Winning Prog System that works all the times
  • rounds 25,000
    action 486,254
    max bet 417
    average 19.45
    neg Fluctuation -686
    pos Fluctuation 16465
    Final profit 16418
    edge 3.39%
    ==============
    hours 250
    $/hour 65.86
    ==============
    losing sessions 0
    winning sessions 5794
  • Hi Alex:

    Thats really great. Do we get to hear the details? :)

    Regards,

    Win1
  • Win1 said:
    Hi Alex:

    Thats really great. Do we get to hear the details? :)

    Regards,

    Win1


    You really don't deserve to know details
  • how come no responses
  • No response from me because I simply don't understand it.
  • Alex

    Have you actually gone to the casino and played this system in real time? Is there a quit point where you cut losses? One thing I would be afraid of would be long losing streaks. Or many losses intersperced with a few wins. And that is bound to happen some time.

    Charles
  • Before you start playing, you pretend that you are $100 in the hole and immediately remove one black chip from your buy-in amount. Put the chip in your pocket.
    Bet 20% of this down imaginary amount. If you lose you assume you are down $120 and you bet 20% of that. If you win you are theoretically down only $80 and you bet 20% of that.
    Any time you come to even on the money you are actually up $100. Now, you remove another black chip and start all over again.

    The formula for your total "loss" after ?w? wins and ?l? losses is:
    $100 * 1.2^l * 0.8^w.
    The longer you play this progression the more likely you are to be a winner!
    For instance, after 10,000 trials the chances that you are down in money are way outside of 5 Standard Deviations.

    For example: You have W= 46 and L = 54. The house has 8% edge if you will be betting flat. If you bet the way I do, you will have this:
    100 * ( 1.2 ^ 54) * ( 0.8 ^ 46)
    where:
    1.2 ^ 54 = 18,870.67
    0.8 ^ 46 = 0.000034845
    So, you have 100 * 18870.67 * 0.000034845 = -65.75
    You started at ?100 and now you are at ?65.75 units. You just made 34.25 units in 100 hands.

    Here you have a run of 250,000 hands of real BJ simulator.
    Round 250000 was completed at: 07-09-2004 20:22:40
    The seed was 73357.01
    Dealer has garnered -21099
    Player 1 won 21099 on a handle of 250000 or 0.89054%
    Action = 2279855
    Average Bet = 9.12
    Max Bet = 184
    Positive Fluctuation = 23137.5
    Negative Fluctuation = -4609.5
    Players results have a Standard Deviation of +/-561.24 or 0.22450%
    Wins = 111694 or 44.678%
    Loss = 121822 or 48.729%
    Push = 16484 or 6.593%
    Hours = 2500
    Units/hour = 8.44

    As you can see, If flat bet in this sim I would have probably break even with all the BJs and Doubling Down. Betting the way I do I just made 21099 units in a little over a full time play for a year. Practically I made 8.44 units per hour without using card counting at all.
    _________________
    Alex


    Hi Alex:

    Well done! It seems your sim really does show that you win 8.44 units/ hr with this progression. I think there are some viewers that would like clarifification on what the numbers mean, (including myself). So here goes.
    As far as putting this into practical application there are a few points that I'd like to be sure that I'm clear on.
    1) In this sim the 8.44 units/hr means $8.44 /hr. So for 8 hrs /day x $8.44 is $76.52 per day. So 21099 units per year is $21099 per year right?
    2) The 'Negative Fluctuation = -4609.5', means that at some point during the year we would be down $4,609.50, so we would need say about a $5K bankroll. Right?
    3) The 'Max Bet = 184' means $184 Right?
    4) In order to actually play this way we would have to figure out how to accurately calculate and bet correctly the various 'odd size' bets. For example $24, $33, etc., which as I see it would be a real challenge in a fast moving game. Right?
    5) It seems the 'sim' is for $1 increments so we would have to figure out how to compensate for playing at a $5 table. Right?
    6) If we wanted to play for $5 increments instead of the $1 increments we would probably run into table limits. ($5 x 184 max bet = $920).

