The Odds?

I know no betting systems work. The math and logic of an -EV game catches up with you...ALWAYS!

So, while this is not a betting system, I parked it here for the lack of a better place.

So you have a $10,000 bankroll. Your goal as a gambler is to make $100/day, 365 days a year. Basically, $36,500/yr additional income.

Playing any of the close to 50/50 games...craps line bets, roulette even money bets, blackjack, baccarat or Pai Gow Poker, what are the odds you win your $100 before losing $10,000?

Say you bet $50 units. No crazy systems like Martingale, Oscar's Grind, etc...

Just betting normally.

Surely you can be up 2 units before you're down 200?

Right?

The big bankroll with small win goal has to make this highly favorable.

These losing streaks can go on and on and you're down 250 bets and somehow you've got to win it back.

Quote: mwalz9

Just betting normally

.
Define "betting normally" game by game.

tuttigym

Quote: ChumpChange

These losing streaks can go on and on and you're down 250 bets and somehow you've got to win it back.

I agree and know the math says that. I just wondered what true odds were. I've spent thousands of hours in casinos and can't ever recall a session at a close to 50/50 game I wasn't up at least at 1 point during that session.

Quote: tuttigym

.
Define "betting normally" game by game.

tuttigym

Start flat betting $50. If you get down a few units press to maybe $100. Maybe everytime you're down 5 units press up your unit by 1.

Not a true betting system, but one a $10,000 bankroll could manage.

I feel like the math would be 95%+ you could win $100 before losing $10,000.

For instance, there's a crappy roulette system where you bet 3 units on 1st dozen, 3 units on 2nd dozen, 1 unit on the 25/29 group of 4, and 1 unit on the 32/36 group of 4. 32 numbers win 1 unit. 6 lose 8 units. That's an 84.21% chance you win 1 unit. A 15.79% chance you lose 8 units.

The odds I asked about has to be way better than this.

Is there a stop loss, or is it a win $100 or lose all $10,000 type of proposition?

I think it's win $100, take it from the BR for living expenses, repeat day after day. Your top BR will be $10,100 plus change, and your starting BR will be $10,000 or whatever number your last losing streak left you at that you didn't make $100 that day for.

Quote: Mission146

Is there a stop loss, or is it a win $100 or lose all $10,000 type of proposition?

I know you have the answer.

Assume 3 scenarios.

Win $100 or lose all $10,000.

Win $100 or stop at $5,000 lost.

Win $100 or stop at $1,000 lost.

I would have a $1250 stop loss, but I'd have a win goal way more than $100. If I win more than 10 units ahead, I'd probably set a new stop loss for the day at 10 units ahead. Setting a win goal too low just kills winning streaks.

For craps I'd generally have a 15-20 unit win goal.
For BJ or Baccarat I'd generally have a 20-35 unit win goal.
For 00 roulette, maybe a 3-5 unit win goal unless I'm playing some 80%+ win system, then it'd be 10-15 wins in a row.
Winning streaks may not come along each day, but when one does, I'll win bigger on it.

Quote: mwalz9

I know you have the answer.

Assume 3 scenarios.

Win $100 or lose all $10,000.

Win $100 or stop at $5,000 lost.

Win $100 or stop at $1,000 lost.

I don't have a specific probability that I could put on it, but I would say that a simple Martingale would give you a very high probability of winning in the first case. The probability, as it were, would be well over 98% with a starting bet of $100. (Craps, Pass Line, just because it was quick)

The problem that you run into is the astoundingly low probability of doing that successfully 365 consecutive times.

If the Martingale failed six consecutive times, then you would still have $3700 and would play, "Double or to Target Win," from that point forward.

I just don't see the point of risking $10,000 to win $100. I'd miss the $10,000 far more than I can use the $100.

Quote: mwalz9

I know no betting systems work. The math and logic of an -EV game catches up with you...ALWAYS!

So, while this is not a betting system, I parked it here for the lack of a better place.

So you have a $10,000 bankroll. Your goal as a gambler is to make $100/day, 365 days a year. Basically, $36,500/yr additional income.

Playing any of the close to 50/50 games...craps line bets, roulette even money bets, blackjack, baccarat or Pai Gow Poker, what are the odds you win your $100 before losing $10,000?

Say you bet $50 units. No crazy systems like Martingale, Oscar's Grind, etc...

Just betting normally.

