Progressions in tournies Pt 2

Progressions in tournies Part 2

Hello All

Me again! I've recently been revisiting the idea of progressions and would like some more info. When we talk about progressions most people think of the standard Martingale negative progression and little else. I know there are a lot of other progressions out there but are they valuable tournament tools? I think because they have such a bad press generally there seems little unbiased information available on them. Has anybody had any experience with a Fibonacci progression for example?

Cheers

Reachy

 

progressions are huge in tournaments. i seem to recall a big thread on this over a year ago, try searching for it....

-hd.

 

I started that one as well...

In that thread the only type of progression that was discussed was a straight up fractional negative progression. There are lots of other types of progressions, such as the Fibonacci, that I have heard mentioned by tourney players. I wondered whether these had been investigated by yourself, a known proponent of progression betting, or any of the other pros out there?

Cheers in advance

Reachy

"It's all my own hair! Apart from that one..."

 

I'm starting to use them more and more online. My first two tries, I crashed on the fourth and last step, but kept at it and practiced a lot with it in the smaller games. Hollywood is right, especially when he says not to use them all the time, but just in specific situations. I played more than 200 real money games on Bet.21 (SNG and tournaments) and showing a small but positive results using the strategies and concepts found in books, articles, on this site, and mainly in real casino based tournaments. This game has so much to offer.

Winning a qualifier with more thant 800 people in it remains the toughest test, so far, in my mind. I seem to always fin a hot ploppie or a few hot ploppies in my way.

 

Anybody?

Did we really discuss all there was to discuss about progressions in this thread - http://www.blackjacktournaments.com/bb/showthread.php?t=1651&highlight=progressions? Does anybody who uses progressions use anything other than a standard negative progression i.e. Martingale? What about positive progressions; anybody use them? Would you like to share ?

Has anybody that regularly uses progressions kept any sort of data relating to their success or otherwise with progressions. For example, what percentage of the time did you bust out and how does it compare to the theoretical percentage? Have you compared it with other strategies? Has it been simulated?

Cheers

Reachy

PS. I'll keep mentioning the Fibonacci progression...

"I'm so cold I could be a girl"

 

Interesting stuff

Thanks for the reply Ken. Funnily enough I was thinking about backloading progressions, my rationale being that my opponents may have increased their BR since the progression started and my initial target BR may be too small.

I've also been thinking of combining a positive and negative progression. It may work like this: start with 1u bet - if I win increase it by 1u - if I lose bet 2x previous bet. I haven't really thought this through but I wondered whether these combination progressions have any value?

Cheers

Reachy

 

Progressions:

"Lately, I've progressioned myself out of the match so often...." K.S. quote.

The "rest" rejuvenated, The King.

My one seventh of a cent on the subject:

I like Ken's statement about not relying on them in the "old" tournaments.

But Mathews with two big wins and Stann with enough, or close enoughs(or are we just told that?) Naw, I've seen some. Both espouse and rely on them. Either in one of Stann's forthcoming books, or a strategy article in ALL-IN by him or Mathews, we may see somewhat of what they're utilizing.

But certainly not Martingale. Try a variation of Kelly, if you're fixated on a progression. I know a "Kelly" article is archived on Snyder's sight.

BUT...locking yourself in to sticking by your preconcieved game plan, is probably the worst approach you could take in the EBJ's.

I don't have a book, an article, or overriding theory. I take from everything and use elements that work for me. Cause, a Kelly, to me, seems the best Progression, but I wouldn't want to Kelly myself out of a tournament either.

I've said before. The EBJ's change on almost every hand. So, not only bring your TOOLBOX, but your rolling storage cabinet. You may only need that circular spanner once in a thousand times, but knowing it's there and when is the best time to use it is better than following the blueprint.

 

Kelly in tourneys

Can you fully enlighten me on how to use Kelly betting in tourneys? Are you talking about betting a fixed % of your BR and no more? If so when your BR decreases doesn't your max bet? Is it a form of positive progression?

In the words of Manuel, "I know nothing!"

Cheers

Reachy

 

Screw Kelly

too complicated for tourneys... essentially, its Wong's 'proportional betting' which has you betting an amount of your bankroll that's proportionate to your edge at that moment, which involves the need to DETERMINE that edge, ie card counting, etc. Bottom line is, even if your edge over the deck/shoe at that point is a full 2%, what does that mean you bet from a $25,000 bankroll? $500! So 'Kelly betting' in a tourney is just another term for betting the minimum -- and that's assuming you even HAVE a 2% edge at the time.

-hd.

