Online Blackjack cheater
- Thread starter madattocs
- Start date
supercoolmancool
Well-Known Member
Thanks for making Scott's personal and private
e-mails, of which were SOLELY addressed to you, a topic of fanfare
and merriment.
e-mails, of which were SOLELY addressed to you, a topic of fanfare
and merriment.
here goes nothing....
okay guys, i think i understand what mick is trying to say....
here, simple example, 2 cashable BJ bonuses, 100 match 100, WR of 5 k each.
now if you grind each one down, your expected profit is 75 on each = 150
now, another thing you can do is this: put the full 200 on red in roulette on both accounts.... assuming no house edge (a decent assumption considering you're only making 2 bets here), you expect to see 1 of 3 things, 1 account wins, 1 loses, both win, both lose. Now the both win/both lose scenarios are equally probable. So you EXPECT to have 400 in one account after the two wagers are placed. This means you now only have a 5000 WR as opposed to the daunting 10000 like before. So your expected profit from this method goes to 175, or 87.50 each.
The key step here is the roulette bet and how you expect to have 400 in one account. So similarly you can change the roulette example to blackjack, and simply bet big initially trying to bust or hit big (target), and then grind it out.
okay guys, i think i understand what mick is trying to say....
here, simple example, 2 cashable BJ bonuses, 100 match 100, WR of 5 k each.
now if you grind each one down, your expected profit is 75 on each = 150
now, another thing you can do is this: put the full 200 on red in roulette on both accounts.... assuming no house edge (a decent assumption considering you're only making 2 bets here), you expect to see 1 of 3 things, 1 account wins, 1 loses, both win, both lose. Now the both win/both lose scenarios are equally probable. So you EXPECT to have 400 in one account after the two wagers are placed. This means you now only have a 5000 WR as opposed to the daunting 10000 like before. So your expected profit from this method goes to 175, or 87.50 each.
The key step here is the roulette bet and how you expect to have 400 in one account. So similarly you can change the roulette example to blackjack, and simply bet big initially trying to bust or hit big (target), and then grind it out.
supercoolmancool
Well-Known Member
Hot dang. I know what Scott and my problem is. We have been assuming all along a house edge. Now it makes sense. Now we are talking. The only problem is that roulette has a 2.7% house edge 5.4 times greater than blackjack, but after you eliminate that then you have to overcome the opstacle of betting 2 accounts on the same spin of the wheel. An impossible feet. But we will just pretend those don't exist.bluewhale said:
That is why I specifially asked Mickpk if he thought that a .5% house edge was a 50/50 game.
Last edited:
As I have already answered, yes it is almost a 50/50 game. I assume you know the math of blackjack. You know what your chances are of winning a hand, losing a hand and tieing a hand are? You know how much extra the blackjack 3:2 payout is worth? You know how much extra splits and doubles are worth? If you know all of the above then you should be able to work out what are your chances of turning a $200 bankroll into either $0 or $400 even after factoring in the house edge of 0.5%. Do the math. I've done it, Arnold Snyder has done it, The Wizard has done it, 1000's of others have done it. Go to QFIT's calculator that I posted and confirm it.
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
I don't think there are any fundamental agreements here, just some really unclear debating.
With any bonus, you may have the nominal value, the risk-adjusted value, and the net expected value.
The nominal value, is, obviously, the face value on the bonus.
The risk-adjusted value (better term? I just made it up) only applies to stickies. This compensates for the fluctuations necessary to gamble it, and depends heavily on how it is played. The risk adjusted value of a cashable bonus is 100%. The risk adjusted value of a full bankroll coinflip is 50% of the nominal value.
The EV is, of course, the risk-adjusted value of the bonus, minus the house edge multiplied by the wagering requirement.
So, mick's (and snyder's, grosjean's, everyone's) point about stickies is that betting ballsy (quadrupling up in blackjack, single number roulette) will increase the risk-adjusted EV of a sticky bonus, up to a point approaching, but never quite reaching, the nominal value. The downside of this is a potentially dramatic increase in variance. (I play them fairly tight myself, not enough emotional fortitude)
But, you still have bonuses that have wagering requirements (sometime cashable, sometimes sticky). And if the wagering requirement times the house edge is greater than the risk-adjusted value of the bonus, then it's still a bad deal, right?
I think mick's example of two people playing roulette is a red herring. In solo bonus hunting, you'd play a bonus at one casino for one spin, then move on to the next casino for the next spin.
With any bonus, you may have the nominal value, the risk-adjusted value, and the net expected value.
The nominal value, is, obviously, the face value on the bonus.
The risk-adjusted value (better term? I just made it up) only applies to stickies. This compensates for the fluctuations necessary to gamble it, and depends heavily on how it is played. The risk adjusted value of a cashable bonus is 100%. The risk adjusted value of a full bankroll coinflip is 50% of the nominal value.
The EV is, of course, the risk-adjusted value of the bonus, minus the house edge multiplied by the wagering requirement.
