Online Blackjack cheater

[bluewhale]

okay guys, i don't understand why you can't see what i am saying! It's really quite simple.

You have 36 identical bonus' to whore. they are all 100 match 100, 5k WR.
Now you can just grind it out at BJ that will give you an expected to finish with:
36*200 - 5000*36*0.005 = $6300 or a profit of $2700
everyone with me so far?

okay now the second approach is as follows:
You first play roulette on each one of those 36 accounts betting the full $200 in each account on a single colour. What you EXPECT to have after this is 18 accounts with 400 dollars in each one, 19 of those accounts busted out. This is not that tough to understand, this takes into account the roulette house edge.
now you grind the remaining WR in those 18 accounts on blackjack and you are left with:
18*400 - 4800*18*0.005 = $6768 or a profit of $3168

please stop bringing up the roulette house edge of 2.63, it is completely irrelvant to what i have just described above. the 19 losses takes the house edge into consideration. None of the accounts, after the roulette bet can have $194.60 left in it, its either 400 or 0. Thats where you guys are going wrong. In fact more times than not your roulette bets turns your account to 0 (19 is bigger than 18). however this method puts the money (even if it is less money) into fewer accounts and therefore results in a much lower WR (less than half), which leads to it being a more profitable situation.

Yeah, I too didn't always think this, I kinda had an epiphany when mick was talking about it. I always suspected something like this was true but never bothered to follow through with the math.
I will concede to the fact however that the method i described does lead to a LOT of added variance and must be approached cautiously and only by a well funded individual.

 

[mickpk]

I am so glad that you've understood this, bluewhale, as you were the person that asked about it. The roulette example is, as one person described it, a red herring in an attempt to make the explanation simple of how you are effectively transferring one bonus to a second bonus without transferring the WR attached to that bonus. If anyone had/has bothered to check out the QFIT calculator (or done the math) they would learn that in the game of blackjack with a 0.5% house edge you have a 49.6% chance of turning a $200 balance into $400 with unit bets of $100 (ie, turning 2 units into 4 units with 1 unit bets). This is a known mathematical fact. Thus 49.6% of the time you will turn your $200 into $400 with blackjack and only pay the cost of the 0.5% house edge to get there. Then you complete the WR of the successful bonus also at the cost of the 0.5% house edge of blackjack. This is not rocket science; this is publicly available and openly discussed information on any and every forum dedicated to making as much money as possible from online casino bonuses.

All the best in hunting bonuses, bluewhale.

 

[bluewhale]

just a couple question

yeah thanks mick. i was just wondering though, instead of actually betting 100 a hand till you reach 400 and then grinding with small bets. Couldn't you just do something like bet relatively large, maybe 20 bucks a hand and that shld turn out to the same thing really?

 

[mickpk]

The lower your bet as a percentage of your starting balance, the longer it takes you to either bust (perhaps you may think this is a good thing, but it isn't) or hit your target. This means you need to wager more. This means you have given more house edge to the casino. This means your +EV of the bonus has been dramatically reduced in comparison with the higher bettor. The chances of you reaching your target are relatively unchanged but the impact on your bonus value is greater, though it's still better than betting $1 or $5. For true sticky bonuses, you need to bet a very high percentage as you must finish above your deposit+bonus otherwise you have not made a profit thus for those bonuses $20 is likely to be very unprofitable.

 

[ScottH]

okay now the second approach is as follows:
You first play roulette on each one of those 36 accounts betting the full $200 in each account on a single colour. What you EXPECT to have after this is 18 accounts with 400 dollars in each one, 19 of those accounts busted out. This is not that tough to understand, this takes into account the roulette house edge.
now you grind the remaining WR in those 18 accounts on blackjack and you are left with:
18*400 - 4800*18*0.005 = $6768 or a profit of $3168

Incorrect thinking again. You DO NOT expect to win 18 and lose 19. You EXPECT to lose the house edge on EVERY bet you placed. That means you expect to lose a little bit of money in every account and you still have all of those WR's to complete.

Like I said before, playing multiple bonuses does not change anything. One bonus does not affect the other. There is really no way you can explain that one of the bonuses changes the EV of the other. If you lose on one bonus it won't give you a better chance of winning the other, or vice versa.

Playing the game with the lowest house edge is the best way to play, non-sticky bonus or sticky, doesn't matter.

 

[mickpk]

Incorrect thinking again. You DO NOT expect to win 18 and lose 19. You EXPECT to lose the house edge on EVERY bet you placed. That means you expect to lose a little bit of money in every account and you still have all of those WR's to complete.

You say that you still have to complete all of those WR's, but how when you have $0 in the busted acct? The real, as opposed to theoretical, outcome is that you have $0 in one acct and that can be at Casino X but have $400 in the other acct at Casino Y. It is impossible to complete the WR at Casino X as you have $0 there. No one in their right mind would deposit again to complete the WR for a bonus that is no longer part of their balance.

There is really no way you can explain that one of the bonuses changes the EV of the other.