 

I think of a Martingale progression

as a 'move' to be used when you are making a direct attempt to take the lead - and have enough chips, and are close enough to BR1, to make several stabs at it -

I use both 1/3, all-in & 1/7, 2/7, all-in in this way - use these for end-play in live tourneys - and a lot before elimination hands in on-line games -

the Martingale progression builds up too fast to use for accumulating chips - or playing for an advantage over time - you have to manage the trade off between betting a very small initial increment - to give yourself enough steps - or - risking a fewer stage progression - and repeating the fewer stage progression - such as repeated four-step progressions - is very risky -

I have played around a little with using the Fibonacci series as a progression - to be used at the beginning of the round and in the early/mid hands - this series is Fn=Fn-1+Fn-2; each term being the sum of the two previous terms - so it goes 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 and so forth -

with this progression - you only make money if you win the first bet - but - you lose less than you would with flat betting through stage 5 - and only equal to your loss flat betting through stage 6 - by that - I mean when you win stage 5 and stage 6 - of course - and - it lets you start out with a higher bet - because it builds much slower than a Martingale -

a six stage Martingale needs 63 units to complete - a six-stage Fibonacci progression only needs 20 units - you could run an eight-stage Fibonacci progression with 54 units -

but a six stage is the desirable one - this has a very high chace of success - allowing larger units - and will either give you an advantage over flat betting - or at worse equal the results of flat betting -

if you start off hitting your bets - it builds up your chip count -faster - as you are betting larger units - and if you start off losing - it will give you an advantage over the other players who should end up losing more than you -

at least that's the theory -

I have used this progression in both live tourneys and on-line games with a little success - but not enough times to know if it really helps - or if it has been just luck that it seems to be of benefit -

but like Ken said - I would be careful of using progressions - they seem to work best when the other players are betting pretty conservatively - but go out the window fast when you are dealing with the drunk-all-in-guys - they also kill you when you crash out - of course - but I have found that use of the Fibonacci series as a progression has helped a lot at some tables where the dealer starts out pretty hot - but with the players winning some hands - or - where the players start out winning a few hands - then the dealer gets hot - but not for more hands than you are playing stages - I have ended up the chip leader after the early hands about 1/2 the times I have used this approach

 

I played

a lot of progressions during sit and goes at blackjack21 and I mean a lot. I can say one thing for sure. They stink unless you like 0 chips. Most were 10 hand games.

 

Kelly is lewd, rude, nude and screwed in the back of the bus.....

....just like Martingale. My point was that none of those adapted well to EBJ tournies and that until we saw what Stann and Mathews utilized, if they wanted to share, there were more important considerations and I think a famous player also said that.

Not a math major, so I don't know what to call it, but Joep has alluded to it for quite some time and I'll call it an "inverse bet." Others probably have the proper name to call it and the math to back it up. And excuse me for not being able to define it better, cause it's swirling around and around in me head, but I recognize the opportunity to use it, when I see it.


Call it a "proportional bet" in mid elimination stage. When you're chasin, but don't want to "risk" all at that moment. Simple example: You're down 10K with five hands to go and you bet half of whatever your chaseee bets.

If you're betting first against the 10k lead, it comes out to 5K.(with consideration of button rotation, what you think the leader's skills are, how the leader has been betting and on and on and on and on. Don't forget BRL.

And again with change at each hand, it's difficult or meaningless to stick to a preconceived formula.

Also, given the "CHASE" you would want to have enough of a bankroll at either pre-elimination, or actual elimination, no matter what round, to make a meaningful bet. If it's all gone before then, well, then it's allllllllll gonnnnn,

 

noman

I often 'under bet' - betting 1/2 of the bet of the player I am chasing - especially if the dealer has been cold - and I am hoping he/she will turn hot and start bringing us down - it's really just a moderate counter-bet - that keeps you in reach if it fails

I have sometimes tried a sort of progression in this situation - if there are a lot of hands left - I will gradually increase the difference between my bet and my target's bet - until the cards go my way - doesn't matter if I bet over or under the target's bet - just so the differential keeps increasing - I think of this as 'progression' on top of a 'correlation' - so if the target bets $5,000 - I'll bet $4,000 - (difference $1,000) if we both win - then the next hand - if the target bets $1,000 - I'll bet $3,000 (difference $2,000) - increasing the differential - if we both lose - then the third hand in the sequence - if the target bets $6,000 - I'll bet $2,000 (difference $4,000) - and try to keep it up until I get the cards going the way I want - unfortunately - while this has worked sometimes - too often I wind up going into a progression where I have to make large bets - and might as well be in a straight Martingale - I am still thinking about this though -

 

RKuczek:

Okay.

Again to progressions. If it were an old fashioned 30 hand game, they might make more sense. But with basically 8 and 8 and 9 and 5(hands to see ya later) and the wangers, waiting for the cards to turn doesn't work. Ya gots to bet what ya gots to bet.

The stick with the formula progression would ruin you on the downside, when everyone else was dumpin. And when the one or two are catching every big bet, you still don't catch em. One would almost be better off to go all in on the first bet and slide on a win. or put themselves out of their misery, earlier. But for 2700 to play one hand, hmmmm.

As everyone knows, in the straight x number of hands game, there is a chance to rebound. But if you haven't got a win or a couple in between the elims, what u gonna do?

Your bet, no matter outcome, has got to be, either lead, or above BRL's possible outcome. The worst thing in any BJ tourney is to win a hand without the right amount of money out. Cause, if u lose the hand, u've lost anyway.

