones. That is absolutely true. We know that.

    Now, if you play a positive progression, that in itself from the casino perspective is like you forcing the house to play negative Martingale. You win, the house lose and you bet more. You force the house to play for bigger bets. The house is accepting/playing for bigger and bigger bets. The more they lose the bigger bets they play for. Is the equivalent of you playing/betting Martingale or a negative progression when you bet bigger and bigger while losing. So, If the player is doomed using negative progressions then obviously forcing the house to accept bigger bets while they keep losing will give you more $ when you win than when you lose.

    If you progress 25,50,75,100,150, 200, 300, 450, 600, 800, 1000 you are forcing the house to play for 1000 just to recover not even the last two bets, let alone the rest.

    Try to play a negative progression for a month like eight hours per day every day. You will lose a lot of money. Matter of fact you will lose every day all your money. Take with you in a casino $1,350 per day and try to use Martingale or any negative prog in $25 units. At the end of the month you will be $40,000 in the hole. Now, take the same $1,350 and play positive prog but quit the progression when you won the bet that would have wiped out a negative prog player. That bet would be the $450. Start over from minimum or start over the next day. What you are doing is forcing the house to “play/bet” negative progression until it lose the $450 bet for a total of $1,350 every day.

    So, get out there, use card counting for Insurance and 16 vs. T, and make them play a negative progression against you. Make your money while they bleed.
  • AlexD, All I can say is wake up dude! You talk so much noise I had to look up your old posts to see whats up. It seems you don't know who you are. You were a progression player, than a counter, than you were the big player on a team, now what are you? A counting positive progression player with a "huge" bankroll. Please, you spout all this book knowledge and money boasts, but the smart ones called you on it last time, and nothing has changed but your supposed playing style. Last year according to your posts counting was the only way. Now your a big moneyman with the system your selling now. I can't wait to see who you become in a few months from now. Man, pick a tune and stay with it, at least than something you say might be valid. Until than drop the high roller act and listen to some of the real deals on the board, if you're not careful you may learn something. BBBRRRRRRRIIIIIINNNNNGGGG!!!!!! Thats your alarm clock man, wake up!
  • AlexD30 said:
    No one doubts the fact that blackjack, in theory, is beatable. The computer model tells us that over the long run the program will beat the house setup. We know that. But you have to be aware of the fact that you have a real edge only after you won a hand. If you lost a hand but the count is still positive you may have a theoretical edge because of blackjacks but the risk has increased if you keep betting by the count. The increase of risk/reward ratio do not justify big bets because the count say so. Instead you should tie your future bets to your most recent performance if you want to survive to see the long run. To my greatest surprise I still find players who insist that you keep betting by the count even when you losing since that is just a natural random expectation. It is nothing normal to lose 10 hands in a row on positive counts. You have to be aware of that if you bet by the count. In that scenario it can be "fatal" to your bankroll. Also, you have to be aware that the positive counts do not generate more winning hands. The most gain of any positive count is from getting blackjacks. If you don't get the normal ratio of BJs like 4.5 % you will not win in this game. Moreover, if you get only 3% blackjacks instead of 4.5% per hour you will lose. Matter of fact getting only 3% blackjacks is the equivalent of playing 6:5 game instead 3:2 game and we all know that the 6:5 game is a losing proposition even for a card counter specialist.

    You see, for card counting to take effect and to sow a profit is requires that all the big bets posted during positive counts to get into the long run. You will have to post big bets in such a great number so that you reach the long run. To overcome the house edge and to get an edge over the house you have to bet big during positive counts many times over and over until the big bets reach the long run. The simulation reveals that if you bet by the count you will be posting max bets about 5-6% of the time. So, in an hour you will bet posting max bets 5-6 times. That number of 5 or 6 max bets per 100 hands is far from the long run. You need hundreds of thousands or even millions of big bets to be in the long run, and you have to survive that long else you are out of business. That is card counting.

    Interesting enough is the fact that if you run a simulation that reflects a full time play for a year, let’s say 200K hands, betting by the count and betting by the streak and compare the results over the same hands, you will find out that if the counter wins so the streak bettor wins and the other way around. But, when both players lose, the card counter lose the MOST and when both win the streak player wins the MOST. Get a simulator that records every hand played and go over and bet both ways and see the results for yourself. This is not my invention, just the FACTS.

    You see, they say that if a player is using Martingale he will lose all his money. He will have many small winning sessions but a couple big losing ones. That is absolutely true. We know that.

