Systems 101 - A Primer

It dawned on me while reading a message board that there are a lot of beginner-level players out there searching the web for some useful information and often unable to follow the threads because the more experienced players seem to be writing in code.

I thought I'd begin a thread design for the entry-level gambler looking for a system to play. You will not find any systems in this thread only basic information. You will also not find the rules of play here. If you will check other threads within this blog, I have recommended some books for the beginner (and intermediate) player.

BS v MM

I think a good place to start is the distinction between bet selection and money management. Simply put, Bet Selection systems (BS) tell the player where to place the next bet (like on red, or player, or passline for example). Money Management (MM) systems tell the player how much to bet on the next decision.

Most systems are mathematical templates that tell the player when to bet, where to bet and how much to bet. Typically systems are designed for Even Chance or 50/50 decisions (EC).

The House Edge

It should come as no surprise that ALL Casino games have a built in house edge. This is the amount of money one can expect to lose by playing the game. The edge is determined by the difference between the true odds and the payout. A simple example is playing one number straight up in roulette. If you place one unit on the 17 and the 17 hits, you are paid 35 to 1. You receive 36 units (comprised of your original bet and 35 of the house's chips, now might be a good time to stop playing). Because there are 38 numbers on an American roulette wheel, you have a one in 38 chance of winning a bet that pays 35 to 1. If true odds were paid, you would be paid 37 house units instead of 35. The house edge changes from game to game, but this simple illustration would be true for every single bet you can place in the casino. Some people win, some people lose but the casino ALWAYS wins, just look at the casino and this fact should be plainly evident.

MATH and TESTING

It is widely claimed and typically accepted that math proves that systems do not work. It seems that with thorough testing, all that one can hope for is to break even (or more accurately, to break even less the house edge).

There are system testers available for system's players to test their theories against actual casino results. (see another thread in this blog for links to purchase testers). The idea behind testing is that if your system can beat the testers, then it should perform strongly under real circumstances. It should seem obvious that if you can not beat the testers, you system has a good chance of failing in the casino.

Is there hope? If math brings you to the conclusion that systems will not win and the testers are nearly impossible to beat, is there hope for developing a successful strategy? Many successful players claim that some systems perform reliably in the short run and the key to winning in the long run is changing systems to respond to the game as you play it. Testing several systems which are triggered by (sometimes) subtle changes in the game is a very difficult task. Therefore, it is plausible that a successful systems player could win in the long term by making changes that would not be easily duplicated in the tester books (like leaving the table in search of a more lively one for example).

LONG RUN v. SHORT RUN

It is important to understand that series of random events tend to perform in accordance with their expected mathematical probabilities in the long run BUT rarely do in the short run. If an event has a near 50% likelihood of occurring (like the "player" winning a hand at baccarat for example), then if you looked at a large sample (like 1,000 decisions) you would probably find the even occurs very close to 50% of the time. This can be relied upon in the long run. However, it might be unwise to bet in anticipation of a 50% occurrence in the short run (like the next 6 decisions for example).

There is another concept to throw into the mix. That is the "standard deviation", but for this "beginner level" primer, I do not think it is necessary to go into how it works, Just be aware that when looking at a set of decisions, they can be expected to perform "close to" their expectation and there is a mathematical way to determine how "close to" the expectation would be normal (or at what point the numbers would be abnormal) and this is called the standard deviation.

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

FTL = Follow The Last. This is a bet selection system that simply means your next bet is that the last decision will repeat. If red hits on roulette, your next bet is on red.

OLD = Opposite Last Decision. This of course is the opposite of FTL, if red hits on Roulette, your next bet should be black.

DBL = Decision Before Last. Here you would bet the same as the decision before the last decision. This simple Bet Selection system has the benefit of breaking up streaks that could work against you. (I'll try to come back and present an example of this here later.)

more later . . .

The Arsenal

It has been said that in order to defeat the casino, one should have an arsenal of weapons. I like this concept but would say that, at best, we can win the battles and should not concern ourselves too much with the "war."

I'll take a weekend of won battles any day. And I'll take a proportionally appropriate number of lost battles as the "cost of doing business" that they are. As the "war" is ongoing, I like to believe that winning is being ahead, staying ahead, and increasing the gap.

But what is in your arsenal? What weapons do you bring to the table? When do you change weapons and why?

I thought I'd begin a thread dedicated to the theory of effective system play focusing on the change or switching of favorite systems. My plan is to add to or edit this thread over time.

I have suggested in another thread, the idea of playing in a "cycle" and "going for half" of the "cycle." My present thought is that if you had (for example) a system that should perform 63 to 1 (see my O/L/6 system for an example) the cycle is 64 decisions. If you played this system successfully for 32 decisions, you should stop because you have reached the half-way point. My thought is that you would avoid "pushing your luck" by not going past the half-way point. But suppose you want to continue playing, what would you switch to? Which weapon would you retrieve from your arsenal?

It was suggested on a message board (Gamblers Glen), that you might want to switch to betting the opposite of what you were betting. For example, using the O/L/6, you are betting that the most recent 6 decisions will not repeat exactly as they just appeared, after a successful run of half of the cycle, you may want to start betting the opposite of what you are betting (simply switch each bet to the opposite, now betting the same as the 6th prior bet). The idea is that you now begin a new journey where you can expect to win 63 decisions for every loss again going for half of the cycle.

Conservative/Aggressive

A more conservative approach might be to switch systems when you have reached a point in the cycle less than half-way. Like one-third of the way for example, and why not? If you have several weapons in your arsenal and you understand the cycle of expectation and you are "lucky" enough to change regularly, it doesn't seem like it is too much to ask for the casino gods to bless you with a series of victories.

A Simple Example

Think of it this way: In dice, we know that "12 the hard way" (or boxcars) has a likelihood of showing up once in 36 rolls of the dice and that 2 the hard way (snake eyes) is equally unlikely. Suppose we had a scheme to bet against boxcars (betting that boxcars would not show) and we placed this bet successfully 12 times (one third of the expected cycle) then we switched to a scheme to bet against snake eyes for 12 rolls of the dice. We would really get ahead of the game if we were "lucky enough" to see the boxcars appear while we where betting against snake eyes and vice-versa (if we were lucky enough to see snake eyes appear while we were betting against boxcars). Keep in mind that one regular appearance of the nemesis only brings you back to zero (or zero less the house edge). Could you cheat death by switching horses? Would this give you a "better" shot at ending up ahead for the session? For the weekend? For the year?

Please keep in mind that all of this is in theory. Actual play might involve 6 different weapons instead of 2 and each of those 6 may be stronger than my simple O/L/6. And you might find that you can go back and forth between weapons more often than waiting for one-third of the cycle or half. It would make sense that the more weapons you mastered, the more often you could make effective changes.

Recovery

What happens when you lose? I believe that when you are betting against an event that has a 1 in 64 chance of appearing and you lose, you should consider increasing your next series of bets to try to recover some of your losses. However, this can be very expensive.

Here's an example: If you are betting against a 1 in 64 occurrence (like my O/L/6) and you play one third of the cycle, or 21 decisions and suffer a loss, you will find yourself down about 42 units. I would be inclined to bet the same way two or three times with double the basic bet. Three successful runs would recover 6 units and you would be on the road to recovery. I would then revert to my original basic bet and continue with the system to try to recover the rest (instead of switching). At this point I would be betting that a 1 in 64 event would not repeat within a few decisions.

Which Weapons??

I think this is the big question. Which weapons to you bring to the Baccarat table, the roulette wheel, the craps table? and when do you switch weapons?

More Later . . .

The O/L/6 System for Baccarat

“The O/L/6”

Here’s a fresh idea for Baccarat:

Ordinarily, systems are presented with a preliminary explanation of the “why.” I am a firm believer that although all readers would benefit from an understanding of the math and logic and probabilities behind a system, most readers will skip through the explanation of the “why“ and focus their efforts on the “how to.” Unfortunately, the results are that many players will dismiss the system as ineffective without working on it or they will play the system without a thorough understanding of the possibilities and will become prematurely disenchanted when they do not see immediate results. With this in mind, I’ll start by giving you the system, that way you can get on with your gambling, or ridicule or scorn.

This is a simple system of bet selection and progression. Simply bet that the pattern exhibited by the last 6 decisions will not repeat precisely with the next 6 decisions. Hence the name, Opposite Last Six, or O/L/6.

Your first bet is 1 unit and is placed on the opposite decision as the 6th prior outcome. The previous pattern is then bet against and bets are doubled until you win or lose the 6th decision.
When you win, you begin anew. Your first bet after a win is the opposite of the 6th prior decision at that point.

Example: You look at your scorecard and the last 6 decisions are B B P B P P, your next bet will be P and if you lose, then P again and if that bet loses, the next bet is placed on B (following the previous pattern). Continuing this example, your first bet was 1 unit on P, then after a loss you bet 2 units on P, and then after a loss, you bet 4 units on B and you Won. NOW your next bet will be based on the 6 most recent decisions: B P P B B B. Your next bet is one unit on P (opposite of the sixth previous decision which was B).

The highest bet you will have to place is 32 units and a lost series will cost you 63 units.

Here’s the simple math: There are 64 possible combinations in each string of 6 decisions. Each of these 64 possibilities are equally likely. If you chose any particular pattern of 6 decisions, BBBBBB, for example, and you bet a 6-step martingale, you can expect to lose this bet (in a true 50/50 game), once in every 64 attempts (64 groups of 6 decisions). This method (in true 50/50) form would mathematically produce no gain nor loss but rather a regular return to even or zero (or zero less the house edge).
BUT by betting that the last 6 decisions will NOT repeat in precisely the same order, you are betting that an event that has a 1 in 64 likelihood of occurrence will not happen back-to-back.

More "bad math" to think about:

If a shoe gives you and average of 68 decisions, and if you sit out the first sixand if you then bet as I have outlined above you can expect to win one unit about every three decisions, when winning. This should be about 20 units per shoe.

So - in 5 shoes you should win about 100 units (without a loss). IF (and here's a big if) - IF you lose only once in five shoes, then you will be set back 64 units and your net will be 36 units for 5 shoes or 7+ units per shoe.

NOW - any of you with notes from actual shoes - please take a moment and look for a pattern of 6 decisions immediately followed by the same pattern (not a streak because we decided earlier that we would bet with a streak and not against, so 6 one way followed by 6 the other way would be a loser for us - i.e BBBBBBPPPPPP or PPPPPPBBBBBB = loser).

IF (another big if) - IF you find that a losing pattern shows up more often than one time in five shoes, THEN this system will perform less than 7 units per shoe on average and perhaps it will be a big loser.

BUT if you find that the losing pattern occurs less often than once in five shoes, THEN this system should perform at a rate of more than 7 units per shoe.

I’ve not used this system, but I have run it through some actual shoes and it performs very well in limited testing. If you have any shoes, please take a moment and look for any string of 6 decisions that is followed immediately by the same exact string of 6 decisions (excluding streaks of 12). I want to know if this occurs more often than once in 5 shoes.

Thanks!!

LATER THAT DAY . . .

A friend emailed me the data from 91 shoes with the decisions grouped into columns of 6. This is not how I envisioned checking my theory BUT it did make it easy to sort of spot check the frequency of repeating patterns of 6. I found 11 such occurences in his 91 "real" shoes. This number was closer to the mathematical expectancy than I had hoped. The basic math shows approximately 10 betting opportunities per shoe, with all producing 1 unit gains except the 11 which cost us 64 units (91 x 10 = 910; 11 x 64 = 704; 910 - 704 = 206 unit gain). The average therefore is slightly more than 2 units per shoe not considering commissions. Not nearly what I had hoped for. However, there may be a money management technique that makes better use of the fact that the event is occuring less often than expected.

Message Boards & Forums

Here are a few Message Boards and Forums:

www.gamblersglen.com
http://baccaratforums.com/
www.beatthecasino.com
www.vlsroulette.com

The Star System

I have been reading "From Poorhouse to Penthouse via The Star System" by Dwaine C. Douglas (Island Publishing House - Tavernier, Florida)

I'm not sure of the true history behind this publication. I found it on a list of free gambling systems and I am quite taken by it (the same list I posted here under another thread). You can dowonload and print the 89 page manuscript here:

http://www.roulettesystemreviews.com/freesystems/StarSystem.pdf

The Star System is a conservative money management system created for Blackjack but quite adaptable to bacarrat, craps, and roulette.

I find it appealing because it fits nicely with the direction my research has been heading. Looking for something that seems to work with great reliability even if the winnings are small (i.e. a reliable grind so to speak).

My thought here is that one could employ a system such as this with a minimal bankroll and "snowball" the winnings by increasing the unit value based on the increase in bankroll.

I will continue to write in this thread as I get a better feel for the entire system. I am also looking for message board information from those players who have worked with this money management system.

11/17/08

I have finished the maunscript and have started re-reading (or studying) it. As I said above, the appeal to me is that this system pulls together many of the concepts that I have already embraced. The only thing about this system that I have never really worked with is the parlay or "rider" aspect that the author relies on.

I will need to practice this system a good deal with pen and paper in front of me before I could think of trying it in a casino at a blackjack table where they do not like you to be taking notes. I understand the progression and the recovery stages but I'm quite sure I'm not ready to to employ this method under fire.

I'm not going to explain the system here. Although it could be explained in a few paragraphs, I think the 89 page manuscript is the best way to appreciate the system.

I have also dug up some message board entries from folks who claim to have used this method successfully however, ther seems to be a general reluctance to increase bets into the 2nd recovery set as required. This reluctance has lead to some modified versions that I may elaborate on here at another time.

My plan (at the moment) is to create a scorecard or record-sheet to keep track of the STAR system (sets, sessions, progressions, recoveries etc.) and to practice on a software simulator. If the results are as the author claims, I will try to use the same system at an online casino for real money prior to heading for the real casino. I plan to continue this thread with ideas and to pbulish my progress (or lack thereof) here.

12/5/08

One concern I have about the STAR system as presented in the original manuscript is the sheer range of the size of the bets and bankroll required. I am a firm believer in the idea that a good plan must be well funded, but the STAR has you sitting at a table with $10,000 and placing a first bet in the amount of $10. Furthermore, you need to be willing to bet about $2,400 on a single decision in the worst-case scenario (2nd recovery set). (This estimate is based on a primary bas bet of $50 at a ten dollar table.)

I wonder how many players are willing to play this SYSTEM strictly as devised by Douglas?

12/9/08

My Star Notes on Requirements and Expectations

p.12

Bankroll = $600
Average Bet Size = $6
Total Profit = $4,200 in 108 hours
Profit per hour = $38.89
Unit size (?)

p.18

should lose 1 set per 28
(win 27, lose 1)

p.23

on a $10 table
your first pre-progression bet is $10
your primary base bet is $50
Your highest bet in the progression ladder is $400

p.30

playing blackjack, expect to win .25 per $1 base bet, per hand played
with a primary base bet of $10, you should avg. $2.50 per hand
Bankroll = base bet x 200

If anyone has any advice, please feel free to leave a comment.

All for now . . .

Every Picture Tells a Story

Junket King's Screen Shot - with his explanation:

What you are looking at is the summary sheet fromWin Craps.

The important stuff, as to money, is all onthe left.

First, I always start with a zero balance. That way I am sure to notice the draw downs in stark reality. At the top we see the total rolls and setting it for 55 rolls an hour it tells me how long at a real craps table this should simulate. At a busy table that number could be high but the Casino Manager's Handbook has it over 100 RPH.

Next, on the left, we see Bankroll. It shows how high I got, what my worst draw down was and it computes an average. TheAverage is useless to me.

Next comes the important part."Total number of..." Bets decided = bets which I had working and which weredecided while they worked. In the attached graphic it shows I had a deficit of -193. That's how many bets I lost vs. won. Not impressive, is it? But I was betting box numbers and only one can win at a time. When the 7 shows, all working bets get wiped out. That would be 4-5-6 locations with whatever dollar amount was on each.

Next we have "total amount of..." This is where we see how well a progression can work. Everything is in dollars. You can see that I wagered a total of $15,808. I won $10,024 and lost $8,507. Total net gain is $1517. Now we can divide the hours into the total win and calculatethat I made $63.74 per hour in this instance. What it doesn't show is that when I started I was getting hammered and my $ per hour was hovering at $28-$35 and I was ready to quit. Probably would have it if were a live table. Bottom line is while my bet wins were far exceeded by losses that by applying a progression allowed me to finish in profit.

The draw down (Bankroll: Low) in red - shows the risk I took. That's how much I would have had to dip into my buy-in. Since I use a hefty BR when playing live (or at least hefty to some low rollers) the risk (volatility in this case) is fully acceptable or within normal parameters. It takes money to make money.

Gambling is a business to some of us and we have to structure it like same. The graphic also is centered around a very conservative method. Call it a grind. Were I to use triple my normal BR, my earnings in dollars and the $ per table hour would soar. A larger BR would also allow me to play a bit looser. That would be a plus and a faster earner.

Junket King


Thanks Junket King for the Picture AND the Story.


my friend Scotty at the Horsehose
borrowed without permission
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=132499822&MyToken=a78765aa-2fdb-4e62-9075-bd5afbb79b12



at the bac table in AC
from baccarat_guy
http://smartbaccarat.blogspot.com/


Royal Flush! in AC- Nice!
http://smartbaccarat.blogspot.com/





If any of you have any pictures that tell a story, please let me know. D_Generate

The "Cycle"

THE CYCLE

Part I

Lately I've been focusing my work on a concept I call the "Cycle."

I have posted elsewhere my idea of "going for half" and these two concepts work well together.

I have also written about mathematical expectancy and this is a good place to begin an explanation of the cycle.

All gambling propositions have a probability which can be described in the form of mathematical expectancy. A very simple example would be betting one number, 17 for example, straight up on an American roulette wheel. Since there are 38 numbers on an American roulette wheel, it is said that the probability of the number 17 hitting on the next spin is 1 in 38. The mathematical expectation is that we can "expect" a hit on the number 17 once in 38 spins. The "cycle" for this proposition therefore is 38 spins.

The simple example above is provided merely to illustrate the terminology. The concept becomes a little more complicated when we look at more complex bets, like betting 2 dozens and 2 columns for example, or using progressions.

We all know that the so-called even-money outside bets (like red/black for example) are close to 50/50 propositions. We also know that when you factor in the house edge, your chances of winning any particular "even-money" bet is a little less than 50%. In short, the "odds" are against you or in other words, you are more likely to lose this bet than to win this bet.

We also know that you can place bets that you are more likely to win but that the payoff is less than one to one. For example: Playing 2 columns gives you 24 of 38 chances to win, however the payoff is 1 to 2, you will be wagering two units in hopes of netting one.

My theory about "maximum coverage bets" (and I hope to come up with a better term than that) is that when you employ a progression, your chances of losing your series is drastically reduced.

NONE of this defeats the house edge I remind you. But, I accept that cold fact with all systems.

What I hope to develop here is a way of looking at cycles and maximum coverage bets to allow us to chose bets that will produce small but steady gains with rare losses (which will necessarily be large).

More later . . . .

