Progression testing software?
  • Hi,

    I've been reading with interest the various types of progression strategy, and I was wondering what software is available to test these progressions? Preferably one which is highly configurable to test negative prog or positive prog or a mixture.

    Thanks
  • For one, CVBJ with CVCX can do this. Its located at www.qfit.com/
  • I question the idea that a progression can be tested. Suppose you run
    any number of hands using progression XX and win $300. You do the
    same test again and lose $300. What have you learned? Futher, suppose
    you test five different progessions at the same table. Two win, two lose
    and the other breaks even. What have you learned? If you could test
    a progression, then progressions would be rated with some science
    behind the rating method. I have never seen any rating system for
    progressions and as a result I must assumed that they are not testable
    in any meaningful way.

    Ray
  • Ray is right on many points. One can not automatically simulate a progression with strict money management. And yes, essentially the house retains its advantage. However, to study the effects of a particular ramp, or series of bets, it can be educational. For example recently I posted and published the effects of the first two terms in any progression, and how frequent they occur. I did not know it was such a high % until I simulated a 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 term series. The jump between the first two terms must be small, because so few times the player wins 2-in-a-row. The findings indicate that a 4 term progression of 25-30-40-50 and 25-50-75-75 are vastly different... although in the house advantage is essentially the same. Its the first two terms that make the difference. One puts back $20 into the bank, the other nothing...yets the odds are the same for either to win 2-in-a-row.
  • Yes of course progressions can be tested. You run hundreds of millions of hands so the results would be the same no matter how many trimes you run the test. The reason that there is no "rating system" for progressions is that all progressions would have the same rating - the same as flat-betting. Progressions do not affect advantage. This has been known for over a century.

    http://www.qfit.com
  • QFIT-What you say about the results is quite true.....known outcome in
    all cases, nothing to evaluate. Only dreamers seek to test because they
    want to believe that somehow their new discovery will be different. So
    what's to test? Could it be that we want to see the infinite number of ways
    that progressions will playout over millions of hands. Simple logic will
    answer that question in short order, but it has no value. What are we
    testing???????

    Ray
  • Nickels_n_Bullets said:
    Ray is right on many points. One can not automatically simulate a progression with strict money management. And yes, essentially the house retains its advantage. However, to study the effects of a particular ramp, or series of bets, it can be educational. For example recently I posted and published the effects of the first two terms in any progression, and how frequent they occur. I did not know it was such a high % until I simulated a 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 term series. The jump between the first two terms must be small, because so few times the player wins 2-in-a-row. The findings indicate that a 4 term progression of 25-30-40-50 and 25-50-75-75 are vastly different... although in the house advantage is essentially the same. Its the first two terms that make the difference. One puts back $20 into the bank, the other nothing...yets the odds are the same for either to win 2-in-a-row.


    I totally agree with you N&B on this one. In a positive progression the second step is the key. You have to collect some money after the first win. Bet less for the next hand and from there you can increase if you want. If you get winning streaks you will make money. If not you probably will break even. Blackjack is a choppy game and if you want to make money you either use a positive progression in which your second bet is less than first bet or you play a negative prog in which you increase by a percentage after each loss and decrease by the same percentage after a win. This is the way you bet choppy games. There is no other way around.

    Both methods will beat a WLWLWLWL string
  • Alex- I don't think QFIT is aware of all the considerations here. I don't
    think he would argue against positive results for a martingale provided
    you had a armored truck full of money and a no limit blackjack table.

    Now what's practical, thats a different story altogether as we all know.
    There is nothing wrong with your system theory; it works,but is it practical
    for the average john? I think not.....................

    Ray
  • a armored truck full of money

    I love that! :roll:


    Hi Ray, Good mornig!
    I know, but still, I had a real good week and especially last night was awesome. Last night downtown Vegas I had about 5 hours of very choppy game and no edge for casino at all. Almost even game in regard to the W/L ratio. Perfect setup. Full proof lock over the game. Made more last night than in the entire week since Monday.
  • Ray, a martingale will not work even with no table limits, an infinite bankroll and an infinite life span. The math proof is fairly simple but a bit messy to show in a post. Infinity is a strange concept. In an infinity of time, all things that are possible will happen no matter how remote. It is possible that you will never win a hand. Therefore, an occurance of never winning a hand will take place and you will lose an infinite amount of money in that event. When you total all possible events and apply their probabilities, you will have a net infinite loss. Table limits have nothing to do with progressions.
  • Heres an example of why the finite existance of a player indicates to play with an advantage.