    Now, if you play a positive progression, that in itself from the casino perspective is like you forcing the house to play negative Martingale. You win, the house lose and you bet more. You force the house to play for bigger bets. The house is accepting/playing for bigger and bigger bets. The more they lose the bigger bets they play for. Is the equivalent of you playing/betting Martingale or a negative progression when you bet bigger and bigger while losing. So, If the player is doomed using negative progressions then obviously forcing the house to accept bigger bets while they keep losing will give you more $ when you win than when you lose.

    If you progress 25,50,75,100,150, 200, 300, 450, 600, 800, 1000 you are forcing the house to play for 1000 just to recover not even the last two bets, let alone the rest.

    Try to play a negative progression for a month like eight hours per day every day. You will lose a lot of money. Matter of fact you will lose every day all your money. Take with you in a casino $1,350 per day and try to use Martingale or any negative prog in $25 units. At the end of the month you will be $40,000 in the hole. Now, take the same $1,350 and play positive prog but quit the progression when you won the bet that would have wiped out a negative prog player. That bet would be the $450. Start over from minimum or start over the next day. What you are doing is forcing the house to “play/bet” negative progression until it lose the $450 bet for a total of $1,350 every day.

    So, get out there, use card counting for Insurance and 16 vs. T, and make them play a negative progression against you. Make your money while they bleed.




    So basically what i have read so far: you have severly overbet your bankroll several times and do not learn from it. Now you believe a progression betting system is the way to go. Good luck with that.
  • Blackjack is almost all luck. Computer programs have "solved" some simplified version of the game. Basic Strategy it's just a glorified version of stone-paper-scissors because the BS tells you how to play the first hand after the shuffle while the rest is some approximation and luck plays a larger part in deciding the winner. The same thing can be said about card counting that is a gross approximation of the deck condition with a lot of error build in. You see, in card counting, a TC=+4 is like you would have 4 extra T or A hidden somewhere in the 52 card deck. You have no idea where they are or when they will come into play but you know they are there. So, based on that info you bet BIG, because somewhere in the deck you have 4 extra big cards. What a stupid way to lose all your money when riding a losing streak on positive count.

    How many people would like playing BJ without money on the line is fun?

    I think there is a fine difference between a game being an interesting subject for intellectual study, and a game actually being intellectually interesting to play. A game can belong to the former but not the later, and I think BJ falls under this class.

    Blackjack makes an interesting subject for intellectual study because the game is complex enough that it (the full version) is not yet solved. When played with money bets, the gambling excitement keeps the game fun and exciting and magnifies the illusion that "skill" is involved. But it is luck which mostly determines the outcome of the game. Since Blackjack is not yet solved, it is interesting to study it mathematically and drool about finding or approaching the optimal solution. But when played without a money bet, hardly anyone would find it interesting. The problem is not simply that it becomes harder to align oneself with the game utilities without money bets; the truth is that blackjack is primarily a gambling game of luck which is played for its gambling excitement rather than intellectual playability.

    Any number of games, with no intellectual interest whatsoever, suddenly becomes exciting and fun to play when money bets are involved. The difference is that, anybody with a good math background won't buy the illusion that there is actual skill in roulette, while the argument that blackjack is “primarily” a game of skill may seem more plausible to the casual observer.
  • AlexD30 said:
    You see, in card counting, a TC=+4 is like you would have 4 extra T or A hidden somewhere in the 52 card deck. You have no idea where they are or when they will come into play but you know they are there. So, based on that info you bet BIG, because somewhere in the deck you have 4 extra big cards. What a stupid way to lose all your money when riding a losing streak on positive count.




    I would rather put my money out when i have an advantage. I dont think that is stupid. And who cares if you are on a losing streak? What happened in the previous hands has nothing to do with the cards about to be dealt. Cards have no memory. I have had some of my biggest wins after going on long horrible losing streaks buying in again and again. If i would have quit when i was down i would have walked away a big loser. That is why stop points are meaningless.
  • AlexD30-If a machine (computer) can do it, so can a small percentage of
    people. We know all about machines, so that is a fact that you can't argue.
    If I sim any good counting system, it will win every time because luck/SD is
    not a consideration. Theory and reality are the same out there in the long
    run and that is the reason for the attraction to card counting. It works for
    our computer but I'll be the first to say that duplicating a computer program
    is a very tall order for most.....but not all.