    I look forward to hearing comments from you and the group on this.

    Regards,

    Win1 :wink:
  • Win1 said:
    [quote]


    ???
    =========
  • Let’s “clear the air” about this thread, especially for the less experienced members.

    Alex, you keep talking above about your calculations, your simulations, and especially your method……that is horse puckey and you know it.

    What you are claiming as your method is a simple D’Alembert that has been around at least two hundred years!

    Grifter
  • Grifter said:
    Let’s “clear the air” about this thread, especially for the less experienced members.

    Alex, you keep talking above about your calculations, your simulations, and especially your method……that is horse puckey and you know it.

    What you are claiming as your method is a simple D’Alembert that has been around at least two hundred years!

    Grifter


    What?
    - What are you talking about?

    ========

    >>??
    ===========
  • Why are there a couple of instances in your example where you INcrease your bet by 5 after a win?
  • Well excuse me.......Let me be more precise. All you are describing is a modified D'Alembert (a method which has been around for over two hundred years); and there are dozens of modified D's floating around out there today (including the one you and I tested a few years ago).

    The 20% thing is meaningless because it cannot be used in real play.......Most people couldn't do the math in their heads, you can't use a calculator, and you can't make the exact bets even if you knew the absolute number. Therefore, you have to convert it for real play, exactly as you showed in your post above........and then it becomes a simple D'Alembert.

    Two weeks ago you posted about a modified Oscar that you claimed never loses......Last week you posted a modified Martingale that you claimed never loses.....This week it's a modified D'Alembert that you claim never loses......What is next week? A modified Labby?

    Sorry to be so skeptical, and I'm certainly not trying to "put you down". I just have a hard time believing three unbeatable progression systems in three weeks.

    Regards.....Grifter
  • Hi Alex:

    Thanks for that great explanation. I'm sure that a lot of viewers, (including myself), will be reviewing what you have posted and will give you their feedback on this.

    Regards,

    Win1 :)
  • and how can u say it 'works all the time' if all casinos aren't wiped out?
  • Hi, Alex.
    a little more example of your betting thread with doubles and splits?

    Thanks.
  • Well, I tried it on my computer blackjack game (with a calculator at my side) and must admit I got up $200. I think my win-loss total was 53-47 so it would have been an above average session. Made a lot of bets bigger than I would have been comfortable with at a real table. Also not sure how the calculator would go over at a real table and I can only imagine the pandemonium all those $27 and $53 bets would have caused (I did always round up to the nearest dollar so I didn't have to use pennies; not sure how that skewered the system). If it was more practical for real use, I might be a little more intrigued.
    But, beyond all the window dressing, isn't it still a negative progression?
  • you made $200 and that's a big score for an hour of play.

    ==========

    ??
  • tuffy88 said:
    Alex

    Have you actually gone to the casino and played this system in real time? Is there a quit point where you cut losses? One thing I would be afraid of would be long losing streaks. Or many losses intersperced with a few wins. And that is bound to happen some time.


    Alex - You still have not responded to this post from Charles. He has some excellent points, and I'm sure many of us would be interested in your answers to the questions, and comments on the losing streaks and low win rates.

    Grifter
  • My experience with progressions of any sort either + or - are all bad.

    my only fear would be losing 20 hands in a row. although unlikely it will come about at some point. and you have to have the bankroll and the balls to put out that next bet
  • [quote="Grifter"][quote="tuffy88"]Alex
  • Alix

    I was not asking about alternating wins and losses. It is when you run into the inevitable L,L,L,L,W,L,L,L,W that I am talking about. When (when, not if) that happens I don't see how you can help being wiped out with your system if you do not have a stop loss point. If you have not run into at least one of these Win-Loss sequences in 10000 hands it is mind blowing. Maybe about 20 standard deviations.

    Charles
  • [quote="tuffy88"]Alix

    ???
  • House had won 9 hands and you have won only 6 and the score is even. The casino had a 20% advantage and not making any money from you.
    9L vs. 6W is 20% casino edge for the sequence and you didn't lost any money.


    Hi Alex:

    Thanks for those additional details. I'm starting to have a better understanding of it. I have a question. If you encounter a string of losses, do you change tables after a certain number, (say 4 or 5), or do you just tough it out no matter what? I couldn't imagine staying and getting hammered for 9 or more losses in a row. :)
    How do you handle that?

    Regards,

    Win1
  • As my ol' Pappy used to say :
    There never was a horse that couldn't be rode and there never was a cowboy that couldn't be throwed.
    There is also, NO method of play (counting, flat betting or progression) that will NEVER lose.
  • Win1 said:
    Hi Alex:

    Thanks for that great explanation. I'm sure that a lot of viewers, (including myself), will be reviewing what you have posted and will give you their feedback on this.

    Regards,

    Win1 :)

    ///
  • tuffy88 said:
    Alix

    I was not asking about alternating wins and losses. It is when you run into the inevitable L,L,L,L,W,L,L,L,W that I am talking about. When (when, not if) that happens I don't see how you can help being wiped out with your system if you do not have a stop loss point. If you have not run into at least one of these Win-Loss sequences in 10000 hands it is mind blowing. Maybe about 20 standard deviations.

    Charles

    Charles – I agree that Alex’s stats are “mind blowing”. He is either (1) The luckiest man alive, or (2) Those numbers are bogus……..To only have a maximum bet of $100 in 10,000 hands with that method is unbelievable, so I pulled out Blackjack Tracker (one the sources Alex used) to see what would really happen when you did get into a bunch of bad hands…….and it didn’t take long to find out.

    I played the first two shoes of Player’s 1, 2, and 3; and ran into a bad streak for each player almost immediately:

    Player 1 (36 hands): Down $1,247, Next Bet = $247.

    Player 2 (33 hands): Down $1,037, Next Bet = $207.

    Player 3 (37 hands): Down $3,148, Next Bet = $630.
    - This is an excellent example of how dangerous a D’Alembert can be! A $5 player sits down at the table and about 20 minutes later he/she is down $3,148.00…..Won’t happen often, but it can, and will, happen.

    Grifter
  • Grifter said:
    [quote=tuffy88]Alix

    I was not asking about alternating wins and losses. It is when you run into the inevitable L,L,L,L,W,L,L,L,W that I am talking about. When (when, not if) that happens I don't see how you can help being wiped out with your system if you do not have a stop loss point. If you have not run into at least one of these Win-Loss sequences in 10000 hands it is mind blowing. Maybe about 20 standard deviations.

    Charles

    Charles – I agree that Alex’s stats are “mind blowing”. He is either (1) The luckiest man alive, or (2) Those numbers are bogus……..To only have a maximum bet of $100 in 10,000 hands with that method is unbelievable, so I pulled out Blackjack Tracker (one the sources Alex used) to see what would really happen when you did get into a bunch of bad hands…….and it didn’t take long to find out.

    I played the first two shoes of Player’s 1, 2, and 3; and ran into a bad streak for each player almost immediately:

    Player 1 (36 hands): Down $1,247, Next Bet = $247.

    Player 2 (33 hands): Down $1,037, Next Bet = $207.

    Player 3 (37 hands): Down $3,148, Next Bet = $630.
    - This is an excellent example of how dangerous a D’Alembert can be! A $5 player sits down at the table and about 20 minutes later he/she is down $3,148.00…..Won’t happen often, but it can, and will, happen.

    Grifter[/quote]
    Grifter,
    Yes, I run into those bets too but I come out and won big money by the end of the book without running into table limits. The point is that my system , not D'Alembert, will beat any game of BJ or Baccarat where the house edge doesn't get over 5% over the long run.
    Please try it for yourself by playing the BJ Tracker book and be honest and report the result.. Play the Red-Black deck test for couple decks and report the profit and the actual edge. Don't forget to remove 2 black cards to create a house edge of 4% and then bet on BLACK.

    After you do that, PLEASE report the results for us to see.

    Best Regards,
  • Hell Alex, If I pull two B's out and bet R, I cant lose even betting FLAT! I would win 50 and lose 48! Please try again.

    Blackjack is 199 Black and 200 Red betting on BLACK.

    To make it more interesting...Remove 16 Red and 16 Black, and add 32 Green. You draw a Green, you push.
  • NEVER is a pretty big word. I have not paid attention to this strand just because of that word in the introduction....anyone else?
  • I'm only paying attention so that others will not pay money.
  • Grifter

    I just don't think it is possible to win with any method such as this one. It will work many times, but in the end a long series of mostly losses will wipe one out fast. If it was really that easy thousands would be wiping the casinos out. And that doesen't seem to be happening.

    Charles
  • I've been here about a year, and learned a hell of a lot. Also been quite entertained (remember the "Bug" days?)

    However I've learned to use a rule of thumb. Whenever some new, sure-fire, can't miss method pops up I wait for the voice(s) of reason. Those being of course Grifter and Walter. Anyone new here would be wise to pay special attention to what they have to say. Not trying to kiss up, just stating a fact. Of course there are others here also who use a wise approach to the game and offer good advice. And I'm thankful for every one of them. I just hope people realize that there are a couple of Masters in our midsts, and take advantage of their knowledge. That's why they're offering it. Just my .02

    John
  • And don't forget Renzey.

    P.S. Are you saying that this method doesn't win everytime? But I quit my job already. Damn!
  • LeonShuffle said:
    And don't forget Renzey.



    Of course, I should have mentioned Renzey. And Nickels also has consistently good advice, and a great website to boot.
  • tuffy88 said:
    I just don't think it is possible to win with any method such as this one. It will work many times, but in the end a long series of mostly losses will wipe one out fast. If it was really that easy thousands would be wiping the casinos out. And that doesen't seem to be happening.


    Charles - I certainly agree with you, but I'm trying to be fair and hold off judgement till I test a few more hands. No matter what Alex claims, this method is a D'Alembert derivitive and as such is going to be very volatile. As you say, you will have a bunch of small wins, but when you hit the really big loss, it will be horrendous......Remember yesterday, I lost over $3,100 in just about 20 minutes....What will happen when you hit a really bad string?

    I also noticed you asked Alex if he used any "stops" and never received a reply......I assume he doesn't use them.

    Grif'
  • Grifter

    I think with this method one would have to have a stop loss point. If not one would be wiped out at some time

    In fact I think a stop loss ehould always be used in gambling to protect against the inevetable long losing sessions. My wife & I use the A-10 Front Count (Renzey's) at the $10 tables and use a $400 stop loss point. Hit it about every 7 sessions or so too.

    Charles
  • Alex Wrote:
    “What I'm getting here is that the "experts" tell me I haven't offered them a representative sample, or they take an even easier way out and see that the data I am offering in support of my system is bogus (a.k.a - fraudulent).”

    Let’s set the record straight, Alex:

    No one said all of your data was bogus (a.k.a.-fraudulent). What I took exception to (and still do) and inferred might be bogus is your post in which you stated you had played 10,000 hands of your method in real play and your maximum bet was $100, and that had only happened once.”

    Without even testing any hands, common sense and experience will tell you this is almost impossible with your D’Alembert derivative, but I tested 80+ shoes for you anyway (and that is hardly “taking the easy way out”).

    In just those 1,300+ hands, I exceeded a $100 bet ten times!!!.......and reached a maximum bet of $630 (and down $3,150) in one session; AND reached a maximum bet of $1,600 (and down $8,100) in the worst session.

    Based on those test hands (using one of your own resources) one can only come to the following conclusions about your post.
    1. The results you posted are bogus (a.k.a. – fraudulent)…..or,
    2. You haven’t actually played 10,000 hands in real play,….or,
    3. I am full of …..”beans”. And if that is the case, you show me 10,000 consecutive hands of real play or hand dealt testing where you only reach a maximum bet of $100 one time; and I will immediately post an apology to you on this board!

    Regards…..Grifter
  • Has anyone read the new Blackjack eBook from www.purplechipblackjack.com ?? I recently purchased it and it seems like a unique, logical, mathematical system that does not involve card counting. Just curious if anyone else has tried it and what their success was. Is it a variant of the progression techniques you guys are talking about??

    Thanks in advance,

    EZ
  • nelson21 said:
    Is it a variant of the progression techniques you guys are talking about??


    Don't know. What does it involve? Many different variations of progressions. I would be happy to see someone write about a "cancellation" system. It seems like that's never been discussed much since Bruce Irwin, back in the '60s.

    John
  • [quote="Grifter"]Alex Wrote:
    //
  • Suppose we compare a BJ game to the flip of a coin game and factor out the "push" which has no effect. Both games deal with the unknown and the
    only thing that we know for sure is the next hand/flip will be a win or loss.

    Now lets deal only with the coin toss and the fact that we are playing a
    50/50 game. Can you provide a way to beat this game day after day?
    Here are the reasons that I don't think you can:

    To assure yourself of a min loss you should bet heads (or tails) each and
    every flip. You "hope" for more heads than tails because guessing for each flip does not appear to be a good approach.


    FOR THE FLAT BETTOR:

    Your results: Slight winner....Slight loser.....Even Steven

    FOR THE PROGRESSION BETTOR:

    Your results: Slight winner....Slight loser.....Even Steven

    Now you might suggest that streaks will allow the progression player to
    win money and then I would say: For each level of the progression you
    will lose as many 1- 5 level bets as you will win...remember the odds are
    50/50.(You can't generate a program....sometimes called a progression,
    that will take advantage of the unknown, because the wins and loses
    for every size bet will tend to be equal over time)

    Also, you can't "time" some large bets to the wins because we are dealing
    with the unknown. Which is it?.. heads or tails.....

    We can compare coins to BJ because they both involve the unknow and
    our attempts to overcome this difficulity thru money management schemes can be illustrated. We can further illustrate the similarity by
    biasing the tails side of the coin and betting heads for each flip.

    Biased coin(.5)results: (Progression player)

    The player results over time: Large loses....Small loses....Large wins....
    Small wins....Even Steven (the difference is the the loses will always
    exceed the wins over time by .5 HA)

    If you can't prove that you can beat a 50/50 game with money management, then how could you possibly beat a game where the odds
    are against you?

    Ray
  • BLAST...Before I get blasted on the above post, let me make a case for
    progressions in the flip of the coin case. Then I'll make another that
    counters my own observations.

    You have a prog like so: 25-50-75 and you win three in a row which will
    equal $150. You now continue the prog at $75 and win that one as well.
    On the third $75 bet you lose, but you'r still up $150, right. So in the 50/50
    game there must be something wrong with the logic that you must come
    out very close to even in the long term.

    A different way to see what happens: Most of your time in a blackjack game will be; oh...lets say at the 1,2,3 levels. How much: 70,80,90%
    of the time, maybe. At those three levels you are giving up one unit
    at a time($25), over and over for most of the session. This slow drain
    at one unit at a time is what offsets the result of the $150 win times that
    are stated above. The longer the prog, the more time you spend giving
    up one single unit. Even in the 50/50 game stated in the previous post,
    you could still have large win/loss sessions depending on SD at any given
    time.

    What's the bottom line: You can't prove that progressions work or don't
    work without some type of sim that is almost unimaginable.

    The system that Alex described can only be evaluated over a long period
    of testing and from that make your own judgements.

