Test Of Alex Method
  • This will be long, so lean back and relax.

    Test of Alex’s Method:

    Reason for the Test: “If things seem to be too good to be true, they usually are”. In one of Alex’s earliest posts he stated he had 10,000 hands of casino play using his -$100, 20% method, and his highest bet was $100, and the most he had to go in the hole was $500, and his earnings ratio was +5.5%. If this were all true, he had a real winner; but this looked “too” good……therefore this test.

    The Test: I played 4,000 actual hands (no computer simulations) of 6D, S17 using the 20% betting method, with bets rounded to the nearest dollar for accuracy. The results below are given in “units”, which is standard blackjack terminology/procedure, I used a $20 starting unit (per Alex’s original instructions, although it changes daily) and I did not use a stop loss point; and there were two reasons for this:
    1. I wanted to see how far you would “go in the hole” in real play. Alex claimed a maximum of $500, and this did not seem remotely realistic.
    2. From the beginning, Alex’s “rules” were emphatically to not to use a stop loss. Then Ray suggested a stop loss earlier last week and was told not to use one. Then KY121 also suggested using one, and now it appears Alex has changed his mind….This test will prove Ray and Alex were correct.

    Results:

    Hands Played……………....4,000
    Hand Winning Percent…. 46.93% (excluding pushes…this is within 0.57% of norm)
    Amount Won/Lost…… …+328.75 units (very good, but see below regarding risk)
    Win Rate/Hr……………… +8.22 units (excellent, but see below)
    Total Bet………………....…. 20,731 units
    Average Bet…………..…… 5.18 units (very high….for any method)
    Earnings Ratio…………….+1.61% (This is the most important stat for serious players, and 1.61% is very good, but note this is not remotely close to the 5%, 8%, etc. that Alex has continually claimed in his posts; and also note that this will change after stop loss points are established)

    Comments:
    1. Alex’s 20% betting concept appears to be very strong, and I congratulate him for it.
    2. As Alex claims, this method will recover from being “in the hole” very quickly due to the 20% factor, but conversely the 20% will also drive you quickly into the red when you start making larger bets.
    3. Most of rest of Alex’s claimed real play statistics (shown above) are grossly exaggerated (i.e. false), but I think most members already knew that.

    4. In my opinion, the method cannot be played without “stop loss” points. You go into the red too deep, too many times…….following are the negative stats for this 4,000 hand (40 hour) test.
    Negative Play: (numbers in parenthesis are the dollar amounts if playing the $20/20%)
    1. Down more than 25 units ($500)…..…..14 times
    2. Down more than 50 units ($1,000)…….12 times
    3. Down more than 75 units ($1,500)…...... 7 times
    4. Down more than 100 units ($2,000)…… 6 times
    5. Down more than 150 units ($3,000)…… 2 times
    6. Down more than 250 units ($5,000)…… 2 times
    7. Down more than 400 units ($8,000)……. 2 times
    8. Down more than 600 units ($12,000)……1 time


    I could give you a lot more data about maximum bets (i.e. at $3K in the hole your next bet is $600), etc., but I think this shows the volativity of the method, and why most of us would not find it “playable”; if nothing else but for the session bankroll required.

    Hope this clarifies what you can realistically expect from Alex’s method.

    Grifter
  • Great job Grif..

    Did you play BS for 6D with doubles?? did you split 4's??
  • KY - Thanks, Yes, and Yes - Grif'
  • Grifter said:
    This will be long, so lean back and relax.

    Test of Alex’s Method:

    Reason for the Test: “If things seem to be too good to be true, they usually are”. In one of Alex’s earliest posts he stated he had 10,000 hands of casino play using his -$100, 20% method, and his highest bet was $100, and the most he had to go in the hole was $500, and his earnings ratio was +5.5%. If this were all true, he had a real winner; but this looked “too” good……therefore this test.

    The Test: I played 4,000 actual hands (no computer simulations) of 6D, S17 using the 20% betting method, with bets rounded to the nearest dollar for accuracy. The results below are given in “units”, which is standard blackjack terminology/procedure, I used a $20 starting unit (per Alex’s original instructions, although it changes daily) and I did not use a stop loss point; and there were two reasons for this:
    1. I wanted to see how far you would “go in the hole” in real play. Alex claimed a maximum of $500, and this did not seem remotely realistic.
    2. From the beginning, Alex’s “rules” were emphatically to not to use a stop loss. Then Ray suggested a stop loss earlier last week and was told not to use one. Then KY121 also suggested using one, and now it appears Alex has changed his mind….This test will prove Ray and Alex were correct.