    "When you are winning"......or....."When you are losing" are statements right
    out of voodooville and you know better than that. Only mystics can schedule
    luck.
  • th
    Ray said:
    sagefr0g- Just in case Renzey don't see your post: Much of the A/10
    strategy is to avoid as much time as possible where you are at a disadvantage.
    I think he has some updates to the strategy that may allow the player more options.
    Shoe games are very difficult to beat if you attempt to play all hands and I think that is the crux of your question. Right off the top you are at a disadvantage and will remain that way for long periods as your observations of the numbers suggest. In those circumstances you are
    playing basic strategy at least 90% of the time and losing one unit at a time over and over. During the 20% where you have an advantage, your bets must overcome all that negative EV time and that is not easy to do.

    The ideal situation is not to play where you don't have an advantage, but most want adapt to the situation where on average you're playing 16-30hands an hour. As you might imagine,most of your time is scouting rather than playing and casino conditions determine if you can play that style. No mid shoe/mid deck entry and full tables don't help. Some have suggested that you may need some additional advantage plays to win and I can't argue with that. There are alternatives to backcounting but even those are impacted by casino conditions.

    Also, I think Renzey intended for the A/10 to be more of a simple system for casual players who don't make it to casinos that often.


    thank you Ray for your considerations on the matter. you summed up pretty well my concern and additional advantage plays seems just what the doctor ordered. i'm guessing those would be card sequencing, shuffle tracking and being on the look out for exposed hole cards.
    but at any rate i do like Renzey's approach for the ace/ten front count as it allows for a varied approach of wonging in, out and play all. this would be less obvious to the pit than more aggressive wonging attacks. the weak part i believe is the play all part.
    best regards,
    sagefr0g
  • AlexD30 said:
    Blackjack is almost all luck. Computer programs have "solved" some simplified version of the game. Basic Strategy it's just a glorified version of stone-paper-scissors because the BS tells you how to play the first hand after the shuffle while the rest is some approximation and luck plays a larger part in deciding the winner. The same thing can be said about card counting that is a gross approximation of the deck condition with a lot of error build in. You see, in card counting, a TC=+4 is like you would have 4 extra T or A hidden somewhere in the 52 card deck. You have no idea where they are or when they will come into play but you know they are there. So, based on that info you bet BIG, because somewhere in the deck you have 4 extra big cards. What a stupid way to lose all your money when riding a losing streak on positive count.

    perhaps it's not such a stupid way to bet Alex. yes luck is involved. but think about it if you are going to play blackjack is it better to do it in a way that your making the gamble when you know your chances are better? that is what we do when we use basic strategy. and the same goes for the TC=+4 situation. it is true we don't know where in the pack the extra tens and aces are hidden or how they will come out. but we do know they are there so we bet up OPTIMALLY hoping to catch a winning hand. and it is true we may not win that time but if the count is still +4 or better we know those high cards are still there and this time with less cards left in the pack. so we bet up again OPTIMALLY again hoping to catch a winning hand in this our favored position that we find ourselves. and so it goes. what we are doing is using real bonified quantitative information instead of blindly casting our fate to the wind when we bet. hence we optimize our chances of winning when we have more money on the table which is an intelligent way to take a gamble.
    best regards,
    sagefr0g
  • I highly suggest all the progressionists out there take a course in statistics (or if you did a long time ago, refresh your memory). You can probably find a decent course at night school or the likes and the money you spend for the course will be a lot less than the money you'll lose as a progression player.

    And, btw, Martingale does work. Its just that you need no limits and an inifinite bankroll. Because the casino sets the limits and the casino has the bigger bankroll, Marginale, reverse Martingale, or sideways and upside down Martingale won't work for the player.
  • Mr. Chicken - If progressions are so bad and they lose so much money..... how much more will a progression player expect to lose than a flat bettor if he plays a conservative progression like Dahl, New York, or Walter for a weekend (say a $10 player who plays for 20 hours)???

    Grifter
  • Funky -- Actually, in a negative expectation game the Martingale doesn't work overall under any conditions. That's because if you extend the limits to "infinite bets" and "infinite bankroll", then you have to include the "infinite losing streak", which puts you right back where you'd be in the real world.

    Negative EV is always negative EV.
  • Martingale does work if you have an infinite bankroll and there is no bet limit, end of story.

    Stick
  • Wrong....because it is possible to lose every hand thru an infinite time.
    Just like other progressions, there is no math approach to prove that a
    martingale will work. At some point in the cycle, you encounter Renzey's
    infinite losing streak and lose forever. Thus, the neg. EV.

Howdy, Stranger!

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