Been reading Wongs "Casino Tournament Strategy" and I'm curious about progressions as a betting strategy. Obviously we know that they don't work in regular BJ but it seems that they are valid in tourney style. He talks about betting 1/7, 1/3 then all-in in certain situations and I just wondered whether this was still considered a good strategy? It seems unsophisticated and from what I've read of the book so far alot of what he says seems dated. I'm new to this so please correct me if I'm wrong (hopefully I'm not blaspheming to question the great wong ) but he doesn't discuss any of the strategy that I'm becoming familiar with from reading this forum and others, as well as all the strategy articles I'm getting from the web. For example I can't find any reference to "taking the high/low" in CTS. Am I being too picky? What progression, if any, do you guys use and when? Cheers
And there's more... Also he says when using a progression don't double or split because you won't have enough money left if you lose. I can see what he is saying but is it a good enough reason not to follow basic strategy? I'll try it out in Global Player tonight, see what happens. Cheers
I wrote an article a while back for BJ Insider that addressed exactly these questions. Titled "A Critical Look at Progressive Betting", you can read it if you are a member here: http://www.bjinsider.com/newsletter_56_prog.shtml I've been meaning to republish some of those articles for free here in the Strategy area, and this looks like a good one to use. I'll work on getting that done soon. In the meantime, here's a brief summary from the bottom.
This is something in the discussion between me and S. Yama in the multielimination thread. He asked about how many times I made progression bets while playing UBT. I said probably every round. I defined a progression bet as any type of take-the-lead bet and didn't distinguish them. It appears that Ken S here is saying there's a distinction. I think that taking the lead bets will mimic a progession, even if there are minimal waiting bets in between the take-the-lead bets (assuming that the player is not in the lead until winning one). I look forward to seeing the article, because I'm not a member of BJ Insider. I have a feeling this will be a good one for me to read.
David - Your sort of progression bets are different from what Wong is talking about in CTS. My understanding of progressions is based on systems like the Martingale, etc which are of course of no use in regular BJ (unless you have an unlimited bankroll maybe) so I was interested that Wong was suggesting using them in Tournament BJ; it just seemed so unsophisticated. Why not do what you do and make a bet that's just big enough to take the lead rather than follow a set of inflexible rules? And why give up your edge when a good DD opportunity arises? Just seemed counterintuitive to me. Interested to read the article in BJI. Cheers Ken. Reachy
Fractional Progressions Reachy you'll find that progressions calculated as fractions of your bankroll are meaningless because of the format in most tournaments. Usually the maximum allowable bet is substantially lower than your starting bankroll. The maximum bet stops you from going all in and often even from betting 1/3 of your bankroll.
i discuss this in much more detail in my tournament strategy book, but basically the need to use progressions in a tourney increases relative to the skill level of the players you are facing. against amateurs you will very rarely find yourself relying on this tool, but against a field full of pros you better be intimately familiar with this type of bet. monkeysystem you are right, progressions cannot be a function of bankroll but rather of the max bet. before all big tournaments i figure out optimal 3- 4- and 5- step progression ramps along with the relative Risk of Ruin for each; while it is true that making many smaller progressions accepts slightly more RoR than one larger calculated one (as Wong and to some extent Ken Smith assert), i have always found that progressions (again, only when needed against other pros who typically don't make the mistakes other players make that can best be exploited in other ways) offer an incredible way of not only drifting upward in chip count in the most controlled manner, but allow you to have the best chance of having more money in play when blackjacks and the most desirable double down opportunities occur. Care must certainly be taken when on the 4th or 5th step of a progression to not accept too much variance with sub-optimal doubling, but many key plays depend on having the most money out. This is why i love losing several hands in a row when playing other pros; it only gives me more of an excuse to push more money out for that next blackjack or eleven vs a dealer 5/6. it may look like luck to your opponents but you know better... i don't think wong was entirely accurate in his RoR calculations he included in CTS; he only takes into account the hard and fast rules of hand win rates, but does not consider how one's total bankroll is affected by winning these key DD and BJ hands with larger, controlled bets out. Obviously deviating from a progression to DD brings with it varying levels of increasing variance, and a whole different set of tournament math goes into evaluating what level of variance one should be prepared to accept at any given moment of a tourney. During the UBT as many of us discovered, including many of the Grinders as well as certain other pros, progressions were very necessary. Higher levels of variance (like 3- and 4- step progressions, instead of 5- step ones; as well as more liberally deviating from a progression in its later stages for less than optimal DD opportunities) had to be exploited commesurate with how