    Suppose a player engages in Blackjack as an ordinary "day job". Playing 8 to 5 (an hour for lunch) Mon-Fri for 50 weeks a year (you get weekends off and a 2 week vacation). You play 100 hands an hour.

    Each week to play 4000 rounds. Each year to play 200,000 rounds. A player that plays 50 years... say from age 21 to 71, will log 10,000,000 rounds of play.

    IMHO that is a 100% expectancy for playing Blackjack in a lifetime. In order to get a 2.5 sigma study done on a "lifetime", one should figure to multiply a lifetime by 80. Thats 800 Million rounds. Yet we are still ignoring the most extreme 1.25% of all possible outcomes... Essentially the extremes of losing or winning all, or almost all. And that is where the advantage or disadvantage to a particular system resides. Should the system favor the house, then the probability favors the house to retain its advantage in "the long-run". The same is said for a Player Advantage system.

    If you're playing Basic, you get the former. If you play hi/lo for example, you get the latter. If you play a progression, it depends upon the rules of blacjack strategy you follow. Since progression play is moot in and of itself, its the strategy.

    Some have called any PLAYER ADVANTAGE strategy that varies the bet ,"An Advantage Progression". Not based upon W&L but upon PLAYER ADVANTAGE.
  • Progression play with Basic Strategy has exactly the same expectation as Basic Strategy. Progression play without Basic Strategy is inferior to Basic Strategy. This is true if you play one hand or 800,000,000.
  • QFIX- You said: "In an infinity of time all things that are possible will
    happen" Well, that is almost true, but not quite. Some recorded action
    that we call an event is clearly possible, we recorded it, it happened.
    There are some events that are non-reoccuring because the process
    that produced them is moving forward and never ending. We see the
    event as possible but you can be sure that it want happen again. A host of variables, some know, some unknown,along with the principal of entropy
    prevents the re-occurance.

    In an individuals lifetime, we can have positive results from a martingale
    provided we have unlimited cash and no table limits. That's all I'm saying
    and I believe that to be a reasonable/true statement.

    Ray
  • Ray said "In an individuals lifetime, we can have positive results from a martingale
    provided we have unlimited cash and no table limits. That's all I'm saying
    and I believe that to be a reasonable/true statement."

    Ray, yes I know that is what you are saying and I know that is what you believe. But, it is incorrect. This is a century old fallacy. I already explained why. If you want a second reason, name any number of bets from 1 to infinity. I can prove that your expectation is negative for that number of bets. If you want a third method, use limit theory. EV can be calculated as a limit as hands approach infinity. If you want a fourth method, it can also be proved with proof by induction. For an understanding of induction proof see http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/idris/AlgorithmsProject/ProofMethods/Induction/ProofByInduction.html

    I have listed four mathematic methods that show that a martingale system has a negative expectation and it has nothing to do with bankroll or table limits.
  • QFIT- I have no doubt whatever that your referenced proofs are
    completely solid and I want argue your point. Real life application
    does not compare very well with possibilities that can be validated
    mathematically and as a result you will always win that argument.
    Your points are well received................................

    Ray
  • Ray, real life is exactly the same as the math. If it weren't, planes wouldn't fly and we would have never reached Mars. The same is true for simulations. Planes are designed by computer simulations. The Mars approach and landing were formulated by computer simulation. BJ is much easier to simulate. And the cry that BJ sims don't take into account 'real casino' shuffles is not true either. My software does take this into account.

    There is a reason that casinos take trillions of dollars from players. Most players ignore the reality of the math and rely on their instincts. The believe that math isn't reality. The math works and the casinos rake it in. This has been true for hundreds of years and will remain true.

