Hit or Stand blackjack game Learn blackjack strategy while you play
 Home   The Game   Rules & Strategy   Online Casinos   Blackjack Books   Links 

Message Board Upgrades!

This message board has just been upgraded to use more modern forum software. You may no longer post on this page. Please use the link to your right.
Select page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]




BuGhOužeMASTER No problem sld :) Yes, and just to add to what sld's knowledge provided: JUST BECAUSE Dahl's progression says to go all the way up and ONLY if you make it all the way up to stay at the highest level (i.e. 6x, dont know the exact level since that's very rare anyway) until you lose (obviously you WILL lose eventually), doesn't mean you have to do that. Like what sld said, what is MORE REALISTIC in BJ or any gambling game is short streaks, so his 007 is actually better for the more common shortstreaks that frequently arise. 2003-08-04 11:56:11
sld007 Bug - thank you for capturing the essence of what I had previously posted. coug fan - yes I play a positive progression. I must disagree with your statement "About the only correct statement would be that the only way to win at BJ is to avoid negative variance." Obviously, at its most basic point this is true for all gambling; however, what my experience in ACTUAL play has taught me is that 50% of the time it goes back and forth, 25% of the time I lose at least three in a row and 25% of the time I win at least three in row. It may not be real scientific, but if you flat bet when you are losing and increase AS YOU WIN (regardless Mr. Renzey whether the next hand has anything to do with the previous hand...it DOES happen in the REAL world that way), then you WILL come out ahead in the long run. My 007 progression (x,x,2x,2x,3x,3x,4x,4x, and back to x) has the added advantage over Dahl of letting you win bigger in the short streaks while not getting hammered with the 6 or 7 unit loss, like Dahl's or even Renzey's spread to 6 units. 2003-08-04 11:50:49
BuGhOužeMASTER I am in full agreement with Mr. Thomason, žLd and Coug Fan. If progressions work for individual A and that person has maintained the upperhand vs. the house for all their entirety of BJ playing than they obviously positive progressive betting is perfectly fine, especially for them since they are up against the house, whether or not it depends on the last hand, like Renzey says. While that might be true, the whole idea of a positive progression is to SOLIDIFY your streak winnings and to avoid the mass betting of, i.e. 50 units on a hand, to either get back all your LOSINGS (cuz you didn't know how to bet anyway) in a current session, or, to win as MUCH as you can solely on pure "luck" since that is what these non-progression based betters are doing! By playing a positive progression, you are solidifying your winnings at a particular time that you have nice streaks going, as opposed to haphazardly betting away, hoping to get "lucky" at winning the big bet. 2003-08-04 11:27:07
Coug Fan Walter - You are correct that after a number of instances where you see a correlation, this MAY indicate causality. The next step is to form a hypothesis and subject it to some form of analysis. Computers can simulate some pretty complex things. There is no reason to assume that computers cannot simulate the shuffling and dealing of cards. You'll have to forgive card counters. Most come from an analytical background, and prefer to base their decisions on computer simulations of 1 billion or more hands. Personally, I would not base any decision on anything less than a simulation of 10 billion hands. 80,000 hands is statistically insignificant. That being said, it is incorrect to say that the only way you can win money at BJ is to count cards. About the only correct statement would be that the only way to win at BJ is to avoid negative variance (aka bad luck). The difference is that you can win by counting cards and avoiding "bad luck". If you do not count cards, then you actually need to experience "good luck". The variance in this game is high enough that it is possible to have a full career where the impact of "luck" is greater than the impact of theoretical advantage or disadvantage. 2003-08-04 10:46:33
Coug Fan SLD- Do you play a positive or a negative progression? I believe that positive progressions tend to decrease session win % and negative progressions tend to increase session win %. Of course, theoretically, neither has any impact on the overall expected value of your play. 2003-08-04 10:37:39
sld007 renzey and lurker - "To the fella with the 63% win rate progression. You've had this session win rate over the past 10 years? That has me respectfully curious as to how many total hours it includes and whether it has provided a net gain." Yes that was me who comes out ahead 63% of the time. Total hours? well I play about once a month for 4-6 hours each day for two days, so over 10 years that's about 120 hours/year so 1200 hours. I know renzey... it's hard to believe that a noncounter can do that. And my average winnings are not that large (500-1000 on avg bet of 25 to 50), but it is the gods honest truth. Also, I am very curious about your suggestion to increase the bet to 3 and then 6 units simply because there are alot of Aces and tens left. You see, going from 50/hand to 300/hand simply because there's a better chance of Aces and tens left to me is lunacy. Why not go safe and slow and progress up to 3 or 4 units instead of getting hammered because the dealer got the Ace 10 instead of you and NOW YOU are in the big hole trying to dig out of when you are 10 or 20 units down! 2003-08-04 08:40:38
Walter Thomason Fred (Renzey): I beg to differ with your blanket statement about how you must play to be a long-term winner at blackjack. Seems that after 80,000 hands of play, profit/loss patterns become credible, meaning that if a player is ahead of the game and employing some betting system (such as card counting or progressive betting) then it's likely that the system employed is causing the positive results. After five years of Positive Progressive betting and FAR more than 80,000 hands of play, I'm ahead of the game. I know several other players who claim long-term success using progressions. And while there might be a few successful long-term counters, few experts will deny that 99% of players are long-term losers -- including those that count cards. You are an exception to the rule as a card counter: You're ahead of the game after years of play. So am I, as a progressive bettor. 2003-08-04 08:17:11
