YEP-
I HAVE USED wALTERS' PROGRESSION MANY TIMES AND OFTEN DONE QUITE WELL WITH IT-AND IT IS FUN,ALOT EASIER ON THE BRAIN THAN COUNTING,AND OFTEN VERY PROFITABLE. LATELY I TEND TO USE IT IF MY BANKROLL ISN'T LARGE ENOUGH TO COUNT WITH. IN FACT LAST WEEK I WENT TO THE CASINO 3 DAYS RUNNING USING HIS PROGRESSION AND WON ALL 3 TIMES-NOW THANKS TO THE PROGRESSION AND THE BLACKJACK GODS I HAVE ENOUGH BANKROLL TO COUNT AGAIN. BEST OF LUCK TO ALL.
PROG

Liezel said:

Grifter, my betting string is starting at 100-150-200-250 is this strategy to risky or is it okay?

- No, it is not "too risky" in my opinion.....Walt's progression is a very conservative one.
- Variance is slightly higher than flat betting (because of the chop effect), but not nearly as high as counting.
- I'm sure you know that the WT Prog will not improve your EV, but it will not lower it either. Generally, you should expect to have small losses, with an occasional big win.
- Something to think about.....I have had good success using it as a cover with a count.

Regards.....Grifter

Thanks Grifter.

Does anyone know the odds of winning at least a certain amount of % using the WT in my above example? I'll have $1k bankroll and want to start using 100-150-etc.... why is this not risky to do eventhough 10x is all I have? 10 losses in a row and I'm wiped out! Also, how come I shouldnt' expect big losses but only SMALL losses but big wins? That sounds better to me :)

.liezel.

You must use the quit point. This is a key part of Walter's Prog.

Four losses in a row and you walk. Walter did say you could hang around a little longer off the top of the shoe.

I agree progressions are a long term loser.

I have used them and won big on occasion

Liezel - My mistake and sorry if I mislead you!!!........I only meant that WT Progression wasn't too risky to play, even at the $100 level......BUT you have to have the bankroll to back it up; and Ray's suggested $6K is a sensible one.

Sorry I missed your BR amount.........With $1,000 you should be playing it at about $10-$15-$20-$25.

Grifter

But you guys that seems toooooooooooooooo much for such little amount of action. $10 table for having $1000? That seems too much to have and $400 is already 40x the table min. which is the recommended neway rite? Anyway like I said in my 1st post.... I like doing it at $100 a hand with the walter prog cuz I can get quick wins even with only $1000 and winning streaks can always and easily occur... i know the amount isn't that much but it beats dragging down in a casino for several hours.......the way im doing it is for a quick punch! You know what i mean? hehehe :)

-LieZeL- ^_^

Grifter can say things in five words.....it takes me a page. The best
chance for Liezel to double his money based on his strong risk tolerance
is to walk up to the table and bet the $1000 on one hand. It's almost
50/50, actually 47.5.

Sigh but that takes too long!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And like I said I dont like to spend several hours juggling around! Also, I dont understand the deal with having enough bankroll.... BTW RAY I AM A GIRL!I've seen too many people play at $100 or more and I've never seen them have $6000 or $600 at a $10 table... and those people do fine... is it really that big of a risk that I am doing?

Liezel- And a very brave girl at that.....If you're just playing for fun
and are loose as a goose, can afford the loss that may come your way,
go to it. What does it matter what I are anyone else thinks? We don't
pay the rent...............................

I think part of the problem is that "most" of us are card counters. And we realize that if we are playing at a $10 table, that is not going to be our typical bet. For example, in a 6D shoe, my big bet would be $200 at a $10 min table (1-20 spread). As you might imagine, it is easy to drop 800 bucks on one round. 4 splits, or one split and 2 doubles, or any mix of that, and you have _big_ bucks riding. And if you lose, and you only have $1000, you are not going to play much longer. And if you don't play, you aren't going to be able to recoup that big loss.

I played a very good DD game last week and lost over $600 in 30 minutes, spreading $5-$40. If I were betting with a $25 min bet, that would have been a $3000 beating in 30 minutes.

Now if you are just flat-betting, or playing a minimal progression where you will never bet 8x or 20x your min bet, such a bankroll is not that important. But for a card counter that realizes that the flux happens mainly on big counts and big bets, a substantial bankroll is the only way to win. Because you can't bounce back once you are broke.

If the name of the game is comps, then anything will work. But remember, playing _perfect_ BS, the risk of ruin is 100%, period. Because the basic game of 21 is a negative expectation game. Hoping to win small before losing big seems illogical, sorry.

Let’s clear the air with some facts…..
- For the non-counter, flat betting is not the only way to play….Conservative progressions like Walter’s, Dahl, New York, etc. are viable alternatives if you are a recreational player who does not want to count.
- Progressions like the ones mentioned do not increase your loss rate. They play at the same expected value as flat betting.

I am not advocating progressions or dissing them, just trying to dispel the implication that anyone who does not count is a “dummy”……I would estimate that less than 2% of the members of this forum are actual counters; and most are here simply to learn more about all forms of blackjack……..Including questions about how to play without counting.

Trivia Question for SSR – What percentage of the total blackjack players at any given time in Las Vegas are actually playing with a count?