    That's all I have to say on the subject.
  • Why then do we need test pilots........thats all I'll have to say on the
    subject!
  • Thanks for the info, I'll have a look at that programme.
  • Ray, FYI, if Qfit is Norm W from qfit.com (as I suspect) , then resistance is futile. He is the "god" of blackjack simulations and the author of the program many use to practice skills and test theories. I trust what he says as much as I trust Midnite and Grifter. In fact, if any of them said that wearing red socks would improve my game, I would be at the sock store in a minute!!!
  • QFIT & Ray

    Let me throw my two cents in.

    Qfit - technically you are right about the martingale, in the fact that if you don't EVER win it will have a negative effect. Is that practical to assume you will never have a win though, technically you can I suppose! I believe table limits do have something to do with negative progressions (not most positive progressions). It is impossible to reach infinity when there is a table limit, so therefore table limits do have a strong factor in these methods.

    If there were no table limits and unlimited funds, I would have to believe that the martingale would be successful. I know you can say that you could play 800 million hands and lose everyone (technically yes, practically no). I would take that bet any time, any where!

    Your right infinity is a strong concept, its hard to grasp. I might be wrong but I'll agree with Ray and say with no table limits and unlimited funds the martingale would be successful.
  • The other possibility is that you could WIN every hand. Possible YES ... practical NO, but the opposite variance to any one side (Re: win/lose) is equally possible. Thus any system boils down to weather or not any strategy underlying that system has an initial advantage or not. In the case of Basic Strategy in Blackjack... no it does not. In the case of hi/lo in Blackjack YES it does. For progressions using Basic no. I've never seen a progression based on hi/lo, but if the strategy is used, then it would have to be yes... primarily due to a quit-point based upon a negative index, say -2 does not play, in addition to a financial quit-point/stop-loss. JMHObservations.
  • "The other possibility is that you could WIN every hand. Possible YES ... practical NO, but the opposite variance to any one side (Re: win/lose) is equally possible."

    Yes it is possible. In an infinite number of hands it will always occur. No, it is not equally possible. It is more likely that you will lose every hand.

    "Thus any system boils down to weather or not any strategy underlying that system has an initial advantage or not. In the case of Basic Strategy in Blackjack... no it does not. In the case of hi/lo in Blackjack YES it does. "

    Correct

    "For progressions using Basic no. I've never seen a progression based on hi/lo, but if the strategy is used, then it would have to be yes"

    Not correct. A progression in combination with a counting strategy will always reduce effectiveness of the counting strategy. Whether it damages it enough to destroy the advantage depends on how much the progression varies from optimal betting.

    "... primarily due to a quit-point based upon a negative index, say -2 does not play, in addition to a financial quit-point/stop-loss. "

    Clearly wonging helps. Clearly quit points based on stop-losses or any other pure bankroll management technique have no effect at all.
  • Thanks for that. I take it then that say betting 3 in a progression when hi/lo indicates a bet of 1 is the reason.
  • D- I'm well aware of who QFIT is. I have no argument with him other
    than from a practical point of view. For example: Mathematics can be
    a very close approximation of reality and that would be all well and
    good if we could trust ourself and our abilities. Some very fine engineers
    designed Boeings 747, but would you be willing to take the first flight
    from NY to SF when you knew full well that the plane had never been
    tested. Why test: Verification........Yes the math is correct.........Problems..
    ...no the math is not correct.......Discovery........what new requirements
    did we not know of and their risk. D, that is reality, not mathematics.
    Mathematics is a tool, nothing else.

    As for BJ simulations,etc it's good that some have taken the interest
    to do that work, but it is not rocket science.

    Ray
  • QFIT said:
    Ray said "In an individuals lifetime, we can have positive results from a martingale
    provided we have unlimited cash and no table limits. That's all I'm saying
    and I believe that to be a reasonable/true statement."

    Ray, yes I know that is what you are saying and I know that is what you believe. But, it is incorrect. This is a century old fallacy. I already explained why. If you want a second reason, name any number of bets from 1 to infinity. I can prove that your expectation is negative for that number of bets. If you want a third method, use limit theory. EV can be calculated as a limit as hands approach infinity. If you want a fourth method, it can also be proved with proof by induction. For an understanding of induction proof see http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/idris/AlgorithmsProject/ProofMethods/Induction/ProofByInduction.html

    I have listed four mathematic methods that show that a martingale system has a negative expectation and it has nothing to do with bankroll or table limits.


