apr3455

@duffyduck12 du hast natürlich vollkommen Recht. Man sollte halt nicht so schnell, schnell eine Statistik einbauen. Habe den Fehler aber gleich gefunden - habe überall 1 zuviel dazugezählt Saldo Berechnung und die Grafiken sind aber korrekt, es betrifft nur die Statistik! Hier die neue Statistik: COUPS: 809261 0=21600 1=22009 2=21687 3=21981 4=21788 5=21854 6=22422 7=21808 8=22034 9=21811 10=22029 11=21976 12=21891 13=21859 14=22091 15=21623 16=21593 17=21996 18=22158 19=21855 20=21885 21=21734 22=21858 23=21801 24=21770 25=21815 26=21610 27=22157 28=21818 29=21909 30=21694 31=21482 32=21874 33=22033 34=22073 35=21998 36=21685 Rot=393884 Schwarz=393777 Gerade=393960 Ungerade=393701 Manque=394610 Passe=393051

danke für deinen Tip! Ich habe nun nochmals die große "casino_x"-permanenzen Datei aus diesem Forum durch die Satz-Strategie laufen lassen. Einen kleinen Fehler habe ich gefunden - ich habe bei der Datei, beim ersten Test (POST 1) von mir ein Ergebnis von +10.217,5 erzielt, da ich nicht mit dem ersten COUP gestartet bin. Jetzt tue ich das aber und es kommt ein anderes Ergebnis heraus: +9147,0. Wäre aber auch ok - logischerweise verschiebt sich durch das auslassen des aller ersten Coups der komplette "Satz-Verlauf". Folgend nun einige Statistiken dazu... Gesamt-Saldo-Verlauf: Runden-Saldo (Über Null wären Plus Runden, unter Null wären Minus Runden): Zahlenverteilung: 0=21601 1=22010 2=21688 3=21982 4=21789 5=21855 6=22423 7=21809 8=22035 9=21812 10=22030 11=21977 12=21892 13=21860 14=22092 15=21624 16=21594 17=21997 18=22159 19=21856 20=21886 21=21735 22=21859 23=21802 24=21771 25=21816 26=21611 27=22158 28=21819 29=21910 30=21695 31=21483 32=21875 33=22034 34=22074 35=21999 36=21686 Rot=393884 Schwarz=393777 Gerade=393960 Ungerade=393701 Manque=394610 Passe=393051 COUPS: 809262 END SALDO: +9147,0 Permanenzen-Datei hier nochmals zum Download:

Hat Jemand schon das Spiel-Protokoll getestet? Habe gerade eine wirklich unglaublich große Simulation mit Computer Zufallszahlen durchlaufen lassen: COUPS: 84.719.684 END SALDO: 360.845,0 Also fast 85 Millionen Coups mit einem End-Saldo der im Plus wäre. Stimmt das Spiel-Protokoll oder ist da ein Fehler drinnen? Ersteres würde mir besser gefallen Grüße, Alex

@Cicero, @Fastan: Schauen wir uns zuerst einmal an, ob mein Programm mit der etwas angepassten Spielweise richtig verbucht, anbei ist nun ein Spielablauf-Protokoll einer kompletten "Runde", bis diese auf Grund von 3 Platzern beendet wäre. Ein Platzer ist bei mir so definiert, dass bei allen 3 ECs einmal die 17 Progressionstufe (=9 Einheiten) überschritten wurde. Warum habe ich die 17. Progressionsstufe gewählt? Laut der Strategie von Inaudi wird der Satz (10. Einheiten) nur sehr selten erreicht, deshalb sind das für mich die Platzer. Die 3 ECs werden auf die Fortsetzung einer 3er Serie und aber auch auf die Fortsetzung einer 3er Intermittenz bespielt. Bei einem Platzer wird die "geplatzte" EC nicht mehr bespielt, bis die beiden anderen ECs ebenfalls "platzen" (klingt wie auf Drogen ), dann ist die Runde beendet. Aber zur Strategie kann ich ja dann noch genauers sagen, wenn das Protokoll als valide angesehen wird.... Die komplette "Runde" dauert 1849 Coups, ZERO wird als halber Verlust gewertet. Gespielt wird die Runde auf die Permanenz Datei von paroli.de "Hamburg 1998 Tisch 6". End-Saldo: 190,5 Einheiten. Hier das Protokoll als TXT-Datei:

@Faustan: Leider ist der doofe Permanenzen-Download von Wiesbaden mit wahlweise Uhrzeit oder Statistik verseucht. Ich kann mir natürlich später am Abend die Mühe machen und den Datei-Parser anpassen - aber gibt es nicht vielleicht hier Jemanden der mir eine große, bereits zusammengestellte Permanenzen Datei geben kann? Ich bin doch sicher nicht der erste, der sich eine zusammenstellt hier Wie ich schon erwähnt habe, habe ich die große Permanenzen Datei "Casino_x" aus diesem Forum bereits durchlaufen lassen (ich weiß nicht mehr aus welcher Diskussion von hier ich die habe...) Ergebnis war: 809262 gespielte Coups, +10.217,5 Einheiten Aber du hast recht, testen wir noch einige Permanenzen mehr - wer hat eine schöne TXT Datei mit Permanenzen (nur die Zahlen untereinander). Immer noch steht folgende Frage von mir im Raum: Sind Computer-Zufallszahlen ein sinnloser Test? Wer hat dazu eine Meinung?