    Results:

    Hands Played……………....4,000
    Hand Winning Percent…. 46.93% (excluding pushes…this is within 0.57% of norm)
    Amount Won/Lost…… …+328.75 units (very good, but see below regarding risk)
    Win Rate/Hr……………… +8.22 units (excellent, but see below)
    Total Bet………………....…. 20,731 units
    Average Bet…………..…… 5.18 units (very high….for any method)
    Earnings Ratio…………….+1.61% (This is the most important stat for serious players, and 1.61% is very good, but note this is not remotely close to the 5%, 8%, etc. that Alex has continually claimed in his posts; and also note that this will change after stop loss points are established)

    Comments:
    1. Alex’s 20% betting concept appears to be very strong, and I congratulate him for it.
    2. As Alex claims, this method will recover from being “in the hole” very quickly due to the 20% factor, but conversely the 20% will also drive you quickly into the red when you start making larger bets.
    3. Most of rest of Alex’s claimed real play statistics (shown above) are grossly exaggerated (i.e. false), but I think most members already knew that.

    4. In my opinion, the method cannot be played without “stop loss” points. You go into the red too deep, too many times…….following are the negative stats for this 4,000 hand (40 hour) test.
    Negative Play: (numbers in parenthesis are the dollar amounts if playing the $20/20%)
    1. Down more than 25 units ($500)…..…..14 times
    2. Down more than 50 units ($1,000)…….12 times
    3. Down more than 75 units ($1,500)…...... 7 times
    4. Down more than 100 units ($2,000)…… 6 times
    5. Down more than 150 units ($3,000)…… 2 times
    6. Down more than 250 units ($5,000)…… 2 times
    7. Down more than 400 units ($8,000)……. 2 times
    8. Down more than 600 units ($12,000)……1 time


    I could give you a lot more data about maximum bets (i.e. at $3K in the hole your next bet is $600), etc., but I think this shows the volativity of the method, and why most of us would not find it “playable”; if nothing else but for the session bankroll required.

    Hope this clarifies what you can realistically expect from Alex’s method.

    Grifter


    Well, Grifter, I really appreciate your work and I believe you and your integrity.
    Now, please give us some more details lie: What was casino’s edge over the entire set of 4,000 hands.

    I suspect that if the player hand winning percentage was 46.93% than the casino must be at 53.07% and that is a whopping 6.14% casino edge against the player. My system has magically transformed the –6.14% into 1.61%. Isn’t that a 7.75% swing?
    If you would have played in a even percentage you would have made much more. If you have used 33% with a drop hole at some magic point you would have made much more with less fluctuations.

    A flat bettor with the same average bet of 5.18 units would have lost 6.14% from the total action and that would have been a lost of 1,272 units while I earned 328 units. How about that?

    Now, I suspect you used basic strategy by the book and that’s why you had so much fluctuations. But that is a different point. The bottom line is that my method is very powerful indeed.

    However, please tell us what was casino edge over the total hands played. :roll: Did casino had 53.07% winning rate :?:
  • So you advocate not following basic strategy, too?
  • Buffarino said:
    So you advocate not following basic strategy, too?


    Oh, No :!:
    You can follow basic strategy because it will increase your expectation like making an extra $0.25 per 100 hands if you want. You maximize expectation and I assure you will be in great shape. That is the BEST way to play if you want to lose at casino edge against you.

    The problem is that if you bet anyway you want, and play basic 100% you will lose at the rate of casino edge. If you cannot offset the W/L ratio you have no chance. In a 6% casino edge you will lose even if you can count and bet without restrictions whatsoever. In a 7% or 8% edge against you, there is no hope.

    But, on the other hand, playing basic is the correct way to play. :roll:
  • Alex- So, in a nutshell it looks like the following:

    - Hole = 25
    - Percent = 33
    - First bet = 10
    - Reset hole after every 10 bet,always
    - Above 25 reset hole at 55, always
    - Play 5-10 tables
    - Playing basic strategy will not impact results
    - No play limit...quit when tired....take profit or loss anytime
    - Bankroll is based on average bet...approx..25
    - No adjustment of the 33% mulitiplier.....none needed
    - Round to nearest $$ or $5(make sure it is correct)
    - no card counting required

    Alex is all of the above correct and cast in concrete? If it is correct
    I want ask anymore questions.

    Ray
  • Ray said:
    Alex- So, in a nutshell it looks like the following:

    - Hole = 25
    - Percent = 33
    - First bet = 10
    - Reset hole after every 10 bet,always
    - Above 25 reset hole at 55, always
    - Play 5-10 tables
    - Playing basic strategy will not impact results
    - No play limit...quit when tired....take profit or loss anytime
    - Bankroll is based on average bet...approx..25
    - No adjustment of the 33% mulitiplier.....none needed
    - Round to nearest $$ or $5(make sure it is correct)
    - no card counting required

    Alex is all of the above correct and cast in concrete? If it is correct
    I want ask anymore questions.