There is and it has been explained and the math supports the explanation. Ask the Wizard, read Arnold Snyder, PM Ken or QFIT or Sonny (I presume they would be aware of this strategy) or visit a dedicated bonus hunting forum and read the contributions from math trained players who explain this math theory to many new bonus hunters on an almost daily basis. We're not talking guys who believe in voodoo betting systems here, we're talking trained mathematicians and who definitely do not advocate playing without bonuses and/or utilising a voodoo betting system to beat the house. They advocate using the math to beat the bonuses. It is the same math theory that turns sticky bonuses from -EV to +EV.

If you lose on one bonus it won't give you a better chance of winning the other, or vice versa.

I agree, but theoretically you have a 49.6% chance of hitting a +2 units target with 1 unit bets.

 

[supercoolmancool]

I wonder why no one is coming to your rescue?

 

[ScottH]

The real, as opposed to theoretical, outcome is that you have $0 in one acct and that can be at Casino X but have $400 in the other acct at Casino Y.

All I care about is the theoretical result. The theoretical result is what WILL happen in the long run. It's not as simple as saying you win one and lose the other. In the long run you are really just losing a little bit on each spin of the wheel...

 

[bluewhale]

need a math lesson

guys, honestly, we're not stupid ppl here, i'm very good at statistics and believe me i know i'm right here. Just think about this for some time without immediately assuming we are wrong. Go through what i've been saying.

 

[supercoolmancool]

guys, honestly, we're not stupid ppl here, i'm very good at statistics and believe me i know i'm right here. Just think about this for some time without immediately assuming we are wrong. Go through what i've been saying.

Well just because you are not stupid does not mean you are right and just because you are good at statistics doesn't mean you are right. Just becuase I believe you doesn't mean you are right. Even if Scott and I thought about it and agreed, that still wouldn't prove anything. You are going to have to come up with a mathematical proof. Only I doubt you have had the training/capabilities so then I guess this discussionis over.

 

[mickpk]

Formula

EV=(P*T-B)-(P*WR*HE)

EV = Expected Value (in dollar terms)

BR = Bankroll (ie, Deposit + Bonus)

P = Probability of hitting your target expressed as a percentage (source: http://www.qfit.com/blackjack-calculator-c6.htm which is sourced from "This formula is found on Blackjack Attack page 138"). However if you wished to calculate it manually, the approx formula is ((1-HE)^2/(T/BR)). It gives a slightly imprecise answer of 49.50%. QFIT's calculator sourced from Blackjack Attack, I believe factors in the impact of the standard deviation thus arrives at a more accurate figure of 49.61%. The impact of this difference on a 100/100/5000 bonus is $0.40 in the EV calc.

T = Target (expressed in dollar terms)

WR = Wagering Requirement of the bonus concerned (expressed in dollar terms)

HE = House Edge (expressed 0.005 or 0.5%)

Formula isn't quite perfect (I had it on file from a previous query on the same topic) but it gives a sufficiently accurate answer. The most difficult part to factor in is the average amount of wagering completed on the busted bonuses. Again, the major point is that once your bank hits $0, you have finished that WR and theoretically earned the bonus and therefore you do not continue wagering with $0 in your acct. In fact, it is impossible to continue wagering with $0. Many times you will bust very early on (eg as early as $300) but it is quite possible to complete the WR without busting, though highly unlikely if consistently betting half your bankroll.

Apologies in advance for/if any typos.

 

[bluewhale]

okay you defined P as the probability of hitting your target, but obviously how you bet affects this (i.e if you bet 5% of your bankroll the P goes down)
So in order to optimize P, how exactly do you bet? can you give me a step by step thing, cause i don't want to do be doing something drastically wrong. thanks.

 

[bluewhale]

Well just because you are not stupid does not mean you are right and just because you are good at statistics doesn't mean you are right. Just becuase I believe you doesn't mean you are right. Even if Scott and I thought about it and agreed, that still wouldn't prove anything. You are going to have to come up with a mathematical proof. Only I doubt you have had the training/capabilities so then I guess this discussionis over.

please don't give me the BS about a mathematical proof. no body on this entire form can PROVE that card counting works. in fact, nobody has even proven basic strategy. Both these methods were derived from computers running very large samples. these are not proofs. We however take them as such because they SHOW us that these methods work beyond much debate.
Sure we don't have the mathematical background to prove what we're saying works, but then again who could? The evidence we have put forward shows quite clearly that this system will optimize your expected returns, at the cost of an increased variance.

 

[supercoolmancool]

Whatever.

That is not a valid mathematical proof. I don't even know what that is. You need to at least clearly state your theorem and offer your method of proof. And maybe work it out too.

 

[mickpk]

HI bluewhale. Yes, with smaller bets you are unlikely to reach a target of x2 (and certainly not a x3 and/or x4) as we do have a time constraint on our play, ie the WR, that we are likely to reach the end of our +EV play before the target has been reached. For that, the calculator at http://www.qfit.com/blackjack-calculator-c5.htm is more helpful as it works out what your chances are of achieving a goal with a time constraint. But even with $20 bets on that 100/100/5000 bonus you've got a 46% of hitting your x2 target within the time constraint of 222 hands (allowing for doubles and splits that will equate to $5000 wagering). With $100 bets on a time constraint of 44 hands the probability remains at 49.61%.