So, mick's (and snyder's, grosjean's, everyone's) point about stickies is that betting ballsy (quadrupling up in blackjack, single number roulette) will increase the risk-adjusted EV of a sticky bonus, up to a point approaching, but never quite reaching, the nominal value. The downside of this is a potentially dramatic increase in variance. (I play them fairly tight myself, not enough emotional fortitude)
But, you still have bonuses that have wagering requirements (sometime cashable, sometimes sticky). And if the wagering requirement times the house edge is greater than the risk-adjusted value of the bonus, then it's still a bad deal, right?
I think mick's example of two people playing roulette is a red herring. In solo bonus hunting, you'd play a bonus at one casino for one spin, then move on to the next casino for the next spin.
okay how about this....
okay you don't need to get sarcastic about it supercoolman
alright, let me take the HE into consideration to prove this.....
100 match 100 right, now we are assuming here that you have 36 bonuses like this available, or more.... basically a large # right.
so now you place the 200 on red, this happens 36 times in individual casinos and it is NOT the same wheel. so what you would expect is to have 18 accounts go to 400 and 19 bust.
you take those 18, and clear the 4600 WR (5000 - 400 which you bet on roulette) in BJ... thats a total of 23 bucks lost to the HE on each account, $414, among the 18 accounts (23 * 18). so now you expect to see 400*18 - 414 dollars in all, $6786.
Now we compare this with just grinding the bonus playing BJ, 36 accounts, 200 each, lose 25 to the HE in each one, thats a finish with 175*36 or $6300, or $476 dollars LESS than the above method!
Now obviosly what i've just described is NOT the optimal method, you want to play blackjack the entire time, but simple bet high enough to get added variance, so that you either bust it or hit a big one. This technique will be better than both of the above methods.
DIAM i'm good
okay you don't need to get sarcastic about it supercoolman
alright, let me take the HE into consideration to prove this.....
100 match 100 right, now we are assuming here that you have 36 bonuses like this available, or more.... basically a large # right.
so now you place the 200 on red, this happens 36 times in individual casinos and it is NOT the same wheel. so what you would expect is to have 18 accounts go to 400 and 19 bust.
you take those 18, and clear the 4600 WR (5000 - 400 which you bet on roulette) in BJ... thats a total of 23 bucks lost to the HE on each account, $414, among the 18 accounts (23 * 18). so now you expect to see 400*18 - 414 dollars in all, $6786.
Now we compare this with just grinding the bonus playing BJ, 36 accounts, 200 each, lose 25 to the HE in each one, thats a finish with 175*36 or $6300, or $476 dollars LESS than the above method!
Now obviosly what i've just described is NOT the optimal method, you want to play blackjack the entire time, but simple bet high enough to get added variance, so that you either bust it or hit a big one. This technique will be better than both of the above methods.
DIAM i'm good
not that good, sorry.
Ignore this whole post and see my next one for a better proof. I don't actually think the math in this post holds water
Using your own system of math with the added twist of the ACTUAL expected win %, I will attempt to prove you are not good (in a very friendly and jocular manner) :joker: .
ok, so, the actual odds for red to hit on a double 0 roulette wheel is 47.37% of the time. So, betting 200 dollars 36 times means you expect to win
36*0.4737 = 17.05 of your original 36 games. Not 18.
you assume 24 dollars lost to WR for each account that won (4800 WR as you only bet 200 on roulette not 400).
17.05*24 = $409.20
You expect to see 400*17.05 - 409.2 = 6410.80
Look at that, still more than the blackjack EV of 6300.
But wait, there's more. You have to take into account that for the roulette, you busted 18.95 accounts. Thats 18.95 times the 100 dollar inital investment for each one. $1895.00 lost to busting out.
so. 6410.8-1895 = $4515.80
Staggeringly lower than the 6300 EV from just BJ.
Ignore this whole post and see my next one for a better proof. I don't actually think the math in this post holds water
Using your own system of math with the added twist of the ACTUAL expected win %, I will attempt to prove you are not good (in a very friendly and jocular manner) :joker: .
ok, so, the actual odds for red to hit on a double 0 roulette wheel is 47.37% of the time. So, betting 200 dollars 36 times means you expect to win
36*0.4737 = 17.05 of your original 36 games. Not 18.
you assume 24 dollars lost to WR for each account that won (4800 WR as you only bet 200 on roulette not 400).
17.05*24 = $409.20
You expect to see 400*17.05 - 409.2 = 6410.80
Look at that, still more than the blackjack EV of 6300.
But wait, there's more. You have to take into account that for the roulette, you busted 18.95 accounts. Thats 18.95 times the 100 dollar inital investment for each one. $1895.00 lost to busting out.
so. 6410.8-1895 = $4515.80
Staggeringly lower than the 6300 EV from just BJ.
