|
| Posted by: WiddleAvi
- [337382016] Mon, Aug 20, 16:41
Hey guys. Quick question....Is there any rule in Vegas that prevents someone from doubling their previous bet everytime they lose a hand ?? For example: I bet $5 and I lose that hand...next hand I bet $10....if I lose that hand then next one I bet $20 and if I lost again next bet would be $40 etc. until of course I hit the table limit. I was just wondering if there is any sort of rule that stops someone from doing that ? |
| | | 1 | Gangman
Leader
ID: 4841319
Mon, Aug 20, 16:50
|
No such rule.....most folks just run out of
money before that strategy works.
|
|
| | | 2 | WiddleAvi
ID: 337382016
Mon, Aug 20, 16:58
|
Theoreticlly if you have about $2,000 and you bet $5 it is almost fullproof, or am I missing something ?
1st hand $5
2nd $10
3rd $20
4th $40
5th $80
6th $160
7th $320
8th $640
I think the table max on a normal table will be about $1,000 meaning that you would have to lose 8 hands in a row to get to that problem. The only thing that really stops this is losing a bunch of hands in a row till you reach the table limit but that would be some really bad luck. Just wondering. There must be some reason why people don't do it besides running out of cash.
|
|
| | | 3 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 17:00
|
There is no rule against it. But, if you do the math you will eventually hit a table limit and not be able to double. At that time you will incurr significant losses.
If you start back at $5 each time over and over and over... in one of those runs, mathmatically you will MAX out.
Also, you have to take into account that in order to pay by the perfect rules (IE splitting and doubling) to minimize the house edge (I believe a perfect player is at a 1.5% disadvantage). Your theory also may get you into to trouble. What are you going to do if you lose 5,10,20,40,80,160, and have to lay out $320 on a $500 MAX table and you are dealt a pair of aces? You can't double and will be forced to play a crappy "12" hand.
If you don't want to do the math..... use logic.. it's Vegas! Do you thik there would be such a simple strategey to WIN that no one has thought of before? It's not illegal because they know that they will eventually beak a doubler.
I thought of this when it was in collecge in 1984 and went to Atlantic City. that's when i did the math and figured out that was a sure loser strategy.
If it sounds too good to be true, it's to good to be true.
rfs
|
|
| | | 4 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 4324316
Mon, Aug 20, 17:01
|
Widdle...I have heard of people doing exactly that in Vegas. Some casinos allow it others don't. The one way casinos control this is to have a tight table limit min/max. They can even modify the table limits specifically for you if they don't want you playing that system.
The only way this system works is:
#1 you have to have a large enough bankroll to cover your max bet scenario which could be literally 1000s.
#2 The spread between the table minimum/maximum bet has to be enough to allow at least 7 doubles of your bet. More than 7 is preferable but 7 is the minimum. Example a table with $10min $500max would only allow 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320...only 6 bets...much better chance of the system failing.
#3 You have to know how to play blackjack correctly and never go against the odds. Know when to hit and when to stay. Many people do not have a clue.
#4 No splits or double downs in this system except maybe on your first bet in a series.
#5 You must have balls to follow the system and keep on doubling even when you get to the big bets. Very scary if you end up having to make $1000 or so bet on one hand.
If you do play correct, have enough bankroll, have enough bet possibilities between the table min/max the odd of losing 7 hands in a row are like a million to 1.
I play blackjack and know how to play well but have never had the guts to actually play this system. Never had the bankroll I wanted to risk. But I don't think I have ever lost 7 hands in a row.
The casino near me often has table limits of between $15-$5000 which would allow 15,30,60,120,240,480,960,1920,3840...9 bets before you crash and burn...gives you great odds at being successful but you need a 8K bankroll and I don't think I would have the guts to put down over 1K on one hand. Where you can really make your money is if you hit blackjack on one of the huge bets.
|
|
| | | 5 | Gangman
ID: 38732017
Mon, Aug 20, 17:03
|
Correct...you would typically reach the table
limit. I think that on a five dollar table, the limit
is usually $100 per hand .
|
|
| | | 6 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 4324316
Mon, Aug 20, 17:08
|
This system can work if you have the guts to play it. When I was in the military I had a friend who would go to Vegas every weekend and play a $5 tables and do this. He would always win around $500-$1000 in a weekend. In the 20 times or so he went he did lose once and got burned for about $1200.
If you do play blackjack correctly the odds of losing 7+ hands in a row are very low.
|
|
| | | 7 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 17:15
|
Hre ae some articles. Try checking out betitng tips
The system you propose is know as the Martingale system
As you can see, the experts don't recommend it.
rfs
|
|
| | | 8 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 4324316
Mon, Aug 20, 17:20
|
rfs...great links. Had heard the odds were better...after reading those links I am glad I never tried it. I am not sure I buy that in 1000 hands you will have 3 10 hand losing streaks but still the systems do sound like losers in the end.
|
|
| | | 9 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Mon, Aug 20, 17:25
|
Suppose you could play blackjack so that you have a 50% chance of winning each hand. (Playing perfect basic strategy, you are below that, obviously. Counting can get you above that in aggregate.) The probability of losing 8 hands in a row is 0.39%. Or, about 1 in 250. If that happens, you lose $1275 without hope of getting your money back because you didn't bring enough. If that doesn't happen, then you win $5, more if you get a blackjack. If you keep playing, it WILL happen eventually, and you'll end up with $5x# hands won plus your blackjacks. I'm not saying you won't win money using this system, because it's possible you will. But do you want to put up a $640 bet knowing that the only good that will come out of it is making $5 (not counting a blackjack) if you win? It's much more tolerable to just keep betting $5.