Surely you can be up 2 units before you're down 200?

Right?

The big bankroll with small win goal has to make this highly favorable.

I decided to offer a bit more in the way of specifics. First of all, using this:

http://www.beatingbonuses.com/simulator2.htm

I entered the following parameters:

Bonus: 0
Deposit: 200 (200 * $50 = $10000)
Wagering Requirements = 1 (Always to Target, Number of Bets Doesn't Matter)
Initial Bet Size: 1
Final Bet Size: 1
Target Bankroll: 202 ($10,100)
Simulations: 10,000

I selected single-zero Roulette, but then I modified the win/loss probabilities to reflect Pass Line Craps. That's better for you because it has a higher probability of winning, and consequently, a lower House Edge on an Even Money bet. The simulations returned:

Average Return: -9.19 (These people busted out)
Minimum Return: -200 (The only way to lose was to bust out)
Maximum Return: 2 (This is because I selected, "Always to target")
Chance of Gain: 94.46%
Chance of Bust: 5.54%

This will not have the rate of success that the Martingale does because it exposes unnecessary amounts of action to the House Edge. In other words, if the goal is to win $100, then no single starting bet that results in winning less than $100 is going to be the best thing to do. You will spend more time going back and forth between bust out and win goal, and more expected loss, than just going straight for it.

Let's do a simulation under the same parameters, except we will switch everything to reflect a unit being $100:

Average Return: -1.89
Minimum Return: -100 (The only way to lose is bust out)
Maximum Return: 1
Chance of Gain: 97.14% (96.76%-97.48% range in ten attempts of 10,000)
Chance of Bust: 2.86%

As you can see, the probability of success improves significantly simply by raising the starting bet to $100, as opposed to $50. You also see this reflected in the fact that the average return is not as bad mostly owing to the fact that you are making fewer bets when you do succeed and are exposing less money to the house edge.

The Martingale will be more successful than this, except I am going to change the bankroll limitation slightly.

100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400 ($12,700 Bankroll)

The reason that I am doing this is that the probabilities will be simpler with a seven step Martingale rather than going through all of the ridiculous, "Double or to Target," possibilities that Martingale breakage would result in.

Okay, so the win probability is .4929 on the Pass Line, except we don't care.

For the truly committed, what you are really doing is making a $12,700 bet to win $100 that the Don't Pass will not come up seven times in a row. Let's check on that:

Win Probability: 1 - (.5071^7) = 0.99137706179 (99.137706179%, with lose probability rounded)

Lose Probability: (.5071)^7 = 0.0086229382

Expected Loss:

(.99137706179 * 100) - (0.0086229382 * 12700) = -10.373608961

Prove it? Okay, we can do it the long way:

(.4929 * 100) = 49.29 (Total Bet: 100)

(.5071 * .4929) = 0.24994959 * 100 = 24.994959 (Total Bet: 300)

(.5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.12674943708 * 100 = 12.674943708 (Total Bet 700)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.06427463954 * 100 = 6.427463954 (Total Bet 1500)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.03259366971 * 100 = 3.259366971 (Total Bet 3100)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.01652824991 * 100 = 1.652824991 (Total Bet 6300)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.00838147553 * 100 = .838147553 (Total Bet 12700)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071) = 0.0086229382 * 12700 = -109.511315211 (Total Bet 12700)

Probabilities: .4929 + 0.24994959 + 0.12674943708 + 0.06427463954 + 0.03259366971 + 0.01652824991 + 0.00838147553 + 0.0086229382 = 1 (Rounding)

Expected Loss: 109.511315211 - 49.29 - 24.994959 - 12.674943708 - 6.427463954 - 3.259366971 - 1.652824991 - .838147553 = 10.373609034

What you'll note here is that the expected loss is barely over one-tenth of a unit. The reason for that is because you are exposing as little money as possible to the House Edge and are taking the path of least resistance when it comes to winning the $100.

The $36,500 question is how likely are you to do this every day for a year? I hope it's not a leap year.

(0.99137706179)^365 = 0.04238245661

Roughly 1 in 23.6, so I guess that could be worse. Of course, we're giving you a higher bankroll to work with than the initial proposition, so that will improve your odds significantly.

Quote: Mission146

I decided to offer a bit more in the way of specifics. First of all, using this:

http://www.beatingbonuses.com/simulator2.htm

I entered the following parameters:

Bonus: 0
Deposit: 200 (200 * $50 = $10000)
Wagering Requirements = 1 (Always to Target, Number of Bets Doesn't Matter)
Initial Bet Size: 1
Final Bet Size: 1
Target Bankroll: 202 ($10,100)
Simulations: 10,000

I selected single-zero Roulette, but then I modified the win/loss probabilities to reflect Pass Line Craps. That's better for you because it has a higher probability of winning, and consequently, a lower House Edge on an Even Money bet. The simulations returned:

Average Return: -9.19 (These people busted out)
Minimum Return: -200 (The only way to lose was to bust out)
Maximum Return: 2 (This is because I selected, "Always to target")
Chance of Gain: 94.46%
Chance of Bust: 5.54%

This will not have the rate of success that the Martingale does because it exposes unnecessary amounts of action to the House Edge. In other words, if the goal is to win $100, then no single starting bet that results in winning less than $100 is going to be the best thing to do. You will spend more time going back and forth between bust out and win goal, and more expected loss, than just going straight for it.

Let's do a simulation under the same parameters, except we will switch everything to reflect a unit being $100:

Average Return: -1.89
Minimum Return: -100 (The only way to lose is bust out)
Maximum Return: 1
Chance of Gain: 97.14% (96.76%-97.48% range in ten attempts of 10,000)
Chance of Bust: 2.86%

As you can see, the probability of success improves significantly simply by raising the starting bet to $100, as opposed to $50. You also see this reflected in the fact that the average return is not as bad mostly owing to the fact that you are making fewer bets when you do succeed and are exposing less money to the house edge.

The Martingale will be more successful than this, except I am going to change the bankroll limitation slightly.

100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400 ($12,700 Bankroll)

The reason that I am doing this is that the probabilities will be simpler with a seven step Martingale rather than going through all of the ridiculous, "Double or to Target," possibilities that Martingale breakage would result in.

Okay, so the win probability is .4929 on the Pass Line, except we don't care.

For the truly committed, what you are really doing is making a $12,700 bet to win $100 that the Don't Pass will not come up seven times in a row. Let's check on that:

Win Probability: 1 - (.5071^7) = 0.99137706179 (99.137706179%, with lose probability rounded)

Lose Probability: (.5071)^7 = 0.0086229382

Expected Loss:

(.99137706179 * 100) - (0.0086229382 * 12700) = -10.373608961

Prove it? Okay, we can do it the long way:

(.4929 * 100) = 49.29 (Total Bet: 100)

(.5071 * .4929) = 0.24994959 * 100 = 24.994959 (Total Bet: 300)

(.5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.12674943708 * 100 = 12.674943708 (Total Bet 700)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.06427463954 * 100 = 6.427463954 (Total Bet 1500)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.03259366971 * 100 = 3.259366971 (Total Bet 3100)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.01652824991 * 100 = 1.652824991 (Total Bet 6300)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .4929) = 0.00838147553 * 100 = .838147553 (Total Bet 12700)

(.5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071 * .5071) = 0.0086229382 * 12700 = -109.511315211 (Total Bet 12700)

Probabilities: .4929 + 0.24994959 + 0.12674943708 + 0.06427463954 + 0.03259366971 + 0.01652824991 + 0.00838147553 + 0.0086229382 = 1 (Rounding)

Expected Loss: 109.511315211 - 49.29 - 24.994959 - 12.674943708 - 6.427463954 - 3.259366971 - 1.652824991 - .838147553 = 10.373609034

What you'll note here is that the expected loss is barely over one-tenth of a unit. The reason for that is because you are exposing as little money as possible to the House Edge and are taking the path of least resistance when it comes to winning the $100.

The $36,500 question is how likely are you to do this every day for a year? I hope it's not a leap year.

(0.99137706179)^365 = 0.04238245661

Roughly 1 in 23.6, so I guess that could be worse. Of course, we're giving you a higher bankroll to work with than the initial proposition, so that will improve your odds significantly.

Thanks, buddy! Thats exactly what I was looking for.

Heres the interesting part of gambling statistics to me...

When anyone talks betting system of any kind. People say the Martingale for example stinks because your next hand is in no way shape or form tied to your previous hand. So, for example, you lose 6 in a row, the odds you lose the 7th become 51% or whatever the odds of losing 1 hand in the game you are playing is. Its not the calculation you came up with before tou started the previous 6 hands.

