Anyone Want To Chalk This Up To Luck?

[Deathclutch]

I don't know, sonny. I think there is some value in tfg's post, but not for the reasons he thinks. If you play every shoe off the top, and every shoe were to go negative within a few hands and then leave, you would in a sense being playing those hands at an advantage as the high cards were coming out. Problem is, that of course this is all hindsight. You don't know this until after the fact. But if you played this way, leaving at a predetermined point (negative count) and increased you wager to 2 units as he suggusted during advantageous situations, (positive count), these two things alone could be enough to make the game a very slight advantageous one in the long run, depending on rules, which could yeild a very small predetermined winrate of a couple of units. The variance would be great for such a small return though. Basically playing a wong out game with a 1-2 spread.

I don't think he's describing exactly what you're talking about though. I don't think the poster was talking about counting in the last paragraph that we're talking about. Just walking away after winning a few units regardless of the count.

 

[kewljason]

I don't think he's describing exactly what you're talking about though. I don't think the poster was talking about counting in the last paragraph that we're talking about. Just walking away after winning a few units regardless of the count.

I know, Death. I know this is the voodoo section and the poster was talking complete voodoo. I was just saying, if you mix in a minimal amount of counting, then this idea of winning a couple units per day is a little more reasonable. Trying to steer him towards a little more mathematics and a little less voodoo. :laugh:

 

[Sonny]

Yeah, I mean if you leave during the middle of a shoe having won a couple units, then you haven't necessarily played with an advantage but you eliminate the fluctuation back to the mathematical norms. If you play every shoe all the way through, then that's when the mathematics have to average out to the 43% wins, 48% losses.

Then why not just play only 1 hand per shoe? That way the odds will never have a chance to even out, right?

-Sonny-

 

[CasinoBlackjack]

I have some questions about all this. First, for the original poster: What are the rules of the game where you won on all these consecutive visits? Second, what was the highest number of units you were down before getting ahead by four?
If the data is given, I wonder if QFIT or another expert would analyze it and determine the likelihood of winning four units all those sessions without a loss.
I am not trying to belittle the accomplishment. Playing basic strategy with discipline probably puts you in the top 2% of all blackjack players.

6 Decks/DSS17/DAS allowed/One card on Aces, no re split/3:2 Blackjack/No surrender

It's a good game I believe.


The most I've been down at any point is $475, 15 units. I don't suspect I will continue another session like that, should I get into a hole.

I continue to do this daily and have made over $17,000. Making time for this everyday is becoming harder, I will continue to do it however.

Some people asked questions, so I will answer those...

The most I've been stuck before making the $100 is $475. I always flat bet and at no point have I ever increased a wager beyond $25. I always try to get to the Casino early in the morning when traffic is low and I have a chance to play heads up. I enjoy an extremely fast game and in the short time I've played Blackjack (about 2 years) I've grown impatient. I enjoy the game very much but I can't stand slow play. Dealer interaction to the point where he has stopped completely to chat, rattles me, as well as when people react to the cards. I know not everyone wants to play a perfect game, so waiting a few seconds to decide whether or not to hit or stand is fine by me. It's when someone has a 15, takes 10 seconds to grumble about it, hits for an Ace, then takes another 20 seconds to complain about the 16 and such.

Playing heads up I can play 3+ hands a minute, making it easier to get out of jams and such, faster. The time I was down 15 units I was able to climb quickly through doubles/splits to make a more reasonable hole to get out of.

Everyone seems to be puzzled I've been able to do this for such a long stretch, but it hasn't been too much of a struggle so far.

I'd be interested in the "odds" of this happening over such a long time without a loss.

 

[tfg]

That seems really difficult to do never raising your bet above the $25. What is going to be your limit for being down before you stop playing for the day? I would think this could take a long time to get back to just even with strictly flat betting.

 

[CasinoBlackjack]

That seems really difficult to do never raising your bet above the $25. What is going to be your limit for being down before you stop playing for the day? I would think this could take a long time to get back to just even with strictly flat betting.

Probably $500.


It does take a long time to get back once you're stuck. Most sessions I get stuck $200 at the most.

 

[tfg]

We've got to have someone figure this out, who has all the programs and etc. How often can you win 4 units (up $100) flat betting $25 before you reach -$500, playing just basic strategy? Some kind of simulation where you get to the positive $100 and then you start a new shoe esentially. I imagine it will be very often with the variable being how long.