Walter Thomason Bug: Re. your Dahl question: Bets are raised or lowered based upon the net result of the round of play. 2003-08-04 08:01:38
A Novice Mr. Renzey- Interesting word "counting", your saying if a person does not count cards they will not be able to beat this game? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I'm reading into your last post. Yes,I can handle the truth.Thank you for your expert opinions and sharing your knowledge upon this site, you are truly a class act. 2003-08-04 07:26:09
Renzey On Bug's progression question: It really doesn't make any difference whether you bet 1 unit or 10 in that situation if you don't know what your odds to win that next upcoming hand are. And those odds have virtually nothing to do with the previous outcome. Sizing the next bet according to the last result is placing importance on the irrelevant. All streaks of a specific length are in the past. If a streak of 4 becomes a streak of 5, it does so by blind chance. That 5th bet will win only as often as all other bets. 2003-08-04 07:21:21
BuGhOužeMASTER Um, someone care to answer me about my Dahl's question in my longass post below? 2003-08-03 23:00:17
Doc Mr Renzey, great insight. I've just now started to look into poker and am intrigued by the psychological factor that is inherent to be a winner. Unfortunatly my best skills in life have always been retrospective, that is being able to look at the results of an incident and being able to say, here is what is present and here is what has probably happened. With BJ and poker you are going to have to be able to act in the present. Thanks to your advice and the help of the 'players' on this board I've been able to break through on blackjack, to a point where I know where I stand in a casino and can give them a run for the money. We'll see with poker. Desert Dog, as always you hit the mark with the discipline issue, it comes down to a point where you have to have a concrete understanding of 'where you are' as opposed to where you 'hope' you can be, your 'hope' cannot ever exceed your knowlege of what the odds of the game are, if it does you lose your 28 dollars. 2003-08-03 21:30:25
Renzey To Okohiored: First off, blackjack positively can be beaten! There are people who do it year in and year out, except for an occasional "year from hell". But they're not doing it with progressions. They're doing it with card awareness (some form of tracking the availability of high vs. low cards, aka "counting"). As for Texas Hold'em? Yes, a real good player can win there too, same as in 7 Card Stud. But be advised, poker is infinitely deeper than blackjack due to its psychological elements. I play both equally often and am sometimes asked by blackjack players, How long would it take me to become a winning poker player. I usually answer, "It'll take 500 to 1000 hours to find out if you have the psychological makeup for it". When a poker player asks how long it would take to become a winning blackjack player, I say that in 100 to 200 hours he should be playing a winning game -- IF -- he learns the right stuff. In poker, your overhead is the "rake". To win, you must outplay your opponents by a margin which exceeds that amount (typically about $15 to $20 per hour). You never quite know whether you're playing well enough to do that. All you'll ever have is your track record, since the strength of your opposition varies and whatever superior skills they may have are obscured from your understanding (otherwise, you'd have those skills too). And any track record shorter than 1000 hours is not dependable. Now blackjack on the other hand is entirely mathematical. Because of that, you always know when you're playing with the upper hand (assuming you're not being cheated). Plus, playing correctly is much easier since there are no off the cuff psychological evaluations to be made. Learning to play winning poker is a lifelong endeavor - you never know it all, and there's always some new hotshot who's got the moves to outplay you. In blackjack, you learn the program and you're there - albeit by a very narrow margin. 2003-08-03 17:22:08
okohiored I am thinking since BJ can not be beaten that the real casino game to make money is HoldEM where casino has no interest in game except rake and it is lots of bluff and knowledge of possibilitys on a reckless game with either big payoffs or losses.Just back from a wild three day mini vacation .Charley Daniels concert and a wild mud field poker run in logan wv.Anyone got any thoughts on Holdem .Biggest game I have played so far is 20-40 and that can be some sizable pots.Maybe beginners luck but am winning so far. 2003-08-03 16:15:53
Desert Dog Mike, we all have lapsed discipline stories, but your lapse was mild. It looks like you just ended up losing what your original loss limit was anyway. It would have been really "dorky" to reach into your pocket and chase it. It's human nature to only learn by getting stung. Fortunately in your case, not badly. The lesson I've learned from similar experiences is that after an up and down slugfest, just be happy with clawing back to breakeven. I'm guessing your normal bet at the table you played most of the evening wasn't green, so that was the point at which your discipline left you when you put it out there at the table that sidetracked you on the way to the cage. And then of course the two let it rides after that. But it was all within your loss limit, so don't kick yourself like a mule. 2003-08-03 13:13:43
Desert Dog I meant to insert the "grin" symbol after my question in parentheses, but I just discovered the software here ignores anything inside pointed brackets. So read this (g) in after the question mark. 2003-08-03 12:21:59
Desert Dog Exactly the information I was looking for, Fred. Thanks. Since 22 tens on the table all at once is an impossibility, that makes it clear: double on 11 vs 10 no matter how many 10's are sitting out on there. (Should I send the casino a check for the money I should have lost Friday on those two hands ?) In your book the only exception I found is at p.205 -- if you're counting and the true count is minus 15, then hit 11 vs 10 rather than double. But that's a negative count you should have walked away from before it got to that point anyway. 2003-08-03 12:19:02

prev page | next page