|
|
#71
07-25-2006, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Blackjack Strategy
Casinos would go broke if they allowed unlimited credit, because then even in those times where you lose say, 10 straight bets (using the Martingale strategy), you could keep going infinitely until you secure that small win.
|
|
#72
07-25-2006, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Blackjack Strategy
So, the only reason why casinos make money is because of table limits? It doesn't have anything to do with offering -EV games?
|
|
#73
07-25-2006, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Blackjack Strategy
The bj game that party describes - 8 decks, cards reshuffled after 10% of the cards are dealt, dealer hitting soft 17 - is a very poor game. No advantage player would play it.
Besides, who would gamble against the site's computer for the site's money?
|
|
#74
07-25-2006, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Blackjack Strategy
No matter how many times this gets claimed, it will stil be untrue.
There is no betting system that can turn a repeated negative expectation wager into a positive expectation wager. There is no wagering system that CAN work for a negative expectation game. Stop looking. It can't be done. It is foolish to claim that you have one. The only way that this can make the casino a loser is if they can never call in the debt.
|
|
#75
07-26-2006, 04:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Blackjack Strategy
one major flaw in this system besides the obvious 1% lost (I call it a system since it is a systematic approach is that it is very difficult to play the same game with a $1 bet and with a $64 bet... Try making yourself hit a 16 when they have a 7 showing..not easy.. very frustrating also when that 7 had a 9 hidden for 16 they hit showing an 2 (with the next card a 10) i.e. you would have won....
one positive thing I noticed sometimes I wont realize the bet size and you'll get 77 with a six showing... youll split and 17 and 77.. split those for a 7,4 = 11 double down for 21 ending with 17, 17, 21(dd) while the dealer has a 6 which turns out to bust... very exciting to look down and see that was a $64 bet cashed for over $400 on the one hand always a good thing [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#76
07-26-2006, 04:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Blackjack Strategy
That's correct.
When you place your bigger wagers you actually will win those bets some of the time. And when that happens, the house will actually pay you MORE than you would have received if you hadn't bet as much. Great point!!
|
|
#78
07-26-2006, 07:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Blackjack Strategy
[ QUOTE ]
That's correct. When you place your bigger wagers you actually will win those bets some of the time. And when that happens, the house will actually pay you MORE than you would have received if you hadn't bet as much. Great point!! [/ QUOTE ] I imagine that if you were to play a Martingale, you should probably not do most of the normal splits, and should never double. Most splits are defensive, ie. are split because the two hands will lose less, in total, than the unsplit hand. However, these split hands do lose more often than the 'average' hand (worse than 54%). Every doubled hand, of course, loses more often than the same hand undoubled. In both cases (split and double) the EV you are giving up by making a sub-optimal decision is more than compensated for by avoiding the horrendous risk-of-ruin increase caused by losing a multiple-bet hand (could be 2, 3 4 or even more bets). I am assuming here that your system is: that every time you lose a bet, your next bet is the sum of all previous successive losing bets + $1. Basically, the cost of failing to get a win by the table maximum is just so huge (roughly 2*MaxBet), that it's worth giving up just a little EV on a much smaller, intermediate hand, in order to avoid the risk of a multiple-bet loss reducing the number of doubles you have left by an unnecessary one (or possibly even two). This would not apply to your last bet, ie. if you are already at the max. You are not risking reducing the number of Martingale doubles left, because there are none. Put your double/split down, cross your fingers, and pray. (We can still happily take our 3:2 payoffs from BJ's though.)
|
|
#79
07-26-2006, 08:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Blackjack Strategy
[ QUOTE ]
one major flaw in this system besides the obvious 1% lost (I call it a system since it is a systematic approach is that it is very difficult to play the same game with a $1 bet and with a $64 bet... Try making yourself hit a 16 when they have a 7 showing..not easy.. very frustrating also when that 7 had a 9 hidden for 16 they hit showing an 2 (with the next card a 10) i.e. you would have won.... one positive thing I noticed sometimes I wont realize the bet size and you'll get 77 with a six showing... youll split and 17 and 77.. split those for a 7,4 = 11 double down for 21 ending with 17, 17, 21(dd) while the dealer has a 6 which turns out to bust... very exciting to look down and see that was a $64 bet cashed for over $400 on the one hand always a good thing [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I think everyone needs to step off of you for a bit. I mean, it’s pretty obvious based on your success, that you’ve stumbled on a winning martingale variation that has baffled genius mathematicians for centuries (just like most beginning gamblers have done). That’s good, and when you lose $2k in one session, it’s okay, because it’s online blackjack and it’s rigged- you will always have an out.
|
|
#80
07-26-2006, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Blackjack Strategy
im not saying it will win constantly I was saying that it is nice having a winning session every once in a while.. I also stop way way before I lose $2000...
Also just wondering http://wizardofodds.com/bossmedia If you look at the link under the single deck poker the player has an advantage... Is this correct? Should I be playing there ?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