Yet, when you talk about doing this every day, people and the math says if you do it long enough you will eventually bust out. However, if I do it today. Isnt tomorrow independent from today and iant tomorrows odds still 99%? Today wont matter tomorrow!

See...Im a smart guy. I know the math. I know its -EV. That part of it has always intrigued me though!

Quote: mwalz9

I know no betting systems work. The math and logic of an -EV game catches up with you...ALWAYS!

So, while this is not a betting system, I parked it here for the lack of a better place.

So you have a $10,000 bankroll. Your goal as a gambler is to make $100/day, 365 days a year. Basically, $36,500/yr additional income.

Playing any of the close to 50/50 games...craps line bets, roulette even money bets, blackjack, baccarat or Pai Gow Poker, what are the odds you win your $100 before losing $10,000?

Say you bet $50 units. No crazy systems like Martingale, Oscar's Grind, etc...

Just betting normally.

Surely you can be up 2 units before you're down 200?

Right?

The big bankroll with small win goal has to make this highly favorable.

OnceDear's rule of thumb covers that!
Not that stop losses mean anything, but enter them as your bankroll value and the answers are easy to derive.

Quote: MWalz9

Thanks, buddy! Thats exactly what I was looking for.

Heres the interesting part of gambling statistics to me...

When anyone talks betting system of any kind. People say the Martingale for example stinks because your next hand is in no way shape or form tied to your previous hand. So, for example, you lose 6 in a row, the odds you lose the 7th become 51% or whatever the odds of losing 1 hand in the game you are playing is. Its not the calculation you came up with before tou started the previous 6 hands.

Yet, when you talk about doing this every day, people and the math says if you do it long enough you will eventually bust out. However, if I do it today. Isnt tomorrow independent from today and iant tomorrows odds still 99%? Today wont matter tomorrow!

See...Im a smart guy. I know the math. I know its -EV. That part of it has always intrigued me though!

You’re welcome!

Your comparison is absolutely correct. Once you have already won for a day, the probability that you have succeeded that day is 100%, so the applicable math for the (remainder of) the year would be your probability of success 364 times in a row.

That’s why expectation will always win the day, and in this case, the expected loss will be inescapable given a long enough sample size. On the same token, failing on the first attempt is a possibility that still exists.

And, the same concept would apply. Having failed a first attempt, the probability of failing the very next attempt would be no different than it was the first time.

Another thing with something like this is to remember that the expectation will rarely be reflected in the actual. For example, if you win your first attempt, then your monetary results are already better than expected. When you lose, it’s unlikely that the first time you lose will be on the exact trial that brings your actual to precisely where your expected loss is at that point. To wit, you’ll generally be better or worse than your accumulated expected loss at any given time.

Quote: mwalz9

Playing any of the close to 50/50 games...craps line bets, roulette even money bets, blackjack, baccarat or Pai Gow Poker, what are the odds you win your $100 before losing $10,000?

Say you bet $50 units. No crazy systems like Martingale, Oscar's Grind, etc...

Just betting normally.

Surely you can be up 2 units before you're down 200?

This is what is known as "Risk of Ruin" - in flat betting, what is the probability of reaching a certain target before losing your entire bankroll. In this case, the initial bankroll is 200, and the target is 202.

I believe the formula is (1 - (q/p)^B) / (1 - (q/p)^T), where p is the probability of winning one bet, q is the probability of losing one bet (i.e. 1 - p), B is the initial bankroll, and T is the target.

For the pass line on craps, p = about 0.4929 and q = about 0.5071, so q/p = about 1.02881, and with B = 200 and T = 202, the probability of success is 94.46%.

For the even-money bets on double-zero roulette, q/p = 10/9, and the probability of success is 81%. Yes, one time out of five, you will lose the entire $10,000 before being ahead $100.

This is because the more bets you need to make to win, the more money you expose to the house edge. You would be much better off with $100 bets instead of $50; the chance of success is now 90% in roulette.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

This is what is known as "Risk of Ruin" - in flat betting, what is the probability of reaching a certain target before losing your entire bankroll. In this case, the initial bankroll is 200, and the target is 202.

I believe the formula is (1 - (q/p)^B) / (1 - (q/p)^T), where p is the probability of winning one bet, q is the probability of losing one bet (i.e. 1 - p), B is the initial bankroll, and T is the target.

