Beat the house at blackjack!!!!
I don't really know where to put this thread, but I'll try here for starters.
It seems from my internet searches over the past 4 months, that no-one thinks there is a strategy that can beat the house at blackjack, except via card counting.
From one angle this makes sense, but from a mathematical stand point there appears to be a way, just that no-one has unlocked the key to do it. That's my impression anyway. So I've been hard at it and I think I may stumbled across the Holy Grail! No, this is not a joke, although you would be forgiven for thinking it is. Afterall, it's only taken me 4 months, when I've been told no-one's been able to do it for decades (except via card counting).
So here's the deal. There's no card counting. There's no tricks. It's just a variation on the fibonacci betting method. The variation I've put in place overcomes the problem of dealer winning streaks. That last sentence should prick people's ears, but honestly, I find it incredible that no-one seems to have been able to work out a strategy that gets around dealer winning streaks in decades!
I don't mind being the laughing stock for now, because I've been putting my strategy to the test lately, and it seems to be coming up trumps all the time! There are a number of free online casinos that I've trialled. The one that I found the hardest to beat, using near perfect basic strategy, is [casino identity redacted]. So I am using the strategy on that site. Yep, beats it every time. If it can win there, it'll annihilate the other sites!
This is all a bit weird right now, but that's what's big news in my world at least.
This is probably not the site for me. I genuinely believe I'm on to something but it appears the Wizard doesn't care for such topics, so I'll move on. Cheers
Quote: WellbushHello.
I don't really know where to put this thread, but I'll try here for starters.
It seems from my internet searches over the past 4 months, that no-one thinks there is a strategy that can beat the house at blackjack, except via card counting.
From one angle this makes sense, but from a mathematical stand point there appears to be a way, just that no-one has unlocked the key to do it. That's my impression anyway. So I've been hard at it and I think I may stumbled across the Holy Grail! No, this is not a joke, although you would be forgiven for thinking it is. Afterall, it's only taken me 4 months, when I've been told no-one's been able to do it for decades (except via card counting).
So here's the deal. There's no card counting. There's no tricks. It's just a variation on the fibonacci betting method. The variation I've put in place overcomes the problem of dealer winning streaks. That last sentence should prick people's ears, but honestly, I find it incredible that no-one seems to have been able to work out a strategy that gets around dealer winning streaks in decades!
I don't mind being the laughing stock for now, because I've been putting my strategy to the test lately, and it seems to be coming up trumps all the time! There are a number of free online casinos that I've trialled. The one that I found the hardest to beat, using near perfect basic strategy, is [casino identity redacted]. So I am using the strategy on that site. Yep, beats it every time. If it can win there, it'll annihilate the other sites!
This is all a bit weird right now, but that's what's big news in my world at least.
Thanks Wellbush and welcome to the forum.
I'll move this thread to the betting system's subforum, for you.
This is what's likely to happen next.....
I will politely assert to you that you are wrong. There is no progressive system that can turn a negative expectation game such as blackjack into a positive expectation game. Your system won't do that, cannot do that.
What your system CAN do is modify the pattern that your bankroll would show if plotted on a graph. It can very probably increase the probability of any session or set of sessions being winning sessions. But the price you pay for a high probability of a small win is ALWAYS counterbalanced by a small probability of a massive loss.
Similar to Martingale or D'alembert systems, eventually the long term will bring you that session or sequence of sessions that obliterates your bankroll. Of course, another thing you'll be told is that sessions mean nothing, zero, zilch . Don't try countering that you will be rich before reaching that long term, or you will be laughed at $:o)
Other posters in this thread might laugh at you, but really they are laughing at your notion, so don't take it personally.
Yet other posters might hop in to say to ignore the naysayers like me or Wizard.
It is absolutely dead easy and possible to use your system to win a long sequence of sessions where you increase your bankroll. well done in discovering that useless snippet. It truly only has use in that it makes gambling more fun than boring old flat betting.
I'm censoring that casino name out from your post, because it looks like promotional spam.
