Thread Rating:

AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 20041
August 3rd, 2014 at 5:29:35 AM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

Fair game? or Cheated - non 50/50 game?

Blackjack basic basic strategy
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 20041
August 3rd, 2014 at 5:30:06 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Blackjack basic basic strategy, fair game

♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
August 3rd, 2014 at 5:35:16 AM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

Not sure what you're going for here, but is this a fair game? or do you need to buy a revolver? Losing 25 in a row, followed by a win and then losing 25 in a row again, think you're getting cheated, if not, no worries, you'll win 25 in a row and lose 1 then win 25 in a row again in pretty short order. Making the D'alembert a winner again.



Let's say we ran into 2 sessions similar to the 25 L, 1 W, 25 L....except I'll break it down to 5L 1W 5L. The second session is in reverse (5W, 1L, 5W).

Base unit: 10

5 Losses, 1 Win, 5 Losses:
-10 -11 -12 -13 -15 +16 -15 -16 -17 -19 -20

5 Wins, 1 Loss, 5 Wins:
+10 +9 +8 +7 +6 -5 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1

First: -132
Second: +50
JyBrd0403
JyBrd0403
Joined: Jan 25, 2010
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 548
August 3rd, 2014 at 5:37:50 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Blackjack basic basic strategy



I think you would expect a 28 in a row or 29 win in a row vs. a 30 in a row loss then. Something like losing 30 in a row would occur 1 in 100,000,000 and winning 29 in a row would occur just as often 1 in 100,000,000. Something like that, right? If you can get out before those 30vs29 losses add up you might win with a d'alembert. Stop if you get ahead. 50/50 you don't have to worry about it.
JyBrd0403
JyBrd0403
Joined: Jan 25, 2010
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 548
August 3rd, 2014 at 5:51:58 AM permalink
Quote: RS

Quote: JyBrd0403

Not sure what you're going for here, but is this a fair game? or do you need to buy a revolver? Losing 25 in a row, followed by a win and then losing 25 in a row again, think you're getting cheated, if not, no worries, you'll win 25 in a row and lose 1 then win 25 in a row again in pretty short order. Making the D'alembert a winner again.



Let's say we ran into 2 sessions similar to the 25 L, 1 W, 25 L....except I'll break it down to 5L 1W 5L. The second session is in reverse (5W, 1L, 5W).

Base unit: 10

5 Losses, 1 Win, 5 Losses:
-10 -11 -12 -13 -15 +16 -15 -16 -17 -19 -20

5 Wins, 1 Loss, 5 Wins:
+10 +9 +8 +7 +6 -5 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1

First: -132
Second: +50




That's not a D'Alembert, that's whatever you're doing. D'alembert would win 21-20-19-18-17 etc. not 10-9-8-7-6 etc.
DeMango
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 2791
August 3rd, 2014 at 6:01:52 AM permalink
Should be a profit of 11, found by 22 decisions/2 times unit(1)

Would never try the D'Alembert with black jack, sure path to ruin because of the 47% win rate.

What would be interesting, if someone could program this, playing Banker in Bac, and somehow adding in the 5% commission.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 20041
August 3rd, 2014 at 7:23:55 AM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

I think you would expect a 28 in a row or 29 win in a row vs. a 30 in a row loss then. Something like losing 30 in a row would occur 1 in 100,000,000 and winning 29 in a row would occur just as often 1 in 100,000,000. Something like that, right? If you can get out before those 30vs29 losses add up you might win with a d'alembert. Stop if you get ahead. 50/50 you don't have to worry about it.

According to ACE he lost 30 in a row. Assuming he didn't make a mistake, you can see where one can lose his ass on any system. There is nothing to say losing 40 in a row cant happen. Improbable? Yes I'm sure someone can calculate what the maximum amount of losses in a row has occurred.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
August 3rd, 2014 at 8:17:24 AM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

Kiddo, what I've been trying to tell you, and if one of these math gods attempts the EV for the D'Alembert ,will explain to you, is that average bet * edge, is complete and utter nonsense. Sorry, you've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, etc. You're missing all the complexities of mathematical probabilities, like, if I lose 1 then bet 2 and win, I just won 1 unit, as opposed to average bet of 3*0=0. I'm kinda looking for the formula that cannot be unproven within the first 10 seconds, if that helps any.



You are getting expected value and actual value confused here. The expected vale over two bets for three units is 0 in this case. The actual value, as say, for the results you got is 1.

Are you looking for the EV of the complete D'alembert run, rather than the individual bets? You will need a loss limit, or you'll have problems with infinity or limits.

(The EV of a complete Marty run is calcuable. I am not sure the D'alembert is)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
bobsims
bobsims
Joined: Apr 8, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 316
August 3rd, 2014 at 8:23:35 AM permalink
While all progressive systems have thus far proven useless I often wonder if there isn't some way a D'alembert system couldn't be implemented using the banker bet in baccarat where the odds, if not the payoff, favor the bet.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
August 3rd, 2014 at 12:36:12 PM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

The D'Alembert is the "Edge" on a 50/50, Bob.



Ya, it's a miracle worker if you can play
50/50 in the short term. But nobody
does, they get 8 out of 10 wrong at
times and there goes the progression.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal

  • Jump to: