Question For Walter Thomason
  • Hi Mr.Thomason,
    If I'm playing against a 6 deck shoe,late surrender allowed,das,dat,plit aces once only,and i'm using a 1,2,3,5 positive progression how much money should i have in my blackjack bank in order to sit down and play? thank you,
    Paganguy
  • Paganguy- Walter may not be around, so I'll answer your question and let him respond when available.

    First, it doesn't matter if you play a progression. What matters is your ave bet and the number of hands you play.

    Most experienced players will sit down with a min. of two SD session BR and it goes like this:

    SD= 1.1 * (sq. rt. of total hands * ave bet) * 2= (2) SD

    4 hr session at 80 hnds per hr= 324 hnds=18

    1-2-3-5 progression will have an ave bet of 20 at 10-20-30-50
    So,

    SD= 1.1 * (18 * 20)= 396 * 2= $800

    Some people use 40 * ave bet which also equals $800

    Others, like self, use 50 * ave bet depending on other factors.
  • Some additional info that may help:

    Suppose you are going for an overnight stay and plan to play 9 hours:

    SD or the ups and downs (volatility) is proportional to the sq rt of your play. If it takes 800 for 4 hrs, how much for 9 hrs?

    Well, the sq rt of 4 is 2, but the sq rt of 9 is three and is 50% larger than two so you need 1200 for 9 hrs (800 + 400).

    Further, suppose you plan a long wkend and expect to play around 25 hrs. Well, the sq rt of 25 is 5 which is 150% larger than 2 so you need 2000 for the long wkend trip (800 + 800 + 400).
  • The amount that you wish to lose. All progression systems are losers.
  • Hi QFIT-
    No offense but the counters are always saying that all progressions are losers yet people win using them-i think counting works too though the biggest single one day loss i ever took was after 11 hours of counting. go figure!best of luck to you!
    Paganguy
    p.s. to add insult to injury after my big loss i had a headache!!!
  • Of course it is possible to win using a progression. It is possible to win flat betting. It is possible to win without looking at the cards. But, progression systems and quit points do not change the house edge. Concepts like bankroll sizing simply have no meaning if you don't have an edge. If you keep playing, you will lose your bankroll. If you are playing recreationally, just pick the amount that you are willing to lose.
  • I try to keep an open mind-seriously,it wasn't all that long ago they kept telling Christopher Columbus that if he kept sailing in one direction he'd fall off the planet-AND THEY WERE DANG SURE THEY WERE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Best of luck,
    Prog
  • The basic strategy player, flat bet or progression:

    The expectation for a B/S player with a $17 average bet and playing a 5hr session is to lose $40. But, it is just as likely that he could have a much different result due to luck.

    WIN_________________________ LOSE _____________________________
    260…220…180…140…100…20…0…20…60…100…140…180…220 260

    .........................................****(-$40 expectation.. page 126 BBII)

    At times the player will lose 280. Other times when the sequence of cards or win streaks is in his favor (luck) he will win 200. Each of the two outcomes is equally possible because they are equal distance from the expectation. However, in the long term, the ever present HA will result in his BR being reduced to zero because the losing $$$’s will exceed the win $$$”s by a factor equal to the HA.

    Progressions- the different steps of a progression produce a null/zero effect on average and what remains is some average bet in a negative expectation game. Same result as above if his average bet is $17.
  • PROGRESSIONIST said:
    I try to keep an open mind-seriously,it wasn't all that long ago they kept telling Christopher Columbus that if he kept sailing in one direction he'd fall off the planet-AND THEY WERE DANG SURE THEY WERE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Best of luck,
    Prog


    Hi Prog. Actually that's backwards. It was well known that the Earth was round for thousands of years before Columbus. The ancient Greeks knew this because the Earth projects a curved shadow on the Moon. But there were still some flat-earthers around in the 1400's and there are still some progression believers even though it's been known for centuries that progressions don't work. There will always be some that don't believe in science.
  • [QUOTE=QFIT]Hi Prog. Actually that's backwards. It was well known that the Earth was round for thousands of years before Columbus. The ancient Greeks knew this because the Earth projects a curved shadow on the Moon. But there were still some flat-earthers around in the 1400's and there are still some progression believers even though it's been known for centuries that progressions don't work. There will always be some that don't believe in science.[/QUOTE

    Wouldn't it be far more accurate to say that progressives don't work because of restrictions imposed by casinos?. A Martingale progression WILL work,provided one has an unlimited amount of money and finds a casino that allows you to increase your bets to the needed level.Doesn't the fact that the casino imposes table limits indicate that they are afraid of such progressions?If you double up after every loss,you will win in the long run.Its the short run that you need to worry about.Sure,you may lose 10,20,100,1000 in a row but eventually you would win one and be even.
  • Nope. Infinity is a tricky subject. In an infinite amount of time, everything that can happen will happen. Therefore, given an infinity of time, you will lose every single bet an infinitisimal number of times. No matter how many hands you play, it can be proved that a Martingale will lose. Even with infinite resources and an infinite lifespan.

    There are several reasons that casinos have different table limits

    - Different dealers deal different limits
    - High rollers like to be segregated
    - The pit pays more attention to high limit tables
    - The chips in the tray are different denominations
    - Separate sets of tables insures empty seats at high limit tables and forces some players to bet higher

    An overall top limit is required to keep the casinos own risk of ruin in line. Casinos do have good days and bad days and can be damaged by a lucky high roller.
  • It seems that very often when folks are oppossed to progressions they bring up the Martingale,which is obviously bad news.
    Best of luck to all.
    Prog
  • If I had until infinity to win a single hand,with the br to back it,you would never lose an infinite amont of hands,because you would simply play until you win one.Obviously this doesn't affect the real world but in a different one.....