 

[Deathclutch]

We've got to have someone figure this out, who has all the programs and etc. How often can you win 4 units (up $100) flat betting $25 before you reach -$500, playing just basic strategy? Some kind of simulation where you get to the positive $100 and then you start a new shoe esentially. I imagine it will be very often with the variable being how long.

The most important thing you'll get out of that will be to see that it's a losing strategy. There is no way to predict when the drop will happen, but it will. When you're flat betting you're betting into a negative expectation game (most of the time.) No amount of walking in and out will change the expectation of the bet you just placed.

Then why not just play only 1 hand per shoe? That way the odds will never have a chance to even out, right?

-Sonny-

This sums up everything you need to know. Think about this statement for a minute, notice how silly it sounds? That's exactly what you all are talking about.

 

[ExhibitCAA]

Orig poster says biggest drawdown by flatbetting $25 is "$475, 15 units [sic]" and claims to have made over $17,000.

Am I the only one questioning the numbers here? Imagine a $5 flatbettor winning $3400, and then realize that the betting scheme here makes the accomplishment even less likely. Can some numbers guy figure out the probability of this occurrence please?

 

[zengrifter]

Orig poster says biggest drawdown by flatbetting $25 is "$475, 15 units [sic]" and claims to have made over $17,000.

Am I the only one questioning the numbers here? Imagine a $5 flatbettor winning $3400, and then realize that the betting scheme here makes the accomplishment even less likely. Can some numbers guy figure out the probability of this occurrence please?

Yes, please someone calc the odds. zg

 

[aslan]

Yes, please someone calc the odds. zg

How would you phrase it? First, what are the odds of winning 4 units in a session before reaching a 20 unit ($500) loss using BS alone? Second, what are the odds of doing this 170 sessions in a row (170 X 100 = 17,000)?

 

[zengrifter]

How would you phrase it? First, what are the odds of winning 4 units in a session before reaching a 20 unit ($500) loss using BS alone? Second, what are the odds of doing this 170 sessions in a row (170 X 100 = 17,000)?

1 in 17000 sounds low... but so it was just luck? zg

 

[Katweezel]

You left off GWB's caption. Which was: "I got it. You first divide by zero!"

 

[CasinoBlackjack]

$475 is actually 19 units, not sure where I pulled the 15 from.


I'm pretty sure 99% of posters think I'm bluffing about this, and I can understand why. Just the very thought of having 170 winning sessions (172 as of this post) and being stuck a max of $475 tips the mathematical scales in my mind.


It's a raw fact that BS Blackjack is a losing game in the "long run", but everything I've heard/read about the long run is no one knows when it begins.


It's obviously not impossible for this to happen if I've done it, but why is it even improbable given the fact that no one knows when the long run is?

Lets say someone runs the numbers and the odds come out to, oh I dunno, 1,000,000 to 1. How can numbers even be accurate given the fact that again, no one can account for the long run? I'm not posting a rhetorical question with that, I'd like to understand.

 

[CasinoBlackjack]

One more question.

After this finally flunks out for me I will probably take a well needed break from the Casino and perhaps learn how to count. The problem is I heard where I play has extremely poor conditions. I posted the rules of the game I play a page back, and it seems to me that these rules are pretty much top notch. Perhaps penetration and other conditions and poor.

 

[aslan]

1 in 17000 sounds low... but so it was just luck? zg

Wit = 100
Reading comprehension = 0

 

[aslan]

$475 is actually 19 units, not sure where I pulled the 15 from.

I hope it wasn't the same place you pulled the $17,000 from.

 

[tfg]

The most important thing you'll get out of that will be to see that it's a losing strategy. There is no way to predict when the drop will happen, but it will. When you're flat betting you're betting into a negative expectation game (most of the time.) No amount of walking in and out will change the expectation of the bet you just placed.

Well that's exactly why some kind of simulation would be a good learning tool.

 

[aslan]

Well that's exactly why some kind of simulation would be a good learning tool.

There's an old saying, "You don't have to jump into the lake yo know you're going to get wet." If the mathematics doesn't convince a person, then I suppose playing it out in a simulation would be another way to go. I'm just saying, "A little brainpower saves a lot of needless effort."

 

[Sonny]

It's a raw fact that BS Blackjack is a losing game in the "long run", but everything I've heard/read about the long run is no one knows when it begins.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4891

But keep in mind that any progression system can easily bankrupt you long before you approach the long run. A player could go broke on their very first session. There is no way to predict when you will bottom out, which is why they can be so dangerous.

-Sonny-