For the pass line on craps, p = about 0.4929 and q = about 0.5071, so q/p = about 1.02881, and with B = 200 and T = 202, the probability of success is 94.46%.

For the even-money bets on double-zero roulette, q/p = 10/9, and the probability of success is 81%. Yes, one time out of five, you will lose the entire $10,000 before being ahead $100.

This is because the more bets you need to make to win, the more money you expose to the house edge. You would be much better off with $100 bets instead of $50; the chance of success is now 90% in roulette.

So the obvious, easiest and lowest house edge way to do this would be...$25 line bet on the Dont Pass in craps and lay $90 in odds on a 6/8, $114 on a 5/9 and $150 on a 4/10, right?

Less money at risk vs house edge. 1 hit wins it. The $25 line bet is required to be able to lay that much odds at most casinos. Pressure if you lose.

Sure the hot roll kills you, but this has to be highest probability way to do this in a traditional casino. No?

Another interesting aspect of this lifestyle you'd be leading is that you're not paying into social security at all. You're not able to save much if anything for emergencies. You're one long down streak from losing your entire bankroll.

We do know professional gamblers do exist. I'm the past we know a very small amount worked non poker games for their money. Almost all though had to eventually learn either perfect blackjack play and the social aspect of not getting thrown out, or they played poker.

Quote: ChallengedMilly

Another interesting aspect of this lifestyle you'd be leading is that you're not paying into social security at all. You're not able to save much if anything for emergencies. You're one long down streak from losing your entire bankroll.

We do know professional gamblers do exist. I'm the past we know a very small amount worked non poker games for their money. Almost all though had to eventually learn either perfect blackjack play and the social aspect of not getting thrown out, or they played poker.

I wasnt quitting my job to do this and I have well over $10,000 in case of emergencies. Was just thinking a person could kind of have a 2nd minimum wage type "2nd job" thats relatively easy. Risky, but easy.

Sure there are lots of people I'm Vegas that have genuinely supplemented income with smart betting and AP play.

Quote: mwalz9

I wasnt quitting my job to do this and I have well over $10,000 in case of emergencies. Was just thinking a person could kind of have a 2nd minimum wage type "2nd job" thats relatively easy. Risky, but easy.

You act like you understand, but you obviously don’t. A ‘job’ generally pays you money and you are not risking a ‘bankroll’ to get paid.
Mission did the math for you and showed you succeed far less than 99% of the time. This, going to this ‘job’ for 250 days a year the likelihood of you actually being up even $100 is slim.

I know of a craps player who has a daily $100 win goal with a $300 buy in. That is to say as soon as he has a $100 profit he will stop playing, even in the middle of a roll. It doesn't matter if the shooter went on for another half hour this guy walked as soon as he hits his $100 goal.

Knowing what I know about him I think he's 50/50 hitting his goal and while I never saw him go bust I've seen him take a licking and lose more than $200 at times.

I dont think you can set goals. I think you have to judge each session on it's own.

Quote: SOOPOO

You act like you understand, but you obviously don’t. A ‘job’ generally pays you money and you are not risking a ‘bankroll’ to get paid.
Mission did the math for you and showed you succeed far less than 99% of the time. This, going to this ‘job’ for 250 days a year the likelihood of you actually being up even $100 is slim.

I just hope that the OP has come to the conclusion that this a terrible idea. I’m not so sure he did though.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I know of a craps player who has a daily $100 win goal with a $300 buy in. That is to say as soon as he has a $100 profit he will stop playing, even in the middle of a roll. It doesn't matter if the shooter went on for another half hour this guy walked as soon as he hits his $100 goal.

Knowing what I know about him I think he's 50/50 hitting his goal and while I never saw him go bust I've seen him take a licking and lose more than $200 at times.

I dont think you can set goals. I think you have to judge each session on it's own.

That he wins $100 about 50% of the time and loses some amount more than $100 about 50% of the time? I have no trouble believing that.

Quote: SOOPOO

You act like you understand, but you obviously don’t. A ‘job’ generally pays you money and you are not risking a ‘bankroll’ to get paid.
Mission did the math for you and showed you succeed far less than 99% of the time. This, going to this ‘job’ for 250 days a year the likelihood of you actually being up even $100 is slim.

Slightly over 99% with the Marty on a single trial with slightly increased bankroll.

