Customer Reviews

Winning Blackjack Without Counting

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I play blackjack for a living, and that means before I decided to do so you need to seperate the good from the bad books. I'm not the person to tell you what to do relating towards your goal playing blackjack, but one year after me trying to get it done the easy way, I,m glad that I switched to cardcounting. Remember do no think that blackjack is a easy money program. Many system sellers are making only money from selling books, or working indirectly for casinos. Any form of progression betting will get your cash in the longrun. I know from the early years of me playing blackjack that playing any form of progression you are able to winn money in the short run, but it will burn you out playing into the longrun, and I played too Popik's theory. But you can't compare a flip of a coin with 2 outcomes with a game of blackjack where you have 13 different outcomes relating to your hands.

I play about 100 hours a month, 1200 hours a month. It is not about the no. of sessions you winn, but the no. of hours.

Using Popik's system I won a majority of the sessions playing it in 1991, but the sessions I lost, I lost all what I won related to my winning sessions before. This is happening to all forms of progression play.

Therefore I would suggest you to start reading work from Stanfort Wong, Lance Humble, Arnold Snyder or Peter Griffin.

Again, I want you to winn but If you will ever decide to choose the profession I choosed you will realise that playing fulltime any progression system will hurt you playing about 1200 hours a year.

This book, unlike the standard, much publicized books on progression betting, places bets based on probabilities of winning and losing streaks. The bets are placed at specific intervals rather than just teasing the odds and leaving the same bet out as the odds continue to diminish against winning.

After listening to my friend explain his card counting methods -- I was impressed (actually amazed at his winnings) but discouraged to think I'd have to spend that much time and energy to beat the dealer at a game of Blackjack.

So I found a book for the non-counter by Donald Dahl titled Progression Blackjack. A worthwhile read, but while using his strategies playing online, I quickly saw that the systems were "missing something."

Then I read "Winning Blackjack Without Counting Cards" by David S. Popik! It's a real eye opener! He simply and powerfully shows that BJ is not a game of chance when certain rules are adhered to.... But MORE than that, he teaches a truly brilliant system for consistently beating the house! It's so simple a 12 year old couldn't lose with this strategy. The book's about an hour's reading time (or a little more to carefully go over all the numbers -- the author carefully documents all his findings)

In my first game online after reading this book, I won over $500 in less than 2 hours. Don't miss this one!

Yes...forget the math. As we know, you cannot make a progressive betting strategy pay off "in the long run". Playing blackjack can, and should be a series of short runs. With David's approach to progression, you can make money. I say "can", not "will". The key is money management and quitting when you're up.

I've tried David's system in a combination of simulated play (using a reliable simulator...you know, the one counters train with) and actual table play. I've logged 240 sessions, with almost 11,000 hands played. I'm up 500 units. While that's not the "long run", I feel I can make the system work with David's 3 to 1 approach and good money management (loss limits, pull plateaus, discipline and reasonable win expectations). Heck, I wish I were bankrolled enough to use $100 units. If I can make 2.4 units per hour as an average over, say, 100 hours...well, I'd sure be doing it.

Why does it work? Probably because it's the real world, and the player controls when he leaves or stays. There is some real world reality to streaks and clumping.

Why do I give it a 4 and not a 5? I think the math contains some fuzzy logic (as a previous reviewer points out). It could be about a twenty page book...but then, would it have any credibility?

I liked it and would recommend it to casually serious non-counting players.

I am winning with his betting strategy, based on extensive research evidently by the author. I recommend it highly, need at least a 300 dollar bankroll, and be prepared to stay at the casino for as long as the system takes.

This book is fantastic. It is an easy read and a logical system based purely on mathematics. It does require some discipline, but when followed the system has proven to be profitable and substantially easier than learning to count cards. Will be useful to the occasional player as well as the consistent player.

I red the first edition of this book. First of all the basic stratedgy slightly differs from what other books say (like doubling 9 against dealer's 7).
The main idea of the book is to bet on a series of wins/losses. If you win first bet you should increase you bet K times, if you lost your unit bet (and after that other 2) you increase you bet K times again. If it doesn't help, you keep loosing a unit bet at a time.
The simplest way to proove the authour is WRONG is the following: he claims that every unit you add to K increases you chances to win by 0.5% (you probable win). Take K = 1000. Do you get 500% edge? No it can not exceed 100%.
The author makes the fallowing mistake: if you average probability to wit is p=0.47 then the probability to loose is 1-p. Our edge (in bets) is -(1-2*p)=-6.0%. We are loosing. The probability to win 2 times is p*p, to loose the second time is p*(1-p). So he says the edge is -p*(1-2*p) is less than -(1-2*p) in absolute value and theirfore (due to blackjack and doubling) he says you can win money. What'a wrong here? It's not an edge. An edge in this situation would be -p*(1-2*p)/p. Because out of 100 bets we only will apply this stratergy p*100 times. And our edge is once again exactly the same -(1-2*p) = -6.0% in bets or (-0.3% in money under playing conditions he describes). You could just increase your everage bet once again with the same result.
A word of causion. If you want to try geometric progression system (doubling you bet every time you loose), it would work, provided you could place an unlimited bets. But as long as maximum bet is restrected, in everage, you will loose onse again. If your chances to win were 50% (much better then 47), your mathematical expectation would be exactly 0.0 dollars to win. The problem is that every time you win the doubling chain you only regain 1 unit bet, when you loose your maximum bet you loose double your maximum bet minus unit (taking into account account what you lost already from the start). You can triple, the result would be the same (when the maximum bet is fixed).
If there is a lawer who belives he could make this guy to pay for deceiving people, I'd be more then happy to help (tol60@hotmail.com).
It doesn't mean you can not win with this strategy. I could give you another one. If it works, you might get reach, if it doesn't, you won't loose much time in a casino: take all your money you have for betting and bet it all (no more then you are redy to loose). If you win, drink free coke and go home, if you loose, do the same. And you save those 10$ for the book.