Buffarino said:Now you're gonna take your ball and go home?
:roll:
AlexD30 said:[quote=Buffarino]Now you're gonna take your ball and go home?
:roll:
Ray said:Alex- I understand the theory behind your system and to be fair to you,
I will agree that in theory it will overcome some large house advantages.
You have demonstrated that it can overcome a 6:4 disadvantage in clear
terms and I agree with the results. However, I don't beleive that we can
implement your method in any practical way. I'll do my best to explain:
Take the case of 40% of 25: If you start off with your sequence being
4 wins followed by 6 loses you will quickly be below the min $5 bet and
forced to flat bet $5 or return to the $25 dollar level. In both cases the
outcome is altered. Also you will find that you have a need to make very
strange bets, like 2.75 or 11.25 which is not in your best interest. Further,
you don't have much money in the game, your bets are too small and
you wasting a lot of time for a very small payoff possibility. Add to all that your need to do all these mental calc's. Not a practical implementation.
Taking all of that into consideration, I changed to 40% of 100 and started
off with the six loses. At the top I was betting $301 and started to think
about BR and the possibility of one of those 4 card splits with a couple of
doubles. I can well understand why you would want to temper basic to
eliminate some of the risk. The business of strange bets is another thing
that would have me going as well as the dealer and pit.
At best I'll say your system works in theory, but implementation does not appear likely in my opinion.
Ray
Ray said:Alex- correct me if I'm wrong. Your at a table at the start of a shoe and
start your bet at some percentage of the hole and continue in the usual
way. How do you know when the odds change, good or bad? If you're a
card counter you have some good information that may support some
judgement. But, consider the task at hand: You're keeping tract of the
hole status, plus or minus, you're doing some math to determine the bet
amount, you're playing your hand, you're assessing the game odds and
your counting cards. If you can do all of that, you're a better man than I am by far. This is what I mean by practical implementation. In theory a
martingale appears to be the best possible answer to BJ because you
effectively eliminate loses and leave only the wins. Sounds good, but as
we know implementation is another thing.
I know how your system works and you don't have to explain. There is
nothing wrong with the theory.....it works. Rounding to the nearest $$
doesn't help much. I think you need to round to the nearest $5 and
have the current bet act as a storage device that is incremented base
on a win or a loss and thus eliminates the need to track the hole amount.
If it were me I think I'd base the design on a hole of 80 @ 33% which
produces a good average bet, but does not go too high when you have a
losing streak.
Just some thoughts Alex and I'll say right off that simplification may not
be possible and still maintain the accuracy of the method.
Ray
You setup a betting percentage increase/decrease of say 20%. Start your first bet at 5. If you lose then your next bet will be 6, that is a 20% increased from previous. If you win then you start over from beginning with another 5. Now, let?s say you lose the second bet again, your next bet will be 7.5 that is a 20% increase from the previous 6. You lose again, next bet will be 9, that is an increase of 20% from the previous 7.5. Lose again, the next bet is 11 that is 20% increase from the previous 9. This is the equivalent of keeping a hole and calculating everything from there. Yes, the bet is to be considered as a storage/counter that gets increased or decreased by 20% that is a function if you won or lost the previous hand.
Win1 said:AlexD30 wrote:You setup a betting percentage increase/decrease of say 20%. Start your first bet at 5. If you lose then your next bet will be 6, that is a 20% increased from previous. If you win then you start over from beginning with another 5. Now, let?s say you lose the second bet again, your next bet will be 7.5 that is a 20% increase from the previous 6. You lose again, next bet will be 9, that is an increase of 20% from the previous 7.5. Lose again, the next bet is 11 that is 20% increase from the previous 9. This is the equivalent of keeping a hole and calculating everything from there. Yes, the bet is to be considered as a storage/counter that gets increased or decreased by 20% that is a function if you won or lost the previous hand.
Alex:
There's one point I want to make sure I'm clear on. When we have a string of losses and then have some wins to get us into some profit, do we still continue betting the progression in steps all the way back down to to our 5 starting point?
For example, we work our way up to say 18. We then work our way back down to say 11 and at that point we show a profit. Do we then bet 9, 7.5, 6 and then 5 as we are winning? Or do we drop back to the 5 starting point when we show a profit?
I'm crunching some numbers on some Bac data and I want to make sure I'm doing it right.
Regards,
Win1
:wink:
phineas said:isn't this really just based on the labouchere principle that the series must end eventually, because fewer larger bets will cancel out the more numerous smaller ones?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!