zum Glück bin ich mit meinen Schraibvehlern nicht der Einzige... Da hast du vollkommen recht. Natürlich wäre es ein Traum, ein spielbares System zu haben Aber meine Frage war ja: Wäre es ein großer Erfolg, wenn ein Spiel-System über eine Anzahl von ca. 6-8 Millionen Coups immer einen Gewinn abwerfen würde? Ich kann die Frage nicht beantworten, da ich mich noch nicht mit so vielen System beschäftigt habe. Doch müsste nicht jedes starre System nach so vielen Coups weit ins Minus abdriften, da ja durch Zero der Vorteil bei der "Bank" liegt? Mir geht es nicht darum, dass ich das LIVE spiele kann, zuerst einmal möchte ich untersuchen ob wirklich jedes System auf Langzeit ins Minus gelangt. Unter "großen Erfolg" sehe ich es wenn eben das Gegenteil bewiesen werden könnte. Ich habe einmal von dieser Seite: paroli.de - Permanenzen Folgende Permanenzen getestet: Dortmund 1998, 1.Halbjahr (Tisch 4) Dortmund 1998, 1.Halbjahr (Tisch 5) Dortmund 1998, 1.Halbjahr (Tisch 6) Ergebnis: Start-Satz: 1 Einheit Dortmund 1998, 1.Halbjahr (Tisch 4) END SALDO: 859.0 COUPS: 33958 Dortmund 1998, 1.Halbjahr (Tisch 5) END SALDO: 165.5 COUPS: 37233 Dortmund 1998, 1.Halbjahr (Tisch 6) END SALDO: 743.0 COUPS: 40883 Start-Satz: 2 Einheiten Dortmund 1998, 1.Halbjahr (Tisch 4) END SALDO: 1718.0 COUPS: 33958 Dortmund 1998, 1.Halbjahr (Tisch 5) END SALDO: 331.0 COUPS: 37233 Dortmund 1998, 1.Halbjahr (Tisch 6) END SALDO: 1486.0 COUPS: 40883 Ich bin da immer noch sehr skeptisch. Vor allem aus dem bereits erwähnten Punkt 2: 2. Programmierfehler mit falscher SALDO-Berechnung? Gerne können wir das von mir leicht angepasste System einmal untersuchen. Vielleicht finden wir ja zusammen den Fehler Ich hoffe es aber nicht *g*. Grüße, Alex

Hallo Ihr, ich möchte zuerst einmal ein kleines "Hallo" an alle hier richten! Ihr könnt mich gerne Alex nennen. Wirklich ein super interessantes Forum hier über ein Thema das unmöglich scheint zu besiegen. Ich habe schon etliche Forum-Einträge hier durchgelesen und ein Thema hat mich seit dem ich es gelesen habe nicht mehr los gelassen. Es handelt sich um folgende Diskussion: 1:6 Wechselspiel mit kombinierter Plus-Minus-Progression Wunderbar verfasst und erklärt durch Paroli. Ich habe dieses System, so wie ich es verstanden habe, nach programmiert. Nachdem ich es getestet habe, war ich nicht wirklich von den Ergebnissen überzeugt. Mal war der "End-Saldo" im Plus, mal im Minus. Ich habe dann ein paar Modifikationen gemacht (das System ein kleines bisschen abgeändert). Ob ich es verbessert habe werden wir ja noch sehen... Zum Programm: Es spielt das von mir modifizierte System "1:6 Wechselspiel mit kombinierter Plus-Minus-Progression" gegen Zufallszahlen die vom Computer generiert werden und somit das Roulette Spiel simulieren. Das erstaunliche oder aber auch nicht erstaunliche Ergebnis meines Programmes ist, dass ich nach 4 Millionen Coups IMMER im Plus bin und zwar weit über 10 ja sogar 20 Tausend Einheiten. Ich kann ganz sicher sagen, dass ich nach mehr als 4 Millionen Coups (z.B.: nach 8 Millionen) Coups noch weiter im Plus bin. Tendenz also steigend. Eine weitere, sehr interessante Eigenheit des Anstieges in den PLUS-Bereich ist folgende: Es kann passieren, dass man nach 1 Millionen-Coups erst knapp bzw. wieder im Plus oder noch immer knapp im Minus Bereich ist (dazwischen war man aber bereits bis zu 2000 Einheiten im Plus oder Minus). Mehr als 2000 Einheiten im Minus habe ich jedoch noch nicht erlebt. Ich habe meine modifizierte Version auch einmal über "echte Permanenzen", welche ich hier über das Forum heruntergeladen habe getestet: Casino_x (Sehr große Permanenzen Datei!) Ergebnis war: 809262 gespielte Coups +10.217,5 Einheiten Nun stellen sich nicht nur für mich folgende Fragen: 1. Was bringt es, wenn man erst nach so vielen COUPS "sicher" im PLUS ist. 2. Programmierfehler mit falscher SALDO-Berechnung? 3. Computer Zufallszahlen sind ein sinnloser Test (habe aber auch mit echten Permanenzen getestet!) Zu 2. kann ich sagen, dass ich das Spiel-Protokoll des Programmes merhfach durchgelesen habe und keinen Fehler in der Satztechnik und der Saldo-Berechnung gefunden habe. Ich musste dazu natürlich nur ca. 100 Zeilen lesen und nicht 8 Millionen - es ist ja dann immer das gleiche Nun eine einzige konkrete Frage von mir: Wäre es ein großer Erfolg, wenn ein Spiel-System über eine Anzahl von ca. 6-8 Millionen Coups immer einen Gewinn abwerfen würde? So sieht es im Moment bei meiner programmierten Version aus, letzter Test: 26.101.809 gespielte Coups +285.424 Einheiten Also wenn es sowieso nur Müll ist und sowieso klar ist, dass man nach so vielen Coups immer im Plus ist, dann möchte ich mein Thema hier gleich wieder schließen!!! Wenn meine einzige, konkrete Frage jedoch mit "Ja" beantwortet werden würde und es ein großer Erfolg wäre - poste ich gerne einmal ein Spiel-Protokoll von meinem Programm - damit wir gemeinsam untersuchen können, wo der Fehler liegt / oder aber auch nicht liegt Nette Grüße, Alex ps.: Sorry vür alle Schraibvehler! Ich kan dass niecht besser