    Ray

    Basically YES, .., Reset hole if you lose the $55 bet .., BUT ..
    Ray, I'm not sure yet about resetting the hole while going down. I did it many times and it seems to me that I should win more if I can find the perfect balance. Another thing I find out is to play for an hour, take the profit or loss and start over.

    In June I took the winning from May and decided to play without any hole reset. I played continuously to see how bad can be. By the way, I won in May about $12,000. Well, I had some big action play but nothing spectacular and I never was in danger to lose May winnings. Believe it or not that month was the best of all. I made a little over $18,000 playing full time without any hole reset.

    You can use card counting for INSURANCE and close plays like 16 vs. T or whatever. I personally double down only on strong hands and if I have a big bet out I take even money. Also I take insurance in counts close to ZERO, or even in -1 or if my hand is a total of: 9,10,11, or I have A8, A9 and of course I will insure on TC >= +3


    So, here you have it, That's about it. Is a money making mechanism.
  • Grifter,

    Please tell us what was casino edge over the total hands played.
    Was casino's winning percentage 53.07% :?:
    :roll:
  • Thanks Alex and yes you are correct about resetting the hole on
    the way down. The natural law of diminishing return comes into play,
    but so does EV.

    Ray
  • After all of this discusssion, I had to give this system a try. I do not frequent Casinos very often so I wanted to see what would happen with a typical session for me, approximately 200 hands.

    Here are the results:
    230 hands played (needed the last 30 to get into positive numbers)
    92 wins (40%)
    121 loss (52.6%)
    17 Push (7.4%)

    Largest bet $220 (minus $1000 +$100)
    Won $212

    My original bankroll was $1000, which was not enough.

    It seems to me that this is a very volatile system. I know this was a very small test - but I wanted to test this system as I would actually play it.

    Played basic strategy
    6 decks
    Stand 17
    DAS
    Split any card

    I will test this a few more times at 200 hand sessions and see what happens.
  • AlexD30 said:

    Well, Grifter, I really appreciate your work and I believe you and your integrity. Now, please give us some more details lie: What was casino’s edge over the entire set of 4,000 hands.


    Alex, this is the last answer I am giving you until you until you satisfactorly answer the important questions/issues posted erlier today by JMPoehler and Nickels/Bullets......You are only getting this because of your quick response to Ray.

    If you want the precise house advantage you can calculate it yourself with the data I provided; BUT to save you the time.....The answer within a tenth would be:

    The casino's edge for those 4,000 hands was between 0.45% and 0.53%.

    Regards....Grifter
  • Grif

    Thanks for the data, very interesting.

    I agree a stop loss point is necessary for the mere fact the table limits probably wouldn't allow that big of bets.

    I was just thinking though, wouldn't a stop loss point possibly negate a system like Alex's or the martingale? Isn't the whole point of negative progressions is to re-coup your losses quickly (obviously Alex re-coups his losses at a slower pace than the martingale)? I would think by using stop loss points you would remain in the red longer, which in return would minimize your winnings! Just a thought.
  • Grifter said:
    [quote=AlexD30]
    Well, Grifter, I really appreciate your work and I believe you and your integrity. Now, please give us some more details lie: What was casino’s edge over the entire set of 4,000 hands.


    Alex, this is the last answer I am giving you until you until you satisfactorly answer the important questions/issues posted erlier today by JMPoehler and Nickels/Bullets......You are only getting this because of your quick response to Ray.

    If you want the precise house advantage you can calculate it yourself with the data I provided; BUT to save you the time.....The answer within a tenth would be:

    The casino's edge for those 4,000 hands was between 0.45% and 0.53%.

    Regards....Grifter[/quote]

    Oh, Yes, It was 53.07% for the house and 46.93 for player.
    So my system managed to blow away a house edge of over 6% and make you a winer.

    Great!
  • Grifter, Alex, and all.... In looking at the data points missing from Alex's post with all the W/L/T results, I guesstimated that the method would show a return of 1.7% for the situation of 43 49 8. Griffs results are very close. And the house edge is 0.4% without surrender. This due to having to double-down and split, and receiving a Blackjack. This variance lowers the house edge. This varaince is NOT reported in Alex's trials.
  • Phil G. said:
    After all of this discusssion, I had to give this system a try. I do not frequent Casinos very often so I wanted to see what would happen with a typical session for me, approximately 200 hands.

    Here are the results:
    230 hands played (needed the last 30 to get into positive numbers)
    92 wins (40%)
    121 loss (52.6%)
    17 Push (7.4%)

    Largest bet $220 (minus $1000 +$100)
    Won $212

    My original bankroll was $1000, which was not enough.