early one's position would be in relation to an upcoming elimination hand, one's position relative to the best players on the table, and of course one's BR/LB placement in the whole grand scheme of things. bottom line is, my vote is Yes for progressions within a tournament setting, within certain controlled parameters and with the right criteria in place. the point is, at no time should one ever make a 'random' bet while playing -- there should always be a well thought out gameplan behind every bet, move, and decision made. Many times there are overriding factors that justify broad correlative, contrarian, and catch-up bets, as well as the ever-present standby the flat bet/minimum bet. But in many cases and in many instances against many pros, progressions offer a world of benefits & have just begun to be fully explored in this modern age of tournament science -- -hollywood dave. www.WestCoastGrinders.com *the rise of the New Guard*
Base Rate + variance Wong started on the right path with RoR values based solely on hand win/loss rates, so base RoR values are 14% for a 3-step (1/7th), 8% for a 4-step (1/15th), 5% for a 5-step (1/30th), and 3% for a 6-step (1/60th). Keep in mind every time you start a progression over (ie a series of 1/30th, 5-step progs) you accepting additional RoR, so for instance 2 4-step progs = 16% RoR, whereas a single 3-step prog only = 14% RoR. You will find that there is always slightly less RoR in a single (or fewer) progressions than the requisite number or smaller progs that make up one larger one. This is the strong argument many pros use for steering clear of excessive progression use; however, as i stated earlier, it is difficult to quantify the exact value of having more money in place for key DD and BJ opportunities, as well as the fluctuations inherent in accepting these additional levels of variance (in the case of DD's). Ultimately you must resolve your own RoR numbers with your particular strategy for that tournament. I use an Aggression Index, or AgI, that i base on my position, the skill level of other players at the table, their betting habits, etc. Basically, the higher the skill level of players & earlier my position will be on final/elimination hands, the more aggressive my betting will be -- ie accepting higher variance DD's on shorter, bigger progressions. As the skill level decreases (as well as certain other factors), the less use i have for progressions. This past weekend, for instance, i played in the Palms invitational tournament with a bunch of high-rolling ploppies at my table; i think the only time i used a progression was in the last third of the round, and it was a simple 1/3-2/3 to catch up to the chip leaders when i had fallen farther behind than was acceptable. Needless to say, it wasn't enough & i didn't make it out of the round alive! Hard to compete with a few big bettors who have the good fortune to hit several 20's & 2-to-1 blackjacks... -hd.
Hollywood - Great to hear from you! From watching BJ on the telly over here in the UK I got the impression from the commentry that you used a progression system. Just seen your 2nd post and you mentioned some fractions. In your earlier post you said that you base your progrssions on max. bet so does that mean that your 1/7th bet in a 3 step progression would be 1/7th of max. bet? Great to hear that you've written a tournament strategy book, we need more as they seem to be thin on the ground, certainly in the UK (come on Ken, when's yours out?) When's it out and will there be a chapter on hair care? Cheers mate Reachy
Hollywood's Book Thanks to my fellow Brit Reachy for his post on progression in CTS which I too have struggled to understand along with other aspects of Blackjack Tournament play. As usual the players on here respond with good and informative replies. Like Reachy I am waiting for Hollywood Dave’s tournament book to come out but believe (I may be wrong) that another book of his on advantage Casino Blackjack will be published first. If the above is correct, Can I ask Hollywood why he did not bring the tournament book out first and why? What are the books details and publishing dates? Ps. I know Ken does not like promotion and Spam on here, but I don’t think that this should apply to regular contributors of the site so give it out Dave. Andy
i think after a few hundred posts i'm safe from being considered a spammer...truth is, Ken would probably sooner kick me off the site for foul language than for mentioning one of my upcoming books! you're right, i do have two books being released this year & the first - 'Hollywood Blackjack' - is primarily casino AP blackjack, as well as many stories taken from the trenches of card counting, tv shows, and the like...all told from a very uncensored point of view that makes no attempt to conceal my often very 'graphic' use of language. its in the final stages of editing now over at RGE Publishing ( www.rge21.com ) and should be out this summer. The second book - 'Hollywood Blackjack: ATS' (Advanced Tournament Strategy) is very specific to tourney play and is much more of a master class in the art of playing tournaments; plenty of heavy math and theory here. At first i wanted to give Wong's CTS a much-needed updating, but realized halfway through that it was actually an entirely different way of looking at tourney play. I'm really excited to publish it, but as its still being completed, wanted to get out the more commercial book first. To be quite honest, i hope ATS doesn't sell nearly as many copies as HBJ - the last thing i need is too many people knowing every intimate detail of how i play (and how i think they could play to have a much stronger game). Hence the separation of the two books, rather than one big mega-volume. Thanks for the interest -- -hd.