Jo ich werd mich mal umschauen... Danke für die Antworten! Grüsse Alex

Hallo duffyduck! Irgendwie hat es meine vorherige Antwort noch nicht hineingeschrieben. Oder müssen alle beiträge bei "newbies" zuerst durch den Administrator Filter? Was ich natürlich verstehen würde... lg Alex

Hallo duffyduck! Ja das ist alles was ich habe von der Beschreibung. Na dann werde ich mir wirklich die Mühe sparen alles zu übersetzen. An welchem System in diesem Forum lohnt es sich den momentan anzusetzen bzw. eigene Ideen einzubringen? Wie schon gesagt kann ich ebenfalls Testprogramme schreiben. Na dann bis bald! Grüsse Alex

Hallo Liebe Roulette Freunde, ich bin neu hier aber habe schon einige Beiträge gelesen. Ich beschäftige mich seit geraumer Zeit mit Roulette. Ich habe schon etliche Java Programme geschrieben, welche irgendwelche Strategien ausgetestet haben - aber ich hab noch nie was wirklich gutes gefunden. Ich bin aber auf "englisches" System gestoßen, welches sicheren Gewinn verspricht bei richtiger Anwendung, wobei schon sehr viele an der Beschreibung gescheitert sind.... so auch ich Aber da hier ja sehr viele Profis sind, würde es mich sehr freuen wenn jemand dieses System analysieren könnte und eventuell eine Deutsche Übersetzung hier rein schreiben könnte...! Eventuell ist es ja ein super tolles System für uns...! Also dann mal los mit der Beschreibung....: The Turnaround System First, a glossary of Turnaround terms.- This one comes from a PROFFESIONAL, and i haven't tested it myself. (lack of time) A "Series" is a sequence of bets, usually one in which the player is in the hole and working towards a profit. You'll hear the term "recovery series" from time to time, and it tells you that every losing series is assumed to be reversible. There's also an animal called a "winning series": more about that later. Don't worry about losing series: Turnaround will run out of money once in a while if you impose a sensible stop loss limit, but it won't happen often. The "LTD" is a pair of figures you will need to keep in your head at all times. If you can't handle simple mental arithmetic, this method is not for you. If you are a blackjack player who counts cards, relief is at hand -- Turnaround is a whole lot easier and more effective than counting and is virtually undetectable by pit cops. "LTD" is short for loss-to-date, and the first figure in the pair tells you how many chips you're currently down according to the special tracking method the system uses. The second figure indicates the correct next bet (NB); basically, your NB stays the same after a loss and increases according to a fixed formula after a win. The "Steal" is a process by which the final profit when a recovery series is resolved is deliberately inflated. When you win, say, 3 units you steal one unit before deducting the win from the LTD and calculating the value of the next bet (NB). Example: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1, +3, +4, -5, -5, -5, +5, +6, +7, +5. The LTD after the win that ended a streak of 9 losses was "9,3" because the single unit won was not deducted from the loss-to-date. The NB jumped from 1 to 3 units for reasons I will explain in a moment. The LTD for the series changed as follows: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1 (9,3), +3 (7,4), +4 (4,5), -5 (9,5), -5 (14,5), -5 (19,5), +5 (15,6), +6 (10,7), +7 (4,5), +5 (EOS = end of series). JUMPING AND PUMPING The "Jump" uses the first figure in the LTD to set the value of the NB. My recommendation is that you do not divide the LTD by less than 6 to get the revised NB, meaning that a seven-bet win streak will end the recovery series. Don't misunderstand the thinking here: I am not saying that seven-bet hot streaks are frequent or even necessary to Turnaround's success. But I am saying that your next bet must always be guided by full knowledge of how much you must win in order to turn a recovery series around and come out with a profit. The "Pump" is another device to maintain the value of the NB at a level that makes recovery attainable. Oscar's "plus one after a win" rule is pathetically inadequate: it won't get you where you need to go unless the dealer is having a very bad day. When the game starts going your way, you must press as hard as you can, keeping in mind that if you overdo it, a reversal will do you very serious harm. The Pump percentage I use is 20 percent, meaning that after the first win in a potential hot streak, you multiply the previous bet by 1.2 to get the NB. The first win after a losing streak (the previous bet when