Blackjack Strategy

[CORed]

There have been many betting systems developed that can classified as progressions. I will define a progresion as any system in which you change the amount bet based on the result of prior bets. Progressions do not alter the house edge. This is an indisputable mathematical fact. The simplest way to explain this is that you can not add up a bunch of negative numbers to make a positive number. Progressions do, however effect the short-term distribution of results.
Progressions can generally divided into two types: Negative progressions, in which you increase your bet after a loss, in an attempt to recover all or part of your losees, and positive progressions, or parlays, in which you increase your bet after a win, in an attempt to capitalize on a winnig streak by levraging your winnings.

Negative progressions, of which the Martingale is the most extreme, trade a high probability of a small win for a low probability of a big loss.

Positive progressions trade a low probability of a big win for a high probability of a small loss.

The steeper the progression, the more these effects are exaggerated.

If you're looking for the thrill of possibly making a big score, a positive progression on a low house edge game like blackjack isn't a bad way to go. Most casino games with big payouts have considerably higher house edges than the "even money" games like blackjack and craps. You can manufacture a big jackpot from the low house advantage games by parlaying your winnings. You have to accept , though, that most of the time you're going to lose you buyin, as most of your progressions will end in a loss before you have amassed enough wins to be in the black.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I think my system is better:

I bet 0 dollar on the first hand. If i loose i double the stakes for the next hand, if i also loose that hand i double again.... Has been working perfect so far. Currently i am about even.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had enough long sessions in the distant past to make me wish (in hidsight) that I had adopted your system at certain times! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MicroBob]

I agree. and nice post again.

"seems better" with a handful of winning sessions is wrong in so many different ways. yet the person that is arguing that their method "seems better" is difficult to convince otherwise.


To the OP - dude, you are just running hot. Get over this silly betting system. There is NOTHING profitable about it.
The only reason it "seems better" is because you are catching good cards at more of the right times.

You are playing a losing game.


(after that, I think I'm giving up)

[DpR]

link?

[Jeff_B]

If you followed the converstation I said in the OP that I knew it was going to not be losing but I is an observation that it is currently destroying my old betting method I already cashed out a fair amount and am just going to keep playingi until I stop running so good.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
just going to keep playingi until I stop running so good.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you won't.

[Sandra Bullett]

[ QUOTE ]
am just going to keep playingi until I stop running so good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat less verbose than my normal response, but MicroBob says it all for me:

[ QUOTE ]
is wrong in so many different ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(after that, I think I'm giving up)

[/ QUOTE ]


---------------

OK, I can't resist adding....

When I play gambling games the entire motivation is to win money (isn't that the point of gambling?) Yet the vast majority of players (=fish) seems perfectly happy to do almost nothing to understand any game and/or to improve their skills at it. Statements like:

[ QUOTE ]
I already cashed out a fair amount and am just going to keep playingi until I stop running so good

[/ QUOTE ]

show total disconnects from reality. Any money you left in your account is YOUR money. If you lose it, you've lost YOUR money. It's exacty the same financial result as if I stole it from your wallet. The fact that it came out of winnings (which I've heard claimed thousands of times, but has probably been true somewhat less than that) is irrelevant.

And what is this bizarre belief that people have that "running good" persists into the future? You may, or may not, have been running good in the past, but the very next hand you play has exactly the same house advantage as every other hand you've played, as every other hand everyone else is the casino is about to play. THEY ARE INDEPENDENT EVENTS! What mechanism can you possibly think exists that will alter your odds at the next hand because you've been lucky enough to win a few hands in the recent past? Perhaps the Tooth Fairy?

I read a post a couple of weeks ago where the poster believed BJ dealt from a single-deck had more chance of a ten being dealt than from a multi-deck shoe (no preconditions, eg. not reliant on non-tens being dealt first). Simply that tens were more likely to be dealt. You've got to wonder what (if anything) is in these peoples' heads.


I read a story a while ago about a park ranger in Yellowstone, who stopped a mother who was covering little Johnnies head with honey. She was about to send him to a nearby bear, in order to get cute pictures of the bear licking her son's face. "Cute" would have rapidly become "horror" and "snuff".

Aparently the ranger was having nightmares about that for years afterward.

The woman was both ignorant and stupid: Ignorant as unexposed to enough facts (probably lived in a big city and had no exposure to real bears, only a never-ending stream of cute bear TV images, probably didn't know they were meat-eaters, etc). Stupid because what information she did have she didn't process properly (look at the bear, it has a really big mouth full of really sharp teeth, I wonder what it would do with those if something really tasty was put right in front of its mouth?)

She was operating in an environment that she was totally unsuitable for (a wildlife area).

The OP, and others like him, are the same. They are ignorant and stupid (actually I will partly excuse the OP from this, as he was asking us to explain the flaws, which is far better than most Martingale players do).

They deliberately seek out, and operate in, an environment (gambling) in which they are woefully unequiped. They have no concept of the reality that operates in these environments ("until I stop running so good", etc., etc, etc.)

They will get eaten.

I hope I am the bear (yummy).

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

It still wouldn't work, because it's possible to lose even an unlimited amount of money, assuming you're willing to play an unlimited number of hands.

[MicroBob]

Would be kind of curious seeing the guy on the really bad streak who lost his $500-million bet and then upping the wager to $1-billion just so he can get back to +$1.

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

It still wouldn't work, because it's possible to lose even an unlimited amount of money, assuming you're willing to play an unlimited number of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people quite understand how fast the numbers rise when you double up. After about 40 losses in a row the amount would break bill gates. Of course, if he did win that 40th hand he would be up a dollar. So maybe its not such a bad idea.