First thing to do when calculating optimal progression ramps is to look at the max bet & calculate backwards to discover the largest possible progression -- then make sure that you will actually have a large enough BR to complete a full progression. In the case of the UBT, for instance, i think max bet and initial BR were both set at $100k, so even though the max bet was large, you wouldn't have enough total BR to complete one full prog...in this case the optimal progressions changed with every 12 or 15 thousand you added to your initial BR until a nexus point where the top step of the prog actually hit the $100k max bet. it sounds complicated but it really is easy to create a chart of optimal 3/4/5/6 step progressions, and from there set the appropriate playing strategy -- which is where the real work comes in. the chart is just a tool, how you use it, on the other hand... -hd.
So for example, on Global Player (which is my only experience) with a max bet of 500, a possible ramp ideally would be 15.65, 31.25, 62.50, 125, 250, 500? Because of the bet size limitations it would more likely be 10, 25, 55, 115, 230, 500? Too simplistic? Cheers Reachy
i don't play on global player but for a 500 max bet the optimal ramp would be 15-30-60-125-250-500. a 3-step prog would start at 125, a 4-step at 60, a 5-step at 30, etc... of course without having played there i wouldn't know other mitigating factors like the minimum bet, betting increments, etc so use your best judgement in tinkering with these numbers. also i am assuming that your initial BR is at least 1000 to cover a full prog, and of course you know that starting a prog with an initial BR of lower than 1000 (980 to be precise) means you have to curtail this optimal prog.... and a final caveat - progressions are only a single tool in the great tourney battle, and are only effective if there is a specific reason to use them, against specific opponents & at specific times -- i wouldn't just start bombing away with these progs unless it fits into a larger strategy. using them to drift upwards in chip count during the early/mid game is often effective against better players, with whom there is much more of a necessity to have a higher BR going into the final hands than less skilled players (since the endgame is where betting the right amount means so much more than in earlier points of the game). also position on final hand & relative to certain other players should affect your penchant to use the progression tool, and will dictate how aggressive you must be with it. Good luck -- -hd.
Dave, I am glad I am not the only one who occasionally posts some sloppy numbers. So, would you kindly answer a few questions, which strictly refer to your posts, and perhaps we will see some other consequences. 1. What are the correct fractions of a bankroll to use (up to) 6-step progression? 2. What is the chance of ruin for using one 3-step progression and two 4-step progressions? 3. How big one’s bankroll has to be, that is smaller than 1000, to be suitable to use an “optimal” progression for GP tourneys? (980, to be precise it ain’t) 4. And what are the chances of ruin for each of progressions from 2-step all the way to 6-step progression? You can assume Wong’s chances of losing. S. Y.
Thanks Hollywood After watching you use max bet fractional progressions in a recorded copy of WSOB last summer I tried it against tables full of ploppies and cashed my next two tournaments. It baited some of these players into overbetting and bombing out. I even started calling it a "ploppy progression." However in my next few tournaments I either bombed out myself or baited players into overbetting only to have them build stacks that looked like the Stratosphere. So I agree that it's not worth the risk if you're playing against high rolling locals.