you're trying to figure the Pump) was set by the Jump, and now it's time to press a little harder. Here's a sample sequence with the Steal, the Jump and the Pump all in play: (49,8) -8, -8, -8, +8 (66,11), +11, +13, -16 (60,16), -16, +16 (61,19), +19, +23 (21,22). In this sequence there were 5 losses and 6 wins, but to get you to the opening LTD of 49,8 the house advantage must have been running high beforehand. Generally, you should expect to lose more bets than you win (the casino depends on that). The trick is to make sure that you "win more when you win than you lose when you lose," and that's what Turnaround is all about. In this example, the 5 losses averaged -11 units, and the six wins averaged +15. That's a good thing! Note that when the first figure in the LTD dropped to 21, the NB became 22 and not 23 x 1.2 (28), applying a rule that the NB after a win can never be less than the LTD divided by 6 or more than the LTD+1 unit. More about that in a moment. Next: "Halving." This is exactly what it sounds like: at a certain point in a losing streak, Turnaround requires you to reduce further potential losses by cutting your bet down the middle. Again, balance is important here -- do it too soon or too often, and your bet will bounce up and down like a yo-yo gone wild, punching you further into the hole with each downturn. The Halving rule limits the ploy to bets in double figures and requires you to hold off until you have lost two "whole" bets in a row or, in blackjack, have seen a double or split raked into the dealer's tray. What you're trying to avoid is the damage from a "volley" -- (60,10), -10 (70,5), +5 (66,11), -11 (77,6), +6 (72,12), -12 (84,6), +6 (79,13), and so on -- and since paired losses are about half as frequent as isolated ones -- the "two lost bets" rule works well. If you can get away with it, keep halving until the NB gets down to single digits, remembering that the lower you go, the bigger will be the Jump when you finally win a bet and have to recalculate the NB as LTD/6. Here's another example: (169,58), -58, -58, -29, -15, -8, +8 (330,55). It's quite a jump from 8 units to 55 -- more than a parlay, that's for sure -- and in blackjack particularly, you should limit yourself to no more than two bet reductions if the pit cops are "on heat." THE DUMP The final Turnaround oddity is the "Dump." Translation: run for the hills. This is a concession to the tendency we all have to beat a safe retreat when a dealer gets hot or our "luck" runs cold. Computer simulations presume that a player will stick it out through thick and thin, betting bravely onward regardless of repeated punishment and waiting patiently for a negative trend to reverse itself. Human beings just don't play that way. Take a walk if the house gets, say, 10 bets ahead. I'd rather not apply the Dump at all, but human nature -- mine, at least -- doesn't permit me to bet on and on like a senseless robot when I'm getting my butt kicked. So, it makes sense to regulate the bail-out process. A guiding principle of Turnaround is to provide a rule to cover every situation that could possibly arise in a game of chance, relieving the player of the agonies of indecision. OK, that makes me a robot after all, but not a senseless one, since all of the system rules are based upon logic and common sense. When Turnaround made its debut on the Internet in April of 1997, several math-mad computer mavens leaped forward to offer to write source code for simulations which would prove that this particular method of progressive betting is no better than any other. After months of to-ing and fro-ing, caused by the inability of all these experts to apply the Turnaround rules correctly, the most persistent among them pronounced that my method had an expected win rate of over 99.5 percent or about the same as a Small Martingale. Secondly, the Martingale or double-up method is doomed as soon as it hits a losing streak of a dozen bets or more, whereas Turnaround freezes the bet in response to a loss and requires it to be repeatedly halved after a certain point. So, a Martingale bettor trying to win at a casino with a 3,000-unit house limit will run out of options once a dozen consecutive losses require that his next bet be 4,096 units. He's 4,095 units "in the hole" and the math guys say that if he reduces his next bet to 3,000 units and wins, then he's still in trouble. THE Turnaround RULES Here are the system rules, step by step:- 1. Bet the minimum (your own or the table minimum) on the first decision in a series. I recommend $5 units to start with, meaning that if the table minimum is $25, your first bet is 5 units and will go up or down in increments of $5. Don't be tempted to use a table minimum above $5 as your increment (raising your bet from $25 to $50 to $75 and so on at a $25 table). 