 

noman

you're sort of right - you are right that ultimately you need to make the bets you need to make - of course - but at many regular tourney tables you are either trying to build up chip count - gain position early - or would start off with a sequence of minimum bets - or may go into something of a holding pattern for a few hands -

I really don't use progressions heavily - well - in EBJ as 'moves' - and much less in EBJ on-line games except as 'moves' - but I do think they have a place in the tool box -

a short Martingale progression - when possible - is a better 'move' then just throwing out all your chips - when I need to go all-in - I do so - a hard thing to learn I've found - but sometimes needed - especially in EBJ - but when I can use a 1/3 & all-in or a 1/7, 2/7, & all-in Martingale as a move - I will do so - just I as I will sometimes do split bank bets -

I have found that a Fibonacci sequence seems to work - at least to some degree, as a substitute for simply minimum betting - so have used it a little when I have to start off the betting on the first hand - or when I have a moderate lead, and would otherwise be betting small - if not overused - when it works - it gives a little better results than simply flat betting at minimum bets- and is much safer than a Martingale

if you can use a progression to hold your place - or set yourself up for a move - then you need to consider it -

I don't think using repeated progressions to accumulate chips - or short 'progressions', which are really multi-stage moves, to increase your chip count - are good long term strategy - the benefit doesn't seem as if it would outweigh the risk -

but I read Hollywood's posts as if he normally uses progressions as a means of accumulating chips, so he has a favorable chip count later in the game - I would really like to see the math worked out in detail on that type of strategy - I would think it would be a loser in the long run - maybe I am misreading his posts

 

Rkuczek

preciate the discussion. Whatever edge one can get for oneself works. I have trouble with percents and halfs, let alone 7ths. And as I said, I'm spinnin on a lot of other concerns. Anyway, I'm more right brain than left brain, if any brain, so while I'm aware of the various progssss. theories, I've never put much in any.

Stann can weigh back in unless he thinks we're lost causes. But, I do think he "said" he mostly had other things to worry about than sticking to a prog.

And, as far as hard data, I'm looking to Mathews for that. After his "FIRST" he mentioned he used them to good effect.

But then, you know, when everybody starts doing the same thing, where did the advantage go?

 

one of the problems

with progressions - is that sometimes the other players' bets and results can change the situation so that you have to abandon the progression you're running - sometimes from a worsened situation -

as I said - I haven't used them a lot - except as moves - which I distinguish from a 'true' progression - but I think this is a very interesting topic - would like to see some players who have used them extensively give some responses - I think some sort of progression - not just as a move - should probably be in your tool box - just opinion right now -

 

Mornin' all

That's what I'm talking about!!!!

A couple of comments/questions.

RKuczek - I agree with you about using martingale to make a move; you have to be close to your opponent and have the chips to complete. The problem (which you mentioned in a later post) is that you are aiming at a moving target; if you miss 1st time when you fire out No.2 bet you could be aiming below where you need to get to. You could be aiming above as well of course...

With the Fibonacci progression do you follow it regardless of outcome? With others you tend to have a different action depending on win lose or push but it appears that you are suggesting that that doesn't matter in this case.

My concern is that in EBJ you usually need to make a move much earlier than traditional forms and so any progression would by it's nature be short. I suspect that a fibonacci is best suited to those longer traditional games.

Noman - I presume you are refering to your mobile carpentry skills when you mention your bus-based screwing. I wouldn't want to confuse it with anything sexual ! I too use what I call under/over-correlation bets but I tend to use them more when I'm in the lead. If someone is bashing out big bets to catch up with me I don't want to correlate exactly because I fear the swing but similarly I don't want to bet too small to allow their catch-up to catch-up too much. If I'm behind I agree, when you need to make a move, make move.

Cheers

Reachy

 

Reachy

when I've used a Fibonacci progression - you run the sequence until you win - may be first hand - may be 6th - I use a 6 stage progression - (rarely - a 5 stage) - usually have used when I start the betting - or bet second - on the first round - rather than betting the minimum - I bet a little higher and use the progression - this has worked out pretty well - and with 7 hands until the elimination hand in EBJ - can be run once or twice - can also be used between elimination hands - it is primarily a place holder though - advantage when the players are losing more than winning the first few hands - and everyone is going down in chip count - also - since I use surrender a lot - more than basic strategy calls for - often I will surrender one or two early hands in the progression - then that extends the profitability period - as I just go with the normal stage amounts - don't reduce them for the surrender savings -

when I have tried to use progressions on top of a correlated bet - to gain on a player - then it is not winning or losing that matters - it is the results going the right way - if I am under betting that stage - the progression and correlation stop when we both lose - when I am over betting that stage - it stops when we both win - however - I have not been very happy with my attempts at this - as it seems too often - I end up making very large bets to keep the correlation going - and it just becomes an ill-timed move - so I have been leaning more towards using a Fibonacci progression to start off - especially when I am an early bettor - and/or under-betting the other players - then using a two or three stage Martingale move when I need to get position -