If I started a (PL, no odds) session with a 25 unit buy-in,
I'd have a 48.90% win rate on getting to 40 units (+15 units),
a 32.96% win rate on getting to 50 units (+25 units),
a 23% win rate on getting to 60 units (+35 units),
and a 10.16% win rate on getting to 85 units (+60 units).

If I started a (PL, no odds) session with a 15 unit buy-in,
I'd have a 51.37% win rate on getting to 25 units (+10 units),
a 31.2% win rate on getting to 35 units (+20 units),
a 25.12% win rate on getting to 40 units (+25 units),
and a 9.96% win rate on getting to 65 units (+50 units).

If I started a (PL, no odds) session with a 10 unit buy-in,
I'd have a 52.92% win rate on getting to 17 units (+7 units),
a 33.61% win rate on getting to 24 units (+14 units),
a 23.26% win rate on getting to 31 units (+21 units),
and a 9.72% win rate on getting to 52 units (+42 units).

As a rough guide and for simplicity of the maths assume you were willing to lose $12,700 by starting with $100 and just doubling your bet on a loss until you either won (i.e. were ahead by $100) or lost the lot.
(Your wagers would be $100, $200, $400, $800, $1600, $3200, $6400).

If the House Edge was say 1% (this is better than say Baccarat or Craps) the figures are:

Probability of being $100 up	99.162%
Probability of being $12,700 down	0.838%
Expected cost	-$7.21
Chances of ruin	1 in 119.39
Days run to be 50/50 ahead	82.4

So in practice your chances are worse than this table suggests!

The "Oscar" of Oscars Grind supposedly had a $1,000 bankroll with a goal of making $100 over a weekend, and after three or four years of success, his story became known. In the mid-1960s, $100 a weekend was considered decent money, as much as many full-time workers made per week. Done properly, it is very hard to lose using the grind, but the problem is it is a very slow way to make money. It is about as close to a job as one can get when gambling.
The irony of Oscars Grind is it breaks down your gambling into a series of fairly small sessions while recognizing that ones entire gambling history is one long session.

Quote: charliepatrick

As a rough guide and for simplicity of the maths assume you were willing to lose $12,700 by starting with $100 and just doubling your bet on a loss until you either won (i.e. were ahead by $100) or lost the lot.
(Your wagers would be $100, $200, $400, $800, $1600, $3200, $6400).

If the House Edge was say 1% (this is better than say Baccarat or Craps) the figures are:

Probability of being $100 up	99.162%
Probability of being $12,700 down	0.838%
Expected cost	-$7.21
Chances of ruin	1 in 119.39
Days run to be 50/50 ahead	82.4

So in practice your chances are worse than this table suggests!

With all respect, I already did basically this and used Craps-Pass Line.

Quote: Mission146

With all respect, I already did basically this and used Craps-Pass Line.

Sorry, I only skip read your post so didn't see all the details you had in the second half (as I was coming new to the thread, I could only glance through the entire thread).

Quote: charliepatrick

Sorry, I only skip read your post so didn't see all the details you had in the second half (as I was coming new to the thread, I could only glance through the entire thread).

It's all good, no worries! You know how to create a table on here, so I still consider your post superior!

I can do a table, but it takes me about twenty tries and would change the time it took from fifteen minutes to closer to an hour.

Stuff like this is why I love you guys!

Plus, to answer your question...

I do understand the math. I do understand no betting systems work. I gamble, because I like to. I think its fun and exciting. I do not bet more than I can afford to lose, ever!

They way I see it, any time anyone makes a -EV wager, they are trying to defy the odds. Any bet you make you are hoping you are on the good side of the EV. Right? For example, people who play 1 hand are expected to lose 51% of the hand and win 49% of the hand. However, thats impossible. They'll either be -1 hand or up 1 hand, right?

I just decided to use this system and hope at the end of it, Im on the + side of the expected value.

I'll realistically NEVER risk the whole $10,000. Id probably stop before losing half that, but of I can pour in $100/day until that day comes and have fun doing it, I'll be OK. If I lost $5,000, I wouldnt be happy, but I also wouldn't need to panic about my bills either.

Theres a little more to it too, as I a utilize EVERY SINGLE PROMO FanDuel offers me, to the maximum extent, so that lowers my -EV. For example, they have a BlackJack Warrior Tuesday. They give you back 2% of your wagered money on Wednesday that you had "at risk" on Tuesday. Not won, not lost, at risk! Solid promo. They also will randomly deposit me $250 of free play based on my coin in historically.