Last edited:
Look at it this way blue whale
assumptions:
100 dollar match bonus
BJ house edge 0.5%
Roulette house edge betting on red 2.63%
5000 WR
Math:
200*36 = $7200 (the total amount put on red)
7200*0.0263 = $189.36 (the total amount lost to roulette)
If 4800 is the WR after the roulette bets for each account than the total WR for all accounts is:
4800*36 = 172800 (the total WR for all accounts)
172800*0.005 = $864.00 (the total amount lost to BJ)
189.36+864 = $1053.36 (the total lost for your roulette/BJ idea)
7200*0.005 = $900.00 (the total lost if you only play BJ)
for a $153.36 loss if you followed your roulette idea instead of only playing BJ.
Bluewhale, I commend you for trying. Thanks for the quick math exercise it was a welcome respite from the drudgery of my daily writing job.
assumptions:
100 dollar match bonus
BJ house edge 0.5%
Roulette house edge betting on red 2.63%
5000 WR
Math:
200*36 = $7200 (the total amount put on red)
7200*0.0263 = $189.36 (the total amount lost to roulette)
If 4800 is the WR after the roulette bets for each account than the total WR for all accounts is:
4800*36 = 172800 (the total WR for all accounts)
172800*0.005 = $864.00 (the total amount lost to BJ)
189.36+864 = $1053.36 (the total lost for your roulette/BJ idea)
7200*0.005 = $900.00 (the total lost if you only play BJ)
for a $153.36 loss if you followed your roulette idea instead of only playing BJ.
Bluewhale, I commend you for trying. Thanks for the quick math exercise it was a welcome respite from the drudgery of my daily writing job.
Actual? Tell me, why would you play double 0 roulette with a house edge of 5.26% when single 0 roulette (2.70%) or even French Roulette (La Partage rule, 1.35%) would be available? Why choose one of the worst house edge games to play when better are available?
And where have you read that anyone suggests playing a game with a house edge of 5.26%? The roulette examples I gave were for illustrative purposes to make them comparable to a game of blackjack and with a house edge of 0.4975% (just to make sure I don't round again). We are not talking here about playing the worst house edge game to earn the bonus. We are talking about playing blackjack, house edge of approx 0.5%. A game in which you will hit your target of x2 about 50% of the time. These odds are far better than any roulette and this is why it is the recommended game. Factor that into your calculations and you will beat that $6300 every time you calculate it.
Firstly, single 0 house edge is 2.70% so that figure should be $194.40.
Edit: ok, you were doing half the double 0 house edge. Got it now.
Tell me, how are you continuing to wager the $4800 on the loser Black bet with $0 in the account? You can't, therefore that wagering has to be removed from your equation because that WR has effectively been completed. Thus your total wagers are only on the Red winners, balance of WR is 4800*18 = 86400*0.005 = 432
194.40+432 = $626.40.
Last edited:
Yes, thanks. What mick is saying here is that after the completion of the roulette bets you DO NOT have 194.74 (200 - 0.0263*200) in each of the 36 accounts. You have $400 in 18 accounts and therefore the wagering requirement on blackjack is NOT 4800*36, but in fact 4800*18mickpk said:
This translates to a loss of another 432. you can probably follow that on to see which one gives you more money.
that make sense kender?
I'll get back to this thread in a couple days when I have time but...
I didn't want to make anyone upset. I was just playing around with numbers from your example and thought I'd try to figure some stuff out (it was fun). I would like to point out to mickpk that while I'm sure you don't intend it, you are sounding a bit arrogant and condescending in your replies. I am just trying to be friendly :joker: , please do not get upset with me. I do like that your replies are making me think (especially with respect to the fact that the black losses will not need to be counted in the WR, I need to ponder that one!!). So, like I said, I'll get back to it in a couple of days when I get more time. Otherwise, thanks for the interesting exercise.
Keep it up, I expect you'll have it all figured out by the time I get back to this. Happy hunting.
Edit: I reread the previous posts and it seems you have it figured out. Like I said, thanks for the interesting exercise.
I didn't want to make anyone upset. I was just playing around with numbers from your example and thought I'd try to figure some stuff out (it was fun). I would like to point out to mickpk that while I'm sure you don't intend it, you are sounding a bit arrogant and condescending in your replies. I am just trying to be friendly :joker: , please do not get upset with me. I do like that your replies are making me think (especially with respect to the fact that the black losses will not need to be counted in the WR, I need to ponder that one!!). So, like I said, I'll get back to it in a couple of days when I get more time. Otherwise, thanks for the interesting exercise.
Keep it up, I expect you'll have it all figured out by the time I get back to this. Happy hunting.
Edit: I reread the previous posts and it seems you have it figured out. Like I said, thanks for the interesting exercise.
Last edited:
No, I wasn't upset, but perhaps my frustration is showing as I truly didn't think I'd have to justify this to a card counting forum where the math rules and this is backed by the math. As well as it is widely known information and has been used to advantage by those in the bonus game for years and years.
Glad to have you (and others) thinking about it, though. :joker:
Glad to have you (and others) thinking about it, though. :joker: