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 . . .