## Poll

2 votes (20%) | |||

1 vote (10%) | |||

1 vote (10%) | |||

2 votes (20%) | |||

1 vote (10%) | |||

3 votes (30%) | |||

2 votes (20%) |

**10 members have voted**

NOTE: This thread not a recommendation or a winning system. It's debunking one.

Hi,

I have a betting system. it's amusing but totally worthless in terms of profitability. I commend it to you to dissect and bebunk. Try it if you like. It's fun and has limited downside. and unlimited upside

:o) Prove me wrong

And I actually do this for occasional amusement. This week I'm up over £1K ( System players always are at the time of publication)

RNG Blackjack online is my game of choice: House edge about 0.55% Playing good Basic Strategy.

OK. Online casino. Pop in £250 of credit.

Playing Blackjack at £5 or £10 as the mood takes me. Sometimes I flat bet sometimes I Marty with £2 base bet, That it is all academic. I play till I bust out or until I have reached £275. I will myself to hit that target and I usually do. Sometimes I say to myself, I'll pack up if I lose £200, but on the rare occasions where I'm that unlucky, I don't stop till I bust or recover. Heck, sometimes I recover.

Sometimes it bobs downward, but about 85% - 90% of the time I quickly reach my modest target of 10% profit

:o) Prove me wrong.

So, it was easy to reach £275

I set a new modest target £300 or bust...

Sometimes it bobs downward, but about 85% - 90% of the time I reach that modest target because, lets face it, £300 is closer and more likely than £0

:o) Prove me wrong.

So... £300 is only a short stroll to the next target of £330. That's my new target, far more likely to be hit than for me to crash and burn. I may up my max bet to £15 for added excitement but it's usually short lived as I breeze through to target. Sometimes a BJ or a double lurches me ahead :o)

Sometimes it bobs downward, but about 85% - 90% of the time I reach my new modest target

:o) Prove me wrong.

Rinse and repeat. Each new target is just about 10% above where I stand

Each new target is easily reached with 85%-90% probability.

If I bust out, I lick my wounds for a week and return with a new £250

If I don't bust out, I cash out when I have £750. I cash out often

:o) Prove me wrong.

I swear it;s amusing

.

Thank you for sharing. Most winners like to keep this sort of thing to themselves.

Quote:Sabretom2Hey, thanks buddy. I've been looking for a proven money maker for a long time.

Thank you for sharing. Most winners like to keep this sort of thing to themselves.

It's all about not being greedy. a 10% profit is easy to reach and likely to be achieved 85% - 90% of the time. I didn't make that bit up :o) You could even set a lower target for more certainty.

Quote:OnceDearIt's all about not being greedy. a 10% profit is easy to reach and likely to be achieved 85% - 90% of the time. I didn't make that bit up :o) You could even set a lower target for more certainty.

It's a bit of a step to say 85-90% of the time you'll reach your small profit, but even pretending that's correct, it's the other 10-15% of the time that you'll lose enough to lose that profit plus more.

You're short terming the "profits" and as you play more and more you'll reach your true EV of the game. In the short run there are many ups and downs. You're always leaving on an up, but that won't stop your overall bankroll and EV from caring about where you'll ultimately end up when you're 500,000 hands in.

AvgAdvantage = -.55%

AvgBet = $7.50 (mix of your $5 and $10 bets you said).

EV in any situation = (NumHands)*(AvgBet)*(HouseEdge)

Standard Deviation for 1 hand of blackjack is 1.1*AvgBet = 1.1*(7.50) = 8.25 ...so let's look at the math of your "system" and where you'll be at after X hands?

Hands | Expected Value | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|

1 |
-$0.04 |
$8.25 |

100 |
-$4.13 |
$82.50 |

1,000 |
-$41.25 |
$260.89 |

10,000 |
-$412.50 |
$825.00 |

100,000 |
-$4125.00 |
$2608.88 |

500,000 |
-$20625.00 |
$5833.63 |

This shows conclusively, that playing your "system" betting if you keep playing you WILL eventually lose. You will sucum to the natural house edge and EV of the game. After 500,000 hands (very doable for a part time blackjack player over their life), your EV is -$20,625... with a Standard Deviation of $5,833.63. This is one standard deviation (68% confidence). Even if we stretch this to 99.9% confidence with 3 Standard Deviations, that means you're going to be -$20,625 +- $17,500.89. So with 99.9% certainty the best you can possibly do is be down a few grand, and that's if you're lucky. If you're unlucky, you're going to be down $38k... Even at 100,000 hands you have a 95% chance of losing money.

The betting system never changes the house edge, thus you can never overcome it with any kind of betting. Card counting changes the house edge, which is why the game is beatable over time. This betting system you described can not, and will not, make ANY money over time. #math =)

no it does not show conclusivelyQuote:RomesThis shows conclusively, that playing your "system" betting if you keep playing you WILL eventually lose.

haha

all you did was post a bunch of numbers

numbers here and there...

so what?

are YOU saying

that the probability of showing a profit after 500k rounds = 0?

exactly 0?

this is what gambling experts, like Frank Scoblete, says and wants all to believe

it looks to me you are

you are , you are,

in that camp of you will ALWAYS lose the house edge (or be close to it)

this is so wrong

in other words

YUCK O!!!!

it must be right

given that a player DOES show a profit after 500K rounds played

what IS the average win given a win?

of course there is no average return from a lifetime of play over 500k rounds unless you due the math

x/1

thank you for sharing'

fun to see the world is still so messed up

and i had nothing to due with it

MullY

Quote:RomesIt's a bit of a step to say 85-90% of the time you'll reach your small profit, but even pretending that's correct, it's the other 10-15% of the time that you'll lose enough to lose that profit plus more.

You're short terming the "profits" and as you play more and more you'll reach your true EV of the game. In the short run there are many ups and downs. You're always leaving on an up, but that won't stop your overall bankroll and EV from caring about where you'll ultimately end up when you're 500,000 hands in.

Thanks Romes.

It is a bit of a step to say that 85%-90% probability applies to reaching bankroll+10% x bankroll. But I nonetheless assert that it is true, for what it is worth.

I bet you, or Mustang Sally, or I could prove it quickly enough, and I'm willing to try to prove it if no-one else cares to.

Even without mathematical proof or simulation, I'm confident that it's in the right ballpark based on my own experience and simulations. I believe that its very close to 90% probability, even with a house edge of 1%. Tricky to demonstrate from first principles, I'll grant you.

I've no other issue with your response except to say that it is not dumbed down enough for the noobies that we see here every day, and the large number of like minded noobies we've met recently.

I do have a reasonable understanding of standard deviation, but that goes 'whoosh' over the head of average noobie. I feel mostly justified in ignoring house edge in this instance, because it's tiny compared to the variance that I inevitably encounter. If you like, we can pretend that I applied my "winning system" to a sequence of fair coin tosses and we can debunk it from there..

This is an exercise in striking up a valid debate about progressive betting. I'm trying to show that it works to en extent where your objective is just a tiny percentage profit, and it fails if your objective is to multiply your starting bankroll by a significant number. Short term or long term does not come into it for me.

OK. I didn't lie in my assertion that each 10% goal was achievable about 85%-90% of the time. I didn't prove it either. I still assert that it's in the right ball park and will take the time to prove it soon enough. I assert that with Marty and base bet of £1 that it's probably far better than 85% for each goal and that 85% more than accommodates house edge..

But where I was totally (and deliberately) delusional was in demonstrating that I could repeat the good fortune time after time with impunity. That's where it all quickly goes pair shaped in reality.

Each step to the next target was dependent on not having crashed and burned the time before. Let's look at what's involved in reaching £750 (We'll call it £778 for neatness) from my initial £250

I'll modestly assert that each goal had 85% chance of success. I'll also calculate those 10%s more accurately. I will ignore house edge for now, but this debunking will hopefully tend to show that is not the big issue.

Probability of reaching goal 1 of £275= ( Approx ) 85% I could, instead, have bet my £250 on a single 1 in 11 fixed odds bet and either gained £25 or lost £250.

Probability of reaching goal 2 of £302= ( Approx ) 72% Because I have to multiply my probability of being this far by the probability of reaching next goal

Probability of reaching goal 3 of £332= ( Approx ) 61% ditto

Probability of reaching goal 4 of £365= ( Approx ) 52%

Probability of reaching goal 5 of £401= ( Approx ) 44%

Probability of reaching goal 6 of £441= ( Approx ) 38%

Probability of reaching goal 7 of £485= ( Approx ) 32%

OK. I already seem to have a far worse than 50% chance of (not quite) doubling my £250! A single coin toss would have been safer so far than these 7 steps.

Probability of reaching goal 8 of £533= ( Approx ) 27%

Probability of reaching goal 9 of £586= ( Approx ) 23%

Probability of reaching goal 10 of £644= ( Approx ) 20%

Probability of reaching goal 11 of £708= ( Approx ) 17%

Probability of reaching goal 12 of £778= ( Approx ) 14%

OK £778 is not exactly £750 but that's not the issue. Neither would be a fair or reasonable return on my 14% probability wagering session..

With all the pessimistic estimates so far, I got a crappy deal. By my own estimation, I stood a 14% chance of turning £250 into £778. That's rubbish value as wagers go, A 14% chance is like betting my original £250 on a 14% probability, or 1 in 7 fixed odds bet. But if I had bet on such a 14% bet, then there would have been two fair payments possible: £0 if the bet lost or 6*£250 plus my £250 stake back if I won. That's £1750 that I should have expected for such a win. My progressive betting gave bad value. I stood an estimated 100-14 = 86% chance of leaving with nothing.

The longer I play this system, the worse my chances get. As Romes would point out, the more I would also sacrifice in house edge.

It's simply not an 85% to 90% probability of reaching a higher target ( like £778 ) It's an ever diminishing chance.

Simple fact is that the longer I play, the greater my POSSIBLE winnings, but the greater my probability of crashing and burning. There is some middle ground, where target is very close to starting bankroll

If you have £250 and you NEED either £275 or £zero, then my system is for you. E.g. £25 short of the price of a flight out of a war zone, where not playing has the same deadly outcome as losing.

Now. Please feel free to improve on my own debunking. Simple as possible for the noobies out there.

Quote:Romes

Hands Expected Value Standard Deviation 1 -$0.04 $8.25 100 -$4.13 $82.50 1,000 -$41.25 $260.89 10,000 -$412.50 $825.00 100,000 -$4125.00 $2608.88 500,000 -$20625.00 $5833.63

I can pretty much guarantee that I would have met my £750 goal, or crashed and burned to zero well before reaching 1000 hands at £7.50 and that I'll be nowhere near EV of -£42 ( I do it in proper money :)

Quote:mustangsallyno it does not show conclusively

haha

all you did was post a bunch of numbers

numbers here and there...

LOL. Thanks Sally

Quote:mustangsally

given that a player DOES show a profit after 500K rounds played

what IS the average win given a win?

Quote:Romes

This betting system you described can not, and will not, make ANY money over time.

What about..... If I promise to quit betting after reaching goal 1 of £275, which I assert is 85% to 90% likely ? !!!

I assert that my average bankroll at that end point is either £0 or something greater than or equal to £275.

The average value of my bankroll at that time will never be anywhere between £0.01 and £274.99.

It CANNOT be, by definition. No maths required.

;o)

Kidding, just kidding..

Quote:TwoFeathersATLDid you figure in the comps in your totals, or was it just simply bankroll?

Kidding, just kidding..

LOL, I get 0.1% comps as cashback