If I bet 1$ 1000 times, what are the chances......

[Meistro]

Oh sure, if you believe in "mathematics" and "probability".

 

[Splittingten's]

No no, they're just jelous of your awesome system. It's like impossible to lose 10 hands in a row. It's insane how no one has ever thought of this before. You should go to the casino immediately and start making all that free money they have for you!

 

[Eli M]

No no, they're just jelous of your awesome system. It's like impossible to lose 10 hands in a row. It's insane how no one has ever thought of this before. You should go to the casino immediately and start making all that free money they have for you!

You're not funny. I ran a stimulation and I lost more in 100 sessions than i would win.
http://bettingsystemsimulator.com

 

[Ryemo]

I don't think you're understanding me. The reason why I do 1023$ sessions and cashout at 2046$ is because at 1023$ I need to lose 10 hands to lose all my bankroll. There will be more sessions that I will reach 2046$ and cashout than losing 10 times in a row. So you're wrong in the long run I will be beating the casino.

Is this real life? You know that no betting system will beat the game of blackjack unless you’re moving your bets with your advantage, right?

 

[alwayssplit10s]

Assuming that a push does not interrupt a streak or a sequence, the ratio of wins to losses when playing basic strategy is about 47/53 (wins/losses). This does not change much if you choose not to double or split, although the house edge against you does increase significantly.

So the probability of losing 10 rounds without winning is about 0.53^10 or 0.00174 or 0.174% or about one in about 572 sequences. The probability of NOT starting a 10 loss sequence is therefore 1 - 0.00174 or 0.9983 or 99.83%. The probability of NOT seeing a 10 loss sequence within 1025 rounds is therefore 0.9983^1025 or 0.1662 or 16.62%. The probability that you WILL see such a sequence is then 1 - 0.1662 or about 83.37%.

Your plan is not new and is doomed to failure.

the math on this system really interests me.... what if you somehow had a large enough bankroll and max bid to double up to 15 times along with counting cards to use playing deviations? you also need to factor in the extra money you would make off of blackjacks... those would make a big differeces if you've already doubled 12 times and get paid 3 to 2. I'm not using this myself just curious.

 

[JohnCrover]

the math on this system really interests me.... what if you somehow had a large enough bankroll and max bid to double up to 15 times along with counting cards to use playing deviations? you also need to factor in the extra money you would make off of blackjacks... those would make a big differeces if you've already doubled 12 times and get paid 3 to 2. I'm not using this myself just curious.

I lost 28 hands in a row before and you will eventually too.

 

[gronbog]

what if you somehow had a large enough bankroll and max bid to double up to 15 times along with counting cards to use playing deviations? you also need to factor in the extra money you would make off of blackjacks... those would make a big difference if you've already doubled 12 times and get paid 3 to 2. I'm not using this myself just curious.

Congratulations. You are the 1 millionth person to re-invent the Martingale progression. You will win many sessions in a row for small amounts and then be wiped out by the eventual catastrophic losing streak, during which you will either no longer be allowed to bet the required amount or lose the nerve to bet some ridiculous amount of money in order to come out 1 minimum bet ahead. As I said above, I have personally lost 23 in a row without a win. JohnCrover says it's 28 for him.

Even with counting thrown in (i.e. you only do this when you have the advantage), you would eventually hit these practical limits.

 

[alwayssplit10s]

don't have to be a dick. as I said I would never do this myself I was just interested in the math. and I didn' reinvent anything that is exactly the martingale.

 

[gronbog]

Wasn't trying to be a dick. I guess we've all heard this particular question too many times.

The math manifests itself in the practical limits plus the fact that after only a few losses, for practical sized bankrolls, you be severely over betting your bankroll. If you did actually have the bankroll to do this, we're back to practical concerns which would be that there are far better ways (in general, not just gambling) to leverage that amount of money.