Here's some resources for you.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/#post1370
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/#post2245
Quote: WellbushAh, I should have read the rules, not for selling, but appearing to be. I should have also posted my thread under betting systems, too. Whoops.
This is probably not the site for me. I genuinely believe I'm on to something but it appears the Wizard doesn't care for such topics, so I'll move on. Cheers
Yes, please move on. You're system doesn't work and your 4 months has been wasted.
ZCore13
If you said you'd invented a perpetual motion machine people might reasonably be suspicious.Quote: WellbushAh, I should have read the rules, not for selling, but appearing to be. I should have also posted my thread under betting systems, too. Whoops.
This is probably not the site for me. I genuinely believe I'm on to something but it appears the Wizard doesn't care for such topics, so I'll move on. Cheers
Many mathematicians would also be very suspect of methods to beat casino games which have a House Edge without resorting to counting cards, seeing unknown cards (e.g. dealer's down card), card or ball tracking, Martingale and similar betting methods.
Sometimes one can make a "profit" if one factors in benefits that might come from promotions, collecting points, receiving free hotels nights etc.
Also mathematically, given enough people, some will come ahead in the medium to long term.
Remember this forum encourages discussion, so if you think you might have stumbled across the "beauty quark" of Blackjack, we would love to hear all about it.
Where is a moderated forum that welcomes such discussion these days?
Quote: WizardI used to refer betting system believers to John Patrick's forum, which is now defunct.
Where is a moderated forum that welcomes such discussion these days?
gamblingforums.com
all kinds of true believers there
typical systems stuff - variations of the martingale - scoping out patterns is very big now - stop losses, stop wins, betting streaks will end, betting streaks will continue,, the patience system - starting your marty against Bank after Bank has already won 5 in a row
95% of the systems players there claim to be long term winners
they all have a system they swear up and down is the holy grail
they just can't prove it
surprise.................surprise..................surprise
*
No need to send the OP to competing sites. What have they done to deserve that?Quote: WizardI used to refer betting system believers to John Patrick's forum, which is now defunct.
Where is a moderated forum that welcomes such discussion these days?
This site has the knowledge and experience to put these questions to rest. Consider it a public service to humanity.
Well done. Does it only work yesterday?Quote: ChumpChangeI came up with a way to turn $150 into $2000 in 17 spins in Roulette yesterday.
Is this double zero or single zero?
Does it work in GB £ or Bitcoin?
What if there are more than 17 spins? How do I chose the correct ones to wager on?
Where do I send payment for this training?
I think that's enough questions for now.
I suppose the words 'quit' and 'bet' were past tense references and if I missed the opportunity yesterday, then I'm plumb out of luck.Quote: ChumpChangeYou quit after 17 wins to get your bets off the table. You bet on 30 straight up numbers for $5 a piece, then progress.
Oh hum, the world waits 200 years for a winning roulette system and I miss out by one day.
Drat.
Quote: ChumpChangeYou quit after 17 wins to get your bets off the table. You bet on 30 straight up numbers for $5 a piece, then progress.
Was the process something like this...
Start with $150
put $5 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 5x36=180
put $6 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 6x36=216
put $7 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 6+7x36=258
put $8 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 18+8x36=306
put $10 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 6+10x36=366
put $12 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 6+12x36=438
put $14 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 18+14x36=522
put $17 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 12+17x36=624
put $20 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 24+20x36=744
put $24 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 24+24x36=888
put $29 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 18+29x36=1062
put $35 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 12+35x36=1272
put $42 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 12+42x36=1524
put $50 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 24+50x36=1824
put $60 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 24+60x36=2184
What do you do with the other two spins?
Quote: OnceDearWas the process something like this...
Start with $150
put $5 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 5x36=180
put $6 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 6x36=216
put $7 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 6+7x36=258
put $8 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 18+8x36=306
put $10 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 6+10x36=366
put $12 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 6+12x36=438
put $14 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 18+14x36=522
put $17 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 12+17x36=624
put $20 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 24+20x36=744
put $24 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 24+24x36=888
put $29 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 18+29x36=1062
put $35 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 12+35x36=1272
put $42 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 12+42x36=1524
put $50 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 24+50x36=1824
put $60 on each of 30 numbers: Win taking bankroll to 24+60x36=2184
What do you do with the other two spins?