No matter what gambling system you come up with, so long as the casino has the edge, you'll never show a positive expected payout. I'd refer you to here to see what kind of an edge the casino has on you. Remember that this includes the possibility of blackjacks, so your expected winnings are always negative.
For what it's worth, this system has been around for ages and ages, but I can never remember the name for it. Anyone recall it?
|
|
| | | 10 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Mon, Aug 20, 17:26
|
rocka -
Thanks! I knew it had something to do with something I learned about in probability theory. Martingales, blech.
|
|
| | | 11 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Mon, Aug 20, 17:29
|
Gangman -
Just got back from Vegas today, actually. Limits on $5 tables were between $500 to $1000.
|
|
| | | 12 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 17:37
|
.. here is the rest of the story and why I posted so fast to this question....
In 1984 I went to Atlantic city as a sophomore with alot of money that was supposed to pay for my college education. I was convinced that this system was going to make me rich $5 at a time. I bet this way for 24-36 hours straight and was up about $3,000. Several dealers actually warned me (when the pit boss was away) to stop! They (the pit bosses) were well aware of the strategy and let me continue. I finally hit my losing streak. I broke even and quit. I was bummed Ithat I had lost $3K in a matter of a few minutes. However, i was fortunate tht my streak cam with ther money inmy pocket. I may have well cam the first hour that I sat down.
Moral of the story: Vegas knows all these various strategies. The only ones they let exist are the ones that can beat them. (IE counting cards or using a computer). They aren't dumb. Those are multi-million dollar casinos and they don't pay the bills by losing $5 per hand to guyslike you and me.
Good Luck, but I'd never try this again.
rfs
|
|
| | | 13 | WiddleAvi
ID: 337382016
Mon, Aug 20, 17:49
|
It seems to me like the main problem with this strategy is just guts & table limits with the guts being more of a problem. I tried this strategy a few times at practice casinos online and have done very well with it. Of course there is no guts problem when betting $320 of fake money !! :-) I have plan of going to vegas sometime in the next few months and am just curious what other people have to say about this strategy. I also saw experts who say not to use this strategy but I have not seen a reason why they say it.
|
|
| | | 14 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 17:55
|
OK, the math doesn't bear it out, but say it's just guts and table limits. Let's say you have the guts. How are you going to overcome the table limit?
This is not a sound strategy. Do some research. Buy some books, there are dozens (hundreds) written on the subject.
If this was this easy, why would everyone do it and BK Vegas? Doesn't that question nag at you? What would stops hundreds of uys like me going to Vegas and making a couple of $1000's per weekend. I would retire and work on weekends and be rich.. so would thusands of others. vegas isn't in the line of losing money.
If you really insist, wen I get the time I'll pos the math to show you this is statistical suicide.
Anyway, good luck.
rfs
|
|
| | | 15 | WiddleAvi
ID: 337382016
Mon, Aug 20, 18:06
|
rockafellerskank - I am not saying it will work. And I am wondering the same thing....if it was so easy why doesn't everyone do it. All I want to see is a reason that SHOWS that this makes no sense. I know it sounds to good to be true and thats why I am hoping someone will post sorta "proof" that it makes no sense cause offhand it seems almost like a no lose situation.
|
|
| | | 16 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 18:07
|
Try these LINKS
or read one of these books
Stanford Wong is genearally considerd the world's foremost authority on BJ. Try any of his books. I have his BJ21 which details the mathematical suicide of what you propose. Isn't $19.95 worth of research worth it to you?
rfs
|
|
| | | 17 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Mon, Aug 20, 18:16
|
Hmmm... I was just about to write up a quick proof for you, but it occured to me that assuming a basic strategy would be lunacy. Doubling down and splitting are key components to maximizing your expected winnings (minimizing expected losses), and I can't see why anyone would want to consider doubling down or splitting using this system. I think a computer simulation would probably be the easiest way to show that expected winnings are, long-run, negative.
A proof showing this system doesn't work for a simple, no-frills, 1 to 1 payout only game is easy, and I can write it up if you want to see it.
|
|
| | | 18 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 18:18
|
OK
Lets say you play almost [perfect BJ. You should win 48.5% of the time. The house will win 51.5% of the time.
If you play at a $5 table w/ a $1000 limit you can lose 9x before you BUST.
5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640 = $1275 in losses.
mathematically if you multiply .515 (you losing percentage) by 9 (the number of losing hands until BUST) of .515 to the 9th power says there is a .0025483 chance of losing 9 in a row. Thi sis 2.5 per thousand hands. Each of those 2.5 loss streaks will cost you $1275 or $3187.50 total.
Those same hands can expect you to win .485 hands or 485 X $5 per win = $2425.
therefore if you play 1000 hands PEFECTLY, you will lose $3187 and win $2425 for a new loss of $762 per 1000 hands.
Let's estimate they can deal 45 hands per hour in Vegas, so it woud take 22 hours to reach 1000 hands. I assue you will go to the bathroom and eat, so tha fils te otehr 24 yous. You can ecpect to ose (on average) $762 per day betting only $5 to $1000 tables.
I havebeen out of colelcge for a long tme and this has stressed my brain. I need a beer.
I know there ae some geniuses out there that will tweek my calcs, but the royugh numbers are prety sound.
rfs
|
|
| | | 19 | WiddleAvi
ID: 337382016
Mon, Aug 20, 18:19
|
I would like to see it sludge if you don't mind. Thanks
|
|
| | | 20 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 18:22
|
Yes, splitting and double come into play. The above isa simpe example, but it assumes you can/split and double by te book. You will still hit a 9x losing streak 2.5X every 1000 hands. In fact, if you don't double/split properly, you will play toless than 48.5% effieciency.
In fact you may not be able to play to 48-49% edge because you may NOT beable to split or double. BTW, the Stanford WONG book has a complete statistical analysis of this theory including doubles and splits.
rfs
|
|
| | | 21 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Mon, Aug 20, 18:31
|
Widdle -
rocka just did, basically. He assumed no blackjacks and no doubling/splitting, which is the no-frills 1-1 payout game.
One correction I would make is that it's 2.5 per thousand runs of hands where a run would be defined as a string of hands played until you get a win. So, runs would look something like this:
W
LLLW
LW
LLW
LLLLW
LW
LLLW
It's just a simple geometric, and the average run length would be 1/0.485, or 2.06 hands. So you will actually hit a losing streak 2.5 per 2000 hands. This would only change the magnitude of his numbers (cut them in half for the per day rate), but not the point of the numbers.
The only other (very minor) correction I'd make is that the losses are long-run averages, not absolute. So obvious I hesitate to even mention it.
Other than that, I see no problems with his calculations.
I'm off to take a nap. My feet hurt, and I'm dead tired. Vegas sure takes a lot out of you.
|
|
| | | 22 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 18:33
|
oops.... I guess you only have to lose 8 to go buts. That means your chances of losing 8x in 1000 hands is 0.0049482 or 4.9 x per 1000 hands.
4.9 x $1275 per BUST = losses of $6247 VS your $2425 in Wins = net loss of $2822 per 1000 hands - however long it takes you to play that many (1 day?)
Obviuosly, even worse. I need that beer now.
rfs
|
|
| | | 23 | WiddleAvi
ID: 337382016
Mon, Aug 20, 18:44
|
What about taking into account Blackjack paying 3 to 2 and especially if you get a blackjack on one the higher bets like if you lost a few hands in a row and your bet is now $40/$80/$160 and you get blackjack ??
|
|
| | | 24 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 18:49
|
with all due respect, if you want to see the entire proof to prove to yourself it won't work, by the above book by Stanford Wong. he is a statistical genius. The proof is sevral pages of very complicated calculations. It's only $19,95 (or 4 wining $5 hands!!)
Good Luck
rfs
|
|
| | | 25 | The Left Wings
ID: 456301816
Mon, Aug 20, 19:14
|
See, in the simplest case, which Sludge calls the 1-1 payout game, this double-bet method will always guarantee a profit.
We'll start with $1. We double the bet if we lose a hand, and we stop when we win a hand.
Hand # |
Bet ($) |
Spent ($) |
This bet pays ($) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
7 |
8 |
4 |
8 |
15 |
16 |
5 |
16 |
31 |
32 |
6 |
32 |
63 |
64 |
7 |
64 |
127 |
128 |
See the pattern? You'll always do $1 better, unless you hit the table max. This method is independent of odds, which means that you'll win $1 no matter what the odds are, as long as it's not 0. The odds only tell you how often you'll reach the table max and thus lose a lot of cash instead of gaining $1 each time.
Now, where did the blank space come from? I was just using the simplest form of HTML table.
|
|
| | | 26 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Mon, Aug 20, 19:38
|
TLW -
You are correct to a certain degree, but the method only guarantees a profit assuming an unlimited amount of money and a no-limit table, neither of which conditions ever exist. It is exactly the limits that cause the method to fail. I'll try and find some time to scribble up a proof sometime tonight that includes blackjacks but not doubling down or splitting pairs.
|
|
| | | 27 | The Left Wings
ID: 456301816
Mon, Aug 20, 19:44
|
It's actually not that complicated.
You just need to calculate how often you will hit the limit and lose a ton of cash, and check that number with the number of $1s that you'd have won before hitting the limit.
Of course, with the odds under 50%, you're always more likely to hit the limit before all the $1s add up to cover those losses.
|
|
| | | 28 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Mon, Aug 20, 19:52
|
TLW -
That's it in a nutshell.
If you keep playing, it WILL happen eventually, and you'll end up with $5x# hands won plus your blackjacks.
That was the (unstated) point I was trying to drive home.
|
|
| | | 29 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 48113316
Mon, Aug 20, 20:08
|
.. to answer your Q about BJ's paying 3-2 and not being included in the calcs...
The above sample doesn't include several factors (besides the BJ issue)
1. Insurance
2. Surrenders (if offered)
3. Pushes
4. BJ's paying 3-2
5. Money needed to double/split
6. assumes you play 100% correctly! No mistakes which is somewha unlikely.
All of these factors affect the wil/loss rate. Howver, none work in your favor enough to offset the enevitable expensive crashes.
In Wong's book, he takes all this intoaccount, but the results are the same.. it just a matter of degree of the losses.
rfs
|
|
| | | 30 | patjams
ID: 557292011
Mon, Aug 20, 20:24
|
All of those beautiful casinos weren't built on winners. Doubling your bet isn't against the rules, but doubling and adding $5 will get you an invitation to leave very quickly.
|
|
| | | 31 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 117541522
Mon, Aug 20, 21:14
|
It is not difficult to play blackjack correctly. simply do a search online and you can get one of the many charts available that tell you what play to make when, memorize it and you are all set. It is still one of the best games to play in the casino and actually win once in awhile. It has the best odds of any game in the casino. The casino is still favored but not by much so a little luck your way and you can walk away with some money. Now if you sit and play for countless hours you will definitely lose because the odds are in the casinos favor but not greatly.
The only games in the casino where the player actually can get the odds on their side is some of the video poker machines but you must play absolutely correctly and that is a little more difficult to do than blackjack...and most of the winnings go to people who hit royal flushes. The casinos can put the odds in the players favor because 99% of the people who play video poker do make incorrect moves.
The only game you can actually make a living at playing is traditional poker because you are not playing against the casino you are playing against other players. A handful of people play professionally in Vegas and it is their only job.
|
|
| | | 32 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Mon, Aug 20, 23:01
|
Poker isn't the only game you can make a living at. Many make a living counting cards in blackjack. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's probably easier to learn to count cards in blackjack because it's a game you can practice for free. To become a good enough poker player to make a living requires playing with other very good poker players who won't play for free. Video poker gives you very good odds, but it's still not in your favor, even playing perfectly.
|
|
| | | 33 | GoatLocker
ID: 44461114
Mon, Aug 20, 23:29
|
Counting cards and pushing the bet when the count is in your favor is the best way to go.
The issue there is that you need to be in a casino that won't shuffle up when you go over 5-1 or whatever the magic number happens to be on the push.
This is driven by the pit boss watching what you are doing.
This is also why the big money gets taken off of the BJ table by groups working together with a counter in the back ground, and hitting a rich table all at once with a big bet.
Stand back and watch sometimes and you can see it happen.
It would be hard to go back over the years and figure out how many times I have lost more than 10 hands in a row, but I know it has happened more than once.
The way to beat BJ is to grind it out and count cards.
Cliff
|
|
| | | 34 | WiddleAvi
ID: 337382016
Tue, Aug 21, 00:22
|
How about using a mix of basic card counting (Keeping track of 9,10,j,q,k cards and 2,3,4,5 cards) and doubling after losing. Of course you would then only double your bet when the cards are in your favor. That actually sounds like a nice mix to me. If you lose a hand and the cards are not in your favor then you don't double your bet.
|
|
| | | 35 | kev
ID: 36925310
Tue, Aug 21, 00:38
|
Im not the mathmatician some of you are above, but I couldnt help getting involved in a gambling thread...
Blackjack is the best bet for the player in the casino. You can increase your odds of winning by counting cards, and watching the shuffle carefully.
I used to count cards all the time, and try different strategies, but the big point I would to make is that it always comes back to bite you in the butt- take RFS's stated before- you can try a certain technique, weather it is doubling the bet, or counting cards, whatnot...but it will come back to the casino getting your money.
Its very hard to break even at any game in the casino. There are the very big winners, which has to be some astronomical low percentage, and the very many losers.
I have given up at Blackjack, for all your card counting, all your strategy, all your effort, can be messed up by one person on the table, who insists on splitting face cards and not splitting 8's with a 7 up (just 2 of my most agonizing things to watch)
My suggestion- dont worry about making 5 bucks per hand. Go and enjoy your time
And bet on hard six when your playing craps...it and poker now are the only things that keep me intrested in the casino.
|
|
| | | 36 | Craig H
ID: 287241713
Tue, Aug 21, 07:39
|
I thought this thread was going to be about the Yankee Flipper, Jack McDowell making a comeback :)
|
|
| | | 38 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 117541522
Tue, Aug 21, 08:11
|
Sure you can make money counting cards but as soon as they figure you are doing it they will blacklist you from the casino. That makes it a little difficult to make a living doing it unless you are willing to where disguises and travel around the country to different casinos until you end up getting black listed in all of them.
Counting cards definitely works if you are good at it. You know it does work because it will get you banned from the casino so there definitely must be something to it.
I always thought it was BS that you are not allowed to count cards. You are not using anything but your mind in most cases...can't see how it is cheating? But I guess if they did allow card counting they would just do away with blackjack all together because they would lose money.
|
|
| | | 39 | Bodacious Tatahs
ID: 137191511
Tue, Aug 21, 09:07
|
I actually tried this at the casinos recently. My first eight hands at 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,and 640 were losers. I was sweating balls. My 1280$ hand was a 16 against an ace up which I tucked bucking the odds (which I previously hadnt done). The dealer busted and I left the casino after three very hard minutes with a gigantic profit of 5$. LOL. I was too scared to keep going.
|
|
| | | 40 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Tue, Aug 21, 10:14
|
CTRS -
Let me correct something I said in #32. Did a little poking around last night, and found out that there are video poker machines that actually give the player the edge if they play perfectly. If I'm to understand what I read correctly, however, they require very complicated strategies.
I think the reason there are so many high quality books on counting cards is that the authors ran out of places to play or decided that selling a book was an easier approach to making money. :)
|
|
| | | 41 | absolut_cdi
ID: 35730916
Tue, Aug 21, 10:36
|
lol... i use this strategy playing hoyle casino
but instead of going 5,10,20,40, etc i got 5,15,35,75, etc to make a slightly larger profit
|
|
| | | 42 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Tue, Aug 21, 14:04
|
Warning: Statistics ahead. Happy reading.
Martingale betting system. Starting bet $1. No doubling or splitting. No table limit, only a limit to your money.
Let p1 = Probability of winning without a blackjack given that the player or dealer wins (no push).
Let p2 = Probability of winning with a blackjack given that the player or dealer wins.
Let q = Probability of not winning = 1-p1-p2.
Assume each hand independent of the other (for 6 decks, this is basically true). You can basically reduce the strategy to playing a series of independent strings of hands until you win.
Net Net
Wager Win Prob BJ Prob
----------------------------------
1 1 q^0*p1 1.5 q^0*p2
2 1 q^1*p1 2 q^1*p2
4 1 q^2*p1 3 q^2*p2
8 1 q^3*p1 5 q^3*p2
...