    Ray
  • [quote="Ray"]BLAST...Before
  • Here I randomly generated 100 flips of a fair coin.
  • Alex- I'll give it a try in the next day or so.....just retured home and need
    to take care of some business first...

    Ray
  • so this should work on red/black with roulette then..
  • I used 8 decks. Took out 16 reds and bet on red. Started with a $100 hole. Always bet 20% of hole rounded to nearest 5. Started over when I made any profit at all. Took a break after 191 cards. So far I've seen 88 reds and 103 blacks. I'm currently down $910 (not counting the imaginary $100). The most I've been down is $1,750. Longest losing streak was 8 hands. I've currently gone exactly 100 straight hands in the hole.

    Maybe I'm missing something.

    Correction - I'm currently down $645 after the money I've pocketed. And the most I've been down is $1,485.
  • Hi Alex:

    I crunched the numbers of 3 actual Baccarat shoes that I recorded today. Your system won all three. The results were +43, +52 and +182. The B/P ratios were 42-35, 42-38 and 24-40. It's the 24B to 40P that is the interesting one. Since I was playing Player as you suggested it won. But it occured to me that an imbalance can go both ways so I pretended to play Banker and the results were -553. (I have actually seen as many as 15 Banks in a row.) So we would have to find a way to mitigate this imbalance.
    Here's a sample of the first shoe:
    B P -100
    O 20 -120
    O 24 -148
    O 30 -118
    O 23 -142
    O 28 -170
    O 34 -204
    O 41 -245
    O 49 -196
    O 41 -237
    O 47 -284
    O 57 -341
    O 68 -409
    O 82 -327
    O 65 -392
    O 78 -472
    O 84 -388
    O 77 -465
    O 93 -372
    O 74 -298
    O 60 -238
    O 47 -285
    O 57 -342
    O 68 -410
    O 82 -492
    O 98 -394
    O 79 -315
    O 63 -252
    O 50 -202
    O 40 -162
    O 32 -194
    O 39 -155
    O 31 -186
    O 37 -149
    O 29 -178
    O 35 -143
    O 29 -114
    O 23 -137
    O 27 -110
    O 22 -132
    O 26 -158
    O 32 -126
    O 25 -151
    O 30 -121
    O 24 -145
    O 29 -174
    O 35 -209
    O 42 -251
    O 50 -201
    O 40 -161
    O 32 -193
    O 39 -154
    O 31 -123
    O 25 -148
    O 30 -118
    O 24 -142
    O 28 -114
    O 23 -91
    O 18 -109
    O 22 -131
    O 26 -105
    O 21 -126
    O 25 -101
    O 20 -81
    O 16 -65
    O 13 -52
    O 10 -62
    O 12 -74
    O 15 -59
    O 12 -71
    O 14 -57
    O 11 -68
    O 14 -54
    O 11 -65
    O 13 -78
    O 16 -62
    O 12 -74
    O 15 -89
    O 18 -71
    O 14 -57
    42 35
    For some reason some of the data didn't line up in the sent version.
    Regards,

    Win1
  • This thread is hogwash!

    Let me preface my next comment with saying just because you have money doesn't mean you are smart, but... in most cases you can't run a successful business (a major casino) and be stupid.

    If Alex's system was so great, for one someone else would have thought about it a long time ago (mathematics and gambling have been around for centuries), and two it would have been banned from casinos a long time ago. Imagine how easy it would be to track his system, because of the 20% betting variance! The last time I checked the only thing casinos discourage is counters, not progressive systems, not Alex's flavor of the week, nothing else! The day another one of these systems, can beat the casino for big money consistently, the casinos will be the first to know (or a close second) and will ban that system!

    I personally enjoy playing progressive systems and probably will continue to play them (until I learn to count successfully), I think they can win you some money in the short term, and frankly they are fun to play, but in the long term you won't be able to retire off your winnings! (Yes, I am sure there are people out there that have beat the system, but was it pure luck or was it their great system?

Howdy, Stranger!

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