Blackjack-Turniere

[Paroli]

Diese Ankündigung veranlasste mich zur Teilnahme an einem Blackjack-Turnier:

Blackjack Blowout

Win $250 each weekend

Every Friday, Saturday and Sunday throughout March, we'll be holding "Blackjack Blowouts" at each of our casinos and the one player to get the highest number of Blackjacks each weekend will win $250.

There are a total of 5 Blackjack Blowout weekends in March at each CyberCroupier casino and you can take part in as many as you like. The process for entering any one of the Blackjack Blowouts at any casino is exactly the same...

Play Blackjack at that casino during the above time period on the same weekend, keeping a record of the Blackjack's you win.

When you finish playing Blackjack for the weekend, send an email to [email protected] with "Blackjack Blowout" in the subject line, stating your full name as it appears on your account, your PIN No, the number of Blackjacks you think you got over that weekend and in which casino.

On the Monday after each Blackjack Blowout weekend, we'll run a computer check on the records of all the players who have entered and sent in their emails so we can determine which single player who has achieved the most Blackjacks. That person will then be contacted via email and have their prize money credited to their bonus account within 72 hours.

* Excludes Blackjack achieved by split hands and where the dealer also scores Blackjack.

Am vergangenen Wochenende probierte ich, das Preisgeld von $250 zu bekommen und spielte am Samstag und Sonntag insgesamt wohl mehr als 10 Stunden lang Blackjack im Riverboat-Casino. Ich zahlte dort zunächst $50 ein und bekam einen Bonus in gleicher Höhe dazu. Als ich die $100 später komplett verspielt hatte, schob ich noch mal $100 Einzahlung nach. Insgesamt spielte ich an diesem Wochenende mehr als 1200 Hände und bekam 57 Blackjacks. In drei Fällen hatte der Dealer zugleich ebenfalls einen Blackjack.  54 Blackjacks hätten demnach gewertet werden müssen.

Zwischendurch sah ich mir immer mal die Besucherlisten der in Frage kommenden Online-Casinos an (Mens Vegas, MiniVegas, WomensVegas und Riverboat Casino). Egal ob vormittags, nachmittags oder nachts: Die Online-Casinos waren meist wie ausgestorben. Ab und zu waren Blackjack-Spieler zu sehen, aber keiner war stundenlang am spielen, soweit das zu beobachten war. Möglich, dass im Oriental Casino mehr los war. Das konnte ich nicht beobachten.

Die Mail an den Veranstalter blieb unbeantwortet. Gleiches gilt für zwei weitere Nachfragen, wer denn das Preisgeld gewonnen habe (und mit welcher Anzahl von Blackjacks).

Aufgrund der mangelnden Transparenz und dem schlechten Support rate ich von einer Teilnahme an so einer Art Turnier ab. Es ist nicht nachvollziehbar, ob überhaupt jemand einen Gewinn bekommen hat, denn es gibt auch keine Veröffentlichungen im Internet.

Dass es auch besser geht, beweisen andere Blackjack-Turniere, wie z.B. das an diesem Wochenende laufende Turnier im Global-Player Casino. Die Teilnehmer können anhand der Highscore-Liste ihren aktuellen Stand erfahren und so abschätzen, ob noch Gewinnchancen bestehen.

[Lennoxlee]

Hallo Paroli

Ich habe schon beim Posting zu " All Slots Casinos" das du auch BJ spielst. Leider wird BJ in diesem Forum nicht diskutiert.

Ich selber spiele auch und gerne. Leider mit mäßigen Erfolg. Beim vorangegangenem Posting war zu sehen das du die Basisstrategie spielst.Mich würde interessieren ob du BJ im Gleichsatz oder mit Gewinnprog. spielst. Im Online-Casino sah es aus wie gleichsatz aber spielst du auch so im Casino? Oder zählst du auch zu den Countern. Was angeblich die einzige möglichkeit sein soll im Casino mit plus rauszugehen.

Geht es bei den anderen Onlinetunieren richtig fair zu und hast du da schon mal einen Preis gewonnen ?

Würde mich über eine Antwort freuen.

MfG Lennoxlee

[Paroli]

Hallo Lennoxlee,

Blackjack spiele ich erst seit kurzer Zeit und auch nur zwischendurch mal in Online-Casinos. Als es darum ging, die meisten Blackjacks zu schaffen, habe ich mehr als 1000 Hände nur Minimum $1 gesetzt und meistens auch aufs Splitten und Verdoppeln verzichtet. Ansonsten variiere ich die Einsatzhöhen entsprechend der Tendenzbilder der Persönlichen Permanenz.

Insgesamt sind meine Ergebnisse schlechter als beim Roulette, weil die Plusläufe meist kürzer ausfallen. Bei All Slots hat es immerhin gereicht, um den Bonus von $50 (bei $20 Einzahlung) ausgezahlt zu bekommen. Dabei machte ich noch deutlich mehr Umsatz, als eigentlich erforderlich war (minimum wager $500). Anderswo lief es schlechter, aber da habe ich meistens nur den Bonus verzockt.

An sonstigen Turnieren habe ich noch nicht teilgenommen, aber ich gehe mal davon aus, dass es bei denen fair zugeht, wo eine Highscore-Liste vorhanden ist. Das hat auch den Vorteil, dass man bei aussichtslosem Saldo-oder Punktestand rechtzeitig abbrechen kann, statt blindlings drauflos zu zocken.

Wer sich mit Blackjack nicht so gut auskennt (so wie ich) und die Basisstrategie trainieren oder anwenden möchte, findet gute Informationen auf folgender Seite:

mitglied.lycos.de/streicher/index.html (dead link)

Black Jack - Vom Beginner zum Gewinner

[Alpenschreck]

Danke für den Link

+die Mühe bisher

Alpenschreck

[leovoo]

Benutzen sie Turnaround! Start mit fiktiven -10, Satz 2.

2mal Verlust halbiert IMMER den Satz. Ende mit Null garantiert gewöhnlicherweise 15-20 Gewinneinheiten.

Gute Erfahrungen damit.

MfG leovoo

[RCEC]

THE RULES OF Turnaround

by Ian Harmer

[email protected], [email protected]

© 1998 Ian W. Harmer

Turnaround is a method of money management which could also be called a "streak system" because it relies on the simple truth that while the majority of wins and losses in a game of chance are isolated incidents, many of them come in bunches.

Anyone who disputes that streaks are commonplace and can always be relied upon to occur need read no further; Turnaround would work for them if they gave it a chance, but a player unable to accept the existence of trends (or a "pendulum") in all casino games should stick with random betting...and be ready to lose.

If you're still with me, before I get down to the nitty-gritty of what Turnaround is and how and why it works, I want to establish what it's NOT.

First off, it's not a Small Martingale, or a "glorified Martingale" or any other flavor of suicidal progression. The SM is a simple idea which can be quite profitable -- especially at blackjack -- until it hits the wall, and it always does eventually. Basically, you bet a big chunk of your bankroll on the very next decision being a winner, doubling your wager after each loss until your losing streak ends. When you win, you come out of your slump with a 1-unit profit, unless you're at a blackjack table and hit a natural or a successful double/split at exactly the right moment.

The SM's biggest problem isn't its certain doom but the simple fact that the casinos won't let you play it. A capped Martingale can make money for extended periods of play, but dealers and pit cops can be counted on to jump all over you as soon as they figure out what you're doing. Why? Because the method can drag a lot of money out of the house's pocket before it inevitably unravels. Give it a try sometime: you won't play undisturbed for long, I promise you; you probably won't be banned, but you will get a lot of unwanted advice about how foolish your play is.

A RIP-OFF?

Some of Turnaround's critics -- yes, there are a few -- have suggested that it is a blatant rip-off of an ancient craps system called Oscar's Grind. The difference between OG and TA is that one works and the other doesn't. To help you figure out which is which, I'll tell you that like TA, Oscar requires you to freeze your bet after a loss and increase it in response to a win. But because OG increases the bet by just one unit each time, playing it through a series of losing streaks is like trying to get out of a quicksand: the harder you struggle, the deeper you sink.

I have found a detailed deStopp!ion of Oscar's Grind in only one gambling book, and the author sings its praises loud and long. He recommends setting a bet ceiling of 10 units and a loss limit or stop-loss of 20 units, and claims to have paid for gambling trips all over the world with that tactic. He's a lucky fellow, because in all the trials I have run using the same outcomes that Turnaround profits from, Oscar grinds himself to a sticky end.

The key to Turnaround is that it forces you to relate the value of your next bet to the depth of the doo-doo you're in, providing you with a constantly updated "win target." At any point, a modest winning streak will take you within reach of your target Oscar, however, will have you betting a handful of chips regardless of the fact that you're hundreds of units in the hole, or will "bust" at the recommended 20-unit stop loss so often that recovery will require an endless succession of miracles. Forget it! Turnaround is the only money management method you need to learn. It may take you a while to get the hang of it, but your efforts will be repeatedly rewarded.

First, a glossary of Turnaround terms.-

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. The idea is to exploit a potential winning streak realistically, establishing a win target attainable without divine intervention. You'll find step-by-step rules below and will learn that the height of the Jump varies according to the first figure in the LTD. 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.

For years, I applied a graded approach to the Dump, bailing out of a bad situation when the first figure in the LTD hit 100, then 200, then 500, then 1000, then 2000 and so on. Much as I dislike "sims," because they cannot reflect real gambling conditions, they have at least taught me that a better way to go is to track wins and losses on a simple -1, -2, -3, -2, -1 basis (3 losses followed by 2 wins in this example) and 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.

Turnaround's ultimate objective is to ensure that the house advantage in any game is neutralized. No system can alter the simple fact that over time, the player will lose more bets than he wins. Without that certainty, the casinos would have no reason to be in business. However, if the average value of all his winning bets exceeds the average value of his losing bets by a percentage greater than the house advantage, the player will make money in spite of the fact that the house won more bets than he did.

Say what? Let's assume a house edge of 4 percent and take 100 bets in which the HA precisely matched the negative expectation for the game. There must therefore have been 48 winners and 52 losers, meaning that a "flat bettor" wagering 1 unit on each decision won 48 units and lost 52 units, giving up 4 percent of his "action" of 100 units.

Now let's assume an average loss of 1.6 units and an average win of 1.8 units. The average winning bet (AWB) exceeds the average losing bet (ALB) by 12 percent. Simple sum: 48 x 1.8 - 52 x 1.6 = 86.4 - 83.2 = a profit of 3.2 units on action of 170 units = a "player edge" of 1.88 percent in spite of an HA of 4 percent.

I have already shown you how this can be achieved consistently without the aid of a crystal ball, but the basic principle bears repeating: freeze or reduce your next bet in response to a loss and press your bet in response to a win and over time you will neutralize the house edge. How much time? How long is a piece of string? Answer: as long as it needs to be.

Of course, if wins and losses only came in ones and twos, this principle wouldn't work. Streaks in both directions are a predictable reality in games of chance, however. That won't help you if you don't set your bet according to an achievable win target, and that's what Turnaround is all about.

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.

That would be good news, but for the fact that the value of losses falling within the 0.5 percent was predicted to exceed the value of combined wins by an amount equal to the percentage of the house advantage.

There are a couple of observations that are appropriate here. Firstly, I say again that simulations by their nature assume that a player will keep betting even when the house advantage swings so far out of whack that his bankroll is under serious threat. That just isn't how people play.

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 win 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.