You can quit early. I had $5, $6, $7, $8, $9, $10, $12, $14, $16, $18, $20, $24, $28, $32, $36, $40, $50. Multiply by 10 you can go from a $1500 bet to $20K with straight up bets of $50-$500.
I agree that dealer streaks would rule out the everyday gambler from winning on a negative progression system. However, my strategy withdraws from the streak after 5 losses in a row, and similarly if there are streaks of multiple losses that don't reach 5. So there is a built-in part of the strategy that the player can use to overcome dealer streaks - missing some dealt hands, reverting to the minimum bet for a few hands, etc.
Now that that's out of the way, the strategy generally doesn't have the problem of dealer streaks.
Therefore, how can mathematicians debunk the idea that negative progression strategies don't work? A negative betting strategy benefits from the fact that the player requires less wins than the dealer to come out in front (Fibonacci). As long as the player's negative progression strategy beats the house edge - about 4% in the case of BJ - it is entirely logical that the player can win.
Hi again WellBush.Quote: WellbushI get that actuarist's state that mathematically it's impossible to overcome the house edge. But I'm not talking about an ongoing mathematical loop. My new found strategy could be described as an algorithm.
I agree that dealer streaks would rule out the everyday gambler from winning on a negative progression system. However, my strategy withdraws from the streak after 5 losses in a row, and similarly if there are streaks of multiple losses that don't reach 5. So there is a built-in part of the strategy that the player can use to overcome dealer streaks - missing some dealt hands, reverting to the minimum bet for a few hands, etc.
Now that that's out of the way, the strategy generally doesn't have the problem of dealer streaks.
Therefore, how can mathematicians debunk the idea that negative progression strategies don't work? A negative betting strategy benefits from the fact that the player requires less wins than the dealer to come out in front (Fibonacci). As long as the player's negative progression strategy beats the house edge - about 4% in the case of BJ - it is entirely logical that the player can win.
Sadly, you are wrong.
Streaks mean nothing.
Sessions mean nothing.
Reverting a bet means and achieves nothing.
Skipped hands means and achieves nothing.
You think that having more or less winning hands is the Holy grail?
Oh,,, And the house edge of Blackjack is closer to 0.4% by the way.
But you know what, it's not for us to show you how you are wrong and it would be futile and counterproductive for you to show us that you are right. Your effort would be better spent gathering up and cashing in all your worldly goods, selling them, mortgaging to the hilt, and with your new-found bulletproof bankroll, take on the casinos, bankrupting them steadily.
NOT a serious suggestion, so don't sue me when you lose it all.
Firstly, when ties are removed from the overall BJ game, the house has a winning margin of 4%, not 0.4%.
I admit I could be wrong about the Fibonacci betting strategy, but I'm not convinced that I don't have a decent point. So let's get practical:
Bet amount ($); Winner (P-player, D-dealer); Running total ($);
1. 50 P 50
2. 50 D 0
3. 80 D -80
4. 130 P 50
5. 50 P 100
6. 50 D 50
7. 80 D -30
8. 130 D -160
9. 210 D -370
10. 340 P -30
11. 130 D -160
12. 210 P 50
13. 80 D -30
14. 130 P 100
The bet amounts are taken from the Fibonacci sequence. The play is simplified (I've removed ties and doubling/splitting).
The play shows the dealer winning 8 times, to the player's 6 times. A dealer advantage of 7%. I also haven't added for the player bonuses from doubling and splitting. Yet, the player is up $100!
And the normal dealer advantage in BJ is about 8% when ties are excluded, not 0.04%.
https://www.casinonewsdaily.com/casino-strategies/negative-progression-betting-systems/
Quote: WellbushI would think that it's quite reasonable to have a mature discussion on this website (which I think you've previously stated), rather than a belittling one, about the topic at hand.
Firstly, when ties are removed from the overall BJ game, the house has a winning margin of 4%, not 0.4%.
I admit I could be wrong about the Fibonacci betting strategy, but I'm not convinced that I don't have a decent point. So let's get practical:
Bet amount ($); Winner (P-player, D-dealer); Running total ($);
1. 50 P 50
2. 50 D 0
3. 80 D -80
4. 130 P 50
5. 50 P 100
6. 50 D 50
7. 80 D -30
8. 130 D -160
9. 210 D -370
10. 340 P -30
11. 130 D -160
12. 210 P 50
13. 80 D -30
14. 130 P 100
The bet amounts are taken from the Fibonacci sequence. The play is simplified (I've removed ties and doubling/splitting).
The play shows the dealer winning 8 times, to the player's 6 times. A dealer advantage of 7%. I also haven't added for the player bonuses from doubling and splitting. Yet, the player is up $100!
You are wrong about just about everything you are saying and believe. This is not a forum where you can say you can win and you are believed and fawned over. Your audience here is math professionals, odds experts, game protection specialists, Casino GM's, Table Game Directors and successful game inventors.
Your system doesn't work. List the details and some of the people above will disprove it for you beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can't do that, somewhere else will be less frustrating and more pleasant for you.
ZCore13
A man after my own heart, I don't know how many times I have said something similar. I would upgrade/downgrade you to the 2nd WMOAT, but you seem to be the only MOD so the title is still yours.Quote: OnceDearYour effort would be better spent gathering up and cashing in all your worldly goods, selling them, mortgaging to the hilt, and with your new-found bulletproof bankroll, take on the casinos, bankrupting them steadily..
Based on simulations (10m shoes) using UK rules the House Edge was 0.48% and theQuote: WellbushActually the dealer advantage from wins losses in the above play is 14%, yet the player is up $100 without bonuses added.
And the normal dealer advantage in BJ is about 8% when ties are excluded, not 0.04%.
Wins - 45.181%
Loses - 52.452%
Even - 8.808%
BJacks - 4.578%
It adds up to more than 100% due to splits and doubles and reflect the number of units you come out ahead etc. on each hand.
You have to get to a count of over 6 before the number of wins+BJ hands exceed the number of losses. Of course the winning BJs are paying 1.5 so you're getting a 2% advantage.
Quote: lilredroostergamblingforums.com
Thank you.
Quote: OnceDearNo need to send the OP to competing sites. What have they done to deserve that?
This site has the knowledge and experience to put these questions to rest. Consider it a public service to humanity.
Betting system players are nearly hopeless. No amount of math will convince them their system won't work. The only thing that does and will convince them is the eventual bankroll ruin they will eventually face.
Quote: WellbushI would think that it's quite reasonable to have a mature discussion on this website (which I think you've previously stated), rather than a belittling one, about the topic at hand.
Bet amount ($) Winner (P-player, D-dealer) Running total ($) 1. 50 P 50 2. 50 D 0 3. 80 D -80 4. 130 P 50 5. 50 P 100 6. 50 D 50 7. 80 D -30 8. 130 D -160 9. 210 D -370 10. 340 P -30 11. 130 D -160 12. 210 P 50 13. 80 D -30 14. 130 P 100
Never let it be said that I'm unhelpful
Hence my earnest adviceQuote: WizardBetting system players are nearly hopeless. No amount of math will convince them their system won't work. The only thing that does and will convince them is the eventual bankroll ruin they will eventually face.
Quote:Your effort would be better spent gathering up and cashing in all your worldly goods, selling them, mortgaging to the hilt, and with your new-found bulletproof bankroll, take on the casinos, bankrupting them steadily.
The simplified example I used gave the dealer a 14% win loss dealer advantage, yet the player came out in front!
WellBush,Quote: Wellbushas you've stated charliepatrick, , BJ player wins 45%, dealer wins 52% - a win/loss difference of 7% (excluding ties and bonuses).
The simplified example I used gave the dealer a 14% win loss dealer advantage, yet the player came out in front!
Do us all a favour.
Eliminate the pesky rules of Blackjack 3:2 payouts, doubles, splits and ties.
If your system is anywhere close to my understanding, apply it to the less complex single zero roulette (Red versus black) which has none of those complications.
Indeed, boil it down for a fair coin toss game. Prove us wrong, not with one stream of possible game rounds, but ALL possible sequences.
Or, take it to the casino and try it.
I don't believe I should stay silent just because of the apparent esteemed audience here, and because you're not an administrator, you should keep your authoritive inclinations to yourself.
I have made my case pretty clear, and if you want to dispute it, the best way for intelligent beings like yourself to do it, is to be practical and not generally pontificate about opinions
Quote: OnceDearWellRush,
Do us all a favour.
Eliminate the pesky rules of Blackjack 3:2 payouts, doubles, splits and ties.
If your system is anywhere close to my understanding, apply it to the less complex single zero roulette (Red versus black) which has none of those complications.
Indeed, boil it down for a fair coin toss game. Prove us wrong, not with one stream of possible game rounds, but ALL possible sequences.
Or, take it to the casino and try it.
I'm surprised OnceDear, that you cannot see that I've already done everyone plenty of favours, and at a simplified level! I mentioned the negative progression fibonacci sequence , the clear % advantage of the dealer, a very clear example without the "pesky" rules, so what gives?
Surely you can apply the example I gave to a coin toss : just replace the D-dealer wins to Heads, and P-player wins to Tails.
Is it too simple for you?
Quote: WellbushI'm surprised OnceDear, that you cannot see that I've already done everyone plenty of favours, and at a simplified level! I mentioned the negative progression fibonacci sequence , the clear % advantage of the dealer, a very clear example without the "pesky" rules, so what gives?
Surely you can apply the example I gave to a coin toss : just replace the D-dealer wins to Heads, and P-player wins to Tails.
Is it too simple for you?
Not too simple. The answer is clear. And eventually, when you lose the size of loss will outweigh the multiple, smaller wins, on average. Is it too complicated for you to calculate the average win and average loss and probability of each?
Lose the attitude!Quote: WellbushI'm surprised OnceDear, that you cannot see that I've already done everyone plenty of favours, and at a simplified level! I mentioned the negative progression fibonacci sequence , the clear % advantage of the dealer, a very clear example without the "pesky" rules, so what gives?
Surely you can apply the example I gave to a coin toss : just replace the D-dealer wins to Heads, and P-player wins to Tails.
Is it too simple for you?
I could tabulate every combination of possible outcomes for your modest sample, and as the previous poster says, we could calculate average expected value (LOSS)
But then, you could counter with some 'gotcha rule like "If I lost 6 times in a row I walk around the table anticlockwise and wait until (whatever) and so the outcomes table is wrong."
I'm not going to speculate as to the full nature of your system. It is not worth even the tiny amount of time I/we have wasted on it so far. Take it to the casino. Take it to Youtube. Take it to a forum of your peers.
Apply this logic.
With >7 billion humans on earth right now, and 200 years worth of generations before them, there you are with a foolproof progressive system. Why would you even give a clue to it here? What logical reason?
UnJon, the example I gave should be all you need. It has the statistical info to make the Fibonacci sequence a viable strategy. I have also previously stated that my strategy has some "built-in" variations that deal with Dealer winning streaks. Once this problem is dealt with, then it's just a matter of keeping to basic strategy and the Fibonacci sequence, for the player to come out in front.
The only reason I see that so called experts dispute me, is that besides card counting, no-one's apparently ever been able to beat the casinos consistently. I can only conclude therefore, that no-one's been calculating negative progression strategies that disavow long dealer winning streaks.
Once dealer winning streaks are dealt with, the player should come out in front with a Fibonacci betting strategy, whether they use card counting , or not!
Quote: OnceDear
Once losing hands are dealt with, the player should come out in front with a Fibonacci betting strategy, whether they use card counting , or not!
Quote: WellbushI would think that it's quite reasonable to have a mature discussion on this website (which I think you've previously stated), rather than a belittling one, about the topic at hand.
Bet amount ($) Winner (P-player, D-dealer) Running total ($) 1. 50 P 50 2. 50 D 0 3. 80 D -80 4. 130 P 50 5. 50 P 100 6. 50 D 50 7. 80 D -30 8. 130 D -160 9. 210 D -370 10. 340 P -30 11. 130 D -160 12. 210 P 50 13. 80 D -30 14. 130 P 100
Wellbush. You know your system inside out. Please assist me with one simple worked example.
Redo this table where the player wins the first 8 games and loses the last 6.Maybe extend it to 15 hands where dealer wins the last 7
Quote: OnceDearLose the attitude!
I could tabulate every combination of possible outcomes for your modest sample, and as the previous poster says, we could calculate average expected value (LOSS)
But then, you could counter with some 'gotcha rule like "If I lost 6 times in a row I walk around the table anticlockwise and wait until (whatever) and so the outcomes table is wrong."
I'm not going to speculate as to the full nature of your system. It is not worth even the tiny amount of time I/we have wasted on it so far. Take it to the casino. Take it to Youtube. Take it to a forum of your peers.
Apply this logic.
With >7 billion humans on earth right now, and 200 years worth of generations before them, there you are with a foolproof progressive system. Why would you even give a clue to it here? What logical reason?
Lose the attitude! Maybe you don't read your own posts, OnceDear, and can't see I was only simply defending myself from the attitudes of others!
I'm not a mathematician or an actuarist, so I don't know the specific info you're asking for. However, I don't know that you need it? If actuarists/mathematicians need an example that has an uninterrupted loop of wins/losses, ties, bonuses, etc., then maybe my strategy cannot be calculated? I think I previously stated that when I experience 5 losses in a row from a dealer, I miss some hands and drop down to the minimum bet a few times. I then take up again where I was in the Fibonacci sequence at the end of the losing streak.
There's nothing complicated about it. Just apply the Fibonacci sequence to all the BJ statistical info already available to everyone on the internet. I can't be any clearer. If mathematicians can't cope with how to calculate a strategy that doesn't allow for long losing streaks, then I can't help.
I haven't heard anyone with a practical basis as to why my simple logic is wrong. I am using my strategy on various free gaming sites. I haven't had a losing session since I stumbled upon the strategy. When I get some dosh together, I will be going down to my local and trialing it there.
I think I've done everything you and everyone else suggests I do. Maybe some people are only reading parts of the thread and then think I'm not providing enough info?
That is totally incorrect, not even the so-called experts here claim that. There are many examples of other casino games and situations other than card counting where people have an advantage and win consistently and they will keep on winning. The so-called experts claim (with mathematical proof) there is no betting system that can beat a negative expectation game in the long run. You and others may win for a long time using a system, but that doesn't mean your system works. If everyone used your system the net total would be a loss to the system players.Quote: Wellbush
The only reason I see that so called experts dispute me, is that besides card counting, no-one's apparently ever been able to beat the casinos consistently.!
Quite simple. You showed a table where you had a mix of Player and Dealer wins and seemed to be of the opinion that because you ended as a winner even though Dealer hand won more often, that that somehow validated your idea. So I asked for an example that had more Player wins than dealer wins. One where i expected a net loss outcome.Quote: WellbushI don't know the specific info you're asking for.
As expected, you countered that by apparently asserting that you would somehow avoid the outcome of 6 consecutive Dealer Wins, so my suggested results would not occur: That your algorithm 'doesn't allow for long losing streaks'
Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't get to avoid long losing streaks. 'Not by sitting out a few hands', nor by 'dropping down to minimum bets a few times'. After you've sat out or dropped down and you 'take up again where I was' there is no power on heaven or earth that will stop you losing the next hand as the streak also 'takes up where it was'Quote:I think I previously stated that when I experience 5 losses in a row from a dealer, I miss some hands and drop down to the minimum bet a few times. I then take up again where I was in the Fibonacci sequence at the end of the losing streak.
Quote: Wellbush
I haven't heard anyone with a practical basis as to why my simple logic is wrong. I am using my strategy on various free gaming sites. I haven't had a losing session since I stumbled upon the strategy. When I get some dosh together, I will be going down to my local and trialing it there.
let me give you a very simple advise > please go to a real casino and play your strategy (not a free one) and let us know your result.
Free ones just don't count! Trust me
cheers
seven
This is from your initial post. Note the use of the word "seems".Quote: Wellbush...I've been putting my strategy to the test lately, and it seems to be coming up trumps all the time!...
None of us doubt you may have run into a lucky streak and are ahead - whether this is on Blackjack, Roulette of whatever - and have been able to avoid a tragic losing session.
What is in doubt is whether you can truly avoid the losing session, that mathematically will eventually come.
The one thing cannot be done is saying if a certain situation ever comes a different system would have worked - you cannot use statements like (when the losing streak ends...).
And if considering ANY negative progression betting pattern, such as Martingale, ALWAYS have enough funds to play out any requisite double or split opportunities. Not much worse than playing a marty with your last '5h1t or bust all in wager' only to be dealt a pair of aces and be too broke to split them. Thus being forced to play bad strategy. Depending on splitting rules you may need to hold back quite a reserve: E.g you might have enough funds to split those aces and then be dealt two more aces to them with the opportunity to resplit again being stymied by lack of funds. Those are the hands that you remember because they make or break you.Quote: ChumpChangeBlackjack is a terribly losing game until you add back in the wins on splits, double downs, and blackjacks, hence never play 6:5 blackjack.
Quote: OnceDearQuite simple. You showed a table where you had a mix of Player and Dealer wins and seemed to be of the opinion that because you ended as a winner even though Dealer hand won more often, that that somehow validated your idea. So I asked for an example that had more Player wins than dealer wins. One where i expected a net loss outcome.
As expected, you countered that by apparently asserting that you would somehow avoid the outcome of 6 consecutive Dealer Wins, so my suggested results would not occur: That your algorithm 'doesn't allow for long losing streaks'
Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't get to avoid long losing streaks. 'Not by sitting out a few hands', nor by 'dropping down to minimum bets a few times'. After you've sat out or dropped down and you 'take up again where I was' there is no power on heaven or earth that will stop you losing the next hand as the streak also 'takes up where it was'
No, I haven't countered until now, and I haven't been disappointed. Simply because the longer this attempt by so called experts to disprove the strategy I have stumbled upon, the more I think it could be a winner. And I use the terms "seem" and "could" not because I know the strategy to be flawed, but because a genuine bet-size strategy, according to all available literature, has until now never been achieved! So I'm not gonna unequivocally state that it finally has been achieved until the strategy has been fully tested, and/or it's underlying construct debunked.
As I have already stated that I have been working on a bet strategy for some months now, and tried many types that I have meticulously tested and found to fail, I think it is only reasonable that I mention to some who may assist me on this topic, when I seem to have come across something worth bottling. So let me answer OnceDear's practical suggestion to tabulate my strategy against streaks. I'll submit it in the next post, shortly......
Quote: OnceDearQuote: WellbushI would think that it's quite reasonable to have a mature discussion on this website (which I think you've previously stated), rather than a belittling one, about the topic at hand.
Bet amount ($) Winner (P-player, D-dealer) Running total ($) 1. 50 P 50 2. 50 D 0 3. 80 D -80 4. 130 P 50 5. 50 P 100 6. 50 D 50 7. 80 D -30 8. 130 D -160 9. 210 D -370 10. 340 P -30 11. 130 D -160 12. 210 P 50 13. 80 D -30 14. 130 P 100
Wellbush. You know your system inside out. Please assist me with one simple worked example.
Redo this table where the player wins the first 8 games and loses the last 6.Maybe extend it to 15 hands where dealer wins the last 7
Bet Amount Winner Running Total
1 50 P 50
2 50 P 100
3 50 P 150
4 50 P 200
5 50 P 250
6 50 P 300
7 50 P 350
8 50 P 400
9 50 D 350
10 80 D 270
11 130 D 140
12 210 D -70
13 340 D -410
14 pass pass -410
15 Min. Bet 15 D -425
I'll just leave things here for now, to allow for comments 😊