2^n 1 q^n*p1 1+2^(n-1) q^n*p2
The above table lists all the possible net winnings for one of these strings of hands except the case where you lose the string. The net winnings for that is -1-2-4-...-2^n=-2^(n+1)+1, and the probability of that occuring is q^(n+1).
The expected net winnings is just sum of the possible net winnings times their probabilities. That is:
sum(1*q^j*p1, j=0..n) (winning w/out bj)
+ sum((1+2^(j-1))*q^j*p2, j=0..n) (winning w/ bj)
- 2^(n+1)*q^(n+1) + q^(n+1)
I'm not going through all the details, but the expected winnings simplifies to:
1 + p2/(4q-2)((2q)^(n+1)-1)-2^(n+1)*q^(n+1)
Now, the question is: When is this negative? What values for n, p1 and p2 make it positive or negative? Although the solution is simple, it is best shown graphically. The probability of a blackjack is 0.0475=p2, so it really reduces to 2 variables, n (the number of hands you can play) and p1 (the probability of winning without a blackjack). The graph below is a 3-d plot of the expected winnings as n and p1 are allowed to vary.
The function is always negative unless p1 is greater than about 0.44 (0.440625 to be exact). p1 is never above 0.44. At best, it's between 0.40 and 0.42. Also notice that the more money you have to wager (larger n), the greater the expected loss, so a casino should actually love you to walk in with $1 million and play the Martingale! For the case when it's negative, the expected net loss is minimized when n=0 (n only goes from 1 to 20 in the graph). n=0 represents the game where you bet 1 unit every time, or play without the Martingale system.
I don't expect this to convince anyone, but if you can follow the math, go ahead and check it for yourself.
One final note: I used a minimum bet of $1. To figure out what it would be for a minimum bet of $5 or $10 or $100 or whatever, just multiply the expected winnings by the minimum bet.
|
|
| | | 43 | Gangman
Leader
ID: 147262114
Tue, Aug 21, 15:23
|
Oh, that makes it clear. I was just thinking the
same thing. Thanks.
I know that when I get to the table, I'm all about
1 + p2/(4q-2)((2q)^(n+1)-1)-2^(n+1)*q^(n+1).
LOL
|
|
| | | 44 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Tue, Aug 21, 15:30
|
Nice job, Sludge (I think!).
Now could you please tell me if the expected winnings (err... losings) is greater than this if you bet an equal number of hands while maintaining a constant betting amount?
Thank you. My accountant thanks you also.
...and my fiancee.
|
|
| | | 45 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Tue, Aug 21, 15:32
|
Or... maybe compare expected losings for martingdale vs. the constant bet amount, given equivalent risk (amount willing to be wagered). This might make more sense than same number of hands...
|
|
| | | 46 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Tue, Aug 21, 16:12
|
Gangman -
It's no wonder that kids are so hesitant to become scientists with such attitudes.
bili -
Yeah. Your expected net winnings (losses) are higher (lower) when you place a constant bet per hand. In fact, they'd be even better than the graph shows because now you can afford to double and split.
WiddleAvi #31 -
If you can count cards correctly, you can probably push the probability of winning up to a point where the expected profit from the Martingale system is positive, and it would be a viable strategy. Looking at the graph, however, the expected profit per string of hands is only marginally higher than for the case where you play a constant bet per hand. (Hard to see at the orientation I saved the graph.)
patjams #30 and absolut_cdi #41 -
This is actually a worse strategy (doubling then adding the minimum) than the simple Martingale if you don't have an advantage over the casino (p1<0.44), and is a better strategy if you have an advantage over the casino (p1 > 0.44).
|
|
| | | 47 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 33732119
Tue, Aug 21, 16:29
|
lol @ 43
Was thinking the same thing... I had enough calculus last semester to last me a lifetime. NO MORE MATH! :)
FWIW, I find the best game at the casino to make money is the roulette tables. Roulette is probably the game that has the odds tilted in the casino's favor the most, but thats taking one thing out of the equation: Human error. I usually watch the tables before sitting down at one for a good half an hour, looking for a tired dealer. (Someone working on that last hour of an 8 hour shift.) These guys almost always spin the ball without thinking, and more often than not they end up spinning it with about the same strength and speed. I bet on the numbers in the area of the wheel of the previous hit number and usually walk away with profit. It doesn't always work of course, as the ball can bounce wierd one time and mess you up, or the dealer might spin the ball a bit harder for no reason, but more often than not the ball will land in my selected area.
I've been doing this for 3 years now, betting no more than 40$ at a 1$ table each trip to the casino. My friends and I have been keeping a running count of our profits/losses at the casino ever since we started going and right now I'm up to 850$ profit. Its not a sure thing, and I've lost all 40$ at least 10 times, but it works well enough that its the only game I feel that I have a fair chance of winning at.
|
|
| | | 48 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Tue, Aug 21, 18:56
|
Another point about roulette to complement Rogue's observation is that if a roulette wheel isn't perfect, and some numbers come up even slightly more than others, the odds shift to the player. Rule of thumb is that if within 76 spins you see a number come up 6 or more times, it's better than 90% that the wheel is favoring that number to the player's advantage. 5 or less, and it's generally just luck of the draw. Can't say that I've actually used this strategy, so YMMV.
|
|
| | | 49 | James K Polk
ID: 4455731
Tue, Aug 21, 19:12
|
I'm not a gambler and never have been, but I find the subject somehow fascinating. I've enjoyed reading this thread, and enjoy hearing people who actually know stuff about gambling discuss the subject.
