The conventional wisdom says a million wins don't matter and losses are all that counts. True, but false at the same time!

_
A mathematician arguing for the YCW (you can't win) philosophy will tell you with a straight face that progressive betting can never be profitable because more bets lost than won must always result in more money lost than won.

No amount of evidence to the contrary will be considered acceptable, in the same way that for centuries, the conventional wisdom dismissed data showing that Planet Earth was not flat.

It is of course completely rational to warn against a betting strategy that will occasionally suffer a catastrophic loss that will always wipe out all prior profits and bankrupt the player.

But progressive betting will only match that caveat if the method is applied the way the casinos and their house-trained experts want it to be, in real play or in computer simulations.

That means that the player must keep on betting through prolonged downturns, and meekly throw in the towel whenever his next bet is prohibited by the prevailing table limit.

The ideal gambler is, in the view of all casino operators and the mythematicians who promote the gambling industry's ordained right to the contents of all our wallets, an impetuous spendthrift who comes to the table with an inadequate bankroll. He then bets a very narrow spread, and sheds first his inhibitions under the influence of "free" booze, then his stash.

It is theoretically reasonable to suggest that since target betting my way lost just once in some 70,000 recoveries, that loss might have occurred in the very first session, and therefore the method is potentially too hazardous to merit consideration.

It is theoretically equally reasonable to argue that since 1 in 70,000 American motorists will be killed or seriously injured in a road accident on any given day, the car in your garage is potentially unsafe at any speed and you would therefore be ill-advised to drive it ever again.

I cannot refute a statistically supported recommendation that the only certain way to win in a casino is to keep all your money in your pocket and, better yet, never step across the threshold.

But short of an outright ban on gambling, the evidence shows that progressive betting is a better way to win than any of the alternatives.

Those of you who come to agree with me after a few hundred hours of cautious exploration and practice (I certainly do not expect you to take my word for anything!) will learn that target betting can be modified in all sorts of ways to suit your gambling personality and your resources.

In fact, the more modifications you develop, mixing and matching them as you see fit, the less likely you are to be identified by casino pit personnel as a player who wins "too often" and should be stopped.

Elsewhere in this blog is data that show that even the much-derided Martingale or double-up betting method (-1, -2, -4, +8 etc.) demolishes the house advantage in the almost 400,000 real-time, real-play outcomes that are the subject of the current trial.

Played right, double-up can be a powerful antidote to the house edge. If the casino you have selected allows you to play it at all, that is.

Target betting with my rules applied is far harder to spot, and the modifications that I recommend or that individual players will develop for themselves make it even more effective in the real world.

Here's the latest BST data set:

(Click on the image to enlarge it)

An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

The million-dollar question: Is damage control just another gambler's fallacy, or can ruin be avoided intuitively?

_
Human intuition or decision making is the critical element that the You Can't Win brigade omits from the runaway simulations they use to "prove" that the house advantage at games of chance is ultimately unbeatable.

They also eliminate cards, dice, wheels, tables, money, dealers and real time, and then pretend that a high-speed computer simulation based on a random number generator (RNG) is "exactly the same as a real game."

Once upon a time, I was able to ask who would be gullible enough to bet actual cash against a game that used RNG output to simulate blackjack, baccarat or roulette, and I was confident that the answer was clear.

Then the casinos came out with giant flat-screen TVs featuring curvaceously UN-flat, life-sized "dealers" and slots for suckers to push their money into. And by golly, some people do play these so-called games, lured perhaps by cleavage that they can drool over without getting their faces slapped.

The mythematical defense of sims is that at some point, a fatal negative pattern of losses and wins will occur in real play that is exactly like output from a RNG, and vice versa, and ruin will be unavoidable.

It is, as I have said before, like arguing that a car that crashes with no driver at the wheel and with the gas pedal and brakes disabled is inherently unsafe.

Sorry, guys, but gambling is a human activity and the human element really does matter.

Simulations are useful only because they run at very high speeds, saving a huge amount of real-time research, and can give some indication of how a new game (or a method of betting) will perform.

But when the Wizard of Odds and other experts sponsored by the gambling industry claim that casinos rely on simulations to evaluate new games or rule changes to old ones, they are being deliberately disingenuous.

Sims have a role to play, but is always a preliminary one.

Casinos know very well that the only tests that really matter have to be conducted out on the floor, and nothing new ever gets the green light until it has been exhaustively evaluated under real-play conditions.

I have gone to great trouble over the years to amass as many blocks of outcomes from actual play as I can, and target betting has so far recorded only one million-dollar crash-and-burn in more than 500,000 rounds of baccarat and blackjack (more than five years of play for a full time gambler, if such an animal still exists).

The pattern that caused target betting to crash and burn looked like this...


If you were to see a "deadman's drop" like this in real play, one that went on to give the house a 33.33% edge in 114 bets in which 34 more wagers went south than didn't, you would not wait for rock bottom.

You know for sure that if you were sitting at a baccarat or blackjack table and the shoe turned that vicious that fast, you would decide it was time to take a break long before your bankroll was in serious jeopardy.

As it happens, this spectacular nosedive followed eight consecutive wins that raked in $1,090 in profits before the ninth bet, for $500, lost.

For years, my rule for blackjack has been to keep redoubling during an opening win progression until the bet hits $200, add $100 each time if the winning streak continues, and accept a loss of $500 or more as EOS, happy to end the series with $590+ in extra chips, and fall back to a minimum opening bet at a different layout.

Blackjack is the perfect game for target betting because "natural" pay-offs that exceed the value of the original bet (adding 50% or I'm not playing!) and well-timed splits and double-downs make it much more profitable than baccarat.

To make up the difference, I set the win progression cut-off much higher at $1,000 vs. baccarat, and that made the rules set vulnerable in just this one instance out of more than 60,000 successful recoveries.

The first baccarat trial, bust-free after 37,062 recoveries, delivered a virtual profit of $1.97 million and retired the original $1 million buy-in. The second baccarat series had one bust in 18,446 series and earned a little more than $110,000 (better than a break-even but not by much!). The current blackjack trials stand at a funny-money win to date of $1.75 million and counting. That's a total win of almost $4 million for five years' work, chickenfeed for a CEO but a big improvement on negative expectation.

It would be easy for me to change the baccarat results to eliminate the "bust" then claim that target betting was unbeaten against hundreds of thousands of real-play rounds.

But that would be cheating, and I don't believe in that (not because I am a saint, but because it is simply not necessary!).

For the record, changing the win progression rule to match my blackjack strategy would have turned a baccarat crash-n-burn into a win equal to 5.0% of the action for that same data set.

House-trained academics have a notion that systems promoters always have an excuse when their method crashes in ruins, and eliminate the problem simply by changing the rules.

So target betting's single loss of its bankroll stands in my book, reducing my method's win rate from 100% to -1/69,272 recovered series = 99.9985564%.

I generally claim a 99.992% win rate for my betting method, equal to favorable odds of 12,500 to 1. If I am in a cautious mood, I fall all the way down to 5,000 to 1 in a player's favor, figuring that even that has to be preferable to negative odds of 495 to 505 if you're a little lucky and play blackjack well.

And then there's the obvious wisdom of not claiming a 100% win rate, but instead encouraging the casinos and their tame experts to go public over and over again with "proof" that target betting cannot beat a runaway sim and is therefore worthless.

Let's face it, if gambling industry brainiacs can show for certain that the strategy is worthless, then they have no legal argument for banning its use in their casinos.

As for the ability of a thinking human being to recognize potential danger before it becomes deadly and take steps to avoid it, "simsters" know well that evasive, self-protecting tactics are difficult (meaning inconvenient) to model.

I have done it with what I call an interactive sim, which relies on the famously unreliable Windows RNG to spew out losses and wins with a randomness that may be questionable, but is at least out of my control beyond my insertion of a clear house edge of 1.4%.

In real play, several factors are likely to prompt a player to quit a series before recovery, then resume betting at the appropriate level elsewhere. A sim can't imitate boredom, hunger, fatigue or a need to pee, among other human responses, but table limits play a key role and they can be factored in.

The way it works is that the sim starts and ends series after series as a "live" player would, but the spreadsheet platform enables a human to scroll down, identify a spread limit trigger, and respond to it.

The job is done by "freezing" all of the outcomes or rounds up to that point, then refreshing the RNG to simulate play continuing at a different layout.

This is done whenever a spread limit trigger arises, and my assumption is first that at a $5 table, a $100 bet is as high as a real player would be able to go without attracting unwanted attention. After that, the rule is a spread of 1-5: lose a $500 bet after starting out with a minimum wager at a $100 table, and move on, then a $2,500 bet, and so on.

Series very rarely drag on for long (the average EOS comes in less than six bets) so this is not nearly as complicated or tedious a procedure as it sounds.

The point is that flesh-and-blood players do not suffer the kind of downturns that the robot at the heart of a runaway sim is required to ignore in order for the routine to "prove" that no betting method can ever beat the house advantage. It is simply not human nature to take a relentless beating when real money is at stake without taking appropriate evasive action.

Runaway sims are dishonest. But in some ways, that's not a bad thing for a cool, calm and disciplined player who knows how to beat the odds and win consistently.

Here's the latest BST blackjack data (playing the $500 win progression rule!).

(Click on the image to enlarge it)
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

Waiting for the other shoe to drop could take a lifetime (and it may never happen at all!)

_
The assumption that mythematicians like to cling on to and batter us about the head with is that if you are certain to lose more bets than you win in the long run then you must also be doomed to lose more money than you win.

They don't care that models and data summaries covering millions of outcomes with a clear overall house edge include countless thousands of profitable series that consisted of more losses than wins.

They just keep chanting that the sample, however large, was "not representative" and warn that at some point, the sum total of all losses must exceed the sum total of all wins. So, beware, insolent peasants, and be ready to pay your dues.

Here's the latest BST log:

Click on the image to enlarge it
It's true that from time to time, a win-loss pattern will set in that has a succession of isolated wins (wins immediately followed by one or more losses). And if the PB value is outside of your MSL ("do over") range, two wins separated by one loss will not save the day before the cavalry rides over the hill in the form of "twins" (two wins in succession!).

The horrors of long stretches in which the NB keeps jumping skyward with each failed EOS bet diminish dramatically as your confidence grows. But it never hurts to keep in mind that you are playing a game in which the odds are almost always against you.

As I explained in the summary, table limits usually extend the battle to climb out of the hole because without wiggle room in your bet values, the green ceiling forces you to keep betting the max until the WLP switches to a more positive trend.

But that assumes you do not have the option to back away from the layout that has put you in the hole, and resume play at a location where you can continue to strictly follow the target betting rules.

Here are the target betting bets applied by the spreadsheet model to the outcomes in the pencil log shown above. The final totals differ from the numbers at the bottom of the log because the recommended responses to dealer naturals and dealer 21s are not applied. I'll fix that at some point, but my purpose here is to keep on demonstrating that more lost bets does not translate to more lost dough!


Click on an image to enlarge it
The blocks of numbers in the spreadsheet line up with the checks and crosses etc. in the log, so if you print out the three images, it should be fairly easy to match them up.

As always, there were numerous turnarounds that delivered a profit from a negative situation, and overall, the house edge was almost 2.0% gross, confirming that more hands went south than north, so to speak.

The NET AV was +2.79%, demonstrating once again that properly-applied doubles/splits really do deliver a player advantage. We already knew that a 3-2 pay-off is better for the bottom line than a 1-1 pay-off!

Real math (as opposed to mythematics) is reassuringly predictable when it comes to data from games of chance. An analysis of recovered series will invariably show that one third contained fewer wins than losses, one third had an equal number of wins and losses, and one third had fewer losses than wins. Surprise!

The bigger the sample, the more precise the distribution becomes. This set (the outcomes from 090309) made a liar out of me, temporarily, with 45 positive series, 18 negatives, and 21 break-evens, but that's not the norm. The current trial sample (all bets against Ken Smith's BST app) are also out of whack (547/369/315) but the distribution will settle down eventually!

An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_

There's mathematics, and then there's mythematics (the "proven" notion that casino games of chance are ultimately unbeatable!).

_
The only thing that is demonstrable about the (hopefully) random win-loss patterns derived from house-biased games is that a player who bets flat amounts or bets randomly is certain to lose in the end.

It's a simple enough truth, although some academics have felt the need to produce formulae that run to several pages to demonstrate that if you lose more bets than you win, then you must also lose more money than you win.

And if it is inevitable that losses must always exceed wins, the question that has to be answered is, What's the point of playing?

The lure of gambling of course is that it is possible to win in the short term, if you get lucky either by winning more often than you lose, or by accidentally timing your bets in such a way that the combined value of your fewer wins exceeds the combined value of your more numerous losses.

