Probability of losing x # of hands in a row

[leatherguyray]

I'm confused

Kewljason, yes, I was considering a voodoo strategy. I was considering raising my bet by one unit each time that I lost a hand. If one wins by the sixth bet progression, you are not behind in total losses. But one cannot protect oneself from randomness. Even though it is only a 2% likelihood of losing six hands in a row, that’s still risky. I would probably only try this system at $5 table, and only when the count was not low.

I wish I were as smart as so many who post at this site, but I am not. However, my question is a curiosity. If you were playing a nickle bet and did, as you suggested, raise your bet one unit with each loss through six losses, how would you have recovered your losses? Five losses would total $75 and the sixth bet of $30 would not negate all that loss. Hardly half unless in my ignorance I am missing something.

 

[tthree]

I wish I were as smart as so many who post at this site, but I am not. However, my question is a curiosity. If you were playing a nickle bet and did, as you suggested, raise your bet one unit with each loss through six losses, how would you have recovered your losses? Five losses would total $75 and the sixth bet of $30 would not negate all that loss. Hardly half unless in my ignorance I am missing something.

I noticed that too but assumed he actually meant double after each lose. What did you mean OP?

 

[SBT]

Responding to icountntrack, I see what you mean that when one is about to be dealt the 5th hand (after say losing four in a row), the probability of loss is the same as when you are dealt the first hand. However, are you saying that it makes no sense to consider runs of losses? Certainly it is more probable that one will win or lose two hands in a row than they will win or lose 50 hands in a row. Or am I missing something here?

Leatherguyray, if I start out betting $10, then raise one unit to $20 on the next bet, and win, I have regained my first bet’s win as well as winning the second. If I lose the second hand and then raise my bet to $30 and win, I have not come out ahead, but I have recovered the bets of all three hands. If I lose the third hand and then bet $40, and win, I am then even with a flat betting scheme, having lost as much as I would have (2 units overall) from flat betting with losing three followed by a win. I should have said in my earlier post that things begin to go into losses greater than flat betting at the fifth bet progression. Thanks for recognizing and pointing out my math error, Leatherguyray and tthree!

My thought process when I was considering this system -- I was assuming that losing two or three in a row is much more likely than losing more than losing five or more in a row, thus one would recover one’s bets at a higher rate. Also, as one raises one’s bet, blackjacks pay more. However, if you get a streak of losing hands, then you go into much greater losses with this system, so it’s risky. I haven’t tried this yet, but was just considering it. Also, my local casino has surrender, which would reduce the risk somewhat.

 

[21gunsalute]

Responding to icountntrack, I see what you mean that when one is about to be dealt the 5th hand (after say losing four in a row), the probability of loss is the same as when you are dealt the first hand. However, are you saying that it makes no sense to consider runs of losses? Certainly it is more probable that one will win or lose two hands in a row than they will win or lose 50 hands in a row. Or am I missing something here?

Leatherguyray, if I start out betting $10, then raise one unit to $20 on the next bet, and win, I have regained my first bet’s win as well as winning the second. If I lose the second hand and then raise my bet to $30 and win, I have not come out ahead, but I have recovered the bets of all three hands. If I lose the third hand and then bet $40, and win, I am then even with a flat betting scheme, having lost as much as I would have (2 units overall) from flat betting with losing three followed by a win. I should have said in my earlier post that things begin to go into losses greater than flat betting at the fifth bet progression. Thanks for recognizing and pointing out my math error, Leatherguyray and tthree!

My thought process when I was considering this system -- I was assuming that losing two or three in a row is much more likely than losing more than losing five or more in a row, thus one would recover one’s bets at a higher rate. Also, as one raises one’s bet, blackjacks pay more. However, if you get a streak of losing hands, then you go into much greater losses with this system, so it’s risky. I haven’t tried this yet, but was just considering it. Also, my local casino has surrender, which would reduce the risk somewhat.

Well, you have to lose 2 or 3 in a row before you get to 50 in a row, but the problem is you don't know how long of a streak you're going to have to endure before your streak actually ends. You may have only lost 2 or 3 in a row at a given point but you don't know if the streak is going to end on the next hand or 12-15 hands down the road. What you're considering doing is still a negative progression and it still will not work in the long run.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Responding to icountntrack, I see what you mean that when one is about to be dealt the 5th hand (after say losing four in a row), the probability of loss is the same as when you are dealt the first hand. However, are you saying that it makes no sense to consider runs of losses? Certainly it is more probable that one will win or lose two hands in a row than they will win or lose 50 hands in a row. Or am I missing something here?