In that vein, I recently ran across a well-written, fantastic account at kuro5hin.org of someone's casino gambling experiences. Thought I'd throw a link here for anyone interested.
Here's the intro the writer provided: "In 1990, our neighboring state of Mississippi legalized gambling. Two years later, for the first time in my life I walked into a casino. This was the beginning of an odyssey which would, more through faith in math and hard work than luck, and against all normal expectation, turn my debt into a healthy savings. It would see me develop an appreciation for 60-year-old Scotch and and US$50 steaks. It would show me a great deal of the excitement and drama people go to casinos for. And in the end it would leave me and my friends with a deep, abiding hatred of these places and a terrible understanding of how they affect most of their clientele."
It's a four-part story, and here's a link to Part One. Links are provided to the next section at the bottom of each part. The writer obviously comes to a moral conclusion about casinos, but that's not why I'm posting the link. It's just a really good tale.
|
|
| | | 50 | Lutefisker
ID: 3175615
Tue, Aug 21, 23:18
|
Personally, the best way to win at the casino is to count cards and make sure you take all of the perks. free meals, free drinks, free shows and free motel rooms, etc will give you a pretty good deal if the tables don't wipe you out in the process.
Also, several casinos have tournaments where you are not playing against the house but rather against other players.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
| | | 51 | winmiller
Sustainer
ID: 107452613
Wed, Aug 22, 00:21
|
Mr. President,
Thanks for the link. It wasn't working for me when you first posted it, but it's working now. That was indeed a fascinating story.
I studied up on card-counting in the 1980's after reading Ken Uston's "Million Dollar Blackjack." I tried counting cards and had some very small success using card counting methods. My bankroll was far too limited to turn Blackjack into a profession. If I recall correctly, the bare minimum bankroll was 400 times the minimum bet (basic unit). In other words, if the starting bet was 5 dollars, you needed to walk into the casino with two grand.
Two grand provided a 5% element of ruin. Restated that means that one time out of twenty the whole two grand would be lost. That was under ideal conditions.
The expected gain was between 1 to 1.6 basic units per hour. In other words, 5 to 8 dollars per hour, if you started with a $2000 bankroll, with wide swings in the process.
To try to turn the whole thing into a profession, a player would need to make more money than that. So begin multiplying. Want $25/hour? Take $10,000 to the casino and start with the green chips. Is a 5% element of ruin to risky for your blood? Then take even more money with you, knowing that you still might lose it all.
In any event, I only play Blackjack for fun anymore. I don't bother counting because it is work, not fun.
But, getting back to the original question posed in this thread, I have only one hard and fast rule when playing Blackjack:
Never raise the bet after a losing hand. Raise the bet only after a winning hand.
This will at least keep you away from sudden and devastating losing streaks, and once in a while you end up in a sudden and satisfying winning streak. But as they say, those bright lights, casino comps, and fancy buildings aren't built on the backs of the winners.
Bottom line: Don't fall into the belief that you can make money in a casino unless you have a very large bankroll, a penchant for deceit, and a stone-lined stomach.
|
|
| | | 52 | Gangman
Leader
ID: 22351310
Wed, Aug 22, 06:42
|
Sludge....just being tongue in cheek. I might
as well have been reading Chinese.....
I bow down to your intellect. Sorry if I offended
you...the slight was unintentional.
|
|
| | | 53 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Wed, Aug 22, 09:49
|
For a few years in the '70s, I played professionally and I'll share this only because I value the people on these boards.
1 - The Martingale is a sure loser. There were many times when I lost 12-13 hands in a row. Short-term probability absolutely guarantees that. And keep in mind I was playing mathematically perfect blackjack.
2 - The only way to beat the game is to count. There are a number of systems out there but for any of them to succeed they must be played flawlessly. Your average winning percentage, playing perfectly, is about 1.2%. One mistake per hour will nullify that.
3 - You should take a bankroll that is 100 times your maximum bet in order to be certain that a short-term loss cannot wipe you out.
4 - Good luck
Don
|
|
| | | 54 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 1440310
Wed, Aug 22, 13:37
|
Gangman -
I'm not offended at all. Rather, I'm used to it. If anything, you could say that I'm saddened to constantly hear such remarks, whether made in jest or not. It's especially disheartening in a thread like this where you're trying to do your best to save someone some money before they go off and try something stupid like play a Martingale.
To simplify the "proof" above, let me just say this: If the probability of winning a hand without getting blackjack is less than 44%, then you're going to lose your ass in the long run.
Also, to keep this message somewhat on-topic, the way I approach gambling is that we (my wife and I) bring a certain amount of money that we feel comfortable losing. If it's lost, oh well, we had a good time at the tables drinking the weak drinks and talking with the dealer and people around us. If we win, woo hoo! We don't go in there planning on winning anything to buy a new (insert toy), and the one thing we won't do is chase after lost money. I think that's when a person has crossed the line from recreational gambling to a problem.
|
|
| | | 55 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 4443038
Wed, Aug 22, 14:08
|
Nice article JKP. Thanks for the link.
|
|
| | | 56 | The_Mentors
ID: 9432248
Wed, Aug 22, 15:04
|
Oh man, This is an awsome thread! Next time my buddy throws down a casino night I am going to take him for all he is worth! Which is about $250 bucks. : (
|
|
| | | 57 | Supermex13
ID: 337272218
Wed, Aug 22, 19:34
|
Ditto TM. Truly fascinating thread. I think I need to print this out and study for a whole weekend before going to Vegas. Heck, I better do it this weekend because I'll be going to Laughlin for Labor day. Another game I like, which lets you play for a while with little money and lots of drinks, is Pai Gow. My wife is hooked on Eazy E's game: "Let it Ride"...she won $1500 her first time playing.
-Supermex13
|
|
| | | 58 | Sludge
ID: 56202214
Wed, Aug 22, 22:22
|
Okay... feeling industrious and curious, I wrote up a macro in Excel to simulate the game I described in the example above. It doesn't actually simulate the blackjack hands. It assumes you have a fixed probability of winning each individual hand that you can specify, and it simply generates a random number and compares it to that probability. It also assumes that the probability of a blackjack is a constant 0.0475.
Anyway, it will simulate the number of strings of hands (hands played until a hand is won) you specify, and show you the net winnings after playing that many hands for every conceivable (and much more) amount of money one would (and could) bring to the casino.
Description of the columns:
A - Hand: Hand number in the string.
B - Wager: The wager you would have to make on that hand.
C - Additional BJ Win: The extra amount you would win if you hit a blackjack on that hand.
D - Wins: After the macro is run, the number of wins you had on that hand number.
E - BJs: After the macro is run, the number of blackjacks you had on that hand number.
F - Temp: The possible (assuming enough money) addition to the net winnings.
G - Money to Wager: How much money do you have to wager? Pick your level, and...
H - Winnings: ...your winnings after playing the specified number of strings is given.
I - Probability of Winning: Probability of winning a hand (blackjacks included). Set right now at the "break even" point, 0.4875 = 0.44+0.0475.
J - Num Strings to Play: How many strings of hands do you feel like playing?
Note: It does not assume that after you've lost all your money at a certain level that you quit and go home. In a sense, it assumes that you go home, make some more money, and go back to the casino for more punishment. To see if you would have gone home or not, just watch the cell in Col H corresponding to your level of Money to Wager in Col G. If that ever goes negative, you went bust and went home. (I could keep track of it, but that would slow down the macro considerably. It takes long enough for only 10,000 strings as it is.)
Anyway, specify the value for I2 and J2, and push the "Run Simulation" button, and watch it go.
The file can be found here.
|
|
| | | 59 | Sludge
ID: 56202214
Wed, Aug 22, 22:28
|
Some quick notes:
* I used the built-in random number generator in Excel, and I have no idea how good it is.
* If you want to simulate a game that has no blackjack (i.e., all payouts are 1-1), just make every value in column C 0.
* No bells and whistles. Probably nowhere near bug free. Just quick and dirty and, hopefully, error free where it counts.
|
|
| | | 60 | Lutefisker
ID: 7712310
Thu, Aug 23, 10:04
|
Do you know what they call it when a person wins a small amount of cash or a small jackpot at a casino?
The insiders term for a small jackpot is:
"short term loan"
|
|
| | | 61 | The_Mentors
ID: 9432248
Thu, Aug 23, 10:11
|
"Uncategorized Personal Pages are Restricted."
Was looking forward to trying out your little program Sludge but I am at work. DAMN!
|
|
| | | 62 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Thu, Aug 23, 10:12
|
Gimme an email, and I'll send it to ya as an attachment.
|
|
| | | 63 | The_Mentors
ID: 9432248
Thu, Aug 23, 11:40
|
There you go!
|
|
| | | 64 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Thu, Aug 23, 12:05
|
On its way. One thing of note is that the "Winnings" column is actually the gross winnings, and not the net winnings.
|
|
| | | 65 | The_Mentors
ID: 9432248
Thu, Aug 23, 12:55
|
The house ALWAYS has the advantage. You proved that the Martingale betting system is a loser in the long run. But its better to use the maringale (Assuming you had the $$)Then just going through the motions and drinking free booze no? (actually, They never give me free booze..Why is that?)
|
|
| | | 66 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Thu, Aug 23, 14:20
|
because you're 12? ;)
See Sludge #46 - he doesn't provide a proof (what's wrong with him!), but he does claim (and I believe him) that playing constant bet blackjack using the decisions that provide the best odds, you're expected losses are lower than martingale.
|
|
| | | 67 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Thu, Aug 23, 15:05
|
bili -
Yeah, I provided proof. It's in #42. I just didn't feel like pointing out to you that I answered your question before you even asked it. :) For the case when it's negative, the expected net loss is minimized when n=0 (n only goes from 1 to 20 in the graph). n=0 represents the game where you bet 1 unit every time, or play without the Martingale system.
The_Mentors -
The following is exactly what makes playing a Martingale so attractive to people:
"If I have enough money, say $1,000,000 times the minimum bet, the chances of me walking away from the table a loser are extremely small."
That is an accurate statement. The chances are extremely small. For example, being as optimistic as possible (p1 = 0.4875, the break-even point), the chance of losing 21 hands in a row is only 0.0000008, or about 1 in 1,248,615. But what people fail to consider is the number of strings of hands you'd have to play to make any reasonable amount of money when compared to what you started with. The program defaults to 10,000 strings of hands (a little more than 20,000 total hands of blackjack, on average). The probability of at least one of those strings of hands going past 21 hands becomes 1-0.9999992^10,000 = 0.008, or 1 in 125.