2. WIN, bet MIN+1, and be ready to follow the Turnaround win progression: (+1), 2, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 22, 29, 37 etc. LOSE, bet the same amount. At a $25 table, the progression will be (+5), 6, 6, 8, 11, 15, 20, 26, 33, 41 etc. When the win progression ends, set the next bet (NB) at 2 units, except when a split/double increases the loss to more than the initial bet, in which case freeze the NB at that point. EXAMPLE: +1, +2, +2, +4, +7, +11, -16, +2. EXAMPLE: +1, +2, +2, +4, +7, +11, -32, +16. 3. Any win after a succession of losses invokes the Steal principle, whereby a single chip is deducted from the win before the loss to date (LTD) is revised. 4. The LTD consists of two figures, best expressed as "n1,n2." The first figure, n1, is the amount DOWN at any point, and is inflated by the Steal; n2 is the amount OUT -- meaning the value of the next bet (NB) "out" on the table. Think of the LTD as "Down comma Out" and the mental chore of revising it after each outcome will quickly become second nature. EXAMPLE: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1 (7 DOWN, 2 OUT), +2 (6,3), -3, -3, +3 (10,4), +4 (7,5), +5 (3,4), -4, -4, +4 (8,5), +5 (4,5), +5 (EOS = end of series). HA 16% but TA wins 8 units = 16% of Action of 50u. 5. A win after one or more losses also invokes the Jump, whereby NB is calculated by dividing n1 (the inflated loss to date) by a predetermined amount. I recommend that if n1 is 20 or less, NB = n1/4; if n1 is more than (>) 20 and less than (<) 51, NB = n1/5; if n1 > 50, NB = n1/6. 6. After a win, NB must never be LESS than the first figure in the LTD (n1) divided by 6 or MORE than n1+1. If EOS is achieved, NB always falls back to the minimum. 7. After a win to which the Jump has been applied, use the Pump to press the NB further. This increase should be 20 percent, rounded, meaning that it has no effect until the previous bet (PB) hits 8 units (8 x 1.2 = 9.6 = 10). EXAMPLE: (99,17), -17, -17, -17, +17 (134,23), +23, +28, -34 (119,34), +34 (86,41), +41 (46,47), +47 = EOS. NOTE that 41 x 1.2 = 49.2 = 49 but the final Turnaround bet was reduced to 47 that your next bet (NB) must never exceed DOWN+1. 8. Use Halving to limit potential losses as soon as you lose two successive bets of 10 units or more, and keep Halving until NB reaches single digits. In blackjack, start Halving if a double/split (two or more hands, in effect) costs you 20u or more. Blackjack players conscious of dealer/pit scrutiny should not use Halving more than twice in any sequence. EXAMPLE: (99,17), -17, -17, -9, +9 (134,23), -23, -23, -12, -6, +6 (192,32), -32, -32, -16, -8, -8, +8 (271,46), +46, +55, +66, +79 (28,29), +29 = EOS. 9. Halving does NOT apply if a win progression ends with a lost double/split but takes effect if another double-digit loss is suffered. EXAMPLE: +1, +2, +2, +4, +7, +11, -32 (17,16), -16, -8, +8 (34,10), +10, +12 (14,14), +15. 10. If, as above, raising the NB to match DOWN+1 will increase it by not more than 10 percent, make the adjustment in the hope that EOS will be achieved. Otherwise, a series will be extended for an extra one or two bets, which is contrary to our objective: wrapping up a recovery series in as few bets as possible before reverting to a minimum bet and starting a new series. In our example above, a win at 14,14 would have given us an LTD of 1,2 because of the Steal. 11. Use the Dump to stop play in a damaging location, transferring the LTD in full to a new deck, shoe or table whenever it's convenient. Experienced gamblers know that trends exist, and that a persistent downturn will sometimes seem unbeatable. The basic rule is to quit playing and move as soon as the second of two successive losses takes the LTD above 100 units, then 200, then 500, 1000, 2000 and so on. Don't Dump if Halving has already begun, or within five bets of the last move. An alternative is to track wins and losses and Dump as soon as the house gets, say, 10 bets ahead of you in any series (for instance, if the house has taken 16 bets vs. your 6). The advantage of this method is that it's more consistent than the original variable trigger approach. 