Blackjack betting system interest thread
Poll
 | 3 votes (23.07%) | ||
| | 10 votes (76.92%) |
13 members have voted
Quote: Lemieux66So he's saying bet more if you're losing? Because if you're losing you're not getting the good high cards needed to win usually? I'm just assuming lol
yep
Would it not be easier to just count the aces?
I keep typing other questions and then I delete them because my mind is blown.
Quote: Lemieux66So he's saying bet more if you're losing? Because if you're losing you're not getting the good high cards needed to win usually? I'm just assuming lol
For some definition of "usually".
Basically, winning is correlated with high cards coming out. This is why card counting works. So this is a 2nd-order effect: winning is correlated with high cards coming out, ie, the count going down. This, in turn, is correlated with losing future hands in that shoe.
The problem is that when you go to a 2nd-order effect like that, it becomes extremely weak and basically useless.
He is saying that it can be used to beat a game with "good rules", but this is an incredibly misleading statement. More like, it can be used to beat a mythical game. Clearly, since there is some (tiny) correlation, if you can find a game with a small enough house edge, you can "beat" it this way. In the game mentioned in the literature, it's not even clear that the player does not have the edge off the top.
You're trying to do what is like creating perpetual motion which only needs a combustion engine working for it to work. Also don't forget, you still haven't created your system yet and have no way to test it to see if it even works. Until you can test it, you'll continue to believe in it because you'll have no way to know it's wrong.Quote: Neutrinoyep
Quote: Lemieux66So he's saying bet more if you're losing? Because if you're losing you're not getting the good high cards needed to win usually? I'm just assuming lol
In a hole? Dig faster!!!
Quote: onenickelmiracleYou're trying to do what is like creating perpetual motion which only needs a combustion engine working for it to work. Also don't forget, you still haven't created your system yet and have no way to test it to see if it even works. Until you can test it, you'll continue to believe in it because you'll have no way to know it's wrong.
I'd love to create it but seems like I've lost my purpose in doing so. I asked a simple question to the people here, "if my system works can we stop calling all betting systems useless" and the answer was basically a no from multiple people.
So... yeah...
Change your nomenclature in the thread & title + post it in the BJ forum and this thread goes an entirely different direction.
Your poor choice of words sunk this thread, not your actual system.
I mean you can call it whatever you want, but card counting fits the definition of a betting system.Quote: AxelWolfCounting cards should be called a method and not a system.
*
A betting strategy or betting system is a structured approach to gambling intended to counter the inherent house edge in casino and card games, by bookmakers in horse racing and sports betting, and other gambling situations. A successful strategy should increase the odds of winning in order to produce long term profits from a pursuit which under normal circumstances will only ever result in a long term loss.
All successful betting systems are predicated on statistical analysis, seeking to exploit the rare circumstances when the odds are in the favour of the player. Though the basis of all risk is fundamentally the same, betting systems vary in relation to the rules and circumstances of each particular game.
*
If you have a different definition of a system that doesn't include card counting I'm open to hear it though.
5 = +1
A = -1
If you want to get technical then everything is a system. Pyramid schemes, cons, scams, credit hustling.Quote: geoffI mean you can call it whatever you want, but card counting fits the definition of a betting system.
*
A betting strategy or betting system is a structured approach to gambling intended to counter the inherent house edge in casino and card games, by bookmakers in horse racing and sports betting, and other gambling situations. A successful strategy should increase the odds of winning in order to produce long term profits from a pursuit which under normal circumstances will only ever result in a long term loss.
All successful betting systems are predicated on statistical analysis, seeking to exploit the rare circumstances when the odds are in the favour of the player. Though the basis of all risk is fundamentally the same, betting systems vary in relation to the rules and circumstances of each particular game.
*
If you have a different definition of a system that doesn't include card counting I'm open to hear it though.
Most educated and expert gamblers know better and they know "systems" is a dirty word and it doesn't usually include anything that is +EV .
You will have to argue with the Wizard and others on this. The fact is, all betting systems are worthless and so is this thread.
Note: In all the years I have been in Vegas I personally have never hear any successful AP use the word system when talking about Advantage counting, VP, slots or anything that had an edge. Unless they were selling something. Most of the cons and failed gamblers love to use the word SYSTEM.
Quote: AxelWolfIf you want to get technical then everything is a system. Pyramid schemes, cons, scams, credit hustling.
Most educated and expert gamblers know better and they know "systems" is a dirty word and it doesn't usually include anything that is +EV .
You will have to argue with the Wizard and others on this. The fact is, all betting systems are worthless and so is this thread.
Note: In all the years I have been in Vegas I personally have never hear any successful AP use the word system when talking about Advantage counting, VP, slots or anything that had an edge. Unless they were selling something. Most of the cons and failed gamblers love to use the word SYSTEM.
This is bias if i've ever seen one.
A good system is not called a system, a bad method is called a system.
the word system is bad, the word system automatically means it's -EV according to you. System and EV are now antonyms.
So by your logic the statement "All systems are worthless" can not possibly carry any meaning. You're basically saying "All things that are worthless are worthless"
Also why did you assume wizard is siding with you on this? He has not commented on this thread.
Using the information that wins generally contain more high cards and losses contain more low cards as a way to bet for future hands is misleading. Losing a hand doesn't make the next hand +EV, and winning a hand doesn't make the next hand -EV. Losing a hand might turn a floating house edge from -0.48% to -0.46% for example. Winning a hand might turn the floating house edge from -0.48% to -0.50%. The correlation is tiny, but just because it exists doesn't mean it impacts the game in a significant enough way to take advantage of it.
Quote: RSWell, I was excited to hopefully read some stuff on how to go about creating a +EV betting system...and with all the "my system this" or "my system that", I was under the impression something was in the works. Unfortunately, thread turned into a shitfest because some people think counting cards is a "betting system".
Using the information that wins generally contain more high cards and losses contain more low cards as a way to bet for future hands is misleading. Losing a hand doesn't make the next hand +EV, and winning a hand doesn't make the next hand -EV. Losing a hand might turn a floating house edge from -0.48% to -0.46% for example. Winning a hand might turn the floating house edge from -0.48% to -0.50%. The correlation is tiny, but just because it exists doesn't mean it impacts the game in a significant enough way to take advantage of it.
I suppose I could do more research and either prove or disprove with a significant bet spread it could be +EV.
But as far as I'm concerned my goal is accomplished.
My goal was to dent the house edge, something that was previously thought as impossible by any betting system.
So it may be from -0.48% to -0.46%. I don't know the actual numbers. Doesn't matter to me.
Now it's just about whether this is called a betting system or not.
I don't see why not.
Quote: NeutrinoI suppose I could do more research and either prove or disprove with a significant bet spread it could be +EV.
But as far as I'm concerned my goal is accomplished.
My goal was to dent the house edge, something that was previously thought as impossible by any betting system.
So it may be from -0.48% to -0.46%. I don't know the actual numbers. Doesn't matter to me.
Now it's just about whether this is called a betting system or not.
I don't see why not.
Sure, the house edge might be dented after a player's loss, but by putting out a bigger bet, you're just increasing the expected loss. That being said, by using the system, the player's expected loss is higher than flat betting the system's min bet. In other words, the player edge DECREASES when using such a system. House edge and player edge are inversely proportional. When one is +0.5% the other is -0.5%. So....the system actually increases house edge because it decreases player edge.
Your system still needs work.
Quote: WizardA betting system is a method of correlating bet size to previous wins and losses.
So my system IS a betting system.
Quote: NeutrinoThe wizard has spoken.
So my system IS a betting system.
Congratulations?
Quote: NeutrinoThe wizard has spoken.
So my system IS a betting system.
A system to increase losses.
Quote: NeutrinoThe wizard has spoken.
So my system IS a betting system.
Is there a point to this steady stream of nonsense?
