Blackjack Strategy

[Jeff_B]

Alright I understand that blackjack as a game has a -ev but according to the wizard of odds the house has about a 1% (0.65387% according to the wizard for party but I doubt I filled it out right) advantage. With this being such a small advantage I would like to think it would be possible to make money for quite some time playing this game.

My thinking is as follows
-This is most likely flawed just want someone to explain the flaw-

Lets say you bet $1 and lose.
If you bet $2 and win you are now even.


Lets say you bet $1, $2, and lose both. Then you bet $3. You are up even.

Lets say you bet $1, $2, $3 but you win the $6 bet you are still even.

Lets say you bet $1,$2,$3,$6 but you win on the $18 bet you are then up $6.

From then everytime you make an additional bet you are making money whenever you when.

$1,$2,$3,$6,$18 etc..
As soon as you win your hand you would start over from the bottom.

Would you not be able to make money off of the blackjack paying 3:2. (This assumes a simplistic game of no doubles and splits and no insurance etc).

Now if you factor in that you would be a "favorite" to win if dealt 11 and the dealer has a 6 showing This would seem like it could be a very profitable game.

The major issue I see with this logic is that the betting gets extremely large relatively quickly but the odds of losing 5+ blackjack hands in a row seem slim.

Does this not seem like a reasonable way to play blackjack?
(Consisently betting the same amount does NOT seem like you would be possible to win since you are going to lose more hands then you win.)

I have been doing better in blackjack then I ever have (I have made a few hundred dollars playing in the past couple days) but I am more interested in the theory... is it a solid one?

If you want to minimize the betting growth you can always just double your bet everytime although this would make it more difficult to show a long term profit.

Any comments? Anyone else try this?

[tom10167]

Martingale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marting...lity_theory%29

[Jeff_B]

Thank you I knew I read something simliar to it somewhere just never seen it applied to blackjack only roulette

I will look that over after I get home from work but it looks semi-promising.

[skiier04]

You say the chances of losing many hands in a row are slim but say you lose 7 in a row, which isnt that unlikely if you play frequently, you would be betting over $100 just to break even from your initial $1 bet. If you lose just a couple more hands then your bets quickly escalate to up and over $1,000 just to break even.

[MicroBob]

Indeed this is Martingale and has been discussed a zillion times here and elsewhere.

Casinos are filled with players who think they are the first to have thought of this and also think it's a fool-proof way to 'beat' the system.

I was a blackjack player and dealer for awhile and have met MANY people who had some warped logic for why this was a good idea.


It's very simple why the stuff doesn't work but it's actually not easy to explain to somebody who doesn't yet understand it imo.
I'll just leave it at "it's a pretty bad idea" and you can study up and go from there.


However, with correct basic-strategy, you can play profitable blackjack on the internet if you are interested and many people in the internet-bonuses form do exactly that.
They bonus-chase from site to site.
They are still at a 1% disadvantage as a player, but if you expect to only lose $30 at the tables while clearing a $200 bonus then it's all +EV for you.

The casinos are hoping that you will play more AFTER you clear the bonus (plus, some players bust out before they finish the bonus) thus they are willing to sacrific some EV to get you in the doors. In blackjack at online-casinos it is wise to play a little more at their place even after you clear the bonus. Lots of casinos don't like it when they feel you are abusing the system (note that this isn't really a problem with poker bonuses)

[mbpoker]

This strategy was proposed a few hundred years ago for playing roulette. However it was proved at about the same time that -EV games can't be beaten no matter how you play them.

Your strategy will simply lead to a high probability of winning a very small amount and a low probability of losing a very large amount.

[Mike Haven]

You lose 1% on every bet in the long run.

This means if you keep betting $1 you will lose 1% of the total bet, in the long run.

Similarly, if you play long enough with your system every time you get to betting $18 you are losing 1% of it.

Etc, etc, etc.

It doesn't matter what system you employ. If it's 1% to the house, in the long run you lose 1% of the total amount you bet.

In the short run, you could be lucky and win a few dollars; or, immediately hit a catastrophic run of losers and lose your shirt.

The best bet you can make is to add up every dollar you think you will ever bet on blackjack in your life and bet it on the red in roulette.

It's virtually 50%/50% that you will win an enormous amount of money.

[DpR]

Uh, how bout the simple actaully practical explanation? Eventually you WILL have a losing streak which , based on your system, would call for you to bet more than the max bet allowed in the game. When this happens, you will be unable to recoup your losses - which will in fact be more than your total wins prior.

If you had unlimited money and the casino was willing to accept bet of any size, your system would in fact work. Neither of those two factors are true.


While your odds of losign 10 bets ina row are small (~0.1%), if you play long enough, it is guaranteed to happen. If you started at $1, you would need to bet $1024 on the next wager - well above the table limits.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, how bout the simple actaully practical explanation? Eventually you WILL have a losing streak which , based on your system, would call for you to bet more than the max bet allowed in the game. When this happens, you will be unable to recoup your losses - which will in fact be more than your total wins prior.

If you had unlimited money and the casino was willing to accept bet of any size, your system would in fact work. Neither of those two factors are true.


While your odds of losign 10 bets ina row are small (~0.1%), if you play long enough, it is guaranteed to happen. If you started at $1, you would need to bet $1024 on the next wager - well above the table limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

....bingo!

You win the prize for the most practical reason why Martingale does not work.

Back in the mid-70's when I first started going to Vegas, one night I ran into a grizzled old 'veteran' at the BJ table.

He advocated the system, and because I didn't know better, I played it along with him.

I won a pile of $$ doing it, BUT, in hindsight, I now know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I was one lucky mother.

I started reading BJ strategy books after that, and sheepishly realized the error of my ways.

I ended up playing a modified basic strategy with a simple count and did reasonably well into the early 80's.....Until the pit bosses finally woke up and would consistently break the deck, switch dealers, etc. at any table that they suspected card counting was going on.

It got to be way too much work, and I very rarely play any more.

I'll do it recreationally with friends at a $5 or $10 table, but no more $200-$500 per hand/two hands at a time for me!!

I'm just not that good at it to justify the exposure.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
If you had unlimited money and the casino was willing to accept bet of any size, your system would in fact work.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it wouldn't. This has been discussed in-depth in the probability forum.