12. In blackjack, play strictly according to basic strategy. There are about as many variations on the BPS (basic playing strategy) as there are "experts" on the game, but if you stick strictly to whichever book you choose, you will reduce the house edge to substantially less than 1 percent. Here's the BPS I recommend... STRATEGY TABLE #1 Turnaround FINAL 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A A A A A A A A A A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X 2 3 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X ------------------------------------------------------------ A: H H H H D H H H H H H H H H H H S S - T H H H H H H T S S 2: H H D D D H S S S S H H H H D S S S - T T T H D H T T T S 3: H H D D D H S S S S H H H H D D S S - T T T H D T T T T S 4: H H D D D S S S S S D D D D D D S S - T T T H D T T T T S 5: D D D D D S S S S S D D D D D D S S - T T T T D T T T T S 6: D D D D D S S S S S D D D D D D S S - T T T T D T T T T S 7: H H D D D H H H H H H H H H H S S S - T T T H D T T T S S 8: H H H D D H H H H H H H H H H S S S - T H H H D H T T T S 9: H H H D D H H H H H H H H H H H S S - T H H H D H H T T S X: H H H H D H H H H H H H H H H H S S - T H H H H H H T S S D = DOUBLE S = STAND T = SPLIT H = HIT Notes: With 4,4 against 5 or 6, split if DAS, otherwise D; some "experts" (usually card counters) recommend standing with 7,7 against 10 and standing with 16 against A but it's a bad idea; never, ever, take insurance or even money (which is the same thing); there's a case to be made for doubling A,8 or A,9 against 4-6, but it's a very aggressive play. "CUSTOMIZING" Turnaround Many of the rules of Turnaround can be adapted to suit the style of the individual player. For example, since the Steal drives the required bet rapidly upward in a downturn, you might feel that once it has been applied often enough to guarantee a reasonable win when EOS is eventually achieved, it should be abandoned after a certain point. Let's say you decide to ditch the Steal once the LTD hits 50. Here's how a tough sequence of bets might look: -1, -1, -1, +1 (3,2), -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, +2 (16,4), -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, +4 (49,9), -9, -9, -9, -9, -9, +9 (86,15), +15 (72,18), +18 (55,22), +22 (34,26), -26, -26, -13, +7 (93,16), +16 (78,19), +19 (60,23), +23 (38,28), +28 (11,12), +12 (EOS). Here, the house won 27 bets out of 40, but Turnaround bested an HA of 14/40 = 35% by exploiting upturns and backing off during downturns, overcoming the fact that losing streaks were longer and more frequent than winning ones. The 27 losses cost the player a total of 163 units for an ALB (average losing bet) of 6 units. The 13 winning bets recouped 178 units for an AWB of 14 units, kicking the HA all the way back to breakfast-time and making a profit of 15 units against horrendous odds. If we "replay" those same hands with the Steal abandoned about half way through, the sequence looks like this: -1, -1, -1, +1 (3,2), -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, +2 (16,4), -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, -4, +4 (49,9), -9, -9, -9, -9, -9, +9 (85,15), +15 (70,18), +18 (52,22), +22 (30,26), -26, -26, -13, +7 (88,16), +16 (72,19), +19 (53,23), +23 (30,28), +28 (2,3), +3 (EOS). The effect in this case was simply to reduce the "Turnaround bet" -- the last bet needed to end a recovery series with a profit -- from 12 units to 3 units. Since the critical bet was a winner, that was a bad thing, but if it had lost, the next bet (NB) would also have been much smaller, thus confronting the player with a greatly reduced exposure. The recommended levels for the Steal (-1), the Jump (LTD/4,5,6) and the Pump (PB x 1.2) could all be said to be "aggressive," and a cautious player could limit his exposure while still following the Turnaround rules and principles. Keep in mind that the more timid the play, the longer it will sometimes take to exploit an upward trend and end a series with a profit before falling back to a minimum bet. When we reduced the Steal above, we cut the EOS win from 15 units to 6 -- a high price which a conservative player might consider worth every penny. Note that in the first version of the sequence (the recommended approach) Turnaround won 15 units on action of 341 units, achieving a player "hold" of 4.4 percent. A 1-chip flat bettor would have lost 14 units on total action of 40 units, giving the house a "hold" of 35 percent. If you play Turnaround for long enough, even if all you're willing to do is try it out at home, you will learn that making money from sequences of bets in which the house had the clear edge is commonplace. The concept of "stealing" one unit before figuring out the loss to date and the related next bet is unique to Turnaround in spite of the fact that reward proportionate to risk is as reasonable and sensible a goal in gambling as it is in any other money-making endeavor. In contrast, Turnaround applies the requirement that the longer a recovery sequence (or series) lasts, the greater should be the final profit. I have experimented with applying the Steal to lost bets as well as winning ones, and naturally the end result is always an even greater profit; the downside is that when wins are few and far between, the strain on the bankroll is greatly increased. For example, consider a TA sequence which plays out like the one used