Advice needed
  • I’ve been lurking here awhile, but this is my first post. Here is my situation. For a few years I played basic strategy while flat betting greens here at the local casinos in Detroit and in Vegas. I always seemed to come out even or slightly ahead. At the end of May of this year, I was up around $1,000.

    Then the losing streak came. I ended up down about $3,000. One night, using Walter’s progression I won back my losses and was even for the year. I should have stopped then, but didn’t.

    Since then, playing basic strategy and either Walter’s or Nickels and Bullets’ progressions, I just can’t seem to win and am down $8,000 for the year.

    What do I do? Should I keep playing in the hopes I hit a winning streak and recapture some of my losses? Or chalk the losses up to experience?
  • Slick,

    I've said it before and I'll say it again; NO betting progression will make you an advantage blackjack player. The ONLY way to beat the house is to bet more money when there are more high cards left than low and, of course, the only way to know this is to "count" cards.

    It seems like people don't want to believe this, but as far as I and everyone who's ever studied it knows, it's the truth.

    Leon
  • Without a progression you may not have been able to get out of the $3,000 hole (certainly not in one night), so the progression was a good thing.

    Then you hit some choppy games and/or a cold streak and dropped $8,000 which would almost certainly have been much less if only flat betting, so the progression was a bad thing.

    I think thats largely the nature of varying your bets based on what happened on the previous hand... the progression gave and then it took away. If you prefer a more steady game then maybe you should return to flat betting, or play for lower stakes. I think the one thing most people would agree on is you shouldn't increase your stakes trying to dig yourself out of the hole.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again; NO betting progression will make you an advantage blackjack player.
    It seems like people don't want to believe this, but as far as I and everyone who's ever studied it knows, it's the truth.


    Leon - you speak the truth.
  • What do YOU want to do ?

    Quit, proceed, reduce the bet amount ?
  • Big Slick said:
    I’ve been lurking here awhile, but this is my first post. Here is my situation. For a few years I played basic strategy while flat betting greens here at the local casinos in Detroit and in Vegas. I always seemed to come out even or slightly ahead. At the end of May of this year, I was up around $1,000.

    Then the losing streak came. I ended up down about $3,000. One night, using Walter’s progression I won back my losses and was even for the year. I should have stopped then, but didn’t.

    Since then, playing basic strategy and either Walter’s or Nickels and Bullets’ progressions, I just can’t seem to win and am down $8,000 for the year.

    What do I do? Should I keep playing in the hopes I hit a winning streak and recapture some of my losses? Or chalk the losses up to experience?

    If you playing basic strategy the house has an edge
  • Hey Detroit! I thought I was the only one here playing BS......Your problem is the awful conditions in Detroit casinos. Motor City has the best game. Progression is the only game in town because of mostly 8 deck shoes and lots of continuous shuffle machines.
  • When you count and you win is because you've got an equal number of winning hands vs. losing hands, or more winning hands. Anything else you will lose. Card counting cannot offset the W/L percentage. It is a mathematical fact


    Thats not a true statement, its very false actually. I'm not gonna get into a huge debate about it... but card counters can make quite a bit of money without winning more hands. They know when to bet in larger amounts when an expectation to win money exists.
  • Alex said something that isn't true???!!!!

    I shall alert the media.
  • LeonShuffle said:
    Alex said something that isn't true???!!!!

    I shall alert the media.


    Of course, you are completely in error. What you are saying is that based upon your studies of "kitchen-table rules and game" , you think that card counting can beat your kitchen table game. Even the most basic of blackjack players already knows that it is impossible to gain any profit advantage against casinos with any known card counting system. It is very strange that most of you did not know this very basic fact.
  • Alex, how does one offset the W/L ratio? I've read Fred Renzey's book but he mentions nothing about this concept.

    Thanks!
  • BullS#!& Alex, pure dung from the sphincter itself.

    Try confusing wins and bets again, for a change.

    "Although the player wins 43 of 92 (ties not counted) and loses 49, for every 49 chips lost, the player wins back 48.5. For 100 chips lost, the player gets back 99. It follows, that for the 199 chips wagered, the house keeps 1. -1 in 200, means the house has a 1/2% advantage FOR THE BETS MADE. For every 100 losses, there are 88 wins, yet those 88 wins yield 99 bets." from my site.
  • AlexD30 said:
    [quote=LeonShuffle]Alex said something that isn't true???!!!!

    I shall alert the media.


    Of course, you are completely in error. What you are saying is that based upon your studies of "kitchen-table rules and game" , you think that card counting can beat your kitchen table game. Even the most basic of blackjack players already knows that it is impossible to gain any profit advantage against casinos with any known card counting system. It is very strange that most of you did not know this very basic fact.[/quote]

    1 word.

    bullshit
  • Nickels_n_Bullets said:
    BullS#!& Alex, pure dung from the sphincter itself.

    Try confusing wins and bets again, for a change.

    "Although the player wins 43 of 92 (ties not counted) and loses 49, for every 49 chips lost, the player wins back 48.5. For 100 chips lost, the player gets back 99. It follows, that for the 199 chips wagered, the house keeps 1. -1 in 200, means the house has a 1/2% advantage FOR THE BETS MADE. For every 100 losses, there are 88 wins, yet those 88 wins yield 99 bets." from my site.


    Can you beat using card counting or your progression this:
    Wins = 367
    Loss = 413
    After all the Bjs and DD are counted as 1.5 and respectively +/- 2. House edge 6%. Can you beat this edge of 6% and come on top of that with 2.5% edge for you?

    Hmm? - Let me know when that miracle will happen with card counting of Walter’s or any other system. Most likely NEVER!
  • apparently alex doesn't understand that you can do stuff like split and double down in blackjack.

    maybe he's been playing blackjack by purely hitting or standing all this while.

    i suspect alex might be employed by casino personnel to mislead unsuspecting readers on this site.
  • You must elucidate the pattern of wins and losses. There must be 780 hands played with 885 chips wagered. What pattern(s) always wins... which one is the best Alex? Remember to bet before knowing the outcome! Also no $9 bets at a $10 minimum table.
  • A miracle HAS happened 2755 consecutive hands played with a 4.85% Player Advantage. Using a progression, and Basic Strategy. And its not Alex's progression... its a positive progression based upon betting more when you win. With rather strict financial rules $25 minimum bet, $300 maximum, lose the bankroll of $300 and quit. Lose that same $300 from the PEAK bankroll and Quit. Gee whiz, I made 8337.50 on 171,600 of bets.

    sorry, theres a mistake here, an important one no less... you must risk the Entire $300 bankroll, both initially, and to the peak bankroll. NOT 1/2 the bankroll as originally posted... that one only wins 2% best.
  • And you know what Alex, the OTHER TWO players at the table rarely split or double.... just like YOU ! So not only am I winning, I'm winning when you are at the table playing your game... you and your twin... Stunad y Gabadost
  • AlexD30 said:

    Of course, you are completely in error. What you are saying is that based upon your studies of "kitchen-table rules and game" , you think that card counting can beat your kitchen table game.


    If by "kitchen-table" you mean Borgata, Claridge and a few others, then yes I base my statements on kitchen-table games and rules.
  • Alex

    Your right about one thing, counting does not offset the win/loss percentage, BUT it is not supposed to! When you count you try to win more money when you do win. You don't have to win more hands then the dealer, this is impossible in the long run, because of the way the game is set up, what is possible though is to know when you have a better chance of winning and bet more money.

    P.S. Alex, you change your mind more than a fat kid in a candy store. A couple months ago, you were advocating quit points (I remember arguing with you about this), now you say quit points is a bad idea. Which is it? People can change their minds, but you act like your right about everything and then a month latter your on the other side of the fence. Either stop being so wishy-washy or stop acting like you know what you are talking about.
  • Nickels_n_Bullets said:
    BullS#!& Alex, pure dung from the sphincter itself.

    Try confusing wins and bets again, for a change.

    "Although the player wins 43 of 92 (ties not counted) and loses 49, for every 49 chips lost, the player wins back 48.5. For 100 chips lost, the player gets back 99. It follows, that for the 199 chips wagered, the house keeps 1. -1 in 200, means the house has a 1/2% advantage FOR THE BETS MADE. For every 100 losses, there are 88 wins, yet those 88 wins yield 99 bets." from my site.


    Well, it seems to me that you don't understand what house edge is all about.
  • Nickels - Do you ever get the feeling you are talking to a box of rocks or a "troll"? This guy doesn't have a clue about the game of blackjack, and even less about the mathematics of it.....Any one who defines house advantage in blackjack as the difference in wins and losses just fell off the turnip truck.
  • P.S. Alex, you change your mind more than a fat kid in a candy store. A couple months ago, you were advocating quit points (I remember arguing with you about this), now you say quit points is a bad idea. Which is it? People can change their minds, but you act like your right about everything and then a month latter your on the other side of the fence. Either stop being so wishy-washy or stop acting like you know what you are talking about.


    OMG, ALEX IS JOHN KERRY!!!!


    hmmmmmm....
  • Yeah Grif, he is a troll for sure. But he keeps changing his name from Stunad to Gabadost, but the last name is definately Troll.
  • Grifter said:
    Nickels - Do you ever get the feeling you are talking to a box of rocks or a "troll"? This guy doesn't have a clue about the game of blackjack, and even less about the mathematics of it.....Any one who defines house advantage in blackjack as the difference in wins and losses just fell off the turnip truck.


    Oh my God! - Grifter,
    The house edge or edvantage is the difference between the total of winning units and losing units. Check Don's book for a change if you want to learn! - You abviously have no clue or you want to cover things up.

    Why don't you tell us what is house edge or advantage. Tell us how the casino edge impacts winning or losing units.

    Go ahead and tell us how to interpret the house edge in a loss=51 win=49 with all the BJs and DD counted in already.
    How mych is the house edge and how many units the player lost?

    Go ahead, if you want to be "smart ..." tell us what house edge is!
  • Alex- What your trying to say in your post 176 just did not come out
    right. I think you know better, but the words used does not jive with
    reality. Go back and re-read the thing and I think you will agree.

    You've got to learn to say things in exact terms. Otherwise people are going to eat you alive...

    Ray
  • What part of "88 wins per 100 losses generates 99 units won" don't you WANT to understand... DEALER says WHAT ?
  • Now Alex,... variance doesn't work that way... your system winds up betting say 10 for the initial bet and 12 for the doubled part of the bet depending upon the outcome of the original bet.... Or worse, it bets $10 on the original and 8 on the doubled portion. The same with split pairs.... the problem you have with split-pairs is that you MUST play for the SAME price. Thats why you don't split or double.

    But you ARE playing a dealer game. Thus I notice the occasional references to you being a house shill of some internet flavor.... Like troll or flamer. Just WHAT ARE your credentials in life ?
  • Nickels_n_Bullets said:
    Now Alex,... variance doesn't work that way... your system winds up betting say 10 for the initial bet and 12 for the doubled part of the bet depending upon the outcome of the original bet.... Or worse, it bets $10 on the original and 8 on the doubled portion. The same with split pairs.... the problem you have with split-pairs is that you MUST play for the SAME price. Thats why you don't split or double.

    But you ARE playing a dealer game. Thus I notice the occasional references to you being a house shill of some internet flavor.... Like troll or flamer. Just WHAT ARE your credentials in life ?



    You guys don't get it!
    That's a waste of time for me on this forum. I have nothing to gain.
  • AlexD30 said:

    Oh my God! - Grifter,
    You abviously have no clue or you want to cover things up.



    OK Grif, what sinister agenda do you have up your sleeves?

    And all this time I thought I was learning from ya. You know what? I'm going to the casino tomorrow and return any monies I've won by listening to you and Walter. And Nickels. I smell a conspiracy.

    John
  • John - You are a sly ol' dawg! I thought we were getting away with something, and you saw right through it.

    Yes, I suppose there is a conspiracy going on. It appears Nickels, Leon, JMP, Ray, KY121, me, and others are conspiring to ensure the truth and facts about blackjack are posted on this site.

    Guilty as charged :wink: ........Grifter
  • jmpoehler said:
    Alex, you change your mind more than a fat kid in a candy store


    :lol:

    I'm gonna have to remember that one. LMAO

  • You guys don't get it!
    That's a waste of time for me on this forum. I have nothing to gain.



    So you're going to do the right thing and go somewhere else for awhile?

    Maybe that mountain top in Tibet where you can contemplate your navel and finally codify your "system"?
  • Griff, et al... 24 years a long enough sentance? ;o)

Howdy, Stranger!

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