Ive shown Mission screenshots, Im at almost $500,000 coin in lifetime and doing better than the EV is for blackjack and sports betting. Sure it can and will turn around, but as I said, I do it for fun and maximize every promo!

Quote: Mission146

...I can do a table, but it takes me about twenty tries and would change the time it took from fifteen minutes to closer to an hour.

The way I do it is to create the data in Excel and then do the following.
(i) Put the description and data in (say) columns A and B - leave an empty rows at the top.
(i) create the entry (say in columns D E ... for each cell using CONCATENATE("{DAT}",TEXT(An,.....),TEXT(Bn,...),"{/DAT}") (add{r} {/r} etc. if needed)
(ii) create the entries (say in column C) for each row using CONCATENATE("{ROW}",Dn,En,"{/ROW}")
(iii) add an entry at the top with {TABLE} and bottom {/TABLE}
(iv) optionally use same idea to create column headers using COL instead of DAT.
(v) (save spreadsheet) then drag and drop the table.

I'd first like to say thank you for the information. Secondly, I have no idea what any of that stuff means.

I am a little confused. In the original post, Mwalz9 states "Say you bet $50 units. No crazy systems like Martingale, Oscar's Grind, etc."..

Mission immediately suggests a simple Martingale, despite the "no Martingale" stipulation.

Quote: kewlj

I am a little confused. In the original post, Mwalz9 states "Say you bet $50 units. No crazy systems like Martingale, Oscar's Grind, etc."..

Mission immediately suggests a simple Martingale, despite the "no Martingale" stipulation.

Mission simply told me the Martingale, based on the math, gives you the highest probability of success and then used the math to explain why.

If youre trying to win $100, just bet $100. Then backed it up with math. It all made sense to me.

Sorry it is Excel spreadsheet speak, I've enclosed a photo and an example. It puts together the tags needed to create a table (see formatting codes on the forum) with the cells needed in each row within the table.
CONCATENATE puts together the text (e.g. CONCATENATE("A","B","C") = "ABC".) e.g. to join together DAT , data , /DAT
TEXT(cell,"formatting code") will format a number into adding the spacing, "$" and "%", e.g. to create 99.162% from the value in the cell.

Thanks! I imagine I can figure out what to do using that, assuming it works the same on the Google Drive Excel equivalent.

Quote: mwalz9

Mission simply told me the Martingale, based on the math, gives you the highest probability of success and then used the math to explain why.

If youre trying to win $100, just bet $100. Then backed it up with math. It all made sense to me.

Exactly. The advantage a Martingale has over pretty much every other system if you are aiming for a target profit and willing to risk your entire bankroll is, with Martingale, the most that the total amount of your bets (and the amount exposed to the house edge, as a result) will be is your initial bankroll. With systems that use more, smaller, bets, the sum of your bets increases, which means the total expected loss also increases, making a wipeout more likely.

See, I personally hate these kinds of threads, because I think someone, maybe not even now, but at some time will come along read this and think it a good idea and decide to give this a try.

Not exactly sure what Mwalz9 purpose of asking was. From his posts as a whole, he is too smart to be considering trying this. Maybe it was just a math exercise. I KNOW Missions answer and other answers were just a math exercise and weren't encouraging anyone to try this. But STILL, I worry that is exactly what will occur at some point. Just me I guess.

Life is too short and there are more than enough real problems to worry about stuff like this.

Quote: kewlj

See, I personally hate these kinds of threads, because I think someone, maybe not even now, but at some time will come along read this and think it a good idea and decide to give this a try.

Not exactly sure what Mwalz9 purpose of asking was. from his posts as a whole, he is too smart to be considering trying this. Maybe it was just a math exercise. I KNOW Missions answer and other answers were just a math exercise and weren't encouraging anyone to try this. But STILL, I worry that is exactly what will occure at some point. Just me I guess.

Maybe if someone like me asks this, and someone comes along and reads the ENTIRE thread, they WONT try this!

Maybe my post was to create a thread more what this forum is for and not some BS arguing and saying so and so should or should not be suspended.

🤷

So I've got about a 10% chance of being ahead 15 units while playing a session of blackjack, because the chance of winning a hand excluding ties is 0.4636.

