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/