Yes it is more probable to lose one hand in a row than to lose 50 hands in a row, but how is that useful to you, as you agree with me the probability of losing on the hand you are just about to play is not affected by previous results

 

[sagefr0g]

Yes it is more probable to lose one hand in a row than to lose 50 hands in a row, but how is that useful to you, as you agree with me the probability of losing on the hand you are just about to play is not affected by previous results

it seems a paradox, but i suspect it's really not, as would be true in all things, i suppose. maybe even quantum mechanics?. really more a matter of cognition than physics, albeit both attributes may or may not be involved.
perhaps an analogy, albeit an imperfect one would suffice. such as we think we have two types of forces, gravity & electromagnetism. which is 'stronger'? which seems 'stronger'? foolin around with a magnet & paper clip, maybe one would think gravity is stronger than magnetism, but certain academics like to say that magnetic 'force' is many orders stronger than gravitational 'force'.
here's one of many i don't know. which force is stronger, the gravitational 'pull" of a black hole, or the pull of a magnet on a paper clip? if two equal strength black holes could latch on to two magnets, could they pull the magnets apart? lol:whip:
could the apparent strength of either ever over come that of the other, errhh i mean the gravity or magnetism? lol
whatever, icnt, i think your question is really just a matter of cognition. no?

 

[blackjack avenger]

a cooler froggie

it seems a paradox, but i suspect it's really not, as would be true in all things, i suppose. maybe even quantum mechanics?. really more a matter of cognition than physics, albeit both attributes may or may not be involved.
perhaps an analogy, albeit an imperfect one would suffice. such as we think we have two types of forces, gravity & electromagnetism. which is 'stronger'? which seems 'stronger'? foolin around with a magnet & paper clip, maybe one would think gravity is stronger than magnetism, but certain academics like to say that magnetic 'force' is many orders stronger than gravitational 'force'.
here's one of many i don't know. which force is stronger, the gravitational 'pull" of a black hole, or the pull of a magnet on a paper clip? if two equal strength black holes could latch on to two magnets, could they pull the magnets apart? lol:whip:
could the apparent strength of either ever over come that of the other, errhh i mean the gravity or magnetism? lol
whatever, icnt, i think your question is really just a matter of cognition. no?

Err Ummm
Fractional Kelly, seems I am a one trick pony

Dang guberment

I was thinking black hole also:laugh:

Also, as soon as I read the OP
I thought ptogression!:grin:

I like the old avatar, other was scary

 

[sagefr0g]

Err Ummm
Fractional Kelly, seems I am a one trick pony

it's a sweet one though a'int it? just gotta have a nice big roll though, maybe?

Dang guberment

heh, heh, do we even have one?

I was thinking black hole also:laugh:

hmmm, maybe in another context? such as a progression sucking up all ones loot?
but anyway, OP needs to know there is such a thing as situational plays. ie. Dubey's stuff, weak as it may be.

Also, as soon as I read the OP
I thought ptogression!:grin:

yup, question is, is that all bad, is a progression ever of any value? we all know they will eventually hose you.

I like the old avatar, other was scary

zg would call it ' shape shifting' :laugh:

 

[blackjack avenger]

a short long run

it's a sweet one though a'int it? just gotta have a nice big roll though, maybe?

Isn't it how you get the big roll? By staying in the game with fractional Kelly?

 

[SBT]

Responders seem to be saying that progressions are a terrible idea. Since you all have been doing this pursuit longer than I have, I will take your word for it. Also, the research I have been doing shows that it can’t be a winning system over time.

Regarding the probability of losing a certain number of hands in a row, this still remains a ponderable issue to me. If a coin is flipped five times, it is true that none of the outcomes has any bearing on subsequent ones. However, the likelihood of at least one tail appearing in five flips is greater than zero tails, if a simulation were conducted of millions of series of five flips. But the random nature of blackjack hands means that a player cannot predict when he/she will have three losses, or ten, or fifteen in row, even if three successive losses is a more likely scenario than fifteen. This is the relevant factor I think icountntrack was referring to, and which makes progressive betting too risky.

 

[sagefr0g]

Isn't it how you get the big roll? By staying in the game with fractional Kelly?

yes that's how i see it. fractional Kelly puts your ROR way down, so with an advantage over time even with ups and downs of the concomitant volatility one can weather the storm and come out ahead, with a bigger big roll.

 

[tthree]

When folks put down negative progressions, as they should, they always refer to the system carried to infinity (which in reality is a table limit and ruin). A negative progression properly employed can be and often is a very useful tool. In years of experience using it I find that most especially in choppy play (win one, lose one) a three bet negative progression is always a money maker when applied to your small, waiting, bet. Bet a nickle...win. Bet a dime...lose. (Choppy and you are down a nickle.) Next bet another 10. A win does what martingale does. A loss makes you down 15. Next bet is 15 shooting for even and if the cards are indeed running choppy you probably won the ten and will almost certainly win the 15. Plug in any numbers you want, but only do a total of three negative bets. Everything is 50/50 and that can't change, but cards run the way cards run. We all know that. If they are indeed choppy this works. If they are not choppy, you be your own guide dog and do what floats your boat.

I can see when the hand outcome has been choppy. My problem is I can't see when the hand outcome WILL be choppy. Classic ploppy thinking that a past trend indicates what the future holds.

 

[jaygruden]

SBT...This has been hashed out many, many, many times.........Please read and try to understand and you will become one of the fortunate few who crosses over from from the "darkside" of fallacy into the light......

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9093