Quote: kewlj

See, I personally hate these kinds of threads, because I think someone, maybe not even now, but at some time will come along read this and think it a good idea and decide to give this a try.

Not exactly sure what Mwalz9 purpose of asking was. From his posts as a whole, he is too smart to be considering trying this. Maybe it was just a math exercise. I KNOW Missions answer and other answers were just a math exercise and weren't encouraging anyone to try this. But STILL, I worry that is exactly what will occur at some point. Just me I guess.

If someone understands the risk I think it's a fun thing to think about. I'm doing the 100,000 dollar challenge since the casino in going to has a smaller table limit, but it's gonna be a fun experience for me. It's completely out of my element to be reckless going for all in bets, but it'll teach me a lot hopefully. Rare case but maybe there's some hidden Real World reality to it that no one is aware of, that the math doesn't necessarily show.

Quote: kewlj

See, I personally hate these kinds of threads, because I think someone, maybe not even now, but at some time will come along read this and think it a good idea and decide to give this a try.

Not exactly sure what Mwalz9 purpose of asking was. From his posts as a whole, he is too smart to be considering trying this. Maybe it was just a math exercise. I KNOW Missions answer and other answers were just a math exercise and weren't encouraging anyone to try this. But STILL, I worry that is exactly what will occur at some point. Just me I guess.

All I can do is answer the question.

The mathematically best way to gamble at a negative expectation game is not to do so.

Quote: Mission146

The mathematically best way to gamble at a negative expectation game is not to do so.

Agreed!

But sort of related, I had an experience recently that I haven't yet shared on this forum, but I might as soon as I have more time, where I agressively raised my wagers doubling up wins, way past my normal limits all the way to table MAX. While the players I have shared this experience with on a blackjack forum agree with me that this was risky as far as attracting heat (although I may have gotten lucky with no consequences), I did hear from a top table game AP about using a martingale as a way to increase wagers that instead of drawing heat, will result in the pit loving you and welcoming you because they beleive you are martingaling.

I have heard of incorportating martingale into a card counters ramp and spread before but never put much thought into it. May just be the martingale can yet be useful. Still working it out. lol.

If you are card counting Blackjack, then it can be presumed that you are not playing at a negative expectation overall, in your case. More than that, I would assume that your Martingale means that the count is such that you would already have the top of your spread showing doing things normally.

What if you didn't care about getting banned from every casino around the world? You could make a quick fortune and then retire from ever going to a casino, going to do some other line of work.

Edited additional context around word retirement

Quote: ChallengedMilly

What if you didn't care about getting banned from every casino around the world? You could make a quick fortune and then retire, going to do some other line of work.

Doing some other line of work is generally inconsistent with the word, "Retirement."

You'd also have to factor bankroll and variance into the equation. If you had the type of bankroll where you could bet Table Max virtually anywhere, then you're probably not too far off from having enough to retire anyway, assuming you are fine with living meagerly.

The person should also practice, practice and more practice to be sure before exposing that kind of money. I imagine people who only think they can count cards profitably are among the casino's favorite people.

Quote: ChallengedMilly

What if you didn't care about getting banned from every casino around the world? You could make a quick fortune and then retire, going to do some other line of work.

Actually there are a whoile group of players that took this approach in the last 15 years or so, some as a team, some individually. A recently released (couple yeaars now I guess) documentary called "inside the edge" follows one such player KC on a year long journey. Wizard has a couple cameos.

So anyway, this technique is what has become to be know as "slash and burn". Play as agressively as you can, until barred and move on to the next place. The first guys to do this were able to make upwards of a million dollars in a year or two, until they were burned out and barred everywhere. More recently the amounts and time frame have shortened as technology and databases work against you.

You get banned and placed in the databases and that info travels faster than you do to the next destination. One humorous (sort of) story to come out of this method of play was a team of players (maybe the church team) that was banned at one casino in the south, so they headed to the next destination 100 miles, 150 mkiles away and when they pulled into the casino parking lot, there were security just waiting for them.

The result is today, you have this whole group of former blackjack players that employed this slash and burn technique, made SOME money, but now can't get a game anywhere. They write books, run seminars and bootcamps, and appear on GWAE to tell their stories, but making money from blackjack is a thing of the past for most of these guys. At best they can play low/mid stakes occasionally for a short time until they are recognised.