at the very beginning of this article: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1 (9,3), +3 (7,4), +4 (4,5), -5 (9,5), -5 (14,5), -5 (19,5), +5 (15,6), +6 (10,7), +7 (4,5), +5 (EOS = end of series). With the Steal applied to all bets, win or lose, the same sequence would be as follows: -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1 (18,3), +3 (16,4), +4 (13,5), -5 (19,5), -5 (25,5), -5 (31,5), +5 (27,6), +6 (22,7), +7 (16,8), +8 (9,10). Stealing after wins only earned us a profit of 7 units and delivered a resolution after a series in which the house won 12 bets and we won 7 bets. The more aggressive approach gave us a profit of 10 units but left us in need of another win to achieve Turnaround. The effect of applying an all-around Steal, then, is to win more chips after facing greater risks. Either way, you can be confident that Turnaround will consistently hand you a profit after you have lost more bets than you won. THE RED/BLACK TEST OF Turnaround If you're among the doubters, try this little test: take the K and Q of hearts out of a single deck, creating a stack of 50 cards in which there are 26 blacks and 24 reds and black therefore has an advantage over red of 4 percent. Shuffle them rigorously, then turn them over one by one, using the Turnaround method to bet that the next card will be red. The HA will vary before each card is dealt, depending on how many blacks and reds have preceded it, but you can realistically expect a 4 percent house edge before the first card is turned over, and the same house edge before the 50th card is exposed. Time and again, you will finish the deck with Turnaround substantially in profit in spite of a clear, absolute house advantage. The red/black test will sometimes hit the end of the deck in the middle of the recovery series, but then you do just as you would in a casino and roll over the LTD to the first "hand" of the new "shoe." Lastly, a clarification of the Dump. Walking away from a costly string of losses is not merely an option for a real gambler (as opposed to someone who bases his "knowledge" of casino games upon computer simulations): it's a fact of life. Everyone does it, and everyone should do it. It's a difficult thing to regulate because so many influences push us to the point where we don't want to play any more against a particular dealer or at a particular table. To name a few: dealer hot streaks, prod-nose pit bosses, incompetent and/or inebriated players, fatigue, boredom, hunger and a stressed-out bladder. Proponents of computer simulations argue that their pale imitations of casino games are mathematically accurate, but in truth they can't be. No simulation exists which can imitate more than one or two components of real casino play at a time, and their most critical omission is human nature. I don't recommend changing your bet or varying basic blackjack strategy on a whim because one of the primary principles of Turnaround is that consistency is critical to long-term profit. But I do encourage you to back off from a game the moment you begin to feel uncomfortable or pessimistic: never, ever play if it doesn't "feel right." There's no way a computer simulation can ape a gut feeling that tells a player when to quit, and it's difficult to devise rules to cover that situation. Turnaround's Dump will sometimes save your bankroll and will sometimes pull you out of the frying pan and into the fire. The one advantage of a computer simulation is that it enables you to test a variety of strategems against the same set of outcomes, but even when analysis of a million plays indicates that you would have won more without the Dump than with it, you can't say, "OK, I'll never walk away from a game again" because uninterrupted betting is an impossibility in real life. I suggested earlier that one way to "Dump" is to walk away from a shoe (or a series) if the house pulls 10 bets ahead of you, winning 15 bets out of the first 20, for example. At -10, you won't have to move very often, whereas at -5 you'll be abandoning non-profitable situations pretty frequently, taking your LTD with you to another location and resuming play per the system rules. Personally, I favor frequent moves and "natural breaks" -- they alleviate boredom and keep me alert, and reduce the temptation to wobble off the rails and temporarily depart from the rules (always a no-no!). Bottom line: it's up to the player. WRINKLES I can't over-emphasize the wisdom of the individual player tailoring Turnaround to meet his/her needs and circumstances, so long as the key elements are not totally disabled. I didn't offer specific suggestions in the original presentation on my web site because I was concerned that the system was already quite complicated enough, and E-mail from all over the world confirmed