Go big or go bust?

[_TKO_]

I always hear people talking about bringing in their life savings and betting it all on black (or red). I was wondering if this is actually the best method of doubling up or going home. Wouldn't it be better to play BJ for bets of around 25% of your BR until you double or bust?

[Shaggy]

To be least impacted by the house edge, one must stay as far from the long run as possible. In that theme, betting it all in a slightly negative trial is the way to go. I believe I have heard this concept referred to as "maximum boldness."
-Shaggy

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
betting it all in a slightly negative trial is the way to go. I believe I have heard this concept referred to as "maximum boldness."

[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds great, but it is wrong. See my analysis in the probability forum for why this is not optimal in roulette, and my past posts in this forum and the probability forum for why you should not bet everything if you are playing blackjack.

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
betting it all in a slightly negative trial is the way to go. I believe I have heard this concept referred to as "maximum boldness."

[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds great, but it is wrong. See my analysis in the probability forum for why this is not optimal in roulette, and my past posts in this forum and the probability forum for why you should not bet everything if you are playing blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's close to the truth isn't it? For example, if you are looking to turn $100 into $200 at the BJ tables, it wouldn't be optimal to grind it out at $1 per hand right? You would probably bet something like $50 to leave room for splits and doubles. Perhaps even $30 in case you need to split twice.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
betting it all in a slightly negative trial is the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]
See my analysis in the probability forum for why this is not optimal in roulette, and my past posts in this forum and the probability forum for why you should not bet everything if you are playing blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's close to the truth isn't it? For example, if you are looking to turn $100 into $200 at the BJ tables, it wouldn't be optimal to grind it out at $1 per hand right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Betting it all is better than some really bad strategies. It is still very far from optimal in blackjack because of the high house advantage when you can't split, double down, or benefit from blackjacks paying 3:2. It is still not optimal even for roulette, as my analysis in the probability forum indicated. You can pay about 27% less house advantage in roulette by using other bets.

[HajiShirazu]

You should bet it all on one hand of baccarat instead. Plus baccarat is coold, hahaha you can be like james bond. wow baccarat is pimp, i am drunk and wanna play. nah better not.

[Jeffage]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus baccarat is coold, hahaha you can be like james bond.

[/ QUOTE ]

But James Bond never dropped a grand in 10 minutes at it. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Jeff

[mr weasals]

pz,

you can benefit from BJ pays 3:2 even if you bet it all, right?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you are looking to turn $100 into $200 at the BJ tables,

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
you can benefit from BJ pays 3:2 even if you bet it all, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you can get some benefit, but it doesn't help you to achieve the goal of reaching $200 (and overshooting was just one of several problems with betting everything in blackjack). Imagine there is a poker tournament you want to enter with a buy-in of $200, and you have $100 in your pocket. You either want to double up so you can enter the tournament, or go home.