Math and Probability Question about Walter
  • Now, I have an honest question about math related to BJ.
    I found that applying Walter’s 4 quit point method you avoid long losing streaks and it seems that the rate of $$ winning increases. I don’t know why but it does. Now, I’m a practical guy and when I start using the 4QP I reason that I will be better off to start a new shoe then continue playing AFTER LOSING FOUR IN A ROW. I mean, What I’ve got to lose by quitting that bad shoe and starting the prog from the beginning at a new table or at the same table but wait for the shuffle?

    My question is this:
    How to go about and calculate the probability of getting myself in a similar “bad” shoe or worse then the one I just quit? – I am not interested to know the probability of losing the next hand! – I know that. I am interested to know the probability of getting into a similar “bad” shoe after I just quit the last one. I am more likely or less likely to encounter a “bad” shoe once I start at a new table or a new shoe?

    Looking at Walter’s study and also studying myself the “Blackjack Tracker” by Bob Hubby (I have his entire data in Excel) I concluded that using the 4QP you are less likely to get yourself into a similar “bad” shoe. Sometimes it does happen when you have to quit again but most of the time you gain by using the 4QP. I am interested to know how to use the math to calculate what is going on while I use Walter’s 4QP

    It seems to me that when you change tables or stop playing after losing four hands in a row and wait for a new shuffle, It seems that something is different. It is extremely rare to bump into another “bad” shoe. The new table or shoe may not be the greatest but very rarely is worse that what I experienced before.
  • Alex,

    Picture this for a minute. Your 4 best friends are each in a different room of your house doing nothing but flipping a coin. You go to one room and try to predict the outcome of each flip. You get 4 wrong in a row.

    Does moving to a different room increase your chances of correctly predicting the next batch of outcomes? I'm thinking it doesn't.

    The analogy may not be perfect, but I think it applies.
  • I am interested to know the probability of getting into a similar “bad” shoe after I just quit the last one.


    At first it sounds like a case of Gambler's Fallacy. A random event, such as the order of the cards in the shoe of a new table, is unaffected by the type of shoes you have encountered in the past.

    It is possible, however, that I misunderstood your post and that you just want the probability of getting a bad shoe in general. To help you here, I'd need your definition of a bad shoe--since you are using a progression, I'm uncertain what that would be.
  • Deviance said:
    At first it sounds like a case of Gambler's Fallacy. A random event, such as the order of the cards in the shoe of a new table, is unaffected by the type of shoes you have encountered in the past.

    It is possible, however, that I misunderstood your post and that you just want the probability of getting a bad shoe in general. To help you here, I'd need your definition of a bad shoe--since you are using a progression, I'm uncertain what that would be.


    Look, this is strictly math and probability. The technique of playing BJ is totally different story. It doesn’t matter if I bet using progression or card counting. I am not arguing what is the most profitable. I don’t care if I bet table max in a TC=-10 but still winning. The count and the bet is not my concern. I don’t want to argue about what is best and most profitable way to make money in this game.

    I had various methods of betting tested in simulators and the results always came back contrary to what I have been experiencing several days a week in casino for years playing full time. – I have done some studies on the relationship of “bad shoes” to the count and find that the results are influenced by "bad shoes" more then the count. It doesn't make sense, but it is true. What I am suggesting is that you can do better if you avoid “bad table/shoe”. I know how to do it but I don’t know how to explained using math and probability.

    How do you evaluate a “bad shoe” ?
    Observing the dealer beating your 19's and 20's or making 20 or 21 with 4-5 cards without busting even in positive counts when you supposedly have the big bets out. Or you losing more then 4-5 hands in a row many times over and over. I would call this type of shoe a “bad shoe”

    Now, after experiencing that “bad shoe” I walk away to a new table where the dealer just shuffled a new shoe and play there. I quit the previous table/shoe in the middle because of the reasons just described.

    What is the mathematical technique to determine the probability of me getting into a new shoe and continue the “hell” from which I just walked away? I am interested to find out if I’m better off continue playing into the “hellish shoe” or am I better off finding a new table with a fresh shuffled shoe? - What is the probability that after I lost 4 in a row in one shoe and walked away, I will get myself into another “bad shoe” and CONTINUE losing right from the start. This is what I’m interested in.