that assessment. Now that Turnaround is, in effect, "retired" from the Internet, I can cover this topic in greater detail. Anyone who has bet against a game of chance for just a few hundred outcomes knows that while skilled money management can beat the odds for very long periods of time, eventual damaging streaks in favor of the house are inevitable. Turnaround's damage control is effective but not infallible, and absent a very large bankroll, it is sometimes wise to help it out a little. A technique I call "Breakdown" would take an LTD of, for example, 19,3 x $100 units and break it up into four separate targets of 19,3 x $25 units. It will take much longer to achieve Turnaround -- at least four times longer! -- but the strain on the bankroll will usually be substantially reduced. "Breakdown" assumes the use of a couple of other Turnaround concepts, "Multi-level Betting" and "Target Betting," both of which also further complicate the system but greatly enhance its effectiveness, and extends the idea of the Dump (a natural break in play in response to a downturn) into something called "Deferred Betting." The idea of Multi-level Betting is to enhance the system's response when the house edge is biting extra hard. Assuming a start-up at $5 units, you would apply the Dump when the LTD exceeds 100 units and make a quick conversion to $10 or $25 units before resuming play against a new shoe. For example, an LTD of 117,19 x $5 would become 59,10 x $10 or 24,4 x $25, the idea being that the value of incremental increases goes up and the likelihood of achieving Turnaround is often improved because fewer consecutive wins are needed. In essence, use of the multi-level conversion puts a little more power behind the Pump, which increases the next bet (NB) by 20 percent after every win until the LTD+1 ceiling is reached. Say you're at 117,19 x $5 and you log a win, bringing the LTD down to 99,23 and the NB to $115. At 59,10 x $10, a win would take the LTD to 50,12 and the NB to $120, and at 24,4 x $25, the LTD would drop to 21,5 and the NB would therefore be worth $125. Small differences, maybe, but small differences are what Turnaround is all about! "Target Betting" is a sneaky profit-builder which is, in essence, Deferred Betting without any actual prior losses. It exploits the fact that the mathematicians are right on the money when they remind us that the cards, dice or whatever have no memory and so are unaffected by bets that have been won or lost to date. Usually, Turnaround starts betting in a new series with a clean slate and the opening wager is therefore 1 unit and the LTD is, in effect, 0,1. But what if we open play with a fictitious LTD of, say, 19,3? If the house edge stays reasonably close to the norm, we'll make more money when Turnaroundachieves end of series (EOS) is what. Here's a blackjack Target Betting example, starting out with a spurious LTD of 19,3: -3 (22,3), +4.5 (BJ), +4, -5 (22,5), -10 (32,5), +5, +6, -7 (30,7), +7, +8, -10 (27,10), -10 (37,10/2), -5 (42,5), -5 (47,5), +5 (43,8), +12 (BJ), -10 (42,10), +10 (31,12), +12 (20,14), +14 (7,8 TA), -8 (15,8), +16 (EOS). Of course, Target Betting increases the risk that a runaway house edge will push the Turnaround bet into what I call brown trouser territory, and the potential exposure disqualifies it from the repertoire of a conservative player. It's just another wrinkle in the Turnaround technique: an example of how the system can be "customized" to suit the personality of the person who's using it. The absolute minimum required to beat a pendulum that refuses to swing your way is 100 units. My greatest success has been with a 500-unit bank, but the real objective of Turnaround is to keep building your stash by adding to it after every winning session, splitting the take down the middle and extracting only half of your winnings as true profit. Do this: test Turnaround thoroughly at your "home casino," and don't even think of backing it with a thin dime until you have learned the rules upside down and inside out. Without money management, the only allies the gambler has are luck and intuition, and neither of those is reliable. One of Turnaround's great strengths is that it is virtually undetectable, and therefore unlikely to attract casino "heat."The bad news is that the Martingales, the D'Alemberts, the Laboucheres and all the other traditional methods touted in countless gambling "text books" are doomed to lose. The good news is that Turnaround is a winner, for those who are willing to work at it. We've had people complain that the rules are "too complicated" or "impossible to learn." Baloney! We've learned them, and neither of us doesn't pretend to be a genius. If you're looking for a simple way to beat the casinos, get used to this simple fact: there isn't one.