Grifter

"Progressions like the ones mentioned do not increase your loss rate"

Sims of various basic players (flat, flat with quit points, progressions)
all come in at -0.567, -0.577, -0.579,etc per $100 bet.

The only real difference is the money loss is much higher for the
progession player(due to a higher ave bet)


But, what about the very short term. Can you apply the same EV?
In my opinion the answer is yes, but only in theory. In the short term
random chance(luck,SD,etc) is a very big consideration. We all know
that given the HA and some BR we can determine our chances for
some period of playing time. I think in the short term our chances are
very close to a coin toss 50/50 or 47.5/52.5.

On page 126 in Renzey's Bluebook II he talks about luck under set
conditions and even when we are the underdog winning is not out of
the question.

Grifter: Very small percentage. I only recognized 3 counters playing in Vegas for 8 days. Including a half-day at Laughlin. So yes, the number is small. Considering the hours I played, well over 30 (not counting all the scouting and looking), that is a pretty small number. I will add that I didn't play much in the way of shoe games, where the big-bucks counters often hang out.

I don't believe non-counters are "dummies" at all. But I'd like to see 'em become counters and play with a real edge.

BTW, I slightly disagree with your progression statement. A progression will definitely increase a player's average bet over flat-betting the table min. And an increase in average bet increases the loss rate by definition since the game expectation is unchanged. If by loss "rate" you mean the number of hands you win or lose, I agree. But I generally compute "rate" as EV * average bet, and anything that raises the latter raises the rate.


I hope I didn't sound condescending to anyone. It wasn't intended. I just want to see people walk into a casino and walk back out with more than they arrived with. Yes I know that without all the non-counters, the games would dry up quickly. But 99.999% of the blackjack-playing public will never visit a blackjack message board. I'd like to see our .001% of the players become winners. :)

Remember that "self-perpetuity" is an important concept. If the pit can convince management that "those damned counters are really dropping our hold" then they appear to be more important to the bottom line if they are supposedly "skilled at catching counters." Griffin operates exactly the same way. People will spend a great deal of money defending against a grossly over-stated threat, if they are convinced that the threat is real...

Walter,
Is there any advantage or disadvantage considering the number of decks? My local casino offers double deck and 6-deck with good rules. Just wondering if you have a preference.

Thanks, Ray. I was thinking there was some advantage and that makes sense to me. I have been dabbling with progressions a while, but after playing regularly two or three years I am considering learning advantaged techniques. I plan to practice an unbalanced count and get confident with that.

I think there may be a misunderstanding with buy in vs BR. If you
are betting $50 you can buy in at various amounts. This is not critical,
but your overall session BR is critical. When Walter says he may play
as he indicated, you can be sure that his BR is in relation to his risk.

YES- But lets wait and let Walter tell you..............

Decided to "gamble it up" using Walter's progression last night.

I used 50,75,100,125. I used the four loss quit point... I would always start back at 50 for a new shoe and reset my loss counter. In other words I would treat each new shoe as if I just sat down.

Anyway... Lost 24 units (1200) over about 3 hours of table time split up over 3 different pits. :shock:

As of today I think I will add some time to my practice sessions learning KISS III on CVBJ :)

Walter – Nothing you said above changes anything. It does not matter if you choose to put a personal stop loss on your individual cruises, because those individual cruises are cumulative.

This fact remains……If you want to be protected from risk of ruin with your progression using a $100 minimum bet over four hours of play (consecutive or cumulative) you need a minimum bankroll of between $6,000 (Ray/Grifter calcs) and $8,000 (your published minimum).

Grifter

You play at the wrong places. I see people buy in for $1000-$2000 at $100 min tables all the time. I _rarely_ play at a $100 table, because as a counter, spreading _greatly_ increases my ROR.

Arnold posted a sim somewhere in the past that clearly showed that over 100 sessions, a counter should expect to come out ahead almost all of the time. But in this sim, there was a period of 17 consecutive sessions where the counter was playing out of a hole, that is he had lost and continued to lose/win over 17 consecutive sessions, where he never got back to his original bankroll. Eventually he did of course. But these long losing streaks overall can be killers. And if you don't have the bankroll to keep playing, you can't be a long-term winner since the short-term will, on occasion, totally wipe you out. And if you can't come up with more money to continue playing, you are just stuck...

That's where ROR, Kelly betting, etc comes into play, to prevent you from reaching a point so low that you are out of action before you are able to recover from a loss streak...

You can play any limit you want, with any session bankroll you want, but if you are not careful, you will go bust almost every time and no matter how well you play/count, you can't win if you can't plunk down a bet. :)

CVCX is the way to see this, and CVBJ has a good set of calculators to help you figure out what you need to play at some min bet level..

You can give yourself a good chance of winning at the table or be like
95% of all players and give yourself little or no chance. If every single
player played perfect BS and came to the casino with the correct BR,
blackjack would soon fade into history. The profit margin for corporate
America would be too small..........Ray

Hello?? ANYBODY HERE??? :shock: :idea:

:arrow: ~LieZeL~

No I didn't... sorry can you do it again? I haven't gotten anything from you in a long time... please send again, thanks. I sent you a PM.

~LieZeL~