    Most of your examples are of lower limits,not higher limits. For years,Binions would accept any bet. The only rule being your first bet was the max bet. Why? To prevent someone from simply doubling up until they won.
  • If the house has an advantage, no matter how small, the odds are that you will encounter that infinite losing streak before an infinite winning streak. When you go in that black hole there is no way out and you will lose forever.
  • NYB said:
    If I had until infinity to win a single hand,with the br to back it,you would never lose an infinite amont of hands,because you would simply play until you win one.Obviously this doesn't affect the real world but in a different one.....

    Most of your examples are of lower limits,not higher limits. For years,Binions would accept any bet. The only rule being your first bet was the max bet. Why? To prevent someone from simply doubling up until they won.


    But suppose you never win one? If you are talking about infinity, then you must consider that case. It will occur an infinitisimal number of times. What is zero times infinity?

    Binions might not be a good example since they went bankrupt:-) You also couldn't trust what they said about their rationale in those days. Benny Binion used to claim that card counting didn't work and that he welcomed counters. Then he staged a big challenge with Uston, which Uston won. But, I was barred for counting from Binion's before Uston's challenge. So, they knew all along it worked. It was just a come on.
  • Ray said:
    If the house has an advantage, no matter how small, the odds are that you will encounter that infinite losing streak before an infinite winning streak. When you go in that black hole there is no way out and you will lose forever.



    What infinite winning streak? Winning a single hand is not a winning streak.
  • [QUOTE=QFIT]But suppose you never win one?

    Suppose you never lose?Its nearly as likely a scenerio.
    Fine,I'll change my terms a little. In the real world,a progressive martinglae would work,IF you had an unlimited bankroll and you could find a casino stupid enough to allow you to double up after every loss.Can we agree on that?
  • NYB said:
    [QUOTE=QFIT]But suppose you never win one?

    Suppose you never lose?Its nearly as likely a scenerio.
    Fine,I'll change my terms a little. In the real world,a progressive martinglae would work,IF you had an unlimited bankroll and you could find a casino stupid enough to allow you to double up after every loss.Can we agree on that?


    Sorry no. First, yes you could win every hand. But they would all be min bets. If you lost them all, they would increase to infinity. Secondly, "in the real world" you could not have an infinite bankroll. The problem must include infinity or not. Name any specific number of hands. It can be proved for that number, whatever the number is, on average you will be behind the house edge times the amount bet. Tossing in the word unlimited doesn't change the math.
  • NYB-There are many kinds of streaks and they don't need to be one win/loss after another. Who is to say that you have an infinite time to win one hand? There is no assurence of that whatsoever.

    Example: You bet heads in a 50-50 coin toss. You have a 50-50 shot at an
    infinite losing or winning streak because given enough time one or the other will happen.

    Now bias tells by .0001 or whatever. Now all the math tells us that you must lose given an infinite amount of time and trials.

    If you repeat this experiment with several different groups what happens?
    In some cases heads will win because all possibilities are possible, but in a greater number of cases tells will win because of the .0001 bias.

    Which one would you bet on???
  • so,why keep things simple when we can complicate the heck out of them?
  • Would you consider a system that worked 99.9% percent of the time a failure because 1 in a 1,000 times it fails?Do you not leave your house because there is a chance of being struck by lightning?
    As you people love to quote exotic statistics-what are the chances of losing 100 hands of Bj in a row?Or 1,000?.Of being stuck by lightning?
    Now,in all honesty,if you found a casino that would let you double your bet after 100 losses in a row,and you had the BR to do that,are you telling me you wouldn't use a Martingale system because of the one in several billion chance that you would lose 100 consecutive hands?
    How about 50 hands?
  • It depends on what you mean by failure and success. If success means you win $1 and failure means you die, no I would not consider that a good system. You said be practical. OK, suppose you were told by the casino that if you did lose 100 hands in a row; they would actually forgive the loss and give you your money back. That is you can't lose. Would you use a Martingale then? The answer is STILL no. Because in order to ensure that you win that $1, you would need to bring with you about $1270000000000000000000000000000. And how much interest do you think you would lose by taking more money out of the bank then has been spent by every government in the world put together in all of world history:)
  • so martingale is bad that's easy to understand,what i started to discuss here was the required bank for a 1,2,3,5 positive progression.
  • Your threads been hi-jacked. Sit back and enjoy.
    Next,we'll discuss the beauty of Oscars Grind.
  • Sorry, the definition of required bank is generally the bankroll required to realize a specified risk of ruin in the long term. However, in a progression system the long term RoR is always 100% (assuming the rules of the game favor the house.) So the standard definition doesn't apply. For an answer to your question you would have to define what you mean by required bank.
  • If I understand the original question correctly and I very well may not.

    - A progression player does not have an expectation for the long run other
    than the typical .5 HA( the amount he will lose)

    - The same applies to the short term.

    If both statements are true, then the only consideration is: How can I play for
    X amount of time with a reduced risk of going broke? Bring lots of money is one answer because given enough money and hands played, the more likely you are to reach the .5 loss rate.

    In the (2) SD example given, there can never be a positive expectation as a result of having an $800 BR. Your ROR for the period given is just reduced in theory as opposed to $400-500, etc.

Howdy, Stranger!

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