    I found in real live games that changing tables or quitting after 4 losses in a row to help my $$ results. Another words, applying Walter’s 4 quit points technique it helps a lot. I don’t know why. And I don’t know how to go about with the math but it helps.
  • As it has been stated earlier, past events cannot change the outcome of future random events.

    i) Consider the following scenario: Four players sit at a blackjack table that is about to deal from a newly shuffled shoe.

    -Player one has just walked away from a bad shoe after losing four in a row
    -Player two has just played through a bad shoe without walking away.
    -Player three has yet to play a shoe.
    -Player four has just finished a good shoe.

    For which player will this shoe turn out to be a "good" one? Each player is equally likely to profit or lose from this shoe. I hope this elucidates the point that walking away after you have lost four in a row cannot affect your odds of winning or losing on another shoe.

    Thus, unless you are keeping track of the cards that have been used up in your current shoe, the decision to stay or walk is arbitrary at best.
  • Deviance said:
    As it has been stated earlier, past events cannot change the outcome of future random events.

    i) Consider the following scenario: Four players sit at a blackjack table that is about to deal from a newly shuffled shoe.

    -Player one has just walked away from a bad shoe after losing four in a row
    -Player two has just played through a bad shoe without walking away.
    -Player three has yet to play a shoe.
    -Player four has just finished a good shoe.

    For which player will this shoe turn out to be a "good" one? Each player is equally likely to profit or lose from this shoe. I hope this elucidates the point that walking away after you have lost four in a row cannot affect your odds of winning or losing on another shoe.

    Thus, unless you are keeping track of the cards that have been used up in your current shoe, the decision to stay or walk is arbitrary at best.


    1. He will be less likely to continue losing like it did in the previous shoe from where we just walked away in the middle of it. He will be playing in a different environment.
    2. This one is more likely to continue losing by the end of the shoe.
    3. This new player has 1:18 chance of losing the next 4 hands.
    4. This one has no concerns. No reason to quit or change table.

    My observations may seem simple logic to you but they are from the combat experience.
  • AlexD30 said:
    1. He will be less likely to continue losing like it did in the previous shoe from where we just walked away in the middle of it. He will be playing in a different environment.
    2. This one is more likely to continue losing by the end of the shoe.
    3. This new player has 1:18 chance of losing the next 4 hands.
    4. This one has no concerns. No reason to quit or change table.

    My observations may seem simple logic to you but they are from the combat experience.

    Alex I have no strong opinion one way or the other about you're playing style or your ideas on blackjack. Whatever works for you use it. My problem is you sound like an idiot with your long drawn out posts where it seems you like to hear yourself talk more than contribute helpful blackjack insight. But what really sets me off is this, blackjack is only a game, never compare blackjack to being in combat. In light of whats happening in this country right now, with young people dying in real combat, and those of us who have already served our country through war, you sound like a melodramatic moron. Don't insult the men and women who have fought and died for this country by comparing what they do to what you do.
  • The idea of Valid quit points is an illusion, they don't exist.

    The idea of a good shoe or bad shoe is also illusionary because shoes come in all shapes and forms and at times that lack definition and predictability. What is a good shoe to you may be a very bad shoe to the other player(s) at the table. The reverse is also true.

    The very best that you can accomplish is to shift the odds and that is a lot of hard work rather than magic or feel good rituals.....................
  • Ray said:
    The idea of Valid quit points is an illusion, they don't exist.

    The idea of a good shoe or bad shoe is also illusionary because shoes come in all shapes and forms and at times that lack definition and predictability. What is a good shoe to you may be a very bad shoe to the other player(s) at the table. The reverse is also true.

    The very best that you can accomplish is to shift the odds and that is a lot of hard work rather than magic or feel good rituals.....................


    Ray,
    My intuition agrees with your analysis. But you seem to be answering a question I'm not asking, insofar as I certainly understand that mathematically there is no "bad decks”, or “luck" factor, or any reason to believe that good results come together to offset bad results.

    What I am questioning is whether, despite the admitted depletion in "favorability" of a deck that a single good result effects, the deck might remain favorable for some number of hands. In other words, just as I said, might it be the case that favorability persists for several hands, enough so to benefit the sort of progression?

    Granted, as good results persist the deck will revert to normal or unfavorable. But it may stay favorable for quite a while.
    Any mathematics to support or refute this hypothesis?
  • The best shoes I have ever had.
    Nothing always works but many a time a shoe starts, the dealer seems to be pulling 5 and 6 card 21's and is killing the whole table. Those players with superstitions leave and a nearly full table has often become just me and the dealer with a ton of small cards missing because they came out earlier.
    I have won more money in the last 25+ years, in shoe games and double deck games when this has happened.

    ihate17
  • Alex-The only math/probability that I can think of that may apply in the situation that you have described is much like basic strategy is figured. All cards are available with a new shoe and your chance to win is 47.5. This may be much better than the current situation that you are in. At the start of the shoe, there has not been any card removal that would put you in a negative expectation (less than 47.5). Does that save you money? Well, maybe.
  • I am going to take a shot at this. Dont confuse this with a combat situation because i served to. What i got out your conversation either way you look at it the cards were shuffled and are in a different order. They maynot or maybe shuffled to get the best hand I garuntee because you have BJ doesent mean the dealer doesnt.
  • Ray said:
    Alex-The only math/probability that I can think of that may apply in the situation that you have described is much like basic strategy is figured. All cards are available with a new shoe and your chance to win is 47.5. This may be much better than the current situation that you are in. At the start of the shoe, there has not been any card removal that would put you in a negative expectation (less than 47.5). Does that save you money? Well, maybe.


    Exactly my logic when I’m using the “quit points”. If I win, I keep playing and I don’t care what the percentage is, but if I detect a “bad deck” where I lose 3-4 in a row or where the dealer is keep beating my 19, 20, and is not busting more during positive counts then I quit. What I’ve got to lose if I stop and look for a new shuffled shoe where I’ve got a fresh start back to 47.5% ? – Nothing! - Probably I may gain or save something but for sure I’ve got nothing to lose. A fresh shuffled shoe It cannot be worse then 47.5%. And if I can play constantly at 47.5%, I can beat the game every day. That is not a single doubt in my mind that if we can play as much as possible close to 47 or 47.5, we can beat this game. Walter is beating the game for years based on this principle. But people don’t believe Walter because they don’t know better. That’s why Walter is starting his stuff over at the beginning of a new shoe. He is going back to 47.5%. Also people don’t believe Bob Hubby either, but the man know his stuff. .., etc... etc.

    If you toss a coin 200 times you can expect a series of six or more successive heads or tails at least twice, five or more at least six times, four or more 12 times, three or more 28 times and two or more 66 times. These figures are based on the laws of probability. Latching on and cashing in on these repeat sequences is the basis of virtually all system play.

    Many gambling writers will tell you there is no such thing as a winning system. Yet there are individuals who make a living at gambling, and they all use systems! The assertion that in the long-run no system can ever overcome the casino advantage, is correct only of we interpret "long-run" as infinite. However, if "long-run" means an endless series of short runs, then the premise is false. And so the quit point comes into play.
  • Haven't been here in quite a while. Thought I would drop by and see what was happening after I finished grading final exams, etc. Reminds me of the BeeGee's last album, "This is where I came in" (wife is a huge BeeGees fan even though they won't make any additional albums since Maurice Gibb died a couple of years back.)

    But the "title" comes from when I first joined hit-or-stand, and AlexD30 was going on and on and on about some progression system he had developed that was guaranteed to make you a winner. Except the rules were continuously changed when someone found a hole. Eventually he disappeared for a while, and came back suddenly as an experienced card counter. Now, apparently, he's back to the old progression/stop-loss/etc voodoo nonsense.

    Guess that the only things that change, actually stay the same. I hope the beginners here realize that this thread has more crap than a chicken fertilizer plant. :) I'll simply remind you that _no_ progression can beat the game of 21, it has been proven many times. Visit the wizardofodds.com to see the challenge he offered for years, and _no_ money-management (progression, stop-loss, stop-win, etc) system ever produced a winning result. There's a reason for that.

    Luckily, when wading through so much crap, stainless steel doesn't rust, so I am safe on that front. I'll just remind

    L8ter...

    -SSR
  • Alex, It sounds as though you believe it should be harder to lose 12 straight hands at one shoe -- than to lose 4 at this shoe, lose your first 4 at the next shoe, then lose the first 4 at the shoe after that. What is it that would make you think these two things are different from each other?

    If you believe the first shoe is just a bad shoe after you've lost the first 4, are you saying that the remainder of the shoe is stacked against the player because the beginning was?

    If you want to apply pure math to answer these questions, the math will tell you that losing 12 straight in one shoe and losing 4, 4, 4 in three consecutive shoes have essentially the same probability.

    To come up with a different answer than that, you have to postulate that bad shoes are predisposed to remaining bad, etc. What would be the reason for this?
  • Renzey said:
    Alex, It sounds as though you believe it should be harder to lose 12 straight hands at one shoe -- than to lose 4 at this shoe, lose your first 4 at the next shoe, then lose the first 4 at the shoe after that. What is it that would make you think these two things are different from each other?

    If you believe the first shoe is just a bad shoe after you've lost the first 4, are you saying that the remainder of the shoe is stacked against the player because the beginning was?

    If you want to apply pure math to answer these questions, the math will tell you that losing 12 straight in one shoe and losing 4, 4, 4 in three consecutive shoes have essentially the same probability.

    To come up with a different answer than that, you have to postulate that bad shoes are predisposed to remaining bad, etc. What would be the reason for this?


    i can understand what you are explaining to Alex here. i am curious however to understand why you layed out the scenerio for attacking the shoe for the ace/ten front count as i describe below:

    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
  • Renzey said:
    Alex, It sounds as though you believe it should be harder to lose 12 straight hands at one shoe -- than to lose 4 at this shoe, lose your first 4 at the next shoe, then lose the first 4 at the shoe after that. What is it that would make you think these two things are different from each other?

    If you believe the first shoe is just a bad shoe after you've lost the first 4, are you saying that the remainder of the shoe is stacked against the player because the beginning was?

    If you want to apply pure math to answer these questions, the math will tell you that losing 12 straight in one shoe and losing 4, 4, 4 in three consecutive shoes have essentially the same probability.

    To come up with a different answer than that, you have to postulate that bad shoes are predisposed to remaining bad, etc. What would be the reason for this?

    Ranzey,
    First, I want to tell you how much I enjoyed reading your “Blue Book”. Great book, and I mean it!

    Now, my logic goes something like this: If I lose 12 hands in a row is probably because I have much less then 47.5%. If I quit after losing 4 in a row and move to a different table where the dealer just finished shuffling a new shoe, I will have a head start of 47.5%. If happens to lose the next four hands from the start again, I move again and start over at 47.5% in a new shoe.

    My simulator shows that if you play all, shoe after shoe to the last round, or if you quit after 4 losses in a row and start with a new shoe you have 31% less 12 in a row losing streaks. Another way to put it: For you to lose 4 in a row in the first shoe and then overlap these with the first 4 rounds from the next shoe and again the first four hands from the third one and have all be 12 losses. This scenario will happen 31% less compared with playing all the way regardless. Now, this isn’t just the statistical hogwash from the simulator. Those are also part of my experience at the tables.

    If you take Bob Hubby’s book and run the entire data in a spreadsheet you can see why the card counter is losing. You can also see why if you quit a “bad shoe” or after 3-4 losing hands in a row and go to the next shoe you are making money.

    My experience tells me this: If a card counter wins and if I would have played his hands I would have won regardless if I count or not. But if I lose and a card counter would have played my hands he would have lost much more. Betting by the count in a losing streak a card counter lose huge $$ while I lose only one unit per hand.
  • AlexD30 said:
    Ranzey,
    First, I want to tell you how much I enjoyed reading your “Blue Book”. Great book, and I mean it!

    Now, my logic goes something like this: If I lose 12 hands in a row is probably because I have much less then 47.5%. If I quit after losing 4 in a row and move to a different table where the dealer just finished shuffling a new shoe, I will have a head start of 47.5%. If happens to lose the next four hands from the start again, I move again and start over at 47.5% in a new shoe.

    My simulator shows that if you play all, shoe after shoe to the last round, or if you quit after 4 losses in a row and start with a new shoe you have 31% less 12 in a row losing streaks. Another way to put it: For you to lose 4 in a row in the first shoe and then overlap these with the first 4 rounds from the next shoe and again the first four hands from the third one and have all be 12 losses. This scenario will happen 31% less compared with playing all the way regardless. Now, this isn’t just the statistical hogwash from the simulator. Those are also part of my experience at the tables.

    If you take Bob Hubby’s book and run the entire data in a spreadsheet you can see why the card counter is losing. You can also see why if you quit a “bad shoe” or after 3-4 losing hands in a row and go to the next shoe you are making money.

    My experience tells me this: If a card counter wins and if I would have played his hands I would have won regardless if I count or not. But if I lose and a card counter would have played my hands he would have lost much more. Betting by the count in a losing streak a card counter lose huge $$ while I lose only one unit per hand.




    Geez this guy is full of crap. Thats all im going to say. I hope people arent following his advice.
  • Alex,

    First, I appreciate your calm approach even though people are taking shots at you and what you're saying. That's a classy approach -- and thus a positive addition to this forum.

    But ... a couple of things here. I think you'll most likely get a response from Mr. Renzey (not Ranzey) which will be much more accurate than mine. And I doubt if you'll be changing his mind.

    I'm bothered with how you combine precise mathematical probabilities in the same sentence with things like, "if A happens it's probably because of B". Probably??

    Additionally ... I think you need to be careful when you use the word "logic". Example:
    If you accept as true the statement,
    "If there are a lot of low cards remaining I'm apt to lose.",
    that doesn't necessarily mean that the statement,
    "If I lost it's because there were a lot of low cards remaining" is also true. It seems like you've made that assumption here.

    I also don't buy the implication of your statement about the card counter winning and you winning. You may have won that same individual hand, but would you have won as much on that hand? It's not just how many hands you win.

    Don't mean to be rambling here. I enjoy reading your posts -- I just don't buy what you're trying to sell.

    Thanks!
  • As I explained before, players leaving, especially in a shoe game, after loosing several in a row where those small cards are coming out and making the dealers hands, are what I consider a gift from the blackjack gods.
    Now, if mainly high cards are coming out, the dealer having BJ and 20 after 20, killing everyone, I just probably will be the first to leave, win or lose.

    ihate17
  • If I lose 12 hands in a row is probably because I have much less then 47.5%


    Incorrect. Assume I took all the cards that made up those 12 hands and dealt them to you in an order that made you win 12 hands instead. In both this case and in the losing 12 hands case, the same cards have been used up and the cards remaining to be played in the shoe are in the same order. Thus, your odds of winning for the rest of the shoe are the same in both instances.
  • to the OP, my problem with your post is you make statements that contradict mathematic probability and then in the next breathe ask how to prove what you are saying mathematically. You wont accept what people are telling you - that there IS no mathematic justification for what you are saying.

    if this helps you, in the famous words of Yogi Bera, "50% of the game is half mental." Losing 12 hands in a row is demoralizing. Emotional discipline is part of the game, and feeling demoralized may cause you to deviate from BS and lower your chance of winning. If walking away from a "bad shoe" helps you keep the courage to split 9's when you should or double down that soft hand when you should, even when your bankroll has taken such a hit you dont feel like Doubling down on anything, then do it. Walk away and start fresh. If you are not counting cards, the shoe you walk into is just as likely to be better or worse than the shoe you walked away from, but if it helps your emotional discipline, then do it.

    This is the same reason I walk away from a table with a bad or drunk player. I know mathmatically a weak player at 3rd base has no impact on the game. But it can be upsetting and cause you to make mistakes. There are many tables in the casino and there is no reason to sit next to the obnoxious drunk who keeps hitting hard 17.
  • Alex-If you play enough hands, SD becomes a non factor and all the sims tell us that our win rate is 47.5. Our expectations are always 47.5 no matter where we are at in a shoe, session or life-time because it is an average over time. SD/luck prevents us from viewing the next hand or the next 4 hands as some kind of trend and indication of events that will follow (bad shoe). But, that does not eliminate our expectation or the probability to win the next hand (47.5).

    Expectations can not be used as a short-term indication of anything andthat, I think, is the crux of the problem with 4 loss exits and the start of a new shoe as described.
  • I have come to the conclusion based upon this thread that if one DOES choose a progression upon winning a hand to increase the bet, that one should extend the progression across the shuffle rather than reset to minimum.

    EXAMPLE:
    Player A runs a 5 term progression upon wins... 10-15-20-30-40.

    Player A wins 3 in a row, followed by the cut card. The next bet should be 30. Some people say the next bet should be 10, based upon the shuffle. Since there really is no difference in win rate no matter where or when one plays... its concluded that 30 is correct.
  • You are talking about 4pq and I have no idea what you are talking about?
  • Ray said:
    Alex-If you play enough hands, SD becomes a non factor and all the sims tell us that our win rate is 47.5. Our expectations are always 47.5 no matter where we are at in a shoe, session or life-time because it is an average over time. SD/luck prevents us from viewing the next hand or the next 4 hands as some kind of trend and indication of events that will follow (bad shoe). But, that does not eliminate our expectation or the probability to win the next hand (47.5).

    Expectations can not be used as a short-term indication of anything andthat, I think, is the crux of the problem with 4 loss exits and the start of a new shoe as described.


    Ray,
    If you are using a card counting system, you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any worthless system. However, eventually, you will lose much more with card counting than you would have lost by simply playing a no-brainier. If you are being told otherwise, you are being lied to. Card counting systems do not work against today's real world casino conditions! If you have purchased systems, books or computer programs that allude otherwise then you have been deceived with worthless materials.

    Moreover, please note that losers rarely post their losses publicly on the Internet. They are ashamed of their foolishness, and their propensity to purchase systems that purport to beat the casino game. People usually do not admit they traded the cow for a few magic beans.


    It should be apparent to all, that card counting systems have been designed for the ideal game that was available in the 60’s: Single Deck, S17, DAS, with 99% pen. In such game you will make money using card counting. Playing any other game setup you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any other worthless system but you will lose all your money in the long run.

    Card counting is based on the mathematical properties of Blackjack if the game is played all the way down to the last card, and the influence of card removal on such game. But in today’s games if you card count and win than you would have won even if you would have used a simple progression based on W/L ratio. Matter of fact, you would win much more and lose much less betting a positive progression then betting on card counting.

    However, for playing decisions, Yes! – Card Counting works! - You deviate from Basic Strategy based on card counting– such as I18. But that's about it.
  • Alex- I think you believe the theory of odds change due to card removal, but dont believe that an excess of 10's favor the player. Variance will weed-out the non-believers and that is just human nature........

    In 2004, I lost from Jan to late Nov. Not big, but a steady down turn (several K). However, during Dec 2004 and Jan 2005 things turned my way. I've seen that kind of variance many times down thru the years, but this one lasted a little longer than most.
  • AlexD30 said:
    Ray,
    If you are using a card counting system, you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any worthless system. However, eventually, you will lose much more with card counting than you would have lost by simply playing a no-brainier. If you are being told otherwise, you are being lied to. Card counting systems do not work against today's real world casino conditions! If you have purchased systems, books or computer programs that allude otherwise then you have been deceived with worthless materials.

    They have worked for me for over 25 years, though if you go to a bookstore today, you will find more than 75% of the books are full of worthless progressive, stop/loss stuff, and other non mathematical systems that do not work.
    Moreover, please note that losers rarely post their losses publicly on the Internet. They are ashamed of their foolishness, and their propensity to purchase systems that purport to beat the casino game. People usually do not admit they traded the cow for a few magic beans.

    Most of these people bought the books I wrote about above.
    It should be apparent to all, that card counting systems have been designed for the ideal game that was available in the 60’s: Single Deck, S17, DAS, with 99% pen. In such game you will make money using card counting. Playing any other game setup you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any other worthless system but you will lose all your money in the long run.