Let me summarize. If you play about 20,000 ($1 minimum) hands using the Martingale, and you started with 1,000,000, 124 out of 125 times, you'd walk away with an average $8,000 more than you started with. 1 out of 125 times, however, you'd lose your $1,000,000. Is that a gamble you'd wanna take? Furthermore, if you had $1,000,000 to gamble, are you gonna put it on the line to only make $8,000? I'd just as soon put it all on Red or Black on a Roulette table or on the Pass Line at a Craps table. At least then, you'd get to stay in the high roller's suite. They might not notice you sitting at a $1 table. :)
No free drinks? What kind of casino you playing at?
|
|
| | | 68 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Thu, Aug 23, 16:10
|
D'oh! Sorry sludge. You caught me in skimming mode.
|
|
| | | 69 | The_Mentors
ID: 9432248
Fri, Aug 24, 14:40
|
124 out of 125 times, you'd walk away with an average $8,000"
Any way(increasing your min bet?) to lower your chances of winning and increasing your avg from $8,000?
|
|
| | | 70 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 1440310
Fri, Aug 24, 14:46
|
Yeah, there sure is. Find a casino that'll let you make a $1,000,000 bet, and play one hand using basic strategy. You've got a 41-43% chance (depending on house rules) of walking out with $2,000,000, and a 5% chance of walking out with $2,500,000. Of course, that leaves a better than 50% chance that you'll leave broke, but like I like to say, "yous rolls the dice, and yous takes your chances."
|
|
| | | 71 | The_Mentors
ID: 9432248
Fri, Aug 24, 14:53
|
So I have a better chance just playing my normal game of BJ. Screw the merenge!
|
|
| | | 72 | perk9600
ID: 4542177
Fri, Aug 24, 15:13
|
It seems to me this would be maybe a little more effective blaying BLACK/RED on the roulette table. The odds seem about the same, but you don't have to worry about when to split, double down etc. You place the bet and watch the ball go. Just an opinion. Of course you have no potential black jack so all you could possibly win is 5$ more than what you put down. But I just thought I would toss it out there.
|
|
| | | 73 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Fri, Aug 24, 17:32
|
perk -
I'd actually go for the Pass Line in Craps. It's a better bet.
|
|
| | | 74 | kev
ID: 36925310
Fri, Aug 24, 17:44
|
The pass line is a better bet than RED/Black in roulette, but you can lose your money astonishly faster, if you back bet the line.
I tend to think this idea would work well playing the darkside in craps. The odds you can place are lower, and winnings will take more of a time, but at a percentage, it is a better bet I beieve (mathmaticians, take into account, I am not one)
|
|
| | | 75 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Fri, Aug 24, 18:16
|
Pretty much all I do is roll the dice when I go to a casino - most fun AND best odds - especially when they let me back up my $15 pass line bet with $50!
You have to be ready to lose at least $300 (often fairly quickly) to take advantage of these odds, however. You can win a ton of jack just as quickly, however.
|
|
| | | 76 | kev
ID: 36925310
Fri, Aug 24, 18:30
|
billi- YES! Another craps player.
I myself usually just bet the pass line, but lately, I have been watching the game a bit before joining in. I wait for a hot streak, and if a couple good rolls have gone by, I will bet the darkside, and watch as the table turns to crappy rolls. I stick to that until I get to roll, and I try and see what I can do on the pass line. It works pretty good. You can get burned sometimes, but if you play the "dont pass" line, and you get a quick roller, in and out, your making good money.
|
|
| | | 77 | kev
ID: 36925310
Fri, Aug 24, 18:30
|
billi- YES! Another craps player.
I myself usually just bet the pass line, but lately, I have been watching the game a bit before joining in. I wait for a hot streak, and if a couple good rolls have gone by, I will bet the darkside, and watch as the table turns to crappy rolls. I stick to that until I get to roll, and I try and see what I can do on the pass line. It works pretty good. You can get burned sometimes, but if you play the "dont pass" line, and you get a quick roller, in and out, your making good money.
|
|
| | | 78 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Fri, Aug 24, 18:33
|
The odds are the same - pass or don't pass - and it is more fun (for me) winning when every else is, so I don't play Darth too much.
|
|
| | | 79 | kev
ID: 36925310
Fri, Aug 24, 18:44
|
See, Im a class one jerk. I like cheering when I hear "7 out, 7 out, 7 out"
I dont get to high five many people, but I like winning money, while peope swear at me.
|
|
| | | 80 | Sludge
Donor
ID: 113368
Sat, Aug 25, 00:27
|
According to thewizardofodds.com, Don't Pass is slightly more advantageous to the player than Pass. Link
|
|
| | | 81 | James K Polk
ID: 23754811
Tue, Sep 03, 2002, 20:44
|
Another good article in the Sept. 2002 issue of WIRED.
Hacking Las Vegas
For six years in the 1990s, Kevin Lewis was a principal member of the MIT Blackjack Team, an infamous cabal of hyper-geniuses and anarchistic whiz kids who devised a method of card counting that took the gaming world completely by surprise. Funded, in part, by shadowy investors and trained in mock casinos set up in classrooms, dingy apartments, and underground warehouses across Boston, Lewis and his gang used their smarts to give themselves an incredible advantage at the only truly beatable game in the pit. A baby-faced card-counting team possessed with impressive mathematical skills — here was a novelty that turned blackjack into an arbitrage opportunity. Their system was so successful, it took nearly two years before the casinos began to catch on — engaging in a cat-and-mouse war with the well-trained MIT conspirators.
|
|
| | | 82 | balls
Donor
ID: 193311316
Tue, Sep 03, 2002, 23:47
|
I enjoyed that article. Thanks, Mr Prez.
|
|
| | | 83 | Donkey Hunter
Sustainer
ID: 55220159
Wed, Sep 04, 2002, 00:10
|
I played craps one time. The guy rolled 3 consecutive 3's and I never played again.
|
|
| | | 84 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 278536
Wed, Sep 04, 2002, 00:38
|
Pretty cool article Prez. I wish I wasn't only 13 in 1994... lol
|
|
|
|