lanidar said:
If it's not too much trouble I would appreciate it. :notworthy
Oscar's Grind
Introduction:
Oscars Grind is a progression that some consider a form of a DAlembert. Reportedly, the first mention of the Grind is in Dr. Allan N. Wilsons,
Casino Gamblers Guide. That book is rare now but you can find a discussion of the Grind in Tom Ainslies
How to Gamble In A Casino (Win More At Less Risk). The book can be ordered from Amazon for about $10.00.
According to legend, Oscar was a craps player and claimed to have never lost employing his progression. Julian Bruan (famous programmer that worked with Dr. Thorp) simulated the progression. His parameters were a craps player starting with a $1 betting unit and a $500 per wager house limit. With those parameters, Braun found that the shooter would only reach the house limit about once every 4,250 sessions. He wouldnt lose often but when he did, the loss would be about $13.000. Accordingly, most players dont play Oscar in its pure form. After I describe the mechanics, I will address how some modify the progression to avert that huge loss.
The Progression:
Oscar is designed to win 1 unit per series. A series is however many rounds its takes to win 1 unit. For example, you bet 1 unit on the pass line and roll 7. You win. The series is over. But what if one loses? Then the series continues with these rules:
1. Never bet more than it takes to win one unit.
2. Raise the wager 1 unit after a win if the existing bet will not recover prior losses plus a 1-unit profit.
3. Only decrease a wager to comply with rule 1 or if the series has ended with a 1-unit profit.
4. After a loss, the wager always remains the same.
It really is pretty simple. Follow this example:
Lets say a craps player loses six pass line bets in a row. He never raised his bet in accordance with Rule 4. He wins the next bet so in total he is now down only 5 units. He now bets 2 units (Rule 2) and loses making his net loss 7 units. He bets 2 units again (Rule 4) and this time wins leaving him 5 units down again. In keeping with Rule 2, he raises his bet to 3 units and wins again. Now he is down only 2 units. He doesnt raise his bet again, because that violates rule 1. So he now bets 3 units and loses. He is back to the 5 unit net loss. He bets 3 again (Rule 4) and loses. He is down 8 units. He bets 3 again (Rule 4) and wins returning him to a 5 units cumulative loss. He raises his bet to 4 units and wins. Now he is only 1 unit down. He must bet 2 units in keeping with Rule 1. He wins. The series is over with a 1-unit profit from 15 wagers of which the player lost 9 and won 6.
Modifications:
Ainslie suggest that a recreational gambler budget the amount of money he is willing to risk. He further suggests that the gambler plan the number of sessions he wishes to play. The trip bankroll divided by the number of planned sessions is the session bankroll. Ainslie also advocates that each gambler set a win goal that is less than the amount risked. Such a plan might be as follows:
1. Break your trip bankroll into session bankrolls of 40 units each.
2. End your session anytime you win 20 units.
3. After a winning series, set up your 40 units again, and deposit the one unit win in your winning fund. One player I know calls this, the walking away money.
4. End your session anytime you lose the 40 units in front of you.
The above are session modifications or rules. Ainslie suggest some series modifications as well. He doesnt want the wager to get alarmingly high.
They are as follows:
1. Terminate the series anytime it is more than 10 units down. Just start over with a 1-unit bet.
2. Terminate the series anytime a loss on the next bet would leave it 20 units down. For example, you are betting 11 units and are down a net 9 units. A loss would leave you down more than 20 units. Start the series over.
The above is not very different from how others actually play Oscar. The walking away money concept and the separation of the trip bankroll into distinct session bankrolls reduce the risk of losing it all. But it only helps with a recreational trip. It has no effect on a real gamblers bankroll and a professional has no use for such concepts.
You can alter the dimensions if you like by using smaller session banks and keeping the ratios the same. Or you can ignore the series modifications. Or you can go for bigger wins and fewer winning sessions. But the idea is to exchange fewer session wins to avoid the potential of dipping into the kids college fun. It is in keeping with my first rule of gaming Never risk more than you can afford to lose.
I suggest you start with Ainslies plan and practice at home. Then modify it to suit your personality.
Caveat:
Let me drop in the standard caveat. This is not a plan for getting rich. Progressions change the distribution of dollars won and lost but they dont change the vig in games of independent trials. In blackjack where the cards are psuedo random, no one has been able to empirically demonstrate a long range advantage with this or any other win/loss progression. It all balances out in the long run.
Stanford