staking for blackjack

[thedustbustr]

theoretically, if I stake someone for blackjack, i take all losses, and i take 50% of winnings, on a per session basis, avg session of a few hours, the house edge effectively doubles, right?

[thedustbustr]

actually upon a rethinking, it seems that the house edge is doubled for sesison length of 1 hand. as session length -> infinity, house edge -> true house edge. so for a session length of a few hundred hands, the house edge isn't terribly higher, maybe 1.5x.

[SheetWise]

House edge doesn't change -- just the range of expected outcomes at any given confidence level.

[jman220]

The house's expectation doesn't increase, yours just decreases.

[SheetWise]

A much better answer, jman.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[CCx]

if you're looking for someone to stake, i've been on a serious downswing/bad luck streak my last 6-8 sessions, so the law of averages says that now is the time to invest

inquire within

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
if you're looking for someone to stake, i've been on a serious downswing/bad luck streak my last 6-8 sessions, so the law of averages says that now is the time to invest

inquire within

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That ugly over that SHORT? Man, time to go back to pok-ah! See what happens when you take a few months off from the DPC?
:P

[thedustbustr]

[ QUOTE ]
The house's expectation doesn't increase, yours just decreases.

[/ QUOTE ]
obviously.

now define effective house edge as -(my expectation), just like house edge can be defined as -(my expectation).

now answer the question.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
now define effective house edge as -(my expectation), just like house edge can be defined as -(my expectation).

[/ QUOTE ]

so, just forget about the horse's expectation altogether? doesn't make any sense does it?

[thedustbustr]

i could give a fuck what the house's expectation is. I care about my expectation. stop being a douchebag.

[SheetWise]

On a per session basis (which can mean a lot of different things), assuming wins and losses are of equal value (which they shouldn't be if you're playing a winning game) your winning sessions needs to outnumber your losing sessions 2:1 to break even. At, for example, 5 hours of play -- at 90 hands an hour -- I don't see how that game can be structured. You're giving the player(s) too good of a deal -- they take half of every upswing, you take all of every downswing.

Pick a number. If you put up $50k, then the agreement is to split when the BR hits $100k -- 75/25. Keep records and don't have any resolution until the target is hit. You should be able to structure a game where the target can be hit with 95% confidence or better.

[thedustbustr]

its not gonna be +EV. its more of, how much will it cost me to spot my GF 50 bets to play BJ off of a strategy card while i play poker.

[SheetWise]

Priceless. You already know the cost of not doing it.
/images/graemlins/wink.gif