The Cycle Within a Cycle

Using multiple levels of progression, leads to bigger cycles containing smaller cycles. For example: Suppose your bet was a three step martingale. You are betting on Red and you bet one unit on your first bet, then double after a loss, and again. Your progression is 1 2 4. Each winning series results in a gain of 1 unit. Each losing series results in a loss of 7 units. We know that you can expect to lose a series about once in 8 series. Assuming for this discussion that you are playing a true 50/50 game, a wheel with no house numbers, a wheel with exactly half of the numbers being red. Under these circumstances, you can expect to win 7 series and lose one. This is the first level of progression.

Now suppose you decide to add another level of martingale. After a losing series, your first bet will be 2 and your progression will be 2 4 8. After a win, you will return to your original series.

Now look at the cycle. Y0u have a cycle of 8 series where you can expect to win 7 series and lose one to break even for the cycle. This cycle can be expected to take 24 spins or decisions. By adding the 2nd level martingale, you are increasing your net by +1. IF you experience the mathematical expectancy of a typical cycle, you will end your 24 spins up one unit instead of break even.

OF COURSE, there is another mathematical expectancy of losing back to back series. This other expectancy has another point in a larger cycle where you can expect to be brought back to zero or even (or to a negative amount equal to the house edge) . In the original progression we saw that we can expect to lose one series out of eight. We then added a second level of progression gambling that we would not encounter our one in eight losses back-to-back. How often will that happen? [I have notes elsewhere and I'll return to fill in this gap] This would be the bigger cycle. Eventually, you can expect to be brought back to even (or zero) when the bigger cycle runs its course. By adding yet greater levels of progression you are increasing the size of the cycle and it is my theory that you are increasing the amount of time you can expect to be ahead of the game before being brought back to zero. AND MAYBE - if you have several tactics for stretching out the cycle of expectancy, then you can quit while ahead more often OR change strategies while ahead in the cycle.

More later . . .

The "No Lose" Expectancy

(Which, of course WILL Lose as expected)

As a general illustration of the discussion so far, I offer this example:

For this example, we are playing a wheel which produces 60 decisions an hour. We know that we can develop a system that has an expected loss of one time in 60 decisions. This one loss would be expected to eliminate all winnings from the cycle of 59 wins. If we play this game for only 30 minutes and IF we are ahead at 30 minutes, then we can quit under my notion of "going of half." The question then becomes, of all the 30 minutes sessions that we will play, how many will include the dreaded losing decision. Math would probably tell us half. Real play may show us something different. We know that IF we have one more winning 30 minute session than losing 30 minute session, then we'd be ahead in the big cycle. And if the sessions were kind enough to come evenly spread out, you'd always be only 30 minutes away from being ahead.

If we strip this theory down to it's simplest form, it becomes WAY less attractive. Yet there is something about the more complicated version that I find appealing.

Here is the stripped down version: Suppose we are playing a true 50/50 game and the game produced its mathematically expected results with regularity in the short run. So that if you flat-bet and you encountered a win/loss series like this: W L W L W L W L W L, you would always be just one or two decisions away from a profit. Following through with our example above, you could always quit while ahead and it would be easy to do so.

We find this to be unappealing because we know that Roulette and Baccarat and other near 50/50 games do not produce reliable results in the short run. We know that the 50/50 game is very volatile and that it takes THOUSANDS of spins or decisions for the results to approach the expected 50/50 mark.

My theory is that the smaller the cycle, the more volatile and unpredictable the game. BUT on the other hand, the larger the cycle, the more predictable the game becomes.

I found an Excellent article and example of a No Lose Expectancy System, I'll post a link here when i get my hands on it again.

More Later . . .

Collection of Systems

I came accross a decent list of Gambling Systems on the internet:

http://www.roulettesystemreviews.com/freeroulettesystems.html

Most of the ideas contained in this list are fresh twists on the same old systems contained in every book on gambling.

A few of the ideas there cought my eye and I am going to work with them and I'll report back here.

Please feel free to share any experiences you may have with these (or other) Systems.

Thanks and Good Luck!

10/26 - here's a link to some more systems from the VIP Lounge:

http://starthere.mysteria.cz/

and here:

http://www.freewebs.com/turbogenius/

Paperless Modified Labouchere in 3D

I've been working on a way to keep track of my bet progressions by chip stacking instead of maintaining a paper-trail. This might not be very helpful in roulette and baccarat where scorekeeping is routine. But, my goal is to apply this to Blackjack where scorekeeping is not allowed (and where creative chip stacking seems to make the pit staff nervous).

I am going to present my method in several parts (only because I do not want each particular post to be too long and I may need to write at several different times). Again, this post is really about a manageable way to monitor the progress of your labouchere line(s) without using paper.

The First Component - The Modified Labouchere

Because I am setting out to keep track of a labouchere line without pen and paper, I chose to begin with a very simple modified labouchere which comes from Marten Jensen's book "Secrets of Winning Roulette."

This MM system has you winning 1 unit on any first bet after the successful cancallation of any line. Although I find it a very appealling and very conservative method, it will not appeal to those who'd rather not bet 6 or 8 units in order to get back to zero after having lost only 1 unit.Jenson sets forth his modified labouchere on page 155. No doubt my attempts to explain his system here will be less effective than studying his text on your own (which I obviously recomend). Nevertheless, the key to the "modified" labouchere is that the line begins with no numbers. You place a bet of 1 unit and if you win, you place that bet again and again. If you lose, your next bet would be the first number in your line and a win there would cancel the line and end the series. So, after your first loss of a 1-unit bet, your would then place a bet of 1 unit to recover. A second loss would be the 1st loss in your line and you would place your next bet at 2 units (then 3, 4, 5, etc.). As with any labouchere, a win cancels the last 2 numbers in your line. Unlike other laboucheres, when you cancel Jensen's "modified labouchere" you have no gain (nor loss) for the series. Your net wins are only from the "first" bet wins after a series, which is NOT a number in your line. Perhaps I can elaborate on this if there are any questions. I assure you it all makes good sense in the Book.

The Second Component is the Segregation of your chips.

I propose segregating your chips into three piles:
1) Your "chip locker"
2) your "win vault"
3) your "labouchere line"

YOUR CHIP LOCKER:

Suppose you buy into a $10 table for $300. You are given 30 red chips and you stack them somehow neatly and together, this area is basically your session bankroll which I call my "Chip Locker". (Not to be silly, but you might want to stack them in 6 stacks of 5 for example and keep those 6 stacks clustered together so that you can easily assess the balance in your chip locker).

You've sat down. You've bought in. You've stacked your chips and you can easily see that you have 30 chips in your "chip locker" which means you are even with the house.

YOUR WIN VAULT:

Now its time to you place your first bet. Move one chip from your locker onto the layout, and you win. Your win/loss record would look like this: W. Take both chips and place one in your chip locker and the other next to your chip locker by itself in an area we'll call your "win vault." As long as you have 30 units in your chip locker (as you do now) and NO chips in your labouchere line (as you do now), the win vault represents your net gain for the session (presently up one chip).

Now place your next bet of one chip on the layout and continue this way until you lose.Lets suppose you lose your very next bet. Your win/loss record looks like this: W,L. You placed your second bet on the layout and you lost. Now you have 29 chips in your locker and 1 chip in your vault for a net gain or loss of zero.

YOUR LABOUCHERE LINE:

Because you lost your most recent bet, you now take a chip from your chip locker and place this chip in your third segregated area, your labouchere line. This chip is the first number in your labouchere line and tells you how much to wager on the next (third) bet. Think of this as being a new labouchere line with one digit "1" represented by one chip. Now place one chip (from your locker) on the layout. For this your third bet, one of two things will happen: you will win or you will lose (pushes have no consequence).

IF YOU WIN (this third bet) (your win/loss record would look like this: W,L,W) - take your two chips from the layout and place them in your chip locker, you have cleared your line, so you place your single labouchere chip back in your locker and notice that you now have 30 chips in your locker and one chip in your win vault. You are once again up by one chip. And you will place a new bet of one chip on the layout but no chips in the labouchere line area because you have NO line at this time.

OR

IF YOU LOSE (this third bet) (your win/loss record looks like this: W,L,L) - take another chip from your locker and place it next to (adjacent and to the right of) your single labouchere line chip. This tells you that your next bet needs to be 2 chips (by adding the only two numbers in the line 1 + 1). So place 2 chips stacked on the layout. Your fourth bet (after W,L,L), is 2 chips. At the risk of sounding redundant, lets look first at if you win this 4th bet.

IF YOU WIN (this fourth bet following W,L,L) - You take 4 chips from the felt and place them in your Chip Locker. You cancel your labouchere line by removing the 2 chips from your segregated labouchere line area and place those two chips back in you chip locker and you are again up by one chip. Notice that you have won 2 bets and lost 2 beats and are up by one unit.

OR

IF YOU LOSE (this fourth bet following W,L,L) - You take two chips from your locker (two chips because that is the number of chips you lost on the 4th bet) and place them stacked next to the two single chips in your laboucher line (now your line on paper would read 1,1,2). Your next bet is 3 chips because the last two numbers in your line add up to 3.

I am going to stop here for now. I hope that there is enough informaiton here to get you going. I hope that you see that any time you clear your labouchere line, you should have 30 units in your locker and pure profit in your vault.Please post any questions.

For the next part of this post, I will be adding my 3D element and looking at a long W/L run to show you some of the benefits of the modified labouchere and this practical method of tracking your progress.I hope you will see this method is easily learned and when diligently applied, you can at all times know exactly how far you are up or down and what you need to do to cancel your current line.

PART II

OK - I've been working on this chip stacking thing and the modified labouchere in 3D and I'm not sure how to post my information graphically, but of course I'll try.

I reiterate what I said at the onset: THIS IS NOT A SYSTEM TO HELP YOU WIN<>

The idea is simply to build a grphical representation of your position so that you can comfortably chose the size of your next bet AND decide when to stop playing based on wins or losses. I have been owrking on this because I use notepads to keep my labouchere lines going when I play at home and I've been wanting to become proficient with something I could take into the casino wihtout the need for notes.

Key:
(1) <<<< = one chip
(2) <<<< = two chips stacked
(3) <<<< = thre chips stacked, and so on
-----<<< = the dashes are used to make the verticle lines intersect and have no other meaning


The Modified 3D Labouchere Chip Stacking Method for Blackjack:


As with the orignal modified labouchere, we will bet one unit until we lose. After a loss, we begin a labouchere line with one single digit (one unit). This is represented on the layout by removing a single chip form your Chip Locker and placing it in the Labouchere Line area of the felt. Thus:

(1)

Your next bet is 1 unit. A win clears the line. A loss tells us to add a digit to the line equal to the loss. Thus:

(1)(1)

Now with the 3D concept, you can lose three more bets without escalating your bet. Any win while betting 1 unit clears one chip from the 3D line. Notice that YOU ARE not clearing 2 digits as with a traditional labouchere line. With 4 straight losses (5 counting the intitial loss prior to beginning the line), your 3D line should look like this:

---(1)
(1)(1)(1)
---(1)

Now you begin betting 2 units because you have 2 intersecting lines, each line with 1 unit at each end.A win of 2 units here would clear 2 chips. A loss would require us to add a stack of 2 chips to the diagram:

---(1)
(1)(1)(1)(2)
---(1)

At this point (as with any point along the way), you can chose between betting 2 units and add the loss to the left of the horizontal line OR bet 2 units and add the loss to the top or bottom of your vertical line.

------(2)
------(1)
(2)(1)(1)(1)(2)
------(1)
------(2)

IF you built your line symetrically as above, you'd start betting 4 units on your next bet. However, the above illustration would be how your ships would look if you lost 10 decisions in a row (highly unlikely in perfect basic strategy Blackjack). More than likely, your 3D lines will be more often less symetrical.So what is the point of all of this??In order to appreciate this scorekeeping method, you really have to play with it. The chip stacking element allows you to focus on the cards and your basic strategy decisions. You can assess your overall picture of how much you are up or down by looking at your three chip areas. You can decide how much to bet on the next bet by looking at your 3D lines. The 3D element often gives you flexibility to chose from a smaller bet or a larger bet. As you win, you can shift the remaining chips around so that the smallest denomination is in the center and there is a graduation of chip stacks radiating out in 4 directions. You may find yourself with something like this:

---(3)
(4)(2)(3)
---(3)
---(5)

Here you could bet 3 or 4 or 5 or 7 or 8 in an effort to clear the lines when you are winning and/or balance them when you are losing.Keep in mind that pit staff are often bothered by chip stacking. They are prone to think that you are counting cards. When they see that you are not wildly escalating your bets at the end of a shoe, they should have no problem letting you do whatever you want.


Please feel free to email with any questions!

"Unlikely" vs. "Highly Unlikely"

The Difference Between an “Unlikely Event” and a “Very Unlikely Event”

I have mentioned elsewhere that “math” negates all systems. Or perhaps better put, the reality of systems (that they will not overcome the house edge) becomes apparent when one applies strict rules of mathematics.

But, now I’m looking at things a little differently:

To understand my new theory, let’s look at a very old one. Suppose we employ a very simple martingale system as follows (looking at a true 50/50 decision): We’ll bet one unit on the first decision and if we lose we will double the bet (2 units) on the second decision and then double again after a second loss. This three-step martingale gives us three shots at making a one unit profit. If we lose all three stages, we are out 7 units. This “beginner” approach tends to make us feel comfortable because we “know” that in a 50/50 game, we should be winning more often than one in three hands. Math tells us, on the other hand, that we will break even (no house edge in this hypothetical) because we “should” encounter the full-series loss of seven once for every 7 single-unit wins. As players we know that “in the short run” the 50/50 probability of a win is not reliable and that it would be well within the realm of possibilities to encounter a “bad run” of full-series losses in any particular session.

Math helps us see that although we have a 50% chance of winning the very next decision we also have a 50% chance of losing. When looking at the proposition of winning one of our next three decisions, we see that the likelihood is one in 8. This means that if we play 100 series of 3 hands, we should win 7/8ths of those series and lose one eighth. We will win 7 units for each successful series of three and lose 7 units for every full-series loss (or failure of our system). If we encounter a session where we get the “expected” results, we can expect to break even.

The lure of this system is (in part) based on the mathematical fact that we begin each series of three decisions with a 87.5% chance of winning that particular series. We all would admit that an 87.5% chance of winning anything “sounds” good. We know however that, our 87.5% chance of winning 1 unit is counter-balanced with a 12.5% of losing 7 units. NOTHING we can do will overcome this fact.

So, why bother?

Well, let’s look at this fact from a different angle. Suppose a typical session at a roulette wheel is 300 spins. How many times would we expect to be brought back to zero using the three-step martingale mentioned above? Three hundred spins will produce one-hundred series of three. We “should” win 87.5 of those series and lose 12.5. If we play for 5 hours (at 60 spins per hour), we’d be losing or “brought back to even” 2.5 times per hour. If we only played 30 minutes, we could expect to be brought back to even 1.25 times and if we played for 15 minutes, theoretically, we would not encounter enough decisions (or series of decisions) to have one losing session.

[House Edge: Before you start writing me and saying that I left out the house edge, let me explain that I am trying to keep the math simple for the purpose of this discussion. Think of the game in my example as “no-edge” Roulette. At an American Roulette wheel (using the example above) you would expect to win 7 series and lose 1 series but instead of ending up at a break even point, you would end up down 5.26% of a unit, because of the house edge. If you are interested in the “real” odds on an American roulette wheel, then you need to begin with the fact that a bet of one unit on black has a 47.4% (less than the 50% above) likelihood of winning and if you set out to win at least one decision of the next three consecutive decisions, your likelihood of winning at least one in the next three would be 85.44% (which is of course below the 87.5% in the example below).]

My thought is that we can reduce the “likely” to the “highly unlikely” by increasing coverage of the layout. For example: Suppose we cover 2/3rds of the layout instead of 50% in the earlier example. We know that we can not overcome the odds. We know that we will be brought back to even eventually. However, lets look at the short run. Employing a three-step martingale, we are now betting that we will win at least one of the next three decisions and we have 66% of the layout covered. Instead of losing one in eight series of three, we now can expect to lose only one in 27 series of three.

(Of course we would expect to lose 26 units and once again be brought back to zero. The math would go like this: our first bet would be 2 units, one on each of 2 dozens for example, after a loss, our bet would have to be increased to 6 units (3 on each of 2 dozens) and after two losses, we’d increase our bet to 19 (or 9 on each of 2 dozens). This three-step martingale progression would produce a win of 1 unit for each successful series and lose 26 for each three-step loss.)

Lets go back to our 5 hour session of 300 decisions. Again we are looking at this session as 100 series of three decisions. How many of those series can we expect to lose? The answer is 3.6. How many can we expect to lose in an hour? The answer is: .72.

Now, math tells us that if we play this game for one hour, it is unlikely that we will encounter a loss. We should see 60 decisions and win 20 units. And one might say that we are “due” a loss around the corner.

Stopping While Ahead and Minimizing Volatility

Suppose you played a game where you always won 50% of your decisions in the short run (like in 100 decisions), suppose also that this game rarely produced streaks of more than 4 or 5 losses in a row. It is likely that you could sit at any session and play this sort of game flat-betting and stop when up by one unit. Some sessions would only be one decision long and other might take 100 decisions but under these circumstances you could almost certainly eventually hit a point where you were up by one single solitary unit. One might say that when you quit, you were due a loss on the very next decision. Being only up by one unit, you were due to be brought back to even. Never the less, with minimal volatility, you could always play until up by one unit. Eventually you’d get ahead.

Now shift back to the game where you are expected to lose 27 units in one decision and win one unit for each of 26 decisions. Using my theory of stopping while ahead and minimizing the volatility, you should have many opportunities to stop when ahead by less than 26 units. Of course, if you started out losing, you’d have a long row to hoe. But math tells us that each bet you place has a 2 in 3 chance of winning and the likelihood of losing three such bets in a row is less than 4%. The chances of getting into a point where you are ahead by half of a successful series (win stop of 13 units) are very good indeed.

Final Thoughts

As with all systems, any play based on the ideas contained here needs to play well capitalized, and as always, successful players need to be disciplined and patient.

[PS – No doubt, these ideas have been around in one form or another for many, many years. I do not claim to be presenting any sort of original breakthrough. These ideas merely represent my current thoughts on a better way for me to look at the sobering application of math to gambling systems.]

Labouchere - Merely a Scorecard!

(I Originally Posted This to the Meassage Board at Gambler's Glen)

I am fascinated with the recent discussion here about a bet selection method that wins more than 50% of the time. While I’ll be quick to agree that we could all make a lot of money with such a sure-fire method, I would be happy with “much less”.

I would be delighted to be able to guess (with certainty) the correct outcome of any one of the next four decisions. I would be happy with 25%. Surely, you would all agree that if we could be guaranteed to get one single decision correct out of the next four, we would all be rich in no time.

The reality of Baccarat is that the Casino is “giving” us about half of the decisions. These are gifts. They are enticing enough to get us to keep giving them the rest of the decisions. If you don’t believe this, simply look at any series of shoes (real or computer generated) and see how you would have done flat betting “player” all the way through.The game gives us almost half. The problem (of course) is that we never know exactly when we are going to get our half.

I have long given up on the feeling of despair after losing 65% of the decisions in a session (or in a shoe). The only despair I feel is when I have more money on the table when I lose and less on the table when I win.

I love the Labouchere. You can too!

The key to embracing the Labouchere is understanding what it is and what it is not. The Labouchere is NOT a system for winning. The Labouchere IS a method of keeping score. It is merely a method of knowing where you currently stand against the house.The Labouchere works for Baccarat players who don’t mind increasing their bets in an attempt to recover recent losses.We all know that while employing the martingale (which I rarely do beyond 3 steps), the question is “How much do I need to bet right now to make up for those last few losses and come out ahead?” And the answer is “Double you last bet!”When using the Labouchere, the question is more often something like this: “How much do I need to bet over the next six or seven decisions so that that IF I were to win two or three of those decisions, I can recover most of my losses or perhaps come out ahead?” And the simple answer is: “Look at your line and add up the first and last numbers.”

Now, keep in mind what I said earlier, with Baccarat, the house is giving us about half of the decisions. SO, most of the time I feel good about guessing correctly two or three of the next 6 or 7 decisions. (I am NOT saying that most of the time I am successful in guessing correctly 2 or 3 of the next 6 or seven decisions ONLY that I usually feel good about my chances of doing so!) I know that if I can guess “good enough” to get close to the “gift” that the casino offers me (about 50% win rate on decisions) then I WILL eventually come out ahead. Now, by “eventually” I do not mean one day down the road. I mean today, this shoe or the next.

It was recently expressed in a thread on this message board the uncomfortable feeling of carrying a long Labouchere line over into the next shoe. I believe that all discomfort can be removed with good discipline and some pre-established stopping points.

Consider this hypothectical: Suppose your initial line is 1,1,1,1,1. You need to work with this line and discover your confort zone. You need to decide at what point you will abandon this line and start over with a fresh line. It makes no difference if you are at the beginning of a shoe or at near the end. Everyone need s a point to say “no more”. BUT here’s the key: When you abandon a line, you are not “writing off a loss.” You are merely reducing (or limiting) the level of aggressiveness that you are willing to employ to recover those losses. Your comfort zone might be that you do not want to place a single wager more than 20 units. If so, you will find yourself getting to the point in your line where the sum of the first and last numbers equals 20 or more and that is when you start over. NOW, if on your fresh line (1,1,1,1,1 again), you are able to reach your coup, go back and reduce some of the numbers in your abandoned line by five. Suppose you abandoned your line because your numbers were 3,4,6,11,17 (you dug yourself a nice little hole) and your next bet is above your comfort level. You begin a fresh line (your next hand may be immediately thereafter, or after a dinner break, or in the next shoe or the next trip to the table, it does not matter) and if you are successful, you now have 5 units to remove from your abandoned line. I might reduce the two largest numbers, 11 and 17 to 10 and 13. At this point there isn’t much sense in going back to the abandoned line because you could quickly get back into the “uncomfortable” zone. Start another fresh line and when (if) you reach your coup again reduce the abandoned line. Eventually (be patient) you will return to your abandoned line and cancel it out. Only then will you be back in the black.

Remember this: The Labouchere is nothing more than a score card telling you where you presently stand against the house with the added feature of making suggestions as to how much you should bet over the next few decisions if your goal is to recover your losses soon. Once you are comfortable using the Labouchere, it should not bother you to carry a line forward into another shoe or even to have multiple abandoned lines. We all know that there will be good times and bad times and your scorecard tells you how bad the bad times are and what you need to do to overcome them.For me, it is a wonderful feeling to end a shoe having only guessed correctly on 45% of the decisions but to be up 15 units because you cancelled your Labouchere three times!! And all you have to do achieve this is to play a shoe that is somewhat evenly distributed. My experience tells me that the “somewhat evenly distributed shoe” is always right around the corner.

3D Labouchere

(I Orginally Posted this idea at Gamblers Glen)

My latest novel idea is a 3D labouchere. The appeal here is only for those who buy in to my notion that the Labouchere is best seen as a score card. Here's the basic 3D Labouchere:

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

First, get yourself a nice piece of graph paper with a printed grid of squares covering the sheet. Draw the above diagram in the middle of your paper (like tic-tac-toe), your goal is 9 units. Your first bet is 2. Here's the beautfiul part: If you lose, you can add the "2" to the left or right or top or bottom of any line. This means that you could lose the "2" bet 12 times in a row before your diagram forces you to bet "4" (beacause at that point you would have added a "2" to both ends of every line.

Remember, this is a only score card, at any time during your session, you can add up the numbers on the paper and subtract 9 and that's how far down you are. If some of your lines add up to 6 and others add up to 3, you can pick which bet you "feel" best about at that time, and you can add your losses wherever you want. I deally I would try to keep some sort of balance.

If I played this way for very long and did not reach my gaol of 9, I would probably look for a point where the total on the page was less than 9 and simply stop with whatever gain I had.I have not tried this method of scorekeeping in a real casino nor have I worked with my software or zumma shoes.

My interest in this approach is only to find a way to keep multiple lines going on one page in a coherent (and less confusing) manner.

Good Stuff - Bad Stuff

Since beginning this blog, I have discovered an interesting message board http://www.gamblersglen.com/ . I highly recommend it for anyone interested in systems play. I have gone back and read many of the archive entries and I find the people who post there to be serious about wanting to learn ways to win money. Some of the comments reveal smart individuals who are open minded while others do not. I have also discovered through this message board some useful links to other sites where systems are being discussed, explained, supported, debunked, sold, etc..

I thought I'd try to bring together some of this information here. I hope to include in this thread ideas that I find interesting as well as absurd. My plan is to add information within this post, so please check back.

Saturday, August 30th, 2008 - I recommend these sites for the phenomenon that they are. Regardless of their value in helping you as a gambler, I think you will find the information interesting.
Gambler's Glen Message Board: http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master - Here you'll find a lively discussion amongst people who (like me) want to be better gamblers and who (I think) believe that there are methods to improve your game.
Donny Millionaire: http://www.donnymillionaire.com/ - A slick systems seller. Most of the folks on Gambler's Glen are convinced that this guy is a scammer. Some of the members who support him are accused by the others to be merely shills. (I'll have to admit that some of his supporters do appear to be merely shills and not gamblers who have benefitted from systems that they purchased from Donny.) I'd also like to point out that some of the people who call Donny a scammer seem to be saying that anyone who sells a system is a scammer because systems don't work. My thoughts are that anyone who makes claims about their system that are not true is running a scam.
Mr. Oops: http://www.xerxx.se/oops/index.html - This well presented site for roulette players with an emphasis on statistics and probabilities. There is some great information here. Those who will to take the time to go through it all will come away with an appreciation for his efforts.

