Simple Grinds

I thought I'd start a thread of simple systems that should keep you in the game for a long time. These would be systems that allow you to get in on the action often and will win with a little luck. These would also allow you play for a long time without much risk of ruin. The criteria here also includes simplicty, systems that can be easily learned and employed.

Barstow's New Shooter System

(Bet with Him)

page 126

Barstow claims this is like getting 7 to 1 odds on a 15 to 1 proposition. The basic idea is that you bet that the new shooter will make his point and if he doesn't, you double that the next shooter will make his, and if not, you go one more time with a third new shooter (three stage martingale). You lose your series only when there are 4 consecutive losses (because there must have been a loss just prior to your first bet). A full series loss will cost you 7 units so you need to win this bet more often than 7 times for each lost series. Barstow would like us to believe that you sould win this 15 times for each loss. I think the reality should be considerably less, but this should be a reliable grind on any hot table.

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 . . .

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.]

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.

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!