The strategy is to bet as high as your overall bankroll will permit you to. And perhaps how much you are comfortable with and/or are disciplined to sustain. For a 100/100/5000 bonus I personally start it with $100 bets (ie 1/2 my BR) and set a target at x3, ie $600. If I complete the WR before reaching that target then I withdraw whatever balance I have remaining. Once the WR is complete it is no longer +EV play. If I hit my target then I grind at a smaller bet to complete the WR, eg $10. You will still hit variance at $10 per hand and can see your balance reduce or increase but long term it will play according to expectations. If I lose the first hand it's a bit of a toss up as to whether one should reduce the hand to $50 and retain EV in being permitted to double/split, or sacrifice a bit of EV and bet $100. Playing without the ability to split/double costs about 2% in EV (on those wagers only). Reducing to $50 per hand gives one the option to double/split and if I win that hand I increase my bet back to 1/2 my bankroll until I am are back to my starting bet of 1 unit (ie $100). Twice I have come back from being down to my last $20 (at such a small wager, I put the entire amount on the table) and turned it into $2400 and $1400 respectively, by increasing my bets along the way back to my starting bet of $300 (in those two cases). If I bust, I move onto next bonus. Not everyone plays this precisely. Some players just bet big the entire way through every bonus and just absorb the variance. They don't grind at all for their target is effectively only limited by the amount of wins they can achieve within the time constraint of the WR. That's fine, too, but that requires quite a huge overall bankroll. I know of players that play this way but I prefer to stick to the traditional strategy. The increase in +EV of the bonus is most evident when going for x3 and x4 targets. Sure, x5 and above continue to offer higher +EV but the amount increases at a reducing rate, but it's still there. As well as finishing every bonus extremely quickly.

 

[bluewhale]

clarify...

okay, just to clarify:
the example we've been going with, 100 match 100...

bet 100, until my bankroll reaches 100 or i hit my target (600)

so basically i bet a maximum of half my bankroll or 100 dollars at any given point (whichever is less). however if my bankroll gets down to something like 25 bucks i can just bet it all.

 

[bluewhale]

Whatever.

That is not a valid mathematical proof. I don't even know what that is. You need to at least clearly state your theorem and offer your method of proof. And maybe work it out too.

okay, will you at least concede the fact that by using mick's betting strategy you will get a 49.61% (approx) chance of hitting your target?

 

[zengrifter]

okay, will you at least concede the fact that by using mick's betting strategy you will get a 49.61% (approx) chance of hitting your target?

YES. I will concede. But I'm easy. zg

 

[ScottH]

You actually COULD PROVE basic strategy simply by looking at every possible blackjack hand situation possible and calculating the EV of each one. That would be a ridiculous process so it's easier just to simulate millions of hands since that is a very good way of estimating the actual number that you would get had you calculated it by looking at every possible situation.

 

[bluewhale]

You actually COULD PROVE basic strategy simply by looking at every possible blackjack hand situation possible and calculating the EV of each one. That would be a ridiculous process so it's easier just to simulate millions of hands since that is a very good way of estimating the actual number that you would get had you calculated it by looking at every possible situation.

well you can't say that you could prove basic strategy, for all we know, if such a proof is derived, we might realize that it is better to hit a 12 against a dealer 4 or something like that. So we might prove something that contradicts basic strategy as we know it. I realize that in all likelihood basic strategy as we know it is in fact correct. My point here being that what we are saying may not me a mathematical proof, but like how basic strategy has been SHOWN and not PROVEN, is sufficient justification.

Also, assuming that you have a 49.61% chance of doubling then it follows that our strategy increases your expected profit (EP):
EP = 0.4961*400 - 5000*0.5039*0.005 - 100
=85.8
Notice that this number is higher than 75, the EP when betting small.

Incorrect thinking again. You DO NOT expect to win 18 and lose 19. You EXPECT to lose the house edge on EVERY bet you placed. That means you expect to lose a little bit of money in every account and you still have all of those WR's to complete.

Like I said before, playing multiple bonuses does not change anything. One bonus does not affect the other. There is really no way you can explain that one of the bonuses changes the EV of the other. If you lose on one bonus it won't give you a better chance of winning the other, or vice versa.

Playing the game with the lowest house edge is the best way to play, non-sticky bonus or sticky, doesn't matter.

Then answer this question scott, how exactly are sticky bonuses profitable?? If you expect to lose the HE on every bet, following your reasoning after completting the WR you shld expect to have the intitial money in your account subract the WR*HE. This will make stickies non-profit and we all know, or shld know, that stickies can be VERY profitable.
All the arguements you have put forth fail to take variation into consideration and the fact that variation among bonuses reduces the overall WR while not affecting the amount of bonus money out there, therefore you lose less to the HE over the long run.