    Well, QFIT, here is the setup:
    Number of hands : 10,000,000
    6D H17 DAS CSM, House edge 0.50%

    Bet 2% of how much you are in the hole at all times. Start from a bankroll of -$100. First bet is $2 and from there bet 2% of whatever is your hole. If your bank becomes positive you just won over $100, start another simulation of 10 millions else continue. Shuffle after every hand like the CSM does, at the end don't forget to add $100 to the final bank.
    Post stats results as player's edge after ten million hands. I predict a +$99 or more profit. I will never lose. Always win!

    Prove me wrong, QFIT, prove with your supper math that a negative expectation game when betting on without card counting, has a negative $ result.

    Looking forward,
  • Alex - It would be easy to prove your theory wrong:

    10 million hands played

    Results:

    0 wins
    10,000,000 loses

    Final analysis = negative expectaction

    Is the above set possible, YES (practical no)!! So you can't possibly ALWAYS WIN!

    Ray and I was not arguing against the mathematics QFIT talks about, we just tried to extend the math into a "real" world application and the practicality of it!
  • jmpoehler said:
    Alex - It would be easy to prove your theory wrong:

    10 million hands played

    Results:

    0 wins
    10,000,000 loses

    Final analysis = negative expectaction

    Is the above set possible, YES (practical no)!! So you can't possibly ALWAYS WIN!

    Ray and I was not arguing against the mathematics QFIT talks about, we just tried to extend the math into a "real" world application and the practicality of it!

    Well,
    I argue against the mathematics QFIT talks about. I argue that you cannot lose every hand to infinity and I also argue that QFIT cannot prove me wrong in the above setup. He can run Sims until his computer gets on fire but the player’s bank will still converge to +$100. I'm not talking here about Martingale, I am talking here to bet 2% of the hole as long as the bankroll is negative. I want 10 millions hands played and I WANT the final player result posted. It has been proven before many times.

    But of course he cannot prove that my system will lose money at the end of 10 million hands. I may make $100 sooner but if I have to play all the way to the end of 10 million hands I will have around +$99 or more.

    I'm looking forward to be proven wrong!
  • Hello Alex...I remember when that device was first available. All the
    engineers and programmers had to have one. Hex was the latest
    way of looking at binary numbers and I had to give in to the children.

    Some observations of late on your system:

    Over time, you will arrive at some bet amounts that you can not manage
    and I know that you are aware of that possibility and have taken some
    corrective actions that you deem practical/effective.

    Alternatives:

    Stop loss- Not a good approach because when you get to that point the
    dealer has been winning at an ever increasing rate. Recovery is less likely
    betting less. You reset and start again only to reach that point many times
    for a long term neg. result.

    Split the hole- Same problem, but now your winning at a reduced rate
    and will, once again, arrive at an unmanageable bet.

    Play in short cycles- There are no short cycles; one session continues into
    the next.

    Bet limiting methods- Betting less at strategic points appears effective at
    first glance. Even on paper with short sets this method seems to work, but
    a closer look will show that by reducing the bet by a greater percentage
    than normal, effectively gives back to the house the advantage that one
    gains in the first place. The average bet is reduced and the upper limit is
    controlled, but alas the house wins at the higher bets and you win at the
    lower bets. You rob Peter to pay Paul. You can have a very good win/loss
    ratio and still lose.
    Ray
  • Ray said:
    Hello Alex...I remember when that device was first available. All the
    engineers and programmers had to have one. Hex was the latest
    way of looking at binary numbers and I had to give in to the children.


    Hi Ray,
    Well, I have a collection of those HP calculators. The best one is HP-15C. I purchased this calculator new in 1986 while attending college but I have 10C, 11C, 12C and 16C models too. The 15C is doing complex numbers and matrix calculations too, is a marvel of engineering. I love it!


    Anyway, I agree with you 100% on BJ subject!

Howdy, Stranger!

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