The Wizard of Odds: http://wizardofodds.com/ - This guy has ALL the answers! Especially if the questions is one that can be answered mathematically. A HUGE amount of free information for anyone who is looking at gambling from a mathematical angle.

John Solitude: http://www.john-solitude.be/download.html - This site has a useful guide called "Roulette Fact or Fiction." The free 125 page guide answers common questions about systems sellers and scammers. The introduction to probabilities and statistice and their application to gaming is easy to follow (you can skim the math parts) and the conclusion is that there are NO guranteed systems and you shold avoid all seller's who are not straight forward about the level of risk associated with the system. You can download the guide by clicking the link above. John Solitude also accepts donations to keep the site going.

"Statistical Propensity" and "Diminishing Probability"

Are we simply guessing that a specific random event will occur? If so, are we nothing more than victims (or benefactors) of the fickle finger of lady luck?

I believe that some betting opportunities are "better" than others. In Roulette, betting that a series of 7 black decisions in a row will end within the next 5 decisions seems to be a "good" bet. It seems to me that it is a "better" wager than to bet that a series of 2 black decisions in a row will end within the next 5 decisions. Betting that 7 won't continue to 12 "seems like" a "better" wagering opportunity than betting that 2 won;t go to 7 BUT the mathematicians will tell us otherwise, the odds are exactly the same.

So why does it feel better? I think it feels better because we find ourselves encountering runs of 7 much more often than runs of 12. (But we also find ourselves encountering runs of 2 much much more often than runs of 7). Perhaps it is because of what Barstow calls the Law of Diminishing Probability and/or what R. D. Ellison calls the Law of Statistical Propensity. Although spins of the wheel and dice decisions are random events not related to previous decisions, it appears that over time the decisions tend to conform to or at least gravitate toward their mathematically expectations.

Ellison says:

"Taking all 38 numbers into consideration, the least number of times any number showed up was 16, and the most number of times was 50. This is a wider range, which accounts for the greater possibility of unconventional trends in a larger sampling, but not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corral. Meaning, each one was compelled to show up a minimum number of times, but not too many times."

From: "American Roulette Is Now Mathematically Beatable" - by R.D. Ellison
See: http://www.thegamblersedge.com/propensity.htm

I believe that perhaps we can discover ideal betting opportunities. These would be bets that we would win more often than we'd lose AND (here is the tricky part) when we lose it is less than our winnings for that session or period of time. For example: suppose we should win this bet 7 out of ten times and with each win we'd gain one unit and with each loss we'd lose 2 units. For every 10 decisions, we should average a net of 3 units.

Eillison is promoting his 3Q/A Roulette system (which I have not tried) and arguing Statistical Propensity in support of it. I'm not sure (because I have not done the math) but if Ellsion is saying that the mathematical expectation is such that his wagering plan wins more often than it loses and wins more money than it loses, then it passes my test (and I imagine everyone else's) for a "good" bet.

BACCARAT - Barstow, Zumma and Excel

In Frank Barstow's excellent treatise on gambling systems, "Beat the Casino" (1979 Carlyle) the author makes some pretty strong claims about expected success using his pet systems. He claims on page 216, for example, that his "Barstow System" "can" average 12 units per hour profit. His conclusions are the result of a combination of reasoning, simulated trials and "real" Casino play.

It strikes me that with today's technology and information we can "test" Barstows claims in a way that he could not have easily accomplished.

Erick St. Germain's "72 Days at the Baccarat Table" (1995 Zumma) lists the outcomes of each decision in 600 "real casino" Baccarat shoes (about 40,000 decisions). Using a simple Excel spreadsheet, I have been able to test some of the the Zumma shoes against several systems in Barstow's book. Although I do not expect to discover the keys to the kingdom, I firmly believe that this time-consuming task will help illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of certain systems and be helpful in identifying trends within the shoes.

I'm curious if any of YOU have tried a similar approach and might be willing to share the results or are you aware of where this information may be obtained. Also, would you be interested in testing some of these 600 shoes yourself?

I plan on making some of my research available on this blog to give you all a better idea of what I'm talking about.

In the meantime "happy number crunching."

Labouchere & Baccarat

Has anyone had any good experience with the Labouchere in Baccarat? Or the reverse Labouchere? It seems like such a solid choice of system because in most shoes neither side will perform at less than 40%. If your side performs at 40% or better, you should be able to complete several labouchere series in 60 or so decisions. I've read about "splitting lines" and "busting out" lines, does anyone have good advice regarding these mitigation tactics?

Books

Here are a few books on Gambling that I highly recommend:

"Beat the Casino" by Frank Barstow - 1979 Carlyle and Associates - Although difficult to find, this is the Bible for system players and system designers. Barstow treats this subject with a level of analysis far greater than any others I have come across. More than a simple list of systems, Barstow gets into the why and how of systems.

"The Most Powerful Blackjack Manual" by Jay Moore - 2004 Lyle Stuart, Kennsington - This is a terrific book for anyone who wants to understand how to play (and beat) the game without counting cards. Nobody has set the record straight on what to expect from the game like Moore. His experience as a Math instructor and as a player comes through in a well-written text. Although I am not completely sold on his "delayed and up" method, his data and presentation are excellent.

"Bringing Down the House" by Ben Mezrich - 2002 Free Press - The true story behind the popular motion picture "21". This tale of card counting should be an inspiration to all of us who seek to remove some small portion of the casinos' fortune. A fun read.

Please feel free to share any recommendations of books or websites that you have found to be helpful or enjoyable. I would also welcome any "not recommended" books or websites.

Welcome!!

Welcome to the Systems Forum Blog! I created this blog to encourage the intelligent discussion of gambling systems for use at table games in real casinos.

I am not interested in on-line gambling, nor am I interested in Poker, however all comments are welcome.

Suggested Topics include: recommended books, mathematical probabilities, scams to avoid, preferred casinos, things that do not work, Vegas deals, etc..

My most recent efforts have been directed at recognizing and exploiting trends in Baccarat shoes.

If you have any interest in Gambling Systems, please leave a comment or suggestion for discussion.

Thanks!