Is it fair to say that if one is a non-advantage player, then the more hands you play, the more you play into their hands?
After studying black jack for several weeks as a way to make money, I am disillusioned, albeit not surprised, that such a thing is not possible, short of counting, and even that can be defeated by shuffling systems.
So we are left with BS, pun intended, which, as we all know, even if played perfectly, is just a way to minimize loss, not a way to make gain. As far as betting strategies are concerned, there are none. All are mathematically flawed and financially fatal. To reference the fallacy of “free-energy” junk science, you can’t get something from nothing.
Which brings me to my rhetorical question: Does the blackjack table, like the proverbial coin, have a memory? If the advantage is to the house, but I win a hand, or a series of hands with flat betting, or any other type of betting, Martingale or otherwise, which puts me over my original BR, is it not fair to assume that the more hands I play, the closer I come to losing that money? Is it not certain that continuing to gamble is not a gamble at all, but a sure bet that you will lose whatever you gained, and then some? Does not statistical probability insist on it? Is it not true that the more you gamble, the less of a gamble it becomes? If the answer is yes to those questions, then the table has a memory. Since “the table” does not care how long I am away from it, it remembers me as soon as I come back and takes back what it previously gave me, if it was kind enough to give me anything to begin with.
Which brings me to my exit question: Would it not then follow that the only “system” to shuffle off this mortal coil ahead of the game in blackjack, (and that is, presumably, what we all want) is to make a few big bets on the highest roller table available, get lucky, win two or three hands in a row, and never play again? Is that not, ultimately, the most mathematically realistic approach to making some money at this game, without having to just give it right back?
But what fun would there be in that, you ask – win a few big hands and never play again? No fun, other than the satisfaction of knowing you did the impossible for a non-advantage player. You can die knowing you beat the house.
After studying black jack for several weeks as a way to make money, I am disillusioned, albeit not surprised, that such a thing is not possible, short of counting, and even that can be defeated by shuffling systems.
So we are left with BS, pun intended, which, as we all know, even if played perfectly, is just a way to minimize loss, not a way to make gain. As far as betting strategies are concerned, there are none. All are mathematically flawed and financially fatal. To reference the fallacy of “free-energy” junk science, you can’t get something from nothing.
Which brings me to my rhetorical question: Does the blackjack table, like the proverbial coin, have a memory? If the advantage is to the house, but I win a hand, or a series of hands with flat betting, or any other type of betting, Martingale or otherwise, which puts me over my original BR, is it not fair to assume that the more hands I play, the closer I come to losing that money? Is it not certain that continuing to gamble is not a gamble at all, but a sure bet that you will lose whatever you gained, and then some? Does not statistical probability insist on it? Is it not true that the more you gamble, the less of a gamble it becomes? If the answer is yes to those questions, then the table has a memory. Since “the table” does not care how long I am away from it, it remembers me as soon as I come back and takes back what it previously gave me, if it was kind enough to give me anything to begin with.
Which brings me to my exit question: Would it not then follow that the only “system” to shuffle off this mortal coil ahead of the game in blackjack, (and that is, presumably, what we all want) is to make a few big bets on the highest roller table available, get lucky, win two or three hands in a row, and never play again? Is that not, ultimately, the most mathematically realistic approach to making some money at this game, without having to just give it right back?
But what fun would there be in that, you ask – win a few big hands and never play again? No fun, other than the satisfaction of knowing you did the impossible for a non-advantage player. You can die knowing you beat the house.
