KY121 said:i have to say his system worked like a charm today. i played for 6 hours and left up $765 and was comped a $90 meal
for the 1st 2 hours my girlfriend calculated the next bet on paper b/c it got rather confusing. however, the pit boses came eventually came over and said there is NO tracking what so ever so we couldnt record anything.
my highest bet was $46 but i do not know the win/loss %.
i really think this idea will work, but i think you need to reevaluate your hole every so often and readjust to how bad the cards are.
KY121 said:sorry i didnt put more details. i was exhausted from the drive home. but anyway it was 6 deck s17. $10 minimum. so i started at $50 hole and used 20%. i was -$230 when i bet $46.
what i didnt understand until last night is that you have to REevaluate after each and every hand. also i am going to set a stop loss point if the count is really bad. i havent decided what i will put it at yet.
i played at mostly full tables, usually 4-5 people. at one point there were 5 of us and 2 of the older guys and the dealer started making fun of all my $12 and $14 bets. all in good fun. other than the pit boss problems the dealers were cool with all my bets..
KY121 said:Alex,
i dont see how you can figure how many hands you have played while counting and calculating your hole.
But anyway, i just returned from a 5 hour session. it was a grind but i ended up $215. i was playing $10 table most of the night and some $25. at the $25 table there was a guy betting table max just about every time, $2500. so that was fun to watch.
i did not use the 20% strategy the entire time. i counted alot as well..
Grifter said:Alex Wrote:
Well, how many times in your BJ career have you encountered an hour of play in which casino had an edge >= 16%?
I assume you mean how many times have you had a WP of </= 42% for 100 hands.....<u>The answer is hundreds of times, and all of the people here who play on a regular basis here will tell you the same thing. It is not that unusual for this to occur over 100 hands; and conversely, it is not that unusual to have a WP of 53-54% over a short span of 100 hands.
AlexD30 said:Of course you are correct. My point is you are not always correct. Never happen with me. Im playing BJ for over 25 years and I never encountered a casino edge >= 16% per 100 hands. But I'm ready to deal with. Im always over 42% in winning hands. :
Grifter said:KY - Yep, it happens to everyone who actually plays in casinos. The last really bad one I remember was last fall playing up at Midnite's local casino. Lost 40 units in less than an hour, basically flat betting. I figured it up later and my WP for those hands was about 29%......Grif'
AlexD30 said:Im telling you guys that I never been in less than 45% per short run in an hour since I start playing different than basic strategy recommends I have no reason whatsoever to make up a story like this. The most I ever lost as far as I remember was 45/55 and this is very rarely indeed. .............The way I play, I get a steady win rate better than 47% vs. 53%. That includes double downs and BJ all together (single win = 1, single loss = -1, win double = 2, lose double = -2 and BJ = 1.5) The 6% against me is the worse ever. My betting will easily break it.
Grifter said:[quote=AlexD30]Im telling you guys that I never been in less than 45% per short run in an hour since I start playing different than basic strategy recommends I have no reason whatsoever to make up a story like this. The most I ever lost as far as I remember was 45/55 and this is very rarely indeed. .............The way I play, I get a steady win rate better than 47% vs. 53%. That includes double downs and BJ all together (single win = 1, single loss = -1, win double = 2, lose double = -2 and BJ = 1.5) The 6% against me is the worse ever. My betting will easily break it.
Ray said:The fact that you don't double this or that does not alter your win rate, it alters your variance and EV,but not your win rate.
Ray
Ray said:I'm talking about win rate in terms of number of hands and this is
different from win rate in dollars. Doubles give you the greater
potential to win money only and do not add to your hand win rate.
The 42% rate is determined by a sim of flat betting and playing
perfect basic strategy for all hand types over millions of hands.
If basic strategy tells you to hit,stand,double or split thats what
you do and the result is the hand win rate.
Ray
KY121 said:i think the major discrepancy is Alex is talking in terms of $$$ while everyone else is talking in terms of ACTUAL wins/losses.
However, in either terms I still find it hard to believe you have never seen less than 45%
Ray said:Alex- Last winter around XMAS I had a 4 hr session that my win rate
could not have been over 20% and at the time I told Midnite about
the session....cried on his shoulder. I also had a push rate that must
have been close to 20%. The high push rate is the only thing that kept
me in the game at all. This went on for maybe 3hrs without getting any
better and I finally just gave it up and went home. No system will beat
that type of game. It was just bad luck and it can and will occur........
I think what all of us would like to see you do is to lay out your system
step by step and give us the exact reasons for steps. It seems like we
have a moving target and are only looking at parts depending on the day
of the week. Example: holes which one is it and at what % and why. If
it changes, then what is the logic for the change. B/S variation: reasons/
logic would help here as well. Don't worry about bet amounts and how
that may apply to others. We or at least some of us would like to see
the completed product, start to finish.
Ray
Anyway, I've reached 40 hours for this week and I'm a little over $2,500 and very exhausted too.
Nickels_n_Bullets said:42 50 8 45.65% 54.35% 8.70% -0.446% 2500 -11
43 50 7 46.24% 53.76% 7.53% 0.723% 2500 18
42 51 7 45.16% 54.84% 9.68% -1.427% 2500 -36
These selected from your post: Blackjack averages in the long run near these.
The situation for 43 49 8 or 42 49 9 is not in your runs.
Win1 said:AlexD30 wrote:Anyway, I've reached 40 hours for this week and I'm a little over $2,500 and very exhausted too.
Alex:
Congratulations on your 40 hr effort. If anyone can play 40 hrs in Vegas and win consistently like that IMHO I think it's outstanding. I have been reading your posts with great interest and as you know I have done some number crunching with some real Bac results. These show a positive outcome using your approach. I'm still digesting the info that you provided and I'm looking forward to playing using your approach. The local casino here has $10 min so I'm trying to come up with the proper 'hole' for that situation.
When in Vegas I try to play where they offer LS. I take it that where you were playing they didn't offer LS. Do you think it would make much of a positive difference playing with LS.
:?:
As far as some of the posts dissecting your comments to the enth degree, I'm surprised they aren't focusing on the final result...making money...isn't that why we're doing this.
:wink:
Regards,
Win1
Nickels_n_Bullets said:What I'm getting at is the range of w/l associated with long-term Blackjack didnot occur in your run. Some are close but no cigar. Notice that the best 2 you have:
42 50 8 45.65% 54.35% 8.70% -0.446% 2500 -11
43 50 7 46.24% 53.76% 7.53% 0.723% 2500 18
Ones a winner and ones a loser.
Second, vaiance was ignored, as the same amount of wins and loses produced the same outcome. This is NOT the case in Blackjack. some wins are double, some losses are double, and some wins are 1.5x. If this were simulated for Blackjack and its inherent variances, I would NOT expect the same numbers of w/l to generate the same financial gain/loss. It would vary.
Quite frankly, these results are off-topic, as you are simulating a coinflip, with the ties being due to landing upon a thick edge. They DO NOT represent the game of blackjack.
Grifter said:Alex - Again, stop dodging and simply respond to the issue. Nickels did not say you fabricated your numbers....He said they do not "represent the game of blackjack"; and he is absolutely correct!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!