The problem for must gamblers is that the more they win, the more likely they are to keep playing. And the more they play, the more likely they are to lose. If you're a blackjack player (and a fan of satirical novels) you could call this dilemma a Catch 21!

Much has been written down the centuries about what's known as the "gambler's fallacy" or the idea that after an unusually high ratio of losses to wins (a ratio that exceeds the known negative expectation for the game at hand), a win is more likely.

It's not, of course. In a game with a 2.0% house edge, your odds of winning are 49-51, or a tad less than 50-50, every time you make a bet. So a betting strategy that depends on a win being "more likely" at any point in the game is doomed to failure.

Target betting dramatically boosts the next bet (NB) value in response to a mid-series win not because a second consecutive win is "more likely" than a loss, but because if fortune should smile in spite of negative expectation, all prior losses for the series (LTD) will be recovered, plus a small profit.

(If you are new to this method, a series begins with an opening minimum bet, and ends when turnaround or end of series aka EOS has been achieved. If a series opens with one or more successive wins, it continues until a loss, and the value of that loss becomes the LTD, with the NB value = LTD+T. If the streak-ending loss is immediately followed by a win, the series ends and the bet reverts to the opening minimum. If not, it continues per the strategy rules until EOS is achieved).

Mythematicians love to heap scorn on the Small Martingale or double-up betting method, which opens with a 1-unit bet and risks -1, -2, -4, -8, -16 and so on until a win finally comes along, recovering all prior losses with a single successful wager and delivering an overall profit of 1 unit.

The method is derided as suicidal because of the fact that repeated doubling is certain eventually to bump up against the table limit, and if the required x2 bet can't be made, an overall loss is inevitable.

That would be true if a double-up bettor was too dumb to move to a layout with a higher table limit before he got into serious trouble, and in theory, it might be possible for so many successive losses to occur that a $5 bet grows to exceed even the most generous house limit in Las Vegas ($25,000 is about average on "The Strip" these days, and high rollers can add several zeroes to that amount with special dispensation).

It's possible, but not likely. And gambling is all about what's likely, or probable, with blind luck ruled an irrelevance.

Interestingly, there is not a casino I have ever heard of that will permit x2 betting for long. Why? Because it is much more likely to succeed than to fail. And gamblers can never be permitted to win for long.

"Martingalers" can be seen in action in any busy casino if you know what to look for. The guy who muscles into a blackjack game, places two or three consecutive losing bets and then moves on is an x2 bettor in search of a single win. Blackjack is the perfect game for him, because a natural or a successful double/split will greatly boost his bottom line, giving him a final win exceeding his target 1u.

So, target betting is progressive betting, and progressive betting is certain suicide, right? Wrong.

In the current target betting trial, the TA/T strategy is ahead $184,000 or 5.6% of total action against a house edge of 4.6% indicating a mythematically expected loss of $149,000. A Martingale would be $37,000 (10.5%) ahead against the same outcomes. Average bet values and overall risk or exposure are both much lower for x2 betting, but it doesn't much matter because casinos do all they can to block the use of a Martingale.

My target betting method needs two successive wins to achieve turnaround/EOS/recovery, which is twice as tough to come by as a single win. But if you take a typical game session such as this one...


(Click on the image to enlarge it)

...and then highlight the paired (or better) wins, it is easy to see why my method is very tough for the house to beat. You will win more often with a Martingale, with less risk. But since the bad guys won't let you play it, why not win with a method that they have not yet figured out?



There can be some scary gaps between paired wins from time to time, it's true, but they become less of a threat to your bankroll the longer you play, as long as you take my advice and add at least half of each session's profits to your war chest.

Fact is, it is not the house edge that blows most gamblers out of the game: it's their pathetically inadequate bankrolls, coupled with the fact that they consistently fail to fully exploit winning streaks.

You WILL lose more bets than you win, in the long run. So you have to bet opportunistically (and optimistically!) in response to a potential winning streak, knowing that every positive trend has to start with a single win, but not knowing for sure that that win will be immediately followed by another.

I once had a gambling aunt who would tell me: "Luck won't find you, you have to step out in front of it." And that is what target betting is all about. (Auntie Betty once owned a nightclub in London's Soho, and was a died-in-the-wool gambler until the day she fell off her perch; when she won, she gave most of the money away; when she lost, she kept on cranking until the next big hit came along).

An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_