They're a hard-headed bunch, the "math mob" -- they don't accept that Mr. Martingale could stay in play and within the house limit by betting 3,000 units again after a win, thereby if he wins winding up a punishing sequence with an overall profit of 1,814 units...but that's a different argument.

What's relevant here is that Turnaround isn't fazed by a long string of losses: it simply stands still for a while, then starts to reduce the bet to ease the pressure on the bankroll, and keeps doing so until a win is achieved.

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.

NEXT: "CUSTOMIZING" Turnaround

© 1998 Ian W. Harmer

[email protected], [email protected]

THE RULES OF Turnaround

by Ian Harmer

[email protected], [email protected]

© 1998 Ian W. Harmer

"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.

One of the most used and abused progressions is the double-up, whereby a loss of 1 unit is followed by a bet of 2 units, then 4, then 8 until a win is achieved. Its greatest weakness aside from its inevitable long-term doom is that after risking a huge sum of money, a player who finally recovers his losses will only show a profit of a single unit for his trouble.

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 self-styled "experts" who have repeatedly attacked the validity of Turnaround in recent months are fond of repeating that "any amount bet against a negative expectation must have a negative result" and most argue that this "ultimate axiom" alone dooms the method to failure. If they were right, no one would ever win at any gambling game, and casinos would be empty and eventually non-existent. However, they're wrong.

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."

So "any amount bet against a negative expectation must have a negative result" is false for this test, and false for any other gambling proposition with a reasonable house edge (your definition of "reasonable" may differ from mine, so let's say that anything over 5 percent is a gouge). The negative expectation mantra holds true ONLY for flat or random betting: skilled, systematic money management reduces the "ultimate axiom" to bilge-water.

The counter argument (pun intended) against the red/black test is that it's possible to track -- or count -- the black cards and deduce when the composition of the remaining cards is favorable, indicating an increased bet. Try it yourself and you will quickly find that the only time this version of counting is helpful is when all 26 black cards have been exposed and you know for sure that only reds remain. It's the same with blackjack: as long as there are any small cards left, you can never be sure of the fate of your bet, and that's why a "case-downer" can lose a bundle when he's betting the farm against what seems to be a favorable deck value.

Also relevant to the red/black test is the observation that success against 50 outcomes doesn't "prove" anything: it's too small a sample. Fair enough, but the point is that big or small, it's a sample in which the HA can be predicted, and every time Turnaround is an overall winner against a 4 percent HA, the negative expectation axiom is squashed.

I have proved Turnaround many times by presenting the red/black test as a game in which they have a cast-iron, guaranteed edge. The certainty that they will win four bets more than me in every 100 sounds irresistible, but after I have relieved them of their entire bankroll a few times -- we never play with anything deadlier than pennies! -- they usually see reason.

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 stratagems 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 Turnaround achieves 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).

I can hear the mathemaniacs now: the sample is "anecdotal" or "subjective" or "unrepresentative" and, worse yet, the final result shows an overall player advantage! Partly true because the math mob is usually at least partly right -- but more relevant is the fact that right after the 15th bet was lost, the HA to date was a whopping 20 percent and a player edge did not materialize until the final double down win ended the series. Thanks to target betting the final win was 26 units. Without target betting, the same sample would have broken down into four separate series and the overall win would have been 13.5 units. A flat bettor venturing just 1 unit per wager would have won...2 units.

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.

HELP!

I am available to help anyone who's having a hard time understanding the Turnaround rules -- but please, don't ask me questions that are covered in the text you have just finished reading. If you don't understand something, by all means blame me for being too long-winded or convoluted in my explanations...but read them again anyway. Don't try to figure out Turnaround in your head: use a deck of cards to walk yourself slowly through the rules, and in time, they'll make sense to you. I've had people complain that the rules are "too complicated" or "impossible to learn." Baloney! I've learned them, and I don'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.

I'm very interested in hearing from players who have studied betting strategies and have constructive criticism to offer. I don't need lectures from mathematicians on how and why Turnaround defies the laws of nature, Einstein, Fermat, Bernouilli or anyone else. One critic recently described me as "manic" and incapable of understanding the truth, and that happens to be how I see most of the numbers no-men who insist that any method claiming long-term success against the house advantage is inherently deluded and/or fraudulent.

The real truth is that no method of betting could be or would be applied to the multiple millions of outcomes which the mathemanics insist must be beaten in order for any system to be validated. Not one of the so-called experts who claim to have disproved my methods can offer an effective alternative to Turnaround because...there isn't one. Here's another simple truth: if you do not bet systematically, you will eventually lose. And if you count cards in blackjack, you will eventually lose.

All that's left to the sane and logical gambler who does not feel obliged to make a contribution to the casino coffers whenever he walks through the doors is money management. 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.

How big a bankroll does Turnaround need? "As big as possible" isn't an acceptable answer, so I'll say this: I have often walked away a substantial winner after bankrolling my methods with 20 units or less -- but I don't recommend it. You need to be able to ride out negative trends, and 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.

What about a stop-loss? As with the bankroll, this is a "How long is a piece of string?" question, and the answer is, "As long as it needs to be." I'm not trying to be evasive here, because it seems obvious to me that the bigger your bankroll and the higher your stop-loss, the smaller is your risk of loss. I do not, however, endorse the "expert" who advised me that "an infinite bankroll has a positive expectation." He's right, in a fantasy world where casinos permit you to bet as much as you want, but since table limits and house limits are an inescapable fact of gambling life, being right is in this instance irrelevant.

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. Get a feel for its strengths and weaknesses, make whatever adjustments and adaptations you see fit without undermining the fundamentals, then back it with as much money as you can afford to lose. I haven't had a losing year since 1989 -- but because like most of you, I'm a working stiff with limited resources, I haven't made a fortune either. No gambler should take on the monetary muscle of a casino without understanding that the fact that the house has more "ammo" than he does is the first and biggest strike against him, no matter the game he chooses to play. Rich losers have dumped fortunes because they believed money could buy victory against the house advantage. Fact is, money's a big help, but wits and consistency are far more powerful weapons.

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." A card counter's bets fluctuate according to the deck value and the same index requires him to vary his basic strategy, moves that frequently wave red flags at paranoid pit prod-noses. A Turnaround player rarely has to increase his bet by more than a parlay, and the system's one big giveaway -- cutting the bet back to the minimum after a recovery series is resolved -- can be camouflaged by simply moving to another table before starting a new series.

Here's a modest prediction: soon enough, Turnaround will become the way smart players everywhere achieve an edge against the house: that's something you can count on. Perhaps you can also count on the casinos to do all they can to cripple the system's use, but since counter measures such as limiting the permitted spread at any one table -- $5 to $50, $25 to $200, $100 to $1000 or whatever -- will inconvenience random bettors without hurting Turnaround -- they'll probably be a long time coming. Most gamblers don't bother to learn simple strategies to improve their odds, let alone complex methods of money management, and that makes the Turnaround player a member of a 1 percent elite. Make the most of it!

© 1998 Ian W. Harmer

[email protected], [email protected]

"Turnaround: The Player's Edge in Games of Chance"

[Paroli]

Tendenzspiel geht auch ganz gut (mit Basisstrategie als Marsch). Die Tendenz der Plus/Minus-Permanenz beeinflusst die Satzhöhe. Bei Verlustserien nur Minimum setzen, bei Plusserien den Einsatz erhöhen. Bei Intermittenz der Ergebnisse die Einsätze diesem Verlauf anpassen (bei Pluserwartung höher, bei Minuserwartung niedriger). Ich habe es eben mal auf niedrigem Niveau beim GPC-Turnier ausprobiert:

Begonnen um 12:51 Uhr

Spieler          Bank     Ergebnis   Satzhöhe  4,K              4,6,K       -1        1  6,3,7,9          8,Q         -2        2      3,2,4,2,5,4      8,8,9       +2        2  6,A,J            A,10        -2        2  10,10            5,Q,8       +2        2  6,9              5,A,4       -1        1  9,Q              8,8,7       +3        3  Q,3              6,7,8       -1        1  4,10,2,4         9,A          0        4  10,6             Q,8         -1        1  6,4,2,2,A,4      J,7         +3        3  4,4,10           3,6,10      -1        1  K,2,7            6,Q,K       +4        4  6,9,4            8,8,4       -1        1  K,5              6,7,Q       +3        3  6,A,K            2,J,J       +1        1  Q,J              7,6,4       +2        2

Als sich Plus und Minus jeweils abwechselten, passte ich mich diesem Verlauf entsprechend an. Beim erwarteten Minus setzte ich jeweils $1, beim danach erwarteten Plus setzte ich $3 oder $4.  Die Einsatzhöhe wurde der Tendenz angepasst. Um 13:04 Uhr brach ich das Spiel nach der 17.Runde ab. Entscheidend für die gewonnenen $10 war die Satztechnik, denn es gab genau so viele Plus-Ergebnisse, wie Minus-Ergebnisse. Für das Turnier rechne ich mir keine Chancen aus. Ich wollte nur mal sehen, ob die Rangliste funktioniert. Die Highscore-Liste zeigte den aktuellen Stand (vom 24.3.2002, 13:07 Uhr) in Echtzeit:

[leovoo]

David Popik in Winning Blackjack Without Counting Cards

1997 schlägt folgendes vor:To gain 0.5 % the one-unit bet is raised only as indicated, and at no other time!

1) If the bet that is made after the first win (after a loss) ia successful, immediately revert  back to a 1-unit bet. Continue betting 1 unit no matter how long the winning streak will last

2) If the bet  placed after the third loss is successful, it is considered as a first win. Now you double your bet.

First win (W) after  a loss is 1 unit bet: w(1)- 2-1-1-1- etc.

First loss: a losing streak where L is the first loss after two or more winning handa and is a 1-unit bet.

L(1)-1-1-2-1-1-1-1 etc.After third loss you raise once!

A losing streak where L is the first loss after a single winning hand: L(2)-1-1-2-1-1-1-1 etc

A combination L(1 or 2) - 1-1-2 you win. That was first win so now you have to bet 2 units. That is oly place where 2 raised bets follow each other.

Ich glaube, es ist besser sowas nicht zu übersetzen. Probieren sie es!

MfG  leovoo.

PS wenn es pulsiert (Parolis Beispiel) muss man Tendenzen "fühlen".

[Paroli]

Im weiteren Verlauf hielt die Wechseltendenz der Plus/Minus-Ergebnisse an. In ähnlicher Form passe ich meine Einsätze beim Tendenzspiel auf den Einfachen Chancen des Roulette an. Solange die Tendenz nicht "verrückt spielt", was leider immer mal passieren kann (darum ist das Kapitalisieren so schwer), müsste man bei allen 50:50 Spielarten gut zurecht kommen, also auch beim MiniBaccarat und beim kaum beachteten Craps.