    It is unapparent completely. No one I know uses a system as it was designed back in the 60's. Today's good systems are stronger and the advantage percentage you get is the same if 75% or 100% of the cards are dealt. The difference, which is great, is the amount of money (EV) based upon percentage of cards being dealt. A game where the same percentage advantage can give you a $15 per hour edge when 65% is dealt, but $50 when 80% is dealt and perhaps $100 if 100% were dealt. So you would make much more money if they dealt all the cards but that in no way means you can not make money if 2/3 of the cards are dealt. Furthermore, concerning penetration, in many types of games, substainially more penetration is more benificial to a counter than even the dealer hitting soft 17. Also, there have been many teams that have made tons of money by just counting and all (every single one) play shoes!
    Card counting is based on the mathematical properties of Blackjack if the game is played all the way down to the last card, and the influence of card removal on such game. But in today’s games if you card count and win than you would have won even if you would have used a simple progression based on W/L ratio. Matter of fact, you would win much more and lose much less betting a positive progression then betting on card counting.

    Funny that progression players get huge comps from casinos and proficient card counters get tossed. Can you logically think that casinos know absolutely nothing about their own games. Mathematically, as you started this paragraph, progressions can not possibly easrn money in a negative expectation game, which blackjack without counting is.

    However, for playing decisions, Yes! – Card Counting works! - You deviate from Basic Strategy based on card counting– such as I18. But that's about it.


    Yes, for it does also work but the deviations get you only a minority of your profits from card counting. Card counters can eek out a small profit in many games without using any indices. I have known tons of progression players. none of whom were lifetime winners at blackjack. Everyone of them will have many small winning sessions but eventually that is always wiped out by a couple of devestating sessions.

    The other side of the story:
    Why many would believe Alex: Because the vast, vast majority of people who try cardcounting will lose. I like to use the term proficient counter.

    Some wannabee counters will try counting without learning basic strategy perfectly. The question here is how can you deviate from BS properly according to the count, when you do not know BS in the first place.

    Other counters will have no knowledge of Kelly or Risk of Ruin and will over bet their bankroll and lose it.

    Other counters will not only pick good games to play and might either bei playing a game where over coming the house edge is near impossible.

    Others will get distracted in a casino and lose the count or even worse, reverse the count.
    And there are probably several other reasons.

    ihate17
  • AlexD30 said:
    Ray,
    If you are using a card counting system, you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any worthless system. However, eventually, you will lose much more with card counting than you would have lost by simply playing a no-brainier. If you are being told otherwise, you are being lied to. Card counting systems do not work against today's real world casino conditions! If you have purchased systems, books or computer programs that allude otherwise then you have been deceived with worthless materials.

    Moreover, please note that losers rarely post their losses publicly on the Internet. They are ashamed of their foolishness, and their propensity to purchase systems that purport to beat the casino game. People usually do not admit they traded the cow for a few magic beans.


    It should be apparent to all, that card counting systems have been designed for the ideal game that was available in the 60’s: Single Deck, S17, DAS, with 99% pen. In such game you will make money using card counting. Playing any other game setup you could experience some initial success the same as you could with any other worthless system but you will lose all your money in the long run.

    Card counting is based on the mathematical properties of Blackjack if the game is played all the way down to the last card, and the influence of card removal on such game. But in today’s games if you card count and win than you would have won even if you would have used a simple progression based on W/L ratio. Matter of fact, you would win much more and lose much less betting a positive progression then betting on card counting.

    However, for playing decisions, Yes! – Card Counting works! - You deviate from Basic Strategy based on card counting– such as I18. But that's about it.



    I'm so sick of seeing this innacurate garbage on this site i think i might stop posting here. Like i said before Alexd30 and learningtocount need to go start a card counting team together.
  • cass said:
    I'm so sick of seeing this innacurate garbage on this site i think i might stop posting here. Like i said before Alexd30 and learningtocount need to go start a card counting team together.


    Casinos love players like this.

    ihate17

Howdy, Stranger!

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