    It seems to me that this is a very volatile system. I know this was a very small test - but I wanted to test this system as I would actually play it.

    Played basic strategy
    6 decks
    Stand 17
    DAS
    Split any card

    I will test this a few more times at 200 hand sessions and see what happens.


    Well, you manage to overcome a house edge of 13.6%. That was a though game to beat. Any flat bettor would have lost in that game. Yes, the system is temporarily volatile but so card counting. Using any count system to overcome a 13% house edge is useless. I know, is impossible to beat that edge using any card system whatsoever.

    The bankroll and betting amounts should be irrelevant and I'm very inclined to stop paying attention to bankroll anymore and go full speed ahead without resetting the hole.
    The more you use stop loss the more you lose from what should be yours.



    The only thing what we've got is what we go after .., :roll:
  • Grifter wrote:

    Alex, this is the last answer I am giving you until you until you satisfactorily answer the important questions/issues posted earlier today by JMPoehler and Nickels/Bullets......You are only getting this because of your quick response to Ray.


    I have nothing against IMP or N&B,
    But, I really like Ray, I think we have chemistry and I would even go a step further and say that if we would ever meet we could figure this money mechanist system to perfection. I honestly believe that.
  • Ray said:
    Alex- So, in a nutshell it looks like the following:

    - Hole = 25
    - Percent = 33
    - First bet = 10
    - Reset hole after every 10 bet,always
    - Above 25 reset hole at 55, always
    - Play 5-10 tables
    - Playing basic strategy will not impact results
    - No play limit...quit when tired....take profit or loss anytime
    - Bankroll is based on average bet...approx..25
    - No adjustment of the 33% mulitiplier.....none needed
    - Round to nearest $$ or $5(make sure it is correct)
    - no card counting required

    Alex is all of the above correct and cast in concrete? If it is correct
    I want ask anymore questions.

    Ray



    Ray,
    I was thinking for some time now how to deal with the imaginary hole when we start slipping deeper and deeper into it. I am referring here on how to keep readjusting the percentage of the hole for the next bet to maximize the efficiency of coming out fast but at the same time to hold the brakes of not slipping into abyss. :roll:

    I have been thinking on two methods:
    :arrow: One could be the principle behind binary search: “Search a by repeatedly dividing the search interval in half. Begin with an interval covering the whole array. If the value of the search key is less than the item in the middle of the interval, narrow the interval to the lower half. Otherwise narrow it to the upper half. Repeatedly check until the value is found or the interval is empty.”

    :arrow: Another one could be the theory used to calculate the square root manually:

    There are several methods, but the most ancient (dating back to the Babylonians, 1700 B.C.) and best is the divide-and-average method.

    Here's the sqrt manual method.
    Let A be the number whose square root is wanted. Determine in some way a first guess g of the square root of A. The remaining part of the method is to repeat the following step: Divide A by the current guess g and then average the quotient with g. The average is the new guess.

    Repeat until you have calculated the square root to desired accuracy. Roughly, the number of decimal places doubles with each repetition.

    Suppose we want to calculate the square root of 2.
    #1 Take the first guess to be 1.5 (or 1 or whatever...).
    #2 Now, divided 2 by your first guess: 2/1.5 = 1.33333333333
    #3 Add up your first guess with the result from above and than average: (1.5+1.33333333333)/2 = 1.41666666666 ( this is your second guess)

    Repeat #2 and #3
    2/1.41666666666 = 1.41176470589
    add up the previous guess with the result from above and average it. (1.41666666666+1.41176470589)/2 = 1.41421568628

    Since the square root of 2 is (to calculator accuracy) 1.41421356237, the algorithm is doing rather well. One more step gives the result to 11 significant figures!


    Now, Ray, can we use any of the above principles to readjust the betting percentage as a function of the depth of the hole? I am working on this for long time and keep slipping away and cannot grasp what is the optimal point of abandoning, readjusting or splitting the hole down the middle .., or .., If I use the brute force of my bankroll and refuse to abandon the hole than I know I will win more as long as the house edge is less that half of my betting percentage. But probably we can find an optimal method.

    Please communicate,
  • Well thanks Alex...I'll take that in a positive way. You may be correct
    as regards some stop limit because it has no real value or dependability
    whatever, regardless of the strategy used. In our example: LLLLLL takes
    us to some stop limit and if that were it, we don't have a problem because
    we know all about the probability of 6 in a row; how often it happens and
    how much risk we have,etc. But, there is a myriad of ways that we can
    reach the stop limit and there is no way in hell that we can count the ways
    or how many times it will happen in any timeframe. Thus, no risk control
    strategy is supportable with any degree of confidence. An alternative is
    possible, but it gets complicated.

    Ray

Howdy, Stranger!

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