Partie Fortsetzung ab 17:14 Uhr

Spieler          Bank     Ergebnis   Satzhöhe  4,9             3,9,4,2     -1        1  4,4,10          7,4,9       -1        1      8,7,6           8,4,3,6      0        1  7,J             2,K,4,4     -1        1  2,Q,4           3,8,K       -1        1  8,7             4,6,6,J     +1        1  5,4,9           4,3,J       +4        2/2  (double)  J,4             5,Q,3       -2        2  Q,J             8,10        +1        1  K,4,5           J,A         -2        2  6,A,4           A,6         +2        2  Q,4             2,9,Q       -1        1  Q,10            6,4,10       0        2  8,J             A,4,A,Q,6   +2        2  2,5,4,10        5,7,3,5     +1        1  5,3,6,2,A       9,3,5        0        3  Q,10            K,Q          0        2  J,2,8           9,5,2,A     +3        3  3,2,3,8,A       7,10         0        1  3,A,3,Q         4,4,3,10    -1        1  A,K             7,J         +6        4     BJ -------------------------------------------------  2,8,2,5         J,10        -1        1      A,10            K,3         +1.50     1     BJ  7,9             3,J,5       -2        2      Q,8             K,6,9       +4        4      7,9,9           7,A         -1        1      4,8,7           6,9,10      +3        3      10,J            8,7,6       -1        1      5,A,J           3,7,10      -3        3      5,A,K           J,6,4       +2        2      J,6,Q           9,K         -1        1      7,8,6           Q,7         +4        4      9,6,7           8,3         -1        1      A,10            10,9        +4.50     3     BJ  4,9             2,A,7       -1        1      K,8             2,9,8       -3        3      Q,A             2,6         +6        4     BJ

"GPC Leaderboard", 24.03.2002, 22:55 Uhr MEZ

[DanDocPeppy]

Hallo!

Neugierig gemacht durch dieses Forum spielte ich vor ein paar Tagen das erste Mal BJ.

Ich begann sehr vorsichtig - angepaßt an die Basisstrategie - und gewann etwa die Hälfte aller Spiele.

Nun noch eine kleine Martingale dazugemixt (1 - 2 - 5 - Abbruch) und schon gings schön ins Plus.

Verlor sehr sehr selten drei oder mehr Spiele in Folge. Meistens 1 - 2 x Minus, dann 1 - 2 x Plus.

Nun meine Frage: Ist es Standard, daß lange Negativläufe ausbleiben, oder wars 3 Tage lang einfach Anfängerglück. (Auch Parolis Spiele wären mit dieser Martingale ins Plus gegangen).

LG

DDP

Nachtrag: Die geposteten Spiele von Paroli hätten 16 Stücke Gewinn gebracht.

[zero]

hi ddp!

wo hast du gespielt - real -oder online?

[DanDocPeppy]

Hi Zero!

Spielte ausschließlich online - im CC und GlobalPlayer, im Echtgeldmodus.

Aber wie gesagt, erst 3 Tage. Ich machte auch keine Aufzeichnungen (war ja eigentlich nur zur Abwechslung), jedenfalls blieb doch ein deutlicher Überschuß.

Aber bitte frustrier mich jetzt nicht, indem du mir sagst, daß jeder Anfänger beim BJ gewinnt.

LG

DDP

PS: Ein Bekannter - ein reiner Hobby-Casinogeher (2 - 3x/Jahr) - brachte mich auf die Idee, indem er meinte, daß er beim BJ immer mit Pari bzw. mit kleinem Plus beendete. Da er masse-egale spielt, dachte ich mir, daß da vielleicht mit einer kleinen Progression was zu machen sein könnte.

[Paroli]

@DDP:

auch beim Blackjack gibt es Verlustläufe, die vom Ablauf her frustrierender sein können, als beim Roulette. Du hast z.B. drei oder vier Mal hintereinander 20 auf der Hand und der Dealer hat drei Blackjacks in Folge und bekommt in den nächsten Runden auch noch 20 oder 21 zusammen. Das ist so, als wenn die Roulettekugel schon im anvisierten Fach zu liegen scheint und dann mit letzter Kraft doch noch ins Nebenfach springt...

Aktuelles Beispiel: Gestern lag ich bis drei Stunden vor Ablauf noch auf Rang 2 beim GPC Turnier. Das hätte $200 Preisgeld + $51 Spielgewinn (bei $50 Einzahlung) bedeutet. Dann gab es Veränderungen an der Spitze und ich probierte zu kontern. Die Plus/Minus-Folge hatte folgenden Verlauf:  - - - - + + - - 0 - - - - - - - - -  (also 9 x Minus in Folge), dann  + - - + + - + - + - - - + - + + 0 - + + - - + + + - 0  (Blackjack gegen Blackjack) + - + - 0 - - - - - - - - 0 - - (13 x in Folge kein Treffer)  + - + - + + 0 - + - - - -

Genauere Aufschlüsselung folgt später.  Die Minusserien überstand ich mit Minimumsätzen, aber zwischendurch gab es Probleme beim Versuch, die Einsätze im Gewinnlauf zu steigern. Klar, dass bei so grottenschlechter Plus/Minus-Folge keine Chance mehr bestand, den zweiten oder wenigstens dritten Platz zu verteidigen. Wegen der 4:1 - Chance (Preisgeld gegen Einsatz) setzte ich dann kurz vor Schluss den gesamten restlichen Einsatz von $35, aber das war innerhalb dieser Minustendenz ein Verlust mit Ansage.

Gruss Paroli

[Lennoxlee]

Hallo Paroli Hallo Leute

Meiner meinung darf man im BJ nur Gewinnprogressionen anwenden. die Verlustserien können nähmlich ziehmlich oft genau so aussehen wie Paroli sie im OnlineC. erlebt hat. Die Variante nach der PP zu spielen finde ich auch total interessant und werde sie beim nächsten mal auch spielen. Aber im richtigen Casino. Mein letzter BJ tag spielte sich folgender maßen ab. Der Tisch war noch geschlossen und ich drängelte Spieler doch endlich anzufangen. Ich hatte 10 Stk a10 also minimum.Gedauert hat es dann orginal 5 minuten bis ich wieder aufstehen konnte. Nur einmal gewonnen. Sogar der Croupie hatte schon Mitleid mit mir. Deshalb bin ich der Meinung man muss mit mehr Kapital spielen können als das Minimum damit man in guten Phasen z.B. a50 und in schlechten a10 spielt. Dann kann man auch beruhigt die Sch..ßphasen spielen.

Und das allerbeste ist man beherrscht das Counten. Dann soll ja richtig was gehen. Aber davon bin ich noch weit entfernt.

@RCEC und Leovoo gibt es die Texte auch ins Deutsche übersetzt ? Die würden mich sehr interessieren. Danke

[Paroli]

Zitat vom 23 Mar 2002, 15:40

Die Mail an den Veranstalter blieb unbeantwortet. Gleiches gilt für zwei weitere Nachfragen, wer denn das Preisgeld gewonnen habe (und mit welcher Anzahl von Blackjacks).

Aufgrund der mangelnden Transparenz und dem schlechten Support rate ich von einer Teilnahme an so einer Art Turnier ab. Es ist nicht nachvollziehbar, ob überhaupt jemand einen Gewinn bekommen hat, denn es gibt auch keine Veröffentlichungen im Internet.

Rückblick:

Damals hatte ich mir ein ganzes Wochenende um die Ohren gehauen, um das angebliche "Blackjack-Turnier" zu gewinnen. Wie es aussah hatte damals niemand mehr als 54 Blackjack's geschafft (egal ob morgens, mittags oder abends - die teilnehmenden Online-Casinos waren stets fast wie ausgestorben - siehe erster Beitrag dieses Themas).

Nachfragen beim Management ("wer hat denn nu gewonnen...?") blieben unbeantwortet.

Die schwedische Betreibergesellschaft "Cybercroupier Group" vergraulte ihre Spieler nicht nur durch schlechten bzw. nicht vorhandenen Support, sondern auch durch verweigerte Bonus-Auszahlungen usw.

Jetzt gab es die Quittung: Bei 4 der 5 Online-Casinos der Cybercroupier-Gruppe gingen jetzt die Lichter aus. Womans Vegas und Mens Vegas waren schon im Oktober offline. Am 17.November folgten Mini Vegas und Oriental Casino. Boss Media verlor damit innerhalb von wenigen Wochen vier Lizenznehmer.

Gerade im jetzigen Zeitalter des "Casino-Sterbens" (online und offline) rächt sich schlampiger Umgang mit Kunden eben besonders.